Talk:Esopus Wars

"he whom encountered"or "whom he encountered"
This is right up your alley. Check the history. Which edit is proper grammar? "he whom encountered" or "whom he encountered" or simply "he encountered".Oldperson (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "Whom he encountered" is correct, which is what it now says. The "he whom" construction was in place previously due to my own typographical error on a previous edit, but my last edit corrected that. The "whom" is syntactically required by the sentence construction, as "the people he" is grammatically incorrect. Hope that clarifies. —Dilidor (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

It does clarify and thanks. As regards the edit you just reverted. I do not recall making that edit, not at all, nor do I see why I would have. There seems to be some glitches in the system, especially with edit conflicts. In fact I just received an ec when trying to post another comment before this. On an another article I made a 3 sentence comment on a talk page, but somehow in the process four editors comments were deleted. The whole affair was traced by an admin and it turns out to have been the result of an ec. I would not have reversed your edit above, the only thing I changed was "he whom" which you addressed.Oldperson (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No harm done. Thanks for the follow-up. —Dilidor (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Friendly question
Why is the mention of the mourning war nonsense? I find that information extremely interesting. I've never heard of the mourning wars before, now I am curious. So I found this tidbit quitte interesting.The things one learns from WPOldperson (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What is a "mourning war"? Why does the number of hostages "suggest" that it was one? Why is this nonsense "thought to have been" what was practiced before colonists arrived? Those two sentences raised a host of questions and provided absolutely no information, and they are nothing but speculation in the first place. Listing some source for the speculations does not add anything of value to the article. That is why I removed it. —Dilidor (talk) 11:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that is very clear and I understand and agree. Perhaps if the edit summary had said as much. On the other hand I did learn something new.Oldperson (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)