User talk:Eddaido/Archive1

Thanks
Thanks for uncovering the error with the two John Fonblanques. Vernon White '''. . . Talk''' 20:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

January 2009
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)

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.

Proposed deletion of Boyd's Marriage Index


t color="darkorange">Orange Mike ]] &#x007C;   Talk  02:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Weymann Fabric Bodies
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  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)

Martin/Capel
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)

Civil parishes in England
Hi. 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)

Proposed deletion of John Samuel Martin Fonblanque


The article John Samuel Martin Fonblanque has been proposed for deletion&#32; 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  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  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)

Weymann photo
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 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)

Episcopal Church
"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)
 * 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)

Philip VanBrugh
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)

Caesar's personal name
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)

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)

Chapel royal
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)

Hooper
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)
 * 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)

Daimler-Motoren-Gesellschaft (Daimler Motor Company, DMG)
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)


 * 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)

George Grey
Thank you for your recent addition to this article. Would you mind adding your source, too?  Schwede 66  21:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"Home market sales in the last quarter of 1952 were only 15% of the sales in the three preceding quarters"
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)


 * 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)

John Yeamans
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: "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"
 * Our version on 14 November 2010:

"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"
 * ODNB

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 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:  That makes it simple as those  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. But if you want to help the Wikisource project along you can go the the scanned source of the volumes for the DNB on 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   <--click on the blue link<--.



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)


 * 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)


 * 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 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)

Talk:Francis Fane (dramatist)
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)

Elizabeth Woodville sorting
In what way is this supposed to help? Deb (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

George Holt Thomas
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)


 * Thank you MJR. Eddaido (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Your question about "marque"
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)

Richmond Palace
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))
 * 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. 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)

Staple
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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, where it began). Srnec (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)

Daimler image
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)
 * 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)

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

Parish
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Links to be avoided
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)

Preselector gearbox
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)
 * Thanks Stepho-wrs. I always have. Kind regards, Eddaido (talk) 09:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

calling a spade a spade (the spade = QE2)
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


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

Hubbard, O.M.
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)
 * 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)

Chapels Royal
I reinstituted the "no footnotes" tag you removed on this article as it is as yet unaddressed. Nik the stoned  11:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Frank Searle
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)

Thomas Daniell commas
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)

Dudley Carleton, 1st Viscount Dorchester
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Daimler links
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&middot;C 19:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

Open car/convertible confusion? Where?
In Talk:Touring car, 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

More confusion about car openings
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) Hi Sam, really good to have you back. Pictures in order as above: 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)
 * 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.


 * 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)


 * 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)

Inferior Steel
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)


 * 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)

Disambiguation link notification
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)
 * Thank you, you are a very clever bot. Eddaido (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Bentley
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&middot;C 14:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Aston Martin
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)
 * 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)

Disambiguation link notification
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)

Talkback
Pontificalibus (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Claude Johnson
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Disambiguation link notification
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)

Charles Terres Weymann
Afternoon. I was on GraemeLeggett's talk page & noticed a discussion about a photo of the man. There's a beauty at [] (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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

Re: A clash of symbols
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)

WP:3RR
Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring Andy Dingley (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Francis Fane (dramatist)
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)
 * 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)
 * Click on the link at the end:
 * Goodwin 1889 does not go anywhere - same prob as Motten 2008? needs a fix. Eddaido (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

Thomas Wallis
The phrase filial piety isn't very encyclopedic, plus it suggests a peculiarly Chinese idea. --K e rowyn 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)
 * It still isn't encyclopedic. The word "monument" or "memorial" conveys the same idea and is more in line with an encyclopedia style. K e rowyn Leave a note 04:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. K e rowyn Leave a note 16:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, it would probably be easier to move this discussion to the talk page. I've asked for some other opinions there. K e rowyn Leave a note 16:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

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 &#9863;&#9812; 16:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello
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))
 * 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)

Mini (marque)
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)

Attacks on other editors in edit summaries
Describing other editors as "Dogging" and their contributions as "a nasty mess" is not acceptable behaviour per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA Andy Dingley (talk) 09:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mini_(marque)&diff=prev&oldid=483972348
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eddaido&diff=prev&oldid=484053946
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eddaido&diff=prev&oldid=484122530
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bentley_8_Litre&diff=prev&oldid=484140874
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bentley_8_Litre&diff=prev&oldid=484146368

April 2012
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to George Holt Thomas, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A Google search for "Dick Farman" Aircraft produces 2370 hits, for "Richard Farman" aircraft 1300 hits. I rest my case and would suggest you yourself might be "the vandal"? Eddaido (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Mysterious limo
Well, to me it's a long shot, but to you it might be nothing more mysterious than a well known and well loved Daimler. I'm afraid I do not find it beautiful, but I think if one lives long enough everything comes back into fashion eventually. Maybe I must learn to eat less to see if it works. We've just been having a particlarly nasty flu rund the family and I'm still feeling very mortal just now. ANYWAY, if you know more about it PLEASE share. Needless to say, totally unurgent. But if you are moved to help with this car thank you. Regards Charles01 (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Easter weather here is superb. Sorry to hear about the flu, miserable that its over Easter when everyone else is around the house and you want to be sociable. I like cars and old ones, specially when they were expensive and therefore rare and usually more complex. I'm not knocking bug-eyed Sprites, I would just find this car, in the metal, a great deal more interesting. Wish Hooper had used better springs in the door handles - so many in otherwise well-kept examples are out of line. I think this is another Empress on a (lengthened?) Consort? chassis like the blue/black car which has aways bothered me because I thought it should have a bigger engine but the tightness of the passenger space shows they were trying to keep the overall size down doesn't it. Now about fashion. My advice is —keep up the eating and maintain strength. Fashion returns but "in subtly new and different ways" just so there will be little chance of recycling affecting sales. Thanks for boosting the stock of Daimler images. Best regards, Eddaido (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Brilliant and than you.  And if it's a little narrower than a Daimler (or any other) limousine would have been twenty years later, that is at least consistent with the way that people, too, were narrower in the 40s than in the 60s at least in our end of Europe.   It's true - though I hadn't really formulated the thought on a conscious level till you pointed it out - that door handles from that period often fall out of line while the rest of the car continues to look more or less the way it started out, subject to the odd respray.   Regards Charles01 (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It *will* redirect, you know...
Why are you going to all the articles changing piped links from Morris Motor Company and Wolseley Motor Company to Morris Motors and Wolseley Motors respectively? The former became redirects to the latter when you moved them and will direct the reader to the latter when they click the links.

I can understand you changing the unpiped links to the article so that the reader will see the proper name. However, when the name has already been changed to something else through piping, all you do by changing the link is clog Wikipedia's browser by creating another version of the article that it now has to archive, as explained in WP:NOTBROKEN.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Repeated attacks on other editors
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Norah, Lady Docker. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion
Hello, Eddaido. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Eddaido
I want to point out that the ANI is not an investigative system which many english-speaking people expect. ANI doesn't even come close to the system used in the majority of editors homelands, it's more like a witchburning arena. You'll need to provide diffs for pretty much anything that you say in there, or your requests will fall on disinterested ears, and, as the mob demands blood at regular intervals, you're as good a target as anyone. Penyulap  ☏  01:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Penyulap, thank you for your kind advice. I have taken it to heart. Thinking. Best regards, Eddaido (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Penyulap is right that it can get ugly at ANI, but a few of us are trying to make it less so. Still, sometimes the real problem isn't obvious, even with diffs, since they are just snapshots of a larger issue.  Often, once people start talking, you see the bigger picture, which is why I asked Pesky to come in.  When you look at someone's article contributions, they are neutral so it isn't obvious that you use "European English" (for lack of a better term) vs. American English.  We might have jumped the gun on thinking you were being rude.  It still does *sound* rude to American ears, so I think the solution isn't about *correcting* you as much as *informing* you about some phrases that may cause these reactions in others.  Again, Pesky is a great help in these areas.  And Penyulap, as for the WP:BIAS, it wasn't intentional, and once we see that it is a problem, it is how we deal with it that matters.  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  11:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Wolseley sheep shearing
I changed the name from Wolseley Sheep Shearing Machine Company (The) to The Wolseley Sheep Shearing Machine Company because there is no need to have the "The" in parenthesis at the end. The article sorts just fine in catagories because of the keyword. I hope I've explained myself. <b style="color:#0645AD;">Brightgalrs</b> ( /braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/ )<sup style="color:#0645AD;">[1] 04:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I was asking because as far as I know WP has a very strong dislike for the definite article (almost anywhere!) and to see it turning up at the front of the name of an article is rather astonishing to me. And by the way a search for Wolseley sheep brings up my version (in parentheses at the end) but not yours. So I'm still puzzled. How do you explain it all away aside from your (to me inconsequential as you point out) sorting concern? Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 04:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps these are bad examples, but you have The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company. I changed the articles title simply because it shouldnt have "(The)" at the end. It was an arbitrary choice between "The Wolseley Sheep Shearing Machine Company" and "Wolseley Sheep Shearing Machine Company". To answer your question about the search problem: It will take a little bit of time for Google to update and point to The Wolseley Sheep Shearing Machine Company, so no worries there. <b style="color:#0645AD;">Brightgalrs</b> ( /braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/ )<sup style="color:#0645AD;">[1] 05:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In a sense I'm on the same side. The whole point is that the correct name begins with the definite article. Now, please just change it back, there's a good editor. Eddaido (talk) 06:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that he has it right. The Company name was/is The Wolse...., not Wolseley.... so the The belongs at the start of the title, simples. Forgot to sign itPetebutt (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you


In appreciation for *WOW* on commons ! Penyulap  ☏  16:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Aw shucks Penyulap! You needn't've done that. Thank you. Hadn't seen my wikiname as a, well, ornament. Not enough old cars in Commons, yet. Handsome old car too, maybe we both got our kick-start about the same time! (Nah, only joking, sometimes I lie to protect the innocent). Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That's ok, I was very happy with that one when I finished, it looks so elegant. There is a selection on commons and I can custom crop them as you please. I thought it was a good one. Penyulap  ☏  13:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Eddaido, I wonder if it is ok with you if I tidy up your user pages for you, and install archiving, would that be ok ? Penyulap  ☏  00:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course that's ok. I'll be interested to see what happens. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * MiszaBot usually takes a day or so to drop by. It was interesting working out this code, the arrows were interesting :) copied them from wikibooks, someone had asked for arrows which I made and then I went looking where they had been used. The arrow template here is occupied and I didn't worry about a merger, I just created a new one. All quite boring, sorry. But hopefully that looks maybe ok? Other links are very easy to add if you can think of some. Penyulap  ☏  04:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks very nice now Penyulap. Many thanks! Eddaido (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, I don't know which links you use most or how, you may well have everything bookmarked already. Now, there are sections above that will not archive because they have no time-stamp, they can be manually archived or deleted as you please. If you have difficulty finding where they go, I can undo the bot then copy all of the conversations across in one go. The other sections will move across when they grow old. To change the timing of archiving you edit the page and the line |algo = old(31d) controls the number of days to wait, you can set it to anything. Penyulap  ☏  15:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Mini Vote
Hey, I have proposed a vote for something to be agreed on once and for all regarding the Mini issues; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mini_%28marque%29#Vote Yellowxander (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Daimler
Hi, because Im not native English speaker, its not so easy, dont know whats meaning Maximum speed: (mean) 1, its much easier for someone else, to convert it to prose -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 10:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I'm sorry, I did not understand that. I have just noticed what you have also noticed that I have got the speed description in a tangle. What I mean is the lower of two speeds run almost simultaneously in opposite directions. Problem is I think I then contradict myself? Will look at it again tomorrow. I want to find some comparative figures for the Jag Mk X, do you know where to find any? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion: Touring car and Tourer
You are invited to a discussion on the merging of the articles Touring car and Tourer at Talk:Touring car. I look forward to your participation and insight. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Lanchester Thirty-Eight
Hey; thanks for this new article :). Just a note that it does require references - if you need any help with them, do give me a shout. Thanks! Ironholds (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I took on too much at once and chose to put this on the back burner because the source seemed to confuse 38s and 40s (if you see what I mean) until I had cleared the deck and my mind. Will add some refs right now. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Suspension
Hi Andrew, can you define suspension in terms of a bicycle for me please, Eddaido (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It is pretty much the same for all vehicles, and I think the bicycle suspension article does an adequate job:
 * A bicycle suspension is the system or systems used to suspend the rider and all or part of the bicycle in order to protect them from the roughness of the terrain over which they travel. Bicycle suspensions are used primarily on mountain bikes, but are also common on hybrid bicycles, and can even be found on some road bicycles. Bicycle suspension can be implemented in a variety of ways: suspension front fork, suspension stem (although these have fallen out of favor), suspension seatpost, rear suspension, suspension hub.
 * The operative part of the definition is isolating the rider and as much mass of the vehicle as possible from terrain roughness. -AndrewDressel (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That's the way you choose to use the word for your purposes. I have responded several times now! Eddaido (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no purpose other than reflecting the available sources. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Bentley 8 Litre: "Chassis" vs. "motor car"
O.K., tell me, why is the Bentley 8 Litre described as a chassis when the Bentley 6 1/2 Litre and Bentley Speed Six were "cars", the Bentley 4 Litre was a "motor car", the Bentley 4½ Litre is a "sports car", and the Bentley 3 Litre is a "sports car"? All of them left the Cricklewood factory as rolling chassis; why is the 8 Litre the only one to be described in the lead as a "chassis" instead of as a "car"? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. When you recently edited Daimler Consort, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page S.U. (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) 13:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Tata for now
I don't mean you need to source the fact of the intent. I mean, find an actual source saying there's a suspicion that was the plan. Otherwise, it's pure speculation. TREKphiler <sup style="font-family:cursive; color:#008000;"> any time you're ready, Uhura  09:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That they might be behind paywalls is something I can't help. I maintain speculation like that needs a cite. If you want to put it back & tag it (& add a request on the talk page), I won't scream. Maybe somebody has access, or has seen it.  TREKphiler  <sup style="font-family:cursive; color:#008000;"> any time you're ready, Uhura  09:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * @Eddaido: This edit of yours wasn't funny and if you ever do this again, please take note that I will take you to WP:ANI. -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 02:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To be precise your closing sentence "Yes, its quite clear that the information is important and should remain, its also very clear Only Samblob minds having it the way Eddaido showed it so I think Samblob can fix what she/he wants to destroy. i.e. solve her/his latest self-created problem." is a personal attack against Samblob, and it is that that provoked my warning. It did nothing to further the encyclopedia.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest I didn't know which words were being complained of, I just knew my intent and was pleased it was recognized. Eddaido (talk) 09:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Improper filling in of the edit summary
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to User talk:Nigel Ish does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! '' Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you.'' <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 02:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a message on my talk page which leaves me puzzled. Can you tell me better what you are on about? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is the one? And is English your first language? -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 02:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, does anyone need a village idiot here ? I'm available, I can inject stupidity into any exchange and ensure it gets blown out of all proportion, just ask, oh say, (actually just look at WP:ANI and there you have it, my C.V.). If the conversation is lacking in that department, it's trivial for me to give it a tweak, really, it'll only take a second. Now what exactly is the problem ? Penyulap  ☏  02:54, 8 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13
Hi. When you recently edited BSA Scout, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sv (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) 11:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of move request
It has been proposed that Daimler 2.5 & 4.5 litre, to which you have contributed, be moved to "Daimler V8 engine". Your input into the discussion would be welcome. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've moved the page, it was a great idea. Penyulap  ☏  12:57, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)

talkback
Don't forget the article talkpage. Penyulap  ☏  11:15, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I had a look and decided I had started the ball rolling so I would wait, should I type something there? Eddaido (talk) 11:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. You have to always get the ball rolling by starting a conversation on the article talkpage. So just say what you are up to, and what you reverted and why, and go through it point-by-point too, there was a lot of work there, so there IS a lot to cover. But it's worth it. Penyulap  ☏  11:31, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, have you cooled off a bit ? Penyulap  ☏  10:25, 25 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I think it might be a mistake. Heading for bed now, cheers, Eddaido (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not know what you mean by a mistake, Penyulap  ☏  17:54, 25 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it was a mistake to assume (as I did for a long time) Samblob would get bored and go away and I can be a slow learner, Eddaido (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Bah, what is this, an insult ourselves competition, I'm meant to point out what a fool I am, and so on, well, it's a given on wikipedia at the moment :)


 * Let me know when you figure on learning a new approach to editors who you don't initially like working with. There are ways to have a third person on board to solve disputes, that is step one, then there are ways to go one to one and solve disputes, that is step two, and when you get to my stage you can see off multiple editors simultaneously when they are running against policy, all by yourself. I would like to help both of you to get along, and I think it's a brilliant opportunity, because you need a sparring partner in order to learn how to fight properly and defend the project, so I do hope both of you will work with me so I can help both of you. Is this ok ? Penyulap  ☏  02:36, 26 Jul 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I've given it all some thought. It is a positive and constructive approach but given Wikipedia's native mutability the result of any resolution of a disagreement between editors has to be temporary. Or am I wrong? My contributions are eliminated - ah, well, maybe it was bound to happen sooner or later though I do feel I must protest if the critics seem to be hopelessly misguided (when I poke persistently only at stalkers). I'm no longer interested in changing the world, I just want to put on record some things which seem to be in danger of being forgotten or have been or will be researched and reported upon by editors unaware of the settings within which the events concerned occurred (or, as I think did once happen in Wikipedia, hastening to try to cover a subject lightly and get on with the next one). They are all situations I keep finding in Wikipedia articles and needing repair. I'm no good with rule books either but in case that seems disrespectful I would hasten to tell you I do prefer to drive on the correct side of the road—it makes life so much more comfortable. I understand I have attracted your attention because of the activities of a particular disaffected person or persons well-known to you, that's our misfortune. Assuring you of my best attentions and intentions and with my best regards etc etc, Eddaido (talk) 05:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * But—while I am at your feet—this business was big. Its owner claimed it to be the largest of its kind in the world. Its acquisition almost destroyed BSA, a major armaments combine then fat with the profits of war (cost-plus contracts). Its components re-appeared in various manifestations including Imperial Airways (British Airways) and in one early incarnation of the information from the advertisement I linked their names to other articles within Wikipedia. It is aviation, it is more than 90 years ago, neither fact makes the subject any less unattractive to me yet I believe the time will come when Wikipedia aviation editors will want to use the information in that advertisement. I set up the list as I did because I did not want to go into the individual businesses myself and the best indication of their significance or otherwise was the general layout and typestyles used in the ad. How do I make the information accessible to an interested editor and fit within "policy"? This of course assumes that my display really was against policy ;) Eddaido (talk) 05:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Cannons (house)
Thanks for your interest in my edit. Leaving aside for a moment whether Brydges actually made the Grand Tour, I think art collecting in time of war was more problematic than you realise. I have read that Brydges bought some of his collection unseen from an agent on the continent (Holland) and that obtaining art from Italy, for example, was complicated by wartime conditions. Some evidence of the difficulties in transporting art in a slightly later period is given by an exhibition in Oxford this year called "The English Prize" (Ashmolean Museum): it displays some art that was seized by the Spanish on its way to England onboard the Westmorland.

I appreciate I only have partial knowledge of how Brydges acquired his collection, and I look forward to reading more about his (relatively limited) continental travels in due course. However, I remain puzzled as to why you think my edit is mistaken. You seem to have taken for granted that he went on a Grand Tour, and that he acquired art on the said Tour. These assumptions, I would suggest, have little foundation. -Alan (talk) 09:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding. We are discussing your personal assumptions about a fact or set of facts which is/are bound to be on record and you still have not checked.


 * You deleted the phrase "and Grand Tour acquisitions" from someone's statement "Brydges filled Cannons with Old Masters and Grand Tour acquisitions" and when you did that you added this edit summary "(reference to Grand Tour a bit dubious.....Chandos was collecting while Europe was experiencing a major war)".


 * I've then written to you asking "Are you projecting recent times onto the 18th century? . . . " etc.


 * It did not say it was Brydges went on the collection Grand Tour - you've read that into it. I don't think you can delete a basic factual statement from a reasonably settled article like that one without being able to show proof that the statement is mistaken. You've got to be certain of your own accuracy before making that change. I said initially it is bound to be on record - you just haven't checked it have you before you made the change and assumed war then was like war in the 20th century.


 * So you think the statement is a bit dubious, is there the possibility others know more about it than you do? Am I wrong?


 * I think you must replace the statement unless or until you can show it is wrong. Eddaido (talk) 11:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying. Yes, I suppose that referring to Grand Tour acquisitions could logically include things that someone other than Brydges acquired on the Grand Tour (although a casual reader might well assume that he went on the Grand Tour).  But you don't even say why you think other people bought things for him on the Grand Tour.  He is known to have used the art market and also to have commissioned stuff directly.  If there is some Grand Tour connection couldn't you provide a reference?  After all, you claim that it is a basic factual statement. It seems that all the burden of proof is being placed on me rather than on the person who made the original statement (which was unsupported by a reference).  How do I prove a negative....that he didn't buy anything which had a Grand Tour connection?


 * Also, I find your suggestions that I haven't done any reading on the subject of Brydges' art collection rather rude. Whatever you may think of the quality of my contributions, it is obvious from the article history that I have read on the subject. -Alan (talk) 11:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

(another edit conflict)


 * I wasn't aware you'd made any other contribution to the article. I would not myself make the edit I have complained about because I don't care enough (or enough to try to hunt up the facts) and because I certainly don't already know the facts of the matter. Both the owner and the house have long been of casual interest to me but I am no scholar on those subjects. Our disagreement is about this one edit by you, the one where you deleted a statement because "reference to Grand Tour a bit dubious . . ." (see, you don't say incorrect you say dubious - i.e. you alone doubt it)


 * Would it break us out of this circularity if you were to write to this person user talk:Nancy and ask why the statement you deleted was inserted by Nancy on 3 January 2010? (As an old hand you will know how easy it is to find this small fact). If it cannot be supported by suitable citation(s) then maybe you could negotiate a solution with that party? I'll watch with interest. Eddaido (talk) 12:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Use (as was by Nancy in Cannons (house)) of "grand tour acquisitions" by deputy chair V& A Eddaido (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It would probably save your, my and Nancy's time if you just revert my edit. I'm happy not to pursue the matter further. -Alan (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Apologies for butting in but I have a suggestion. When a claim in an article is not known to be right or wrong and has no supported reference, it is simplest to put a or  tag just after the claim. This effectively says 'this claim needs to supporting evidence'. The onus is always on the claim to be proven. If no one can provide a supporting reference after a reasonable amount of time then it gets removed.  Stepho  talk  12:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds a good idea to me. -Alan (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sullivan
Thanks for the message. I replied on my talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

George Carteret
His is in the sub-category category:Cavaliers, which by definition (and linking) places him in the other two categories. -- PBS (talk) 11:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah! Eddaido (talk) 11:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Daimler ref
Hi, I havent changed any website references (just tweaked its style), the URL is same as before, maybe they have changed the page, or then it was originally badly linked

these are the refs, the old and the new, as you see the URL is same: -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 05:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry I dont understand the only ref I have fixed is the one in above for the Daimler New Fifteen,it went earlier to the very same web page when clicked :By the way do you have the missing numbers for the Daimler Fifteen 1932—1935?, its missing the lenght and width. Also production years would be nice to have on the infoboxes. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 05:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok :) -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 05:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is good service if you want to make sure your references dont disappear in the future http://www.webcitation.org/ -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 06:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Daimler & Daimler
If you've got concerns, I'm happy to discuss it. I took out all of it since it strikes me as trivial. I've seen no discussion of brand image on any other page. (I allow I haven't read every single page. :) ) Aside passing mentions of the likes of Rolls or Benz being prestige marques, the issue never came up, & I'm not sure it should. If you think it should, that's something for the whole Project, not just us. Anything else, msg me back. (I've got too many pages watchlisted now... :  TREKphiler  <sup style="font-family:cursive; color:#008000;"> any time you're ready, Uhura  07:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Daimler I'm long done with, & Davis too. What, exactly, is troubling you? I got the sense there were some conflicts in sources on Davis, & IDK enough about him to say. (I also noticed I'd mucked up the page style, so if you want to fix it, don't let me stop you.)  TREKphiler  <sup style="font-family:cursive; color:#008000;"> any time you're ready, Uhura  16:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing my add as too excessive. (Except maybe the displacement of the Double Six... :P ). Looking at the rest, I'd say most of the Royal Warrant section could be removed, & my ref to Knight is redundant given the sleeve-valve section.
 * On Davis, "totally wrong"? Wise is so wrong how?  TREKphiler  <sup style="font-family:cursive; color:#008000;"> any time you're ready, Uhura  16:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Daimler 250
You say that the Daimler version of the XJ6 was not a successor to the Daimler 250. Jaguar discontinued the Mk.2, S-type and 420 when they launched the XJ6 range, so it seems fair to regard the Daimler versions of the XJ6 as replacements for both Jaguar-based Daimler saloons. It might be worth checking the final list price of the 250 with the original list price of the Sovereign 2.8 to see how close they were; however it was a time of rapid price inflation so there would inevitably be an increase. RGCorris (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Well I thought the XJ6 even though you could buy it with a small 2.8 engine was not a replacement for the 250 and intended for a different market segment (as I said in the edit summary). For example I would think most would have considered the XJ6 a very much larger car whether or no that were true. Certainly that was how I saw it at the time. Can you find anyone commenting in print? Nice to see you about. Eddaido (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The mid-sections of the Mk.2, S-Type and 420 were the same - the differences were in the front and rear treatments. The current edition of one of the classic car magazines makes this point in a comparison test featuring all the variants from Mk.1 to 420, and the fact is that those three models (and their Daimler variants) were the ones replaced by the XJ6. Broadly speaking the XJ6 4.2 replaced the 420 and the 2.8 replaced the 240/340, with the S-type fitting in between. Any 240/340 owner wanting to remain with Jaguar would have had to purchase an XJ6, just as a V8250 owner wanting to remain with Daimler would have had to purchase an XJ6 Sovereign. It would be interesting to compare external dimensions of the three older cars with the Series 1 XJ6 - I suspect that the idea that the XJ6 was much larger is more a matter of styling than actual inches. As far as price comparisons go, I recall that price inflation at the time meant that the £2200 for a 420 Sovereign in 1967 had become £3300 for an XJ6 Sovereign 4.2 in 1969 - and that was definitely meant as a direct replacement. RGCorris (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess if you worked for a Daimler agent yours would need to be the attitude to have ;) The V8-250 was a 2½ litre car with a 2½ litre engine. I don't know about the price comparison but a Mk I XJ was 8 inches longer and rather wider and looked and felt a much bigger (as well as totally different) car even with a smaller than intended engine. The real trouble with the V8-250 was that though it sold well enough it got no repeat business. Owners always moved on to other things - so different from the amazing repeat business for the small Jaguars. Anyway, those two reasons together are why I don't think there was any replacement for the little Daimler, just another car which the agents had to sell in its place. Sorry about the delay, I wanted to do a certain amount of research first and am also having difficulty getting the time at the keyboard. Have made some small fixes to the small-Jag articles. Could type on for hours on the subject! Best wishes, Eddaido (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Faced with the same problem on the Jaguar Mark 2 article I have put "Successor:	not replaced so Jaguar XJ6". What do you think of that for a solution? It was really never replaced until the XF was it? (and that is much bigger but at least it is a significantly smaller car than their top vehicle) I suppose with the misery of the slow-selling Mark X they simply could not afford it until Ford came up with the cash. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess "Successor : not replaced so Daimler Sovereign 2.8" would cover the point. However I am surprised that you discount the modern S-type (which was definitely thought of as a "new Mark 2" when launched) in favour of the XF as the eventual Mark 2 successor. IMHO even the X-type is more of a Mark 2 successor than the XF is. RGCorris (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mmm I think you are right in all you say. The newer S-type didn't cross my mind, I was just pointing to (I thought) a matching pairing of a large car and a (quite different) medium size car. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Arthur John McCormack
I saw your update. Where did you get the info. I know it's true about his death location but the info is deep in family history — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardMcCor (talk • contribs) 03:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Because your name etc was in red I decided you were only an occasional contributor and unlikely to respond to anything I put on your talk page. It was only to be polite as McCor did look like the beginning of McCormack. Have I not provided references for everything. Please tell me where I have missed. Thanks for this note, Eddaido (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edmund Boulter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Fryer (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) 10:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

New message from Gareth Griffith-Jones
Gareth Griffith-Jones / The Welsh Buzzard 06:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

James Charles Dale
That is very interesting. As it happens I am from Derbyshire myself. I'll watch the page. Best wishes from Ireland Robert aka Notafly (talk) 09:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that, so I thought I would offer it as a commendation to you <G> Eddaido (talk) 11:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Orleans House
Hi again. I'd like to re-work your substantial footnote on Orleans House into the main body of the text - if not all the detailed history of the lease certainly Johnson's lease extension and the ownership after his death. The citation you have given though is confusing me - especially the mention of Hornsey and Wilsdon! Is this referring to: ? Many thanks --KenBailey (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Awww! Who am I, a foreigner, to try to explain to a local a Gloucestershire man like Lysons (convicted of having ‘spent seven hours up to his knees in water in the vaults of Stepney Church copying epitaphs’) that Twickenham would have to be one of the remoter and leafier reaches of Willesden. And Hornsey is so, well, so central to everything. Grandmothers . . . Eggs. I just copied it off the cover provided by Google Books aware Lysons is in British History online as well. Here's the link I used:




 * Now click on the cover provided by Google and you will see how I found my name for the volume.


 * It seems to be identical text and I think the BHOnline version is the better, because more accessible, reference. You (I think) asked lease? who from? and I think you should rearrange my answer (intended for you) to suit. Thanks and best regards, Eddaido (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks. Yes, I was curious to know who owned the turf before Johnson and grateful for the comprehensive response. I'd not come across Lysons before. We must hang out in different vaults. :) Cheers! --KenBailey (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Would that be by the feet from the ceiling? We might have something in common. By the way I notice the text in the two editions is different. Logically the later edition (my first version) would be more accurate than that from BHoL but you will be in the best position to check. Best, Eddaido (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.


 * 1st The Royal Dragoons (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Edward Mathews


 * James Johnston (died 1797) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Some


 * Philip Goldsworthy (soldier) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Leghorn

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Flower Mocher (soldier)
Hello Eddaido,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Flower Mocher (soldier) for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Skrelk (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Dobos
Eddaido, you amaze me so very frequently. Most recently by giving a Dobos Torte to Charles - because my wife made me a Dobos torte for my birthday very recently. It was delicious.  Mr.choppers &#124;  ✎  07:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow! I'm So envious. I saw it (with instant enhanced salivation) on Gareth Griffith-Jones's page and daydreamed of teleportation and the like so its good to hear from someone (other than my ex) who has actually sampled it. I'm very glad Charles01 liked his. Cherish the spouse that makes Dobos Torte for the birthday! Best regards, Eddaido (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Royal Northumberland Fusiliers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edward Lloyd (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) 11:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited British Motor Holdings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pressed Steel (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) 11:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't be shy
Don't be shy please, you know so much.

Greetings, Eddaido. One thing I don't know is what you're getting at. The above comment you left on my usertalk page seems cryptic. Are you serious, and suggesting that I join the community more? Or are you being facetious, and think that I edited something poorly? If the latter, please reference the article and we can discuss the change. Zombie88 (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I was annoyed by three consecutive edits you made and in view of the blood-red marks left behind thought to find out more of you. I admire your selection of name and its hint of prosperity but remain alarmed having noted the day it was brought into use. Were any chickens (or other sentient beings) harmed by that event? There's every indication you are an "old hand" around here —what personal tragedy has made you like this? Anyway I thought mine was an appropriate response, you seem to have understood perfectly, I was not being facetious. Kind regards, Eddaido (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pearce (surname), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Pearce (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) 11:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Pressed Steel Company
When I tripped over this article I couldn't spend the time, so your edits are certainly very helpful in sorting out the ramble! <B>Warren</B> (talk) 08:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind words, Warren. I'm going to have another go at the same article shortly, I've found where much of the unsourced stuff came from so I must put those tags on too. Best wishes, Eddaido (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pressed Steel Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rolls-Royce (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) 11:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Singer Gazelle picture
The picture you have entered for the Singer Gazelle Mk I (sometimes known as the Singer Gazelle Series I) is in my judgement of a Singer Gazelle Mk V (or Series V). The back window was quite different. Different, too, if you check out the DVLC database is the engine size and the year of first registration (1964). I was going to replace it quietly with a more appropriate picture, but I could not find a more appropriate picture in wikipedia. Corrosion prevention was a low priority for cash strapped Rootes in the 1950s, and we don't have the dry climate they seems to manage in Aus and even - to judge my the way the cars last - large bits of NZ. Also, the picture was added to the entry by you and I appreciate you often know stuff that I don't know. And the Rootes Mark and series numbers are a fair old muddle from that period. So I thought I'd ask you what you thought.

Normally I would ask the fellow who uploaded and misnamed the original image, but this one is uploaded from Flickr and I do not know how to contact those guys, even though he claims to live near Cambridge so probably over the years I have unknowingly bumped into him when shopping. (If you were at uni there and are on reasonable terms with your college you can sometimes park in college without paying which makes a visit to Cambridge market and/or the intriguing food shops in Mill Road an acceptable way to forage even for those of us who avoid shopping anywhere that you have to pay to park, which rules out many of the city centre shops in England.)  Sorry about the digression back to food. Thoughts on the Singer identification would be welcome, however.... Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

http://s710.beta.photobucket.com/user/surfblue63/media/NEBPS%20Seaburn%202009/2009_08310069.jpg.html


 * You are absolutely right of course. I can claim to have been uneasy about the car's hindquarters but the description from Flickr seemed to be very definite. You are of enormous value to WP (I know, I know, just a reminder) ;-)


 * My concern for Singer is because it is just another totally unglamorous (except for the small 1930s racing cars and I think they were heavily overshadowed by MGs) brand of British car that will soon be totally forgotten. I think the absence of pictures of even such a recent (less than a mere 60 yrs old) version is highly meaningful - imminent oblivion. Anyway bored and confused by my search for Vauxhall pictures I occasionally add Singer to the search box in case that turns up something useful. It bothered me there was no picture of the first Singer-engined Rootes group car so that's why I slipped that (bad one) in. Do you think people will add images in the years to come?


 * I begin to think that photographers now assume any old Vauxhall = 30/98. Should you hold any unpublished images of pre 1930s Vauxhalls (I don't expect you do) please publish them now. Best regards, Eddaido (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Singer unglamorous?  Sadly, you're probably right, though of course when Rootes acquired the brand in the mid 1950s, a bit of glamour was exactly what he was after.   Having duly "milked the brand" the company dropped it two decades later.   Well, it's a familiar story.   And the way brands become forgotten once even the children - even grand children - of their contemporaries are no longer around is sadly also an old story.   De Dion Bouton were the biggest auto producer in the world in 1900 (at least according to wikipedia, and I think it sounds about right), and Brennabor I think topped the sales charts in Germany in the 1920s.   Who?   Well may you ask.   Our generation stacks up data as none before it, and with our contributions to wikipedia I guess we're both part of that, but whether a couple more generations down the road anyone will be moved to look at most of it....   Now I'm making me sad, but if I see any old Vauxhalls in anything approaching photographable position and light I will certainly think of you (among others).


 * On never being quite sure which Vauxhall is which ... yep, that sounds like me once you get to before about 1950.  On being in possession of unpublished images of Vauxhalls from before 1930, however, sadly that does not sound like me.   Wish it did.   Even the oldtimer shows don't seems to feature very many cars from before 1930.   Probably they never did, given the extent to which before about 1930 very few people could afford to buy cars.   But of course my intention is to keep on looking.


 * Happy Tuesday Charles01 (talk) 09:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Vauxhall again again
... ...
 * Lol. Sorry, I was confused, gave it some thought then got distracted. Sorry. I have been preoccupied with domestic/work issues and deadlines, and two DYKs being pushed for approval because of my loose referencing. I tried to decode your message and wondered if 1891 was a year with a switched/mistaken image. In England the Astramax van is regarded as the fastest vehicle on the road, bar none - speed is all about more gas, less brakes, in someone else's vehicle. Nobody tangles with an Astramax, well not willingly. Regards. Chienlit (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't know that. Eddaido (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Wire wheels
I'm glad that I could help provide a little historical information about wire wheels. Actually, I stumbled across the subject accidentally. I was investigating the origin of the "caterpillar tracks" or "continuous tracks" of bulldozers, armored tanks, etc. Cayley conceived the idea while he was trying to drain land of his estate. After that, I investigated other inventions that Cayley had conceived, one of which was wire wheels. The article in the Journal of Aeronautical History stated that although Cayley conceived the idea of wire wheels, he never patented or manufactured them; Theodore Jones of London did that. So, a little investigating on the Internet revealed the information about Jones' invention which I posted in Wikipedia's "Wire wheels" article. Best regards, Cwkmail (talk) 08:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This above message was posted on your user page - I moved it here. Cheers, —<font color="#E62020">Mel <font color="#FF2400">bourne <font color="#FF7538">Star <font color="#FF9F00">☆ <font color="3D0376">talk 08:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Singing out
Hi Charles01, here because it follows on from Singer. If I were sorting sheep from goats I'd put the two handsome sheep on the left in one section and the pair of more agile sporting goats to the right. What do you think?

Best wishes, Eddaido (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Flattered that you think I might know, but really I have no idea.  We're talking about a period when automakers produced a chassis with an engine and then the buyer went off and ordered a body from someone else.   So when trying to answer the question "what is it?" we're really in the realm of best guesses, and since you have been studying old Vauxhalls recently (and for all I know before that) any obvious cues - visible bits of the suspension, whether there are any brakes at the front, approximate size - are likely to speak to you more usefully than to me.   Googling round and seeing what other people think might be one route, but what other people think is not necessarily to be preferred to what you think.   I'll see if I can find any obvious matches in any well respected reference books with pictures, but I don't have too many of those.   When summer comes I might find some relevant old "literature" on an enthusiasts stall at an old timer show, but printed stuff from before the 1950s tends to be pretty rare these days even at those shows.   Just thinking on paper.   Not going anywhere.   But (and since you were kind enough to be interested) since a week or so I have fewer teeth than I used to have but also (tempting fate to record it) no tooth ache.   It would be an exaggeration - as in plain wrong - to record than the sun is shining and the birds are singing fit to burst, but nevertheless life is a far better place without tooth ache.   Happy weekend  also to you Charles01 (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have read (and I'm sure its true) humans have poor memories for pain. Imagine for a moment the things we could not do if we properly remembered how awful they were the last time!


 * I'm sure the birds, not to mention the sun, will soon catch the general drift of things but (from personal experience) one thing you must soon arrange is bringing tooth numbers back to par with Permanently fixed replacements. Wish I had. I well know your passion for precision and because you have MalcolmA on your side I am trying to be gentle about that old yellow Vauxhall 20-60 Hurlingham 2-seater you both mistakenly labelled 30-98. Here is an ad for it here. I'll move it to the correct category in Commons now, was waiting for your thoughts. Will also leave a note on Malcolm's talk page. If I'm wrong (I'm not!) it can be changed back. Sunday morning is gloomy and overcast here. Extraordinary after seemingly endless blue skies but the cooler temperature re-energises me. (Remember if you're sure its a 30-98 just come up with evidence) Regards, Eddaido (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC) possibly the car in question Eddaido (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you.  I think, subject to further thought, I might have done this recategorisation if you had not.   Ten or twenty years ago there would have been people with the confident knowledge to endorse (or gainsay) such a move with reassuring conviction, but alas the collective human memory for such details.   If I ever come up with strong persuasive evidence (either way) I'll let you know.   Provided I remember....   Malcolm must speak (write) for himself if he has thoughts to share, but I have always found him unfailingly reasonable (and, when he comes up with firm information, right).   Would that there were more like that.    As for replacing the teeth, you are not the first to have made that point, though maybe you come to the issue with more authority than some precisely because we have never met and do not (as far as I know, and I probably would) have recent ancestors in common.   On indeed with Sunday  Regards  Charles01 (talk) 09:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Pick Motor Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stamford (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) 12:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Speed Six
Those additions are fine if they can be verified from RSs. Otherwise they fall under OR, which is contrary to editing policy. I hope you don't mind that I have reverted pending this corroboration. Writegeist (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do mind. Why did you close off the conversation by deleting it all from your talk page? Eddaido (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Please see the request at the top of my talk page and comply with it in future. There is no need to duplicate this section there. I note that you mind. The minding is your choice. You don't have to mind. I deleted the previous conversation, as is my right, because it didn't interest me. Speculation, and what you think you know to be the truth, are no more permitted in WP captions than in the articles themselves. I have made it very clear that you are welcome to reinstate your additions provided they are substantiated by secondary RSs. So you could just do that. Couldn't you? Writegeist (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * My, you do sound authoritative! Sorry, I will look at the top of your talk page shortly. Its readers need to know how you respond when your mistakes are pointed out. The note which you have removed was not idle speculation (but I do understand why you deleted the section from your talk page when you understood your mistake). What is the meaning of your "word" "RSs"? Take care, Eddaido (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Do I? Your "note" was both speculative--you were floating a theory--and idle (you had not taken the trouble to back it up with evidence). No mistake. Reliable sources, i.e. WP:RS. Pretty fundamental stuff. Writegeist (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The WP:OR policy also applies. Hope this helps clarify the issue. Writegeist (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. Now will it be OK if I place my note on the image in Wikimedia? If it is explained there that it is a copy or replica that will cover everything, all languages. Eddaido (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * However you try to insinuate original research into the encyclopedia, if it's not verifiable it still breaches the WP:OR and WP:V policies, and it will be removed. Alternatively, abide by the policies when you add the detail you want to see here here--i.e. on the article talk page cite a reliable source for it--and it will stay. Please also note WP:DE. If you still have difficulty understanding this, would you like an admin to come here and advise you? You (or I) could invite one. Writegeist (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am most interested to see your tactics: running from 1. revert, 2. just delete the talk maybe he will go away, to 3. plain outright smear! I will put the detail on your image as well - OK? I thought you were an admin, was I (for the first time with you) wrong?. Eddaido (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Colleagues:

A discussion on the identity of the car in the photograph has been started here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Bentley_Speed_Six.JPG. Both of you, and any other interested parties, are welcome to bring your reasonable arguments and reliable sources there.

I thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: "Iron Lung"
Hi Eddaido - things are fine here, thanks for asking! I appreciate your making Iron Lung a disambiguation page; I agree with your reasoning for doing so. As I was going through articles that still linked to the Dab page, it seemed that negative pressure ventilator was the intended target (Tank respirator, Drinker respirator, and Emerson iron lung all link back to that page), but I'm certainly open to other interpretations and would be happy to collaborate with you. Cheers,  Gong   show  03:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

ID help
Is this a Daimler? All I see is the ridges on top of the radiator, no other reason I think so. Cheers,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  00:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think it is! Thank you for this and other kind deeds during my forced absence. Happy Easter! Eddaido (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. Now I just got to figure out what kind of Daimler and whether it's worth to upload it to the Commons (picture is freely licensed). Cheers,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  19:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's the 1922 Daimler in the Brussels Autoworld Museum. Writegeist (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Writegeist, Eddaido (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently a 1922 TS 6-30. 4962cc, ex-Mary of Teck. What does "TS" stand for, "Thirty-Six"? Cheers to all.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  06:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Twin Screw is a vessel not a vehicle isn't it. Twin Spark?? What I can tell you is: 30.1 tax hp, 6-cyl, 4962 cc, (90 x 130), Magneto ignition, Sleeve valve, 4 spd sliding g'box with side gear lever, open shaft transmission, wheelbase 10' 8.25" then cone clutch and tyres 880 x 120, or wheelbase 11' 9.5" and disk(sic) clutch with tyres 895 x 135. In both cases front springs half elliptic, rear three-quarters elliptic. That is not enough is it. Will be back, hopefully to report success. Eddaido (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you might be very close to the mark with your guess but I would like to be able to confirm it some other way. It seems the two chassis detailed by me above were  the Light-Thirty and the Standard-Thirty so (please note I Guess) the Queen Mary would be the bigger one wouldn't it? S-T = TS?  Will continue. The first info was from Nixon (Daimler 1896-1946 and I do not have all of the book) the second lot from Brian E Smith (The Daimler Tradition). I shall return. Eddaido (talk) 07:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If there is such a thing as a TL 6-30 then we'll know for sure. Thanks for info!  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  07:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ohhh, there is!. Well, it's called a "T.L. 30" but that's pretty close.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  08:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about that. They used the same engines for trucks. I am sorry Mr Choppers but I cannot find an answer to your question! Third guess would be Thirty Special as the Kings was a 45 Special about the same time but probably those letters had no other meaning like we search for. What do you think? Will order another ref book from the library but it will take some time. Eddaido (talk) 08:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Have a look here (but this is a 1927 catalogue). It might mean it has a "low" bonnet and "pillar seats". Pillar seats? a still puzzled Eddaido (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes!, I think we have Success. Not quite the right vintage but it looks to me like it did the same job 5 years later. Here is more about the car this catalogue came with: Andrew Alston. Best regards! Eddaido (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Have just noticed the occasional seats in the rear passenger compartment swivel so they can face ahead or back and they are mounted on pillars but of course that is an Original Observation ;-) Eddaido (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is wildly confusing but I guess it all makes sense now. Cheers, good work.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  20:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Perpetual curate
It is very nice that you are taking the time to put so much effort into this article and I do hope you are enjoying it. Do you think you might devote the leading paragraph to telling readers what a perpetual curate was (and the kind that were given those appointments) and why perpetual curacies existed (and what their nature was) as simply briefly and elegantly as you can? Much much more briefly than the present over-long opening paragraph. Hunting the Snark can come later. All that other stuff is marvellous to have in case a reader might be interested. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * thanks for your kind words. I agree that the lead para needs clarification (and pruning?); but I am perhaps too involved in the intricacies.  Would you like to have a go; as you have been working on the article a lot longer than I have?  My perspective is that the problem - with relation to the lead - is that the term 'perpetual curate' was in current usage, and designated a recognisable cultural entity, essentially in the Early-Victorian period.  To an Early Victorian (like Trollope) 'perpetual curate' was a key signifier and potentially a serious problem; to a High Victorian (like Lewis Carroll) is was a logical paradox of history.  To summarise Steer's parish law: the rule is that every incumbent is a rector; but if by exception an incumbent is not a rector, then they are a vicar; but if by exception the incumbent vicar is not a vicar, then they are still a perpetual curate.


 * Of course one can trace the origin of the status of perpetual curate to the practice of the medieval papacy; of articulating a rule, then selling the right to be an exception to the rule, and then sellng the right to be an exception to the exception; but that does not explain why England, Wales and Ireland (uniquely, I think) maintained both the medieval rule and its complex of exceptions, within a church order that rejected the authority of the Papal See; nor does it explain why the resultant formal anomalies persisted and were reproduced through the radical changes and reforms launched (or perhaps forced upon) the Early Victorian Church of England.


 * But how much of this background do you think should be within your question 'why perpetual curacies existed?' TomHennell (talk) 11:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, my first suggestion would be that you try defining / describing these things within particular periods. How would that fit with your plans for simplifying? Eddaido (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you be a bit more specific; which 'things' do you judge should be defined/described in the lead para? TomHennell (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure if this is quite what you mean but you could for example restrict the lead to say something like this: A Perpetual Curate in the times that Trollope wrote about was . . . and then a perpetual curacy was  . . .  (because I suspect this is the period most of the large number of daily visitors are interested in)


 * Otherwise you leave me (without your knowledge experience and training etc) just bamboozled. That is not to say that the rest of your essay may not be of great interest to many if not most other visitors it just leaves me puzzled and frankly thwarted because all I learn is its complicated. As you can write as you have surely you can write down to those of us simpler folk who come for guidance from you. It seems you do not like to answer your correspondence on your own talk page. Is there a particular reason for that? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have reworked the lead para. Is that what you are looking for?  Otherwise please have a go yourself. TomHennell (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Morris Dancing
Re the note left on my talk page under the above heading, may I suggest that you raise this on the Morris Oxford talk page so that all interested parties can participate. GTHO (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure I was hoping you might do something like that. regards, Eddaido (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mann & Overton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BMC (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) 16:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Date formats
Hi Eddaido, being a pan-English work, en.WP has to cope with competing spellings and date formats, partly, but not wholly based on national variants. Rules evolved years ago for "keeping the peace", and they involve the use of dmy rather than mdy for all UK-related articles. I hope you understand. Cheers. Tony  (talk)  13:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Edward Manville
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Edward Manville, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://books.google.com.jm/books?id=kHx7hVRhKfYC&q=His+Westminster+electrical+engineering+consultancy+advised+on+the+electrification+of+the+London+Brighton+and+South+Coast+Railway+#v=snippet&q=His%20Westminster%20electrical%20engineering%20consultancy%20advised%20on%20the%20electrification%20of%20the%20London%20Brighton%20and%20South%20Coast%20Railway&f=false, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Edward Manville and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Edward Manville, in your email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Edward Manville with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Edward Manville. See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Edward Manville saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Edward Manville
Personal attacks such as you made here do not help to resolve content disputes, they tend to make the situation worse, and make you look like the villain so please remove or strike your last comment from the word "about ...". -- PBS (talk) 08:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This dispute is continuous. The statement is factual. Eddaido (talk) 08:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|24px]] If you make another similar "factual" comment about another editor I will block your account (see WP:NPA). -- PBS (talk) 09:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * So far the only changes that have been made to Edward Manville are to a paragraph that had to be rewritten for copyright reasons, the citation formats and and date. No major changes have yet been made to the article, but if you take you ball away and walk off the playing field in a huff then changes that you object to will be made (silence equals consent). A the moment there are two substantive issue the date and the page number of one of the books you used as a citation, where your participation will help to improve the article. The article will be better if you engage positively on the talk page, and discuss the changes that have been made and the proposed changes. -- PBS (talk) 09:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I well know the penalties however irrationally administered they be. Please understand I refer to Wikipedia's system for doing these things, (makes me think of someone utterly determined to swing a cane knife in a small room full of friends and colleagues) not the persons who carry them out. I have had a great deal of experience of the editor under mention. I have long wished to have no further experience of her. Ten days ago her colleague took offence (probably because he was bored) at something I almost always do in Wikimedia and seems to have prodded Samblob into new action.
 * Samblob's failing is to believe she can learn all about a subject by a bit of research in Google Books (some times with desperate results but then she cannot be corrected, this is Wikipedia), I'm sure there are things she is not ignorant of.
 * Samblob may appear negotiable, I wash my hands of the Mandeville article, someone else will come and change it again some day, I am accustomed to dodging the Samblob "rewrites".
 * I've no other editors I can honestly describe as ignorant, I'll strike out the word now. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 09:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Commissioner of Bankruptcy (England and Wales), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Common Pleas (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) 13:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Portly
The OED says it means "characterized by stateliness or dignity of bearing, appearance or manner, handsome, majestic, imposing. Now rare or US regional."

The first recorded use (portliness) is dated 1530 then portly itself in 1581.

Clearly, it is a very colloquial word indeed. . . or has a regional use varied it? Eddaido (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Weymann Fabric Bodies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Invicta (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) 11:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Response to was Waikato a rich agricultural region 1863?
Check out "talk" -George Grey for a full coverage of this point. Basically no!You have to remember that there were few Maori in the Waikato in those days. They didnt really farm much in the modern sense until 1850-and even then in only very limited areas. Maori were good at living off the land-eels,ducks, kahawai,snapper,wood pigeons,tui,white bait,mussels, oysters, pipis ,tuatuas, bracken fern roots and kumara(to a limited extent)-you didnt need Pak n Save... of course supplemented from time to time by human flesh!Last eaten by Maori in Te Awamutu about 1843. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm, you address the wrong party. Does that happen often around Hamilton? Eddaido (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

coachbuilder Pennock
I know nothing about the subject, but any article about them needs to be at a title other than Pennock as that is a disambiguation page between two people with that surname. If you know what the title should be then disambiguate the link to that title, even if it is a redlink. Thryduulf (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=571978599 your edit] to T.G. Waterhouse may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ]. Adelaide's oldest shop is 1847 Waterhouse Chambers at 42-46 King William Street. After twenty years in the colony he retired from business in 1861.  Following his retirement,

T.G. Waterhouse
Thanks for your additions! (It's nice to have someone else making significant contributions.) Where did you find his birthdate and birthplace? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Well the short answer is here and I believe it because there were still few given two Christian names at baptism and it all fits so precisely. I'd like the article to have more of his wife's identity. Do you have access to SA marriages? I cannot find a record before he left England so I guess they married around Adelaide. When she died in 1907 she was recorded as being aged 82 so (it was February) she was probably born about 1824 if the age at death is accurate. Do you know a date of birth for the eldest child?


 * Ah, from Northern Standard, Tuesday 25 June 1935. "Adelaide June 25, Arthur Waterhouse, formerly chairman of the Bank of Adelaide is dead aged 80 years. He was one of Adelaide's best known businessman whose opinions on financial and property questions was highly valued. He was a director of several big companies."


 * So if they were being conventional they married around 1854 or earlier so their marriage should be in the Adelaide records. Can you look it up? Regards, P.S. Does this family train horses?! Eddaido (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd like the article to have more of his wife's identity. - Me too! Do you have access to SA marriages? - Good question. (Otherwise known as: I don't know.) User:doug butler will know about such access - I'll ask him.
 * P.S. Does this family train horses?!
 * I don't know how much of T.G.'s family are left in Adelaide - three of the four kids followed Dad & Mum back to England. In any case, no, I don't think any of them are/were involved in horse training.
 * HOWEVER
 * There is a different Sydney-based family involved in bookmaking: GF:Bill Waterhouse, F:Robbie Waterhouse, Son:Tom Waterhouse; Robbie is married to Gai Waterhouse who is/was a very successful horse trainer.
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Grocery, property speculation, banking, bookmaking - there's a difference? Why are you sure they are a different family? I've no plans to pursue the idea but thought it worth asking. Have a nice day, Eddaido (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: your "over-emphasis" edit. I don't think having it there is over -emphasis, but like you, I don't think having it there adds very much value, so I won't be changing anything. Again, thanks for your contributions. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There's some stuff on that talk page to talk through when your head's above water. regards, Eddaido (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

British Military
I see from an old post at Wally Wiglet's page you were looking for someone to help you with British Military matters. You might not need it now but I'm willing to try and help if you do. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this kind offer. I've two military concerns, one was some generals called Pearce who were around in the early 18th century and from that I felt a better way of identifying regiments when they were named after their colonel should be found now that we can search such vast heaps of data for such small things as the name a regiment had in 1698 (or whatever). There seemed to be no interest and so I went ahead and listed out the various names for some regiments again without any reaction from project members. Having accomplished what I wanted, or lost interest, or anyway lost impetus I completely forgot about leaving messages elsewhere. How do I re-find that message I left that you refer to? Maybe I can recall my particular concern if I see it. Best regards, Eddaido (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem. Most regiments named after their colonels went on to have numbers as you can see from here but there are some distinctive exceptions to that although none come to mind at the moment.  Your original post was here.  If there's anything I can do for you at the moment just let me know. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. I'd better make myself clearer. The problem I was trying to deal with was this: say there was a Colonel A Setanta who had command of an early 18th century regiment. Would it not be nice and easy to make it possible to search for Setanta's Carabiniers and instantly find they were now the 4001st tank squadron as well as this regiment within an article in WP which covered the full history (or one day might do so)? It is so straightforward and made standard practice it would help so many family historians like me.


 * I have just tested my theory and now, some time later, the power of WP is shown by the way I can enter Pearce's Dragoons in Google and get 194 results and that did not happen before! What do you think? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I've just done my own test and it works the same. Using the 8th Hussars as the model and searching for "Conyngham's Dragoons".  The first 4 items on the search result were related to what I wanted to find.  This is simply down to ensuring that the history of the regiment is properly attributed in the article, usually in the lead.  Such as "The regiment was first raised in Ireland as Henry Conyngham's Regiment of Dragoons in Derry in 1693, and ranked as the 8th Dragoons."  If that's missing no search engine can find it.  So you'd be right in saying that the name or the colonel who raised them, and subsequent colonels who commanded them, needs to be in the article - but that's always been the correct way to do it.  It's also how we, as young soldiers, were instructed on the histories of our respective regiments.    I did your "Pearce's Dragoons" search and it took me to Thomas Pearce (British Army officer) where I was able to see "Pearce's Horse" which took me to 4th Royal Irish Dragoon Guards.  If I'd followed the logical progression that would have taken me to the Royal Dragoon Guards.  That all seems perfectly ok to me.  Would you have any further comments to make on this particular matter? Or is there something else I can help you with? SonofSetanta (talk) 11:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * As usual I haven't explained properly. Before I inserted a paragraph in the articles about around half a dozen different regiments headed in this case by Colonels—with early names for the regiment there was no reference to Colonel Pearce available in an ordinary Google search. I am taking credit (only to you to show why I believe it should be done in the other regiments) for that ease of research you have just referred to. Perhaps you could encourage project members to continue the job I started (probably in a format different from mine - I know next to nothing about the army). Thanks for following up this matter and I hope you are encouraged to take action as I suggest. Best wishes, Eddaido (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It would be proper historical protocol to always include the names of various colonels in the articles. It's not always possible to verify them though (with proper sources) and I think that's why they are sometimes missing.  Plus not all editors here are scholars.  I would certainly always do as you suggest.  SonofSetanta (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The sources I used were the annual(?) publications that detailed senior army officers as viewed in Google Books. There was absolutely NO record of former colonels in Wikipedia (except perhaps as a curious historical fact in respect of a particular occasion) before I set out to record them. It was quite a lot of work. I agree if one wanted to rely on the Gazette it is not always reliable in effect because e.g. you can have two persons of much the same age with the same name and I think from (ancestral) memory this pair took advantage and the decision was that the first that arrived to take up the post got it! Could that be true? See: James Johnston and James Johnston.


 * The job is not all that big because it only applied to regiments before about 1750(? not sure of precise date). Eddaido (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

T E Y Seddon
I have modified it to "then" ie soon after graduation he was a lawyer in Greymouth. I suppose he probably lived there until 1928 when he stood for election for the last time (then got the 1931 War Pensions job in Wellington). He had a see-saw battle with Labour for the seat, like Wairarapa when the seat went between Liberal and Reform (Marryat Hornsby & Buchanan; then McDonald & McLeod). Hugo999 (talk) 01:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It may be strictly accurate to say he was a lawyer in Greymouth (for a particular period) but I do not think it is true or fair to say it the way you have. I am pretty sure his last 40 years were based in Wadestown Wellington (and perhaps maintain more than a loose link with a Greymouth legal practice) but there must be some way to confirm that - try his 1968 autobiography or please remove Greymouth. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Howard F. Hobbs
Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SportWagon#David_Hobbs I found  http://www.formula1blog.com/2011/08/30/f1-biography-david-hobbs/  Sorry, I do not check here as often as I once did. -- SportWagon (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * try a web search for "Howard F. Hobbs automatic transmission"; finds several patents for me -- SportWagon (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Sportwagon, far too much on the plate and backburner right now. I'm not sure I mind enough to attempt some coverage myself in any case. Do you think you can find enough to set up a stub? Thanks and regards, Eddaido (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frederick Orton Hamilton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nelson (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) 11:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Walter Woods Johnston, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Johnston (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) 11:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)