Thanks for uncovering the error with the two John Fonblanques. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 20:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to The Jurist has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Optakeover^(Talk) 13:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Jurist is the title of a regular journal founded in 1837. Its title has been used to divert enquirers to a page called JURIST and not The Jurist.

You might like to explain.

t color="darkorange">Orange Mike]] | Talk 02:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Weymann Fabric Bodies requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Toddst1 (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is 99.99% certain that Martin is the correct version given his famous brother. Alternate spelling of names and even the use of pseudonyms can make things difficult for research into 18th century cricket. I would guess that "Marten" is a recurring error, possibly because he used that spelling himself when he enrolled at MCC. Thanks for providing the pointers for these articles. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 09:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eddaido. Civil parishes in England, an article you have contributed to, has been reassessed to C class from Start class. Apparently many people watch and/or visit this page as an alternative to the broader Civil parishes article. I've quickly scanned it for needing a possible copy edit, but it already looks reasonably good to me. However, I did feel it just needs a little attention such as adding more inline refs. It's not tagged or anything, but if you can help ut with a source or two, it would be much appreciated. Perhaps from your other work on geography articles, you will know where to look, and we will be able to promote it to 'B'.Kudpung (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article John Samuel Martin Fonblanque has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Only claim to significance was he was ONE of the founders of Cambridge Union Society - only ref's are from Cambridge, nothing third party.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Codf1977 (talk) 06:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence referring to it at that position was not encyclopaedic in tone, nor was the fact that a photo of him existed really notable enough to be put there. To that end, I moved the photo link to external links. The best thing, to my mind, that can be done regarding a photo is to find one that can be used as an image displayed on the page -eg within an infobox for Weymann. (see Wikipedia:Uploading images for guidance, or if you are uncertain - let me know when you find one and I'll arrange the addition. I'll try an add an infobox for him now. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"In Anglican churches, bishops share power with presbyters and laity under a constitution." Please see complete definition of "Polity" from "An Episcopal Dictionary of the Church, A User Friendly Reference for Episcopalians": http://www.episcopalchurch.org/109399_15046_ENG_HTM.htm

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matisse412 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link to your reference. In there it is made clear that the structure of The Episcopal Church (USA) is episcopal. Why have you written to me, what is your concern? Please tell me more! Eddaido (talk) 06:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have no factual evidence for the style used for spelling his name. I was just following convention which was used on the official Governor of Newfoundland website found here http://www.heritage.nf.ca/govhouse/governors/g06.html Thanks, HJKeats (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You asked on my talk page how I could say that "Gaaius [long initial vowel] was his personal name". You should read the Wikipedia article Roman naming conventions for an explanation of how Romans were named, and note that Gaaius (normally misspelled 'Gaius') was one of the common praenomina, and in fact, was part of Caesar's full name (see the article Julius Caesar). Hope this clears it up for you.Norm mit (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I misunderstood your comment. As far as I have read, Gaaius, and similarly Maarcus, Tiberius & al., were used like today's personal names. In direct address, by a friend or family member, they would change to the vocative case, as in "Eheu, Gaai!" or "Aude, Maarce!" In other contexts their clan or family name would be used. Incidentally, Roman women so far as we know did not normally have any personal names at all; all the women in the imperial Julian clan were just named "Julia" or "Julilla" or "Julia Secunda" or something similar.Norm mit (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your desire to expand the article Chapel Royal, your edits have been problematic due to their lack of adherence to Wikipedia standards. I suggest you take a little time to review the project's guidelines; namely WP:MOS, WP:BETTER, and WP:CIT. Cheers, --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit to Hooper (coachbuilder) on 13 Jan you added that the a Hooper body was fitted to the first royal car which was delivered to Sandringham in March 1890. Is this a typo as the Daimler article says the first cars were not made until 1898. I don't have the book you referenced. Malcolma (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out my stupid mistake. I am grateful to you for picking it up and so promptly. Thanks. Eddaido (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, Eddaido. I note that you attempted to make a correction there, regarding the translation of DMG. Please note that the translation at Daimler-Motoren-Gesellschaft is given as both "Daimler Motor Company" and the initials of the German name (DMG). Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 13:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your exact issue is, but linking to Daimler Motor Company doen nothing th clarify the issue, and will only confuse people. Please explain your issues in detail on the article's talk page, and work with other editors in devising a solution, rahter than continue to make non-productive edits to the article. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent addition to this article. Would you mind adding your source, too? Schwede66 21:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be difficult, but (1) I think you may be the man with the source and (2) I don't understand this statement.

If sales accrue evenly through the year, then Q4 sales should be 25% of the full year's sales.

eg 100 / 100 / 100 / 100

(assuming you sell 400 units in a year)

Does the statement mean Q4 sales are 15% of the combined sales of the previous three quarters?

eg 100 / 100 / 100 / 45

Or does it mean they were only 15% of the average quarterly sales of each of the three quarters?

eg 100 / 100 / 100 / 15

Or does it mean something else?

I've not phrased this question very well and now I have to go out to meet someone, but if you understand my confusion, thanks in anticipation if you can clarify. Regards Charles01 (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it meant 25 / 25 / 25 / then 75x15/100=11.25. That is to say fourth-quarter sales were less than half the average rate of the first three quarters which is just what you think too isn't it :0)

"Ill-timed Campaign for Purchase Tax Abortion

Throughout 1952 our export trade continued at the low level operating in the closing months of 1951, and exports for the whole of 1952 were nearly 75 per cent down on those of 1951. The home market continued to be buoyant until September, when buyers held off pending the Motor Show in October. However in place of the expected upsurge in sales following the Show there was a fall of such intensity that our home market deliveries for the last quarter of the year were at the rate of only 15 per cent of those of the previous nine months. We believe that this event was caused by , and certainly it was coincident with, an unsuccessful and in our opinion ill-timed campaign for the immediate reduction or abolition of purchase tax on motor vehicles. This campaign undoubtedly caused a great many to defer their purchases until after the Budget - since when the demand for our cars has far exceeded our capacity to supply on the lower production schedule now operating.

The period of recession lasted some seven months and had most serious consequences for your company. Our stocks became greatly excessive before reduced production schedules could become operative, and consequently later production had to be temporarily reduced to a far greater extent than had been intended. The cost per vehicle . . . . . ."

and back at the beginning that was abolition not abortion. Thanks Charles Eddaido (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I came to the article John Yeamans because of a chain of articles. Most of the work I do for pleasure on Wikipedia is based around the English Civil War (I watch and I do some editing of articles on controversial subjects like genocide more as a self imposed chore than a pleasure), some time ago I was editing an article in which one of the sources was written by a chap called William Winstanley in 1665 he published a book called Loyall Martyrology. The National Portrait Gallery has the frontispiece to that article and a list of the people in the frontispiece. The first on that the list is Robert Yeomans which was red-linked. So an internet search shows that it was an alternative spelling for Robert Yeamans, but the article was just a text dump of the DNB article on wikisource. Wikifying that article led me to link to John Yeamans.

Now to the need for citations. There is a book called 1066 and All That which humrously shows with the exception of the Norman invasion in 1066 all the rest of history (almost all historical facts, all dates, all onions [sic]) fall under WP:CHALLENGE. When I looked at the article John Yeamans I could not tell what was the source for most of it from the structure of the notes and references. When I started to look at the ODNB I noticed that some of our article was too close in wording to the ODNB article here are just two examples:

• Our version on 14 November 2010:

In the deteriorating economic conditions of the 1660s and 1670s many Barbadian planters sought better opportunities.

and in April 1670 founded the first permanent white settlement in South Carolina

• ODNB

during the 1660s and early 1670s as increasingly adverse economic conditions prompted many Barbadian planters to seek better opportunities elsewhere

and in April 1670 founded the first permanent white settlement in South Carolina

It is very easy to do this when summarising just one source, and a summary can easily become unintentional plagiarisation or even a copyright violation.

Luckily this is not a major problem with most articles on the ONDB as there is often a free of copyright version from the DNB sometimes the facts are not correct, but those can be altered using the more up to date ODNB. The DNB can be copied verbatim providing that the text is cited and suitable attribution is give (see Wikipedia:Plagarism: Where to place attribution)

As you have access to the ONDB you can always access the DNB page through there, but if you do not this is what you do:

To get text the DNB text well there are several useful sources the first is to go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/DNB Epitome you can use that to see if there is a DNB article on the subject. (to get volume information and page number use archive.org Index and Epitome). You can also try using the DNB template: {{DNB|wstitle=John Yeamans}} That makes it simple as those wikisource: articles also include the volume, page numbers and author. If the article is not there you have two options. The first is to use the www.archive.org they have a full source online and it is listed at Dictionary of National Biography#Public domain sources for the DNB. But if you want to help the Wikisource project along you can go the the scanned source of the volumes for the DNB on wikisource: eg s:Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 63.djvu/331 and edit that page against the provided source and then copy it over to a Wikipage for editing into text suitable for a Wikipedia article.

Now for the citation bit. As I said above most articles about historical events need citations for most information. Eg that Samuel Peyps used the river Thames for transportation needs a citation, but there is no need for a citation that the Thames in the main river in London. Given that WP:CITE gives two basic formats for citations either long citations (where all the information is held between the ref tags) -- but that becomes very bulky if the articles is fully cited -- so short citations coupled to an alphabetical reference list is cleaner (both in the text when editing and in the {{reflist}} (==Notes== section)).

If one uses short citations, then the use of citation templates aids navigation because it is possible to link short citations to long citations. eg {{harv|Shearer|2011|p=1}} (Shearer 2011, p. 1) <--click on the blue link<--.

• {{Cite book|ref=harv|last=Shearer |first=Philip |year=2011 |title=A Comment}}
• Shearer, Philip (2011). A Comment. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

But this is just icing on the cake and there is no need to do this last step and use citation templates unless one is comfortable with using them. -- PBS (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, I tips my hat to a genuine Administrator. Second I am dazzled by your essay. I respect your opinions on plagiarism though I dare to differ. The source of the entire article became the online ODNB - a ref at the end of each para? Puzzled by ceasing the gate and by the acquisition of a knighthood by Robert Yeamans. Will try harder to understand the good reasons to use the curly bracket template for refs but for the moment seriously puzzled particularly by the so messy result. Eddaido (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is depressing when one had to butcher good text to meet copyright requirements as I had to do recently to the article Conisbrough Castle, but copyright material has to be deleted. With regards to plagiarism please read WP:COPYVIO and WP:PLAGIARISM and then hang around Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems Wikipedia:Copyright problems for a few days to see how damaging and time consuming this is to the project. I take my hat off the the dedicated team that work in that area, because it is vitally important to the project (it is a legal matter if due diligence is not followed -- just like WP:BLP although less talked about on Wikipedia and often far more difficult to spot).

Just like editors, administrators vary in the tasks they allot themselves. Some concentrate on administrative tasks. I spend most of my time editing articles. Occasionally I use the additional functionality to stop out of control editors (see user:LouisPhilippeCharles the last editor who was not a sockpuppet that I blocked), and to to stop repeated vandalism to a page a favourite target is the English Civil War (normally around the start of the English school year!), but I tend to use the additional functionality to save having to have an administrator to do it for me. See my comments here about administrators and editing.

I think the way Wikipedia has been going over the last five years is to use in-line sources for everything. See for example the difference in the content between the 5 Jan 2007 and 5 Jan 2011 versions of the Battle of Waterloo but the citation make the more recent version a much better article. See the differences between BW 23 November and BW 2 March which version would you trust to be accurate and which one would you want to use for further research? -- PBS (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do realise that as you read this three-quarters of your mind will be running through your personal library of stock responses to select one or more to copy and paste under this but would it not be more rewarding to you for you to read just what you are "replying" to? Eddaido (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I have caused you offence it was not my intention. what I wrote was not a stock answerer and if I understood what you wrote I apologise. If there is any point you wish to raise that I have not answered or any additional points I am at your sevice. -- PBS (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your apology. I did ache for many hours to add a few lengthy pages of "useful" advice from apt parts of Wikipedia to your own talk page. Did you not notice Cease and your new Knighthood?

You say you consider my paraphrase insecure, I disagree. You have 'fixed' it. All is well. End of discussion.

I say the references at the foot of the article concerned now look weird. You describe it as "icing", I would describe it as an over-egged pudding of a job. Is your concern to try to avoid an accusation the whole article is just one ODNB paraphrase? I have no dispute, and never have had, with the concept of inline citations. But when there is only the one reliable source what is to be done? Put the sole reference at the end instead of groping about for refs to its predecessor.

I do realise that hunting in long refs for the place to make a small edit can be irritating and that it is not possible to nest refs (caution: use of seriously hi tech language does not mean I understand computers). I do indeed remember 1066 etc from 70 years ago, mostly because the elder siblings would not trouble to explain why it was so distressingly funny. I think it now has to be recognised as a "period piece" or marker - of both of us. My own interest arose because I claim descent from his (Barbadian) family though not necessarily from him. One of the things you have incorporated bothers me (aside from your mistakes) but I'll not lose sleep over it. I'm trying to tell you I didn't fly in, and pause for a moment before flying out, from being engrossed in e.g. 'genocide'. Save those curly brackets for the so long and complex, he said, she says, it was claimed by, history articles. Cheers Eddaido (talk) 08:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm here. I have just now added a direct quote in the form of a (foot)note to this article Harry John Lawson. Would you please look at what I have done and tell me whether or not you consider this acceptable - it is a 'character reference' for the subject of the article. Thanks Eddaido (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say your paraphrases were insecure because I did not know that you had added those phrases to the article. I had not looked to see who had added them as that was not of any real interest to me. I have now done so and they were added with this edit which was done by an IP address.

I had not understood what you wrote "Puzzled by ceasing the gate and by the acquisition of a knighthood by Robert Yeamans." I assumed you were asking why John Yeamans gain his baronetcy (to which I have no idea) my mistake. I now realise you are referring to was my amalgamation of two Robert Yeamans into one by my edits (it so happens that the executed man was also Sheriff of Bristol) and when making the edits I did not notice that I had left the Sir on the second one. As to the first half of the comment -- well spelling has never been one of my strengths! This is a collaborative project, and I certainly would not object to you fixing such mistakes :-O and if those are the only two mistakes I have made then I must be getting better!

The article was originally written using the DNB, my recent addition have copied a lot of material from that source, I have only used the ODNB for those facts that do not appear in the DNB or have been updated in the ODNB, so the DNB has to be cited for attribution reasons. Whether it is indented (to show a relationship) as I have done or separated, I have no particular strong opinions one way or another. I do think it is an aid the casual reader and many editors if they can check the articles against a reliable source for which no subscription is needed (and incidental from a source which is available on a sister project).

To your addition of a note to Harry John Lawson is I think technically spot on, but there is one format issue and a couple of style issues. The format issue is that the ==Notes== section should come after the ==See also== section (WP:APPENDIX). The first style issue is that the quote text according to the MOS should not be in italics, and the second is that usually the citation at the end would be in parentheses. -- PBS (talk)

Thank you. Eddaido (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I had two messages on my talk and as yours was the first I did not notice it. Please note that there are two ODNB articles discussed on Talk:Francis Fane (dramatist) that as far as I can tell contradict each other, so it is not simply a question between new and old sources. But please discuss it on that talk page, as it is through discussing such things in public on the article talk pages that can help make our articles as accurate as possible. -- PBS (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[[Category:Grey family|England, Elizabeth Woodville, Queen consort of]]

In what way is this supposed to help? Deb (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deb, by letting the file fit in with the sorting on Grey family where we are actually building up to a very noisy disagreement. I'm only half Welsh. Eddaido (talk) 11:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Half is better than none :-) But where is the disagreement? I see no discussion. The way it is, it just looks as though you have sorted on "Elizabeth", because England is not part of the article name. Wouldn't "Woodville" be more useful? Deb (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To tell you the truth, Elizabeth is how party #2 seems to want her (I mean as Elizabeth though I put her there as England). Party #3 set up the category. I asked #3 for a definition as to who might belong. Answer from her was as now set out on the page and I think far far too vague. Party #2 has just re-arranged things to his satisfaction leaving Woodville alone. See, I don't think EW belongs here at all but #2 and #3 seem to. If she is to be here she is to be under G for Grey if #2 and #3 are to be consistent (i.e. as a grey spouse). So my message to you is: (a) why do you mind? (b) with luck any special sort of EW is likely to last only days anyway though of course I can't guarantee that. Have I clarified anything at all? Eddaido (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I mind, exactly, I just couldn't see the point. It's an article I watch and your change didn't make much sense to me so I thought maybe you didn't understand how sorting worked. Deb (talk) 11:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you've been doing good work. Maybe details of Searle's death could be in a short section after Career entitled "Death". I'd be amenable to that change being made. If you agree, feel free to make the change. Mjroots (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Likewise I'm sure. What happened to Searle's missing years? Eddaido (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re place and date of birth - I've restored the online ONDB as a source. It may be that two different versions on ONDB give two different dates and places. In this case, I'm going with the one that has fuller details as being more likely to be correct. Searle should show up on census records. I think that MilborneOne has access to these, so will ask him if he can get confirmation via this source. Mjroots (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall watch with interest. I have just put in the full names of the man's children. They were born in 1898,1899,1901& 1902 so are unlikely to be still with us but there could be grandchildren about who might notice these names and put us right. Eddaido (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was wrong. Should have looked at talk page first. Correct year and place now restored to the article. Awaiting MilborneOne's addition of further info. Mjroots (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{Infobox comic strip}} is causing the italic title. There is a fix as detailed on the linked page. Mjroots (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you MJR. Eddaido (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account

I apologize for taking so long to reply to your query. In the automobile industry of English-speaking countries, the term "marque" has a very specific meaning that is much more precise than "brand." "Brand" means any name under which a product is sold that indicates a source or origin. So, for example, in the case of a car like the Dodge Charger, "Chrysler," "Dodge," and "Charger" are all brands for that car. However, only "Dodge" is a marque.Acsenray (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edit which preserved the statement (originally my own which I tried to withdraw) that Richmond Yorks. was named after some Richmond in France. It's a nice idea, highly probable, but I could find no source validating it, which is why I felt obliged to remove it. Can you provide a source? I also reverted your assertion it was a "family" title, which implies he inherited it, which he didn't. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I'd be pleased if you would revert your amendment. I was wrong. According to this article "The town of Richemont in Normandy (now in the Seine-Maritime département, Haute-Normandie region) was the origin of the name Richmond.^[1] This Richmond was the eponymous honour of the Earls of Richmond (or comtes de Richemont), a dignity normally also held by the Duke of Brittany from 1136 to 1399."

Henry's father was Edmund Tudor, 1st Earl of Richmond

And then through his mother Lady Margaret Beaufort, it was for Henry VII a family title. Lady Margaret Beaufort was great-granddaughter of John of Gaunt, better known as Duke of Lancaster but also Earl of Richmond between 1342 and 1372.

You just needed to seek a very little further - but please let me know if you regard this as insufficient. Eddaido (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of a "staple [port, right, tax, system]" is common to many medieval and early modern countries, not just England and Germany. There have been merge tags up (reasonably) for months. You have been misled by the English historiographical tendency to talk about the Staple, as if the English staple system was the only one. In fact, all these "staple" concepts are related. A staple port had a staple right, although how the staple right was exercised could vary from place to place. Srnec (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. Readers of Wikipedia can know that because I put it there - check the history. My point is that The Staple (in English and in the English language Wikipedia) refers very specifically to a particular and in its long day important institution, it purpose to collect tax, not force traders to offer their goods at every river port they passed. I think your re-arrangement of articles just needs to be amended to give a specific article for The Staple. I'm very happy for something called Staple Recht not staple right to have its own article.

I made the reference to staple right among other things to show that there were other much more important if less everyday things than paper fasteners which use the same name. I made the amendments as I did because I was very short of time and was anxious to get the job done. Easy enough to extract and paste the right portion (which I inserted in Staple in a hurry) from the article Staple to The Staple - currently a redirect. In fact I'll do that in a few minutes. Do you want to discuss it further?

The Staple was a specific English central government tax-gathering institution maybe named so it is related to a similar concept used in other countries but not the same. Annoying to find my attempts to develop the concept of staple (not fasteners) turned against the primary thing I was trying to explain. The remarks about a need for a merger just showed how lacking that person was in understanding and that is what I set out to cure!

Somewhere you mentioned discussion. Whereabouts is that discussion?

I had better add - this is not a good day for me (now I have time but a major distraction) to get involved like this but I wanted to make a prompt response. Very happy to have a longer more rational discussion when I can think more clearly, but not today. Eddaido (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I (not I think too imaginatively) think of a staple as a marker, be it a pin (also in use a fastener) or a post in the ground (the use we discuss). It is stable in the motion sense. In what we discuss it marks the place of a market - from which the other fibre and food related meanings evolved. What do you think? Eddaido (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody wants to add sufficient material for an entire article on the English Staple alone, then it can be split off into an article of its own (perhaps at The Staple). The problem is that there were other staple systems, and the specifically English one is not so unique. It was more than just a "central government tax-gathering institution", although it was that. It did depend on the concept of "staple right", which is why I merged the articles staple port and the staple (which is a terrible page name) into that one. The staple right article explains how the Staple system worked. The article at the staple says, "The system made it easy for the Crown to monitor the overseas trade and to levy taxes and derive income and revenue on it," without telling us how it did this. This makes it almost worthless. (Anyways, I suggest we move discussion to Talk:Merchants of the Staple#Fragmented thinking, where it began). Srnec (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Merchants of the Staple not marked by me because I saw no need to edit it. Will go there to "fragmented thinking". Thanks. Eddaido (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message Eddaido and apology, I was just making the point that even though the image was cropped I still hold the copyright on it and should really be mentioned with a link back to the original image. No problem as I have added a link on the image page now. MilborneOne (talk) 10:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem but I still don't see what I did wrong. Please would you be specific. Thanks Eddaido (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you revert me?Curb Chain (talk) 08:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have contributed to this article and are obviously one of its watchers. I notice that you greatly reduced the map of the Channel Islands.

Can I encourage you to be more diligent and more decisive about what you allow to remain on the page.

When an un-named editor crashes in and inserts something that is totally out of sync with the rest of the article, then it needs removing. If you allow someone to insert a list of the twenty administrative parishes on two small islands, then you also have to make room for the name of every parish in every country, right across the world. Nothing makes the Channel Islands more significant than England, the US, Russia, India and so on. Do you know how many parishes there are in Italy? There is about forty in Venice!

One of the problems that we continually run into as Wiki editors is "parochial" short-sightedness! Everyone who has ever photographed the Cologne Cathedral thinks that their picture is the one that should be in the info box. On the page Architecture, every university student that comes along adds the name of their lecturer who happens to be a practising architect. Someone got at the History of painting page and added 50 ghastly pictures by some unknown Indian painter. Another incredibly cunning and deliberate vandal went around lots of articles deleting pictures and putting in images of Spain, whether they were relevant or not. That took quite a lot of fixing, because there was real information provided with the pictures which editors were hesitant to remove. What the person did was create an extraordinary imbalance.

So be decisive. It doesn't matter whether material is factual or even referenced. If it is in the wrong place, or the wrong article, or is much to detailed, or much to focussed on a very narrow subject so that to create a balanced view is impossible, then chop it!

Amandajm (talk) 09:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice which will be borne in mind. Two reasons for doing as I did. Painful experiences from (in fact sometimes ill-informed) smartarse super-rapid editors; the thought that a picture really can be worth many words and give a reader a sudden insight they might not get from all those words. Nice of you to take the time to write and nice portrait by the way. Cheers Eddaido (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I have a teenaged son who is rather whiskery and handsome. Everyone dressed up for the recent Harry Potter premiere, so we went as Sirius Black and his evil mother. It was easy, since no one has ever seen her.

It's very hard to find churches that actually reveal something of the parish around them, rather than just the graveyard. I'll keep searching. Anything that you do by way of edit to the text won't make much difference to me jiggling pictures. Sometimes I spend hours on it. See Romanesque secular and domestic architecture. Amandajm (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly I was unaware of your activities when I wrote the above. I've since added a note to your own talk page which is intended to mean I will hold myself in check until you are done with parish etc in case my current thoughts should prove to have been uncharitable. Eddaido (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you are still confused about the WP:ELNO #12 guideline? Which part of the WP guidelines for "Links normally to be avoided" stating "a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject" is confusing to you?? I tried to explain it to you in several ways and even gave a suggestion where you could properly add that EL about the Thunderbolt. This link about a specific concept car does not belong in the EL section of the general subject article about convertible automobiles. Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to you recent comment in the Preselector gearbox article. The issue you raised is a valid one but it is better addressed on the discussion page rather than on the article itself. Please feel free to raise the issue on the discussion page. Cheers.  Stepho  talk  04:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stepho-wrs. I always have. Kind regards, Eddaido (talk) 09:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See wp:external links: there is already an open source photo of the Aston shooting-brake in the article. 842U (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha ha! (cover for my embarrassment) I have just had to read the article to try to find "there is already an open source photo of the Aston shooting-brake in the article" and so now understand that I have been very repetitive elsewhere. My apologies to all for being a further irritant. I guess you refer to the photo that may be found by following the link through DB5 and then hunting. Not in the article is it. My link was to a good clear photo of an example in which the shooting brake part is plain and provided immediate access to some more.

Re wp:external links. My mistake is to fail to hide it in a reference? I think every single one of the references for the article is an external link. Your comments please. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's just an expression for "speaking plainly". "Telling it like it is". Not "beating around the bush". Just saying something clearly and directly. You know, K.I.S.S. One mustn't be a spade to have the "call a spade a spade" principle applied to them. In fact, if that were the rule, I don't think the idiom would see much usage at all.

Now, unless you have an actual reason to unilaterally revert my good faith editing (in which case I'd be delighted to discuss the matter), I invite you to self-revert. Thanks, Eddaido.

And I honestly have no idea what you mean by "hamburgers sign", but I'd be happy to answer if you want to clarify. Best regards, Swarm ^{u / t} 06:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its easy really, just like you choose to have hamburger arches in the big picture on your user page we choose to have a constitutional monarch. That's our right just like you have a right to put any picture you want on your user page. I might express some opinion about your choice of picture but what the heck does it really matter? Now maybe that isn't half a pair of MacDonald's arches and maybe your idea of a queen is hazy too. I look forward to your response, here. Eddaido (talk) 07:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely blown away. What are you talking about? I don't know who you mean by "we" and I couldn't care less whether you have the "right" to "choose to have a constitutional monarch". So what? What does that have to do with my edit in the least? Seriously, cut the sarcasm and try to be constructive for two seconds. What is your objection to describing a queen as a "queen"? And how is my idea of a "queen" hazy? Do you dispute that she's a queen? If that's the case, fine, I'm not one to judge! :|

I have the Gateway Arch on my userpage because it's an impressive piece of architecture, a beautiful photograph, and it's an icon of St. Louis, a city in which I've lived. That has nothing to do whatsoever with the wording of this biographical Wikipedia article. Swarm ^{u / t} 08:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No sarcasm. Yours is an inadequate description (which may be enough for you, was St Louis a French King?). I'm OK with St Louis being in France, why are you carrying on the way you are? Eddaido (talk) 08:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and BTW, that is definitely half a pair of golden arches there is no way it is anything else and I do not see why anyone might think its pretty, as a picture or in the flesh (to coin a phrase). Eddaido (talk) 08:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you have a disability that's impeding you from communicating effectively, or if English simply isn't your first language; if either is the case, I sincerely apologize. In case it's not, though, I'd ask you one more time to clearly explain what exactly the problem is. Swarm ^{u / t} 09:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just your daft "good faith" "edit", that's all. Eddaido (talk) 09:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 2001 Jaguary S-Type Shooting-Brake concept

Thanks for your edits to Old Mother Hubbard. I was trying to fill out the article a bit. I was also trying to straighten out that I think the article had been linking to the wrong "Mrs Pollexfen Bastard" (two sisters both named Sarah seemed improbable to me) and that website was the first link I came upon connecting the "sister" and the nursery rhyme to the other one; better sources are welcome. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SCM has been world-famous in my family for over 200 years, I get tired of trying to fix mistakes! Thanks for fixing that. Eddaido (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reinstituted the "no footnotes" tag you removed on this article as it is as yet unaddressed. Nikthestoned 11:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK by me. Its time some attention was brought to the subject. Eddaido (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of children in the inofbox is standard practice. That is why there is a parameter for it. I note you removed the info stating an invasion of privacy concern. As the info was publicly available before it was added to Wikipedia, then there can be no such concern. The people involved would, if alive, be pensioners now. Mjroots (talk) 05:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A basic rule of English grammar is that adverbial and adjectival clauses are delineated with a comma. They can be identified because, even without the clause, the sentence will still make perfect sense, though with less descriptive detail. (e.g These were[, for the most part,] executed in aquatint. or [From 1795 until 1828,] he continued to exhibit Eastern subjects, temples, jungle hunts etc.) I seem to have added six commas, which is hardly an "explosion". Besides, I actually removed some commas from the article! "Is it possible there are people who speak like that??" Well, yes, but the important thing is to write correctly and not in the way people talk. Emeraude (talk) 11:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the family bits. I'm left with a couple of loose ends about Anne, Lady Tredway: who was her first husband? And an odd one, that some sources say Matthew Carew (DNB) or Maurice Carey (an older work) was her uncle. It doesn't matter so very much; but the second point may just be misleading info out there in the literature, because I don't see how it can fit in with the rest; of course it could just be slightly inaccurate. It's nice to get these things right if they come up on the radar. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fascinated by the patronage links. This is my best guess, he was knighted 23 July 1603 and this is his will: Will of Sir Walter Tredweye or Tredway of Beckley Park, Oxfordshire 20 March 1604 PROB 11/103 which I presume will tell all for just £3.50 (but I won't get it being too mean!) He left two daughters but I imagine they will have been by a previous wife. Anne seems to have had a son, Henry Carleton, baptised St Bartholomew-the-Less 30 May 1609 fate unknown. Carews and Careys will take me longer. Will be back. Eddaido (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anne and Matthew Carew (may) share descent from Sir Wymond Carew and Martha Denny. Matthew would then be Anne's mother's uncle. They have lots of (distant) Cary relations but who is Maurice? Eddaido (talk) 06:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi, in most cases 1-5 links is enough, in Daimler article there was around 30? There were model specific links which should be in that certain model article not in compnay page, also the article should cover so much info that external link amount could be as limited as possible, we have also google which can be used for more info if needed, wikipedia is not for links. -->Typ932 ^T·C 19:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A useful edit, and Wikiepdia is better for it. I would like to make one point though it does not really matter what is on his grave stone/memorial stone, as that is a primary source. What matters is what is used in secondary sources, because if a person wants to look up his name because they are reading a secondary source (dated from whenever), it is those names we want to have in the article so it is returned by a search engine. Of course the chances are that if the name in on his tomb then it is also used in some sources, but to exagerate the point if a grave stone has long s on it, I don't think they they should be include in Wikipedia articles. -- PBS (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Talk:Touring car#Dictionaries, you accuse me of confusing convertibles with open cars. Please show me an edit I have made that exhibits such confusion. The only such confusion I can think of is if the Buick "convertible phaeton" is actually a phaeton and not a convertible; if so, I was going along with someone else's mistake, as earlier editions of the article clearly stated that the Buick was a convertible.

As for "cars called phaeton": is the misuse, or flagrant disregard for the meaning, of the term by automobile manufacturers not worthy of note in the article related to the term?

On a side note, it does rain rather a lot in the Caribbean, and I have ridden bicycles, conventtional motorcycles, and scooters in the rain, usually, but not always, while wearing a rain cloak. This was quite uncomfortable with the bicycle, as pedalling made me sweat under the cloak, thereby losing any advantage the cloak had of keeping water out. With no need to pedal the motorcycle or the scooter, riding in the cloak was much more pleasant.

I do not think I would mind an open roadster too much if I had my cloak, a pair of goggles, and a cap, all stored in the car somewhere, maybe behind the seats.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aw . . . Sorry! I was thinking of the convertible in the second paragraph of Touring Car, hope I didn't put it there! And of course I am strictly wrong about weather protection on the very early cars but I imagine the owners handled bad weather outlooks by getting out a closed (or closing) vehicle. I rode a bike a mile to school and came home each day for lunch! Anyway, you could have flown across the Atlantic outfitted like that. Sincerely Eddaido (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the Presidential 1963 Texas transport. It now occurs to me that this might be what is meant in some uses for the name phaeton - see the extra row of seats. Sincerely, Eddaido (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  If this is a landaulet...
• 
  ...then this is a convertible.
• 
  There are convertible Karos, and the one above is one, but the one to the left isn't.
• 
  By the way, is there any proof that the back half of this roof goes down?

How does the car with the then Miss Middleton and her father in it meet the definition of "an enclosed sedan or coupé with a folding top at the extreme rear quarter, over the rear seat" when there's a fixed roof in place? There is no indication that the glass cage is detachable. Most likely it isn't, especially if it's supposed to be bulletproof.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sam, really good to have you back. Pictures in order as above:

• 1. Passes the duck test though I agree the clear plastic only removes and is unlikely to fold (though probably now technically possible). built in the era of the removable hardtop. info available in old newspapers but don't know where other than in my memory. will not say 'trust me' but you can unless you've a hotline to the carers of said vehicle and check after producing credentials etc.
• 2. Same era but I dunno
• 3. Yep
• 4. This is here because of the recent long discussions over the current meanings of old-fashioned automobile concepts and the words to name them. One might describe this as debate bait.

Its Kate is bulletproof, not this car (this is kindly meant). I think these vehicles began to lose popularity after 22 Novmber 1963. Sincerely Eddaido (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One wonders that the use of open cars for royalty or heads of state didn't decline in popularity after 28 June 1914. I remember reading that Hitler had an official car with armour plating and bulletproof glass... and a cloth convertible top, which was usually down. A shame that some rogue male didn't take some nice, well-aimed shots at his head.

Even moreso these days, with the worldwide fixation on terrorism, I doubt they would let His Royal Highness's intended travel to the wedding in something less than bulletproof.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway its a landaulette duck with a removable perspex bulletproof/non-bulletproof cover. See how the Presidential convertible is casually referred to as a limousine. I suppose this is because if it were described as a convertible this would convey the wrong impression? After some minutes of reflection I think I have seen this car referred to as a convertible but not by US newspapers/tv. Sincerely, Eddaido (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm intrigued by your reference to inferior steel regarding the Bentley Mark VI. I'm intrigued on two counts.

I quite often turn up to old timer shows in the English summer. I can think of no British built car where the number ofcars still on the road as a proportion of the number originally built appears to be higher (than with the Bentley Mk VI). All those big old 1940s/1950s Humbers and Armstrongs and Austin-Princesses and big Daimlers have become very rare. But the Bentley Mark VIs continue to abound. I know this is a bit "unscientiific" and I know that's partly because Bentleys receive superior love and devotion. Even so, the steel can't have been that inferior. I have a personal interest in these cars as my father owned a >twelve year old one for a couple of years between maybe 1959 and 1961. The clock never worked and it got through so much fuel that his next car was a Volkswagen. But I don't remember it corroding. And this was a time when we were very much aware of corrosion here in England thanks (above all) to the huge sales success and rapid subsequent disappearance of the Vauxhall Victor FA (as she has come to be known.) Though the Vauxhall wasn't the only one that flaked away rather fast back then. I can see that if your reference point is North America, in the salty acid air of one or two Californian cities even Bentleys might have corroded badly. But worse than contemporary Cads, Imperial Chryslers and Lincolns?

The second count. I do not know what inferior quality steel means. If it merely means that the sheet-steel is rolled on old rollers and therefore of an uneven thickness, then provided the sheets are thick enough, surely it barely matters. I know that cold rolled is meant to be better than hot rolled sheet steel, and last time I checked it out in wikipedia I briefly reminded myself of why, though I've forgotten it again now. I know that in the 1960s and 1970s various Italian cars - specially Lancias and Fiats - got a reputation for rusting away very vast because of "poor quality steel" but no one ever seems to be in a position to spell out what was wrong with it (and at least one of the Fiats I knew had broken down beyond redemption even before rusting away). Adulterated with something other than steel? Or?

Sorry to pick up on this. But you got me thinking. And I seem to remember my mother told me that priests prefer congregation members who disagree with their sermons to those that don't, because it indicates that the former were at least listening. No, I don't really think of you as a priest. But I'm still wondering about the steel.

Regards Charles01 (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Charles 01, you're so good and I'm so sleepy, been loading up rusty Bentley images. I was quoting, was wondering how long before I'd be picked up on it. In the meantime, I believe "stainless steel" contains additives (expensive, rare?) which stop it dulling or rusting. I believe that "steel" has many additives that make it easier to use and better wearing. The metal in your gearbox may not be the same as a tin roof but they are both steel. Back later, armed for self-defence. Best regards, Eddaido (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In Bentley Mark VI, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page James Young (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, you are a very clever bot. Eddaido (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For your many and interesting contributions to car-related articles. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I dont know any good sources for this, maybe some other language wikipedias could have some, the infobox data was taken from swedish wikipedia. -->Typ932 ^T·C 14:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such lists are considered trivia and should be avoided. "Such and such character drove an Aston Martin in such and such film" 800 times adds nothing of value to the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Listing an individual singer's discography is not "trivial". Don't be stupid. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Thomas Wylde (clothier), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles II (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eddaido. You have new messages at Pontificalibus's talk page.
Message added 12:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Pontificalibus (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, not sure if you are aware but you have been adding links to the wrong Claude Johnson in the Rolls-Royce articles, the man you want is Claude Goodman Johnson (born 24 October 1864). Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes I did know, was defeated mid-process by sleep. Have now gone a step further as you may see. I may have dreamt someone else did the biography(!) but I will soldier on. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have filled the redirect but there appears to be a third Claude Johnson (actor) mentioned in this film article linking back. Highly unusual convention to create the links before the article but it's a free world! Would have saved me a visit here if done the normal way. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been good exercise for you to do all this, can't have soft useless retentive clouds floating about, use it or lose it. In view of your such close interest I am looking forward to seeing your contribution to his biography and in view of your interests and status I mean that most sincerely. I suggest when you find a problem like the actor you fix it? You searched very hard and found it didn't you? Eddaido (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eddaido. You have new messages at North wiki's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Rowland Berkeley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Walter Jones and Clothier

Thomas Wylde (clothier) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to William Robinson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Afternoon. I was on GraemeLeggett's talk page & noticed a discussion about a photo of the man. There's a beauty at [[1]] (I'm currently doing a lot of mucking about with early French aircraft) of him in front of the Gordon Bennett Nieuport. I've uploaded screenshots of photos from this site before with the published outside of the US before 1923 tag without a problem, & could do the same for this one.TheLongTone (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's a really good photo isn't it. I think that would be great to have on his article. Best regards, Eddaido (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've used it to replace the infobox picture, which is a nice pic at full resolution but doesn't work that well as a thumbnail. Imo. I've just done a google search, and most of the pics there are crops of this image: possibly a cropped version would be useful as well. As it is it's also a really nice portrait of a Gnome Omega engine.... Btw the article on the (interesting) car bodies does not link back to the article.TheLongTone (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is a nice picture and a cropped version would be welcome. I think he may be partly of African descent and I've always felt the photograph you have now supplied was the only comfortable way to indicate this possibility. The article on the fabric bodies is linked on the first mention of CTW which is well down the article. Eddaido (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get around to it, but hold your breath I wouldn't. Being a screenshot it's not very high resolution, so I don't think a tight crop wouls be feasible. I don't think the pic says much about his genealogy, tho. TheLongTone (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You're right again of course, but maybe if alerted by the mention of Haiti it could be seen to be there/not there by any who were curious. Eddaido (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant by cart-springing was sprung-like-a-cart which might be anything between no springing of any kind at all to leaf springs used in a very simple manner. Leaf springs can be used in quite sophisticated suspension systems though the WP article writers do not seem to have heard of that. Would you mind if it were changed back? regards, Eddaido (talk). Incidentally what is 'batting'? 03:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I know a lot about aircraft but little about cars, I thought that leaf-springs were what was meant. Maybe a word like primitive rather than what sounds like a technical term should be used?TheLongTone (talk) 09:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've inserted the primitive though I think there were other suspension systems from which the modern ones developed in use more than a century ago it was just that beam axles and leaf springs were simple and reliable and roads could be very rough so until the thirties that system was the most popular. Batting is found in mattresses and upholstered furniture, I made a link there. Eddaido (talk) 10:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just found by complete accident, a "1930s" car (not my dating) with coil springs at the back and leaf springs at the front but it is not sprung like a cart though it does have a set of leaf springs. I was checking on the description of the Fiat in the top right corner of the article. Eddaido (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't change them back.

The MoS WP:ORDINAL, under subsection "Fractions", says:

• The use of the few Unicode symbols available for fractions (such as ½) is discouraged entirely, for accessibility reasons among others.

Cheers! Chris the speller ^yack 14:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eddaido. You have new messages at Chris the speller's talk page.
Message added 21:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hello, Eddaido. You have new messages at Chris the speller's talk page.
Message added 01:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Eddaido_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_.29 Andy Dingley (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Click on Motten 2008. It take you from the short citation to the full reference in the General Reference section. -- PBS (talk) 10:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I assumed that "Motten, J. P. Vander" but if you know better and his name is a double barrelled "Vander-Motten, J. P." then we can adjust the citations. -- PBS (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the link at the end:
Motten, J. P. Vander (January 2008) [2004]. "Fane, Sir Francis (d. 1691)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/9131. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Goodwin 1889 does not go anywhere - same prob as Motten 2008? needs a fix. Eddaido (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. This edit converted the DNB reference so that it used the Wikisource version. Unfortunatly the edit also removed page and volume details. The date is automatically generated from the volume information and the last name and year is needed for {{sfn}}. So I have put back the volume information and it now works properly. I have also checked the other citations and they all work as they should and I have also modified some of the page number details which were not correct. -- PBS (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase filial piety isn't very encyclopedic, plus it suggests a peculiarly Chinese idea. --Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 03:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Then it would seem your education is lacking (if you think it is a Chinese idea) I'll fix it, don't you worry. Eddaido (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It still isn't encyclopedic. The word "monument" or "memorial" conveys the same idea and is more in line with an encyclopedia style. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 04:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing about the existence of the concept. I'm saying that the use of it in this context is not encyclopedic. Incidentally, if you happen to have a citation for the fact that Browne built the church as a memorial to Thomas Willis, that would be great. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 16:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it would probably be easier to move this discussion to the talk page. I've asked for some other opinions there. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 16:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Eddaido, I just wanted to let you know that I've provided a third opinion on this issue at the article's talk page; if you could participate in the discussion there, that'd be great! Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the royal mistress page you undid a revision on Bianca Cappello. I added it and later deleted it because she was not a mistress to a king but to a grand duke. I have read how to identify reliable sources for wikipedia. Also are my sources not reliable? They are from books that I have read (e-books) and on print. (Monkelese (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not the judge but I do think most of your painstaking aching millimetre by millimetre amendments might be wiped out if the source citations are reviewed. Have you thought of responding to correspondence addressed to you on your talk page? You respond to mine on your talk page by simply wiping it off. Why? Eddaido (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would be most grateful for your input at an ongoing discussion on the Talk page of the above article, where there is an effort to restructure the article to de-emphasise the British heritage of the Mini brand. Thanks in advance.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]