User talk:JMF/2021/December

Please re-visit edit-warring user
You have previously (July 2021) provided sage advice at User talk:Wisdom-inc on the need to take time out from edit-warring. I think you could do some good by re-visiting that user's behaviour and provide little more advice. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Sadly my invitation to him/her to discuss the issues have been thrown back with the comment "It is clear you have come here to back this guy up." Sigh.... 10mmsocket (talk) 07:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

FYI I have mentioned your kind contribution in my subsequent ANI report on this user - see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents --10mmsocket (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: William B. Jensen has been accepted
 William B. Jensen, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=William_B._Jensen help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing!  DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Brexit stuff
Thanks. The real contribution is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1060644562&oldid=1060643852&title=Template:Clist_sovereignty

Also this needs to be expanded out of stubness: Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens' Rights Agreements. – Kaihsu (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Gender symbols
Hi. "Engaged"/"betrothed" is not a gender. Neither is "hybrid". (Yeah, I know -- I looked at it I don't know how many times before that dawned on me.) I see from the mis-quoted reference that it was originally "hermaphrodite" and that someone along the line changed it.

I can see splitting off the LGBT gender symbols per WEIGHT; I did the same with the Unicode table, so that it now includes only those symbols covered by the article. I added the square, triangle and circle symbols for genealogy as well.

We shouldn't put much weight on Unicode, though. Unicode isn't a RS for anything but itself. It certainly isn't a RS for what the symbols mean. For example, the 'male and female' sign is the standard symbol for hermaphroditic flowers, and has been for centuries; square/triangle and circle are also gender symbols, but are not listed as such in Unicode because they're not sufficiently distinct to require dedicated symbols.

I also removed the content fork on the origin of the planetary symbols. That's off topic for this article, and in any case the claims were quite dated. We can see from recently discovered Classical mss that Jupiter and Saturn are indeed monograms, but that Mercury, Venus and Mars are not. Anyway, best to keep such speculation at the planetary symbols article where ppl will know to update it as further finds are made.

I'd initially taken out all the stuff on hybrids but restored much of it now that I see someone had just replaced the word "hermaphrodite" with "hybrid". But some was actually about hybrids and so off-topic.

I've also restored the Unicode wording to the tables. Some had been replaced per COMMONNAME, but that's not relevant here. If we're worried about cruft (and yeah, I expect that could be a problem), best to stick to what Unicode says, as long as we don't imply that's what the symbols actually mean. — kwami (talk) 03:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , cruft and forking has been a huge problem, which is why nailing it down to a table of Unicode code-points made it perhaps less friendly but a lot more defensible. It avoids the need to make editor's personal judgement calls. I haven't looked at your latest edits yet, perhaps more later but your principles seem sound. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If the LGBT stuff is split off, then I expect we'll get fewer disputes in the main article, which will be slimmed down for those readers who aren't looking for LGBT symbols. (I don't know what %age of our readers that will be -- the LGBT stuff is topical.) Most of the remaining symbols are well established and uncontroversial. Where I see future expansion is in the symbols on public restrooms, which have a lot of variability internationally. Not all countries use variants of the British Rail symbols, or they may use British Rail in major cities and local traditions in smaller towns (e.g. in Japan). I made a start, adding China, Poland and Lithuania from sources already on WP, but I'm sure there's a lot more that could be done. That might eventually need to be split off as well, with just a summary remaining in the main article, but I doubt there will be anything contentious about it. For the LGBT symbols article, I found a published 2ary (or 3ary) list that I copied most of the symbols from and made matching SVGs for. (I omitted 3, but that was because they'd be annoying to make SVGs for, not a judgement of their worthiness.) They give multiple meanings for many of them, so it's obvious even from that one source that they're not an established set. They duplicate much of the WP-de list, though I'm still looking for independent attestation of the (iconically very obvious) bisexual symbols. The Encoding section on that article too (what I split off from the main article) is restricted to Unicode symbols and wording, but I think it's clear that it's covering Unicode and not making broader claims. The frustrating thing with the WP-de article is that they don't source anything, so at first I had no idea if someone there made them up. — kwami (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Did you notice
this attack on you and I think me?. Doug Weller talk 13:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but chose to ignore it as just a rant. Options were to engage and point to WP:RS or just delete per NPA. I see that has just done the latter. ==John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And blocked the account. Doug Weller  talk 17:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)