This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Please see the related thread at WT:MOSMATH; two editors there have kind of gone off the rails about it, and they've now started editwarring in other MoS pages to remove advice about more accessible markup, e.g. recently at MOS:LISTS. They reverted my attempts last week to simply add a "more accessible markup exists" thing in MOS:MATH and replace bad colon indentation with {{ block indent}} in the examples. When I tried to RfC it (as a WP:CONLEVEL matter), they canvassed WT:MATHS and wrecked the RfC with off-topic text-walling about math markup and various rants, and are now going around claiming they have a consensus to require : markup for indentation. I'm not sure what to do at this point, but it's clear they will not listen to a word I say, and other editors who understand and can explain accessibility issues need to talk them down off the ledge.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi SMcCandlish, I saw those discussions. I believe that there is nowadays a sufficient number of editors who understand accessibility to keep the MOS:ACCESS pages sane. I can't really comment on other projects, and I'm afraid that life's too short to fight zealots on every page that they want to own. I'm happy to try to keep MOS:LISTS sensible though – after all, it's had that guidance for at least the last three years – but I don't see much point in trying to force minor projects to adopt best accessibility practices. My experience is that simply explaining how we can do things better for visually impaired visitors whenever the topic is raised, eventually persuades those editors who are wiling to listen. It's not a quick process, but at least you get to know who the white hats are. -- RexxS ( talk) 20:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure, my only concern is that two people from WP:WikiProject Mathematics are effectively asserting ownership over WP:Manual of Style/Mathematics, a sitewide guideline, and WP:POLICYFORKing it from the main MoS for "pointy", territoriality reasons, and now taking their fight to MOS:LISTS and WT:MOSACCESS. It's just ugly and ridiculous. Even a few more voices of reasons are probably enough to end it. I keep telling them no one is going to make WT:MATHS people write any code they don't want to; it's about whether they can force "their" guideline to hide the fact that better markup exists.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 18:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 7 – 15 December 2017 A new bibliographical landscape At the beginning of December, Wikidata items on individual scientific articles passed the 10 million mark. This figure contrasts with the state of play in early summer, when there were around half a million. In the big picture, Wikidata is now documenting the scientific literature at a rate that is about eight times as fast as papers are published. As 2017 ends, progress is quite evident. Behind this achievement are a technical advance ( fatameh), and bots that do the lifting. Much more than dry migration of metadata is potentially involved, however. If paper A cites paper B, both papers having an item, a link can be created on Wikidata, and the information presented to both human readers, and machines. This cross-linking is one of the most significant aspects of the scientific literature, and now a long-sought open version is rapidly being built up. The effort for the lifting of copyright restrictions on citation data of this kind has had real momentum behind it during 2017. WikiCite and the I4OC have been pushing hard, with the result that on CrossRef over 50% of the citation data is open. Now the holdout publishers are being lobbied to release rights on citations. But all that is just the beginning. Topics of papers are identified, authors disambiguated, with significant progress on the use of the four million ORCID IDs for researchers, and proposals formulated to identify methodology in a machine-readable way. P4510 on Wikidata has been introduced so that methodology can sit comfortably on items about papers. More is on the way. OABot applies the unpaywall principle to Wikipedia referencing. It has been proposed that Wikidata could assist WorldCat in compiling the global history of book translation. Watch this space. And make promoting #1lib1ref one of your New Year's resolutions. Happy holidays, all! Links WikidataCon: Giving more people more access to more knowledge, report by Peter Kraker of Open Knowledge Maps This is a story of my knowledge adventure in New Zealand moths via Wikicommons, Wikipedia and Wikidata, @SiobhanLeachman Wikidata and Arabic dialects, research paper, DOI: 10.1109/AICCSA.2017.115 c:Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection/georeferencing status, Mechanical Curator project on Commons hits 50K maps milestone Historical dataset on the provenance of Wikipedia text: Who wrote this?, by Tilman Bayer, WMF blogpost "Anyone can edit", not everyone does: Wikipedia and the gender gap (PDF), journal paper, Heather Ford and Judy Wajcman Alpha Zero’s "Alien" Chess Shows the Power, and the Peculiarity, of AI, MIT Technology Review, by Will Knight, December 8, 2017 To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below. Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 14:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I was trying out the Lua task 6 on my sandbox, and an error message shows up when I invoke it. Specifically, it says that a number is being compared to a string (which I haven't done here).

It appeared to me to be a result of concatenating the celsius variable with the string while assigning it to msg. I tried using tonumber() to fix it, but it didn't work (maybe I used it wrong, I'm not sure). Could you help me out here, please? Thanks :)

(Also, I've submitted the Lua task 5 for review.) — C. F. 14:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Clockery When a parameter is passed to and from a Wikipedia page, it is cast into a string.

That means that the value in frame.args.celsius is actually "15" (a string value), not 15 (an integer value). One of the inconsistencies of Lua is that it implicitly casts values when performing arithmetic or concatenation, but not when performing comparisons!

You can test snippets of Lua by using https://www.lua.org/cgi-bin/demo – try pasting print( "15" * 9 / 5 + 32 ) into that and run it. You'll see the result is 59.0. Unfortunately, while print( 15 > 9 ) gives true, you'll find print( "15" > 9 ) gives the attempt to compare number with string error.

To fix the problem, use tonumber() at the earliest opportunity, i.e. immediately as you fetch the parameter. A failed conversion gives nil so the default can be supplied via the or operator. Does that help? -- RexxS ( talk) 16:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

tonumber() didn't work at first, but I also changed the variable name and then it worked properly. Thanks a lot! :) — C. F. 16:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

	Time To Spread A Little Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Have a very Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

it's that time of the year again, Rex. No fancy template, but just wishing you all the best for the holidays and the new year, and thanking you for all you do. It's probably a lot warmer where I am than where you are 😎 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Who knows where the time goes? as Sandy Denny observed. I don't feel that I've done much at all this year. My efforts certainly pale in comparison to yours, my old friend. It's certainly warmer where you are, but I have my heating turned up, so I'm not suffering too badly. Merry Christmas to you and yours, and a Happy New Year. I'll make it one of my New Year's resolutions to find a chance to meet up in the coming year – do let me know if you plan to be back in Blighty. -- RexxS ( talk) 11:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Wish you merry Christmas and a happy new year.

BTW, here is the WMF blog post which remembers your ex-colleague, JohnCD. For your record. Thank you -- Muzammil ( talk) 16:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Muzammil for your kind wishes, but especially for all of your work documenting JohnCD's contribution to Wikipedia. I wish you and yours all the best for the festive season and for the coming year. -- RexxS ( talk) 16:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

	Merry Christmas!
	Wishing you warmth and joy throughout this holiday season and a very Happy New Year! Thank you for the help you've given me on Wikipedia. - dawnleelynn (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

And thanks again for helping us to solve some Swedish matters, if you remember. Boeing720 ( talk) 03:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Ϣere SpielChequers 18:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Improper_COI_tagging. The discussion is about the topic Language Creation Society.

Thanks for the note. I don't believe I'm involved, but I've left some advise for you there anyway. Merry Christmas. -- RexxS ( talk) 18:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

...to you and yours, from Canada's Great White North! FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 21:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, — Paleo Neonate – 01:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

to this. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 00:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

As we all know, it's far nicer for visitors who use screen readers if the list they hear doesn't switch from one style to another. However, in the season of goodwill, it's not an issue worth falling out over, especially with an established editor. I see it's sorted now, so let me just wish both of you a Happy New Year! -- RexxS ( talk) 00:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I think i now understand some of what you are upset about. Based on your vote, you appear to believe that the addition of "without of a conflict of interest" is about Andy. It has nothing to do with him. It would be about, for example Pplc removing the tag at Saidler. Andy would not have been prevented from removing that tag, by this language, had it been there at the time. Jytdog ( talk) 18:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@ Jytdog: I would support sanctions against any editor with a clear-cut COI who removed a COI tag. That is disruptive editing and unacceptable. I strongly maintain that Andy has no conflict of interest on that article or with any of the participants, and it is clear that when he first removed the tag, there had been no identification of non-neutral content in the four months since it had been placed. I have already told him that it is always wrong to edit-war over the issue, and he knows that. Nevertheless, when he first removed that tag, he was in the right. You have seen the community's response to your allegations against Andy, and - whether you agree with it or not - that is the position. You ought to back off from further attempts to prosecute Andy, and let his friends advise him. Given the way you've shown that you're prepared to make those sort of accusations, you must understand my reluctance to accept any changes to the guidance that would produce ambivalent wording. Without any qualification of who decides an editor has a COI in a particular situation, I'll oppose the changes you're asking for. -- RexxS ( talk) 18:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I never said Andy had a COI at the Saidler article. He should not have removed the COI tag there and should not have edit warred to keep it off, but that is not due to COI.

The RfC has nothing -- whatsoever -- not a single thing -- to do with the dispute with Andy at Saidler.

If you read the discussion that I linked to you will see that.

I have no idea why he reverted WAID's changes.

It is a common sense change. Jytdog ( talk) 19:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

"It has nothing to do with him"; The RfC has nothing -- whatsoever -- not a single thing -- to do with the dispute with Andy at Saidler. I have just given evidence contradicting this falsehood below RexxS' !vote at the RfC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll check it out thanks. 19:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@ Jytdog: Perhaps you can see that I don't share your perspective on "He should not have removed it there". James's reply to the COI editor was not "a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article." Read his words and try to imagine what an uninvolved editor would be able to work out from those. Nothing. That's why Andy was completely in the right to remove the tag. I agree about the edit-warring, of course, but James was edit-warring as well. Ironically, I've give both of them bollockings in the past for edit-warring, but I value both of them as friends (and vice-versa) and that's probably why I can sometimes be more useful to them. -- RexxS ( talk) 19:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I came here to address your !vote at the RfC, which is important. WAID's change did not have anything to do with the Saidler tag removal. Not a goddamn thing. Jytdog ( talk) 19:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

hi RexxS,

Thanks for the IRL meeting it was much appreciated, and genuinely helpful. I've crafted a quick page for the event: Wikipedia:TRAC Wikipedia Workshop 2018, totally bodging the wonderful code on the Wikipedia:Women's Classical Committee page because it looks so nice. Please do add in anything you think might be pertinent or useful or just want to keep track of. Cheers Zakhx150 ( talk) 16:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC) (the beardy northerner)

That's perfect, Zakhx150. We can build on that as we go along, and it's a good place to point people to. Cheers -- RexxS ( talk) 16:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 8 – 15 January 2018 Metadata on the March From the days of hard-copy liner notes on music albums, metadata have stood outside a piece or file, while adding to understanding of where it comes from, and some of what needs to be appreciated about its content. In the GLAM sector, the accumulation of accurate metadata for objects is key to the mission of an institution, and its presentation in cataloguing. Today Wikipedia turns 17, with worlds still to conquer. Zooming out from the individual GLAM object to the ontology in which it is set, one such world becomes apparent: GLAMs use custom ontologies, and those introduce massive incompatibilities. From a recent article by sadads, we quote the observation that "vocabularies needed for many collections, topics and intellectual spaces defy the expectations of the larger professional communities." A job for the encyclopedist, certainly. But the data-minded Wikimedian has the advantages of Wikidata, starting with its multilingual data, and facility with aliases. The controlled vocabulary — sometimes referred to as a "thesaurus" as term of art — simplifies search: if a "spade" must be called that, rather than "shovel", it is easier to find all spade references. That control comes at a cost. Case studies in that article show what can lie ahead. The schema crosswalk, in jargon, is a potential answer to the GLAM Babel of proliferating and expanding vocabularies. Even if you have no interest in Wikidata as such, simply vocabularies V and W, if both V and W are matched to Wikidata, then a "crosswalk" arises from term v in V to w in W, whenever v and w both match to the same item d in Wikidata. For metadata mobility, match to Wikidata. It's apparently that simple: infrastructure requirements have turned out, so far, to be challenges that can be met. Links 1lib1ref campaign starts today, see m:The Wikipedia Library/1Lib1Ref: also #1lib1ref introductory video by Felix Nartey Funders should mandate open citations, article 9 January 2018 in Nature by David Shotton From snowflake to avalanche: Possibilities of using free citation data in libraries, translation from the German original of Annette Klein, Mannheim University Library outreach:GLAM/Newsletter/December 2017/Contents/WMF GLAM report Why Mickey Mouse’s 1998 copyright extension probably won't happen again: Copyrights from the 1920s will start expiring next year if Congress doesn't act, Timothy B. Lee, 8 January 2018, Arstechnica To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below. Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 12:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Impact

Thank you for your impact
a reasoned approach, fresh wind to an emotional topic

-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

So what Pigsonthewing did at the Martin Saidler article was in my view, really really bad on just about every level. That was actively thwarting our efforts to manage COI on a page where it is rampant and blatant. And he did that at the direct request of a commercial paid editor wikifriend.

Pigsonthewing has also directly edited the COI guideline about his own activities here, on more than one ocassion. I hope you can see that this is not acceptable behavior.

Knowing about the latter, and experiencing the former, I have decided to review what Andy has been doing here, particularly his interactions with commercial paid editors, and his own edits as a WiR. If I find that he has done stuff like what he did at the Saidler article in the past, and if I find that he indeed been continually abusing his WiR position to promote his host institutions, I will bring a case to COIN about that for community review.

I was angry at him at first, which I should not have let myself express. Now I am going to just do things like I should - namely study and bring a case to the community if there is one to be made. This is going to take time and is not the highest priority for me now, but is something I will be working on over the next few weeks.

And I will solve the Saidler issues through editing, once the protection is lifted.

All of that is distinct from issues of whether WiRs are "paid" or not. The issues of what articles should have the "COI" tag are somewhat related, but I cannot see any good-faith Wikipedian argument, that an article directly created in mainspace by a commercial freelance editor should not have a COI tag which remains until independent editors have reviewed its sourcing and content. Jytdog ( talk) 19:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I've known Andy, and worked with him on projects long enough to consider him a friend. He won't mind me saying (I hope) that he can come across in discussion as somewhat difficult at times, so I've also volunteered many times to be someone he can talk to and ask advice. I'm not ashamed to say I consider him a fine contributor with a lot to offer the projects, not just Wikipedia, and I will defend him if I feel he's been unfairly treated. I'm sure you can understand that.

I'm more than happy to lend a hand at Martin Saidler in cleaning up all the non-neutral stuff I can spot. We ought really to be agreeing wording on the talk page in anticipation of the lifting of full protection. It would be disheartening to take an axe to the excesses only to find it reverted though "BRD" and find ourselves back on the talk page or with another round of full-protection.

As I've said, I can see an argument for a tag that warns readers about potential POV; for a tag that requests review of a conflicted editor's edits; and for a tag that encourages uninvolved editors to cleanup identified issues of non-neutrality. What I can't see is the argument for using the same tag for all three purposes. -- RexxS ( talk) 19:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about your experience with Andy.

Yeah i thought about working the talk page but there is no dispute about any actual content. The dispute was purely driven by the de-tagging. If there are disagreements over sourced content we can just work those out normally. Jytdog ( talk) 22:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Before you continue further commenting on the COI tags, I urge you to read the recent Arbcom decision and reflect on what it means for conflicted edits to be "available for review", especially when they are made directly in mainspace, as the Saidler article was. Jytdog ( talk) 01:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

( edit conflict)

@ Jytdog: Thanks for trying to be helpful, but I followed that case with intense interest. I'm pretty certain that

• Because Wikipedia is intended to be written from a neutral point of view, it is necessary that conflicts of interest are properly disclosed, and articles or edits by conflicted editors are reasonably available for review by others. Editors are expected to comply with both the purpose and intent of the applicable policies, as well as their literal wording.

means that edits that originate from conflicted editors must be identifiable as such, and hence require full disclosure from those conflicted editors. Nothing more and nothing less.

Have a read of the full debate of Euralyus' drafting at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Proposed decision #Neutral point of view to see what was being discussed there. There's no concern about having to place a {{ COI}} tag on the article, in order for it to be reviewed. The concern in that principle, rather, is that conflicted editors will find ways of gaming the system by not disclosing properly or at all.

Look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Proposed decision #Salvidrim! and AfC II for the debate around tags, which is much more relevant to what you want to do. In effect, articles were moved to AfC review to remove tags without oversight by a conflicted reviewer, knowing that removal of properly applied tags in mainspace would attract attention.

It's good that editors apply checks whenever maintenance tags are removed, but that puts a burden on taggers to ensure that community expectations are met when the tags are placed initially. Neither ArbCom nor the community is going to endorse tagging on suspicion alone. It would devalue the process and mean that far more tags get applied and removed. That sort of "noise" increases the chance that the shills will be able to remove justified tags without anybody noticing it as something unusual. Cheers -- RexxS ( talk) 01:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The Saidler article was created for pay as disclosed by the paid editor in his edit note. This is not ambiguous in any way and I fine with limiting the discussion to this narrow kind of thing for now.

What I am asking of you, (and I really hope you do it) is think about what it means for conflicted edits to be "available for review". In the real world of editing and reading WP.

What ultimately should happen when an article is created in mainspace by a paid editor and somebody else discovers that?

How do we make it available for review?

Salvidrim's solution was to get the creating editor's consent to draftify and put through AfC.

What else can or should happen so that that the article is "available for review" as a product of conflicted editing per se? (Please don't say that a disclosure in an edit note is all the "flagging" that is needed. I really, really hope that is not what you are saying) This is what the principle is focused on, and the question for us to work out. Jytdog ( talk)

My response to your concern is outlined at Template talk:COI #Purpose of maintenance tags. I'm disappointed that you still think misuse of a cleanup template is the way forward. -- RexxS ( talk) 18:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I will reply there. There is some interesting stuff in what you wrote there, some confused stuff too. Jytdog ( talk) 18:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Link?( Littleolive oil ( talk) 01:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC))

  Hi Olive! Talk:Martin Saidler, Template talk:COI #When not to use this template? and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors (plus its proposed decision page). HTH -- RexxS ( talk) 01:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 05:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC))

• more broadly, RexxS, you said you followed the case with intense interest. I would be interested in any thoughts you had about how it went, what you took away, etc. Jytdog ( talk) 02:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

"Neither ArbCom nor the community is going to endorse tagging on suspicion alone" this is precisely what Jytdog proposes to allow, at Template talk:COI#proposed change. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

RexxS I remain interested in your impressions of the arbcom case if you care to share them. Jytdog ( talk) 22:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi RexxS, how's it going? I'm not sure if you saw my reply to you as I refrained from pinging you again "(to RexxS) my long post [1] was written before the proposal, which I marked as (ec) into a support vote. If you'd prefer I will refactor to put the bulk before the section to clarify they're unrelated." As the talk has turned into a dog's dinner of conflated issues, just wanted you to know that I agree WiR shouldn't be conflated, and don't consider it the right place to conflate WiR editing in general, let alone any one editor, let alone any one article in particular. This is the second time in days that I've arrived coincidentally just after Jytdog. Widefox; talk 21:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey Widefox, I'm good thanks; I hope you are too! Don't worry about pinging me if you want my attention quick – I keep that page off my watchlist because it overwhelms it at present.

I think that refactoring discussions is rarely helpful, so I'd advise you not to bother. The problems (as you can see from the discussion above ^^) are complex and several issues are interrelated. I think it's important to establish that the COI template is not to be used to mark the work of Wikimedians in Residence simply because they are WiRs, and I believe that it will be used on every page edited by a WiR unless we establish beforehand that such use is not what is intended. I don't believe that the COI template should be placed by a tagger who does no more than see an edit by someone that they think is a paid editor. The potential for misuse of tagging on suspicion is too great. That's why we require a minimum level of engagement by the tagger in identifying at least one substantial problem, and we shouldn't be driving a coach and horses through that principle. In addition, we have long-standing guidance on disclaimers at Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles and attempting to use the COI template to warn readers that the content may not be neutral is about as profound a breach of that as I can imagine.

Now there are three issues which were already conflated by the proposal itself. I'm sorry it's not straightforward, but each of them needs to be addressed properly if editors are going to be able to reach meaningful conclusions about the proposal.

Tl;dr: I didn't start it :P -- RexxS ( talk) 22:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah not bad thanks. That's all valid discussion ^^, but when you alerted James to my "conflation", that just muddied the waters as my edit was written before the proposal, and "(ec)" saved after, an understandable but correctable misreading of the timeline.

As neither of us started the WiR aspect, and I've been clear about the WiR in question, I can't say more.

Completely separately, but you may not be aware of, there is an ongoing COI discussion about a non-UK WiR, so that's two reasons why I don't want to get drawn into any WiR before that goes to COIN. Widefox; talk 13:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't insulting you (even playfully), or critiquing your code (even playfully), or even saying anything snippy about it (even playfully). I was sharing a comedic song with someone I thought might appreciate it, while paraphrasing part of the lyrics in order to make a lame joke about said song. Again, with someone I thought might appreciate it.

I thought that the smiley faces, the linking to a comedic song, using such banal critiques as commenting and indentation, using the phrase "I hope" to indicate that it wasn't actually directed at your code and attributing the "output stinks" bit to an obviously fictional character would be sufficient to convey a lack of ill intent.

And while your last comment indicates that you intended your initial response to be "playful", the parts I quoted in my response didn't make sense as a joke. They made perfect sense (even in the context of your edit summary), however, as anger. That may not have been your intent, but it was how it appeared.

But regardless, it's clear that at some point I got under your skin. That was never my intention, and I apologize for that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@ ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants: It's OK, really. Storms & teacups and so on. No need to apologise as I'll have forgotten about all of this by tomorrow. -- RexxS ( talk) 20:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)