User talk:JMF

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
History of Milton Keynes Milton Keynes Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 John Ogilby Robert Hooke

Reverted my contribution

[edit]

Hello, I added some Python code that you reverted. I find code in articles useful because when I read the code I can clearly understand how something works and what it does, but without the code I cannot understand it. When I look at the mathematical formulas I cannot comprehend them. Frap (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Frap: Your skill with Python code makes you very much the exception. I acknowledge that many people struggle with mathematical formulae but very few indeed of those will be helped by Python code.
It doesn't help that the article concerned, body roundness index, describes a needless complication of a very simple idea: waist height ratio: โ waist/heightโ . Anybody can divide their waist circumference by their height and understand both the mechanism and the answer. The silly fudging introduced by BRI to get a number vaguely reminiscent of BMI really helps no-one. The concept has no redeeming features, has received no recognition among professionals and quite frankly the less attention it receives the better โ€“ but unfortunately it pops up every so often in popular media that loves such mystical nonsense.
@Redrose64:, is there a long version of why it is generally inappropriate to add code samples to articles? (You made a similar comment about code samples recently.) ๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented (several times) about code samples in the talk pages of templates; usually people have posted these as part of a request to amend the template. In each case the reasons for my objection are basically that every template has (or can be provided with) sandbox and testcases pages, by means of which the exact change may be specified and also tested.
But this is not the case with this instance. If that had come up on my watchlist, I would also have a problem with it: essentially, Frap is adding highly technical content that is of interest to a minority of readers, and of practical use to even fewer. For those interested in the calculation, this is already present using the somewhat more conventional notation provided by <math>...</math>.
Aside from that, line 12 of the Python code seems overcomplicated - instead of 
1 - (pow(waist_cm / 6.28318, 2) / pow(0.5 * height_cm, 2)), 0.5
it could surely be 
1 - (pow(waist_cm / (3.14159 * height_cm), 2)), 0.5
--Redrose64 ๐ŸŒน (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JMF No, I am not so good with Python and Redrose64 improved the code to make it better. You don't have to be good with Python because Python code is very easy to read, it is very clear and has little syntactic sugar or esoteric constructs. Even a person without prior knowledge of Python should be able to read and understand it.
@Redrose64 Would it be acceptable to have the code in the article but wrap it in the {{Collapse}} template? That way it compact and not in the way. I find it difficult to understand <math>, for me it is much easier to understand code. Frap (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc3s5h:, this sort of issue has come up at Date of Easter, where an editor tried to add Python or other pseudocode to 'explain' the algorithms. Do you have a ready-rolled explanation of why it is poor practice? (I think Redrose64 and I have already said so succinctly so only if you happen to have one that you put in the oven earlier. The article where the question arose is not worth the briefest moment of your time but [IMO!] the practice needs to be nipped in the bud.) TYVM. ๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a boilerplate reason to avoid Python or pseudocode. I'd prefer standard math notation unless there are special conditions that are cumbersome to express in math notation. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I guess it will have to go to talk:MOS if Frap doesn't want to accept the consensus that is already evident from the limited sample of editors that I have selected. ๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You mention MOS; we do have MOS:JARGON. --Redrose64 ๐ŸŒน (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 July 2025

[edit]
Endowment tax form, Wikimania, elections, U4C, fundraising and a duck!
And how do we know?
Five-year journey comes to healthy fruition.
Wikimedians from around the world will gather in person and online at the twentieth annual meeting of Wikimania.
As well as "hermeneutic excursions" and other scientific research findings.
The report covers the Foundation's operations from July 2023 - June 2024
A step towards objective and comprehensive coverage of a project nearly too big to follow.
Drawn this century!
How data from the Wikipedia "necessary articles" lists can shed new light on the gender gap
Annual plans, external trends, infrastructure, equity, safety, and effectiveness. What does it all mean?
Rest in peace.
Wouldn't it be nice without billionaires, scandals, deaths, and wars?
If you are too blasรฉ for Mr. Blasรฉ and don't give a FAC.
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mepperelf

[edit]

Hello. Just a note to say that i have opened an ANI report on Mepperelf. No need for you do do anything, as i say this is simply a courtesy notification as you have commented on the issue on their talk page ~ LindsayHello

tyvm. Concurrently I had written a comment to your report and have already posted. --๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 07:40, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise

[edit]

I have always maybe naively thought that wiki was a supportive environment to post things or adapt images but what I did not believe has been supportive is you exposing me to the wider group of volunteers without my consent or support given to me. I am learning. MatthewDavid41 (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MatthewDavid41: I see no exposure. The history of every article you have changed shows that you have changed it. I don't doubt your good faith in making those changes: the issue for me is how you are going about it.
If, as I assume, you believe your changes are an improvement, then why would you be defensive about it? And why be concerned that I have flagged as a possible cause for concern? ๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ligature edition

[edit]

The last edition does not include the logo itself, but a picture of jersey uploaded in commons 45.232.105.68 (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But the jersey design is copyright too. ๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And what does it uniquely illustrate in the article? Because it does come across as primarily decorative. Please read policy MOS:IMAGEREL. ๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 9 August 2025

[edit]
Plus a mysterious CheckUser incident, and the news with Wikinews.
A review of June, July and August.
Who is this guy?
Threads since June.
And slop.
It's not a conlang, it's a crossword puzzle.
gang aft agley, an' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain, for promis'd joy!
Everybody's Somebody's Fool.
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Infobox images

[edit]

Hi JMF. Our infobox image friend only joined WP a few months ago. Their entire 2,000 + edits are a systematic patrolling of every UK settlement and modifying every infobox whether a change to the image(s) is an improvement or not. The work is entirely in good faith but is causing many comments to be raised. There have been many friendly prompts in various places but encouragement does not appear to have any effect. I retired from Wikipedia governance five years ago and now mainly concentrate on maintaining and updating articles I worked on and the occasional new creation. I am hesitant to escalate - is there a better way? Kudpung เธเธธเธ”เธœเธถเน‰เธ‡ (talk) 10:11, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you already know that ANI doesn't adjudicate on content disputes. WP-UKGEO is the obvious forum but didn't seem overly exercised about it ()didn't help that the discussion got sidetracked into an argument about the Liverpool infobox). So in essence, local consensus applies. Except aht edits to GA articles must maintain GA quality and the "how to write about settlements" gives the required backing. ๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 10:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know all about ANI. However, not to put too fine a point on it, this issue could be considered borderline WP:DE. Kudpung เธเธธเธ”เธœเธถเน‰เธ‡ (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IPA

[edit]

If this is inappropriate, this style can be found in almost all Latin alphabet articles. Does that mean they also used it inappropriately? And it remained in the article for a long time without anyone noticing. Perhaps you could also remove it and cite the MOS you are referring to, thank you. - Arcrev1 (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Arcrev1: There is a discussion about this very topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Writing systems#Angle brackets. You may wish to contribute there.
Meanwhile... I agree totally that angle brackets should be used in the body of articles, the equivalent of WP:WAW. The relevant MOS is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Bolding of title and alternative names, amplified at Wikipedia:Writing better articles#First sentence content: "The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?". To me, the key message there is that the wp:principle of least surprise applies. The visitor is expecting an article about A, not {{!xtโŸจAโŸฉ}}. If they are not familiar with IPA, they are immediately confronted with an unfamiliar notation that immediately questions if this is the right article.
This is not the last word of course and your interpretation may prevail if the consensus at WikiProject Writing systems agrees with you. ๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queen on Fire โ€“ Live at the Bowl

[edit]

Hello JMF, just a courtesy note to let you know that I have undone your recent edit on this article to align it back to MOS:NOITALIC guide-lines. 217.43.183.214 (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to believe but I hadn't come across that guideline before. Thank you for letting me know. ๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Hard border" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Hard border has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 31 ยง Hard border until a consensus is reached. 9ninety (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' Noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 24.50.56.74 (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 9 September 2025

[edit]
UK Online Safety Act remains undefeated.
Plus Wiki rules, Wiki Spin, and physicists get street cred!
The price of Liberty is eternal vigilance.
And other new research findings.
Tis true: there's magic in the web of it.
With the usual mix of war, death, super heroes, a belt, and Wednesday.
It's an easy one.
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tannenberg Bold.png listed for discussion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tannenberg Bold.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. JayCubby 14:43, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proceeding with "List of uses for At sign in computing"

[edit]

I am following up about your proposal to proceed with creating a List of uses for At sign in computing page as you described in the Talk:At sign page. Are we waiting for any further responses, or can we begin working on this? Shall I begin writing a draft for this as well as dollar sign and asterisk (which will just be taking verbatim content from those pages and moving them to the new page)? 24.50.56.74 (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally we should allow at least a few weeks (three?) for comment. I don't think we need a full "request to split" process but if we have allowed a reasonable time then the BEBOLD is defensible.
Can you leave a "now hear this!" note at asterisk? (I think that the nite at dollar sign is adequate.) ๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll leave notes at those pages, I'll leave one at dollar sign anyway just to hear what others have to say on it. 24.50.56.74 (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's been roughly three weeks now, is it time? 24.50.56.74 (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I guess so. I suggest that you go ahead with one article a day (or more), starting with @ sign as being the most substantial one. Then subsequent changes can refer back to it your edit summaries. ๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]