Removed Ceiling Fan - Set of Lights Not Working

Did the fan come on with the same switch as all the lights ? If so, connect white/white, black/black, green/green.

If not, need more info.

Try connecting black to black , white to white , and bare copper to bare copper .

OOPs, bare to bare , not green

And if it's a metal box, run a wire from where the two bare copper are joined to the metal box and secure it under a ground screw.

And hope that the black wires aren't on different breakers.

Just about everyone has said you should try connecting the same colored wires, which should extend the circuit to the non-working fixture.

What no-one has asked is whether or not the blacks, whites and bares (grounds) are

If you are going to try connecting them, make sure the breaker is off and then test them with a meter or probe to be sure that everything is dead.

I use one like this:

Did you write down, or make a drawing, of how all the wires were connected, before you removed the fan?

You'll do that next time, won't you?

Your age is showing. Think cell phone camera.

Some cut.

Why aren't you speaking directly to the OP?

Why respond to him in the middle of my response?

Now I'm showing up in posts that I have nothing to do with. (See dean's response to you)

LOL, I did think of that just as I pushed enter.

But photos aren't always enough, especially when there's a tangle of wires and something are hidden behind other things. He should take photos and make notes.

BTW I didn't follow my own advice on my roof fan. I'd replaced the motor more than once before without a problem, but this time I just wasn't sure whiih wire went where (because of connections to the thermostat) and the fan seemed to go on even though I had turned it off outside of the attic. Then I needed the ladder downstairs and I can't seem to hear if it's on or off. I used to be able to hear the difference. So i don't know if the fan is running all the time or never, or only when it's hot up there. But I have some faith that I did it right. I'll find out more when the summer cools off and I have the ladder back upstairs.

I am. My text is right after his text.

Because your post is what attracted my attention so that's the one I replied to. And I didn't do anything wrong.

So what? That happens all the time.

I just looked at it again. I don't see what the problem is.

Let's recap...

You've been around a long time. You know that when you want to respond to something that someone says in a post, you respond to them directly, not through some random post that the OP might not even read. Maybe the OP hates me. Maybe he doesn't read my posts or any responses to my posts, because how would he know that someone is directing the response to *him*?

If I want to know what someone has to say to me directly, I look for direct responses to my posts. The way threads drift around here, I may not care to read what someone says to someone other than me, so there's a good chance that I might miss the fine suggestion that you tried to make to me if you bury in a response to someone else.

You see them, but you have never responded to the troll by going through my post. If you responded to the post, you responded to what *I* said or by telling *me* what you thought of the troll's comment.

You have never responded *directly* to the troll by going through one of my posts.

You may have noticed that you're the primary offender. If others are doing it, I haven't noticed. I called you out just a day or two ago for doing the same to one of my posts.

It's poor etiquette.

Oh, I see what you meant by directly. You mean directly directly. :-)

You seem to think that's a rule. I don't think so.

How do you know what I know? I certainly don't know it. I don't even believe it.

If he doesn't read the whole thread, he doesn't see what I wrote. That's just the way it goes.

This OP was an infrequent poster with a real home-repair question. Maybe

HOW ARE THE CONSEQUENCES TO "B" DIFFERENT when C replies to B who has replied to A, and D comes along and replies to C (not A but C) but B's attribution line and the text of his reply is still there? People do that all the time. Aren't you in the shoes of B on occasions having nothing to do with me?

Why are the consequences to you in this thread any worse than those times? Why does this thread have any significant difference from those times, where you have not complained at all? ---- ----

If I knew he hated you, and I thought of that, I probably wouldn't have posted as I did. There are a few people here I filter out, and if anyone tries to reply to me through them, I don't see it. That's just the way it goes. I don't think Paul hates anyone here, but if I'm wrong, so be it.

He wouldn't know until he read the post. Given the back-and-forth discussion people here tend to have when giving repair advice, I see no reason for him to be less likely to read a post in reply to you than one directly to him. If I were arguing against or for something you said to him, he'd want to read that.

So you're not worried yourself but about the OP not seeing my post? Let him and me worry about that.

Yes, there is one attribution line that spans two lines that has nothing to do with the interchanges among Dean, me, and the OP. I understand all that. But I don't see what the problem is, in Dean's post or mine before it.

Unless others do something annoying, I don't keep track of who posts in what way. I don't think "offender" is the right word.

And what about the example I just gave Marilyn, "C replies to B who has replied to A, and D comes along and replies to C (not A but C) but B's attribution line and the text of his reply is still there[.] People do that all the time " Aren't the results the same?

I'm sorry to hear you didn't like one of my posts. I don't remember seeing your objection. Do you know what the thread's subject was?

I've never heard that before. And I dont' think it would be a good rule. See my second reply to Marilyn for details.

Such a rule is not mentioned in these posts about netiquette:

A few years ago, I complained when I had crossposted to 2 or 3 groups, one or two people would reply and delete all but one group. That leads to several problems, including 1) that unless I notice it and put the group back, then my reply doesn't go to another group I thought would be valuable in the discussion, and especially 2) that if I'm not reading all the groups, I don't even know about the reply or the replies to it. And I was sure and am sure I'd read that it was not proper to delete groups, but among those reading that thread, I didn't get much support, if any. So I stopped complaining about that, even though I still think it's wrong.

As you have said to others in the past, my non-response to what you've posted above in no way indicates my agreement. It merely means that I'm not going to waste my energy trying to convince you that you should have replied to the OP's post, not mine.

I'll stick with that word. I see that you said above that it happens all the time, but it actually happens rarely so it's not a big problem. Given that MM brought it up just a couple of days after I brought it up, I thought I'd add my voice to his.

First, people don't do that all the time, thankfully. Second, don't you agree that it's somewhat rude and therefore annoying? I feel like discussing it is making it into a bigger issue than it is, but at the same time you're saying you didn't even know that it was a problem so maybe this is worth it.

This: (If you have Agent configured correctly, you can just double click on the Message-ID and Agent will open that post in a new window.)

Subject: Re: A potential risk for mass vacc >In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 20 Aug 2021 01:11:12 -0500, Jim Joyce > snipped-for-privacy@none.invalid wrote: >

Hi micky. It's a bit jarring to have you use one of my posts to reply to someone else. In this case, I guess you're replying to Fretwell. Why not reply to him directly?

I don't think it's a rule, or at least not a written rule that I've seen. It's just poor etiquette, or poor manners if you prefer, to reply to someone via someone else's post. The actual post that you're replying to is usually just a couple of clicks away, depending on your newsreader. Since you use Agent, it's usually just one click away.

Crossposting versus multiposting is another issue, but it's completely unrelated to this.

The problem is that replying to what someone else said in person A's post makes it confusing and can make it look to others like person A said what is being replied to, instead of the actual poster.