User talk:Johnuniq/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Your revert

Your revert on the village pump was unwarranted IMO. I'm an well aware you disagree with me. If you think I should have made my announcement to the community somewhere else, pray tell. If you don't like parts of it, then what? All discussions must be neutral? Who decides? You? Its obviously not like I'm going to willingly hit 3RR territory in this situation, and its obvious it will. I'm not even going to test it, because I know ArbCom is out for blood at this point. But please keep in mind all this sets an example. (LOL this is too much.) Int21h (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The issue is a post placed at WP:Village pump (miscellaneous)#I demand the ArbCom members step down (current permalink). Unfortunately the curious passers-by have restored your message, which is doing you no favor. The more attention drawn to the incident, the less beneficial is likely to be the outcome. In brief, no page on Wikipedia is suitable for pointless venting. It's ok to tell the world what you really think on your own talk page (within reasonable bounds), but that is accepted only because it is understood that editors are human, and have human foibles. It is a shame that people are sometimes blocked, then unblocked with an apology, but it would be desirable to express displeasure briefly, and in reasonable terms. Venting in moderation is accepted, and so is making occasional errors. If you want to continue pursuing a case after 24 hours, I suggest making a brief and neutral statement of the situation somewhere so people can quickly grasp your view of the situation. For example, I have seen suggestions that you are editing from a TOR network, and you were confused with a problem user, and were blocked. If the TOR part of it is correct, your complaints should be enormously moderated—given the amount of money that it costs to become an editor, we have no right to demand perfection, particularly if using TOR! That is just unreasonable (I do not know if you have been using TOR, I just saw a suggestion to that effect). Johnuniq (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, you got just about everything sort of right--except the notion that it is pointless, or assuming that this is the only way to describe it and hence must be supressed. Attacking Hitler probably never did any German any favors, nor with Stalin or McCarthy etc etc., but so what? There are other factors involved. And you trivialize all that happened in between the block and the unblock. It isn't as if someone without my skills could recognize--and I hope you'll understand me when I say this--incompetence as to computing and the Internet when they saw and would be able to make a last stand--all while permabanned mind you, and unable to take the issue to the community, where it should have begun, as I have said from day 1 or 2. That is the only reason I am here, able to carry out this conversation: because of my so-called "pointless venting". My unblock begs to differ that it was pointless. And given the fact that only on that talk page--this one ney my "pointless venting"--have I any clue what happened, I think it is well worth it, and so I must disagree. Really, if I hadn't brought this to the attention of the community, after all these months, do you really think I would have ever gotten an explanation for what happened? (To be fair, I still havn't gotten an explanation about what happened. Others have gotten an explanation. For my ban.) Do you think all these months later DQ would have spontaneously changed his mind and offered me some sort of explanation? I don't. Obviously. It should not have even come to this. And please, don't confuse my problem with DeltaQuad and his actions with the actions of ArbCom, of which my ban is only a symptom of a larger problem IMO.

And yes, a write up is in order, to be sure.

And no, I still don't think anything you have said warranted a revert. Int21h (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Convert units usage

I've created a table at User:WOSlinker/ConvertUsage which shows all the convert units and how many pages they are used on which may be some help in deciding if it's worth adding support in the module version for a particular unit. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look at that. When I upload my latest changes, there will be around 47 different unknown units in your testcases. They will take a while to sort out. Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject C/C++

Greetings, I've noticed your interest in articles relating to C/C++ and would like to invite you to join the WikiProject C/C++, a group of Wikipedians devoted to improving articles related to C and C++. If you're interested, please consider adding yourself to the list of participants and joining the discussion on the talkpage. --—Sowlos

Convertdata

Just wondering about the _us information in Convertdata. Rather than including name1_us, name2_us & sym_us for all the units, would there be any advantages to only setting those values if they are different to the name1, name2 & symbol values? It would reduce the size of Convertdata which would make it slightly quicker to load. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, definitely I will be doing that. The big table idea was for simplicity and from my C struct days where it would just be a memory/speed tradeoff, but for Lua there is obviously a lot of execution overhead in dealing with all the strings (each has to be hashed, and my hopes that Scribunto might cache the hashed results is too tricky to be implemented). Removing redundancy from the table would speed it up quite a bit. I think I will also evaluate all the scale expressions, so Fahrenheit/Celsius would have 15 or so fractional digits rather than 9/5 which needs to be evaluated even when not converting temperatures. The good news is that the wikitable defining the conversions won't change, but the script which prepares convertdata would not insert all the missing values, and convert would create missing values on demand. Things need to settle down in RL before I can get back to serious work (I can find time to do things like add unknown units, but I need to know I've got an uninterrupted few hours before fixing some of the outstanding problems). Johnuniq (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

AN Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Crazynas ^t 07:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Cost per unit mass, Cost per unit area & Per volume

Just thinking about all the "per" types of conversion. Rather than add them in the table, they could be done with a few changes to the code.

If unit in begins with "$/" or "£/" or "/" then
  check that unit out also begins with same (if specificied) otherwise error

  set invert = -1 if invert is nil or set it to nil if it's currently -1 for both in and out units
  set unit in display prefix to "per"
  set unit out display prefix to "/"

  if prefix is "$/" then set number prefix to "$"
  if prefix is "£/" then set number prefix to "£"

continue on and do the conversion and output results with the additional prefix values

Another advantage would be that the per feature would work on all the current units. So could convert then $/day to $/year without adding more units to the table. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

That's an attractive idea. I'll look at it soon, although there's always a lot more complexity than first appears. Several of the per units are defined, but there are lots of strange units which might be cleaned up with that rule.

Currently I'm grappling with links—I think I'll have to extend the "Links" section in the conversions data to allow entry of complex cases where there are two links (or even three with "mile per imperial gallon" which changes to "mpg_-imp" when abbreviated"). Johnuniq (talk) 10:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW I checked the cal/h conversion in power and am confident that the module is giving the correct value. Johnuniq (talk) 10:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I've looked at what units need to be defined. I'm pretty sure that only "/km2 sqmi" and "£/acre" and "£/ha" are missing (compared with the current units), and I would prefer to just add those three for now. There are many things which need to be fixed, so while the per idea is good and I have added it to my todo list, I think I should work on missing stuff next. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Racism

Hey, i have a zero tolerance policy towards racism so i have removed that polandball crap from the userpage. As the editor is restricted from pball edits, he cant put it back in, so as its gone shouldnt be a problem. Unless someone puts it back in for him, but I would hold them equally responsible for spreading that rubbish at that point. Probably breaking a policy somewhere, but i think racial slurs justify IAR. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You obviously saw my comment, now archived here. It's good that the provocative nonsense has gone, although I had hoped the user might get around to doing it. Johnuniq (talk) 10:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Given that he has constantly been spreading it around other wikis to make a rationale for keeping it on commons, to the extent of defending an afd at the polish language pedia, my hmope was non existant. Apparently that sort of behaviour is not something arbcom took into account when lifting the block. Its okay to spread cultural hate on other wmf projects, as long as its not here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

update- re that edit war, you may want to know that russavia notified the editor who reinstated of your warning. So he clearly did see it, told someone else about it, who then put it back. Pretty sure that's violating the spirit of his restrictions if not the exact letter. Hard to assume anything other than editing by proxy atm. I would have taken it out myself again except edit warring over userpages about crap like that... If its still there tomorrow I will remove it again and take it to ae.Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

That message pointing to his talk page was a few days ago, and it pointed to a longish section which had my request at the bottom, so it could be argued that my request was overlooked. That's why I thought a new request would be helpful as it should throw some light on their current attitude. Johnuniq (talk) 08:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You are a more trusting soul than myself :) Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Sincerest Apologies.

I hadn't even thought to read the comics/content that was being reverted and had absolutely no idea this was a previously ongoing issue, thanks for letting me know and know that I will no longer be touching that users page again. AnthonyJ Lock (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but no need for an apology as the situation (an IP removing stuff from a user page with no edit summary) was very unusual. Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Dispute between Tom Reedy and Zbrnajsem

Good morning, User Johnuniq.

I have taken away my last editing on the talk page of Edward de Vere. However, a few minutes ago I have addressed Mr. Reedy directly on his talk page instead. This is what I wrote to him, for your information (no shortening), as I suppose that you are an administrator:

"This is a reminder for you, Mr. Tom Reedy, on your talk page. Somewhere in the discussion on Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford you wrote about him: "...the personality characteristics that made him such a shit." Really, do you think this wording was appropriate? I am upset about your wording. I don´t agree with many points of your reasoning about this person of history. It is cherrypicking in your way, what you do. You don´t see all of possible achievements and better actions of Edward de Vere, you see only those possibly negative ones. Could you explain to me how do you come to it? And how do you come to delete two contributions of some other person to a talk page (my contributions to this talk page)? This was a matter of the page concerned, the page on Edward de Vere, and of your attitude to this very person of history. Besides this, please take into consideration that a substantial part of European public holds Edward de Vere for the true author of the Shakespearean canon. This substantial part of the European public is also convinced that Will Shakspere of Stratford was not the true author of this vast work, that he completely lacked the abilities necessary for this work. I have already pointed out to you that there is a documentary film with the title "The Naked Shakespeare" that says precisely this about Will Shakespere. In this film, even the name "William Shakespeare" was not attributed to this person of history. The said documentary film was transmitted for broad German and French public on the TV channel Arte on 17 March 2013 and again on 21 March 2013. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 09:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)"

I hope we may discuss very serious matters seriously and openly on Wikipedia. If not, this would be very sad. I don´t think there are really "policies of Wikipedia" that don´t go with the principle of free discussion. Maybe there is a problem where to discuss on Wikipedia. Thank you for your understanding, User Johnuniq. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for removing your message from Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. I have commented at User talk:Tom Reedy#Characterization of Edward de Vere. In general, may I suggest avoiding duplicating a message (both at Tom Reedy's talk and here)? Instead, just post a link here with any wanted additional comment.

There are a number of issues in your message, and that makes a full response quite difficult because the message covers whether an editor should have used a certain word (which belongs on the editor's talk), and reasoning about the subject of the article (which belongs on the article's talk), and some comments about another topic, namely the Shakespeare authorship question (not sure where that belongs, but possibly it is a bit too generic for reasonable discussion at most pages on Wikipedia). Johnuniq (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• (Talk page stalker.) Zbrnajsem, I don't blame you for thinking Johnuniq is an administrator, he ought to be, but he isn't. This is a good place for checking who's an admin. Bishonen | talk 11:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC).
  • Oops, is my pompous language showing again? I hadn't thought that Zbrnajsem might believe I was an admin. On that topic, I was aggressively arguing against something unrelated to the current discussion when the wind was knocked out my sails by a very unexpected reply. It's trivial, and I'm mentioning it more as an aid for my memory than in the expectation it has interest for others, but the comment can be seen at "12:40, 1 February 2013" here. Johnuniq (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Earlier ANI dispute and economic predictions in the lead of articles

Just went over that thread at AN/I involving Dr.K. and Cavann. As one of the few editors who showed an interest in the content dispute which started it, I feel I should give the backstory. Basically, it goes like this: Cavann keeps inserting info about how the economy of Istanbul and Turkey will perform in X number of years. For obvious reasons, I think this is WP:UNDUE, and think these additions should be removed. Yesertday, there was a solid consensus to keep such material out of the lead of Istanbul http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Istanbul#Economic_predictions. Yet today, Cavann is insisting that such material be included in the lede of Turkey [1]. I have opened a thread at Talk:Turkey#Economic_predictions_in_the_lead, feel free to weigh in. Regards, Athenean (talk) 07:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I guessed what the fuss was about, and had already planned to look at Turkey and Istanbul in a day or two to see if the economic forecasts were still present (I planned to support their removal). At any rate, the discussion looks clear to me, so I removed the material, and commented at Talk:Turkey. Johnuniq (talk) 09:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Athenean (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Gregorian serial date

Hi! What it the difference between this template and Template:JULIANDAY except of the starting date for counting? Both convert a Gregorian date into numbers of days from some fixed point in past. --DixonD (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The Template:Gregorian serial date is equivalent in its "intended" use, except that it returns a number of days since a different epoch (1 January 1AD, instead of the traditional Julian epoch) : this means that it should different only by a constant.

But its implementation is wrong in many aspects, it overflows more easily and returns false results than Template:JULIANDAY.

It is also much more expansive in terms of expansions.

And it is less generic and will not accept parameters such as months offseted by an arbitray integer constant, or days adjusted by an arbitrary constant (possibly fractional).

So Template:JULIANDAY is much better, more efficient, and more correct, with a mich wider range of valid dates (this means that Template:Gregorian serial date should use Template:JULIANDAY, by just substracting a constant to its result for its different epoch; and certainly not the reverse which will break many dates !).

For references, the Julian day number, or JD, (not the "Gregorian day number" whose epoch has never existed in the Gregorian calendar) is used as the base in all other scientific sources. So please implement first the Julian day number (JD) before anything else, as the base for everything. Note that the scientific JD is not an integer and it includes time of day as fractions of day (times of day are converted assuming that all days are exactly 24 hours long, i.e. 86400 seconds exactly; this can cause minor problems on the few days that include 1 or 2 leap seconds and which may occur only at most once every 6 months but at unpredictable dates; the existence of leap seconds means that if you're dating events every tenths of second on a date where a leap second is added, the next tenth of second after 31 December 23:59:59.0 will be 31 December 23:59:60.0, then 23:59:60.1, ..., then 23:59:60.9, then 1 January 00:00:00.0 ; the existence or absence of leap seconds is unpredictable but leap seconds cannot be added or sustracted to days more than twice a year, and only on predefined dates ; in some future, these leap seconds may be added more frequently every 3 months where necessary, if the adjustments would otherwise require more than 2 leap seconds with the current rules, but they will be still announced 6 months before, unless there's a dramatic event such as a major earthquake like the famous one in the Indian Ocean which would requite adjusting exceptionally by more than 2 leap seconds, such dramatic event having never occured on Earth for now except on prehistoric times). verdy_p (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I once had a vague understanding (never a good understanding!) of date-related stuff, but now I'm unable to say anything useful (in writing Module:Age, I just translated the template logic to Lua). There is sure to be someone here, perhaps at WP:AST, who would explain this to us. I'll try to do some reading within a few days, but you might have to prod me if I put it off too long. If you learn anything, please let me know.

To remind myself later, this arose from a discussion at WP:Lua requests#Dates. Johnuniq (talk) 11:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I did some testing on my sandbox, and it seems to be that the only difference is starting dates, though it would be good to ask somebody competent enough. So for instance Template:Age in days (which makes a half of all transclusions of Template:Gregorian serial date) may be computed as a difference between Julian days. --DixonD (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You might want to check the initial code of Module:Sandbox/DixonD/Datetime and its tests on Module talk:Sandbox/DixonD/Datetime/testcases. --DixonD (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I looked at your code and it correctly implements the JD formula (although I will have some suggestions regarding Lua style later). I started looking at the code in {{JULIANDAY}} but decided it would be better to ask someone with a clue. See User talk:Verdy p#Julian day. Johnuniq (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page. Note that the reference article uses an extra variable "a" to offset the year by 1 after march; this can always be avoided by systematically adding 9 to the months and substracting 1 to the year. My talk pagen where I translated a part of the French version of the same template (that I also wrote), explains this in more details.

Don't forget also, if you intend to replace the implementation, that the existing template parameters MAY contain some formulas thart are supposed to be avaluated by a #expr, notably it could contain additions or substractions. For this reasn, year and month parameters are used together and no euclidian division by 12 is performed before the year and month are miwed into a single number of months. This allows a more universal use of the template to perform computations with a relative number of months (to add or substract to a date), without having first to compute the final year and month (some templates benefit of this and this simplified a lot their implementation).

So my formula is equivalent. Plase read its documentation (notably the French version that I translated with an example of pseudo-code in my talk page) carefully to understand why.

And I repeat here my warning about how the euclidian division is implemented ! Beware of effects on negative numbers (the direction of rounding of the dividend and sign of the rest : calendric calculations requires using the equivalent of mathematical floor(), not truncation towards zero, for all cyclic modular computations when working with calendars), or value ranges (if the Lua "//" operator has a limited value range on some integers not exceeding some number of bits). verdy_p (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks—that's very helpful. I have replied at your talk regarding the problem date. There should not be a problem about any {{expr:...}} used as parameters to the template (if the template were replaced with a Lua module) because the system evaluates such expressions before invoking Lua. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Snail-like

Snail-like? Actually, we raced some snails against ArbCom not long ago and the snails won handily. B-) We're currently racing the committee against continental drift. No results as yet, but man, North America's a feisty little racer! Trying his best to outdo them. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL! I should have expected an objection to my personal attack on gastropods. For next time, I'll have to think of another simile that is less offensive to snails. Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I usually refer to ArbCom as "glacial", but that's only because "continental drift" doesn't seem to have a particularly handy adjective form. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Highbeam accounts

Hi. Do you know if our Highbeam Research accounts expired? I seem to have trouble logging in. Viriditas (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been fiddling elsewhere, and have not used the Highbeam account for quite a while. I just tried now, and it seemed to reject my login (it did reject it, but it gave no message—just displayed the home page, so it's not clear whether it's a glitch in their system or an intentional lockout). The registration notice I received included "Your annual subscription will expire on Sunday, May 5, 2013". Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

If I may speculate, I believe we are at the end of the 1-year subscription period. Viriditas (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks like people are adding their names at the bottom of Wikipedia:HighBeam/Applications. Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I wonder why I couldn't find that page... Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Always very friendly

Is she now? [Bishonen bites Johnuniq shrewdly on the leg.] That's the first time I got a notification that my name had been mentioned! Useful! Bishonen | talk 23:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC).

I thought that might come back to bite me ... ouch!. Isn't it great wondering where the [edit] link is this time? Another day, another giant leap for the encyclopedia.

Thanks for your message particularly as it is my first on the new system. LOL, people with Javascript enabled have no idea how stupid that tiny little notification is for we paranoids who does not want server script running unnecessarily on their computer. All I see is a blue "Johnuniq (1)" instead of a blue "Johnuniq (0)". Johnuniq (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I found something for the edit link on User:Drmies' talkpage of all places: Add to Special:Mypage/common.css the following: span.mw-editsection { float:right; } (credit to Writ Keeper). friendly bishonen | get bitten here 10:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC). P.S. I meant, credit to Writ Keeper!

Ooooh, this will be fun. How long before ANI gets complaints that User:Cuddly is creating long lists of links to user pages, which is a violation of WP:UP because it irritates those notified ('tis not a violation, 'tis so, ...). I might try the css tweak, thanks, but I hope the expensive WMF editor-engagement team doesn't learn about the subversion. Johnuniq (talk) 10:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

HighBeam Metrics Redux

Hi John! I am hearing great things from people about their HighBeam usage. I was hoping you could run another metrics report on total links, just like you did before. This is a huge help to convincing HighBeam that their donations are having an impact and being used. Please let me know if you can do this and if there's anything you need from me. You've been a huge help so far, so thank you. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. I haven't looked at external links since then, so it will take a bit thinking to work out what needs to be done. I won't be able to do any extra thinking for a week, but I have started downloading the external link dumps. The good news is that it looks like I will be able to get each month after July 2012 (the last set that I processed). The current download (August 2012) claims it will finish in 3.5 hours...OMG. Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much. You rock!! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 23:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Convert adj=pre

One more thing to support. adj=pre -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• 49 underwater acres (200,000 m²)
• 49 underwater acres (200,000 m²)

Good timing. I am currently working through extra options like that, and am just about to implement disp=preunit, and had not yet noticed adj=pre. BTW you might like to create Template:Convert/track/disp/preunit (see the lead of New York University Archives where that red-linked template occurs).

I have created a 3MB text file with the wikitext from the convert FAQ and all check and all talk archives. I'm grepping that for unusual options I need to implement—quite a lot!

There are some interesting inconsistencies like the rounding in:

{{convert|1200|m|ft}} → 1,200 metres (3,900 ft)

{{convert|-1200|m|ft}} → −1,200 metres (−3,900 ft)

{{convert/sandboxlua|1200|m|ft}} → 1,200 metres (3,900 ft)

{{convert/sandboxlua|-1200|m|ft}} → −1,200 metres (−3,900 ft)

Things like that mean there will always be lots of minor differences between the module and the template. I am making tests that I run from a file on my local computer, but eventually I'll put some of them on a testcases page like you suggested some time ago on your talk.

Another thing that you might look at, re your suggestion to look at Template:Convert/track. When I paste a copy of the HTML from that page into my editor, I see that there are four left-to-right marks (U+200E), and the wikitext for the page contains one such mark. Johnuniq (talk) 01:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I've removed those marks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

When I had a quick look over the tracking options, the only other one that I noticed was not yet done was the table option. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Rejecting the insinuation

Hi, just as an FYI.... you seem to suggest I EW'd at EW and then tagged to express dissent. Next time we cross paths, please take a bit of time to AGF and look for contravening evidence first, before passing judgment. It's just possible that I tagged to generate discussion for the right reasons, and that you failed the AGF test yourself. If tags are not allowed at policy pages, then the programmers should just turn off that functionality. Or there should be a bubble at the edit window or something. Anyway, I reject your interpretation that I EW'd then tagged to express dissent.

Cheers - and for clarity, no followup action is being requested here. Just ask that you AGF when you see me again. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. My comment was placed as a reply to yours but was intended to be generic. My feeling is that {{dubious}} tags are for occasional use in articles, and are not helpful at established policies like Wikipedia:Edit warring. Johnuniq (talk) 09:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)