Jump to content

User talk:JMF

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
History of Milton Keynes Milton Keynes Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 John Ogilby Robert Hooke

Thanks for helping

[edit]

I see that you are changing the UA to MKCC, like I did. Thanks for that. Also thank you for the revision on Buckinghamshire. FeistyRooster (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot to do, so thought I should help as it'll take a few days. Well spotted, don't know how we've missed it for so long.
I think you might look at the Bucks article again, to drop the "area" and just name the UAs. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have FeistyRooster (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hello JMF! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Notability of electoral divisions, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.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 KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 January 2025

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Gill

[edit]

I don't understand what you are trying to do with the images. The link to IMAGESZ is dead. But you have not just changed image sizes, but you have changed their positions so they no longer correspond to the relevant text. I am reverting your changes, but happy to discuss how this should best be organised Kognos (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kognos: Whoops,I should have written MOS:IMAGESZ (it's a Manual of Style thing). It says explicitly that we should not give the image size in pixels.
Alignment with text is practically impossible as well as pointless, because we have no idea what size screen the visitor is using. The layout will display on a wide desktop v a laptop v an even smaller tablet. See also MOS:IMAGELOC re other issues, such as 'goal-posts'. In general the best we can do is place the images in the appropriate section and let them cascade. On mobile, they don't even go alongside the text. If you have a big screen, check the effect on varying size of window to see what I mean.
WP:GALLERY is also relevant. The article does need its galleries, but they should be unobtrusive.
Can you revisit your reversions and see which you feel are really essential, please? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the revised link. I do look at the article on my phone as well as on my computer, and it generally looks OK, but I'll certainly check this out - will be mañana... Kognos (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point about fixed pixel widths, and will certainly use upright=scaling factor in future. As regards location, It does seem good to have the images as close to the relevant text as possible. As I said, I do check how the page appears on my phone as well as PC screen, and although the images don't go alongside the text, they are stil closer to the text they refer to than if they are all at the top of the section. The page now looks good to me on both large and small screens. Kognos (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brackley

[edit]

Although I agree with you about WP:NOTAGUIDE my intent is simply to update outdated citations whose domain has been usurped, I try not to change the content of the article at all leaving that to editors who have interest and knowledge of the subject. In this case the citation is valid and proves that at the time of it being added the town had these facilities, furthermore a little googling shows these clubs still exist. I will restore my edit so that any editor who wishes can update the information and links Lyndaship (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of the metre

[edit]

Hello, thank you for providing a link to the article Carlos Ibáñez e Ibáñez de Ibero in your edit in the article Prime meridian (Greenwich). I would like to inform you of a problem in the article Metre. Two messages have been placed at the beginning of the section History of the Metre. In my opinion the issues have been resolved, but I have a conflict of interest and therefore I can't remove the messages. Would agree to review this section in order to decide if you would find apropriate to remove the messages ? Charles Inigo (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Charles Inigo:, I've had a quick look at the Metre article and, regretfully, I don't see how I can remove the caution messages. My reason is simple: the section is grotesquely overlength. It really should be no longer than the lead of History of the metre – indeed if it simply copied that lead (using {{excerpt}}, it would be fine. Yes, readers who just want modern information about the measure (and perhaps explore the whole SI system) should be informed in summary about how it came about. Right now, the history section is so large as to make the whole article tl;dr. That is intolerable. Whoever put those tags on showed remarkable forbearance: I might have deleted the section outright in favour of the excerpt.
I suspect that this is not the answer you wanted to hear and maybe I might have wrapped it in cotton-wool but I feel it is most helpful to tell the unadorned truth. There is really no point in tinkering at the edges of the current text: it needs to be reduced by about 90%. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer. Do you think this section could replace the article History of the metre ? In my opinion the subsections are more appropriate than those of the article History of the metre. Charles Inigo (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That really needs a proposal at talk:History of the metre (with a courtesy notification at talk:Metre and talk:International System of Units. I don't watch those articles so my opinion is not really helpful. But in principle the idea has merit. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hello JMF! The thread you created at the Teahouse, How to undo a page creation, 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 KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Futura in "usage" section

[edit]

After fewer vandalistic edits (1, 2, 3 and 4) reverted as unsourced material, should we removed some trivial sections (which is unsourced) from Futura (typeface), unless if is sourced. 124.217.87.71 (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about for Gill Sans in "usage" section that fails WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS? 124.217.87.71 (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in both cases but the question needs to be put at talk:Futura (typeface) and talk:Gill Sans , not here. Maybe even generically at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Typography. Most of the entries that are cited have "citations" that are not valid, they are OR (editor observes a typeface to be in use and decides what it is) or WP:PRIMARY (source self-declares). Please raise it at one or all of those talk pages. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brick

[edit]

Do you ever feel like you're just talking to a brick wall? Perhaps it's just me. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is even a WP for that: WP:IDHT (and maybe WP:ILIKEIT). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's next, I wonder. A video of his children, calling Order the cat, on the University of Essex's Official Facebook page? It's a little exhausting. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cheer up, it could be the Taylor Swift page. [deliberately not wlinking!] 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there have been 32 Alternative Christmas messages on Channel 4, since it started in 1993. I'm not sure how many of those are still available via Channel 4, or YouTube, or Facebook, or Twitter... Martinevans123 (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and in any of them will the contributor have made an exclusive substantive statement that will make it the best (or only!!) citeable source. I'm thinking of a number that requires no fingers to count. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily Stephen Fry already had a RS review source. But the others...? have not dared to look yet. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstood...

[edit]

Dear senior editor, may ask you to exercise some assumption of good faith?

"...and you have been an editor for long enough to know about WP:NOTORUM, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:RGW and WP:ADVOCACY "

I included enough evidence for the topic you deleted to warrant some negotiation about the severity of this summary judgement: WP:NOTORUM, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:RGW and WP:ADVOCACY


~~~~ Janosabel (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at the WikiProject talk page. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Acts of Union 1707, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Convention Parliament.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 February 2025

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * Sent manually via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Related to Page CE Marking

[edit]

Hi!

I've realised that my revisions of the content is accepted but my reference to guidance paper related to CE Marking Guide was deleted. I'm sorry that I couldn't use RefToolbar properly which I'm not familiar, but I'd like to explain the reason to the external CE marking guide which answers more questions and state detailed information, related to missing modules in addition to general informations which are very frequently asked and searched by the interested parties, for example technical file, prices and terms. Even if we are a certification provider company, we didn't mention to our services in the Guide which is purely prepared for information seekers, so there is not any direct advertisement to our services.

On the other hand, there are other references which links to other guidance papers which provides different informations from our guidance.

Therefore I beleive our guideance paper is worth to be added to references for many reasons which provides important, rigth and true information that is not mentioned in the main page.

Thanks for your time.

İlker Sertifike (talk) 08:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sertifike:, there are a few policy issues that stand in your way.
  1. Am I correct to infer that the similarity of your user name and the name of the website means that you are connected with it? If so, you must first study and respond to policies WP:Conflict of interest (and possibly WP:Paid editing?)
  2. A WP:self published source, such as this one appears to be, is generally not accepted as a wp:reliable source and thus may not be used as a citation.
So it is not obvious that your website can be cited in any case. You may continue to improve the article using your knowledge but any additions or changes you make must be supported by citing a reliable, independent, third party source that says so. (So I will have to look in more detail at your revisions as I only noticed your 'stray' reference.--𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Éowyn - Impact vs Effect

[edit]

I manually undid your edit on Storm Éowyn. "Impact" is correctly used. In this case, "impacts" refers to the severe, disruptive consequences of Storm Éowyn, such as fallen trees, power outages, and transport disruptions across the UK, Isle of Man, Ireland, and eastern Norway, emphasising the immediate and significant effects on daily life; whereas "effects" is a more general term that encompasses all outcomes, both minor and major, without highlighting the intensity or disruption caused by the storm. Please do not use "effect". TattooedLeprechaun｜🗣️💬 17:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TattooedLeprechaun: What provoked my edit was the word impact was grievously overused, even two or three times in the same sentence. Using the verbs impact (though that is an Americanism) , strike, affect and the nouns effect and impact makes the text easier to read as well as livelier. Perhaps with that in mind you might review and find a middle way? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was no need to change it. "Impact" was used to clarify the intenseness of the situation. TattooedLeprechaun｜🗣️💬 20:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TattooedLeprechaun: If a word is overused, it loses its impact. (No pun intended). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then change it to another word like "impact", but not "effect" as "effect" is too light of a word in this situation.
If you want, you can change them to these below or something similar:
  • Repercussions – Emphasises lasting negative outcomes.
  • Consequences – Highlights cause-and-effect relationships.
  • Destruction – Suitable for severe damage.
  • Devastation – Conveys large-scale harm.
  • Toll – Often used for human, financial, or structural losses.
  • Damage – Direct and widely understood.
  • Aftermath – Good for discussing longer-term effects.
  • Ramifications – Highlights broader, sometimes unexpected outcomes.
These still convey the seriousness and damage Storm Éowyn did, but they don't use "impact".
TattooedLeprechaun｜🗣️💬 13:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 February 2025

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode: CR control char

[edit]

Sorry, but now the sentence is plainly wrong. "End of Line" in classic Mac Os and other old OSes is signalled by a CR not foolowed by LF. Treutwein (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Treutwein: yes, fair comment. I have tweaked the text to remove the error. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've renamed to "Minor edits 2025" on my Talk

[edit]

My Talk page has an old section "Minor edits" so I've renamed the section you started User talk:Pol098#Minor edits 2025. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And many thanks indeed for your offer to set up archiving my Talk page, now implemented. I should have done this long ago ... Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 March 2025

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Draft

[edit]

Hello JMF,

I have been working on a Draft: Paul J. Maillet. I recognize edits are needed and that improving the draft will take time. But I have reached my limit in working on the draft on my own. Can you possibly provide feedback as to whether the draft, with eventual necessary edits, has any value to continue to be prepared for possible publication as an article? Also, what further steps would be needed to improve (whether possible) the draft? Your recommendations and guidance would truly be appreciated. (This will also help in the preparation of 2 other drafts that I hope to begin soon, that are historical in nature.)

Thank you for your time and consideration. M0RPHEMEZ00 M0RPHEMEZ00 (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@M0RPHEMEZ00: At a simple functional level, it looks ok apart from MOS:CAPS on section titles.
More significantly, there are two tests that you need to 'pass': WP:Biography of living persons and WP:notability. I have never done a biography so I am not really one to advise. Can you study the article about the Fritzl case to do a "compare and contrast". It is critically important that anything you write is cited twice over, because of the risk of being sued for libel. As for notability, it would be a good idea to ask for advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Brunswick or even Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada. Perhaps someone there might help you with the draft because it is way outside my comfort zone. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JMF&oldid=1284091372"