User talk:John Maynard Friedman
|
|
|
|
||||
Tips for more fun[edit]
Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill: stages in Parliament. โ Kaihsu (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Kaihsu: maybe it is another manic plan that will get kicked into the long grass or at least so eviscerated that it will be "repeal in name only". For this reason. I certainly won't rush to write anything about it, at least before the fog of war clears. --๐๐๐ฝ (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Seems youโre right! https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/09/tories-in-retreat-from-brexit-bill-to-scrap-thousands-of-eu-laws Kaihsu (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- There is now an article on the Bill. To be fair, tidying up โsupremacyโ is valid if one follows the logic, but otherwise a (too) radical move. โ Kaihsu (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- Seems youโre right! https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/09/tories-in-retreat-from-brexit-bill-to-scrap-thousands-of-eu-laws Kaihsu (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
New message from NotReallySoroka[edit]
Message added 03:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any timeย by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
NotยทReallyยทSoroka 03:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.ย The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC at Talk:Ruble. Thank you. NotยทReallyยทSoroka 04:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- I am referring to you with the "a very high quality RS" quote there. NotยทReallyยทSoroka 04:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
15-minute city criticism[edit]
Greetings. WP:BALANCE is achieved by citing reliable, secondary and tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. Op-eds such as "The '15-Minute City' Isn't Made for Disabled Bodies" are primary sources for statements of opinion, and shouldn't be cited for general, factual statements. Thank you. โSangdeboeuf (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Sangdeboeuf:, ok, I accept that is how it must be. But it imposes a duty on us to search for secondary sources that capture the OpEd writer's concerns. "More affordable dwellings are needed" just states the obvious without actually showing how it is going to happen. One obvious way is to make cities more polycentric: more neighborhoods that have their own essential services. History of Milton Keynes#Milton Keynes Development Corporation: designing a city for 250,000 people is the principle I have in mind. I just need an RS to say so. And to explain how to retrofit it.
--๐๐๐ฝ (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)ple
- I believe you are putting the cart before the horse. You or I may think the op-ed writer's concerns are significant; but writing an encyclopedic summary means we reflect the views represented in the most reliable sources above all. For an academic topic, that generally means peer-reviewed and other scholarly sources. If a viewpoint is not represented in high-level sources, that's probably a sign that it shouldn't be given much attention in the article. โSangdeboeuf (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Sangdeboeuf:, I disagree. At present, we have a single source which (to my reading at least) understates real concerns and the article is poorer as a result. We can't assert that we have reflected most reliable sources when we have only one. To put it another way: if I, as a one who favours the FMC principle, is not comfortable with the extent to which we have reflected informed opinion, we do our readers a disservice. We leave the field to the conspiracy theorists, evidence cherry pickers, pseudo-scientists. This does not mean that we should search for studies that are fundamentally opposed (see climate change denialism) but rather that we need more material on the challenges of retrofitting the concept onto modern settlements, especially in the USA. "Let more dwellings be built" is rather Marie Antoinette. --๐๐๐ฝ (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- Then the thing to do is find more secondary and tertiary sources that comment on the informed opinions of experts, per WP:NPOV. โSangdeboeuf (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- I share your concern about accurately informing readers of challenges associated with the concept. But just as you or I might have our interpretation of what counts as "informed opinion", so do the "conspiracy theorists, evidence cherry pickers, [and] pseudo-scientists". That's why WP relies on published, secondary and tertiary sources rather than Wikipedians' own interpretations of primary sources. โSangdeboeuf (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Sangdeboeuf: I am not, of course, arguing against Wikipedia's fundamental sourcing principles. Nor (for that reason) am I arguing for the Bloomberg OpEd article to be used as a citation. My concern is that the article as it stands doesn't reflect adequately the lived experience of people outside the traditional urban core. Of course we can't rectify that deficiency by inserting our own original research or by citing inadequate or unreliable sources. What I am saying is that we need to keep looking for quality sources that we can cite. --๐๐๐ฝ (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Sangdeboeuf:, I disagree. At present, we have a single source which (to my reading at least) understates real concerns and the article is poorer as a result. We can't assert that we have reflected most reliable sources when we have only one. To put it another way: if I, as a one who favours the FMC principle, is not comfortable with the extent to which we have reflected informed opinion, we do our readers a disservice. We leave the field to the conspiracy theorists, evidence cherry pickers, pseudo-scientists. This does not mean that we should search for studies that are fundamentally opposed (see climate change denialism) but rather that we need more material on the challenges of retrofitting the concept onto modern settlements, especially in the USA. "Let more dwellings be built" is rather Marie Antoinette. --๐๐๐ฝ (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- I believe you are putting the cart before the horse. You or I may think the op-ed writer's concerns are significant; but writing an encyclopedic summary means we reflect the views represented in the most reliable sources above all. For an academic topic, that generally means peer-reviewed and other scholarly sources. If a viewpoint is not represented in high-level sources, that's probably a sign that it shouldn't be given much attention in the article. โSangdeboeuf (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
--The European Spaces map[edit]
"but that is a terrible map. Just start with the colour for EEA: it implies that the EU is not in the EEA!". I created the map from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:European_Spaces.png. There it had a bit of text under the EEA title saying "all EU member states are part of the EEA".
I disagree that this map implies the EU is not in the EEA. It says as the legend "EEA member state outside the EU", implying the the EU is in the EEA, which is the case. In addition, there is the same full EEA map at the bottom left of the map, as there is currently on Federalisation of the European Union.
"The situation is far too complex to express in a single map.". You're right. However, this map is a combination of, and indeed includes (as stated above) those four maps (and also elements of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:European_Union_and_its_neighbours.svg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Border_controls_at_internal_and_external_Schengen_borders.svg for addition information).
No map can describe the whole situation, but this one describes the situation described by those four maps, and I think it does a good job of it.
But if you disagree, we can keep the four separate maps. XA1dUXvugi (talk) 10:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- yes, I disagree. The four maps represent the irreducible minimum to avoid misleading readers. Yes, the "small print" clarifies that the EEA colour applies only to "EEA but not EU" but the whole point of a picture is to convey quickly, easily and clearly the essence of the topic. If it needs text to achieve that, it has failed: we have body text for that task. --๐๐๐ฝ (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- Alright, I understand that. XA1dUXvugi (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
The article A508 road has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
not notable
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
A barnstar for you![edit]
|
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
| For your prudent closure of the recent debate located at Talk:Ruble. NotReallySoroka (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC) |
- By convention, I do not give away barnstars for "current events" (e.g. ongoing discussions or RfAs); sorry if this seems sudden. NotReallySoroka (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Re: Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic[edit]
Please do not wage edit wars by asserting random IPs are banned editors to keep articles static, especially as you restored things that objectively do not belong in the article, like the word "airplane". 92.9.2.209 (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- WP:DUCK: if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. Take it to WP:ANI and see how far that gets you. --๐๐๐ฝ (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Any day that two LTAs report themselves to ANI is a good one, saves the rest of us the time needed to write up a report.
- Anyway, I need a few minutes to look at the history of the article since ruble vs rouble and ize vs -ise is mostly determined by which was used first for RETAIN purposes, and then I'll post a new, hopefully sock-free, section on the talk page there. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 19 June 2023[edit]
- News and notes: WMF Terms of Use now in force, new Creative Commons licensing
- Featured content: Content, featured
- Recent research: Hoaxers prefer currently-popular topics
A508 road rebuild[edit]
Hello JMF, how are you? I am currently in the process of adding content and citations on the A508 road page. If you would like to help me, or have any questions/comments/improvements etc, then please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, Roads4117 (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry but as I've said before I'm not a roads fan. If there is something specific about the MK area you would like me to verify, then please ask but otherwise I can't afford it the time. ๐๐๐ฝ (talk) 07:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 3 July 2023[edit]
- Disinformation report: Imploded submersible outfit foiled trying to sing own praises on Wikipedia
- Featured content: Incensed
- Traffic report: Are you afraid of spiders? Arnold? The Idol? ChatGPT?