User talk:JMF/Archives/2020/August

Minor admin help needed

I opened an informal RFC at talk:Multiplication sign#Proposed replacement lead section: it seems clear that the (charitable) conclusion is "no consensus". Would an admin or "uninvolved editor" apply {{discussion top}} and {{discussion bottom}} (after #Discussion), please. I want to introduce a new proposal and it seems better to just tidy the first one away and start again. Thank you for your time. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

John Maynard Friedman, I closed it, as you request. It seems that the box on the side got a little malformed. Could you try to fix that? Thanks, Sam-2727 (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sam-2727:, thank you for actioning this request. I shouldn't worry about the infobox (it was part of the proposal): everybody involved in the discussion understands its function and won't be bothered by the slightly odd positioning of the closure notice. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

John Maynard Friedman, understood. If no one complains, then it isn't a problem I suppose. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The limits of WP:NOTGUIDE

Hi.

You objected to my edit to Circumflex#Typing the circumflex accent as a violation of WP:NOTGUIDE. The boundary between what is and is not acceptable under this standard are pretty fuzzy, but I do think my edit was in conformity, certainly as much as the major paragraph of this section, which details the use of Alt Gr to produce the circumflex. According to WP:NOTGUIDE:

Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not.

You did not delete discussion in this section that does use the imperative mood: "... for systems with a 'compose' function, use compose^w, etc." My edit did not. I do think that Alt deserves equal time with Alt Gr and compose.

A more stringent enforcement of WP:NOTGUIDE would require complete deletion of the Typing the circumflex accent section. Also Acute accent#Microsoft Windows would have to be eliminated (it uses the imperative mood four times) as well as sections on other diacritics. The entire article Unicode input would have to be deleted. Do you really advocate this?

Peter Brown (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Peter M. Brown:, hi Peter: yes, it is a fine line we tread. Yes, the whole section teeters on the edge of NOTGUIDE. I felt you that you had tipped the balance such that someone might well argue convincingly that the whole section should be deleted. My reason to say so is that in essence you describe the generic method in Windows to enter a Unicode code-point: the only difference from Unicode input is that you have given the value of the particular value of that code point in this case. There is a defensible case to have this kind of information if a 'not well known' Windows code-page Alt code is involved.

I accept and concede to your argument that Alt deserves equal treatment with AltGr and other 'dead key' methods. If you want to reinstate, I won't object. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Daxit

Do you know the solution for this text? "This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. (July 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)" It is on "Danish withdrawal from the European Union" page. The start about this topic is on the Denmark Wikipedia page https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansk_tilbagetr%C3%A6kning_fra_EU . Wname1 (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Wname1: I questioned the basis for tagging the article at Talk:Danish withdrawal from the European Union#Suggestions and sources since it was made without stating the issue. Hebsen has replied giving their reasons for the tag. These seem valid to me and the article definitely needs to be improved accordingly. I don't know why they failed to give this statement of the issue first and give their suggestions for improvement afterwards. I will fix. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I was in discussion with a person (from Australia) who works on an University of Applied Sciences for English language in Germany and said that this is correct "The Danish withdrawal from the European Union" instead/without "The". How is your opinion? Wname1 (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Wname1: depending on context, either might be correct but equally, either could be wrong. In almost all contexts, English nouns need a "the" or an "an" but proper nouns (like Denmark, Angela) almost never do. In this case, the noun concerned is "withdrawal", and so it needs a "the". That is not changed by the adjective, "Danish". However... (there is always a however), if you are beginning a sentence like "Danish withdrawal" then you don't need a "the" unless you are comparing two kinds of withdrawal". Phew!--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

After discussion with 2 British and 2 USA English language experts that "The" don't be used for this artikle: Danish withdrawal from the European Union. So, I keep it like it is. This page was today deleted: "Dansk tilbagetrækning fra Europæiske Union" by User https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruger:EPO. Do you know where I can find the last version of "Dansk tilbagetrækning fra Europæiske Union" page some in Wikipedia? Wname1 (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Wname1: yes, my "however..." get-out clause. No, I don't know how to recover deleted articles, try archive.org or archive.is? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Didn't find anything there archive.org or archive.is. But I has own versions of "Dansk tilbagetrækning fra Europæiske Union" which I can start with this article. Wname1 (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Wname1: before you do a lot of work, it would be a good idea to find out why it was deleted. If the reason is any or all of WP:ADVOCACY, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE or even WP:NOTNOTABLE, there is every chance that your work at en.wiki will be for nothing if it is proposed for deletion for the same reason. It would be a good idea to ask editors like Hebsen for advice because I have no expertise on the topic. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

mein-geld-medien.de

User:power~enwiki want to cancel https://www.mein-geld-medien.de/allgemein/danexit-koennte-dem-brexit-folgen/ or it wants cancel/delete all page about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_withdrawal_from_the_European_Union? I do not understand this User, what I have to do? It is on my page, down written on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wname1. Wname1 (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Wname1: no, all that that they are saying is that you created a new template, {{Date= 13 April 2016}}, which contains nothing but that URL, and that they are about to delete the template unless you give a (very) convincing reason to keep it. Did you really intend to create such a template? I strongly suspect that you did not, that it was just created by mistake. If (when!) they delete it, it will have no affect on any article or the citation, so there is nothing to worry about. [But the big problem with that link is that the article is not dated. Readers should not have to guess from "A survey in Denmark on the question of whether Denmark should follow the example of Great Britain and leave the European Union, provided the British actually decide on a Brexit on June 23, surprisingly led to a statistical stalemate." (Google Translate version) that it was written before 23 June 2016]. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

In Reply To Your Message On My Talk Page

John,

I do not know the codes used here on Wikipedia. I also do not wish to learn the codes. I will continue to point out mistakes and such in the Talk Pages of articles, as I have been doing. Those who are better qualified for making changes, due to their working knowledge of the codes, can then make appropriate changes to articles.

Thibeinn (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

John,

I do say, "never". My interest is to read and learn, as well as to point out anything I happen to notice is not quite right with the hope someone else will rectify it. =)

Thibeinn (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Kaaba revert

Thanks for catching that John, it was a mistake—sticky fingers while scrolling my watchlist on the mobile... and I did not even realize I made it. Al Ameer (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Answer to your remark on Eurabia

As I didn't see a "reply" possibility on my talk page I react here, instead of creating a new item on my own. I have not edited the main page of Eurabia, because I don't have enough sources. That is why I made a suggestion at talk with some indications of source hoping someone with more time and resources would act on it. Instead, you remove my suggestion with the argument it is not sourced. I don't see how this fits with the objectives of a talk page, so I strongly suggest you put it back. Then I wonder why you didn't remove This article is utter shit.

Apart from that most of the suggestions that some issue is a conspiracy theory is not very well sourced either. When a source-author is not explicitly stating he is suggesting or proofing a conspiracy theory, suggestions that it is one should contain proof in itself. There are two problems (1) The facts stated in the alleged theory are not true. (2) The facts are true but the cause is misrepresented. For any unbiased observer one can see that in (Western) Europe the policies stated regarding the Arab World are effective for decades. These policies are not a conspiracy. They started shortly after the oil-crises and as a strategy and there is no conspiracy theory necessary to understand these policies. Although the Strasbourg Resolution of 1975 can't be properly sourced by searching the net, this does not mean it isn't there. There are a lot of texts from that period that can't be found easily. The organization that issued it can be sourced as existing in 1975. The organization and the document itself can't be seen as a conspiracy. The goal was to promote certain policies and in that way they succeeded.

Antivaxxers, 9/11-CIA are without doubt conspiracy theories. Eurabia is not, it is a proper comprehensive term for an actual policy. I see quite some accusations of "conspiracy theory" going around on the net these days. Mostly from the "modern" (inclusive, identity politics) left against the "polulist" right. It seems more and more a strategy for disqualifying political opinions. I hope Wikipedia will stay far from this.Victor50 (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Victor50: (see {{reply to}} for ways to reply). There are many reliable sources in the article that show that the concept is an invented one, not founded on any objective analysis. No credible evidence has ever been found (or is every likely to be found) for the "policy" that you claim exists.

It is the reliable sources say that is a conspiracy theory, not Wikipedia. For sure there are unreliable sources that, in the classic method of pseudoscience, seek out factoids that support their pet theory and ignore any inconvenient evidence to the contrary. Real science searches for evidence that will disprove a theory and, if it survives such repeated assaults, becomes accepted.

I have no doubt that you can find unfounded assertions from the past (and present!) that support these fantasies. The article documents them and, if you can find the Strasbourg Resolution or the organisation that created, it could certainly be included as an example of how this belief had gained credence (the fact that you can't find it suggests that it has been laughed out of existence – if it had any merit it would cited widely). You can certainly use the talk page to raise questions about sourcing. What you cannot do is use the talk page as a political platform - see WP:SOAPBOX. That was the key difference between what you wrote and the "utter shit" tantrum. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: I won't check "It is the reliable sources say that is a conspiracy theory" as over the past ten years or so I encountered enough instances that in political sensitive areas sources, and especially concerning Islam and antisemitism sources turn out to be biased at the least. And your reaction shows no NPOV at all. In the mean time I was attended to https://archive.org/details/Eurabia2Juillet1975 and found the main person responsible: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucien_Bitterlin. So I think it is time to rewrite the entire article. Victor50 (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Keypress

I don't agree that Alt+2 47, in Unicode input, is an improvement over Alt+247. The newer version seems to suggest that one releases Alt before typing 47. If that's not suggested, the reader is still left wondering how the space between 2 and 4 signifies a difference between the successive depression of these two keys and the successive depression of 4 and 7.

Peter Brown (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Peter M. Brown: is it not the case that the user should press Alt and 2 together, release, then 4 then 7? (and not "hold Alt down while pressing 2 4 7 in turn"). So there is a difference between "the successive depression of these two keys and the successive depression of 4 and 7". The nbsp is intended to convey that release. NB that it is only an 'optical' pause, not space bar. I raised this issue at template talk:keypress a few months ago. How best can we inform readers unfamiliar with our conventions without getting bogged down in detail at every turn? If it really offends you, then revert. We have far more serious issues to resolve with that article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not offended. On my system, pressing Alt and 2 together, releasing both, then pressing 4 then 7 yields ☻47. To get a ≈, I do have to hold Alt down while pressing 2 4 7 in turn. Your version of Windows apparently acts differently, and you mean the space to indicate that both the Alt key and the 2 should be released.

The relevant difference between versions needs to be addressed in the article so that folks will have some idea what is meant. I am running Windows 10 Version 2004 (OS Build 19041.450) © 2020 Microsoft Corporation. Yours must differ. Is there a reader-intelligible way of putting the difference? If not, we need to say, "in some versions of Windows ... though in others ... ".

Peter Brown (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Peter M. Brown: I meant if it offends your eye, not you personally.

Honesty time: I don't use the code page form of Alt+ because everything I need is provided by UK-extended and AltGr. I am clearly not helping here and will now back off. Your description of what happens means that my nbsp is just wrong and not mere decoration.(But your example illustrates the point I was trying to make about {{key press}}: what is the correct way to record (a) hold Alt, press 2, release both, tap 4, tap 7; (b) hold Alt, tap 2, tap 4, tap 7, release Alt; (c) hold Alt, hold 2, hold 4, hold 7, release all. If the user has to consult the template doc to understand the article, we have a problem).

Now that you remind me, I invented the nbsp technique for dead keys, for example AltGr+# ⇧ Shift+a, to make clear that there are two distinct chords to be played in sequence. Maybe doesn't describe the Alt mechanism so well. --John Maynard Friedman (talk)

Wootton Brook

Hi John many thanks for your advice on my talk page, think I really do need to study the user tutorial. In the mean time I would like you to look at my article on Wootton Brook, which was done from scratch really,the initial article being incorrect. The two anonymous posts are mine too, so the whole article is mine. I now need to put in the links, when I learn how to. Having lived in this area for some years the knowledge printed is all mine. Your opinion is welcome. Tel.w — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tel.w (talk • contribs) 09:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tel.w: As you probably saw, I had a look at the article. There really wasn't a lot wrong with it, as you should be able to see from the changes I made (use the View History tab then Compare Versions). I rephrased the sentence about the two sources because there is a point where I get lost in the commas, but that's just me – other people would have left it alone. The other thing I changed is from "A to B" to "A – B" because they are two-way routes. You might think "Northampton to Milton Keynes", I think "Milton Keynes to Northampton" so we split the difference by using an n-dash. To do this, use the template {{ndash}} or better still {{snd}} (because that version is clever: it makes sure that a line never ends with a space and the dash going first on the new line, which can be confusing). If you want anything explaining, drop me a note.

I have left a few {{clarify}} and {{which}} tags where I didn't know what you meant. There is also a red link, which probably should be made to link to a section in another article? When those are fixed, I think that article is done and dusted, good job! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)