User talk:JMF/Archives/2021/May

EWR and the Varsity Line

Well I've left a message at WT:UKRAIL so hopefully we can get some more input. Difficultly north (talk) Simply south alt. 18:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Northwest of...

On its home article, Stony Stratford is described as being in "the northwest corner of the borough" (it previously said on the "extreme NW of the borough" which you recently edited). However, if the term borough is referring to the Borough of Milton Keynes (the answer is surely obvious), then the "northwest corner" is Hanslope Parish, not Stony. It's just another one of those scenarios where we have to differenciate btw the designated area of MK, and the Borough of MK. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@Anonymous MK2006: yes, you are correct. I should just have reverted the IP editor's edit. Will do so now if you haven't done it already. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stony Stratford, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Calverton and Cosgrove.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC on racial hereditarianism at the R&I talk-page

An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the recent RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.

Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Swiss cheese

No difficulty in finding WP:RS for that – see, e.g., this. Care to revert? I'll add something to the article too. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers:, let me know when you have updated the building article and I will revert. It will have to be a "See also", though, unless the building is actually called "the Swiss Cheese" (or il formaggio svizzero, I suppose), like "the Gherkin" and "the Cheesegrater" in London. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

In the common speech of Rome it's usually called La Groviera, literally "The Gruyère" but usually translated as "the Swiss Cheese". I've already added that to the article on the building, citing the JSTOR source above. Romans aren't too keen on Fascist-era/Fascist-style buildings – this one is commonly known as the Typewriter (la macchina da scrivere). Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers:, have you actually seen the talk page of the Swiss cheese article??? Some editors would have a heart attack over such sloppy usage!  :-D (Yes, I know about Italian fascist architecture and admit to a sneaking admiration for a few examples of it, though most is just bombastic. But even that is better than Nazi 'architecture'.) Ok, will revert with a clarifying note. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: I'm sorry but I could't go through with it. The article is a disambiguation page where visitors who use the term "Swiss cheese" will find the article they are looking for. I simply cannot see that La Groviera meets the criteria. As a compromise, I have added a See also to Gruyère cheese that has your text, a little modified. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

History of taxation in the United Kingdom

Honestly, I considered it so out of place that it made no sense to keep it WP:BOLD and didn't take the time to login to do it. Archiving it to the talk page made sense to salvage the small fraction of historical information suitable for the page.

A user visiting the page History of taxation in the United Kingdom is not expecting discussion of "incorrect theories" about why the tax year is what it is. They're expecting a chronological history. The fact that the incorrect (published book references) are disputed on the article is mostly WP:OR to be honest - if the book is both notable and actually wrong there should be widespread coverage in reliable sources. Some content can be salvaged in the article, by putting it in the correct place chronologically. The rest belongs elsewhere on Wikipedia/as an article on a reliable source which we reference. Philipwhiuk (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Philipwhiuk:, it seems to me that your action was an excessive interpretation of WP:BEBOLD and I have reverted per WP:BRD. The article cites a reliable source who says clearly (a) that the originator of the fiction got it wrong and (b) why he got it wrong. I don't agree that the topic is orthogonal to the article: one of the most frequent questions I have heard about taxation history is - how did we end up with such a strange date for the end of the tax year? I am more sympathetic to the argument that the section is disproportionately long - I just moved it out of Calendar (New Style) Act 1750, where it really was too tenuously linked, to the article where it belongs IMO anyway. Anyway, best we discuss at the article talk page rather than here. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)