User talk:Peter13542

Recent edits to Bristol Bus Boycott[edit]

Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit(s) because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Clarkcj12 (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I have never heard of the plural of bus being busses. The correct way is actually buses. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently so, but I would suggest you discuss it on the talk page of the article, about it to see if the other editors agree to the change. If you have any further questions please leave me a message on my talk page. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean, but what I am trying to say since the article is a WP:GA article, and in most cases you wouldn't use that form of pluralization of buses. So, that is why I would suggest asking the other contributors. Also I didn't undo it as a vandalism edit but as a WP:AGF edit. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think "buses" is the British plural, and "busses" American. Since this is an article about Britain, I changed it back to "buses". W. P. Uzer (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just went to the library and checked in a lot of dictionaries. The Oxford ones generally say that "busses" is American usage (but that "buses" is used by Americans too). Others - both UK and US dictionaries - mostly give both plurals, but putting "buses" first. Enc. Britannica uses "buses" (in its entry on "bus"). My own experience is that "buses" is far more common in British usage (cf. e.g. On the Buses). So all in all I think it's right to use "buses" in an article about events in Britain. W. P. Uzer (talk) 10:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, I'm British. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Anatomy Wikiproject![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Anatomy! We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of anatomy articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are involved in editing anatomy articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing wikipedia articles are:

Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Anatomy talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing anatomy articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
Lastly, why not try and strive to create a good article! Anatomical articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!

Feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Anatomy talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. I wish you all the best on your wiki-voyages! --LT910001 (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar[edit]

Hi: Could I ask you to go easy on the grammar corrections? Looking at those you have made over the last few days, I found some that were correct but a lot that were not - I've left an explanatory edit summary where I've reverted you. By the way, the verb is "to disambiguate", so your edit summaries regarding removal of ambiguity should be "Disambiguating" - but I didn't see any ambiguity at either Kristallnacht (where you removed an explanatory English translation) or Marriage loan, where you substituted a longer equivalent "featured a story of a 'shining' example" for the more succinct "featured as a 'shining' example". Yngvadottir (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I wasn't being serious with whatever variant of 'disambiguating' I used - sort of wanted to have a bit of a sense of humour, y'know? Also, I can't be bothered to go back to the Kristallnacht one, so fine, yeah, go ahead with that one, but on Marriage loan, I personally could not easily understand the previous version, finding it took a bit of thinking about to get my head around, therefore thought it was logical to change it, as there would be others who would experience the same confusion.

also, I'd just read this article: perhaps this helps as justification? Peter13542 (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the corollary of WP:BOLD is "expect ruthless reversions" as it says or used to say somewhere at the bottom of editing pages. As I say, I did find some good edits correcting grammar, but I also found several that were incorrect, so please be more careful about that particular activity. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, cool. Another (unrelated) thing: while I'm talking to an expert (and a fellow englishperson, as opposed to American...), can I ask about the date fomatting on Wikipedia, namely the omission of the 'ordinal indicators' from the day part of the date (e.g. writing '29 April' as opposed to '29th April'). Is this a conscious decision made collectively, or, when adding one's own content at least, is it OK to use the indicators? Personally, it annoys me to see dates without this, so if it is 'approved' (as seems to be necessary when making edits) to leave these in, that would be nice.

UK usage is: 29 April 2014 (the separation of the day and year numbers by the month makes it clear what the day number is) v. April 29th 2014 (the two numbers side by side are possible to run together visually, so the day number is written as an ordinal for visual clarity; for similar reasons, some people in the UK write all-numbers dates using Roman numerals for the month, 29.iv.2014). US usage is almost always April 29, 2014: the comma is inserted for the same purpose of visual clarity since the convention in the US is to write the day number after the month. The Fourth of July is a notable exception to the US rule on day and date order and that's presumably why it uses the ordinal: it's also written 4th of July. So no, the normal UK usage is actually better without the ordinal indicator being written out, because that's the established convention. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, never knew that: I was always taught to always use the ordinal indicator, but that makes a lot more sense now Peter13542 (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]