| Revision as of 20:00, 12 January 2009 editJMF (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users56,965 edits →(ceremonial) Buckinghamshire: new section← Previous edit |
Revision as of 23:00, 6 March 2009 edit undoSjorford (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users26,694 editsm archiveNext edit → |
| Line 3: |
Line 3: |
|
* ] (to 8 October 2005) |
|
* ] (to 8 October 2005) |
|
* ] (to 18 September 2006) |
|
* ] (to 18 September 2006) |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
{{TOCright}} |
|
{{TOCright}} |
|
|
|
|
== Burton brewing to English beer == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Sjorford. You did some editing on Burton brewing, so you may be interested in this (third!) attempt to . Cheers! ] 17:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Need your comments == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello! I hope you are feeling great. I need your comments on this ]. Your views with regards to this would be valuable. --<font style="background:gold">]]</font><sup><font style="background:yellow">]</font></sup> 07:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Hi== |
|
|
I see that you have not edited in a while. Come back! ] 17:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Plaid Cymru== |
|
|
You edited the diagram of the approximate seating plan in the House of Commons a while back. |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
Since then Plaid Cymru have changed their colours. The change has been updated on most pages that mention the party. Because the design is a .png image and not a table I have no idea how to alter it. Would you be able to change it please? ] (]) 20:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==MfD nomination of ]== |
|
|
], a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ] and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of ] during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.<!-- Template:MFDWarning --> -- ] ] 15:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC) -- ] ] 15:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I closed the discussion a moment ago as no consensus to delete. If you want to delete the page at some point in the future, that's obviously your prerogative; some users expressed they found it useful. :) ] (]) 15:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Re:]== |
|
|
I'm not sure I like the idea. Having only one title blue linked would look weird. It might also inspire other users to add links to things that segments parody. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 17:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Murky Most Horrid == |
|
|
|
|
|
(Sorry I missed your note for a while.) I'm not 100% sure where I found a suggestion that Mr Smith created ''Murder Most Horrid''. I suppose it could have simply been IMDb, which is not always entirely accurate... I don't see it corroborated - or contradicted - elsewhere, though, so it may have to come out. My DVD and videos aren't to hand, so I'll have to assume that if you can't find it, it's not on those, and then could be inaccurate. ] (]) 17:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Road sign images == |
|
|
|
|
|
The road sign images were produced to the Department for Transport specifications, which have a small space between the letter and the numbers, and also have different widths for different numbers (e.g. '1' is narrower than most, and '8' is wider than most of the numbers. |
|
|
|
|
|
The boxes widths are adjusted to the width of the text within - but the template currently makes all the images the same height, making them appear a bit odd. |
|
|
|
|
|
It could do with changing to something like this, where the images are a fixed height rather than a fixed width: |
|
|
|
|
|
...<br> |
|
|
{| style="background:none" |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| align=left |] || ] |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| align=left |] || ] |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| align=left |] || ] |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| align=left |] || ] |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| align=left |] || ] |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| align=left |] || ] |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| align=left |] || ] |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| align=left |] || ] |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| align=left |] || ] |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| align=left |] || ] |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|} |
|
|
... |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 16:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Concerned about ], I followed up. == |
|
|
|
|
|
was not a bite. The edit needed to go, and I can't personally recommend a more courteous way <s>I can think of</s> to do it.] (]) 23:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
"There isn't a need to delete an entire statement just because the current reference isn't good enough" - You are correct. But it was needful to delete the entire statement. The most courteous way to tell someone that is to say words to the effect that it will need a ] to be included. |
|
|
|
|
|
"(Having said that, I am finding it bizarrely difficult to find an online reference that isn't a blog, but I am still looking.)" - Indeed. This is a thought experiment, useful for helping illustrate the size of powers of 2, or exponential growth in general. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 13:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:No, I cannot, really. It has already been said in the gentlest way possible, and I don't want to be biting. In order to be included, the statement needs a ]. I do expect you will have great difficulty finding a ] that says it is possible to fold a piece of paper in half 100 times, and states the final size of the object.] (]) 13:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::I am not sure that a thought experiment belongs on a page about paper folding, but I have made some edits. Please be careful when attaching a citation to information, to be sure the citation actually says that.] (]) 14:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Ah, timing. I had removed the flag and reworded it so I think it is supported by the link. The last fold would take "a few" billion years to complete, too, if it could be done. If we could "swing" the fold at .1 lights, it would take (wildly rough numbers)3.14*(440x10^24)^2 years... using inertialess paper. Ah well, it is a fun thought.] (]) 15:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== (ceremonial) Buckinghamshire == |
|
|
|
|
|
The ] article as it currently stands is almost entirely about the admin county, not the historic county. It is misleading to direct readers from MK articles to it as it stands, because it explicitly excludes MK. So the simple device of "ceremonial" avoids having to rewrite it it to refer to the traditional county (which is a sore topic in WP:UK geography already).<br> |
|
|
Also, most of the MK categories are nested in the Bucks categories, so there is no need to list both in MK articles. --] (]) 20:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC) |
|