User Talk: JMF

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{User:JMF/FA}}
{{usertalkback|you=notifications|me=notifications}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(90d)
| archive = User talk:JMF/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 7
| maxarchivesize = 150K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 2
| minthreadsleft = 5
}}
{{Archives}}

Ligature Citations & Other 合文 Formatting etc.

{{coltop|Discussion transferred to talk:Ligature (writing) ↗ to solicit broader consensus.}}
Hello @JMF,

I added the citations you requested on Ligature ↗. I have been in the process of a personal project of adding unencoded characters to various articles that require them. (Largely on Wiktionary where I am most active) but also on all Wikimedia sister wikis, hence the addition of "16px|⿱山⿰工⿸𠂉⿱乀工 ↗" to the thumbnail description of the respective character. If you have any questions or concerns feel free to send me a message.

Cheers & best wishes
(鬱鬱鬱ㄓㄥ) 15:33, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

:{{rto|鬱鬱鬱ㄓㄥ}} Thank you but I am still unable to see how these ''examples'' of Chinese ligatures are useful? How do they improve readers' understanding of the ''principle'' (idea, concept) of ligatures in writing? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
::The character was added for the purpose of textual representation of the character in the thumbnail. This is perhaps something that is more commonly requested on the Chinese Language Wikipedia. The Chinese language has upwards 40,000 characters which are not encoded in Unicode, (with around 100,000 encoded as of Unicode 17.0). Hence, the desire for textual representation of unencoded characters. Personally, I think it's nice to have on the English Wikipedia as well
::Warm regards (鬱鬱鬱ㄓㄥ) 16:09, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
:::But MOS:IMAGEREL ↗ applies. "Nice to have" is not really a good enough reason. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
::::An article about ligatures should feature those ligatures in text form. I do believe it's that simple
::::-cheers & best wishes (鬱鬱鬱ㄓㄥ) 18:36, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
{{colbot}}

Grammar

It is actually Keynes', in the Bletchley bus example. I was an English teacher once. Words ending in s have their own rules, when not pluralised, based on whether or not it's pronounced verbally. So you would say James's car but not James' car...but Venables' England team, not Venables's. Romiley401 (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

:{{small|Talk page lurker here.}} @Romiley401: Who says it's {{code|Keynes'}}? As a teacher, you will know that English is not a prescribed language, and you were likely using rules made up by whoever wrote the curriculum you followed. Like many publishers, Wikipedia has its own guidelines for how English is written, and in this case it's {{code|Keynes's}}, as shown at MOS:'S ↗. Bazza <span style="color:grey">7</span> (talk ↗) 14:20, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
:Keynes/Keynes's is ''exactly'' like James/James's - I can't see any reason why it should be different and you don't give one as the reference to Venables is not at all similar. The rule, as it is commonly expressed, says "if you would suffix {{nobr|''-ez''}} to indicate possessive when speaking, then append 'apostrophe s' when writing". Most of the exceptions, like Achilles and Dumas, are foreign words. See Apostrophe ↗ for the long version. Whether or which, we follow the MOS. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Glyphs

{{coltop|Conversation transferred to talk:Glyph ↗ as it may be of wider interest.}}

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glyph&oldid=1348906472 ==

We misunderstood each other.

I wasn't of the assumption that the bars of the dollar sign are their own graphemes.

I meant that -- grayed out or not -- there are three graphemes (U+0024 (<code>$</code>), U+0031 (<code>1</code>), U+0032 (<code>2</code>)) visible. Those rendered across nine fonts, results in 27 unique glyphs.

We should either

edit the image so that the U+0031 (<code>1</code>) and U+0032 (<code>2</code>) graphemes are erased

make a note in the description, something like "Ignoring the U+0031 (<code>1</code>) and U+0032 (<code>2</code>) graphemes, there are ..."

treat the grayed out glyphs equal to the non-grayed ones -- since graying something out doesn't effectively convey that it should be ignored. So something like "Three graphemes (U+0024 (<code>$</code>), U+0031 (<code>1</code>), U+0032 (<code>2</code>)) rendered across nine fonts, yielding 27 unique glyphs".

Elias Jurkeit (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

:Yes, so I guessed and taken to that level, you are not wrong. But the "greying out" convention generally does indeed mean "this is not significant information, it should be ignored", so there are only nine glyphs of the dollar grapheme.
:I don't consider it appropriate to make the caption any longer than it is, but we can certainly add a footnote to clarify the purpose of grey markup. And observe that the 1 and the 2 graphemes also each have nine glyphs. I will do that now. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
{{colbot}}

Modern immigration to the United Kingdom

You just reverted my edit on this article. I understand your action, where do you think it is right to add that information? BumbleBeeBelle (talk) 09:36, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

:There isn't really anywhere it can go. Wikipedia is not a newspaper ↗. Without analysis, it is just another anecdote, one of many that maybe adds up to some conclusions about the overall effect. But it is not for us to draw any conclusions or to judge what is especially significant, because that violates WP:SYNTH ↗ & WP:NOR ↗. That is the key point.
:Of course that is my take on it and if you disagree, you can certainly take it to the talk page. But such reports of isolated incidents have been declined before because the article is about the philosophy, not a blow-by-blow catalogue. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:10, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
:and if you think it is at all remarkable that potential or actual criminals get advice on how to avoid, evade or manipulate the law, you've led a very sheltered life. Though obviously not in the British Virgin Islands and the like. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
::I think that facts, that are proven as right should appear. If this turns out to be a true, it is notable.
::My personal view is not relevant, it's what is right or wrong according to Wikipedia. Just like your opinion about my sheltered or non sheltered life is irrelevant or if they are or are not virgins in the British Virgin Islands BumbleBeeBelle (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
:::"What is right or wrong according to Wikipedia" is that we don't make value judgements about the significance or otherwise of events. If the article were a list of such events, then absolutely it would be included. But that is not what it is. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
::::See how simple it is to give a straight forward answer, without going in to the status of Virgins in the world BumbleBeeBelle (talk) 06:30, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

''The Signpost'': 21 April 2026

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2026-04-21}} </div> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * '''Read this Signpost in full ↗''' * Single-page ↗ * Unsubscribe ↗ * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 21 April 2026 (UTC) </div></div>

(This message was sent to :User talk:John Maynard Friedman ↗ and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Anthropocene

You have reverted ↗ the edit of Special:Contributions/~2026-28037-25 ↗ as unexplained. I do not know his/her reason for Special:Diff/1353342207 ↗, but a possible explanation you can find in Talk:Anthropocene#Chronology in the infobox ↗, where I commented (with links to references) the disputed accuracy of the infobox (not only the start time of Anthropocene, but also the presented lower boundary definition) two month ago. Maybe you are the experienced editor who can correct it in a complex way, which would not need an update each year, or you know another experienced editor interested in geochronology and will draw his attention. Thank you. Petr Karel (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

:{{rto|Petr Karel}} We should not have to guess the logic behind strange edits. By contrast, your explanation is very clear and if you don't get a response to it within a few days, I encourage you to correct the infobox accordingly. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
:but to answer your specific question, I don't have the skill set it to update automatically. (And maybe that would not be a good idea anyway given that the proposed era, let alone its (calendrical) epoch, has not received approval. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

RDT

I have, see my reply. Difficultly north (talk) <small>Time, department skies</small> 09:22, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Where is the list defined reference?

{{helpme-helped}}
Can anyone see the reason for the

{{red|Cite error: A}} list-defined reference {{red|has a conflicting group attribute "lower-alpha" (see the help page).}}

at Newport Pagnell ↗? The article doesn't have any evident list-defined references. What am I not seeing? It is going to be something really obvious but I've been trying for too long. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
:* This took me a minute. The issue turned out to be two EFNs, one which was nested in a ref tag, and then a ref tag which was nested in an EFN. I found Wikipedia:Nesting footnotes ↗ to be helpful. Learned something new myself, thanks! <span style="color:Purple;font-size:medium;font-family:Bradley Hand ITC">ASUKITE</span> ↗ 12:23, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
:*:{{rto| ASUKITE}} thank you. So there was a good reason for going round in circles! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

''The Signpost'': 22 May 2026

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2026-05-22}} </div> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * '''Read this Signpost in full ↗''' * Single-page ↗ * Unsubscribe ↗ * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:16, 22 May 2026 (UTC) </div></div>

(This message was sent to :User talk:John Maynard Friedman ↗ and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Funny story

Hey JMF,

I thought I'd entertain you with a story about Module:Calendrical Calculations ↗. Today, I looked at Template:Infobox calendar date today ↗ and noticed something weird about the solar terms. For the Chinese calendar, it says "Xiaoman ↗, 10 days until Mangzhong ↗", but for the Japanese calendar it says "Shōman ↗, 11 days until Bōshu ↗". Those numbers shouldn't be different, so at first I thought something is wrong and I'll have to do some debugging. But it turns out it's actually working perfectly. Here's the reason the days are off by one:

The Japanese calendar uses Tokyo as its point of observation, while the Chinese calendar uses Beijing. Mangzhong/Bōshu starts when the sun's aspect reaches 75°. According to NAOJ ↗, that will happen this year on 6 June at 12:48 AM in JST. Since China is an hour behind Japan, it will still be 5 June there. Module:Calendrical Calculations ↗ calculates solar aspects and new moons independently of NAOJ, so I was incredibly relieved to see proof that their results perfectly match, and that was seemed at first to be a bug was actually a feature. <span style="background:linear-gradient(to left,violet,blue,cyan,green,#e1ce00,orange,red);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">🎸平沢唯は俺の嫁🐱</span> <small>(talk | contribs ↗ | Yui shrine)</small> 08:32, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

:Maybe you were right first time? The top of the infobox says "at UTC+00:00". Does that not mean that the issue should not have arisen because even in Japan that's quite a while before mid-morning? (I'm not sure what you mean by "aspect"? Is it elevation or position in the zodiac?). Is my "quite a while" not "quite" enough?
:While I think of it, I considered asking if you fancied adding Julian Day ↗? But it would seriously break the template because it uses only the first word and we would have two Julians. So close the door and tiptoe quietly away, I suggest. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
::The dates change at UTC yes, but the Japanese calendar section converts the current UTC date to the equivalent date in the Japanese calendar, and the Chinese calendar section coverts the current UTC date to the equivalent date in the Chinese calendar. In the Japanese and Chinese calendars, the months and solar terms depend on which days certain astronomical events (like new moons, or the sun crossing a certain angle) happen on. So if, say, a new moon happened in Japan just after midnight and in China just before midnight, the Japanese and Chinese calendars would be off by a day until the next new moon. And it's the same with solar terms. (This is explained with examples here ↗ on the Japanese Wikipedia). So the fact that this is reflected in the template shows how accurate it is, which I'm proud of.
::Also, by "aspect" I meant celestial longitude ↗, or the sun's position on the ecliptic ↗. You can also think of it as the angle the earth makes with the sun. Every year, it goes from 0 to 360, then starts again from 0. And I think adding Julian Day to the template is a good idea. It only falls back to using the page title if there right parameters aren't already provided, so as long as we give it the right parameters in Julian calendar ↗ and Julian day ↗, it shouldn't break. <span style="background:linear-gradient(to left,violet,blue,cyan,green,#e1ce00,orange,red);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">🎸平沢唯は俺の嫁🐱</span> <small>(talk | contribs ↗ | Yui shrine)</small> 11:38, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Ah ok, I sort of suspected that but thought the such precision would not arise. Maybe you could add a "Restrictions and limitations" section to the doc page?
:::Re Julian Day v Julian Calendar, the problem is this: {{tq| For <calendar name>, give first word only.}} The template as it is coded only uses the first word because the second one is always "calendar", right? Wrong: Common Era. You have to say {{tq|1=default_calendar=common}}, omitting the 'era'. So how do you distinguish between the two Julians? Just declare the second one to be "Julian_Day" as it won't be seen anywhere outside the code (and the doc page of course).
:::But I think we should definitely do it if poss, just do the work to make it happen. (Easy for me to say, of course!) though maybe if is going to be any more than trivial, it might be wise to check for objections beforehand. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
::::I don't see why it needs to be described as a limitation, because it's not a limitation of my code (which is really Dershowitz and Reingold's). It's a known quirk of the Japanese, Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese calendars, as explained here ↗ and here ↗. Also, I'm gonna try adding Julian day to the template <span style="background:linear-gradient(to left,violet,blue,cyan,green,#e1ce00,orange,red);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">🎸平沢唯は俺の嫁🐱</span> <small>(talk | contribs ↗ | Yui shrine)</small> 06:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
::::I just added Julian day to the template. I'm thinking of adding Rata Die ↗ too, but I don't know if it has enough usage to justify that <span style="background:linear-gradient(to left,violet,blue,cyan,green,#e1ce00,orange,red);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">🎸平沢唯は俺の嫁🐱</span> <small>(talk | contribs ↗ | Yui shrine)</small> 03:27, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::Ordinal date ↗ should be another easy addition? I see it already has handcrafted version.
:::::''Rata Die'' looks way too fringe IMO. It is just another one of the many calendar reform ideas that has never gained traction. It would need a lot more RS coverage - serious coverage, not silly season clickbait. Otherwise we just open the floodgates to the many wp:FRINGE ↗ fantasies.
:::::If you are looking for a challenge, the Hindu calendar ↗s are conspicuously absent from the list, but are there any accepted conversion algorithms? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::Rata Die isn't a calendar reform idea, it was just designed to make converting between different calendars as easy as possible. It's actually what Module:Calendrical Calculations ↗ uses. As for the Hindu calendars, I tried implementing them but gave up. Calendrical Calculations ↗ describes about four different Hindu calendars, but Wikipedia says there are dozens of them ↗, and I couldn't figure out which ones the book was referring to. Also, I just don't find Hinduism very interesting, which is why I decided to prioritise other calendars and do the Hindu calendar the end (if at all) <span style="background:linear-gradient(to left,violet,blue,cyan,green,#e1ce00,orange,red);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">🎸平沢唯は俺の嫁🐱</span> <small>(talk | contribs ↗ | Yui shrine)</small> 12:19, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::That'll teach me to do more than a quick scan and then think I've got the essence of it. No objection in that case, 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Lumo to Stirling

I'm confused. Like you I thought some of the intermediate stations wouldn't be called at until July but looking at National Rail ↗ I see that the 13:19 and 16:36 today are calling at all/most of the stations. Are we missing something? 10mmsocket (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

:Lumo ran (will run?) one train on one day this week for journalists and they are running some test trains in the next few weeks that enthusiasts can maybe book: this is not a service in any meaningful sense. According to their website,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.modernrailways.com/article/lumo-stirling-may-start |title=Lumo's direct Stirling to London trains to start this month |date=11 May 2026 |access-date=25 May 2026 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260525143135/https://www.modernrailways.com/article/lumo-stirling-may-start |archive-date=25 May 2026}}</ref> scheduled services begin on 27 July.
:Or have I misunderstood your point? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
: 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
::That's what I thought, but National Rail show Lumo's 16:36 (as does their own website) every weekday with multiple calling points.--10mmsocket (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
:::The relevant page of their website at London to Stirling by train ↗ says "The first Stirling to London Euston service is due to run in May. Services are being released for sale in phases with the earliest currently on sale being the 9th June and a full timetable available on July 27th." Maybe the NR info just tells you that they have the paths reserved but may or may not choose to use them. Or that there is a test train running right now but is not a scheduled service. Per WP:NOTNEWS ↗, no problem to wait another month. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
{{reflist talk}}

The Economist

"digitat" was a spelling mistake. I meant "digital". I just thought digital was relevant because earlier in the article The Economist is described as "weekly print magazine ... and daily on digital platforms". ''1843'' is a digital-only magazine. Griffindd (talk) Griffindd (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

:fwiw, I didn't see the typo {{smiley}}. "Digital" just seemed a very (very) dated word to use. "Digital platform" makes a bit more sense but still reads contrived. So backtracking, maybe the problem starts earlier because that's where the "digital platform" rot set in. How about rewriting {{xt!|weekly print magazine format and daily on digital ↗ platforms}} as {{xt|weekly in print magazine format and online daily}}? Then ''1839'' is simply "online". 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

constructive editing vs policing edits

I feel I need to draw your attention to your responses over at {{slink|Talk:Lorem ipsum|History or "etymology" or development section}}.

Despite not {{oldid2|1357395552|one}}, not {{oldid2|1357401827|two}}, but {{oldid2|1357549684|three}} attempts, I never could get you to respond with anything other than generic non-committal responses such as {{tq|Yes, worth doing, provided everything [meets criteria]}}, {{tq|Such a section would really have to [meet critera]}}, and {{tq|They are all acceptable provided that each [meet critera]}}.

At no point did you seem to understand that I wanted to avoid making edits which you or someone else would then revert on a "doesn't [meet critera] basis".

One of the most frustrating and energy-leeching experiences you can have on Wikipedia when another editor contends themselves with judging your efforts, not making actual contributions themselves. While it can take hours to post contributions, it takes only seconds to undo or revert them. I find it much better to engage editors in discussion beforehand, so when the edit is actually made, everyone is involved, which greatly lessens the risk any one of them outright reverts any additions.

However, with you I failed to engage in this way, which is why I feel I should speak directly and frankly. I'm not saying you are in breach of any policies or even etiquette customs, but I would ask you to recalibrate your approach. You would come off as much more of a constructive collaborator if you didn't limit your involvement to statements that basically boil down to "yes you go ahead and spend the time to do that while I limit my involvement to possibly reverting you".

Next time, how about looking at what other editors try to accomplish and make your own attempt at incorporating them into an article? At least this way you put skin in the game, which greatly mitigates the appearance I'm sure you don't want to give off!

Happy editing! CapnZapp (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

:{{rto|CapnZapp}} We need to backtrack a little because it seems that we are at cross-purposes.
:Before doing a lot of work, editors (including me) often use article talk pages to check that the idea has support, or that this is the best place for it, or that there is something significant that I may have missed. It was from that perspective that I responded as I did to your initial proposal - I took it as being this kind of request for advice and comment - I was indicating support for the principle of your idea. You did not initially invite editors to participate in its development so clearly we were not starting from the same place. The compounding factor was the concurrent debate over the YouTube video, which is why I may have pounded the WP:RS ↗ drum. I have no doubt as to your good faith.
:So looking at the two cases where I have intervened:
:# in the case of the YouTube video, WP:RSYT ↗ (and WP:PRIMARY ↗) are unambiguous. We all want the claim to be true but the evidence has to be evaluated by a reliable wp:SECONDARY ↗ source before we can use it. This practice of verification ↗ and fact checking by editors is fundamental to en.wikipedia and is the reason why it is one of the most trusted sources of information on the internet.
:# in the case of your proposed section, {{tq|... or [to check] that there is something significant that I may have missed}} is the essential message here. I considered (and still consider) your proposal to be a good one but [per the perspective mentioned above], I identified that its current inability to say ''who'' invented Lorem Ippsum will make it feel unsatisfactory and unfinished. This is not a show-stopper in principle but I for one would feel that it would not be worth the effort before we have that answer. That is no reason why you should reach the same conclusion.
:As to your general observation, may I point to a recent exchange of correspondence at User talk:SPQR10#Conjectural maps, where I insisted that (what initially looked like) WP:OR ↗ be supported by an RS or it could not stand. The editor identified the RS and I helped format it and apply it, which has produced the editor's desired outcome and meets Wikipedia standards. Conversely, you may prefer to read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#County/region definitions ↗ in which an editor has in mind a significant change that would require a lot of work and (wisely) is taking soundings before doing so. I oppose their idea and am far from the only one to do so. Whatever the outcome, this is a good example in practice of the perspective that I described earlier. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Sky News

Re this edit ↗, Sky News are a WP:RS ↗, whatever you think of their ownership. If you want to challenge this status, WP:RSN ↗ is the venue to raise it at. Mjroots (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

:when all the other RS news sources are still saying 89, then to change it to 99 because one source says so - especially one owned by News International - is just not good enough. Of course 99 could be true of course, and the definition of "injured,' goes from bruises to fractures, but it needs more than one source. WP follows, not leads. WP:NOTNEWS ↗. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
:and we now the BBC agrees with Sky, so the update is legitimate because we have RSs that concur. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

''The Signpost'': 21 June 2026

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2026-06-21}} </div> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * '''Read this Signpost in full ↗''' * Single-page ↗ * Unsubscribe ↗ * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC) </div></div>

(This message was sent to :User talk:John Maynard Friedman ↗ and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Talk:United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

Was watching Marco Rubio asserting Iran and Oman's toll collection as illegal and decided to investigate as, untruths and partial truths fly about in conflict. THe USA has had a habit of not becoming parties to many UN conventions since the 1960's and I was not surprised to see UNCLOS III was another non party status. Having two non-parties (US/Iran) trying to establish new doctrine/law/treaties over an international strait ↗ seems to be yet another example of international law, the role of the UN, being undermined by conflicts involving the US and/or Israel over the last few years.
I asked for a much more limited clarification of non-party rights and parties ability to exclude in the talk page.
You appear to have a great deal more contact and knowledge of the source material than myself.

Yes, I have a Wikipedia account since about 2014.

No, I will not sign in.

I grew fed-up spending hours a day competing with paid editors (either clergy, professors, state intelligence officers, political operatives, bio/pharma/other vested corporate employees) while I'm living on a limited $ SSA retirement check.
This is just a small part of my autistic special interest areas. ''International justice and who gets access to it.'' ~2026-36559-33 ↗ (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

'''Additional:''' Oman is the only party to UNCLOS III and the international traversal lanes have historically resided solely within Oman's territorial waters IIRC, 2 nmile wide single directional lanes with 1 nm buffer between. During the conflict Iran was attempting to create traversal lanes within it's territory (I might have misunderstood some point from news broadcasts). I'm not hearing much about Oman's current involvement in the diplomatic talks. These issues are for the Hormuz crisis ↗ article. Focus would be on Oman (party), where the lanes historically existed, the parties to UNCLOS surrounding the strait, and non-parties rights to the strait under UNCLOS. Mayhaps a example using the Hormuz strait could be added, months from now, after stability of the cycle, to clarify non-parties under UNCLOS. ~2026-36559-33 ↗ (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

:First, contributions to the lead section of any article are most likely to be challenged and reverted unless correcting a failure to summarise a whole section of body content. So your edit is gone again but its intent is not, because I added a section to address the issue of nations that have not ratified. (And yes, Rubio questioning the legality of Iran's actions is a joke.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
:Additional: the addition you suggest would go in the Hormuz article, not the UNCLOS article. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Anno Domini

Did our edits conflict ↗? Or did I accidentally delete your edits? I'll let you clean it up and restore what you want, if you don't mind. --Macrakis (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

:{{rto|Macrakis}} Yes, we had an edit conflict but I decided that your response was more measured and doing a better job of keeping the focus on the SD. So I decided not to reinstate mine for those reasons. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2026 (UTC)