User talk:John Maynard Friedman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Signpost: 20 February 2023[edit]

Hi JMF, how are you? I was just wondering when do you think we should raise it at WT:WPH? I know that you aren't going to work there anymore, because it is out of your comfort zone, but am just wondering. Roads4117 (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Roads4117: Up to you. It will be more effective if you go with a proposal for debate rather than an open question. --๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanks for the info - tbh, now I think it's fine, so probably won't need one. Roads4117 (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 9 March 2023[edit]

Milton Keynes: name origin + potential vandalism[edit]

Hi JMF, hope you're keeping well! I've of course noticed the last few changes / reversions in Milton Keynes re: the origin of the name. I remember you'd said previously on my talk page that vandalism on the article is less common than previously, and so I just wondered: how often do you tend to see this kind of 'rogue' edits occurring on the MK page?

A skim of the history seems to suggest that the 'rogue' edits either relate to the origin of the name, statements like "MK is a dump" or just nonsense - is this an accurate description of them in general?

I ask out of curiosity more than anything, slowly finding my feet here! TwoRaindrops (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a lot, tbh. Peaks are correlated with the fortunes of MK Dons. All articles get a constant background hum of infantile nonsense. The bigger annoyance is introduction of deliberate errors because we need to take time to identify them and decide whether it was malicious or an honest mistake (see WP:assume good faith). It just takes time to check for "weeds" so the more gardeners we have the better! ๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 09:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm with you - totally makes sense! Just one of those things I suppose that comes with the territory of being a place anyone can edit, but things seem pretty robust around here. Now, where did I put those gardening gloves... TwoRaindrops (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 20 March 2023[edit]

Backbench MP's on the Windsor Framework[edit]

Hello JMF,

I would love for you to see my adds to the Talk:Windsor Framework page, where I discuss the importance of the backbench rebellion of Tory MPs because it represents the divisiveness of the legislation and of the continuing Brexit disagreements within the Conservative party. Hayatayab (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here comes the bear![edit]

Just wanted to say your response gave me a good chuckle.ย :) Happy Friday! DonIago (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tips for more fun[edit]

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill: stages in Parliament. โ€“ Kaihsu (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@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. --๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems youโ€™re right! Kaihsu (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is now an article on the Bill. To be fair, tidying up โ€œsupremacyโ€ is valid if one follows the logic, but otherwise a (too) radical move. โ€“ Kaihsu (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 03 April 2023[edit]

New message from NotReallySoroka[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, John Maynard Friedman. You have new messages at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard.
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)Reply[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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)Reply[reply]

I am referring to you with the "a very high quality RS" quote there. NotยทReallyยทSoroka 04:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 26 April 2023[edit]

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. โ€”Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@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. Face-smile.svg --๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)pleReply[reply]
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. โ€”Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@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. --๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then the thing to do is find more secondary and tertiary sources that comment on the informed opinions of experts, per WP:NPOV. โ€”Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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. โ€”Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@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. --๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 8 May 2023[edit]

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 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 and 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)Reply[reply]

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. --๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, I understand that. XA1dUXvugi (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 22 May 2023[edit]


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)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For your prudent closure of the recent debate located at Talk:Ruble. NotReallySoroka (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]