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

Another Leighton Buzzard thing...

[edit]

Thanks for your comments earlier. I'd welcome your thoughts on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Leighton%E2%80%93Linslade#Merge_with_Leighton_Buzzard?, too, since you seem to be interested in stuff about the local area! ExplodingCabbage (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Dee

[edit]

thanks for the revert. I don't know too much about Dee, I just figured as an antiquarian he was collecting/studying seals as well, but mine is definitely not a well-informed delta. In my defense, he's referred to as a "notable early student and collector" on Sigillography Vonfraginoff (talk) 06:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How strange. The article about Dee just says he used seals under important objects, not that he collected them. The "God seal" was his own creation and presumably he considered it to have some Gnostic powers that would amplify the effect of the crystal ball. So we can take it that he considered seals to be important. I'm afraid I can't get into the mind of fantasists.
As I understood the Sigillography article (starting from zero expertise, your edit was the first time I had ever heard of it), it is the study of seals on ancient documents, deeds, charters and the like - as an tool in the 'bag' of historical researchers.
Have you got access to any of the citations in Sigillography that support inclusion of his name? Did whoever included him actually take it from one of those sources? If so, then if course is stand corrected and you should reinstate the category. ๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. For now, I'm going to leave it as a citation request on Dee's name under Sigillography. thanks again. Vonfraginoff (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ideogram, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phonogram.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 May 2025

[edit]
And comment is requested on a privacy whitepaper.
And other courtroom drama.
And how he knows it: all about lawyer letters and editing logs.
Why the language barrier is not the only impediment to navigating sources from another culture.
And QR codes for every page!
When an editor is ready to become staff at a public library (not a brother in a fraternity).
Rest in peace.
The technology behind it, and the other stuff.
Gadzooks!
And more.
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tollgate hotel

[edit]

Hi, leaving this topic here as my revision was undone by you on the Watling Street page.

I believe my brief edit regarding the Tollgate Hotel is of national significance in both transport (surrounding the local area, Watling Street specifically and the wider route), local history, and wartime history. It started as a turnpike inn in the 1800s - the name comes from the former turnpike road itself, which is no longer since it's been significantly upgraded since the 19th century. The development of the turnpike, then the A2 was shaped around the Tollgate Hotel; majority of the structure still stands today since being rebuilt in 1923 which was 102 years ago.

The site later played a role in WWII as a battle HQ.

2006, the Highways Agency (gov) bought it to widen the A2, and established a car park within the site and used the site as offices for the A2 work. So, itโ€™s shaped how people move around the country. It also sits in a protected Green Belt area and an air quality zone, which ties into bigger national conversations about the environment and development. With public interest and legal disputes around what happens to it next, I believe it is of national interest and its the reason why I added it as a brief section into the article. I think that is quite a reasonable explanation onto why. I would revert the edit to reinstate but you have been on Wikipedia longer than me and have more experience so please let me know. Thank you Sunolafjagtenben-hur (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion belongs at the article talk page, per WP:BRD. It may be that others will support inclusion. I will transfer it there. --๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on moving Ampersand to And sign

[edit]

And sign is a more common name than Ampersand. NoahJohnsen (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

where? ๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wdym Where? NoahJohnsen (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
where is it the common name? Not this side of the pond.
Evidence needed. Google Books Ngram Viewer would be a start. ๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AND โ€” Preceding unsigned comment added by NoahJohnsen (talk โ€ข contribs) 15:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 June 2025

[edit]
Admins arrested in Belarus.
Pardon our alliteration!
A get-out-of-jail card!
And other new research publications.
Holy men and not-as-holy movies.
Get your self-nomination in by July 2nd!
After two years RuWiki fails to thrive.
With some sweet-and-sour sauce!
Every thing you need to know about the Wikimedia Foundation?
Egad!
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Roade cutting

[edit]

I did consider adding the cutting icons to {{Northampton loop line}}, but ran into a small technical issue. The icon layout at the top of {{Milton Keynes railway map}} uses the "ABZ" icon series such as   (CABZg+l) where the track exits at 90 degrees to one side of the square, whereas the loop line template used the "KRW" series such as   (KRWg+l)which produces a smoother transition for crossovers, but does not have a corresponding "cutting" version nor an overlay which fits. I have made an edit, changing the KRW icons to the "cutting" version of the ABZ icon along with a matching 90 degree curve. Hopefully it doesn't look too clunky. -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 01:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from looking a bit like pipe lagging, it's fine.
So next question: should the loop line map be added (at the bottom, collapsed) of the cutting article? ๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 08:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted my contribution

[edit]

Hello, I added some Python code that you reverted. I find code in articles useful because when I read the code I can clearly understand how something works and what it does, but without the code I cannot understand it. When I look at the mathematical formulas I cannot comprehend them. Frap (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Frap: Your skill with Python code makes you very much the exception. I acknowledge that many people struggle with mathematical formulae but very few indeed of those will be helped by Python code.
It doesn't help that the article concerned, body roundness index, describes a needless complication of a very simple idea: waist height ratio: โ waist/heightโ . Anybody can divide their waist circumference by their height and understand both the mechanism and the answer. The silly fudging introduced by BRI to get a number vaguely reminiscent of BMI really helps no-one. The concept has no redeeming features, has received no recognition among professionals and quite frankly the less attention it receives the better โ€“ but unfortunately it pops up every so often in popular media that loves such mystical nonsense.
@Redrose64:, is there a long version of why it is generally inappropriate to add code samples to articles? (You made a similar comment about code samples recently.) ๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented (several times) about code samples in the talk pages of templates; usually people have posted these as part of a request to amend the template. In each case the reasons for my objection are basically that every template has (or can be provided with) sandbox and testcases pages, by means of which the exact change may be specified and also tested.
But this is not the case with this instance. If that had come up on my watchlist, I would also have a problem with it: essentially, Frap is adding highly technical content that is of interest to a minority of readers, and of practical use to even fewer. For those interested in the calculation, this is already present using the somewhat more conventional notation provided by <math>...</math>.
Aside from that, line 12 of the Python code seems overcomplicated - instead of 
1 - (pow(waist_cm / 6.28318, 2) / pow(0.5 * height_cm, 2)), 0.5
it could surely be 
1 - (pow(waist_cm / (3.14159 * height_cm), 2)), 0.5
--Redrose64 ๐ŸŒน (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JMF No, I am not so good with Python and Redrose64 improved the code to make it better. You don't have to be good with Python because Python code is very easy to read, it is very clear and has little syntactic sugar or esoteric constructs. Even a person without prior knowledge of Python should be able to read and understand it.
@Redrose64 Would it be acceptable to have the code in the article but wrap it in the {{Collapse}} template? That way it compact and not in the way. I find it difficult to understand <math>, for me it is much easier to understand code. Frap (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc3s5h:, this sort of issue has come up at Date of Easter, where an editor tried to add Python or other pseudocode to 'explain' the algorithms. Do you have a ready-rolled explanation of why it is poor practice? (I think Redrose64 and I have already said so succinctly so only if you happen to have one that you put in the oven earlier. The article where the question arose is not worth the briefest moment of your time but [IMO!] the practice needs to be nipped in the bud.) TYVM. ๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a boilerplate reason to avoid Python or pseudocode. I'd prefer standard math notation unless there are special conditions that are cumbersome to express in math notation. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I guess it will have to go to talk:MOS if Frap doesn't want to accept the consensus that is already evident from the limited sample of editors that I have selected. ๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You mention MOS; we do have MOS:JARGON. --Redrose64 ๐ŸŒน (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 July 2025

[edit]
Endowment tax form, Wikimania, elections, U4C, fundraising and a duck!
And how do we know?
Five-year journey comes to healthy fruition.
Wikimedians from around the world will gather in person and online at the twentieth annual meeting of Wikimania.
As well as "hermeneutic excursions" and other scientific research findings.
The report covers the Foundation's operations from July 2023 - June 2024
A step towards objective and comprehensive coverage of a project nearly too big to follow.
Drawn this century!
How data from the Wikipedia "necessary articles" lists can shed new light on the gender gap
Annual plans, external trends, infrastructure, equity, safety, and effectiveness. What does it all mean?
Rest in peace.
Wouldn't it be nice without billionaires, scandals, deaths, and wars?
If you are too blasรฉ for Mr. Blasรฉ and don't give a FAC.
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mepperelf

[edit]

Hello. Just a note to say that i have opened an ANI report on Mepperelf. No need for you do do anything, as i say this is simply a courtesy notification as you have commented on the issue on their talk page ~ LindsayHello

tyvm. Concurrently I had written a comment to your report and have already posted. --๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 07:40, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise

[edit]

I have always maybe naively thought that wiki was a supportive environment to post things or adapt images but what I did not believe has been supportive is you exposing me to the wider group of volunteers without my consent or support given to me. I am learning. MatthewDavid41 (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MatthewDavid41: I see no exposure. The history of every article you have changed shows that you have changed it. I don't doubt your good faith in making those changes: the issue for me is how you are going about it.
If, as I assume, you believe your changes are an improvement, then why would you be defensive about it? And why be concerned that I have flagged as a possible cause for concern? ๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ligature edition

[edit]

The last edition does not include the logo itself, but a picture of jersey uploaded in commons 45.232.105.68 (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But the jersey design is copyright too. ๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And what does it uniquely illustrate in the article? Because it does come across as primarily decorative. Please read policy MOS:IMAGEREL. ๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JMF&oldid=1303870081"