Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived 2 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

(This message was sent to User talk:John Maynard Friedman and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Hi, as you are one of the key editors on

Talk:List of urban areas in the United Kingdom

I thought I would alert you to my note on the talk page about Amalgamated Built-Up Areas (ABUAs)

in case you haven't seen it yet. Radamfi (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, re User talk:JMF/Archive 6#Epic fail - I'm several days behind on my watchlist, otherwise I would have got there sooner. It is possible to undo a page move, but it's not at all obvious. First, go to the redirect that was created by the move. Then, go to its history. In there, there is a link "View logs for this page". Click that, you should see the log entry for the incorrect move, and this should show a "(revert)" link. If that link is absent, the move cannot be reverted except by a WP:PAGEMOVER or an admin. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TYVM. I clicked UNDO furiously, the command seemed to accepted but had no effect. I decide that it was time to stop digging the hole I was in and call in the SWAT team. It is a very long time since I've had to do that and hopefully will be as long again. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undo just undoes changes to the page text, it won't revert a logged action. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The The Dream of Saint Joseph (1640s) by Philippe de Champaigne is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the specific issues. I will conduct a thorough review of the references and update them using reliable sources that comply with Wikipedia standards. Accusermanager (talk) 12:37, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am being targeted and maliciously ganged up on by either a single person using multiple accounts or a group of acquaintances (labeled as “Hong Kong student”). They are even systematically reverting all of my previous editing contributions. Accusermanager (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Accusermanager:, I am not an administrator. You had best ask for help at the WP: Teahouse, as they are more aware of what to do in such cases. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(This message was sent to User talk:John Maynard Friedman and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Hi JMF. Thank you for your work on Scheduled monuments in the City of Milton Keynes. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Consistent with others in Category:Lists of scheduled monuments in England; thanks.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 06:09, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(This message was sent to User talk:John Maynard Friedman and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Little Professor (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I fixed some of the ref issues at Chongqing, but there's still a problem with the "mherrera" note not displaying properly. Just a heads up. Cheers, Jessicapierce (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jessicapierce: ok, I'll have another look in a bit. Another case of "oh I'll just fix that silly error while I'm here" just having a look at one of the largest cities in the world that I had never heard of. "Oh there's another one..." 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jessicapierce: my spelling error (herera v herrera), But it is a self-publishes website that gives no sources for its assertions, so I have just deleted it anyway. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The formatting you complained about in your summary for your edit of {{List of currency symbols}} is caused by the empty line after the row's definition. It's been appended to the last cell's contents, giving you an extra text row. I'll let you have a look, then perhaps you could remove it? Bazza 7 (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

tyvm. None so blind as those who will not see. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(This message was sent to User talk:John Maynard Friedman and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Hello, If you have any questions or concerns about the edits, please could you raise them on the article’s talk page rather than reverting the changes directly? Also, it might be helpful to review the guidance on how the “See also” section is intended to be used. Many thanks. IranianBritish (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@IranianBritish: When you make significant changes to an article, tag them as "minor" and don't explain them in the edit summary, you should expect to have them reverted.

The deletions from the See Also were a minor aspect of the changes (but why did you consider 'Dehwa d-Shishlam Rabba, the Mandaean "Little Nowruz"' invalid?). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JMF: Thank you for your response. To clarify, the minor tag applied only to the adjustments within the “See also” section, not to the substantive edits. I accept that the edit summary should have been clearer and will ensure that in future.

Regarding Dehwa d-Shishlam Rabba: per the guidance at WP:SEEALSO, the section should contain links that are directly related and likely to assist readers in navigating closely connected topics, rather than tangential or loosely associated observances. As it is a distinct Mandaean religious festival rather than a direct variant or alternative name of Nowruz, It is not a variant of Nowruz, not historically derived from it, and not widely treated in reliable sources as part of the Nowruz tradition or its cultural sphere. I considered it outside the core scope of the article. However, I am open to consensus if editors feel the connection is sufficiently strong for inclusion. Many thanks. IranianBritish (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes were not WP:MINOR (insigificant corrections to grammar or spelling, not small). Deleting the word "Persian" is certainly not minor event though it is only one word.

Your deletions from the See Also pale into insignificace compared to the other changes you made so let's not get sidetracked by them. Let's call a halt to further discussion on our talk pages: I will open a new topic at talk:Nowruz and let's take it from there. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My (belated but genuine) thanks for taking the plunge and reverting that part of my edit. The link to the Southend news piece had ended up being wedged in as a reference to a statistic that wasn't at all related to anything mentioned at the link (orphaned edit perhaps). I try and avoid deletions when tidying up, and with Southend's city-status still being relatively recent and in-memoriam, it felt fair enough to me at the time to try and find a new home for it somewhere in the article. The resulting section was just my ham-fisted attempt at doing so. Evidently I completely blanked on the terminology/HMQ-attribution at the time. Pulling the whole section indeed works better though in all honesty.

(And the population-count edit spam. The stats are right there. In the table. With citations.) McCovican » log • shhh 20:05, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@McCovican: I had no doubt about your good faith. As I found out when Milton Keynes got city status, it is a minefield and great verbal gymnastics are required to be both intelligible to ordinary readers but still accurate. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to inform you that you made a rather unfortunate typo in Special:Diff/1340422878. I fixed it for you, but you may perhaps want to have the edit struck (especially considering your userpage).

This isn't a request for you to do so, completely up to you, just a recognition that I would probably ask for it to be struck if I made that error myself. Cheers, ~ oklopfer (💬) 18:06, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As it was such an obvious typo and couldn't be mistaken for anything else, I won't take up admin time over it. Also, it is not a well-known word this side of the pond. To avoid the Striesand effect, the best strategy is to just correct it and quietly move along and let it fade into the mists of history. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Unit separator, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Dan arndt (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It was based on a misunderstanding on my part. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my addition about the context of the swastika and the relation to the pole star ? You claim it should at most be a footnote, so in that case make it a foot note, do not remove it completely. I added my context, since I felt that was more appropriate than simply removing the entire discussion in relation to polaris. I think this was important, since any claim that the pole star has some significance for any ancient meaning would CLEARLY be incorrect for any meaning that predates around 1000 CE, since before that polaris was NOT the pole star. It became the closest star to the pole only around 500 CE, and would not have been the obviously closest star for the casual obsedrver until around 1000 CE, which was incidentally around the same time that "polaris" began to be used as the name for the star. Wikipedia itself documents the movement of the polestar which I will discuss at the end. Clearly in that discussion it states that areound 2750 BCE the pole was close to the star Thuban, as I state. Therefore, give the claim that the use of the swastika extends back to before 3000 BCE, than using polaris as some form of "Special point" in the meaning of the swastika is wrong. As such, please reinstate my changes - as a footnote if you would like, or else I shall have to remove the discussion of the polaris. Thank you.

From the wikipedia polaris page ... The celestial pole was close to Thuban around 2750 BCE, and during classical antiquity it was slightly closer to Kochab (β UMi) than to Polaris, although still about 10° from either star. It was about the same angular distance from β UMi as to α UMi by the end of late antiquity. The Greek navigator Pytheas in ca. 320 BC described the celestial pole as devoid of stars. However, as one of the brighter stars close to the celestial pole, Polaris was used for navigation at least from late antiquity, and described as ἀεί φανής (aei phanēs) "always visible" by Stobaeus (5th century), also termed Λύχνος (Lychnos) akin to a burner or lamp and would reasonably be described as stella polaris from about the High Middle Ages and onwards, both in Greek and Latin. On his first trans-Atlantic voyage in 1492, Christopher Columbus had to correct for the "circle described by the pole star about the pole". In Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar, written around 1599, Caesar describes himself as being "as constant as the northern star", although in Caesar's time there was no constant northern star. Despite its relative brightness, it is not, as is popularly believed, the brightest star in the sky. Jamspandex (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamspandex: thank you for following WP:BRD.

As I said in my edit summary, the text you wrote is your assesment and critique of the claim. Had I applied WP:NOR strictly, I should have deleted it outright but, given the truth of what you say, I let it stand.

The other option of course might be to delete the claim completely as WP:fringe nonsense but you would have to propose that at the article talk page. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamspandex: better still would be to replace the whole section with something like "various theories^[1][2][3] have been put forward to the effect that the symbol is an astronomical diagram but, as these theories were based on the false assumption that the configuration of constellations had not changed since ancient times, they are fallacious". But that assertion [that they are fallacious, not that the astronomy has changed] would absolutely have to have a reliable source (preferably two). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a good suggestion, although I think I would phrase it as

"various theories[1][2][3] have been put forward to the effect that the symbol based on astronomical alignments. However these theories are perhaps questionable as they appear to be based on the incorrect assumption that position of the North celestial pole in relation to the northern constellations is the same as in ancient times, which is known not to be the case [[p[oalaris]]".

Perhaps adding something along those lines to the beginning of the section, and then leaving the section as it is might be ok, since they are theories that have been put forward, Many thanks. Jamspandex (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

yes but it still leaves us with the problem that it is an uncited editor critique. If we had a solid RS, we wouldn't need the WP:WEASELWORDing. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(This message was sent to User talk:John Maynard Friedman and is being posted here due to a redirect.)