User talk:Johnuniq

I'll reply to messages here, unless requested otherwise.

Archives

Archive 1 (June 2008 – Sep 2009) Archive 2 (Sep 2009 – Dec 2009) Archive 3 (Jan 2010 – Aug 2010) Archive 4 (Aug 2010 – Mar 2011) Archive 5 (Mar 2011 – July 2011) Archive 6 (July 2011 – Oct 2011) Archive 7 (Nov 2011 – Dec 2011) Archive 8 (Dec 2011 – May 2012) Archive 9 (May 2012 – July 2012) Archive 10 (July 2012 – Aug 2012) Archive 11 (Aug 2012 – Feb 2013) Archive 12 (Feb 2013 – May 2013) Archive 13 (May 2013 – Sep 2013) Archive 14 (Sep 2013 – Dec 2013) Archive 15 (Dec 2014 – Apr 2014) Archive 16 (Apr 2014 – July 2014) Archive 17 (Aug 2014 – Dec 2014) Archive 18 (Jan 2015 – Apr 2015) Archive 19 (May 2015 – Dec 2015) Archive 20 (Dec 2015 – June 2016) Archive 21 (July 2016 – January 2017)

• Comments re free speech
• Jagged progress • more • genre articles
• Links to highbeam.com from dumps of external links • earlier • more Credo • JSTOR results • JSTOR + Cochrane January 2015
• Gregorian serial date template
• Analysis of EL dump using Amazon S3 very interesting methods from GabrielF
• Module:Number at Hindi Wikipedia request from Siddhartha Ghai

John, I asked that editors not put their responses inside my response there. Can you please refactor? And your statement "I have not looked at the core issue in this report recently, but I recognize some of the names above and the mere fact that they are pissed off ..." is much like Softlavender's; essentially just "you must be guilty are people wouldn't be whining at AN/I". This is a not a fair response. Please look at the actual issue and see if you see anything actually deserving of any kind of sanction. Your comparison to those who do thousands of changes using automated tools is also unfair; all my work is by hand, one article at a time, with careful consideration. And very few of my edits have received any notice or complaint, so to assume that a few complaints now taints the whole lot is also grossly unfair. Please do look for yourself if you're going to be piling on. Dicklyon (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your request but I do not see why should you get top billing while responses are hidden. If your work is as wonderful as you suggest, why is there so much opposition? Are they all ratbags who must be swept aside?

Bear in mind that I am currently involved in a similar although much smaller-scale issue where (as I see it) the critical point is that an ultimately trivial disagreement involves imposing distress on good editors. This is a collaborative website with flaws, not a letter-perfect top-down do it my way business. Johnuniq (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No claims of wonderfulness are in play here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support collaboration and am not piling on due to recognizing some names. The issue is ultimately trivial and my point is that since helpful editors are objecting, the details of the case are not relevant because people should not be causing distress in the community over trivia. If something useful were being done, sure go for it. However, that is not the case. Johnuniq (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you don't think styling is useful; that's fine. But what editors are being caused any distress here that is not of their own making? Besides Mjroots who is disappointed that he can't just always capitalize Line, and new editor Railfan23 who thinks hyphens are for Americans, has anyone actually complained about my moves? Why did the others wait until an AN/I complaint to pile on? I keep asking for examples of what I have done that should have been considered controversial, but nobody will answer. This is nutty. Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Styling is useful. I write programs and often have to drastically refactor code before I can even read it because the lack of style jars my brain and prevents me from seeing the algorithm. I'm not even claiming you are wrong. However, in a collaborative community, people have to moderate their desires for total uniformity and accept the fact that people are different and good editors are hard to find—don't drive them off unless it involves an issue much more significant than dashes and letter case. Johnuniq (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has someone suggested that my styling has bothered editors enough that some would consider leaving over it? I don't think so. I work in an environment with pretty strict code style, and a general assumption that accepting the consensus style is a prerequisite to effective collaboration; I do try to keep in mind that it's not that way everywhere. Dicklyon (talk) 06:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen a suggestion that the current fuss is causing anyone to retire, but drama drama drama wears people down and early retirement is the inevitable result. A company pays a programmer to perform certain duties, one of which is to conform with house style. Wikipedia is quite different. Contributors are self-motivated and unpaid, and there is no must-follow house style, regardless of what MOS enthusiasts would like. Johnuniq (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that on WP nobody should be asked to deal with style issues if they don't want to. And yes, less drama the better. Cheers. Dicklyon (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a stupid question, but can we round using Lua? The extension page for Lua says you can import #expr but doesn't really give any examples, so I thought I'd check. One of these days I'll stop pretending that I can just one-to-one convert my Java knowledge into Scrib and actually read through everything... Primefac (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: It's roll-your-own in Lua although using Module:Math would probably be best. In general, trying to call wikitext like #expr is too much overhead for a module, although it can be done. I don't recommend trying to read Module:Convert because I was never sure the thing would fit into Scribunto so there is very little attention to modularity or code reuse. However, it deals with rounding and I found I had to add some kludges to make human-expected rounding work in some corner cases. By contrast, #expr gave a better result, and I included the comment "Investigate how PHP round() works". However, I only noticed the tiny irritations because I looked at thousands of converts—it's very unlikely they would be a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your edit here, and I just don't understand. There's no visual difference in the output (before and after), so why and when should the plus sign be used? — Huntster (t @ c) 07:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Huntster: Sorry, but this is going to be a bit long. From the point of view of the article, there is no difference between the following:

• {{convert|4.2|e9km|e9mi AU|abbr=unit}} → 4.2 billion km (2.6 billion mi; 28 AU)
• {{convert|4.2|e9km|e9mi+AU|abbr=unit}} → 4.2 billion km (2.6 billion mi; 28 AU)

The output in the two cases is identical. However, while maintaining convert, I need to periodically remove unnecessary items from "what links here" for Module:Convert/extra in the article namespace so I can determine which "extra" units are being used, and where.

In the above, when convert tries to interpret e9mi AU, it sees that there is no unit with that code, then it notices the e9 and tries to construct an engineering notation unit based on applying e9 to the remainder, namely mi AU. However, there is no mi AU unit, and it has to check Module:Convert/extra to determine that. That puts the article in "what links here" for the extra module.

After the above, convert tries splitting e9mi AU at the space and eventually makes an engineering notation unit for e9mi and a normal unit for AU.

The effect of using + is that convert proceeds in a different order. No unit codes contain a plus sign, so convert does not check whether e9 applies to mi+AU. Instead, convert immediately splits it into e9mi and AU and finds the wanted units with less overhead and without trying to look in Module:Convert/extra.

I have a note somewhere to investigate whether convert could be more intelligent so the above is not needed, but at the moment I just periodically clean up. That's rarely needed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes a lot of sense. So for engineering notations, pop a plus sign between units, gotcha. Would it be worth it to make a note of that in the /doc? — Huntster (t @ c) 14:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the page regardingMadeline McCann, the3-year-old abducted from Portugal, her description states that she has a right green eye with a brown spot on the retina. It is actually on the iris. It is almost impossible to see the retina without a specialized scope, making it a poor identifier. Thank you97.123.200.93 (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you contacted me because I have the most recent edit at Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. I will post something on the article talk page later as the issue is not simple and I will need to look in the talk archives. Happy editing! Johnuniq (talk) 05:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I posted at Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann#Brown spot in retina or iris? saying that the text in the infobox is a quote from a reliable source and so would be difficult to change. Please comment at the article talk if wanting to discuss it further. Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at this for me, and apologies for the delays and sporadic replies from me. Today I hope to be looking at your replies from my laptop. But I wanted to touch bases from my Android browser that's still logged in. I may be following up here from the laptop. You can always contact me using the web form at http://hawsedc.com/contact.php I think I have identified that as my business web site on my user page for over a decade. More later. Tom Haws (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References by User:Hawstom to personal and business web sites

User:Johnuniq said, "Can you find a diff showing User:Hawstom adding those links?" [1].

• 13 Nov 2005 change from home.sprintmail.com to hawsedc.com (showing sprintmail.com is defunct; I think my Wikipedia account email may still be [email protected]) [2]
• 6 Jan 2004 addition of "my business site" hawsedc.com [3]
• 26 Apr 2004 addition of "my business site" constructionnotesmanager.com [4]

-Tom Haws (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Issue summary

I cannot access my account except on my Android phone. I have been only sporadically and minimally active for over 10 years, but I am logged in on my Android phone that I bought in December 2015. I am guessing that possibly my account was compromised, since I very probably should be able to recall the correct password. I would like to get access to my account and set up two-step authentication. I am proposing that you contact me via the web contact forms at the sites I identified as mine on 13 Nov 2005 [5], 6 Jan 2004 [6], and 26 Apr 2004 [7]. The forms are at http://hawsedc.com/contact.php and http://constructionnotesmanager.com/contact.htm Thanks again for your time. Obviously no rush. Tom Haws (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawstom: This is taking a long time and if I ever understood the issue I have totally forgotten about it now. I'll repeat that as an editor I cannot do anything. My intention was to help gather information and present it in a digestible form so that WMF insiders might take action. I will examine the links you just posted later but meantime have you tried emailing anyone while logged on as Hawstom? You might use "Email this user" in the sidebar to send an email to me and we can see if it works, and what your email address appears to be. I won't reveal any personal information on wiki, but you might like to include what you think the email address is. I suggest doing that soon because the cached information on your phone that is keeping you logged on may expire.

Re contacts, I believe your suggestion is that someone would use the contact forms you mentioned to send a secret message and you could repeat that message on wiki to show you control the contact websites. It would not be very useful for me to do that because my opinion does not count. However, that offer can be included in a summary of the situation to be presented to someone who can fix your logon problems—if they do contacting they would be much more convinced than if I were to say I had done it. Johnuniq (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, actually I don't know how easy it is easy to see "email this user" on a mobile. The link to email me from a logged-on account is Special:EmailUser/Johnuniq. Johnuniq (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hawstom 1 March 2017

@Hawstom:

• Convenience user links: Hawstom (talk · contribs)
• I received your email that you sent just now.
• I do not want to reply because I think you indicated earlier that you no longer have access to some of your old email accounts. Further, the whole point of you emailing me was because (I think) you are not sure what email address you entered in Special:Preferences, so you possibly would not see a reply.
• Do you want me to post the sender's email address here (I would obfuscate it as an anti-spam measure)? The address is not gmail or sprintmail. It may be a work or former work address.
• Bear in mind that if you contact someone to assist regain control of your account, they will not want long delays before responses occur.

Johnuniq (talk) 03:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon and I appreciate your patience and dedication. Working with this via my phone has not been pleasant. I am willing to stick with this in a focused way if there is a path to a solution. You are welcome to post the [email protected] or [email protected] addresses, as they are long defunct, but I do not think that it would be helpful. Do you have a clear idea for a solution? It's clear to me that my addition of hawsedc.com provides a path to restoration via the hawsedc.com Contact page. But I am at the mercy of the community. Please just point me in the right direction as you have done so well to this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.218.19 (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC) Tom Haws (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be best to continue this on my talk page unless you have a better suggestion. Tom Haws (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain this revision of yours?

Is there any valid reason to undo that minor change?
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 03:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lurker comment: I would have undone it if I had seen it first. It changes the tone of the sentence away from how it was intended. Why did you think it was a good thing to do? Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Using an em dash rather than a semicolon when a semicolon can be used is unnecessary. It is easier to read a sentence which uses a semicolon than a sentence which uses an em dash.

No, it does not change the tone of the sentence. Semicolons are a punctuation mark for a reson, you know.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 04:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Wikipedia:Manual of Style is not a good look and your edits were correctly reverted. There were a total of five reverts and no discussion on talk. I see you are complaining at User talk:EEng and User talk:Ss112. And more edit warring at Wikipedia:Red link. And now I have to justify my revert at Wikipedia:User pages? The way Wikipedia works is that someone with a proposal to change long-standing text needs to explain on the appropriate talk page (not my talk!) why their proposal is desirable. Editing is great fun but learning is even better. Johnuniq (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a talk page section for a minor, simple thing like changing a punctuation marks? Insanity.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 04:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did revert it, after you put it back. If you continue to make random changes to WP-space pages, I will be asking admins to block you. Dicklyon (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, mister.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 04:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've relisted an RfC that was run at

]

OK thanks, I'll look at it although I have found the frequent postings in that area more than I want to handle. Johnuniq (talk) 09:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The

]

I had forgotten about that but the history of Atheophobia shows I reverted a move in December 2011.

For reference, the log shows these deletes:

• 24 January 2009 JLaTondre (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion)
• 31 December 2008 JLaTondre (Deleted per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 December 23)
• 25 March 2006 Doc glasgow (recreation Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atheophobia)
• 10 March 2006 Mailer diablo (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atheophobia)
• 4 March 2006 DragonflySixtyseven (dicdef/neologism)

However, before considering whether the Atheophobia redirect might be deleted again, it would be necessary to remove "atheophobia" from the article. I don't know what the situation was like a few years ago, but a search now suggests that the term has become sufficiently widely used for any attempt to delete to redirect to fail. I wouldn't bother trying. Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:Atheophobia now exists as part of external links. I'll find sources soon. George Ho (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found one source possibly connecting discrimination and "atheophobia". However, sources connecting both may be limited. Alternatively, I thought about adding either "citation needed" or using the source. George Ho (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised you didn't have the autopatrolled user right, so I've granted it. This means any pages you create will be automatically marked as patrolled. You've been around long enough that I think you can be trusted. Mjroots (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Thanks, and very interesting because I received an email to notify me of the user rights change, per the defaults at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. Johnuniq (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— SpikeToronto 16:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In a recent edit to the page Narendra Modi, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use

, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. AusLondonder (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I edited the article to fix some broken wording, it had 11 instances of "program", including one in the section I edited, so changing a single "programme" for consistency was not a great wikicrime. Johnuniq (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly explain why a reference to Reza Aslan being on the advisory board of NIAC is deemed as an attack Azarbarzin (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spreading a dispute over multiple pages is not a good idea. Please stick to the ANI report. Johnuniq (talk) 06:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the like manner accusing others of using

WP:SPA is equally not a good idea. cheers Azarbarzin (talk) 07:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Huma Abedein

People like you why people like myself hardly contribute anymore, you don't hardly look at substance you claim my talk comment was "generic" which I highly and utterly disagree, again thank you for running off contributors such as myself because I refuse to edit war. I am going to dissect every edit you have ever done and if I detect even a inkling of neutrality lacking it is getting tagged with a lengthy dissertation as too why. Huma abedein has been locked because of vandalism gee but my POV check tag has no merit according to you COMPLETELY DISAGREE, thank you for ruining wikipedia and running off contributors a massive problem by the way and even Jimbo has public talked of such. --0pen$0urce (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your previous comment on my talk is archived here, and your explanation for adding a POV tag is at the talk archive. The explanation does not identify a problem in the article apart a claim that a section "seems rather large". Your tag was removed by me on 3 June 2016 and another editor on 29 July 2016. If people could just add a tag that stayed until the person adding it was satisfied, the vast majority of articles related to politics or anything controversial would be covered in tags—some claiming the article was too biased against the subject, and some saying the article is too kind. Editing at Wikipedia is easy to do—it's getting along with other editors and engaging with their comments that is the hard part. Johnuniq (talk) 02:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's

]

Whatever problems you have with my comment that are so critical that you feel the only choice is to delete them all together needs some discussion instead. Feel free to contact me, or we can discuss it here. --

]

We assume good faith and so realize that Ronz has no idea how destructive it is to mount months-long battles over unimportant issues. It's not a problem to post belligerent do-it-my-way templates on my talk because I have a reasonable understanding of human nature, but it is a concern that one quarter of the comments at Talk:Grace VanderWaal have been from Ronz, with virtually all of them sniping about one or two external links in an article under active development. Such hyper-activity shows an inability to judge what is important for the encyclopedia. Is it worth fighting that hard over the potential sin of an excess external link, regardless of how much it pisses off the editors who are developing the article? They are known-good editors who develop core encyclopedic content. Ronz and I could disappear tomorrow and no one would care. By contrast, the people who develop content should be supported, not harangued.

After the single external link in question was merged into the article, Ronz posted (diff) yet again on article talk—a post that did nothing other than to pick open the scabs. Two weeks after that, Ronz posted again (diff) with a misleading section heading claiming "No consensus to include VEVO link" (it was actually no consensus to include or remove—that is, the months-long arguments had been a complete waste of time). Then Ronz battled to keep their precious personal and irrelevant opinion prominently displayed on article talk. Having finally driven off the opposition and won all the battles, Ronz thought it would be useful to drop fake warnings here.

The underlying issue concerns Ronz's opinions about one or two external links. As well as the 90 posts at article talk since 29 October 2016, with more at WP:ELN, Ronz has previously pursued the matter on this page: 9 November 2016 and 4 January 2017. Johnuniq (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Having finally driven off the opposition and won all the battles is the one sentiment above with which I vehemently disagree. The "opposition" stood and fought the tyranny, and the encyclopedia won. —ATS 🖖 talk 02:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record

... at least two editors believe the inclusion of a "summary"—as opposed to a direct, unadorned Wikilink—is

]

An attempt at summarizing your concerns

Johnuniq: Is it unfair to summarize your basic concerns as:

• I'm working too hard on something that you think is unimportant?
• There is a class of Wikipedia editors that need protection from other Wikipedians? --
  talk) 16:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Ha ha! Do I look so silly that I might think it would be productive to continue a debate with someone willing to devote the time and energy outlined above over an external link? You have made 90 edits to Talk:Grace VanderWaal since 29 October 2016—125 days spent arguing essentially over an external link! Then there are 900 words of notes, with more at WP:ELN. You noted yourself that WP:ELN closed as no consensus to add or remove—was that empty result really worthwhile? If I thought there were some hope of a productive discussion I wouldn't mind, but I know that some things are beyond my reach. However, I will post a response to the mistaken summary above, and you are welcome to have the last word, and another last word if I respond, although I have no intention of entering into a contest to determine who has the greater perseverance because the answer to that is known.

The above summary is based on a faulty model that assumes there is one correct outcome for every dispute, with no consideration for the overall benefit to the encyclopedia. Further, the model incorrectly assumes that the best outcome must occur now rather than after allowing time for emotions to cool.

It is worth battling an editor who adds incorrect or POV text to an article, but in a new article being actively developed it is absurd to argue for 125 days about a couple of external links. Understanding that requires awareness of human nature. The issue has similarities to old arguments over whether schools should use corporal punishment to correct undesirable behavior—beating someone would be great if it did anything useful, but it almost never does. For the case of Grace VanderWaal, a helpful approach would be to make a few suggestions, then put it on a to-do list for consideration a few months later.

My essential concern is that you are damaging the encyclopedia with no commensurate benefit. Johnuniq (talk) 04:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, another discussion on this page (#Your response at AN/I) concerns a similar situation where a normally productive editor is irritating many others with months-long bickering over trivia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know you've expressed interest in this. We're currently discussing where it should live, given the advanced features it will offer. Please feel free to chime in at phab:T159568. Thanks! — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work—that will be very valuable when deployed. I examined the discussion and cannot currently think of anything missing. Johnuniq (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing everything perfectly and the people objecting to your style are totally wrong. We get it, in fact we've seen it before. However, please add me to the list of those who believe your policy of flouting talk-page norms by copy-pasting comments between pages is confusing and pointy. Many years ago, some editors replied on the poster's talk, but pasting junk was not fashionable even then. In recent years, the silliness of those old habits has been understood by pretty well everyone. By the way, posting walls-of-text laden with links has also gone out of fashion—most people know to press PageDown whenever they see stuff like that because experience shows that trying to find whatever point is being made in such a blancmange is a waste of time. If you have a response to a comment, just make the response and leave the blue links for beginners. When someone suggests that a particular IP is a disruptive editor, probably a sock, who is being fed by attention, they are making a substantive claim. The only reasonable response would be to investigate the claim and back off if it seems plausible (say nothing), or refute the claim with evidence. Arguing is apparently important for some people, but my suggestion would be to have the last word and then drop this particular debate. Johnuniq (talk) 07:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read your first sentence a couple of times, as I kept getting interrupted by children. I was surprised anyone was going to say that, and when I got back to the comment, I realised that wasn't what you were saying.

I got my habit many years ago, as that's what others were doing then. But I thought it was more helpful to post the previous part of the discussion, so the context was there. It was always my hope that people would then copy the response and answer back to my page. But as I commented to Bishonen, I think it's getting stale. I'll probably change it soon to how everyone else seems to be working these days. Thanks for the tip about links - I got in that habit a decade or so ago, and haven't really thought about it since. Nfitz (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive947#IP_user_blanking_talk_page I felt I was there as involved, given my comments on his talk page and our unfortunate interaction at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bar Keepers Friend (2nd nomination). I erred in that discussion. I shouldn't have reverted the unblanking of his talk page without discussing. Though I still feel that the user had every right to blank his talk page, and to some extent, unblanking it was taunting him. I think that people over-reacted about the alleged obscene joke. It was a pretty mild joke/jab about pudding in my mind. Sadly the user repeated it later, and is now subjected to a 3-month ban with no talk page privileges - which seems a bit harsh in my mind. The IP seemed to be doing some good editing until he got dragged, unnecessarily, in my mind to ANI. Instead of taking his concerns seriously, I'm concerned there was some prejudice because he was an IP, and because of his past editing block for warring. But I agree, went about it the wrong way.

Personally I hate arguing - although a lot of what some see as aruing, I see as discussion. Though the ANI case had turned into arguing. Thanks for the comment - it helps to understand how others are thinking. Nfitz (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My comment above is copied from User talk:Bishonen#"The section above" (permalink). I believe you are correct to withdraw from that page and, with luck, from other associated threads. In the end, who was right and who was wrong does not matter. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except perhaps for the person who was blocked, perhaps unjustly, for 3 months for an edgy joke about pudding. Nfitz (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because of a multiplicity of new options, I've withdrawn the RfC you participated in and replaced it with this one Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank I'll be there. Johnuniq (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]