User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2016/December

The Corbett Report is now Draft:James Corbett (journalist)

You contributed to The Corbett Report article created 27 March, 2013 but on 10 November, 2015 it was nominated for and was deleted. I was unaware of that deleted article when I started a new Draft:James Corbett (journalist) on 19 May, 2016 that was rejected. I've been revising it here and there since. Recent events spurred me on (feel free to ask me or watch this video then read the TCR comments section (not the YouTube comments) for the full disclosure of my involvement: https://www.corbettreport.com/what-i-learned-from-the-propornot-propaganda-list/ ). I discovered the deleted article and folded it into the new draft. Feel free to contribute as you like. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The old article wasn't deleted outright, it was moved to your userspace. Also note that canvassing off-wiki for sympathisers to come and participate on a particular article is usually a fairly good way to get yourself kicked off Wikipedia altogether; the point of Wikipedia is to reflect what mainstream sources say about any given topic, not to articulate any given point of view. ‑ Iridescent 22:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Wolseley Motors

Name plate: Vickers, Sons & Maxim
Wolseley Siddeley

What you have done seems to be quite weird. What is your authority for changing which to that and more important removing Maxim from the corporate name. I assure you you have it wrong. Eddaido (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I assumed that you're familiar with basic English grammar, although that now seems unlikely. Eric Corbett 00:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll let that pass but the name of the Combine was Vickers Sons & Maxim. Why change it? Eddaido (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

And now you have re-removed 70 foot cruising yachts. Do they not exist in your world? How about checking with the facts before you re-write the whole article (and THAT you are most welcome to do so long as you just stick to the facts and not introduce omissions because you choose not to believe the facts!!!) Eddaido (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Vickers, Sons & Company came into existence in 1867 and became Vickers, Sons & Maxim in 1897. The car badge clearly dates from the period post-1901 when Austin's car-manufacturing business was incorporated, so doesn't really tell us anything. The text in question is "Hiram Maxim, inventor of the machine gun that bears his name and by then a member of the combine Vickers Sons, had consulted Herbert Austin at Wolseley in the late 1890s a number of times in relation to the design of flying machines, which he was developing and constructing. Maxim made use of a number of suggestions made by Austin in Maxim's activities at his works in Crayford, Kent." The link to Hiram Maxim#Flying machines seems to imply that Maxim tested his flying machine in 1894 and abandoned it some time thereafter. So the question would seem to be did Maxim consult Austin about flying machines prior to 1897 when the company was called Vickers, Sons & Co, or after that date when it had become Vickers, Sons & Maxim? It's normal on Wikipedia to refer to entities by the name they were known by at the time. Perhaps that helps you? --RexxS (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

To quote from Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage (2015): "In AmE which is not generally used in restrictive clauses,and that fact is then interpreted as the absolute rule that only that may introduce a restrictive clause. In BrE ... either that or which may be used in restrictive clauses ... However, it has to be added that many British people, including editors and even those who teach language and writing skills, believe that that is obligatory." So for reasons of clarity and commonality, and to avoid distracting readers, it is generally a good idea to use that. --Boson (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Abbreviating and hyphenating names

Now here's a quandary that I have and am interested in all grammarian input - If some organism has more than one name with the same noun but different adjective I often hyphenate and abbreviate the first name - but other folks feel this is not correct:

For instance see the names here in the first sentence. And in Turbinellus floccosus my fingers were twitching to put a hyphen at the end of shaggy and scaly in the very first sentence....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd say that hyphenation would be wrong in both cases, as there's no ambiguity to resolve. Eric Corbett 12:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm almost with Eric on this one. The fragment known as the rusty or Port Jackson fig would have some ambiguity: whether the plant was known as rusty or rusty fig. I can see the temptation to add a hyphen, because rusty- could imply that there is part of the name (fig) to be added. Nevertheless that really would be correct, IMHO, only in the case of names that were hyphenated compound already, such as pro- and anti-abortion. I'd recommend resisting the temptation and re-writing the text as Dank did: known as the rusty fig or Port Jackson fig. As a bonus, it's then kinder to readers searching for "rusty fig". Cheers --RexxS (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Alright....looks like I stand corrected...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia!

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week seeking nominations (and a new facilitator)

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Jersey Act scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Jersey Act article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 13 January 2017. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 13, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia!

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week seeking nominations (and a new facilitator)

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Jersey Act scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Jersey Act article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 13 January 2017. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 13, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)