Jump to content

User talk:JMF

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
History of Milton Keynes Milton Keynes Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 John Ogilby Robert Hooke

Robert Hooke

[edit]
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  –  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 {{subst:spd}}, 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

@Baffle gab1978: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

ASCII on 36-bit machines

[edit]

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)[reply]

@Guy Harris: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 May 2024

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

The Egyptian Pound

[edit]

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)[reply]

@Specialrequestaccount: I'm afraid that you stood on a sleeping dog. I strongly advise that you create an account: see Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
@Specialrequestaccount: Do you still need this? or have you already resolved it yourself? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Main Source for the History of the Egyptian pound

[edit]

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)[reply]

@Specialrequestaccount: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Specialrequestaccount: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Specialrequestaccount:, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The history of the infamous E=mc^2 equation

[edit]

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)[reply]

Compare and contrast Hooke and Newton on the inverse square law (see Robert Hooke#Gravitation). 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

The Signpost: 8 June 2024

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

Source of edit

[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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I should have known better. Sorry for disturbing you.41.62.55.98 (talk) 08:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding our 'Hazard Symbols' discussion

[edit]

@JMF: 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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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

Thanks

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 July 2024

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

Suspected sockpuppetry

[edit]

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 - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wisdom-inc 10mmsocket (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 July 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JMF&oldid=1236407616"