DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

User talk:JMF

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác
History of Milton Keynes Milton Keynes Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 John Ogilby Robert Hooke

Ways to improve Lunar phase (Hinduism)

[edit]

Hello, JMF,

Thank you for creating Lunar phase (Hinduism).

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thank you for starting this article. It does not currently have any sources. Please add sources and footnote every claim in the article. Thanks and have a great day!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Mariamnei (talk) 11:20, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariamnei: Thank you, that's fair. I am working on that issue and have asked for help at Wikipedia talk:Hinduism-related topics notice board. It doesn't help that the linked articles seem to be short of citations for their own subject! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariamnei: I have added a few citations, which I trust will satisfy your concerns. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment and sorry for my delayed response. The article is indeed much better than when I reviewed it, but there are still a few sections that need footnotes. Have a great day! Mariamnei (talk) 12:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cranfield University

[edit]

Re: [1] your question of why, it's not about which region but which consortium they chose to join. I guess they could have joined the Eastern ARC consortium but it was more to do with the purposes of the consortium than the location. For an equally odd one, see how Cambridge University chose to join Science and Engineering South rather than Eastern ARC. FredWalsh (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then no probs. Pity you didn't use the edit summary to pre-empt the obvious question. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's what happens with HotCat but it did have the category link in the edit summary. 🤷‍♀️ FredWalsh (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked After Wikipedia Page BC/BCE Era Change

[edit]

This is user cpuaggie. I changed date eras on a particular Wikipedia page from BCE to BC due to context apparently in error. You explained why I was in error, so I understand. I stand corrected. But why block for two years over that? I’m not one of those nefarious people who have hidden agendas and try to go through Wikipedia to make changes based on things other than fact. It was a legitimate thought given the context of the information as I explained in each change’s explanation box. Also, I do have VPN which might have been turned on at the time, but not intentionally to hide my location. I’ll turn it off. I didn’t know that was a thing. So, I apologize. Could my ban be lifted please? Cpuaggie (talk) 01:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am an ordinary editor like you are. I do not have the authority to block you or to unblock you.
But what makes you think that you have been blocked? I see no notification to that effect on your talk page. And you were able to write anything here. I suspect that you have misunderstood something. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cpuaggie: I've worked out what makes you believe you have been blocked. It's not personal . It is the VPN gateway that you used which has been blocked, not you, As you can see, there is no restriction on your editing privileges when you come in 'clean'. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

re: LLM blocks

[edit]

I'm not an administrator and I'm not involved in blocking anyone, and have only reported like 5-10 users with ongoing behavioral issues, so not sure why you're pinging me about this. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnomingstuff: yes, I know that.
I had believed (incorrectly, as it turns out) that contributing LLM-written material has been declared to be WP:disruptive and could lead to a block. The discussion on your talk page seemed to suggest that the question is still open. That is why I contributed a note about the article in The Signpost, which asserted that people are being blocked for LLM use. But then I read the comments there, which say that the story is "creative" at best, so I reverted my contribution.
I won't bother you again. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation marks

[edit]

JMF, I used the fullwidth angle brackets by accident. But I could add the evidence with the infobox so I could know that there are single angle brackets & double angle brakcets. ~2025-31563-08 (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 November 2025

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Revert

[edit]

small baby recovered from discarded bath water ~2025-32529-75 (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to what? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you

[edit]

Thanks again for your thoughtful engagement on PC. It’s a topic I had largely forgotten about until recently. When I left WP back in 2006, PC was (I believe, but could be mistaken - my memory is not what it used to be)) either a featured article or “good” article. More recently, my nephew had a school assignment on societal ostracization vs personal accountability (it touched on everything from McCarthyism to Cancel Culture) and was specifically warned to steer clear of the article. The instructor didn’t have a problem with WP per se, the objection was specific to the political correctness entry.

Upon further investigation, I noticed that the topic had collected a massive TALK archive since I had last viewed it. With so many different contributors, the entry apparently grew in a number of different directions (not a bad thing, but can be disruptive to the flow of the writing). So I decided to once again dive back into wikipedia with the intention of simply clarifying/organizing the topic while avoiding the potential political minefield surrounding it. Just thought I’d say hello and give some background. Slyfamlystone (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your instructor is very wise: I agree, it's a tar pit topic. If ever there was a case of "when I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean, no more and no less", this is it. It depends on who wrote it, when they wrote it and in what context. See also semiotics and framing (social sciences). A five-year PhD thesis! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:22, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's glory for you! --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "proper name mark" and "book title mark" of the Chinese language

[edit]

First of all, thank you for your contributions to the article Guillemets after I made this edit. It was a simple edit which I thought would adequately (but not completely) address the rather misleading nature of putting the Chinese language under the section "As quotation marks" when 《》 are not used as quotation marks in Chinese.

I did not expect anyone would follow up on such a minor edit, so I am surprised to see that the article changed so quickly afterwards. But I agree with your decision to remove Chinese from that section entirely, and I especially like that you relocated it to a new home in the "See also" section, which is not only appropriate, but more importantly ensured that useful information didn't simply disappear.

I see that you have also made edits to the article Chinese punctuation for proper nouns. As I'm writing this message, I'm also cleaning up that rather messy-looking article, so you can expect that a large number of sentences will be rewritten shortly. But to address your edit specifically, I think a section listing Unicode codepoints can be useful, although I think only 《》〈〉 should have their codepoints listed.

The reason for not listing ＿﹏︳︴ is because they are used in the article for demonstration purposes only. They show what the "proper name mark" (straight line) and the "book title mark" (wavy line) look like, and the relative position of the mark (under characters in horizontal writing, to the left of characters in vertical writing). You cannot actually use these characters to apply the "old-school style" (as the article calls it) of these two punctuation marks. You must use markup (such as HTML or CSS), or a rich-text word processor's formatting options, to add an underline (either straight or wavy, depending on which one you need).

As far as I know, in plain text, it is not possible to use the "old-school style" of the marks, because that requires overstrike, and on modern computers, a sequence of (for example) 大ASCII Backspace (0x08)＿ does not render as the desired 大, but as 大＿. This dependence on markup or rich-text support is precisely what the article means by "hard to typeset" and the reason why this "old-school style" is so little seen today. (Note that typesetting difficulties already existed before the computer age, albeit for a different set of reasons, so the decline of this style is not new).

Finally, there are 『』, which are mentioned only once in the article as the Japanese equivalent of the book title mark. Given that this article is about Chinese, I don't think listing a Japanese punctuation mark is useful. (Caveat: 『』 are proper Chinese punctuation marks. But they are quotation marks, never book title marks, so they are out of scope for this article. In Japanese they do double-duty as quotation marks quoting both speech and title of works, plus other things.) I would prefer not listing 『』; but if they are to be listed, then 「」 will also need to be listed, because they fulfill the Japanese equivalent of the Chinese 〈〉. See the table below for how these symbols are related:

Language Large Works
(e.g. book, album, TV series)		 Small Works
(e.g. chapter, song, TV episode)
English Title
(italics)		 "Title"
(quotation marks)
Chinese (Traditional) 《Title》 〈Title〉
Japanese 『Title』 「Title」

(Just in case it's not clear, ~2025-32554-56, ~2025-33062-01, ~2025-33087-47 are all me.) ~2025-33115-16 (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have zero expertise in Chinese, Japanese or Korean orthography. But it was important to affirm (and I'm pleased that you agree) that these angle-brackets are not guillemets. Superficially, they look a little like them, so it was reasonable to recognise that fact – a role that See Also is designed to provide.
So, although it looked odd to me that an article called "Chinese punctuation for proper nouns" should have so much on other kinds of punctuation marks, I decided to leave it firmly alone. But it certainly looks like a lot of duplication of content in Chinese punctuation. As you seem to have some expertise, you might wish to make a case to merge the articles? (see WP:MERGE). And, in documenting the fact that 『』 are proper Chinese punctuation marks, you can add a footnote that says that they are also used in Japanese for book titles.
I hope you find that helpful. May I suggest that you get yourself a full account, as it will make a lot of tasks quite a bit easier. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quick response. I did have an account from long ago (around 2007) but cannot remember the password or the e-mail address associated with the account. Nowadays I generally read Wikipedia only, very rarely edit, and only do if it involves a glaring error that can be fixed quickly. (It's the age-old problem of not having enough time. Improving Wikipedia is rewarding but other aspects of life must be given priority, whether I like it or not.)
《》 are the "book title marks" in Chinese (not just used for book titles, but this English name is accurate because they are always called 書名號, whether they happen to denote the title of a book or not. 書 means 'book', 名 means 'name', and 號 here means 'punctuation'). They are definitely not guillemets, or quotation marks, and I would argue not angle brackets either; there is similarity in looks but the usage is completely different. Together I think we've done well in the Guillemet article.
The way I see it, the article Chinese punctuation for proper nouns is really an article about the "proper name mark" and "book title mark". The title is a strange one, because although it is accurate in the sense that these two punctuations do mark proper nouns in Chinese (and there are no other punctuations that serve this purpose), there isn't a term in Chinese to refer to these two punctuation marks collectively, so you cannot for example say "proper noun punctuations" in Chinese and be understood to be referring to these two marks. It is also not an established term in English. Perhaps the article should be renamed "Proper name mark and book title mark", but then the lead paragraph would require significant rewriting.
Splitting into two separate articles of "Proper name mark" and "Book title mark" will likely not be a good idea because there will be significant overlap and duplication. As for merging into Chinese punctuation, I think there is enough material to have a standalone article, with the two variants of the book title mark, the decline of the old style, and so on. Also, the article on Chinese punctuation is even messier, being very poorly organized, the book title mark described in two different places, and a number of uncited claims that are contrary to my knowledge of Chinese language usage. I might try to clean it up but feel it would be such a monumental task that even if I were to dedicate a massive chunk of time to it, that would still not be enough.
I have already rewritten part of "Chinese punctuation for proper nouns" and more will follow. But I need to know whether I can change the section on Unicode codepoints as I proposed.
  1. Would you object to removing ＿﹏︳︴? As I said previously, these characters are not used to input the proper name mark or the book title mark; instead, one must use markup.
  2. I would still prefer removing 『』 but would also accept retaining them while noting they are in fact quotation marks that in Japanese (but not Chinese) are used to denote the title of a work (as one of the functions of the Japanese quotation mark).
~2025-33115-16 (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Underlines: Of course, delete freely. I just blindly made a list of every character that was identified in the text, without regard to its significance.
  • 『』: my suggestion here is just delete as it is too far removed from the main topic. In the Chinese punctuation article (quotation-mark section), maybe a footnote to say that it is also used in Japanese.
You might want to review how this topic is handled in the main Chinese punctuation article? Although I've just now added {{main|Chinese punctuation for proper nouns}}, maybe a full section that summarises Chinese punctuation for proper nouns is needed? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN

[edit]

Hello, I usually follow this guideline. ISBN-13 are found only in books published a few years before January 1, 2007, when they became standard. Hyphenating ISBN codes (both ISBN-10 and ISBN-13) is good, since they are more readable. Instead EAN codes should never be hyphenated.-- Carnby (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Special:BookSources can't handle them. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-415-28498-8
So you need to get that resolved first. Accessibility trumps "the rules". 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, search through Special:BookSources button has an issue; currently it doesn't handle any format: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] and [7] [8] [9] [10] [11].
However it states: This page allows users to search multiple sources for a book given a 10- or 13-digit International Standard Book Number. Spaces and dashes in the ISBN do not matter.
The other tools available (e.g. Karlsruhe, Google...) do work.
--Carnby (talk) 06:10, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say Special:BookSources can't handle them? The link that you provide Works for me, whether written as a full EL as above, or as a wikilink: Special:BookSources/0-415-28498-8. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:57, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How odd. Yesterday I didn't get a response and jumped to the wrong conclusion. I'll revert my reversion of @Carnby's edit. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bucks

[edit]

Hello! I'm not trying to be arsey over at Buckinghamshire, I know edit summaries can be a bit terse.

I totally get what your aim was, but the county articles have fallen into a pattern that includes using the short names for unitary authority areas (and similar) and not giving their exact positions. It avoids things like Greater Manchester having to say 'the county comprises ten metropolitan boroughs: City of Manchester (centre, extending south), City of Salford (centre-west), Metropolitan Borough of Bolton (north-west), Metropolitan Borough of Bury (north)...' A.D.Hope (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@A.D.Hope: The problem, which I think is unique to Bucks?, is that one of the two unitary authorities uses the same name as that of the county. So for your analogue to work, "Greater Manchester" would have to be called just Manchester (so that "Manchester comprises ten metropolitan boroughs: Manchester, Salford etc"). The other alternative would be to unpipe Buckinghamshire (district), which I suspect you would like even less.
In a nutshell, we need to disambiguate: the challenge is how to do it. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not unique to Bucks, same issue arises at Wiltshire (Wiltshire district and Swindon). But I see that the Wiltshire article manages to evade the trap. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fairly common occurence – off the top of my head, the ceremonial counties of Buckinghamshire, Wiltshire, Dorset, Cornwall, North Yorkshire, Shropshire, Durham, and the East Riding all contain unitary authority areas with the same name as the county. In my opinion, the fact the sentence as a whole explicitly defines the area as a unitary authority area in each case is disambiguation enough. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For someone coming to it cold, it is is utterly confusing to be told that Buckinghamshire and Buckinghamshire are two different places – without any further explanation and in fact just in passing. WP:think of the reader: we should not require someone to read it three times to work out what on earth is going on.
Well if you won't agree to doing the easy way, I shall have to look at rewriting it along the same lines as Wiltshire, but I really can't see any parallel with Greater Manchester. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused, because Wiltshire and Buckinghamshire currently use identical wording:
For local government purposes the county comprises two unitary authority areas, Swindon and Wiltshire.
and
For local government purposes the county comprises two unitary authority areas, Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes.
Why is the wording of Wiltshire acceptable but the wording of Buckinghamshire not? A.D.Hope (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you seeing that? It is not in the lead, afaics. And in Wiltshire#Governance, it says The ceremonial county of Wiltshire consists of two unitary authority areas, Wiltshire and Swindon, governed respectively by Wiltshire Council and Swindon Borough Council, which is clear and primes the reader for the weirdness ahead. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's the final sentence of the second paragraph of the lead. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so I see. And therefore it has the same wp:easter egg problem.
So in all such cases, that sentence needs to be rewritten to say
No ambiguity, no confusion, no WP:EGG violation. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's an easter egg problem. In each case the ceremonial county has already been defined and the local government sentence states that the named areas are unitary authority areas. The risk of confusion with the ceremonial county is low. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The risk of confusion [...] is low. As in Buckinghamshire and Buckinghamshire? Seriously? I have offered a sensible compromise wording. Please give it consideration overnight and if we can't agree, we shall have to escalate to UKGEO. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would help me if you could explain where you think the current form of words causes confusion. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm baffled that you can't see it. Would you consider "Grass consists of grass and bamboo" to be a reasonable statement, even if true? I think you are too close to the subject, that you can no longer see how arcane our terminology looks to someone unfamiliar with the topic.
Let's suppose you live in Bucks County, Pennsylvania and you want to read about the original county from which its name derives. So understand our article as it stands, you will need first to understand
  • that there are two different Buckinghamshires. Ish.
  • the (Wikipedia created) term ceremonial county,
  • another (Wikipedia created) term "unitary authority area".
But you won't be given any explanation of this, let alone any "sharp bends ahead" to ease you in gently. It is all just taken as read, everybody knows, just follow the wikilinks. But we should be writing for the man on the Pittburgh Omnibus, not the cognoscenti on UKGEO. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lead does explain that there are two different entities called 'Buckinghamshire'. The first sentence states 'Buckinghamshire is a ceremonial county...', and the second paragraph makes a clear distinction between this and the unitary authority areas used for local government. I do not believe a reader could reasonably be confused on this point.
The crux of the issue seems to be that you do not think the lead adequately defines 'ceremonial county' or 'unitary authority area'. This is a tricker issue to resolve, as any explanation would probably be wordy and cause more problems than it solves, for example:
Buckinghamshire is a ceremonial county, that is an area defined by the Lieutenancies Act 1997 as an area to which a lord-lieutenant is to be appointed, in South East England
For local government purposes the county comprises two unitary authority areas, that is a non-metropolitan county and coterminous non-metropolitan district with a single council fulfiling the functions of a non-metropolitan district council and non-metropolitan county council, named Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes.
I'm really not trying to over-complicate the above explanations, but there is a reason the explanation of the counties and local govenment was pared back in the leads. It's too much to throw at readers and distracts from the other content of the lead. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is precisely why I proposed the concise The ceremonial county of Borsetshire is governed by two independent unitary authorities, Borsetshire council and Felpersham city council. or even more concisely in this case, the county is governed by two independent unitary authorities, Buckinghamshire Council and Milton Keynes City Council. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do those proposals better define what a ceremonial county and unitary authority (area) are than the present wording? Do they not just swap mention of the local government areas for their councils? A.D.Hope (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you still think this might need a broader discussion, or shall we leave it be for now? A.D.Hope (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I intend to open a debate at WP:UKGEO. It'll have to be tomorrow at the earliest, busy today. But to answer your immediate question, the names of areas are ambiguous (especially when piped) but the names and relevance of the councils are clear. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it until after the weekend, if you like. You've probably thought of this, but it's probably worth mentioning that we've been discussing this so other editors are aware of the background.
I continue to disagree that the names of the areas are ambigious in context, you won't be surprised to hear, but I won't continue this discussion when a broader one is pending. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
worth mentioning that we've been discussing this. Of course. How else could I explain our impasse? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, exactly! Sorry, I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know. I look forward to the wider discussion, it’ll be interesting to see how it pans out. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for discussion of Module:Location map/data/United Kingdom Milton Keynes 2020

[edit]

Module:Location map/data/United Kingdom Milton Keynes 2020 has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:42, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 December 2025

[edit]
  • Comix: Madness
    It could happen to anyone.
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mapframe

[edit]

If you come across any more infoboxes needing a mapframe, feel free to drop me a line! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do. And thanks again for the sports venue, I agree with your bold redirect.
I'm working through the list of articles that use the pushpin map and revising them to use mapframe instead. All but one so far have been UK place. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 December 2025

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of urban areas in the United Kingdom

[edit]

Hi, as you are one of the key editors on

Talk:List of urban areas in the United Kingdom

I thought I would alert you to my note on the talk page about Amalgamated Built-Up Areas (ABUAs)

in case you haven't seen it yet. Radamfi (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Epic fail, part 2

[edit]

Hi, re User talk:JMF/Archive 6#Epic fail - I'm several days behind on my watchlist, otherwise I would have got there sooner. It is possible to undo a page move, but it's not at all obvious. First, go to the redirect that was created by the move. Then, go to its history. In there, there is a link "View logs for this page". Click that, you should see the log entry for the incorrect move, and this should show a "(revert)" link. If that link is absent, the move cannot be reverted except by a WP:PAGEMOVER or an admin. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TYVM. I clicked UNDO furiously, the command seemed to accepted but had no effect. I decide that it was time to stop digging the hole I was in and call in the SWAT team. It is a very long time since I've had to do that and hopefully will be as long again. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Undo just undoes changes to the page text, it won't revert a logged action. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings!

[edit]
Season's Greetings
Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The The Dream of Saint Joseph (1640s) by Philippe de Champaigne is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

Thank you for pointing out the specific issues. I will conduct a thorough review of the references and update them using reliable sources that comply with Wikipedia standards. Accusermanager (talk) 12:37, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me 🙏

[edit]

I am being targeted and maliciously ganged up on by either a single person using multiple accounts or a group of acquaintances (labeled as “Hong Kong student”). They are even systematically reverting all of my previous editing contributions. Accusermanager (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Accusermanager:, I am not an administrator. You had best ask for help at the WP: Teahouse, as they are more aware of what to do in such cases. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, JMF!

[edit]
Happy New Year!

JMF,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Abishe (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 January 2026

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have sent you a note about a page you started

[edit]

Hi JMF. Thank you for your work on Scheduled monuments in the City of Milton Keynes. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Consistent with others in Category:Lists of scheduled monuments in England; thanks.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 06:09, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]