User talk:John Maynard Friedman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

My archives[edit]

Red means no archive that month.

User John Maynyard Friedman trying to lobby wiki pages[edit]

The guy has been trying to blank out portions of The University of Buckingham designated as vandalism under wiki laws.

Your guidance.[edit]

Dear sir

I refer to your recent contribution at the following revision items:

and here...

Two authors seem determined to conduct edit war without discussion or reason, and are displaying inconsistency in their appraoch relative to your approach, which I consider to be fair.

Will you please guide us? Edjones1s (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The approach is not "inconsistent" because these are two different sections of the article that are being edited. The "history" section is referring to the period (mainly 2010-15) when it was being publicly discussed whether the UK should have a referendum. During this period the BNP had MEPs and Respect had an MP (George Galloway), so their views were reported at that time. The section JM Friedman was editing relates to the views of the parties now, or looking forward to when the referendum will actually be held (between now and the end of 2017). These parties matter less now (if at all) because they no longer have any elected representatives. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Maynard Friedman's approach of Wikipedia's fundamental of "notable" applies. The BNP have never held a seat in parliament, by this one could say that any group or person is "notable", as such - why not list a selection of those who supported a referendum during the date specified. You should provide a valid reason for why you believe BNP are more notable than any other fringe political group. Edjones1s (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
@Edjones1s, you are correct about the principle but in error about the detail. At the time of calls for referendum, Respect had an MP and the BNP had an MEP - so they were notable back then and thus their citation for that historic event should stand. However, they have no such status today, so their opinion now in advance of the vote is not notable and Wikipedia should not report it. Except in the astoundingly unlikely event that they win a bye-election in the meantime.
PS See WP:assume good faith. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


Hello John, You've just reverted an edit of mine on the mistaken basis that Ikea is always rendered in caps (as IKEA). Actually it isn't; as an acronym it should be in mixed case, which is why I did the edit. It appears as 'Ikea' throughout the text of the Wikipedia page on ... er ... Ikea - Please would you revert your revert? Thanks! Eric Blatant (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello John, thanks for your kind reply on my talk page. Am I supposed to reply to it here? I'm not sure. Some publications (such as the Guardian) insist that just about all acronyms (like Nato, Nasa, Aids) should be in mixed case, but initialisations (BBC, HIV) are capped up. So I reckon it should be Nato rather than NATO, although a lot of Wikipedia editors might disagree. Eric Blatant (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

But see MOS:ALLCAPS. Regards Orenburg1 (talk) 07:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Been there, done that. See User talk:Eric Blatant#IKEA. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Apologies - I intended to refer to MOS:TMRULES which says in part:
    • avoid: TIME, KISS, ASUS
    • instead, use: Time, Kiss, Asus (Capitalize IBM and IKEA, as initialisms.) Regards Orenburg1 (talk) 07:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

University of Buckingham[edit]

Good morning John... just wondering if you have any ideas on how we can get the IP contributor to the UoB article to a) assume good faith and b) interact on the Talk page? They make some good constructive edits, but at the same time seem determined to paint the University in a negative, rather than neutral, light at points. Mike1901 (talk) 09:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mike1901:, I left a message on his/her talk page which s/he ignored. The only option left to us is to ask for the page to be semi-protected. Annoying because most of his/her edits are constructive but his/her approach is just too disruptive. I'm not that interested in that article to want to spend time edit-squabbling on it. I'll ask for a semi-protect. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Yup, agreed that's the best way forward. Mike1901 (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
@Mike1901:, I made it 'pending changes' which is the lowest level of intervention. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)