User talk:Law Lord/Archive 2

Jorge Bucay
Hello Law Lord. You removed some external links from this article because they linked to content written in Spanish. Although it's naturally preferable that the external content linked be written in English, it's nonetheless acceptable to have it written in another language (especially if no other English language sources are found). Users who know Spanish can attest the validity of the links which are important to deem the article referenced. Regards, Hús  ö  nd  00:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The links are of no use to those not speaking Spanish. Since this is an English encyclopedia, the links should either be to English pages or they should not be at all. Cheers, --Law Lord (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
I prefer to act transparently. Can I give my views on that determination here? cygnis insignis 14:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I sent you an email message asking for your opinion. I think that is pretty transparent. --Law Lord 10:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That is fine with me, but some editors don't like it. It was a neutral invitation to a discussion, but it would be more open on a talk page - I did have the wikibreak sign up though. Thanks for the message though, I didn't notice the discussion start. cygnis insignis 11:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I wrote it in an email message when possible because those kinds of notification are not worth writing on user talk pages – since there is nothing to talk about. However, in two cases the users' had no email listed and in those cases I did write it on their talk page. See User_talk:Sarsaparilla and User_talk:Christopher_Mann_McKay. I did not know that policy you linked to. Thanks for that. --Law Lord 11:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a good point, no reply is necessary. By the way, it is not a policy, rather a 'behavioural guideline' - I hope it is helpful. Regards, cygnis insignis 12:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of my userpage
Thanks for undoing that, though I admit the edit did amuse me. The guy was blocked 6 months ago for the exact same thing... some people really hold grudges. mattbuck (talk) 09:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/United Nations Parliamentary Assembly
I wonder if you could spare a moment to review this article, please. Thank you, Sarsaparilla (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That is nice
It reamins clear that there is historical debate as to whether he actually did "fuck men". So it can't so in the category until that histrocial debate is settled. And if you follow the link that I gave you will see that set out in black on white. Lobojo (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

hi
do you now how i can get ahold of allison?Rick wilburn (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC) never mind.Rick wilburn (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Section Head Dispute (moved from Talk:James I of England)

 * Lets not argue about and revert each other's section breaks, please. And it looks like you both just violated WP:3RR. This is just not important compared to the content, and may get this article protected or something else. We all had enough contentious editing in the past. Lets continue a civil debate and, who knows, maybe even come to consensus.  Stranger things have happened. Thank you. — Becksguy (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Though, for the record, I "only" undid the insertion of a section break above my post 3 times, no more. I am not sure how to further this discussion though. To me it seems the consensus is that James I quite obliviously was a person in the LGBT group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Law Lord (talk • contribs) 05:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, for the record, you removed Section Break 6 today at 19:59 and then left your comment. Section breaks are for easy navigation on talk pages that have very long discussions such as this one. I spent my time cleaning up this talk page and breaking it down into section breaks over the last few days and you come along and muck it up just because you don't like where the section break is???? When I first placed it today, it was immediate following the last comment made by Lobojo. See if for yourself here. You came next and removed it and then inserted your comment after Lobojo's comment where the section break was. -- ALLSTAR  echo 05:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your fiction. Since I have already addressed your actions on your talk page, perhaps it would suit you in the spirit of Wikipedia to confine yourself to that page if you need to further comment on this matter. Since I have stated the facts on your user page regarding your disruptive behavior, no further comment would contribute with relevant content. Also, your comments such as "you've got more issues than just not understanding what a section break is" could – by civilized members of this community – be seen as personal attacks committed by you. --Law Lord (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As could your own comment, "If your only contribution is inserting empty section breaks like here, you should not contribute at all.", which you left on my talk page. Don't dish it out if you can't take it back. Follow your own advice and confine yourself to that page as well. -- ALLSTAR  echo 06:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine, move this thread with all the comments relating to section breaks to your talk page. Then blank them from here, including this one. However, in fairness to ALLSTAR, he was adding section heads to make it easier to navigate. I'm not going to get into the middle of what happened specifically with the last section head, but I'm AGF.  Is that OK with both of you. — Becksguy (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Assuming good faith towards a person attacking you with the libelous charge of "having issues" could prove difficult. As such, I have told the perpetrator that I will cease from further words with him. You may move the posts to my own talk page if you so wish. Thanks. --Law Lord (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Dillusional. After you attacked me first maybe? Assume good faith my eye. As for removing all of this garbage, anyone else is free to do so so I don't get accused of removing some user's comments... -- ALLSTAR  echo 06:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to move this whole section to User talk:Law Lord and blank it from here as not contributing to the discussion. — Becksguy (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Restoring section breaks (copied from User talk:Allstarecho)
Please do not abuse the word "restoring", when you are in fact putting in a section break in a random please. The original section break was in an entirely different please than where you put a new section break.

When you call something "restoring" when it is clearly not such, people could construe that as vandalism. Thanks. --Law Lord (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It was restoring because you removed it. -- ALLSTAR  echo 05:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You were not restoring anything but rather placing a section break in a new place of your choosing. If you want a section break then place a break next time when (if) you feel the need to participate with a post to the talk page. --Law Lord (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am the one that started the section breaks on that page, from the first one to the last one. So don't tell me what I did and didn't do when I know what I did. I placed Section Break VI there today at 18:53 and you have removed it every time. You removed it at 19:59 and made a comment. I RESTORED it at 21:58. You removed it again at 23:47 and 00:14 and Jan. 5 at 00:26. -- ALLSTAR  echo 05:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Since you fail to recognize facts, I am forced to tell you the facts.


 * Here the section break is above Lobojo's post dated 00:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC).


 * Then here you inserted the same section break but this time above Law Lord's post dated 02:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC).


 * In other words, you did not restore anything but rather inserted a new break in the middle of everything.


 * If your only contribution is inserting empty section breaks like here, you should not contribute at all. --Law Lord (talk) 05:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * An empty section break should have given you a clue to put your next comment below it but instead, you removed it and then left your comment. If you thought it was there just for looks, well then maybe you should not contribute at all because you've got more issues than just not understanding what a section break is. -- ALLSTAR  echo 06:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The facts remain: you inserted section breaks in the middle of everything and called that "restoring". Since you have chosen to be personally nasty and harassing, I will engage in no further words with you. --Law Lord (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Seriously, its just an arbitrary section break. You both need to stop and cool down for a while. Mr.  Z- man  06:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm calm and cool. No issues with that person personally. I have spent my time over the last few days cleaning up that talk page because the discussion was soooooo long and all over the place and while continuing with that cleanup, someone comes along and wants to remove, fight and lie about it. That is what is not cool. *shrugs* -- ALLSTAR  echo 06:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)