User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive 1

Archive template demo

Archive-index

Automatic archive navigator

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Pigsonthewing. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

Talk archive

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Pigsonthewing. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

Talk archive navigation

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Pigsonthewing. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

UserTalkArchive

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Pigsonthewing. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

Words of welcome

Hi Andy

I've seen your postings on Birdnet/Surfbirds - welcome to Wikipedia. If you need any help, let me know, we birders must stick together!. jimfbleak 15:50, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Andy, welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad to see you've jumped in and started contributing: always nice to have another enthusiastic editor on board. If I can give you one tip, when you have an alternate spelling for a name (such as William Murdock for William Murdoch), at Wikipedia the alternate spellings redirect to the "correct" spelling. So, I've made the content for William Murdock the following: #REDIRECT [[William Murdoch]]. If you follow the Murdock link, you'll find it takes you straight to the main article. This helps us prevent too much duplication of work by having only one article about each topic or person: hopefully the above made some sort of sense (it's late...or early...in my time zone). If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page -- I'm always happy to respond. Jwrosenzweig 12:21, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Birmingham/ Counties

You have chosen childish reverts over sensible discussion. On your own head be it. 80.255 01:09, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

LOL. I don't really care what he says about historic counties. I'll leave it to others to debate whether or not those exist, but he can not simply claim that Birmingham is in Warwickshire. It isn't. That's obvious and requires no debate whatsoever. Angela 01:26, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Andy -- Sorry, I'd already gone to bed when you asked me to protect Birmingham etc (hmm, Protector of Birmingham, makes me sound something like Oliver Cromwell!). By the way, could you remember to sign your edits on talk pages, please? ~~~ just for your signature, ~~~~ for the datestamp as well. Thanks! -- Arwel 10:57, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Nice to see you're trying to restore some sanity to this "historic counties" business. Although as soon as 80.255 gets back it'll probably be back to square one again G-Man 19:50, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

How come you insist that the West Midlands metropolitan county still exists? It's not on the Ordnace Survey administrative map of GB [[1]]. Andy G 01:36, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Because it does; that's not a map of counties. This (PDF) is http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/downloads/uk_cty_ua.pdf Andy Mabbett 08:50, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It doesn't exactly say it "exists", it says it "the [metropolitan] county areas are still recognised, especially for statistical purposes". I guess all the different sorts of county are recognised in some sense - post-1974 Berkshire is probably still "recognised" by a lot of people even though it doesnt "exist" on either of these maps. Warwickshire-including-Birmingham is still recognised for cricketing purposes. Historical Lincolnshire is recognised by the existence of North Lincolnshire and NE Lincolnshire outside administrative Lincolnshire. If we're not talking about the current units of local administation I think we should qualify what we say rather than use absolutes like "exists". Andy G 20:00, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Oops, I buggered that one up. I was meaning to make rump article for Somerset, Lincolnshire, Gloucestershire, and historic articles for Warwickshire, etc - basically having articles matching the ceremonial counties. I will sort that one out. Morwen 19:29, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If South Gloucestershire isn't part of Gloucestershire, then why is it called that? ;) If you want to move them, go ahead, I won't stop you. Morwen 19:37, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Jedi

Could please stop adding "jedi" to the List_of_United_Kingdom_topics? The joke has worn thin now.Alun Ephraim 19:54, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No. I'm not adding it as a "joke"; I'm adding (restoring, IIRC) it to explain the "joke" (which I found incredibly tiresome, at the time), and for the benfit of anyone taken in by it. The page to which the "see also" refers, explains this, most clearly, and is relevant. Andy Mabbett 21:06, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Have now re-worded link and created new page about Jedi & Censuses. Andy Mabbett 21:21, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)