User talk:JMF

Winslow station
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Evidence that the IP server that was blocked was not a sockpupet of Jahor12345 or TheCurrencyGuy
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)


 * 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)

Japanese Yen
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)

Robert Hooke

 * 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 –&#32; 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, 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)
 * 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)

I assume you have finished unless you want to review my changes to your changes? . Thank you for your thorough copy edit. While waiting in the queue, I did a Flesch–Kincaid readability analysis using the tool in Microsoft Word and found the result depressing. I convinced myself that it must be the scientific terms but your work dispelled that notion. Thank you again. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi JMF, yes I've finished now... I was tired yesterday and forgot to close the request. I'm glad my c/e has made the article more readable; some subjects can be a little dry but Hooke sounds like an interesting character to write about and I enjoyed doing the c/e. I see you've dealt with the tags I added so there's no need to inform you of them. :) Good luck with the article and cheers,  Baffle☿gab  23:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Ethnic groups in Gibraltar, are historical facts relevant outside the "History" section?
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)


 * 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)


 * 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 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)
 * 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)

Milton Keynes University Hospital
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

The Signpost: 25 April 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

ASCII on 36-bit machines
The Multics operating system ran on 36-bit machines (GE 645, Honeywell 6180, etc.) and stored ASCII text as 4 9-bit bytes per word, rather than as 5 7-bit bytes per word as in TOPS-10 (PDP-6, PDP-10). (Both lines of machines has special mechanisms for addressing bytes, and neither had a single fixed byte size.)

But this doesn't make ASCII a 9-bit code, any more than storing ASCII text in 8-bit bytes makes ASCII an 8-bit code. Guy Harris (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * yes, I agree. That is as I have explained in more detail at the new editor's talk page. Note of course that way back then, programmers did anything to save storage. Using only the first 64 codepoints for example gets you six characters per 36bit word. Lowercase? Who needs it? (Xref the Belgian bank at talk:EBCDIC ). Who cares what the vendors say, they want you buy a nonessential upgrade. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the GE/Honeywell 64-bit machines also supported 6-bit bytes. A 6-bit character set was defined; see page A-8 of the GE-635 System Manual.  That manual seems to indicate that the hardware only supported 6-bit characters with the "sequence character" Indirect then Tally address modifier; the GE-645 System Manual indicates that both 6-bit and 9-bit characters were supported, so perhaps that was added to the 645 for Multics.  (I seem to remember that the Multics PL/I compiler and library didn't use that for character manipulation, although with the Honeywell 6180, they used the Extended Instruction Set, which I think also supported both 6-bit and 9-bit characters.)
 * I'm not sure what the Belgian bank meant by "It is for this reason that all our customer names are stored in capital letters" - perhaps very early EBCDIC didn't have lower-case letters, leaving those code points as unassigned, and they were added later. EBCDIC was an 8-bit encoding from Day One, as far as I know, and if you use 8-bit bytes to store text but don't use capital letters, you're not saving any space. Guy Harris (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The Egyptian Pound
JMF, I'm the IP server that was blocked in April while editing at Egyptian pound and British currency in the Middle East on suspicion of being TheCurrencyGuy. Now that the matter seems to have been resolved, I'm considering returning to where I left off. And if I do I will either continue using the IP address or I will open a new account with a more suitable name. Meanwhile, before I decide whether or not to return to editing these topics, I ought to provide some background. My interest in April began with the issue of why and when the Egyptian piastre split from the Turkish piastre in 1844. Then as regards Arabia and the Middle East in the mid-19th century, the story begins with Turkish piastres circulating in tandem with Maria Theresa thalers at 20 piastres each. Indian rupees then started to circulate in the coastal areas and on the east coast of Africa, and then in the twentieth century, pound sterling units started to replace the Indian rupees. I put a lot of well sourced detail into the amendments that I made to these articles. You, meanwhile, based on your belief that I was the blocked editor TheCurrencyGuy, wiped out every single edit that I made, hence restoring these articles to their former inaccurate states. But before I get involved again, I need to be sure that there is no acrimony arising from that episode. If that matter is cleared up, I can then point out to you all the errors that exist in those articles as they now stand, and hopefully, bit by bit we can get the articles restored in a manner that everybody is agreed with. Do you have an interest in these topics?Specialrequestaccount (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that you stood on a sleeping dog. I strongly advise that you create an account: see Why create an account? for the long version but the short version is that it will make editing a lot easier and less likely to lead to misunderstandings. There is no acrimony on my part in your direction: if I let my reserve slip, it was because I had tried very hard to get TCG to work cooperatively because they could have been a very valuable editor had they ever appreciated that nobody is perfect and we can all learn from our colleagues. It was such a waste.
 * All your changes are still available from the history of the article and can easily be recovered. May I suggest that you ask the WP:Teahouse for help to do so, as I'm afraid I don't have time right now. If they decline, please ask me again. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks very much for your help. I'll contact WP:Teahouse. Specialrequestaccount (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I've just been to the tea house, but if you know how to re-revert this single revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_currency_in_the_Middle_East&diff=prev&oldid=1218650667 it would probably save any trouble. The other things will probably just have to lie because I don't have a way of going through all the edits that I did in early April. The one above is the most important because it gets the chronology, the dates, and the exchange rates correct. I'd be grateful if you could help. Specialrequestaccount (talk) 10:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you still need this? or have you already resolved it yourself? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I think I know a way of resolving it myself. If I put it back to exactly how it was on 12th April, then you can tell me where I need to put the references in, and I should have them available here.Specialrequestaccount (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The Main Source for the History of the Egyptian pound
JMF, if you can do me a favour and insert this source, then I will be able to see how it is formatted, and I should be able to do the follow up sourcing myself. Meanwhile, I've copied and pasted the abstract from the source here, https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781315253664/handbook-world-exchange-rates-1590%E2%80%931914-markus-denzel Chapter 32|8 pages Egypt (1869–1914)1 Abstract Sources: The Economist, London (1869-1890); Egyptian Gazette, Alexandria & Cairo (1884, 18931914). Concordance: WdW VIII, pp. 135-167

Currency: The basis of the Egyptian currency in the 19th century was the piastre (kurus) of 40 para. After the Turkish-Egyptian treaty of 1840, the piastre of both Turkish and Egyptian strikes should be equal by value, but the piastre of the Egyptian currency was commonly regarded as being of higher value than the Turkish one (see Chapter 13). Therefore 10 Egyptian piastres were equal to 11 Turkish piastres in Alexandria around the mid-19th century, whereas 10 Egyptian piastres were equal to 11.71 (since 1839) and later on to 11.27 Turkish piastres. In 1834 Egypt adopted the bimetallic standard on the basis of the Marie Theresa thaler, the famous Austrian trade coin for the Levant which was called abu taqa in Egypt, as the main coin unit equal to 20 piastre (confirmed by the Coin Act of 1842 and the government tariff of February 15th 1859). The piastre of 1839 contained 1.146 grammes of fine silver, the piastre of 1801 approximately 4.6 grammes of fine silver. The most important Egyptian coins, the bedidlik in gold (= 100 piastres; 7.487 grammes of fine gold) and the rial in silver (20 piastres; 23.294 grammes of fine silver), were minted since 1836/39 in the wake of the currency reform of December 1835, in force from May 1836. In addition, official money rates were fixed for these foreign coins whose circulation was allowed, but all these coins were undervalued, such as the British sovereign with 97½ piastres. This reform brought little improvement, because “foreign coins circulated much above the tariff rate, their value often fluctuating greatly from one part of the country to another” (OWEN [1969], p. 384). To make the quoting of the exchange rates independent of the devaluations of the Egyptian government, during this decade and those that followed the quotation was either done in Marie Theresa thalers or in piastres Egyptian money, as Egyptian money, both the actually minted Egyptian silver coins and the internationally accepted trade coins were understood, each at their daily price. Due to the pressure imposed by the British occupying power, the fall in silver prices from the end of the 1860s and the unsuccessful coin policy of the Egyptian government led to a currency reform in 1885. So bimetallism was superseded by the gold standard. Based on the model of the British sovereign and the Turkish lira, the Egyptian pound or lira (guinée el maes; 7.4375 grammes of fine gold) of 100 piastres became the basic monetary unit. Pieces of 10 piastres, the so-called Parisi, were minted in silver (11.25 grammes of fine silver) and 20 Egyptian piastres were equal to the 5-francs piece (the so-called real franca) or 1 piastre (1 1/8 grammes of fine silver) was equal to ¼ franc. Therefore the Marie Theresa thaler was fixed at 21 piastres and the sovereign at 97½ piastres as was done since 1835 (cf. ISSAWI [ed.] [1966], p. 523). This decree of November 14th 1885 remained in force even after the period documented here: “On the outbreak of the First World War Egypt shifted to a sterling exchange standard, and the link between the Egyptian pound and sterling was maintained until 1947” (ibid., p. 524).Specialrequestaccount (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC) Specialrequestaccount (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Would you copy/paste this request at talk:Egyptian pound with an open call for help, since it is something that any editor can do. It is unlikely that I will have time to do it anytime soon. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

JMF, OK, I'll do that. Meanwhile, I think I know a way of reverting the British currency in the Middle East. I'd be most grateful if you could then point out where I need to put the sources. I guarantee that I will have them at hand here.Specialrequestaccount (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As a general principle, any assertion or statement of historical fact needs supporting evidence. In the one section I looked at, I attached multiple citation needed tags. I assume that these will provide sufficient examples of what I mean. You could start by resolving those. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

It's OK. It's all sorted. The reference/source that I have supplied answers every single one of your citation requests. It's all in the abstract of the source. The source was actually already there before you reverted on 12th April. But meanwhile, I've found a direct link to the abstract, so as you can read the full abstract. Can you help me to add this link to ref number 10 in the article. You'll find it here, if you scroll down to chapter 32 (Egypt) and then click on abstract, https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781315253664/handbook-world-exchange-rates-1590%E2%80%931914-markus-denzel Specialrequestaccount (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , can you ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics. I'm not willing to do this without taking time first to understand its significance, which as I said I don't have time to do. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It's OK. There is no urgency. Meanwhile, if you read my updated profile, you will understand the inspiration behind it all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Specialrequestaccount Specialrequestaccount (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The history of the infamous E=mc^2 equation
If you are so convinced that Einstein was the first to discover E=mc^2...

Why don't you post in the Samuel Tolver Preston article that sites this?

And do not forget to use reliable sources. I must have a reliable source that mentions Dr. Preston but still insist Einstein as the discoverer of the relationship between mass and energy. K00la1dx (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Compare and contrast Hooke and Newton on the inverse square law (see Robert Hooke). Hooke (and others) conjectured it but it was Newton that derived the mathematical proof. You won't find the citation you are looking for because nobody of basic scientific competence has takns the aether theory seriously in over 100 years.]) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Maxwell assumes an ether. We do not write him out as the creator of Maxwells equations just because of it. Take displacement current.
 * I am just posting this to let you know I looked into your ether theories section on Wikipedia. Dr. Preston is not mentioned in the article.
 * I do not want to debate ether theory. Just want to state that regardless if the ether theory is true or not, Einstein was not the first person to come up with the relationship between mass and energy. In fact, Dr. Preston's ground breaking book "Physics of The Ether" contains descriptions of both Relativity and Special Relativity.
 * I just cannot post it on wiki because posting primary sources is "original research" and when I try to post using well researched publications it also gets rejected by editors on wiki that have little understanding of science... K00la1dx (talk) 03:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, you cannot post it because it is your assessment of the PSs and is thus a WP:OR violation. You would need to find a good number of reliable sources that take your view and it could then be given as a significant alternative viewpoint. Good luck with that, because you won't find them for one obvious reason: if in the past 120 years (but especially in the first half of the 20th century), if there had been any reasonable basis to prefer an Anglo-Saxon Protestant over a German Jew, it would certainly have been done. That it wasn't should tell you that you are wasting your own time as well as that of others.
 * This correspondence is now closed. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 June 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Source of edit
Hi. I noticed that you reverted one of my edits. The video promotion and its website prove its abbreviation/acronym and it is how citizens there refer to it. Can I have my edit restored please?41.62.55.98 (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For future reference, please give the name of the article concerned and give a response to the edit summary that gave the reason for the reversion. I should not have had to search out that info and won't do so again. Other editors likely would not. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I should have known better. Sorry for disturbing you.41.62.55.98 (talk) 08:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding our 'Hazard Symbols' discussion
Realistically, there isn't a lot of traffic on the Talk:Hazard symbol page, so we'll be waiting a while for other editors to weigh in, so I'm going to see if we can get a third opinion via the Third opinion system. I'll put the request in later (like ~9 hours from, around 01:00 16 June UTC, after I get home from work and eat dinner), so you have some time to respond to the reply that I made today, before anyone would look at it.

It's non-binding, basically another editor just looks at what we've discussed and give feedback when there's a two person stalemate. I don't think either of us are moving from our positions, and I don't have anything further to say that won't turn into a circular argument on the issue, so I'm fine with saying that we've stalemated.

I'll leave another message here when I've made the request, so you're aware it has been made.-- The Navigators (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I just put in the request in the Third opinion system.-- The Navigators (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks
Your edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ordinal_indicator&oldid=1229353797 taught me something. Somehow I'd never come across that template before in my 20+ years of editing here.

Not entirely incidentally, I see above evidence of some difficulties that came from giving less credence to IP editors. I think Wikipedia would be a better place if all editors and most admins could not tell who made each edit, forcing edits to stand on their own merits. So I edit only as an IP as a matter of policy.

And entirely incidentally, I used to use FIELDATA on a Univac 1106. :-) 24.10.15.212 (talk) 06:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The html code is certainly valid but my immediate reaction was "there must be a template for that", as raw html is a bit, well, raw. It was a new one to me too. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppetry
FYI I have reported an IP address that you have reverted. It seems clear to me that this user has carried on editing for months after being blocked - Sockpuppet investigations/Wisdom-inc 10mmsocket (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)