User talk:JMF

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Hi. Thought I'd offer further points for your consideration here rather than monopolising the template talk discussion. If I understand correctly, your view is that no demographic statistics should be included in infoboxes because of undue prominence, so I take it you would favour their removal from Template:Infobox UK place too. That's a big change to longstanding inclusion of demographic statistics in the infoboxes be they ethnicity or otherwise. The difference between Template:Infobox English county and UK place template is that UK Place doesn't specify a particular statistic field and it is left to editors of a particular article to decide what's included. Template counties on the other hand specifies ethnicity as the sole field, wrongly I would say. So what to do? My preference is for the following changes to the county template. a) remove ethnicity b) add two optional undefined statistical fields under both the non-metropolitan county and unitary authority sections as with UK place infobox c) let editors seek consensus on individual counties for optional statistical fields. As things stand this would remove all the ethnicity figures, but give an option to include up to two fields, which may make it easier to achieve consensus. We shouldn't assume negative connotations for ethnicity's prominence. Census ethnicity data can be utilised as a positive indication of welcomed diversity. My concern is not about the inclusion of a specific demographic but that the figures for those shown are correctly based on the latest census. Many at present are not and even worse have no source alongside. For these I agree with what you did with Beds and Bucks, i.e. blanking them, though I saw no obligation to undertake up-to-date calculations given the figures are not published for those entities and was somewhat surprised you undertook this. Rupples (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rupples: Thank you. First, I assume you realised that population is a given, that I was talking about the other metrics.

Yes, my main bugbear is that ethnicity is effectively mandatory. In UK PLACE articles, the facility is there for local consensus, which I think can probably work at such a very local level. I'm less sure that it work at county level but its not a show stopper and I won't argue about it lest it distract from my major point. So yes, I agree with your ABC: can you try to get consensus around them?

On the Beds and Bucks infoboxes, I felt I had a duty to hold to the status quo first and have the debate from there because it is a general problem. But I very nearly didn't. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll see what I can do. It probably requires an invitation to the discussion placed on each county's talk page and as Keith D suggests on related wikiprojects, plus a slightly differently worded explanation and rationale. The one task I'm reticent to do is the actual change to the template, if agreed, as it affects many articles and I'm not confident of getting it right. Rupples (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conventionally, the notice goes on the template talk page and associated project pages. I've been an editor for a very long time and never yet seen a notice in talk pages of articles that invoke that template. I've notified wpukgeo and wpengland. Is there another one with even a marginal interest?

As for making the actual change, once the principle has consensus, getting help to make it happen is not too difficult. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting dont you think 71.208.58.96 (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I've placed a notification on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Berkshire#Proposed county infobox template change. You may want to take a look. May have to amend the wording for other county projects, but wanted to get your general OK/advice. Hopefully, we'll get more input and a wider consensus to the proposed change. I think notifying the county projects is what Keith is recommending. Rupples (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ah ok. The Bucks one has been dormant for so long that I had forgotten about the county WikiProjects. Yes, we will have to replicate your notice to the others, dormant or not. I will do some this pm. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JMF. For some reason, I didn't get a notification for your comment that mentions "lizardmen overlords and their human slaves"; I don't understand the comment, but no need to elaborate. I feel I've contributed more than enough to the Template Talk discussion already and don't propose to make any further points, other than respond if directly addressed. A long back and forth may deter other editors from contributing and I'd like to hear fresh voices. The number of responses so far is disappointing, but it's early days. I wonder if many active editors have the wikiprojects on watchlists? One of the reasons for the additional optional statistical infobox fields is that if we offered them it would help deflate any blowback from editors or readers after the ethnicity stats disappear. Of course, fears of a blowback may turn out to be unfounded. I don't immediately foresee much use being made of the optional fields; they wouldn't show in the article infoboxes and would be undefined in the template, unlike maybe a tendency to add data for defined fields from a sense of obligation to fill empty boxes — might be wrong though. Cheers. Rupples (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC) amended Rupples (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rupples: Yes, let's let it run for a bit. I suspect we'll end up with needing to do an RFC proposing (a) no change (b) two open-ended options (c) remove it.

I am reminded of the {{infobox UK place}} v {{infobox settlement}} debate. One obvious difference is that UK place does not have a race or ethnicity option (but Settlement does).

I am certain that your surmise is correct: evident or not, there will be at least one editor who feels compelled to find them and "complete" the infobox. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I wouldn't be changing the template based on the amount of contributions to the discussion so far, but given your "length of service" and experience on here, you can doubtless judge this better than I. One thing I'm minded to do as a test case is to remove at least one county's misleading or out of date stats, not replace and open a discussion on the county talk page with explanation and a link to the Template discussion. It may help gauge what interest there is and if reverted, how strong. What do you think? Rupples (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat what I said in the discussion: the infobox is a wp:LEAD in tabular form and should have the same economy of content. Every county article has the population in the lead: none breaks it down further. It is just clutter.

In my experience, it appears that one of three things will happen: (a) the discussion just peters out and nothing changes (b) there is an immediate and clear consensus for change (c) a slow start, more editors pitch in, various compromise options get thrown in the mix and eventually it goes to full RFC. I think we are at version c, so let it simmer for a few more days. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I got it whilst editing 90.241.131.86 (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no idea, I've never seen it. Ask at the Wikipedia: Teahouse. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. While I don't understand the comment about Potatoes (as, other than your own, no edit recently placed an apostrophe between the "t" and "s"), I would simply note that (following your most recent edit) this sentence is now one of the few places in the article/sources/etc where Poots's is used. Elsewhere in the body we have "Poots' supporters", "Poots' instruction", etc. And in the sources we find "Poots' suspension" (BBC), "Poots' decision" (Belfast Newsletter), ""Poots' comments misplaced, sexist and outdated" (Irish News). While I'm not interested in warring about it, I would note that (a) what we have now is at least inconsistent (within the body text and with the sources) and (b) your initial revert of MongogramForCandy's edit actually reintroduced (rather than solved) a "Potato's" problem. Restoring "One of Edwin Poot's sons". An accident undoubtedly. But be careful tossing stones from inside a glasshouse eh? :) Guliolopez (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Guliolopez: see Greengrocer's apostrophe. (tbf, "Potato's" is probably not a good example, since it is legit'te to use an apostrophe to signify abbreviation by omission of letters). I won't [sic] pursue it. Language changes. (I've been reading a lot of C17 writing recently while working on Robert Hooke, so I guess I've become hypersensitised to spelling that would make Nigel Molesworth blush.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Plural in "Foot (unit)".The discussion is about the topic topic. Thank you. --Jc3s5h (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Robert Hooke you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Robert Hooke you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Robert Hooke for comments about the article, and Talk:Robert Hooke/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a very important question, but the key problem here are the words "in English". We are both aware that the classification as "diacritic" is language-sensitive. Tittles are not regarded as diacritics in the English alphabet, since they don't alter the base form, but they are very much diacritics in the Turkish alphabet thanks to the opposition between I and İ.

Anyway this should'nt alter the validity of my edit. The sentence in question basically says: "Of all the diacritics in the world, these ones are sometimes used in English". What you did is narrowing down the broad category "diacritics" (which globally speaking very much includes tittles) preemptively to how it's understood in a specific language alphabet, which doesn't make sense in the context, because the entire article is dedicated to the specifities of that particular language.

I also include Remsense (talk · contribs), since they reverted me [1]. Cheers, Mai-Sachme (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the key problem here are the words "in English". We are both aware that the classification as "diacritic" is language-sensitive. Tittles are not regarded as diacritics in the English alphabet, since they don't alter the base form, but they are very much diacritics in the Turkish alphabet thanks to the opposition between I and İ.

We agree so far.

What you did is narrowing down the broad category "diacritics" (which globally speaking very much includes tittles) preemptively to how it's understood in a specific language alphabet, which doesn't make sense in the context, because the entire article is dedicated to the specifities of that particular language.

And now I don't understand! We agree his article is particular to English words, and that includes particular conventions—that would probably never include tittles being diacritics simply because our ingrained notion of the letter ⟨I⟩ is too particular (that's my guess, anyway). If we have a Turkish loanword in English, we may import a ⟨Ü⟩, but I doubt we would import the ⟨İ⟩. It's like saying

What you did is narrowing down the broad category "rhotics" (which globally speaking very much includes alveolar trills)

unless I'm missing something. Remsense诉 15:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that's not an analogous example. We need a sentence making use of a very broad category, but using the term in an idiosyncratic form. Consider: "There are 2 football stadiums in Los Angeles", with the intended context-sensitive reading of football as American football, but instead using the broad umbrella term used for a multitude of very different sports. But here ends the analogy. The link football can easily be redirected to the correct article, clearing any possible misunderstanding, while - in our case - unfortunately there is no appropriate link, since diacritic correctly lists tittles as example for diacritics... Anyway, the chances for confusion for our readers are minimal here, I'm aware of that :-) Cheers, Mai-Sachme (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! This may be solved for the better by specifying the relative nature of writing systems on the Tittle page, methinks. Remsense诉 16:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Remsense and Mai-Sachme: well I'm pleased that you guys have cleared that up while I was otherwise engaged. I'm not sure how you got there but "all's well that ends well". As for an analogy, how about Æ? In English and French, it is a ligature of A and E; in the Nordic languages, it is a distinct letter in its own right. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until you hear about the actual madness I've coincidentally been in trying to decide whether an there should merit an article for—basically, morphology for grammatology? There's work on it, but I have no idea if there's a common name. "Smallest functional written unit" almost doesn't break down as a definition for grapheme if you don't wander too far from the banks of the Rhine, but everyone goes quiet the moment they have to consider what on Earth 好 is meant to be doing. Of course, there's Chinese character classification, but alphabetic grammatology seems to have little interest in bridging the gap, so to speak. Remsense诉 17:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You objected to the phrase "various types of hyphen including the unambiguous Unicode hyphen at U+2010" claiming that

there is no such thing formally as a "Unicode hyphen", any more than there a "Unicode minus" or indeed a "Unicode plus"; these are commonly used forms of disambiguation so let's be consistent in our usages.

Where is the inconsistency? "Unicode hyphen" is totally unambiguous, unlike your use of the term "formally". "Unicode hyphen" is used in the "name=" parameter of the infobox of the Hyphen article as well as in the lead of that article. Can you suggest a better term? Not "hyphen", surely, as that's wildly ambiguous. Peter Brown (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it "unicode hyphen" a confection of Wikipedia's making. The name of the glyph is "hyphen", not ifs, no buts, no qualification. Unlike "hyphen-minus" in ASCII. Unlike all the other qualified hyphens and dashes. No, I can't indulge in OR to invent a term nor do I see any need for one: my aim in rewriting that bit of hyphen-minus to that it says

The current Unicode Standard specifies distinct characters for several different dashes, an unambiguous minus sign (sometimes called the Unicode minus) at code point U+2212, an unambigious hyphen (sometimes called the Unicode hyphen) at U+2010, the hyphen-minus at U+002D and a variety of other hyphen symbols for various uses.

is to formally introduce our jargon explicitly and consistently across each of the three cases. Having done so, we can write "unicode hyphen" thereafter with a clear conscience. Otherwise it would be wildly ambiguous of course. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that the phrases "Unicode hyphen" and "Unicode minus") are unambiguous as they stand. Googling, I find discussion of the "unicode hyphen" (with a lower-case "u") here but I have to admit that it's rare. Do you think that we should edit the Hyphen article somehow to clarify or eliminate the phrase? I don't see any harm in leaving it alone.

The statement at Plus and minus signs § Minus sign that "'−' redirects here" is ambiguous, unnecessary, and potentially misleading; I suggest that it be deleted. Peter Brown (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I have no objection in principle to the term "unicode hyphen", "unicode minus" or even "unicode plus" [Caps or otherwise].. My concern is that we must introduce them before we use them because the distinction will not be obvious to many readers and the adjective unfamiliar. Yes, they are unambiguous to you and me but we are a minority.

I'll have a look at Hyphen tomorrow: if it uses the phrase "unicode hyphen" without an introduction, then it is frightfully rude, old chap [as Lady Bridgerton probably didn't say].

Yes, per the spirit of WP:NOTAMBIG: what else would it be? Off with its head. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking "Random Article" calls up Carex tsaratananensis. The lead says that it is a is a tussock-forming species of perennial sedge in the family Cyperaceae. Without further research, I don't know what tussocks are or what sedge is, or whether Cyperacae is a family of plants, of animals, of slime molds, or of something else. Surely, though, the article's creator could use these terms without explaining them! The same goes for "unicode". Peter Brown (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are standard English words easily found in a dictionary (though I would wlink sedge): "unicode hyphen" is a confection of our making, so we are obliged to introduce it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment (to JMF); I just "thanked" your removal of some long list of Unicode symbols at tilde, and I was going to make a comment about it. But looking at the discussion above, hmm. Well, actually "Unicode hyphen" is a solecism. There is no such thing as a particular hyphen which is of the Unicode variety - there is only a Unicode encoding (or multiple encodings) of a hyphen. Mustn't ramble. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Sorry for using your talk page, but I couldn't think of a better way to access you. You have shown an interest in British (Country House) Architectural History. I have suggested that Wikipedians gain access to the Country Life Archive on The Wikipedia Library (https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/suggest/). Please feel free to support this suggestion (titled "Country Life Archive (Proquest)" on the above page) if you think this is a good idea.

Feel free to @ me here with any questions.

Cheers, EPEAviator (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant quote in the sections source was:

"It is us, Europeans, who decide who comes to Europe and under what circumstances," she said. Her party's manifesto, unveiled on Wednesday, includes a controversial plan to outsource asylum applications to "safe" third countries based on the UK's 'Rwanda model'.

... But at this point I'd accept if that was factually wrong reporting as well. Pinging you just because, well, the assertion is sourced, at least. JackTheSecond (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JackTheSecond: ...

First, the article is about UvdL, not about the EPP. So unless she explicitly endorses that statement, it is irrelevant to her bio.

Second, it doesn't matter what the EPP policy is, since the Commission is not a government.

Not that it matters given that it is irrelevant, but where is it sourced? Even if it is true that the plan to outsource asylum applications, I would be astonished if they would cite the British government's illegal Rwanda proposal as an exemplar. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source was this euronews article (that the section is referenced with). Not that you should bother with it overly. It was obviously the author of the article's writing. JackTheSecond (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, here it is, though it is the Euronews reporter that says "based on the UK-devised ‘Rwanda model’", not (at least explicitly) the EPP. She might have said "Italy's Albania model" or "Australia's Nauru model" but that wouldn't get the volume of clicks. 1925 revisited... sigh (sorry, Goodwin's Law violation). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Robert Hooke, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in addition to his work as a scientist, Robert Hooke was an architect who designed the Monument to the Great Fire of London so that it could also have a practical value as a scientific instrument? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Hooke. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Robert Hooke), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out your suspicions were correct. I noticed a pattern of edits to British currency in the Middle East by a range of IP addresses as well. So I reported both to SPI to be safe. Jahor12345 is a sock of TheCurrencyGuy.

Now I am trying to untangle the web a little. I have started a discussion at WikiProject Numismatics if you wanted to join. Thanks for your help. Regards, Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 22:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have just block-reverted the lot. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IP server who was blocked yesterday for editing at "British currency in the Middle East" is not the editor called TheCurrencyGuy, doesn't know who he is, and has never interacted with him. Please double check the style of the edits. The IP server who you blocked yesterday also happens to have an interest in currency history and was trying to improve some articles. The in-line sourcing was yet to come, but the editor at the IP server hasn't yet figured out how to format the references. But much of the material and dates came from "All Monies of the World" by Franz Pick & Rene Sedillot, "Dictionary of the World's Currencies and Foreign Exchange", WF Spalding, and "Standard Catalog of World Coins", Krause , Mishier, and Bruce. 77.99.242.50 (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article had become a complete mess, structurally as well as the many uncited assertions, contrary to policy WP:no original research. At least some of the content was added by a sock puppet of TCG. Please ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics to have the desired changes done p There is already a discussion open on this topic or you can start a new one. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)roperly.[reply]

I'm speaking on the directions of the editor whose IP server has been blocked, and who is definitely not TheCurrencyGuy. If the IP range is unblocked then you can discuss the matter with that editor directly, and you can point out the edits that you thought were problematic. The editor was about to mention that in 1928, it was still the Hejaz and the Nejd when that silver riyal was introduced, and that Saudi Arabia didn't come into existence until 1932. But the main point is, that this editor is definitely not TheCurrencyGuy. Not a single edit from that IP range was done by TheCurrencyGuy. The editor has got nothing to do with TheCurrencyGuy and doesn't know who TheCurrencyGuy is. For  start, take a look at the talk page on "British currency in the Middle East". The sources were coming, and there was more to come. It just required some help to get them formatted correctly. 77.99.242.50 (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the contributor chooses to create an account, then the IP range block does not apply – see Why create an account?. Among the other benefits, a personal sign-on will also give them a test page (called the sandbox) where they can chop and change the text at will, until they have a version that is ready to go live. They don't need to (indeed probably should not) use their real name – I don't. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted my amendment in regard to amended the station had 2 platforms instead of one. I will state that the station was on double track and my amendment stands that it had two platforms. Steamybrian2 (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Steamybrian2:: I thought you were jumping the gun to the new station but even so, the 1952 OS map and the picture in the article suggest otherwise. Do you have a source that says it had two? if so, reduction to one would be a "significant date" that should be listed. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The website - Disused Stations: Winslow Station (disused-stations.org.uk) has good photographs of the station showing both platforms. I have added this website as a reference in the history box of the wikipedia article. The photograph illustrated in the wikipedia article shows only one platform because it was taken from a train on the other track with the other platform hidden. When in passenger use the line was double track and was singled many years after the passenger service finished which the aforementioned "Disused Stations" article mentions. I have no reference to a 1952 OS map but a 1930 OS map in my collection shows similar symbols for double or single track for which you may have misread. Steamybrian2 (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. It is also shown more clearly on this 1880 map (1:2500 "25 inch" scale).--𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IP server that was blocked at the same time as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jahor12345 is not connected. Both were editing simultaneously on different articles during the morning of 3rd April 2024.The IP server began with detailed edits about the Egyptian pound, and then around noon, switched over to British currency in the Middle East. Meanwhile, editor Jahor12345 was editing across a wide range of currency topics, mainly reformatting. The editing styles are completely different. The IP server carried out edits at 1204hrs and 1206hrs, while Jahor12345 carried out an edit in the middle of that two minute period at 1205hrs. They couldn't possibly be the same person.81.134.217.27 (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was not I who blocked that IP range, indeed it could be a coincidence, that the cause was concurrent abuse by another IP on the same network.

Again, if the contributor creates an account, the version that they were working on can be copied to their sandbox. They can finish it there, then ask for it to be reviewed and made live when ok. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. We would like to inform you that for various reasons our user name has changed to LendingNext. Now, in this edition of the Japanese yen page, we have included real effective exchange rate figures from 1970 to 2024, so that they can be compared with the nominal effective exchange rate. We apologise for the inconvenience.LendingNext (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JMF, I've begun working on the copy-edit you requested at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page for the article Robert Hooke. Please feel free to contact me and to correct or revert my edits if necessary. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, all good so far (apart from spitting teeth that I missed that prolix Hooke approximated experimental confirmation that gravity heeds an inverse square law when I did the heavy copyedit and re-sourcing. (It now reads Hooke inferred that gravity obeys an inverse square law

Just one thing though: were you not aware of template:snd? It does the same thing as, and is a lot easier to use (and read in the edit page), than your raw html  –  syntax, IMO.

No worries, thanks for fixing that sentence, it didn't make sense to me – how does one "approximate confirmation"? Yes, I'm aware of {{snd}} but I try to avoid using templates for punctuation in article text so I subst-in dashes, except in citation templates where it doesn't work. I'm using {{subst:spd}}, which gives the actual en-dash rather than the html code, but I can use {{snd}} if you prefer. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't make sense full stop. Please feel free to use your regular tool-set. I can easily do a find/replace scan afterwards. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I don't know if we have exchanged any comments before, but if it is the first time, let me say it's a pleasure to meet you.

You have left a warning in may talk page about edit warring and the 3RR. Please let me explain the situation: I have added information to the Demographics section of the article, and my edit has been reverted, it has not been the other way around. I understood that the 3RR mainly applies to users who reverted editions, not to the ones who add information and ask reverters to discuss in the talk page (which I have).

The two users that have repeatedly reverted the edit are Wee Curry Monster (two times) and Kahastok (two times). This is not the first time that they have coordinated to revert edits. I hope you understand now that it would only be fair to post a warning in their talk pages before (or at least at the same time) that you have posted in mine. Would you please do that, or for the sake of consistency remove your warning from mine?

Regarding the specific information in the edit, you have reverted it saying "That was then, this is now - the section is about Gibraltar today". The fact is that there is a sentence in the introduction to the Gibraltar ethnic groups that explains their diversity "now" (as you say in your comment) as the product of history over 300 hundred years ("then" as you might say). It explains one source of diversity: "migration". I have only added the other source of diversity accepted in a wide multitude of reliable sources (the flight of the native population at the start of those 300 years).

You also say "Try History of Gibraltar". Many sections outside of "History of Gibraltar" include historical facts as an explanation or context of the current situation. That is only logical, I hope you agree with me. I don't think you want to delete the "then" in all of them.

That is why I have added the information. It is relevant, and it is consistent with other sections of the article.

If you have any comment, I will be glad to read you. Best regards! -- Imalbornoz (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The caution is about edit warring, not 3RR (as it says clearly).

The section in the article is about the 21st century demographics, not the 18th or the 11th. Two, now three, editors have told you that the content you want to add is undue for this article. However it would be entirely due in the History article. If you persist, well you know the rest.--𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree almost totally with you: most of the section in the article is about the present situation in the 21st century (like % of ethnic groups nowadays, etc.), but a small part of the section gives a brief historical explanation (like in many other "present day" sections). I know what the section is about because I was the one who created it in 2009[2] and have included much of the data about present ("today") Gibraltarian demography and ethnic groups (as well as other data in the Economy, Culture, Politics, lede and -yes- History sections).

If you look at the diff, you will see that this explanation, including the flight of the native population and the diverse origins in the last 300 years was there in the subsection in 2009. For 15 years many users have edited and added (and removed) information to the section, and no one thought it was redundant. And this, mind you, in an article that touches very sensitive points for British and Spanish nationalisms. I would say that passing the 15 years test is proof of consensus (and a sensistive one, I would add). That is, until Wee Curry Monster, who has been previously topic banned for being aggresive and edit warring about Gibraltar (and specifically for trying to aliminate references about the flight of the native population after the capture, specifically in the History section) decided it was redundant.

Please don't delete sensitive information that has endured a 15 year consensus in an article this complicated. Thank you. --Imalbornoz (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will add the information. And if you want, we can talk about it in the article talk page. Thank you again for your time and understanding.--Imalbornoz (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make unhelpful citation template changes as you did at Milton Keynes University Hospital. You might prefer a particular citation template but in making a change from 'publisher' to 'work', you also removed the 'website' parameter, which is very useful. If you'd like to make a substantial change like that in future, I suggest you use the article talk page. Millstream3 (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you must change these, please do not remove the website parameter - that is vandalism. I have reverted again. If you wish to edit, please do so more carefully. Millstream3 (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - I see you can't have both work and website - there is a bug in the template. I have therefore reverted to the article as it was. Millstream3 (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That'll remind us both to use the article talk page to resolve differences: while you were writing that here, I was writing the other side of the coin on your talk page. But all's well that ends well. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]