User talk:JMF/Archives/2021/January

European Single Market

Hi John, I made an addition to the ESM talk page regarding your revert, just wanted to let you know.

Thanks,

BBX118 21:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bbx118:, you need to participate in the discussion at the talk page. See WP:BRD. Edit wars go nowhere slowly, especially when participant(s) get a block to cool off.

NI is not a full SM participant, its relationship is "Turkey plus": the second map and associated text is the more appropriate one. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Re: Irish Sea Border

Hi - I'm pretty new here so hope this is right way to contact you.

You commented: "Deleted money laundering controls at UK/EU border since this is irrelevant to the Irish Sea border, applies equally at Dover/Calais or Tangier/Algeciras". I'm confused by this comment - the Irish Sea border is *not* the border between the UK & EU, at least not as far as travel between GB & NI. This is internal UK travel. The Dover/Calais border is totally different - both an EU/non-EU border and a border between two countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Currywuss (talk • contribs) 16:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Currywuss: Yes, this is the fastest way to contact me. If the reason for the contact is specific to an article, then then the 'correct' way is to use the talk page of that article, perhaps begun with a {{ping}} if you suspect that they might not have a watch set for that page. In this case, no harm done to use my talk page but for future reference this is the sort of question that goes on the article talk page.

Anyway, it turns out that I believed the sentence as written "Private individuals bringing more than €10,000 in cash over the Irish border (either direction) are required to declare this in advance." when I should really have checked the source and then I would have spotted that the actual error was the missing word Sea. I will reinstate the deleted sentence, with the correction applied. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Irish Sea border / EU–UK Joint Committee

Thanks for the clarification and sorry for the trouble. 14.0.236.217 (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Calendar (New Style) Act 1750

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

One, perhaps minor thing, you might want to confirm is whether the sections of the act used Roman numerals. These suddenly appeared in the article's text toward the end. I changed them to agree with the rest of the article.

Best of luck with the GAN. Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: Thank you ever so much for doing this ce. I'm embarrassed that you found do many items that should have been obvious. I will check the Roman numerals, it is probably just a consequence of the many different hands over the years.

The only question I have (feel free to ignore, the Guild has a never-ending backlog) was whether you noticed any nice DYK candidates? If so, a brief note at talk:Calendar (New Style) Act 1750#"Did you know" candidates would be most welcome. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

John Maynard Friedman Hello. No need for embarrassment, it's easy to get so involved with an article that oversights happen. It happens when copy editing as well. As to DYK, I'm a big fan of the "did you know nothing happened" one but that may only appeal as an inside joke to people who live in the UK or have visited. The obvious one to my mind would be: DYK that until the Calendar (New Style) Act of 1750 was passed, the new year began on March 25th in England and Wales? Cheers, Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 citations

Dear John Maynard Friedman. I recently admired the article "Calendar (New Style) Act 1750". I was impressed by the quality and thought it should be made a GA. Trying to improve my citation skills, I wondered about the citation {{sfn|Pickering|1765a|loc= 3 "Easter ..."}}. I believe you added it on 21:12 10 December 2020. I would have written {{Sfn|Pickering|1765a|p=[https://...&pg=PA189 189, margin]|ps=: "Easter ..."}} using the "|p=" and "|ps=" instead of the "|loc=" as the page is known. I struggled to find the quote in Pickering as it is in the margin, so I added "margin". I added a URL in the "|p=" so that the reader can click through to the source without passing by the source list. Finally, I wonder whether the old-style Google-Books URL "https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rLsuAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA189" can be used. The new ones are so long. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Johannes Schade: Thank you, I hope so but it needs someone to do the GA review. I have put a lot of work into it, that'll teach me to 'just fix this' and 'just fix that while I'm here' and 'wait a minute, how do we know that?' (see the talk page discussion about the Bishops being deceived that turned out to be unfounded).

It took me a l o n g time to learn how to do wp:harvard citations. I only ever use them when I have multiple citations of the same book. But it is worth the effort to learn, I think.

But no, I don't think that is a good idea to put URLs in {{sfn}}s, because things can change and having the main citation at the sources means that any fix works immediately for all references. But this is my opinion, if you want to pursue then I suggest open a topic at wikipedia talk:citing sources or template talk:sfn]. Did you know that if you mouse-over the citation number, the first pop-up is just "Pickering (1765)" but if you hold it, you get the full citation? So I will partially revert your change: your addition of 'margin note' is good and that will stay. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread your note as saying that you had already made that change. I think you may well be right about using p=/ps= rather than loc= though, so I'll have a look at that again. Right now, the WP:Guild of Copy Editors is giving it the blue pencil treatment, so I'll wait until that work is complete. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Johannes Schade:, on reading the template documentation, specifically template:sfn#Adding a URL for the page or location has exactly the style you described. I still worry about doing that: what if Google stops providing this service and we have to change to Archive.org? How easy will it be to find these embedded links? Needs some thought. The object of citations is so that they can be verified. The chapter in Pickering is particularly long so if someone does want to read it, it is not particularly difficult or long-winded to find. How much hand-holding should we do? So now I'm interested to know what made you raise it? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear John Maynard Friedman. I liked the article, also had the impression that we share an interest in citations. I therefore looked at how the citations were done. I was interested in how you used quotations in the some footnotes but not in others. I use a lot of quotations in footnotes (perhaps too much) and sometimes get flak for that. I saw Twofingered Typist did your copyedit. I see you nominated the article for GA under World History. You are number 27 in the queue. If you want, I could do your GA review. I started doing GA reviews on 22 Nov 2020. I have done 4 and am busy with a 5th, which goes slowly as the nominator takes time to respond. I have also nominated one which is currently under review and does not go well. If you want me to start yours, give me a shout, but perhaps you can find somebody better. I think yours would pass easily. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Johannes Schade:, yes, I would be really pleased if you would do my GAR, please. Thank you very much. I don't think that there is really so formal a queue for GARs such as the GOCE operates. BTW, if you happen to see a nice DYK candidate while assessing, please add it to the list at the talk page.

Ideally if the quotations are significant enough then they should go in the body but sometimes it makes life so much easier for people following citations, but I do try to limit the number. I'm also very aware that most readers don't actually bother looking at citations unless they have a homework assignment! I think visitors realise that their primary purpose is to validate our content, so it is probably not worth a great deal of effort. I do have a weakness for footnotes where I believe that something is of genuine interest but is just too detailed or perhaps off-topic to be in the main body. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Calendar (New Style) Act 1750

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Johannes Schade -- Johannes Schade (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Your message

I don't think its really fair to blame me. I just thought the article looked a bit messy and out of date. I didn't delete anything just moved and added to it.

I noticed you didn't feel the need to revert all my changes only add to them. I still have sources etc I was going to add but I'm going to take a break now. if it gets reverted that will disappointed as I have tried to work quite hard today n it, but I don't want to get into the hassle of an argument on the internet. Also thank you for being polite everyone else always seem to start off with such blunt and demanding messages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.39.51 (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Calendar (New Style) Act 1750

The article Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Johannes Schade -- Johannes Schade (talk) 09:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)