User talk:Francis Schonken

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Communications in Dutch: please see User talk:Francis Schonken/Dutch

Overleg in het nederlands: op User talk:Francis Schonken/Dutch a.u.b.

VictionariumUser talk:Francis Schonken/Latinus

Archives: Archive 01 - Archive 02 - Archive 03 - Archive 04 - Archive 05 - Archive 06

Disambiguation link notification for June 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Les Danaïdes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Horn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of repertoire pieces by Ferruccio Busoni, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Concertino (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of consensus[edit]

I really boned myself with that one. I made dozens of edits based on my misinterpretation of that consensus. Please be merciful. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of repertoire pieces by Ferruccio Busoni, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fantasia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Susman et al[edit]

You've made a huge mess with that substing. The articles that are at AfD are at AfD on their own merits, not as an effort to inherit notability from someone else. Belarca is Susman's label, but it needs to meet NMUSIC on its own, just like artists who release on Belarca need to meet NMUSIC on their own. The repeated subst has actually put your argument in places it simply isn't appropriate to be in. MSJapan (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Your latest suggestion is not improving things. I know you're doing this in good faith, but it's really causing more of a problem. If you want to deal with any article subject, do it on the talk or AfD for that article only. MSJapan (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Hey Francis Schonken, I appreciate your help. I personally think we could have kept the discussions centralised at COIN. Anyway, currently we can collapse some of the discussions to keep the AfD clean but the content still on the page for interested editors. How about like this? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piccola Accademia degli Specchi --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Works for me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

A recent edit[edit]

I can understand the desire to tighten up a discussion, but why do your edits suggest a concern with my work, of all people?  I work toward policy-based discussions.  How often do you see me using charged language?  Your recent hatting left standing a direct attack against me, "You fail on all 3 points"; immediately before your claim that my response addressed the contributor, not the contribution.  Yet the words in my response were, "why have you responded..." 

The biggest problem I had was the removal of the sentence, "So if they are not unethical, then they practice independence in their journalism ethics.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)".  This was the single strongest statement in the discussion I initiated on independence in journalism ethics, and possibly the single strongest statement in the AfD.  Why did your hatting cut that sentence of all the sentences that it cut?  Your hat comment for this removal was that it was WP:EDITCOUNTITIS, which as best I can see is an essay unrelated to anything about independence in journalism ethics. 

Luckily for me we aren't having to have this discussion in real time, you've reversed your edit due to the timing of the close, and I don't expect a response if you don't want to respond.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I had already self-reverted: undo self: wrote this while the AfD was being closed, didn't want to add anything after the closure) --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate link[edit]

Why did you just restore a duplicate link. We should not place two identical links side by side as you have done. Perhaps you would care toe xplain why we should leave the link one time on the talk page. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 18:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Secular cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Secular cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Church cantatas in Leipzig between Trinity Sunday 1725 and St. John's Day 1728 for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Church cantatas in Leipzig between Trinity Sunday 1725 and St. John's Day 1728 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church cantatas in Leipzig between Trinity Sunday 1725 and St. John's Day 1728 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Specto73 (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Church cantatas in Leipzig between Trinity Sunday 1725 and St. John's Day 1728 listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Church cantatas in Leipzig between Trinity Sunday 1725 and St. John's Day 1728. Since you had some involvement with the Church cantatas in Leipzig between Trinity Sunday 1725 and St. John's Day 1728 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. MSJapan (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cantatas, motets and oratorios by BWV number[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Cantatas, motets and oratorios by BWV number has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Triple Concerto, BWV 1044 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Allegro, Dolce, Adagio and Tanto

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gottfried Heinrich Stölzel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Suite (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gottfried Heinrich Stölzel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Urtext (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Human sciences has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Human sciences, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Linking to WP:USPLACE at WP:Article titles[edit]

Respect your opinion, but disagree... Please discuss further on the policy talk page (I have started a thread for it already). Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Francis Schonken. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Francis Schonken. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Robert Orledge[edit]

Hi! I've removed what appears to have been a foundational copyright violation from Robert Orledge. I do of course know that there was much less attention paid to copyright matters back then, and also see that it was one of the very first pages you created. Could I ask you to have a look through your other early contributions to check that there weren't any other occasions when the same thing happened? Thanks, season's greetings, etc. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Your disruptive edit-warring has previous resulted in restrictions to your editing. On wikipedia the normal process of editing articles involves WP:BRD. You have not observing that. Instead you have edited disruptively, edit warring to restore forked content. You have in addition removed links to established articles. That is unhelpful to the reader and disruptive. You yourself have created a series of fork articles, all of which involve your own brand of original research, which is unhelpful and misleading to the reader. You are now on the point of making three reverts and risk being blocked. Mathsci (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikihounding[edit]

Pkease stop following the articles I have created. I have removed the section you disruptively tried to start on WikiProject Classical Music. That discussion has happened before and there is no reason to revisit it. It has been noticed that you are following my edits; and the discussion that you tried to start is an example. In this case your concentration on my edits and this latest article falls within WP:HOUND. WP:HOUND is a form of disruption and a way of harassing another editor in a deliberate way designed to cause distress. Your editing falls within that category. I seem to be the sole object of your interests: that is usually not tolerated on wikipedia. Please stop hounding me. Thank you, Mathsci (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruption by Francis Schonken. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 05:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Mathsci (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

DRN January 2017[edit]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Notifying users[edit]

Greetings. Please be advised that selectively notifying other users of discussions on the basis of their perceived opinions on an issue, as was apparently done with this edit, is considered Votestacking and is disruptive to consensus on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Canvassing for more information. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Please don't move my comments again[edit]

If you were smart enough to figure it out, so was any other admin/editor. The entire thread was littered with multiple !votes. In addition, please learn how the ping function works. If you don't sign in the same edit as the ping, it doesn't work and I was not notified that you moved large sections of my comments.  !votes are comments not votes so having more than one or counting them at all is completely unnecessary. Lastly, I have a talk page. If you are confused about what I wrote, my talk page is the place to ask for help regarding your confusion. If you choose to be an ANI busybody, you should probably decline to engage in the discussion as moving comments and !votes of editors you have disagreed with in the discussion is frowned upon for obvious reasons. --DHeyward (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC) Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).


What happened, new editor is wondering your quick close in a talk page[edit]

Hi, as a new editor I wonder what happened here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#Defining_reliability_of_a_medium_via_the_trust_on_the_medium_among_its_readers It seems to me that you decided to close a discussion, based on something I might have done wrong, or based on some conclusion in the discussion not really there. My question you seemingly used as a reason for closing was a simple question of a new user after a while without any new comments, if that was wrong please guide me to the rules explaining that. I'd also like to know what would be a proper method to request re-opening of the discussion. If from you, please reopen and I remove my last question if it was against some rule/practice. All I'm in for is to help Wikipedia and I do not have any hurry with the edit in question - even that you seemed to get such an impression. 81.197.179.232 (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

No, you didn't do anything wrong. Your idea is very unlikely to work. You would have found out about that eventually. Sorry to shorten that process a bit. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Good to know, thanks. So could you please tell what's the practice to reopen? If it's just asking from you, please do - your "shortening of that process" might have been done to help me, but really, the discussion is clearly not in any point of agreement yet. p. I think your suggestion "unlikely to work" should be a comment in the discussion including some reasoning, which I'm actually interested about as well. 81.197.179.232 (talk) 02:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Re. "practice to reopen" – the procedure is explained at Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures. Here's the good news: you're in the process of taking the first step flawlessly (i.e. "contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion").
Re. "might have been done to help me" – yes, that (you seemed intelligent enough to cope with it), and also: stopping the time sink for the other editors.
Re. "should be a comment in the discussion" – it could have been (not "should"), and I considered that possibility. Nonetheless you seemed to be talking next to each other: the interaction "...fallacy of argumentum ad populum..." → "...I see that already taken care of..." (where, in fact, that argument wasn't "taken care of") may illustrate that. So whatever I might have contributed to the discussion, the chances were too high that that would have resulted in further talking next to each other. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for linking the procedure. I hope further steps are not needed, so I do my best explaining my point of view here between us. About time sink - I think every editor contributes exactly the time they want. On "Should" vs "Could", yes my mistake, sorry. I do think that discussing any new issues on the topic should be discussed on the talk page. Might be the best if we limit the discussion here to the reasons used for closing and find a mutual understanding on those, if possible. There were seemingly three reasons use used:
(A) "-- most participants in the discussion --" - There were not enough of editors for such reasoning.
(B) "-- early close was prompted by the OP suggesting --" - You already wrote I did nothing wrong asking a question, which I take as that was not a reason to close the discussion, but instead your argument to speed it up. Agreement on this reached already?
(C) "-- signals given by other editors that this appears to be heading nowhere --" There were only two such signals: (1) didn't even read the suggestion, (2) was fairly argued and counter-argued, suggesting the discussion is going on.
Based on my arguments on each, I request you to reopen the discussion, please. 81.197.179.232 (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Re. (A): there were enough participants to see that the discussion was going nowhere.
Re. (B): "not doing anything wrong" is not a synonym to "being meaningful". Not picking up signals, talking next to each other, getting sidetracked in a discussion, etc., are no crimes (it happens to the best of us). That is not the same as the discussion going somewhere.
Re. (C) – here's another signal you didn't pick up: the "... (once again) ..." of the 4th participant. Not that you did anything wrong by not picking that up: for a newbie editor that would maybe be near impossible to pick up. It indicates that the same material (or material closely similar to it) has been discussed more than once before. Hence I added a link to WP:PERENNIAL#Define reliable sources in the PS of my close, hoping that would put you on track to understanding why the proposal was bound to fail anyway.
My condition for reopening is that there would be no more "talking next to each other", and a general awareness that this (and similar) paths of assessing reliability of sources for use in Wikipedia has been discussed and rejected multiple times before. For me the focus is on you understanding why the approach you proposed wouldn't work well. I still think this can be done better by me explaining to you and/or giving you some more links to places where you can see how it works currently, and why, despite its imperfections, that is still the best approach – rather than you getting half-joking replies, without you picking up on irony etc., leaving you half in the dark on why your proposal is kind of flawed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
(A) Could you explain your claim "most" with math, as how did you calculate that?
(B) What reason for closing are we talking about?
(C) Please confirm I got this right, that your claim "-- signals given by other editors that this appears to be heading nowhere --" is based on
(C1) editor not reading the suggestion
(C2) editor with a fair argument
(C3) editor "indicates that the same material (or material closely similar to it) has been discussed more than once before".
When we have a common understanding on the reasons used, we are on a steady ground to discuss. Please don't add any new reasons here, as for me that indicates that your reasoning wasn't fair in the first place. 81.197.179.232 (talk) 02:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The WP:RS guideline is closely related to the WP:V policy. What you didn't (seem to) realise is that some aspects of your proposal would need a change to WP:V. For these aspects you got 0% support by the other contributors (counting you in that gave, at the time of my closure, 25% support for these aspects) where you would need, say, around 90% to change such fundamental aspects of WP:V. Changing WP:RS, with a smaller majority (which you didn't have either), to something incompatible with WP:V would be undesirable too.

Re. (B): "not going anywhere" (or: taking editor time with little chance to success) is a reason for (early) closure, see WP:SNOW.

Re. (C1): TL;DR kind of reactions may seem unfortunate for the proposer, but they indicate that the proposal is poorly written in the assessment of the commenter. You didn't pick up on that signal. Re. (C2): whether "fair" or not, the second commenter did not support your proposal, nor did this commenter return after your second response (so the last response of this commenter remains one of no support), nor did you wait for this commenter to return before posting your "can we edit the guideline now?" comment. Re. (C3): again, you didn't pick up on the "not again" signal of the third commenter.

Seeing that you didn't respond to my conditions for re-opening I think we're about done here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

This seems unnecessarily difficult, and my feeling now is that you're as hasty in this discussion as you were in closing the discussion. Your "condition on reopening" includes issues not used as reasons for closing in the first place, hence my (still) delayed reply on that. Even that I would agree, what I want to understand is if the reasons USED for closing were fair, and I've done my best to narrow our discussion here to concern only those reasons. All other reasoning should, in my fair opinion, be discussed under the original topic, but you have repeatedly brought up new possible reasons for closing into the discussion here.. I think we both need to understand that we're not alike (obviously) in the way we discuss. We really need to find a common ground before going on. First and foremost, we need to agree if we stick with the reasons used or if we could reach a mutual understanding better from a wider perspective. I'd like the narrow one, as narrow as possible, dropping each issue (A,B,C1,C2,C3) as soon as mutual understanding is reached, adding new letters only if they have a solid base in your original reasoning visible in the. Would this be comfortable for you too? 81.197.179.232 (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
"...picking up on the signals given by other editors..." (of the closure) translated to "...no more talking next to each other..." (as reopening threshold); Similarly "recommended further reading: WP:PERENNIAL#Define reliable sources" → "general awareness that this (and similar) paths of assessing reliability of sources for use in Wikipedia has been discussed and rejected multiple times before". You may be nit-picky about these rewordings as much as you like, these are the conditions.
My assessment of the discussion when I closed it is the same here as in the closure report, which by its very nature is a summary of the salient points. You didn't like the short report, nor, apparently, a more detailed explanation of the same points. Really, as I said in my last post, we're done here. Especially as now, a few days and several considerate & detailed replies later, you put me off as working hastily. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
How did we end up with this:
1.You wrote "My condition for reopening is that there would be no more "talking next to each other", and a general awareness that this (and similar) paths of assessing reliability of sources for use in Wikipedia has been discussed and rejected multiple times before."
2.I responded with "Please don't add any new reasons here, as for me that indicates that your reasoning wasn't fair in the first place."
3. You wrote "Seeing that you didn't respond to my conditions for re-opening I think we're about done here."
4. I wrote: "This seems unnecessarily difficult, my feeling now is that you're as hasty in this discussion as you were in closing the discussion." (pay attention to: my feeling now). Additionally I explained why my respond wasn't what you expected.
5. You wrote "Really, as I said in my last post, we're done here. Especially as now, a few days and several considerate & detailed replies later, you put me off as working hastily.
Looking at this all, I agree we're done here. Thanks for your efforts, I'm sure they were done in good purpose but now we might benefit from a 3rd party to check the issue. 81.197.179.232 (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 81.197.179.232 (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

More apology[edit]

I now see what happened. I was trying to rollback to the edit prior to the IP's edits, but your edit got in just as I was switching from the history view to the diff view, causing me to think that your edit was that edit. But all I actually managed to do was to affect the signature. Thus your edit summary, which I didn't understand and failed to AGF about when I left my last message here. It was my snark, not your snark, and that fault is entirely mine and I apologize. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem: your edit showed up as a revert of my edit in the messaging system (not the kind of stats of my editing record I want to see upped although I haven't been confronted with WP:EDITCOUNTITIS lately), and it factually reinstated a minor vandalism I had removed. Well, such things happen. Not knowing what caused this odd edit I said "please" in the edit summary, the kind of politeness that would suit any editor – indicating such polite and factual request as snark would not, imho. All apologies accepted & non-issue closed as far as I'm concerned, for clarity. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)