User talk:JMF

Why did you remove my addition about the context of the swastika and the relation to the pole star ? You claim it should at most be a footnote, so in that case make it a foot note, do not remove it completely. I added my context, since I felt that was more appropriate than simply removing the entire discussion in relation to polaris. I think this was important, since any claim that the pole star has some significance for any ancient meaning would CLEARLY be incorrect for any meaning that predates around 1000 CE, since before that polaris was NOT the pole star. It became the closest star to the pole only around 500 CE, and would not have been the obviously closest star for the casual obsedrver until around 1000 CE, which was incidentally around the same time that "polaris" began to be used as the name for the star. Wikipedia itself documents the movement of the polestar which I will discuss at the end. Clearly in that discussion it states that areound 2750 BCE the pole was close to the star Thuban, as I state. Therefore, give the claim that the use of the swastika extends back to before 3000 BCE, than using polaris as some form of "Special point" in the meaning of the swastika is wrong. As such, please reinstate my changes - as a footnote if you would like, or else I shall have to remove the discussion of the polaris. Thank you.

From the wikipedia polaris page ... The celestial pole was close to Thuban around 2750 BCE, and during classical antiquity it was slightly closer to Kochab (β UMi) than to Polaris, although still about 10° from either star. It was about the same angular distance from β UMi as to α UMi by the end of late antiquity. The Greek navigator Pytheas in ca. 320 BC described the celestial pole as devoid of stars. However, as one of the brighter stars close to the celestial pole, Polaris was used for navigation at least from late antiquity, and described as ἀεί φανής (aei phanēs) "always visible" by Stobaeus (5th century), also termed Λύχνος (Lychnos) akin to a burner or lamp and would reasonably be described as stella polaris from about the High Middle Ages and onwards, both in Greek and Latin. On his first trans-Atlantic voyage in 1492, Christopher Columbus had to correct for the "circle described by the pole star about the pole". In Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar, written around 1599, Caesar describes himself as being "as constant as the northern star", although in Caesar's time there was no constant northern star. Despite its relative brightness, it is not, as is popularly believed, the brightest star in the sky. Jamspandex (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamspandex: thank you for following WP:BRD.

As I said in my edit summary, the text you wrote is your assesment and critique of the claim. Had I applied WP:NOR strictly, I should have deleted it outright but, given the truth of what you say, I let it stand.

The other option of course might be to delete the claim completely as WP:fringe nonsense but you would have to propose that at the article talk page. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamspandex: better still would be to replace the whole section with something like "various theories^[1][2][3] have been put forward to the effect that the symbol is an astronomical diagram but, as these theories were based on the false assumption that the configuration of constellations had not changed since ancient times, they are fallacious". But that assertion [that they are fallacious, not that the astronomy has changed] would absolutely have to have a reliable source (preferably two). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a good suggestion, although I think I would phrase it as

"various theories[1][2][3] have been put forward to the effect that the symbol based on astronomical alignments. However these theories are perhaps questionable as they appear to be based on the incorrect assumption that position of the North celestial pole in relation to the northern constellations is the same as in ancient times, which is known not to be the case [[p[oalaris]]".

Perhaps adding something along those lines to the beginning of the section, and then leaving the section as it is might be ok, since they are theories that have been put forward, Many thanks. Jamspandex (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

yes but it still leaves us with the problem that it is an uncited editor critique. If we had a solid RS, we wouldn't need the WP:WEASELWORDing. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(This message was sent to User talk:John Maynard Friedman and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Satanic Verses controversy, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freedom from religion was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If I edit an existing section at a talk page, then use the signature icon on the top of the editing box:

B I 🔗 etc

not only do I get my sig attached to the end of my post, but another sig is attached to the section title.

The problem does not happen in with safemode on. Anyone got any ideas on what and where I should check? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's wikEd bug. I will report it. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reported at User talk:Cacycle/wikEd#Double insert on default toolbar icons. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter has identified as a Wiked bug and reported it at User talk:Cacycle/wikEd#Double insert on default toolbar icons. (Per their message at my talk page, thank you again, my sanity is safe for another 24 hours .) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, I see. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

hi, i saw your message on the article about regulation of the cryptoindustry. i removed a substantial part for two reasons: 1) the part that i removed i am cleaning up and working to put on a seperate daughter page so the content won't be lost. as is, that section is too bloated and heavy in a way that unevenly dedicates too much space for the response by one agency. 2) i thought the content is good but a shorter version of it will do on the "regulation of cryptocurrency" page and then the longer version belongs to its own daughter page of the agency-specific regulatory response. thoughts? ChevyTrace (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:32, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ChevyTrace:, that's fine but you need to put that message (or something like it) at talk:Regulation of cryptocurrency. Before you do a pile of work, it would be wise to check if there are going to be a lot of objections to your change. (I haven't read it so I can't say.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t realise "organization" could be spelt that way in British English - I’ve checked the source and you’re right, I shouldn’t have assumed! Thank you :) ChildOfAnAndroid (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ChildOfAnAndroid: It almost never is, so your assumption was entirely reasonable. You could start a good fight in an average British pub by insisting loudly that it is valid British usage because "everybody knows" that -ize- is American and -ise- is British. Another strange to most people is the OUP's continued insistence on uunspaced mdash (American style), died out over a century ago in UK in favour of spaced ndash, which is much easier to read at speed. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I might reserve that knowledge for the next time I need to tactically start a pub brawl!

Strangely, I have actually been noticing unspaced mdashes recently - I half-misread it as hyphenated words, and had definitely assumed it was American style. So, thanks for answering a question I had not yet fully realised :) (and for the reminder to check before I edit(!)) ChildOfAnAndroid (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(This message was sent to User talk:John Maynard Friedman and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Do you think it's time to strip out all the new station stuff from this article and move appropriate bits across (if needed)? 10mmsocket (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would (per stations on the Marston Vale Line and WP:CFORK) but it would be wise to propose it first at UKRAIL. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:11, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seems someone else had the same idea (diff)! 10mmsocket (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And I now realise that I meant to leave this comment on a completely different editor's talk page! Apologies. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i did wonder but, as it came immediately after my edit to the MVL, it must be intentional. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I saw two edits side by side and replied to the wrong person. Must be an age thing! 10mmsocket (talk) 12:28, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually Keynes', in the Bletchley bus example. I was an English teacher once. Words ending in s have their own rules, when not pluralised, based on whether or not it's pronounced verbally. So you would say James's car but not James' car...but Venables' England team, not Venables's. Romiley401 (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page lurker here. @Romiley401: Who says it's Keynes'? As a teacher, you will know that English is not a prescribed language, and you were likely using rules made up by whoever wrote the curriculum you followed. Like many publishers, Wikipedia has its own guidelines for how English is written, and in this case it's Keynes's, as shown at MOS:'S. Bazza 7 (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keynes/Keynes's is exactly like James/James's - I can't see any reason why it should be different and you don't give one as the reference to Venables is not at all similar. The rule, as it is commonly expressed, says "if you would suffix -ez to indicate possessive when speaking, then append 'apostrophe s' when writing". Most of the exceptions, like Achilles and Dumas, are foreign words. See Apostrophe for the long version. Whether or which, we follow the MOS. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You just reverted my edit on this article. I understand your action, where do you think it is right to add that information? BumbleBeeBelle (talk) 09:36, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't really anywhere it can go. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Without analysis, it is just another anecdote, one of many that maybe adds up to some conclusions about the overall effect. But it is not for us to draw any conclusions or to judge what is especially significant, because that violates WP:SYNTH & WP:NOR. That is the key point.

Of course that is my take on it and if you disagree, you can certainly take it to the talk page. But such reports of isolated incidents have been declined before because the article is about the philosophy, not a blow-by-blow catalogue. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:10, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

and if you think it is at all remarkable that potential or actual criminals get advice on how to avoid, evade or manipulate the law, you've led a very sheltered life. Though obviously not in the British Virgin Islands and the like. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that facts, that are proven as right should appear. If this turns out to be a true, it is notable.

My personal view is not relevant, it's what is right or wrong according to Wikipedia. Just like your opinion about my sheltered or non sheltered life is irrelevant or if they are or are not virgins in the British Virgin Islands BumbleBeeBelle (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"What is right or wrong according to Wikipedia" is that we don't make value judgements about the significance or otherwise of events. If the article were a list of such events, then absolutely it would be included. But that is not what it is. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See how simple it is to give a straight forward answer, without going in to the status of Virgins in the world BumbleBeeBelle (talk) 06:30, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(This message was sent to User talk:John Maynard Friedman and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

You have reverted the edit of Special:Contributions/~2026-28037-25 as unexplained. I do not know his/her reason for Special:Diff/1353342207, but a possible explanation you can find in Talk:Anthropocene#Chronology in the infobox, where I commented (with links to references) the disputed accuracy of the infobox (not only the start time of Anthropocene, but also the presented lower boundary definition) two month ago. Maybe you are the experienced editor who can correct it in a complex way, which would not need an update each year, or you know another experienced editor interested in geochronology and will draw his attention. Thank you. Petr Karel (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Petr Karel: We should not have to guess the logic behind strange edits. By contrast, your explanation is very clear and if you don't get a response to it within a few days, I encourage you to correct the infobox accordingly. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

but to answer your specific question, I don't have the skill set it to update automatically. (And maybe that would not be a good idea anyway given that the proposed era, let alone its (calendrical) epoch, has not received approval. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have, see my reply. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 09:22, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Can anyone see the reason for the

• Cite error: A list-defined reference has a conflicting group attribute "lower-alpha" (see the help page).

at Newport Pagnell? The article doesn't have any evident list-defined references. What am I not seeing? It is going to be something really obvious but I've been trying for too long. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• This took me a minute. The issue turned out to be two EFNs, one which was nested in a ref tag, and then a ref tag which was nested in an EFN. I found Wikipedia:Nesting footnotes to be helpful. Learned something new myself, thanks! ASUKITE 12:23, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @ASUKITE: thank you. So there was a good reason for going round in circles! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(This message was sent to User talk:John Maynard Friedman and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Hey JMF,

I thought I'd entertain you with a story about Module:Calendrical Calculations. Today, I looked at Template:Infobox calendar date today and noticed something weird about the solar terms. For the Chinese calendar, it says "Xiaoman, 10 days until Mangzhong", but for the Japanese calendar it says "Shōman, 11 days until Bōshu". Those numbers shouldn't be different, so at first I thought something is wrong and I'll have to do some debugging. But it turns out it's actually working perfectly. Here's the reason the days are off by one:

The Japanese calendar uses Tokyo as its point of observation, while the Chinese calendar uses Beijing. Mangzhong/Bōshu starts when the sun's aspect reaches 75°. According to NAOJ, that will happen this year on 6 June at 12:48 AM in JST. Since China is an hour behind Japan, it will still be 5 June there. Module:Calendrical Calculations calculates solar aspects and new moons independently of NAOJ, so I was incredibly relieved to see proof that their results perfectly match, and that was seemed at first to be a bug was actually a feature. 🎸平沢唯は俺の嫁🐱 (talk | contribs | Yui shrine) 08:32, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you were right first time? The top of the infobox says "at UTC+00:00". Does that not mean that the issue should not have arisen because even in Japan that's quite a while before mid-morning? (I'm not sure what you mean by "aspect"? Is it elevation or position in the zodiac?). Is my "quite a while" not "quite" enough?

While I think of it, I considered asking if you fancied adding Julian Day? But it would seriously break the template because it uses only the first word and we would have two Julians. So close the door and tiptoe quietly away, I suggest. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The dates change at UTC yes, but the Japanese calendar section converts the current UTC date to the equivalent date in the Japanese calendar, and the Chinese calendar section coverts the current UTC date to the equivalent date in the Chinese calendar. In the Japanese and Chinese calendars, the months and solar terms depend on which days certain astronomical events (like new moons, or the sun crossing a certain angle) happen on. So if, say, a new moon happened in Japan just after midnight and in China just before midnight, the Japanese and Chinese calendars would be off by a day until the next new moon. And it's the same with solar terms. (This is explained with examples here on the Japanese Wikipedia). So the fact that this is reflected in the template shows how accurate it is, which I'm proud of.

Also, by "aspect" I meant celestial longitude, or the sun's position on the ecliptic. You can also think of it as the angle the earth makes with the sun. Every year, it goes from 0 to 360, then starts again from 0. And I think adding Julian Day to the template is a good idea. It only falls back to using the page title if there right parameters aren't already provided, so as long as we give it the right parameters in Julian calendar and Julian day, it shouldn't break. 🎸平沢唯は俺の嫁🐱 (talk | contribs | Yui shrine) 11:38, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, I sort of suspected that but thought the such precision would not arise. Maybe you could add a "Restrictions and limitations" section to the doc page?

Re Julian Day v Julian Calendar, the problem is this: For <calendar name>, give first word only. The template as it is coded only uses the first word because the second one is always "calendar", right? Wrong: Common Era. You have to say default_calendar=common, omitting the 'era'. So how do you distinguish between the two Julians? Just declare the second one to be "Julian_Day" as it won't be seen anywhere outside the code (and the doc page of course).

But I think we should definitely do it if poss, just do the work to make it happen. (Easy for me to say, of course!) though maybe if is going to be any more than trivial, it might be wise to check for objections beforehand. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it needs to be described as a limitation, because it's not a limitation of my code (which is really Dershowitz and Reingold's). It's a known quirk of the Japanese, Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese calendars, as explained here and here. Also, I'm gonna try adding Julian day to the template 🎸平沢唯は俺の嫁🐱 (talk | contribs | Yui shrine) 06:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just added Julian day to the template. I'm thinking of adding Rata Die too, but I don't know if it has enough usage to justify that 🎸平沢唯は俺の嫁🐱 (talk | contribs | Yui shrine) 03:27, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinal date should be another easy addition? I see it already has handcrafted version.

Rata Die looks way too fringe IMO. It is just another one of the many calendar reform ideas that has never gained traction. It would need a lot more RS coverage - serious coverage, not silly season clickbait. Otherwise we just open the floodgates to the many wp:FRINGE fantasies.

If you are looking for a challenge, the Hindu calendars are conspicuously absent from the list, but are there any accepted conversion algorithms? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rata Die isn't a calendar reform idea, it was just designed to make converting between different calendars as easy as possible. It's actually what Module:Calendrical Calculations uses. As for the Hindu calendars, I tried implementing them but gave up. Calendrical Calculations describes about four different Hindu calendars, but Wikipedia says there are dozens of them, and I couldn't figure out which ones the book was referring to. Also, I just don't find Hinduism very interesting, which is why I decided to prioritise other calendars and do the Hindu calendar the end (if at all) 🎸平沢唯は俺の嫁🐱 (talk | contribs | Yui shrine) 12:19, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That'll teach me to do more than a quick scan and then think I've got the essence of it. No objection in that case, 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Like you I thought some of the intermediate stations wouldn't be called at until July but looking at National Rail I see that the 13:19 and 16:36 today are calling at all/most of the stations. Are we missing something? 10mmsocket (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lumo ran (will run?) one train on one day this week for journalists and they are running some test trains in the next few weeks that enthusiasts can maybe book: this is not a service in any meaningful sense. According to their website,¹ scheduled services begin on 27 July.

Or have I misunderstood your point? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought, but National Rail show Lumo's 16:36 (as does their own website) every weekday with multiple calling points.--10mmsocket (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant page of their website at London to Stirling by train says "The first Stirling to London Euston service is due to run in May. Services are being released for sale in phases with the earliest currently on sale being the 9th June and a full timetable available on July 27th." Maybe the NR info just tells you that they have the paths reserved but may or may not choose to use them. Or that there is a test train running right now but is not a scheduled service. Per WP:NOTNEWS, no problem to wait another month. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"digitat" was a spelling mistake. I meant "digital". I just thought digital was relevant because earlier in the article The Economist is described as "weekly print magazine ... and daily on digital platforms". 1843 is a digital-only magazine. Griffindd (talk) Griffindd (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, I didn't see the typo . "Digital" just seemed a very (very) dated word to use. "Digital platform" makes a bit more sense but still reads contrived. So backtracking, maybe the problem starts earlier because that's where the "digital platform" rot set in. How about rewriting weekly print magazine format and daily on digital platforms as weekly in print magazine format and online daily? Then 1839 is simply "online". 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]