User talk:JMF/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Disappearance of Leah Croucher

Could really use your help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Disappearance_of_Leah_Croucher was refused. [1] wanted to check this was correct considering the thousand of other missing people pages on here. Sorry to bother you but as you are local... Fishplater (talk) 11:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Annoying I agree but the reasons given for refusal are valid, sorry. WP:other stuff exists means that you can't cite the other articles, all you can do is submit them to wp:articles for deletion. Compare Leah's case to that of Rachel Manning: her case wouldn't have qualified on its own merits until Rough Justice found that the wrong people had been convicted and maybe that would have made it notable.[2] Even then, I would not expect an article called Disappearance of Rachel Manning to be accepted as a standalone article, but only as a redirect to a section on the Rough Justice article - where any significant coverage would be deleted as wp:UNDUE given the number of cases that they have covered.
I suppose a short section could be added to Furzton? but it couldn't be much more that the lead of your draft, sorry. TBH, it is more likely to be seen by 'outsiders' there than as a standalone article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Disappearance_of_Leah_Croucher
  2. ^ 'We proved Barri White and Keith Hyatt were innocent'

Template talk:Dates for Easter

Hello, John Maynard Friedman! I noticed that you blanked Template talk:Dates for Easter after it was created as vandalism. In the future, please nominate pages that were created as vandalism for speedy deletion instead of blanking them. They can be deleted under criterion G3. (You can add {{db-g3}} to the top of the page to do this.) Thanks! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tol: ok, will do. I've never seen a case like this before. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Sounds great! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for your attention. 589q (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Fiat money

You can do better than your recent participation at that page. No personal disparagement and more careful reading of others' edits and summaries would be a start. SPECIFICO talk 15:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

There was no "personal disparagement". I said that your action to revert the addition of mostly credible citations as wp:UNDUE "seems petulant" given that two of citations appear to be valid. Since when has it been undue to satisfy a {{citation needed}} request? On the contrary, to accuse me of a wp:NPA violation without foundation is itself provocative.
I have given a more complete analysis at talk:Fiat money#Inflation and any further discussion belongs there. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Reserve currency list

Sorry, but the source says Sterling is fourth! Please look at it again - yes, it's listed fifth in the list, but look further at the actual amounts - it's fourth. 2.30.207.13 (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, the source, immediate below the table, actually explains the listing is NOT done by the amounts held in reserve, but by IMF basket and alphabetical order... 2.30.207.13 (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@2.30.207.13: Yes, you are correct. My mistake. Why the IMF has persuaded itself to design its list so as to put CNY apparently in third rather than fifth is one for the sinologists to explain. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox currency sign/variant

Template:Infobox currency sign/variant has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 11:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your opinions at my thread Rlink2 (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

For real?

This is textbook original research, you can't look at statistics on worker productivity and conclude that a region is economically successful, you need a source saying so. There were so many ways in which you could have reverted the addition of the tag but you chose to call my edit "disruptive"? 15 (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@15: Thank you for actually explaining your edit. I completely failed to understand why you had put a tag in the middle of the sentence when there is a citation at the end of it. If you had used {{fv}}, I might have had a better clue and gone back to the source. Will do so tomorrow. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you and apologies for the slightly over the top message. I suppose I should have done that or used the |reason parameter. The tag was at the end of the first half sentence because the rest of the sentence was sourced, but I accept that it can be confusing. Sorry again! Best, 15 (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Fleuron (typography) vs. Aldus leaf

Hi John

You have just reverted my bold move of fleuron (typography) to aldus leaf before I had the time to adjust the articles. No harm done, all in good intention!

I completely agree with you that an aldus leaf is just one example of a fleuron. However, the infobox and the links to the article – especially its use on Template:Navbox punctuation – only show the aldus leaf, which creates the impression that the aldus leaf is called “fleuron”, which it is not.

My intention was to move the article, then remove the fleuron parts, then a new fleuron (typography) page that includes the fleuron information. And also change Template:Navbox punctuation and the interwiki links, which was what originally brought this all to my attention, because this page links to de:Fleuronné instead of de:Aldusblatt.

Does this need more discussion (then we better continue on the article talk) or shall I go ahead? --mach 🙈🙉🙊 11:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@J. 'mach' wust:, no harm done. The article talk page would be best as others may wish to be involved (unlikely as it may seem!). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi again!

Hi!

I hope you are doing something you deem worthwhile!

But! If you lack tasks to take on, it would be great to continue to work with you on the article Critique of political economy.

Kind regards,

Pauloroboto (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pauloroboto:, I was happy to get you started on the article and to help with the formatting issues. But I have no expertise on the topic so really can't contribute usefully beyond that mechanistic level to a debate about the content. You might get a more helpful response at the Wikiprojects given at the top of the article talk page? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand, however, a certain user feels that the page is in bad shape, so even if you don't have any particular expertise in regards to the issue you might be able to contribute with formatting again. I've checked with several wikiprojects but I'm afraid that scholars and readers of specialist magazines doesn't seem very involved with editing wikipedia.

However, in any case, thank you for the edits that you made!

Pauloroboto (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

U̲n̲d̲e̲r̲l̲i̲n̲i̲n̲g in edit summaries.

I note that you have surrounded a word in an edit summary with underscores here to emphasize it. I use U+0332 ̲ COMBINING LOW LINE for the purpose, having automated the procedure using Autohotkey as described here; I grant that, if you don't have a facility like Autohotkey, the procedure would be too tiresome.

While I have your attention: you might be interested in my debate here, with Spitzak, remembering a prior discussion we had on alt codes.

Peter Brown (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Peter M. Brown: Thanks, I must have had a sense of humour failure. I _never_ do that :-D
I'll have a look at the alt code thing but don't expect to be able throw much light on the subject. Someone at Microsoft must have been having a bad hair day in thinking that Windows code pages would be the solution to OEM code pages but I guess it must have made sense at the time. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Talk:College of Policing‎

Thanks for commenting. I notice that the poster has now gone 3RR on the article. I'm not going to revert, but I think I did the right thing (with my very first revert today) by trying to get him/her to engage on the talk page. Perhaps you can pick it up from here as he/she is clearly not listening. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

He's at it again - re-adding the exact same text without consensus. 10mmsocket (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
@10mmsocket: your turn to open a new R4PP. It is alway more convincing if different voices request it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Actually after the latest outbursts I went straight to [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Telanian7790 uncivil behaviour. Feel free to add your US$0.02 10mmsocket (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
You could end up with a wp:boomerang, so you really need to be seen to be using the article talk page to tease out the content dispute in good faith. I haven't read the source in detail and tbh don't want to spend the time on it, I spend too much time on WP as it is. My initial impression was that the news report is ambiguous. Is the editor trying to clarify it by interpreting the judge's ruling, in a wp:SYNTH vio or WP:OR vio? Can you move beyond the present Punch and Judy exchange of assertions? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for adjusting my addition to the Simpson Village page, you've improved it. I appreciate the help as a novice user::--CujoJnr (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@CujoJnr: I had already started working to refresh the MK parishes citations, starting at Stony and working may way across and down, so a little deviation into Simpson was no harm – indeed it identified an item that I had failed to spot elsewhere. I hope you could see the point of each change, feel free to ask if any not immediately obvious.
It all looks good to me - I must admit I do have inside knowledge of Simpson, as I grew up there ::--CujoJnr (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Your edits were reasonable, we all had to start somewhere. Nobody (well, almost nobody) begins by swotting up the WP:Manual of Style. Of course you started the hard way by editing a biography article, which is real baptism of fire stuff. It might be wise for you to read WP:Biography of living persons (aka WP:BLP), which points out the more obvious pitfalls. Again, welcome! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I'm discovering that! people are getting very heated on the Talk page::--CujoJnr (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Hakenkreuz article?

I tried writing a hakenkreuz article. I felt that this might help with avoiding all of the onslaught of comments received on the swastika article. Curious as to your thoughts. It was declined from being published, but I feel it could be re-written a bit and re-submitted maybe? I really think that we ought to consider two separate articles. Though hakenkreuz will be naturally much briefer because of the much briefer history that it has than anything on the swastika. Here was what I threw together: Draft:Hakenkreuz (Hooked Cross) ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 15:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Th78blue:, to be honest, I'm not surprised it was declined. See WP:FORK and WP:ADVOCACY. Hakencreuz is only notable because it is the German word for swastika. It really only makes sense in that context, it is really not meaningful without it. The section you wrote in Swastika already does the job: I can't see enough content for a WP:split. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Hakenkreuz I believe is the correct (German) spelling, and since it is a borrowed word from German, that is how I spell it. Thank you for your comments. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 21:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, a simple typo. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hi John Maynard Friedman! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Is there a html doctor in the house?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.


See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Block book

You think the "second half of the 15th century" is "medieval"? Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Late medieval? Per Medieval: In the history of Europe, the Middle Ages or medieval period lasted approximately from the 5th to the late 15th centuries. The definition seems to be rather fluid but in any event I should not have used it of Japan. I will rephrase unless you get there first.
While I have your attention, maybe you might have an opinion to add to talk:Artist-in-residence#"Feminist Art Residency" and "Family Art Residency": Discussion but I won't be surprised if you ignore it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Well, printmaking is not a medieval activity, and a clear local sign that the period has ended there. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not going to defend 'medieval' but do you really consider that "early western" is better? How early is early? Would I be right to envisage it as a successor to the Book of hours (which is described as "Type of Christian devotional book, popular in the Middle Ages"). How about Alternative to the first typeset books, using woodcut blocks? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Well, early in the history of European printing, and Western to distinguish them from the much older East Asian traditions. Blockbooks were more downmarket than books of hours (which continued during this period, both as MS and printed books), mostly rather short basic devotional & sometimes educational works. It has been suggested many were sold to parish priests who used them to teach in their parishes. Not many survive, as they probably fell apart from use. Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Ok, conceded. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Gibraltar

I have added the cite you requested with a {{cn}}, it was rather easy to find a citation with a fairly simple google search. May I ask why you didn't do this yourself instead of slapping a tag on it? WCMemail 20:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: pushed for time. The original figure was inane, an estimate in billions but precise to 12p. It just looked like someone was having a laugh. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


Short Desc on Redirect Pages

Hi! I'm @IAmChaos:. I noticed that on the page Britannia (1675 atlas), you added a shortdescription. While you are allowed to add these to redirect pages, I wanted to remind you that they should be placed UNDER the first line of the redirect like such: 

#REDIRECT [[Target]]
{{Short description|Your text here}}

You can see how putting the description above breaks the redirect in this Diff.Please see Wikipedia:Short description#Short descriptions on redirect pages if you have any more questions. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 23:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Radians

The wiki on radians should have some comment about the confusion that can arise by making angular measure dimensionless. At a minimum, a reference to Mohr and Phillips should be added. I have tried to do that but it has got removed (see edit history of Radian Wiki). Can you help with this? It is not a "Fringe Theory." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunkerpr (talk • contribs) 13:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Bunkerpr: See wp:Canvassing. I have a watch on that article and, had I had anything useful to contribute, would already have done so. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

A beer for you!

I didn't see anyone give you some wikilove in your recent TP history. So I decided to. Cheers! ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 19:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Archiving notice

I appreciate that you are adding archives to talk pages after they get a bit long. However, you need to be careful when setting them up. When you set the |archive= parameter, it should end /Archive %(counter)d, not %(counter)d, or else the bot interprets it as a completely different page and therefore marking it as Category:Pages where archive parameter is not a subpage. Dont worry, I've fixed the 2 cases where its happened (1, 2). Just keep this in mind for the future. Thanks! Aidan9382 (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Question

You reverted an edit (by me) on "Acute accent" & your reasoning was it drifted into Irish "etymology" but it was clarifying the term for an acute accent in Irish (no correlation with Irish etymology), I don’t see how it wasn’t constructive. 78.16.141.72 (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

First, etymology was probably the wrong word, maybe philology would be closer? I am not a linguist so don't have the correct terms. Anyway, the first part of your edit was good because it gave the name of the accent as used to signify a long vowel in Irish and English. The problem with the second part was that you went on to describe the term used when writing in Irish about the accent. That is a step too far: if we have it for Irish then why not Greek, German, Armenian, Swahili, Hindi etc – we have to draw the line somewhere as this is en.wikipedia. On the other hand, your edit would have been entirely appropriate for ga.wikipedia. But it is a judgement call and my call is based on 'custom and practice' as applied in other articles. If you are not satisfied then I suggest you raise the question at talk:acute accent. It may be that the consensus will favour your position.
By the way, may I encourage you to create a Wikipedia account? There is no requirement that you do so but it does make life easier. See Wikipedia:Why create an account? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Economics article

Hello JMF. We seem to have some edit-warring on the Economics page. I'm not sure how best to deal with it, since the page is rather infrequently edited and there are not very many watchers. Would you mind having a look? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I haven't dissected the process of how the article got to where it is now, but I would struggle to take issue with it as it stands. The additions don't seem unreasonable. I would maybe find a better home for the last sentence of the lead as it it is a bit motherhood and apple-pie, but that's about it. Maybe it would be wise to walk away for 24 hours and then try to look at it as a whole with fresh eyes. Perhaps it will be more effective to correct rather than revert.
NB as I've said before, I have no academic training in economics. I have just a desire to understand how the real economy works, the effect it has on real people, and whether we can ever identify the next tsunami before it arrives.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Fred Roche - Runcorn Shopping City

Just a quick note on your edit to the Fred Roche article. Megastructure is a technical term rather than grandeur.

Worth checking out the Wikipedia article on megastructure: "Megastructures are also an architectural concept popularized in the 1960s where a city could be encased in a single building, or a relatively small number of buildings interconnected... In 1968, Ralph Wilcoxen defined a megastructure as any structural framework into which rooms, houses, or other small buildings can later be installed, uninstalled, and replaced; and which is capable of "unlimited" extension."

However, it doesn't lose anything to take the term out so it doesn't matter. Just thought you may be interested :) Dgp4004 (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Well I never! That'll teach me to jump to conclusions. I had in mind an Arcology, or at least The Shard. I'm happy to be corrected. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Offensiveness of word Niggard(ly)

pls do not VANDALIZE the talk page again. my contribution was right on point, and posed a legitimate question.

thank you.

EDIT: i reworded it slightly to make it a bit clearer. sorry, forgot to mention that!

btw, your talk page balked at the word "niggard" as a heading the first time i tried. saying it was offensive or w/e.

seems ok now tho. i corrected it for clarity.

cheers 2601:19C:527F:A680:4DB4:D125:F981:AEAD (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Squash

never heard this used for "quash" before, but a lot of dictionaries seem to accept it! so thank u for teaching me a new (primarily british?) term. :)

love the ID, btw. i (a yank) was indeed confused over "milton keynes" in my early years.... 2601:19C:527F:A680:4DB4:D125:F981:AEAD (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Eskimo Artist: Kenojuak

Regarding your edit a few months ago to Eskimo Artist: Kenojuak, changing its date from 1964 to 1963: you have to be cautious about using the NFB's own primary source website as sourcing for an NFB film's release date. They tend to list films by the year the NFB was working on them internally without regard to whether or not the film had actually been screened in a public context yet, but Wikipedia goes by the actual public premiere date rather than the production date — and that film's first verifiable public screening was in 1964. So when it comes to NFB films, other sources talking about the film in the context of public screenings trump the NFB's website for what year a film does or doesn't belong to, because NFB lists its films by production year while we list films by release year. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@Bearcat: I'm sure you are correct but I see from my edit note that I gave as source for 1963 the National Film Board of Canada, so it wasn't a primary source. But I didn't do a proper citation [raps knuckles] so I'm in the dog-house either way. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Issues I've been having

Could we chat about how I can become a better contributor and editor? I had.... issues.... today... with someone... and I don't know how I can even begin building consensus. I am a novice I admit, but I have a lot of motivation. Are there any tips you can give me? I feel like I'm burning out. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@TheCurrencyGuy: Yes, I saw that and was saddened to see it get to you. You came through a tough time of it with OGS but maybe a head-on collision is easier to deal with than a side-swipe. I hope you were encouraged by the good wishes at your talk page.
I'm no-one to criticize [I blame lock-down, it kept me sane] but I think you are giving too much of your time to Wikipedia. It is too easy to lose perspective on what is really important and it can overwhelm. Instant reaction generally makes things worse: do something else until you can be dispassionate again.
Recognise that if you want to WP:BEBOLD (as you should), others may revert. Your bold edit is made in good faith but so is their reversion. Open a BRD discussion at the talk page. And accept that sometimes the consensus will be "wrong" and you have to accept it.
For some people, to attempt to change basic tenets that they have grow up with and regard as self-evidently correct, is going to generate a push-back. You must anticipate that response and respond to it by accepting that it is genuine and seek to move on from it by persuasion, not by reassertion. But in some cases you just won't succeed and you have to accept that too.
Right now, I suggest you take a complete break from Wikipedia for a few weeks. When you come back, ration yourself to a very few hours a day. Especially limit the number of articles where you are correcting an "everybody knows" foundational concept. Start creating new articles or developing stub articles. This will give you a much better feeling of accomplishment – provided you accept that others will come along and change it. Even if you have created it, done hours of searching for citations, you still don't WP:OWN it. Can you widen your interest beyond currency?
Finally, your situation is far from unique. Unfortunately it happens to quite a few new editors who start off keen but get discouraged. Even some very experienced and respected editors I know have ended up with 90-day or longer suspensions for losing their temper and to this day are banned from editing on certain topics or from interacting with specific other editors. You have avoided that, though you have been close at times (xref the "yellow cards" I left you).
I hope that this is helpful. Fair or not, it is given in good faith. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips.
Reckon we're any closer to a consensus on the GBP template? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Patience is required. As Stepho wrote " Just remember that it is better to find a good solution than to find a quick solution. " which in practice means waiting to see if anyone else wants to contribute. Most people don't spend as much time on Wikipedia as you do as often as you do: a month from when you first raised it is not unusual or excessive. Nobody has raised a counter argument yet, so I would be cautiously optimistic. But I advise strongly that you don't apply the changes, wait for Stepho do it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@TheCurrencyGuy: I see you have opened multiple RFCs. Did you take on board anything of what I wrote above? Choose your battles, fight on one front at a time, as Sun Tzu might have said but probably didn't. You are heading for a massive burn-out. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I get carried away a bit sometimes. Let's just see how it goes. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Protocol

Last night you updated my changes to Assembly election section of the Northern Ireland Protocol article, for the better in my opinion. However there is only one line dedicated to the DUP's refusal to nominate a DFM, and not mention of Paul Given's resignation 2 months before the election or the refusal to vote for a speaker after the election. In my opinion there should be an entire section detailing the Stormont shutdown. Do you agree? ApatheticName (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@ApatheticName:, even as it is I felt that we would risk drifting off-topic, but maybe that is because the section is headed "2022 Assembly election". So what about turning it on its head, following the model of the NIP Bill article with a section called "Reaction"? Do you want to have a go? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh wait, we already have Northern Ireland Protocol#Political reaction to implementation so maybe the problem you perceive only arises because the section on the Assembly elections should be move to become a subsection of this section, rather than stand alone? I can't get a proper overview on mobile, can you do it? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@ApatheticName: This discussion should really take place at talk: Northern Ireland Protocol. Would you cut'n'paste it over there please, as other editors may want to contribute. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

TCG's edits

There's a whole bunch of coins that should be reverted back but I'm going to wait for the RfC to be closed.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Lest silence signify assent and per WP:STATUSQUO, I will revert in any case. Those edits are contrary to consensus. That there is an RFC in progress is a further reason why they should not have been made. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Prime meridian

Why undo my change? 240D:1E:B:D300:F992:C7F1:F69:EE27 (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

because it is just your opinion. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
So can you change the meridian so that it coincide with the universal motion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240D:1E:B:D300:F992:C7F1:F69:EE27 (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
You don't know this UTC and the weird time zones are recording our birth and deaths based on the Prime meridian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240D:1E:B:D300:F992:C7F1:F69:EE27 (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Your opinion (or mine, for that matter) is of no importance. Find an authoritative source [not an astrologer] who has written in these terms and it can go in the article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
You may find the evidence at the nearest hospital for you where people die. Or do I have to die in order to show the evidence to you? 240D:1E:B:D300:1F21:A288:A979:5BE5 (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
So here is how we should move the prime meridian according to equinoxes, solstices (cyan) and new moon (magenta) https://guadua.github.io/earthclock.html 240D:1E:B:D300:1F21:A288:A979:5BE5 (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
sorry, magenta is my prime meridian, yellow is the lunar meridian 240D:1E:B:D300:1F21:A288:A979:5BE5 (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
This is how we can rigorously count our year, months from our birth and death, without using leap year, but we have to construct 86400 meridians on the equator if we continue to use the 86400 division, well, this is good because it coincides with our heart beat (Heinrich Rudolf Hertz), and the distance of sound travel! 240D:1E:B:D300:1F21:A288:A979:5BE5 (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
The problem is I want to publish this idea where the journal is based on this calendar! 240D:1E:B:D300:1F21:A288:A979:5BE5 (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Then you have come to the wrong place. Wikipedia does not publish original research. This is a fundamental principle so there is no point in your continuing to argue for it. If you add it, it will be deleted. Try blogspot. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.
By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source.
You can just cite https://guadua.github.io/earthclock.html
You say it does not "exist"? 240D:1E:B:D300:1F21:A288:A979:5BE5 (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
GitHub is not a WP: reliable source. If you wish to pursue this argument, please raise it at the Wikipedia:Teahouse because I will not respond again. Feel free to cite this discussion in your post. Goodbye and good luck. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Egyptian pound

Since both users are sitting in time out for the next two days, I recommend reverting the article back to whatever state it was in before the shit hit the fan. If, after their block is lifted, they resume the edit-warring – and you know they will – they will likely be banned permanently from being able to edit that article. Bgsu98 (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately I would have to recuse myself since I was one of the editors that contributed to some of the recent changes, so I am not a neutral bystander. I tried to enumerate the few points of difference: in all honesty, I don't think that there are more than two or three that are genuine differences of principle rather than of style. The article (as it was) had stability but not accuracy, so I have difficulty with the "status quo ante" solution. One editor seems to be refusing as a matter of principle to any changes whatever and the other is utterly convinced that the original version is seriously wrong and that his version is absolutely correct. I have no idea how this can be resolved amicably. I have cautioned TCG a number of times [see his talk page] about pushing his luck: frankly I expect a topic ban at the very least and that consequently he will leave the project since this topic (currency) appears to be the only topic of interest to him. Which would be a pity because he knows his sources – but is a complete stranger to "appropriate for this context" and "other perspectives are also valid". So in the final analysis, a collaborative project like Wikipedia may just be the wrong environment for him.
I have stopped watching the article. I'm afraid I just don't care about the subject enough to invest the energy. Maybe someone at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics might accept the burden? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
As I’ve had no involvement in this article, I reverted it back to what appeared to be the last stable version before all Hell broke loose. I think involved editors knowledgeable about the subject can work from there rather than sort through the absolute rubble that was left behind. 😒 Bgsu98 (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Advice on WP:BRD

You've previously given some good advice on the above topic.

I would welcome you views about recent edits here: 45 Years

Thank you. Tomintoul (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Tomintoul: Thank you for the compliment, I'm happy to help.
Sorry but without looking too deeply into the ins and outs of it but my broad impression is that N-HH is correct. Your bold edit was reverted per BRD, there was some discussion but no evidence of consensus having emerged before you reinstated your version, which N-HH continues to challenge. Their argument seems convincing, that you have cherry-picked from Mark Kermode's review. So you would need a second, preferably more explicit, source to support your assessment. In the meantime, per WP:OR, your text can't go in the article. Sorry if that is not what you had hoped to hear. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
It was the other way around, I think. An edit was made on 28 July by another editor, which I reverted on 30 July, then the mini edit-wars started. Anyway, thanks very much for your help and advice, which is much appreciated. I will let it drop as the point is covered in the Kermode review, as you highlight.Tomintoul (talk) 12:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
As I said, I didn't look too deeply into the background, so my apologies if I misunderstood. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
@Tomintoul: I see a bold edit by Jabota gisum (talk · contribs), then four reverts - two each by yourself and Jabota gisum - but no indication of discussion. Indeed, Talk:45 Years hasn't been touched in over six years. There is no BRD here, but it's approaching WP:EW, even if spread over several days. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Redrose64. That's exactly why I asked for advice from you both. The commentary was in the edit notes:
Me: Reversed unexplained deletion
Jabota: bad purple phrasing
Me: Please take discussion to Talk page as per WP:BR
Jabota: there's nothing to discuss, this isn't how you write a plot summary, end of
What action do you recommend?
Thanks. Tomintoul (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
That is not a discussion, it is a list of edit summaries taken out of context. Discussions about articles happen on article talk pages. In this case it should be at Talk:45 Years, not in edit summaries. It should definitely not occur either here or at my talk page where the relevance is absolutely zero because neither JMF nor myself have ever been involved in that article. If you need to request outside input, leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film inviting people to discuss at Talk:45 Years. Templates such as {{FYI|pointer=y}} and {{subst:Please see}} are available for this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Protocol

I started a discussion at the talk page: Talk:Northern Ireland Protocol#Link to Republic of Ireland United Kingdom border in response to your revert. Jd2718 (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

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 TheCurrencyGuy. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Postpositive adjectives

Hi John Maynard Friedman. I noticed this. Postpositive adjectives aren't as unusual in English as you may think. I'm not sure we would want or need to get into labelling every instance of it. Thanks for caring about details like this though! John (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@John:, I agree (and am somewhat amazed that anyone else cares about the grammatical nicety). The reason to mention it at pound sterling is (as you may see in the talk page history) that there was a dispute over the exact nature of the term (and whether the currency is (a) pound (b) sterling or (c) pound sterling [indivisibly]. I don't intend to do it elsewhere, so I won't tempt myself to see if trade union has been pluralised correctly. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Married...

an art historian, and thus find myself at art history pages, occasionally, where I do not purport to define reliability of article scope or content. Rather, with an academics eye, I look to hold us to our policies and guidelines, in particular, that all non-"sky is blue" content be sourced, that we do not do scholarly translations or other original scholarly work on our own (and self-publish here), and that leads summarise the reliable, sourced content within their articles. It is in this capacity that we may intersect at Vitruvian Man. Per the reading of the art history scholar in our family, my annotations do not begin to really address the depth of issues there. (She advised deleting the whole, and replacing it with one succinct and wholly correct paragraph.) Knowing that an overly bold edit would not stand, I chose instead to note the very major flaws present, and some of the specific examples of the issues therein. I hope these will be of use to you and others dedicated to the ultimate quality of this article. Cheers. A former prof, married to an expert. 2601:246:C700:14C:25DD:3422:6A23:A9ED (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this remark, and welcome to Wikipedia. Because the article has been the target of crack-pot ideas "that nobody else in the world but me has managed to identify in 500 years", yes it is true that a substantial bold edit directly to the article by a new editor would probably receive short shrift. But certainly you would be most welcome to propose a draft at talk:Vitruvian Man. If it is properly supported by citation (and better still, you can say in which respects the current text is deficient), then it will certainly be taken seriously. Wikipedia is the work of volunteers, only a few of whom are subject experts so such people are strongly welcomed.
May I invite you to register for an account? See "Why create an account?". You need not (and probably should not) use your real name. It will make participation in the project so much more easy. Again, welcome. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
But, to judge from your edits thus far, you need not worry about getting short shrift! So thank you and again, do please consider getting an account. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

City of Milton Keynes

As I have mentioned here [1] it looks like MK Council has finally renamed itself to MK City Council. Any thoughts on how to proceed? Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

HMP Woodhill

You are quite right about that; I have been doing so many that I didn't look properly. Sorry and regards. The joy of all things (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips

Hi John Maynard Friedman,

I would like to thank you for giving me tips. This will help me become a better Wikipedia editor.

Many thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Swastika images

I went back over the article just now and removed a few more select images. I think it looks good now, and I tested it on my computer as well as my mobile device. As with anything, it may not be perfect ever really, but it is "good enough" for now I would say. TY. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 01:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

"When writing an edit summary, is there a way to stop the enter key generating a "Publish"?"

I swear there is since for me it requires me to press Shift + Enter in order to publish an edit. I'm looking through all of my preferences and userscripts to see if there is something that makes it "Shift + Enter" instead of just "Enter". ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I can assure you from bitter experience that touching the enter key [when you meant to do a backspace] will certainly do a publish (and indeed one contributor to the Teahouse discussion affirmed that this is exactly how it is supposed to work – and does so all over the web).
I prefer to explicitly "publish and bedamn'd". 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Well what confuses me is that it's Shift + Enter for me and I don't know what setting I have that makes it like that. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

EPSON UK metropolitan areas

Surely you can't include the link to the London metropolitan area either then if you want to remove the Birmingham metropolitan area link by those definitions? I think there is value in having the Birmingham metro area link on the list, despite EPSON having specific definitions, as it offers the reader opportunity to further look into it. It is still the Birmingham metropolitan area Wikipedia page at the end of the day, a valid reason for there to be a link to it on the table Barlow95 (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@Barlow95:, that is a valid argument, but I reach a different conclusion. So I have moved this discussion over to ESPON metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom#ESPON UK metropolitan areas to seek other opinions and hopefully consensus. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Hate

Tbilisi has never administered Abkhassia or South Ossetia, which have not been under the control of Tbilisi since the 13th century. I did not even say a single thing about law, only reality. 62.249.129.140 (talk) 11:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

ISO 4217 - halfway done

I have been preparing ISO 4217 changes to the infobox. But they are halfway done, so I did not post on the talkpage yet. I may be offline for some days, it will have to wait. However, you can take a look if you like. Changes under way:

  1. I found the ISO 4217 Standard publication! See ISO 4217 (Q37431) (4 URLs) (or at my desktop). So at last we have the definitions. If you like, you can form those 4 files into a {{Cite web}} source/ref (one or four?), at least to be used in main ISO 4217. Or I'll do so next week.
  2. There will be a simple check on "ISO-code exists?" + new ISO maintenance categorisation.
  3. In the Infobox, we can automate ISOcode-to-number because that's defined. Formatting: add number to code data row. See tests.
  4. Also, the "exponent" is defined and can be automated. I've simplified that into a decimal number: "exponent 3" shows as: "Minor unit 0.001".
  5. I have used some flags in code, using underscore (_3_ etc). You can try {{Infobox currency/sandbox}} in an article, without saving (ie Preview only).
  6. Qestions already open: Exponent 2 means 0.01 ok. But what does "exponent=0" mean? Is the minor unit "1"??? Also, why does the USD (yes that one) not have an exponent? No cent calcualtions allowed?

Enjoy. DePiep (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@DePiep:, have a good break.
  1. Ok, I'll at least have a go.
  2. Yes, I noticed.
  3. I assume you mean "derive number from code" since the codes are widely known, the numbers barely at all.
  4. That makes sense. (Minor unit name is given separately, I believe?)
  5. Unless and until you document the flags, I'll leave that firmly alone.
  6. Mathematically yes but it is not a true exponent, so no. If exponent=0 is given, flag a warning and treat as "not given" (aka, line skipped).
I don't understand your question about the USD? I can see
| iso_code = USD
| iso_number = 840
| iso_exponent = 2
so it does have an exponent (2). But it appears to be incorrect, though? Surely it should be 3? If ISO says that 2 is correct, then the "Mil" should be tagged as "obsolete" (which it is anyway).
"See" you next week. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
USD has no exponent in the ISO defintion table List One! (see URL). SIX are a bit sloppy. eg, abbr for ECU is written "(E.C.U)", missing a dot. Later on I will raise make a sourced statement on this. And travel to Switserland to visit their office. Fix The Dot!
Next project: in {{Infobox currency/overview}}, connect QID-ISOcode-enwikiArticle (triangular Identifiers). Its, well, complicated. DePiep (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
@DePiep:, ok, that makes more sense. My bet is that the Americans couldn't decide because de jure it is probably still 3 but de facto it is 2. So ISO said "let us know when you have decided, we'll just leave it blank for now". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Two dots (diacritic)

Hello
Regarding this, I have to say you have more patience than me. Frankly I couldn’t see what the problem was, and thought that repeatedly asking the same question when the answer was there on the page was a bit pointy. I haven’t met DP before, so I can only gauge his/her comments by what is there. But if I have failed to assume good faith I apologize (and have told DP so, here). Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Wikipedia:No personal attacks has been violated by your edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_integration&diff=1119302437&oldid=1103676978 92.224.214.174 (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

That laughable allegation doesn't merit a response, as anyone who wasted their time to look at it can see. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Euro integration

Hi there! Unfortunately, the disruptions at European integration continue- now by an IP, who seems to be pushing a non-constructive agenda. Any thoughts of what to do? Archives908 (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Archives908: if they persist and don't engage productively at the talk page, you can do a wp:request for page protection against IP editing. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! The IP user has been blocked for a week. Let's see what happens. I appreciate your assistance in trying to establish some normalcy/stability in that article. :) Cheers, Archives908 (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
@Archives908: We shall see but as they have been hopping between IP addresses, which is why I suggested RfPP. Also, they know far too much about WP to be someone random: I suspect that it is a banned editor. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. I'll be keeping an eye on it. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Checking in

Did the request here get handled? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing:, no, I don't think so. I thought that you had already declined to accept that element when you wrote this diff? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't sure which sources she was talking about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing:, at least you understood the question, which is more than I did. You could try leaving a message at her TP, though it may take a long time for her to answer. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
She asked "Can someone take these from my word document and insert them into wiki?" I don't have the MS Word doc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I transferred it all to her sandbox. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
In that case, we've already got the most important parts.
Thanks for your help with this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing, the "prospective studies" material is at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dr_Margaret_Ashwell/sandbox&oldid=1115774583 in the section "Public health tool". The strike-out is mine. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

East West Rail

No, I haven't misunderstood anything. What you and your clique discuss in private cannot be considered a consensus. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#East West Rail now the East West Main Line is not "in private". It's right here on this wiki, which is as public as it gets. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
It is private if it isn't announced on the talk page, which it wasn't. Not everyone wants to be in a clique.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
The edit history is even more public: ‎Mattdaviesfsic moved page East West Main Line to East West Rail over redirect: Undiscussed move - per comments made at WP:UKRAIL. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

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 User:Kitchen Knife. Thank you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you may have mistaken me for the other user with a similar name on keyboard layout

You undid their edit and commented on my talk page. Algertc (talk) 10:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Algertc:, yes, my mistake misreading across the line to an adjacent row. I have reverted my change to your talk page with apologies. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Shortened Footnotes

I've found this very useful: Help:Shortened footnotes. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

My archives

from 2022, I have resumed using user:Lowercase sigmabot III (née User:MiszaBot)

Red means no archive that month.

from 2022, I have resumed using user:Lowercase sigmabot III (née User:MiszaBot)

Major Junctions

Hi John, how are you? I was wondering if you could do me a favour - could you please sort out the junctions at A15 road (England), A18 road (England) and A19 road (England)? With the A15 and A19, I have sorted out the junctions to make them only primary roads and motorways, but there are still about 16-22 roads left. With the A18, there are no major junctions at all, I was going to start adding but then, like you did a month or so ago, decided lunch is much more important. Also, I don't know what roads to add, unless I have a look at SABRE, but then I obviously don't want a fourth visit to WP:ANI since July, for something they have clearly told me not to do. Thanks for your help :-), Roads4117 (talk) 12:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Roads4117:, I'm not a good person to ask, since I have no interest in roads in general and only pay attention to the ones nearby. Someone at the wikiproject wrote that they zoomed out on some map (the OS 1:250000 regional is defensible and is accessible via streetmap.co.uk) and looked at which roads were still displayed. Try that? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
OK then, thanks. Roads4117 (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi John Maynard Friedman, how are you? I was wondering if you were interested in doing something for me. Last week you said that you only edit road articles in and around where you live in Milton Keynes. So I was wondering if you would mind, to chop down the amount of major junctions on A5. I was chatting to Imzadi1979 on Wednesday and they said that ten is the absolute maximum for an infobox. Some good examples of these (which Imzadi did to show me) can be found at A2 and A4. I would be grateful if you could do this for me, although no pressure, and if you don't fancy doing this, then I will do it in the new year. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
@Roads4117: done. Streetmap.co.uk at 1:1,000,000 is your friend. At least I think that it the scale. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for that! Roads4117 (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Talk pages

Hi JMF, how are you? I was wondering if you could check some talk pages for me, and give me your honest opinion about it - I would much appreciate it. They are:

If you could, then please reply on the talk pages. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy christmas!

Rlink2 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas!

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Rlink2 (talk) 04:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 January 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, John Maynard Friedman!

Happy New Year!

John Maynard Friedman,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Abishe (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy new year JMF. Can't believe it's 2023 already!! Roads4117 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the inspiration

Comments like "this is not your personal article, it is not for you to decide what it should or should not say"] and remarks like "Kent Dominic seems to believe that he (I think we may safely assume it is "he") WP:OWNS this article" inspired me to post this edit. Carry on. Cheers. Kent Dominic·(talk) 16:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Preposition argument

Re: [2], I think it would have been more productive to just ask for a third opinion on whether "between" or "by" is better. It's possible "between" sounds bad here to some people because there are more than two entities potentially involved. Personally threatening the other editor with getting in trouble as if trying to improve the grammar of this article is a reportable offense does not resolve the dispute and only makes them less likely to cooperate with you in the future. The edit summary you describe as "block capitals rant" was 1.) probably a negative reaction to the attempted assertion of dominance "please stop fiddling" (which was unnecessary and just made cooperation less likely) and 2.) used all-caps on some words to demonstrate common usage that is generally considered incorrect, which goes to the substance of your edit summary. It seems the dispute is more or less settled, so no action is necessary at this point, but I hope future editing can be more cooperative. -- Beland (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I did not make any threats. I observed that this pattern of edit-warring is not likely to have a good end.
This was just the latest in a series of edits that did not improve the article. Their first attempt was unadulterated prolix, as others have agreed. This has been followed by a string of pettifogging tweaks that others have revised. I don't understand the "attempted assertion of dominance": the "I am right and you are wrong" has all come from this editor. Cooperative editing implies using the talk page to tease out issues, not combative edit summaries and immediate counter-reverts.
After the last nonsense, I stopped watching that article. It doesn't register on the scale of articles in need of attention. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Diffs and paragraph breaks

Hi. Could I have some advice? Here, in the summary of an edit to the Devil article, I advised against inserting paragraph breaks and changing text following the break in the same edit; this robs 'diff 's of part of their point. At User talk:Peter M . Brown§Paragraph break, Thinker78 asked for an example, and I have provided one. But Thinker78 and I are two of only 668 watchers of the Devil article. Is there some way that my point could be more widely disseminated and also that I could suggest to the software folks that diffs could be made more responsive to this kind of change? Peter Brown (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Peter M. Brown:, the only idea I have is Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Good luck with getting the WMF developers to do anything about it though as because obviously the highest priority on the bug backlog was to make Wikipedia look pretty on their 100 cm (39 in) desktop displays. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:AGF...

... applies also to those not currently active in a conversation, last I heard. – .Raven  .talk 05:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@.Raven: I see no conversation. What I see is a running school playground squabble between you two, spilling over into articles I watch. Meanwhile, the policy is WP:BRD, not DRB. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
The problem has been the practice of BRRD:(1) the Bold move is made; (2) it's Reverted to status quo ante, showing opposition to the move; (3) instead of then Discussing, the original mover Re-reverts to his preferred version, leaving it to the original reverter to either join in the move-war just started or else (4) Discuss at a page move request on the talkpage... the latter being the option I chose, on multiple articles kwami had moved & re-reverted despite WP:RMUM. kwami has repeatedly complained about my creating those requests, even on WT:NCWS and WP:ANI, as though I, not kwami, had violated procedure.
On edits similarly, especially when they're challenged, one is supposed to have WP:RS citations in support. I've cited mine; for the other side, kwami asserts having RSs but they're rarely actually shown; on Alchemical symbols it turned out to be a call kwami supposedly made to Unicode, obviously not something that can be verified through a link. But on that basis kwami reverted my edits, removing both my article body text and my citations, something else done repeatedly across multiple articles.
These stunts make it a great deal more work than it should be to build an encyclopedia. Having bystanders "both-sides", or worse, blame the target for the disruption, doesn't help. – .Raven  .talk 10:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
If you have the diffs that show a pattern of disruptive behaviour (not a content dispute), take it to WP:ANI. Meanwhile, don't disrupt other articles with pre-emptive strikes. Please read WP:DISRUPTION. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I did not consider that comments on a talkpage disrupt the article. Opposing a page move would normally be done on its talk page after a page move request is posted... but in this case a frequent page-mover (who doesn't post RtMs or other discussions beforehand or even after opposing reversions) had elsewhere declared what looked like (eventual) intent, Where was more appropriate to file opposition? And when? After the move again? At which point, from experience, opposition would be ignored and the move defended as the status quo? What's the best option here?
As for ANI, there's a long thread there already, started by kwami. – .Raven  .talk 21:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
This discussion is now closed: I will not respond further. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Donatello

You're too trusting, I'm afraid, Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Johnbod: As I suspected. But given our current policy on IP editing, WP:AGF applies to all edits unless blatant. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 February 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 March 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 March 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 May 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 May 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 April 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 June 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk: A46 road

Hi JMF, how are you? I was just wondering when do you think we should raise it at WT:WPH? I know that you aren't going to work there anymore, because it is out of your comfort zone, but am just wondering. Roads4117 (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Roads4117: Up to you. It will be more effective if you go with a proposal for debate rather than an open question. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the info - tbh, now I think it's fine, so probably won't need one. Roads4117 (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Milton Keynes: name origin + potential vandalism

Hi JMF, hope you're keeping well! I've of course noticed the last few changes / reversions in Milton Keynes re: the origin of the name. I remember you'd said previously on my talk page that vandalism on the article is less common than previously, and so I just wondered: how often do you tend to see this kind of 'rogue' edits occurring on the MK page?

A skim of the history seems to suggest that the 'rogue' edits either relate to the origin of the name, statements like "MK is a dump" or just nonsense - is this an accurate description of them in general?

I ask out of curiosity more than anything, slowly finding my feet here! TwoRaindrops (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Not a lot, tbh. Peaks are correlated with the fortunes of MK Dons. All articles get a constant background hum of infantile nonsense. The bigger annoyance is introduction of deliberate errors because we need to take time to identify them and decide whether it was malicious or an honest mistake (see WP:assume good faith). It just takes time to check for "weeds" so the more gardeners we have the better! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm with you - totally makes sense! Just one of those things I suppose that comes with the territory of being a place anyone can edit, but things seem pretty robust around here. Now, where did I put those gardening gloves... TwoRaindrops (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Backbench MP's on the Windsor Framework

Hello JMF,

I would love for you to see my adds to the Talk:Windsor Framework page, where I discuss the importance of the backbench rebellion of Tory MPs because it represents the divisiveness of the legislation and of the continuing Brexit disagreements within the Conservative party. Hayatayab (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Here comes the bear!

Just wanted to say your response gave me a good chuckle. :) Happy Friday! DonIago (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

New message from NotReallySoroka

Hello, JMF. You have new messages at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard.
Message added 03:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Not·Really·Soroka 03:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC at Talk:Ruble. Thank you. Not·Really·Soroka 04:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I am referring to you with the "a very high quality RS" quote there. Not·Really·Soroka 04:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Tips for more fun

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill: stages in Parliament. – Kaihsu (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kaihsu: maybe it is another manic plan that will get kicked into the long grass or at least so eviscerated that it will be "repeal in name only". For this reason. I certainly won't rush to write anything about it, at least before the fog of war clears. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Seems you’re right! https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/09/tories-in-retreat-from-brexit-bill-to-scrap-thousands-of-eu-laws Kaihsu (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
There is now an article on the Bill. To be fair, tidying up “supremacy” is valid if one follows the logic, but otherwise a (too) radical move. – Kaihsu (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

15-minute city criticism

Greetings. WP:BALANCE is achieved by citing reliable, secondary and tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. Op-eds such as "The '15-Minute City' Isn't Made for Disabled Bodies" are primary sources for statements of opinion, and shouldn't be cited for general, factual statements. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf:, ok, I accept that is how it must be. But it imposes a duty on us to search for secondary sources that capture the OpEd writer's concerns. "More affordable dwellings are needed" just states the obvious without actually showing how it is going to happen. One obvious way is to make cities more polycentric: more neighborhoods that have their own essential services. History of Milton Keynes#Milton Keynes Development Corporation: designing a city for 250,000 people is the principle I have in mind. I just need an RS to say so. And to explain how to retrofit it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)ple
I believe you are putting the cart before the horse. You or I may think the op-ed writer's concerns are significant; but writing an encyclopedic summary means we reflect the views represented in the most reliable sources above all. For an academic topic, that generally means peer-reviewed and other scholarly sources. If a viewpoint is not represented in high-level sources, that's probably a sign that it shouldn't be given much attention in the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
@Sangdeboeuf:, I disagree. At present, we have a single source which (to my reading at least) understates real concerns and the article is poorer as a result. We can't assert that we have reflected most reliable sources when we have only one. To put it another way: if I, as a one who favours the FMC principle, is not comfortable with the extent to which we have reflected informed opinion, we do our readers a disservice. We leave the field to the conspiracy theorists, evidence cherry pickers, pseudo-scientists. This does not mean that we should search for studies that are fundamentally opposed (see climate change denialism) but rather that we need more material on the challenges of retrofitting the concept onto modern settlements, especially in the USA. "Let more dwellings be built" is rather Marie Antoinette. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Then the thing to do is find more secondary and tertiary sources that comment on the informed opinions of experts, per WP:NPOV. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I share your concern about accurately informing readers of challenges associated with the concept. But just as you or I might have our interpretation of what counts as "informed opinion", so do the "conspiracy theorists, evidence cherry pickers, [and] pseudo-scientists". That's why WP relies on published, secondary and tertiary sources rather than Wikipedians' own interpretations of primary sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
@Sangdeboeuf: I am not, of course, arguing against Wikipedia's fundamental sourcing principles. Nor (for that reason) am I arguing for the Bloomberg OpEd article to be used as a citation. My concern is that the article as it stands doesn't reflect adequately the lived experience of people outside the traditional urban core. Of course we can't rectify that deficiency by inserting our own original research or by citing inadequate or unreliable sources. What I am saying is that we need to keep looking for quality sources that we can cite. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The European Spaces map

"but that is a terrible map. Just start with the colour for EEA: it implies that the EU is not in the EEA!". I created the map from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:European_Spaces.png. There it had a bit of text under the EEA title saying "all EU member states are part of the EEA".


I disagree that this map implies the EU is not in the EEA. It says as the legend "EEA member state outside the EU", implying the the EU is in the EEA, which is the case. In addition, there is the same full EEA map at the bottom left of the map, as there is currently on Federalisation of the European Union.


"The situation is far too complex to express in a single map.". You're right. However, this map is a combination of, and indeed includes (as stated above) those four maps (and also elements of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:European_Union_and_its_neighbours.svg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Border_controls_at_internal_and_external_Schengen_borders.svg for addition information).


No map can describe the whole situation, but this one describes the situation described by those four maps, and I think it does a good job of it.


But if you disagree, we can keep the four separate maps. XA1dUXvugi (talk) 10:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

yes, I disagree. The four maps represent the irreducible minimum to avoid misleading readers. Yes, the "small print" clarifies that the EEA colour applies only to "EEA but not EU" but the whole point of a picture is to convey quickly, easily and clearly the essence of the topic. If it needs text to achieve that, it has failed: we have body text for that task. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Alright, I understand that. XA1dUXvugi (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of A508 road

Notice

The article A508 road has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not notable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For your prudent closure of the recent debate located at Talk:Ruble. NotReallySoroka (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
By convention, I do not give away barnstars for "current events" (e.g. ongoing discussions or RfAs); sorry if this seems sudden. NotReallySoroka (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Re: Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic

Please do not wage edit wars by asserting random IPs are banned editors to keep articles static, especially as you restored things that objectively do not belong in the article, like the word "airplane". 92.9.2.209 (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:DUCK: if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. Take it to WP:ANI and see how far that gets you. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Any day that two LTAs report themselves to ANI is a good one, saves the rest of us the time needed to write up a report.
Anyway, I need a few minutes to look at the history of the article since ruble vs rouble and ize vs -ise is mostly determined by which was used first for RETAIN purposes, and then I'll post a new, hopefully sock-free, section on the talk page there. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The Center Line: Fall 2023

The Center Line
Volume 10, Issue 1 • Fall 2023 • About the Newsletter

Features

• A New Future for Road Articles Online

—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi 1979 → on 19:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

A508 road rebuild

Hello JMF, how are you? I am currently in the process of adding content and citations on the A508 road page. If you would like to help me, or have any questions/comments/improvements etc, then please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, Roads4117 (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but as I've said before I'm not a roads fan. If there is something specific about the MK area you would like me to verify, then please ask but otherwise I can't afford it the time. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 July 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

History of the Alphabet

Please note the ERA originally selected for this article was BC/AD. 156.61.250.251 (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

(stalking) The first revision used BC/CE dates no that's not a typo, since it was mixed at start you'll need to see which version was naturally evolved to first, or if no stable style evolved, default to the style of the article it was split from. Once you've done an investigation start a discussion on the talk page. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
The original version used BC twice and CE once. The problem is that on 26 July 2005 the two BC references were changed to BCE on the ground of "consistency". On the ground of "consistency" the CE reference should have been changed to AD. There was no consensus sought. We need to discourage this behaviour, so that people will not try it on in future. Starting a discussion on the talk page about behaviour that is clearly wrong only encourages it. 156.61.250.251 (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Nevertheless we are now at the position that the article has used the BCE/CE notation for a very long time and is thus the "established style". To attempt to change it unilaterally is actually the behaviour that is clearly wrong. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Note I've started a proper discussion at Talk:History of the alphabet/Archives/ 1#Era style. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 11:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Emphasis in edit summaries

I note that, in this edit summary, you enclosed the word "very" in quotation marks by way of emphasis. As noted in Emphasis (typography) § Punctuation marks, this "clashes with the general understanding of how the marks are properly used".

Italics, of course, are unavailable in edit summaries. I generally use the combining low line (U+0332) but I’ve written an Autohotkey script for the purpose, without which that would be difficult to do. Another possibility would be to copy bold or otherwise distinctive letters from Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols § Latin letters; in your case that would be only four letters, which would not be hard. An even easier approach would be to use all caps. — Peter Brown (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Odd, I doubt that I have _ever_ used that markup before. I don't plan to use it /ever/ again! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Yep, back in the days of the text-only web (see JANET) we used paired non-alphanumeric characters - *bold*, /italic/ and _underline_ for emphasis. I still do that on my Samsung SGH-B130 mobile... --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Hah! You were lucky! I my day, we had just had slates what blew off t'school roof in t'gale and a thick ear for emphasis. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Runes

Discussion transferred to talk:Runes
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please note the ENGVAR originally selected for this article was ENGVAR-B. 156.61.250.251 (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

(stalking) At a spot check -our appears before -or, and -ize appears before -ise so engvar-c is most likely but a more thorough investigation would be needed to confirm so. Regardless you should start a discussion on the talk page. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
In this article, the ENGVAR was set when the word "mediaeval" was introduced on 24 August 2004. As there were no competing spellings, there is no need to open a talk page discussion. 156.61.250.251 (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
That is incorrect mediaeval is valid in several English varieties, and is also a minority usage in engvar-c and admittedly -ize is also a valid minority usage in commonwealth varieties, even if the only people who tend to use it went to Oxford. If this really matters to you, post an explanation of the article's natural evolution on Talk:Runes, and I'll look it over to see what's most likely, but I'd rather just leave it alone. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
In this case, we can resolve the imponderables. The edit in question was made from Zurich, Switzerland by a Zurich University academic named Dieter Bachman. Such people invariably study and express themselves in the Queen's English. If you think the editor was using Canadian English the onus is on you to prove it. All the evidence indicates he was not using American English, and you have not suggested he was, therefore there can be no objection to the removal of American spellings. 156.61.250.251 (talk) 08:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

No further discussion of this subject to happen here. The discussion has transferred to talk:Runes. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Letters with tilde

Template:Letters with tilde has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Your email

I note that you have previously sent me a Wikipedia email before my on-wiki renaming. Can I respond to that email? Silcox (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Silcox: yes, though I may not be able to respond promptly. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Abbreviating editors

Hallo JMF (ah, a nice compact editor name!) The editor on whose talk page you posted about pinging gets unusually upset when people abbreviate their 14-character name. I'll sit back and see if there's a reaction this time. (I also want editors to please stop using the DoB initials to address me because that's not my name on here. I refer to others by their names so please be kind and courteous to do so for me. DoB means Date of Birth. And I take huge offence to that initial as mine so please use my full name or don't mention it at all. from here.) PamD 08:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@PamD: Thanks, "I'll take that on advisement" [I've always wanted an excuse to use that phrase. Pretentious? Moi?]
Maybe it was jealousy of your snappy moniker that pushed me to get mine changed from John Maynard Friedman. I thought it was unfair on fellow editors to have to type out that mouthful. In talk pages, I abbreviate all longwinded usernames to their initials and it would be a bit pointed to discriminate. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
I ain't bothered anymore by DoB or DragonofBatley @JMF, seems @PamD was either looking for me to react to it or making a quip about something from ages ago that I forgotten about. No comment. DragonofBatley (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
@DragonofBatley Thanks, DoB, that's good news that it's now OK to type your name abbreviated (as I do for BHG and many other editors). I'd been avoiding abbreviating you since you asked us not to. "Dragon" is another nice short form I've seen used, too. PamD 19:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
No worries, PD. DragonofBatley (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

nuking

Thanks, I didn't see that coming./ The edit was still open from several days ago, I refreshed it and said publish. But I obviously didn't check again. MenkinAlRire 15:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

as I guessed 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello!

From your recent messages in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers and Template talk:Currency I see that you have an... er.. history... with a now-banned user. I am not condoning their behaviour (infact their seeming preference in favour of symbols and abbreviations is quite opposed to mine), however they do seem to have had a point about ISO currency codes: even if their preferred solution was extremely poor. I have no interest in currency notation myself: only where it intersects with conveying information on the types of articles I enjoy editing; and the current guidelines in the MOS seemed inconsistent. Judging from your edits you are very familiar with the world of symbology and coding; and I fear this may be stopping you seeing the wood for the trees. TCG liked using abbreviations and symbols, you like ISO codes; I do not think over-reliance on either is healthy for the website's formatting and ease of use by non-specialist people. 𝔖𝔱𝔬𝔩𝔦𝔱𝔷 (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Stolitz: No, that is a misreading of the situation. I have minimal interest in currencies per se, they just happen to be on the intersection of topics that interest me. I have no preference between ISO codes, abbreviations, symbols or currency names. What is important is which works best in context  – in fact I agree with you that the common name is generally to be preferred in running text. Petty nationalistic "ownership" annoys me, whether it is of symbols or names, so I suspect I circumvent such issues by using the three-letter ISO currency code or the two-letter ISO prefix – but it is because they are unique and thus uncontroversial. I got drawn into the currency topic through an interest in the symbols: perhaps it illustrates the point that it is only in the last two days that I even became aware of the templates {{currency}} and {{CNY}}.
TCG got himself banned due to his inability to work towards consensus or to accept consensus that was not his preferred outcome (and, interestingly, the last straws weren't even in the currency topic). I tried for months to work with him because he has a lot of useful knowledge but unfortunately no sense of wider perspective and the need to make material accessible to a general readership. The concept of WP:DUE/WP:UNDUE is "difficult" for him.
You may not be aware that there is a long history of resistance to extending the MOS. It is intended as guide to good writing, not a legal code. See Wikipedia:If MOS doesn't need a rule on something, then it needs to not have a rule on that thing. So any significant changes must be proposed first and the new text agreed fully. So you did the right thing first time when you proposed a text for discussion but wrong when you failed to propose a revised text. If you do so now, be prepared to have to iterate it again and again until agreement is achieved. It may never be achieved, of course, and then you have to accept that and do something else. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your concise response.
I will propose my revised text shortly. 𝔖𝔱𝔬𝔩𝔦𝔱𝔷 (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
And now I have no idea what's going on and I'm just confused.....
What am I supposed to do? 𝔖𝔱𝔬𝔩𝔦𝔱𝔷 (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Just slow down. There is no deadline. Give people a chance to catch up and comment. Don't react to the first response you get, maybe I'm in a minority of one. For example, the comment by SMcCandlish at Talk:Pound sterling was, I felt, particularly helpful (even if it probably qualifies him for honorary membership of the Enemies of the People – "Our Pound is Nothing Special", claims Editor of Wikipedia!!! ) . I told you to anticipate the need for multiple iterations before reaching consensus. (But I will drop any objection I raised on the basis of the Egyptian pound. I have no intention of re-entering that war zone!) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry... I just got a bit... flustered.
I do find SMcCandlish's comment curious: would they also advocate for EU€, RU₽, KZ₸, and KH៛?!
Also... that talk page.... my goodness... I'm not going anywhere near that. 𝔖𝔱𝔬𝔩𝔦𝔱𝔷 (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
I didn't advocate for EU€, or any other case that would be redundant. But GB£ (or UK£ if you prefer), like US$, is not redundant when comparing currencies, or in contexts that are not limited to (respectively) the UK or the US, because multiple currencies use the same symbols. Multiple currencies do not use the € symbol.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Ogilby

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John Ogilby you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Ogilby

The article John Ogilby you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John Ogilby for comments about the article, and Talk:John Ogilby/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 November 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 December 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JMF/Archive_4&oldid=1188284366"