"==John Preston (clergyman)== 
 The problem with drive-by linking such as you did here is that 2 out of 3 of the links are to disambiguation pages. I've fixed them. That said, the end result is that 2 out of 3 now point to an appropriate article, and t'other is a redlink.    

 :Well, you say ""problem"". I do linking, and I do ""avoid dab"" - look at my edit just before coming here. On balance I can't see that that's a problem. It's a division of labour, and that is fairly characteristic of the way the site works.    

 == Disambiguation == 

 Hi. Just a reminder of the thread at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Consistency issue. I think all the editors there are willing-to-be-convinced; we just need some specific and representative examples to keep the discussion focused. I suggested the long blue (disambiguation), but anything long should be suitable. 

 Thanks.     

 :Hmmm ... I'm thinking ""a second blue link must serve an important interpretative function for the sentence fragment itself, and one that is not served by the first"", as my version.    

 ::Could you respond at the thread itself? Just replying to me on your own talkpage won't further the discussion!  

 ::If you could edit a long disambiguation page (such as Mercury (the example currently used in the guideline), or Blue (disambiguation)) into the style that you would recommend (with a diff link showing the changes), that would probably be the most clear&efficient; way to communicate your thoughts to everyone. Thanks.     

 :::Intending to, but suddenly there has been a lot else to discuss.    
 ::::No problem, I noticed that ) We're not disappearing anywhere, and as you said, a full debate over the matter could be very useful. I'll just bump the thread, if it gets close to being archived.     

 == Questions == 

 I've left a question or two for you .    

 :Some deletions now have gone on, on that page. You did write there: Sorry, FT2, this block was not at all transparent. I did ask Charles to comment, but he is apparently off wiki for a time. I am not accepting your pro forma answer as to how he found this. I'd like him to say how he found out about this incident, because that may shed light on why this block happened. There simply isn't good evidence here to show outing, or a pattern of harassment. The evidence should be placed before the block, so as not to leave people guessing. Please don't wheel war over this, folks. Take it to WP:AN and discuss the matter to achieve consensus.  

 :I was offwiki at 1 am UK time, yes. Where is the issue of ""transparency"" in WP:HARASS, by the way? The wording on ""attempted outing"" is quite clear and unequivocal. There is no required process at all, and I don't know why you think WP:AN has jurisdiction over the matter, over and above individual admin discretion. I'm aware of two previous incidents where  has used off-wiki identity information ""casually"" in debates. We were already discussing Mathsci's disruptive conduct relative to other incidents, on the ArbCom list, when I became aware of this event. While we didn't want to act disproportionately before, it seems clear that Mathsci is clueless when it comes to exactly those matters the harassment policy addresses. The block was not disproportionate to the history, and the idea that it must be lifted within hours without giving me any chance to put a fuller case is a ludicrous example of wheel-warring.    

 ::  You are aware that I had the technical ability to unblock Mathsci, but I chose not to do so, and instead asked you for explanations.  I have been trying to help Mathsci be a better editor.  If you have evidence of a pattern of abuse, that would be of great interest to me, because I am not keen to spend my time helping thos