User talk:JMF/Archives/2021/September

hello yes can you please insert the following citation for citogenesis

https://neologisms.rice.edu/index.php?a=term&d=1&t=15989 https://web.archive.org/web/20140814100007/https://neologisms.rice.edu/index.php?a=term&d=1&t=15989 Suzanne Kemmer Last modified: 5 December 2011

There still needs citation for the claim that it is a play on the word cytogenesis and the claim that the comic is what brought the issue into attention Alshfik (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Backslash Wheatstone Code

https://www.navy-radio.com/manuals/tty/tty1025.pdf This contains the code for every character, including backslash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadfafty (talk • contribs) 01:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tadfafty: Thank you. I assume you mean page 9 (11th of the PDF). Do you know what "key code stamped on bar" means? Is the ·─··─ morse code, paper tape punch [= mark/space/mark/mark/space], something else? I notice that the code for ? uses a six (binary) digit code, which really threw me because paper tape then was five-track. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see it produced "Wheatstone slips", which are something else again. I'd better read that first or I won't understand your answer. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Wheatstone slips are a way of "writing" a version of morse code. The slip is the paper the holes are punched in. Tadfafty (talk) 03:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Template that formally records content moves?

Today I moved a section from one article to another. The articles, circular reporting and circular reference have similar names (and in the former case, the name is a bit of a misnomer because the circularity is not obvious) and the section I moved has been in the wrong one for a long time. ['Wrong' as in 'does not meet the scope of the article', whereas it is certainly within the scope of the other).

I have written an acknowledgement of previous editors' contributions at the talk page of each article but, many years ago, I came across a template that does formal recognition using diffs. I can't remember its name or think of where to look for it. Any suggestions? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Possibly {{Copied}} is what you are looking for? — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Daventry Parkway

I have recently stumbled across the deletion of a redirect discussion from "Daventry Parkway Project" to "Weedon railway station". I am a representative at Sustainable Transport Midlands, the group campaigning for the new station.

As you said, it's a "teenage dream" and won't happen, essentially. This is totally untrue. We have the backing of the local unitary authority, West Northamptonshire Council. We're also in talks with Train Operator "Avanti West Coast" who are considering calling at the proposed station.

In the next few months, we will start a search along with the LA to find funds from organisations such as SEMLEP and EEH to go towards a feasibility study.

Just because our chief exec is younger than the average campaigner doesn't mean everything we do is going to fail. I'm not just making that point for us, but the surprisingly large number of young people in the rail industry.

Reconsider your opinion on Daventry Parkway as a new station. HumveeHardhat (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@HumveeHardhat: Wikipedia has a notability policy: it reports on matters that have significant external coverage. As of today, your project has none. WP:Wikipedia is not a platform to create a publicity momentum. We follow, we do not lead. If the the project ever becomes notable, you should have no problems in creating a dedicated article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Daventry Parkway does have significant coverage in the media. Please have a peruse of this page on the main Sustainable Transport Midlands website, the parent org of Daventry Parkway Project: https://transport-mids.com/in-the-media

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:4c8:808:c220:ac16:9ee4:7215:d1d8 (talk) 07:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The website of a group advocating some 'thing' is not a wp:reliable source for that thing - see wp:selfpublished. A news story about 14-year-old boy's dream of reopening his local station is a human-interest story and is not usable for a citation for a serious infrastructure proposal. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but my reference to 'a report from five years ago' confused two reports, the old one is NCC proposing a HS2 station (somebody doesn't understand that high speed trains avoid stopping anywhere except major cities) and the second one is last year's, about the boy polling his neighbours. It is the latter that the American mags have picked up in the past couple of weeks. It is still WP:not notable. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

John,

I believe I'm not "spamming" Wikipedia with my suggestions to add Daventry Parkway Project to "Weedon Bec" and "Weedon railway station" pages, and you seem to be the only person revoking my changes, nobody else. I think you have some sort of biased opinion over these changes, as the project clearly has local Government support under the new LA, West Northamptonshire Council, and extensive coverage in both local and rail media. I have a few questions for you.

1. What other proof do you need to understand that we have local Government backing?

2. What "notability" is enough? I feel there is enough.

3. At what point will you stop revoking my edits to a collaborative and open wiki?

4. A teenage dream? What do you mean by that?

The document you keep using to try and prove me wrong from Daventry District Council now hardly has a case due to the authority being dissolved, and the new one being run by different councillors and executive members.

I also want to add you seem to be following me across Wikipedia. Every change I make, you come and make it different one tiny way. For example, Long Buckby railway station. I said "via Weedon". Network Rail and Avanti West Coast still say "via Weedon" to refer to the Northampton avoiding lines, but you removed it.

Cheers!

--92.41.5.11 (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Continuing to use Wikipedia to push your non-notable websites is spamming. I have drawn your attention many times already to WP:ADVOCACY and WP:SOAPBOX. Your campaign is not at all unusual, there are many attempts by people to take advantage of Wikipedia's open access policy to try to push their ideas, so Wikipedia has firm measures in place to reject them if they are (a) not notable and (b) unencyclopedic.

You can appeal to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways if you disagree with my assessment. Your edits have also been challenged by G-13114 and tagged as unreliably sourced by Wikipedia's AI system.

1. You continue to assert that you have the backing of West Northamptonshire Council but continue to fail to provide any link to their site that shows it to be true.
2. For notability, see WP:NOTABLE. At its simplest, a newspaper article that treats it as a serious proposal and not just a human-interest story about the dreams of a 13-year-old boy who canvassed the residents of his village.
3. See WP:Wikipedia is not. I will not revert contributions that are reliably sourced.
4. The only newspaper citation is for Harry Burr (age 13 now 14, a teenager) is the Northampton Chronicle (July 2020), and later copies of it in the American rail-fans 'zines.
5. document you keep using to try and prove me wrong is a planning inspection report that is still valid unless and until it is replaced by a new one. See point 1.

I am not 'following you across Wikipedia'. You are editing pages that I watch because I am interested in railway infrastructure in the South Midlands area, so I see your changes and am free to edit them. So yes, you can certainly reinstate 'via Weedon' so long as it is cited: it looked like you were just pushing the Weedon perspective again. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

If this is HumveeHardhat, I notice that, on 20 June, Bonadea reverted more of your advocacy edits (at Weedon–Marton Junction line, at Northampton and at Banbury), as did G-13114 (at Leamington Spa). So it is not just me, is it? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Use of New Town in railway stations

Hi John hope you been well, I was wondering if you would be willing to help me with Telford Central railway station as I recently edited it but PamD had reverted it to new town of Telford and says it is informative and accurate. But if that was the case, wouldn't leads for Milton Keynes Central railway station, Stevenage railway station and Cwmbran railway station then have new town of in their lead? I don't think Telford is an exception as we had this discussion on the use of it on WikiGeography? DragonofBatley (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You do a lot of good work. Just want to give recognition where recognition is due 😀 LK (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you.

I want to personally thank you for your work on the article Critique of political economy. You've been very helpful, especially in the areas regarding Wikipedia which I'm not very knowledgeable of. Pauloroboto (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Pauloroboto: The hard part of contributing to Wikipedia is identifying and evaluating sources to summarise and cite. Anybody can do what I have done, which is just to make them look nice. In routine topics, that doesn't matter so much but in anything controversial, it can be really annoying [well, I find it annoying] to have an important point being undermined for a technical reason, like a goal being disallowed for a silly 'offside' transgression. So the real thanks goes to you for the substantive contribution. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree, especially when the material is advanced. I also tend to agree regarding that technicalities shouldn't stand in the way of broadening important debates. But really, again, thank you for keeping it tidy. I would be delighted if you kept pointing out points of improvement.

Pauloroboto (talk) 13:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

ISO 361

This might seem like a petty squabble but Piotrus has some history here. The latest example (of many) that I was involved with was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slipstream (science fiction) (4th nomination). Piotrus convinced a lot of people to vote merge on the basis that he would write an article it could be merged into. Guess what happened, he wrote the article all right but put in only a passing mention, and structured the article in a way that made it next to impossible to expand on slipstream. Further he mentioned it only as a synonym of hyperspace, which is the very thing numerous editors disputed over four AFDs. You may not agree with my position on slipstream (or on ISO 361 for that matter), but I hope you can understand why I am digging my heels in here. SpinningSpark 20:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: I arrived at the AfD from Hazard Symbol. The current ISO 361 article is extremely short and will be very simple to integrate unless you insist that it is transferred verbatim (and even then, subsequent edits may be expected to eliminate redundancy). But if it helps abate your concern, the simple solution is to ask an uninvolved editor to do the actual merging: I am happy to volunteer. I'm afraid it looks like you are letting the history between you two cloud your judgement: it would be more to your credit if you were seen to contribute to the consensus than be over-ruled by it (because I can't really see any other outcome than a redirect+merge, the article could never be more that three lines and is of very limited value without a context). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

If that information was actually put in the target now, then I might be happy with redirect/merge. But as it stands, the nom is refusing to accept there is anything to merge, and apparently will fight it if anyone else tries. Sorry, under those circumstances, and previous experience, I want to see a merge stick before I move from keep. SpinningSpark 11:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: It makes not the slightest difference what the nom will or will not accept. They don't WP:own the target article. You, I or anyone can edit it so that there is a de facto merge. I can't see how your experience with slipstream can be replicated, I can't think of any blocking wording in any case but if so it can be WP:nuked.

More practicality, if you change your response to "merge and redirect", that makes a clear consensus with only the nom holding out for a redirect with no change. Game over. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

If you think a clear consensus will stop this editor putting up a fight, take a look at Talk:Discovery One#Ongoing problems with notability which had to go to an RFC to resolve despite the clear consensus at AFD. Their posts in that discussion make it abundantly clear that they think they are entitled to lay down the law regardless. SpinningSpark 13:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: If you have convincing evidence than an editor is being wp:disruptive (the insidious kind, which means you will need a lot more than one example), then take it to WP:ANI but be aware of WP:boomerang: no-one there cares who is right or wrong about the content of articles, it is the behaviour of participants that matter. You may have a case for wp:hounding. As a general principle I suggest that you do not engage with this editor, you do not respond to their posts, you simply ignore them. Otherwise it could be you that gets the block because you blew up first. Psychologically you need to disengage from their mind games because it is locking you into a pattern of response like this discussion, which is not healthy.

As far as the hazard symbol article goes, it has too many watchers for any stupidity to succeed. Nobody wp:owns an article, nobody can insist on what goes in an article so long as it has RS evidence to support it and is not wp:undue. Noone may remove reliably sourced content. If you take my suggestion above (12:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)), I think you will win this one.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

This isn't an ANI matter and I know how it works already thanks. This is an obstinacy matter. Going to ANI is doing the very thing you are advising me not to do (not to engage). I'm engaging with the issue, not the editor. Yes, stupidity can be made not to prevail, but what I'm pointing out to you is it might be a hard fight. By the way, you now have three examples including the one under discussion – how many did you want? SpinningSpark 15:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: This ISO 361 discussion certainly isn't an ANI matter. I meant the generalised disruption charge. You would need at least ten diverse examples involving multiple editors to convince ANI that there is a case to answer because insidious disruption can be in the eye of the beholder. And yes, that contradicts my advice, which is why I wouldn't do it if I were you. But if just refusing to engage doesn't work, it may be the last resort, so you will need to start keeping a history of incidents that you can deploy. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Please stop explaining to me how ANI works. I've been an administrator for twelve years so I know how to do it if I wanted to. SpinningSpark 16:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Guillemet

Hi there! Before I removed {{bots}} from the Guillemet article, I ran it through the current version of AWB (without saving), and confirmed it did not convert quote marks to ASCII apostrophes, or do anything else to damage the article. GoingBatty (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: fair enough but it would have been more cooperative to have just deleted with an edit note than to use revert. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: I reverted on purpose so you could see what I was doing, in the hopes that it wouldn't seem like I was trying to do something sneaky and underhanded. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)