User talk:JMF

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

My archives

Red means no archive that month.

user talk:John Maynard Friedman/Archive 1 (April 2006 to September 2006), user talk:John Maynard Friedman/Archive 2 (October 2006 to September 2007), user talk:John Maynard Friedman/Archive 3 (October 2007 to September 2008)
03/10, 04/10, 05/10, 06/10, 07/10, None in August, 09/10, 10/10, 11/10, 12/10
01/11, 02/11, 03/11, 04/11, 05/11, 06/11, 07/11, 08/11, 09/11, 10/11, 11/11, 12/11
01/12, 02/12, 03/12, 04/12, 05/12, 06/12, 07/12, 08/12, 09/12, 10/12, 11/12, 12/12
01/12, 02/12, 03/12, 04/12, 05/12, 06/12, 07/12, 08/12, 09/12, 10/12, 11/12, 12/12
01/13, 02/13, 03/13, 04/13, 05/13, 06/13, 07/13, 08/13, 09/13, 10/13, 11/13, 12/13
01/14, 02/14, 03/14, 04/14, 05/14, 06/14, 07/14, 08/14, 09/14, 10/14, 11/14, 12/14
01/15, 02/15, 03/15, 04/15, 05/15, 06/15, 07/15, 08/15, 09/15, 10/15, 11/15, 12/15
01/16, 02/16, 03/16, 04/16, 05/16, 06/16, 07/16, 08/16, 09/16, 10/16, 11/16, 12/16
01/17, 02/17, 03/17, 04/17, 05/17, 06/17, 07/17, 08/17, 09/17, 10/17, 11/17, 12/17
01/18, 02/18, 03/18, 04/18, 05/18, 06/18, 07/18, 08/18, 09/18, 10/18, 11/18, 12/18
01/19, 02/19, 03/19, 04/19, 05/19, 06/19, 07/19, 08/19, 09/19, 10/19, 11/19, 12/19
01/20, 02/20, 03/20, 04/20, 05/20, 06/20, 07/20, 08/20, 09/20, 10/20, 11/20, 12/20
01/21, 02/21, 03/21, 04/21, 05/21, 06/21, 07/21, 08/21, 09/21, 10/21, 11/21, 12/21

from 2022, I have resumed using user:Lowercase sigmabot III (née User:MiszaBot)

Issues I've been having

Could we chat about how I can become a better contributor and editor? I had.... issues.... today... with someone... and I don't know how I can even begin building consensus. I am a novice I admit, but I have a lot of motivation. Are there any tips you can give me? I feel like I'm burning out. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheCurrencyGuy: Yes, I saw that and was saddened to see it get to you. You came through a tough time of it with OGS but maybe a head-on collision is easier to deal with than a side-swipe. I hope you were encouraged by the good wishes at your talk page.

I'm no-one to criticize [I blame lock-down, it kept me sane] but I think you are giving too much of your time to Wikipedia. It is too easy to lose perspective on what is really important and it can overwhelm. Instant reaction generally makes things worse: do something else until you can be dispassionate again.

Recognise that if you want to WP:BEBOLD (as you should), others may revert. Your bold edit is made in good faith but so is their reversion. Open a BRD discussion at the talk page. And accept that sometimes the consensus will be "wrong" and you have to accept it.

For some people, to attempt to change basic tenets that they have grow up with and regard as self-evidently correct, is going to generate a push-back. You must anticipate that response and respond to it by accepting that it is genuine and seek to move on from it by persuasion, not by reassertion. But in some cases you just won't succeed and you have to accept that too.

Right now, I suggest you take a complete break from Wikipedia for a few weeks. When you come back, ration yourself to a very few hours a day. Especially limit the number of articles where you are correcting an "everybody knows" foundational concept. Start creating new articles or developing stub articles. This will give you a much better feeling of accomplishment – provided you accept that others will come along and change it. Even if you have created it, done hours of searching for citations, you still don't WP:OWN it. Can you widen your interest beyond currency?

Finally, your situation is far from unique. Unfortunately it happens to quite a few new editors who start off keen but get discouraged. Even some very experienced and respected editors I know have ended up with 90-day or longer suspensions for losing their temper and to this day are banned from editing on certain topics or from interacting with specific other editors. You have avoided that, though you have been close at times (xref the "yellow cards" I left you).

I hope that this is helpful. Fair or not, it is given in good faith. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips.

Reckon we're any closer to a consensus on the GBP template? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patience is required. As Stepho wrote " Just remember that it is better to find a good solution than to find a quick solution. " which in practice means waiting to see if anyone else wants to contribute. Most people don't spend as much time on Wikipedia as you do as often as you do: a month from when you first raised it is not unusual or excessive. Nobody has raised a counter argument yet, so I would be cautiously optimistic. But I advise strongly that you don't apply the changes, wait for Stepho do it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheCurrencyGuy: I see you have opened multiple RFCs. Did you take on board anything of what I wrote above? Choose your battles, fight on one front at a time, as Sun Tzu might have said but probably didn't. You are heading for a massive burn-out. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I get carried away a bit sometimes. Let's just see how it goes. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland Protocol

Last night you updated my changes to Assembly election section of the Northern Ireland Protocol article, for the better in my opinion. However there is only one line dedicated to the DUP's refusal to nominate a DFM, and not mention of Paul Given's resignation 2 months before the election or the refusal to vote for a speaker after the election. In my opinion there should be an entire section detailing the Stormont shutdown. Do you agree? ApatheticName (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ApatheticName:, even as it is I felt that we would risk drifting off-topic, but maybe that is because the section is headed "2022 Assembly election". So what about turning it on its head, following the model of the NIP Bill article with a section called "Reaction"? Do you want to have a go? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, we already have Northern Ireland Protocol#Political reaction to implementation so maybe the problem you perceive only arises because the section on the Assembly elections should be move to become a subsection of this section, rather than stand alone? I can't get a proper overview on mobile, can you do it? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ApatheticName: This discussion should really take place at talk: Northern Ireland Protocol. Would you cut'n'paste it over there please, as other editors may want to contribute. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TCG's edits

There's a whole bunch of coins that should be reverted back but I'm going to wait for the RfC to be closed.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: Lest silence signify assent and per WP:STATUSQUO, I will revert in any case. Those edits are contrary to consensus. That there is an RFC in progress is a further reason why they should not have been made. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prime meridian

Why undo my change? 240D:1E:B:D300:F992:C7F1:F69:EE27 (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

because it is just your opinion. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So can you change the meridian so that it coincide with the universal motion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240D:1E:B:D300:F992:C7F1:F69:EE27 (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know this UTC and the weird time zones are recording our birth and deaths based on the Prime meridian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240D:1E:B:D300:F992:C7F1:F69:EE27 (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion (or mine, for that matter) is of no importance. Find an authoritative source [not an astrologer] who has written in these terms and it can go in the article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may find the evidence at the nearest hospital for you where people die. Or do I have to die in order to show the evidence to you? 240D:1E:B:D300:1F21:A288:A979:5BE5 (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So here is how we should move the prime meridian according to equinoxes, solstices (cyan) and new moon (magenta) https://guadua.github.io/earthclock.html 240D:1E:B:D300:1F21:A288:A979:5BE5 (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, magenta is my prime meridian, yellow is the lunar meridian 240D:1E:B:D300:1F21:A288:A979:5BE5 (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is how we can rigorously count our year, months from our birth and death, without using leap year, but we have to construct 86400 meridians on the equator if we continue to use the 86400 division, well, this is good because it coincides with our heart beat (Heinrich Rudolf Hertz), and the distance of sound travel! 240D:1E:B:D300:1F21:A288:A979:5BE5 (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is I want to publish this idea where the journal is based on this calendar! 240D:1E:B:D300:1F21:A288:A979:5BE5 (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then you have come to the wrong place. Wikipedia does not publish original research. This is a fundamental principle so there is no point in your continuing to argue for it. If you add it, it will be deleted. Try blogspot. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source.

You can just cite https://guadua.github.io/earthclock.html

You say it does not "exist"? 240D:1E:B:D300:1F21:A288:A979:5BE5 (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GitHub is not a WP: reliable source. If you wish to pursue this argument, please raise it at the Wikipedia:Teahouse because I will not respond again. Feel free to cite this discussion in your post. Goodbye and good luck. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]