User talk:JMF/Archives/2020/October

Spandau Ballet – Gold

Do you like this music from Spandau Ballet? Wname1 (talk) 06:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC) Why you give no answer about my question? You as Wikipedianer. You know that Spandau is in West-Berlin and West Slavs (Polish persons) have build the region (Brandenburg and Berlin also)? Wname1 (talk) 08:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Wname1: sorry but I don't see that my taste in music is relevant to anything I do on Wikipedia. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Rm#cm

I am trying to do an wp:rm#cm at talk: aesthetic canon but the subst hasn't worked and/or the bot hasn't recognised it. I believe that I followed the instructions verbatim but there must be something that I am just not seeing. Can anyone what I've missed? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, it looks like you copied the example code from the edit window, instead of copying it from the page itself. As such, it's included all of the code which makes it an example, rather than properly substing the template itself. I've fixed it now for you. :) stwalkerster (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Stwalkerster:, thank you. There are none so blind as those who are certain that they already know what's there. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Close

Could someone spare a moment please to close the RM above, according to the consensus reached at Talk:Aesthetic canon#Revised proposal. Rather than the simple original proposal ('move to "Artistic canon"'), the name finally agreed was "Artistic canons of body proportions". Thank you. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The {{help me}} template should not be used to solicit closers for a discussion, which incidentally was relisted yesterday and will be open for at least six more days. Primefac (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac:, thank you. This is the first RM I have ever done and the documentation is all about how to do a close, not how to choose "an involved editor" to do it. Thanks for info about relisting, it didn't come up on my watch list. --16:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Free Trade deals of the United Kingdom

I have had problems editing the article, which has created repetition and errors on the page, it will not let me correct the errors as it just defaults to the previous edit minus the corrections. Please could you help fix this. ChefBear01 (talk) 11:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@ChefBear01: I don't understand why you think it appropriate to develop such grossly POV articles that look like they were dictated by Conservative Central Office? Surely you can see that they are not encyclopedic? It comes accross as a Trumpian self-congratulatory press release. Please stick to hard facts from neutral reliable sources, not the words of Party apparatchiks. Most of what you have done will have to be rewritten in a far more detached style.

I haven't gotten as far as the issue that is causing you grief because the lead so badly needed a rewrite. You need read wp:lead: it should be a very succinct summary of the key points of the body. I won't have time to look at it again before tonight. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Content notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Help desk inquiry: Please do not disturb

I've used your latest contribution to Talk:Alt code § Nonstandard use of "interpret" in a post Wikipedia:Help desk § What’s happening to talk page signatures?. Please leave it alone until the Help Desk gets around to responding. Thanks, Peter Brown (talk) 01:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Peter M. Brown:, "even Homer may nod" [source?]. BTW, re your own earlier query, where you thought that an omitted signature is added automatically: this is only true when you use the mobile interface. Otherwise a bot might call and fix it but that process seems a bit hit and miss. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Apparently Horace, according to WordSense.eu.

The Help Desk has responded, as you may have noted. Feel free to make adjustments if you like. It does seem silly though, for MediaWiki to care about the number of tildes. Peter Brown (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

UTF-16

PS: Please continue to raise points you find unclear, either here, on my talk page, or at talk:UTF-16. As I said, I agree that the article is not a model of clarity, but I do find its description of the coding scheme relatively straight-forward. That you don't is valuable information, and can help us clarify the article. -- Elphion (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Elphion:, I appreciate that it can't be easy because UTF-16 beyond the BMP is a kludge, it is difficult to explain because it wasn't designed from the get-go to handle multiple planes so the logic is inevitably rather impenetrable. UTF-8 is easier to explain (more by good luck than judgement, because UTF-8 hit the first wall at x7F so expansibility had to be thought about) but seriously, that article sets a standard for clarity that UTF-16 should aim to reach: right now it is nowhere close. It would probably be too painful to WP:NUKEIT but I really do believe that the UCS stuff just makes it like trench warfare, 1915 style. We don't need to have to whole bone-rattling Model-T experience to understand how a modern car works, so long as that info is accessible as further reading for those who want it. We should be honest and say that no-one at the time considered for a moment that there would ever be a need more than 65,536 glyphs and having a fixed size for everything would make processing most efficient. Indeed if the article were structured to start with the simple case and then expand to the additional planes, it would be easier. Regrettably, most readers don't care about 'oddball, un-American" character sets and won't bother to read beyond the BMP sections (until you get to Emojis of course). U:MikeRodent made some very valuable points but established editors at the time just seemed unwilling to listen to someone approaching the topic from a different direction. I suggest you re-read his comments. If you must keep the UCS history, put it after the modern text, not before. But I will re-read and try to point out the blind spots: we all have them. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)