User talk:47.184.68.209

August 2023

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Mackle Brothers—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no reason that the article should use the conditional or subjunctive moods (like "would be") when the past tense (like was) will do instead.

It could say "Elliott J. Mackle would be born in 1908" when discussing his birth date as something which has not yet come to pass like

"Based on the estimated date of conception, Mrs. Mackle deduced he would be born in 1908."

The conditional works, e.g., when discussing something counterfactual like "If he had no eyes, he would be blind".

Using "would be" for bare statements of fact about the past is awkward and potentially confusing. Also, much of the article was already in plain past tense already.

I inserted the "tk" because the article was missing a name there, not as an attempt at vandalism, but because that is a journalistic practice to indicate that something needs to be dealt with. 47.184.68.209 (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

---