User talk:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick: Difference between revisions
m →You're right but...: new section |
→Gentle suggestion: new section |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
But possibly you're right. Anyway, I guess you've seen my regular comments and editions and they far from other thing than decorum. Anyway, you're right. It's up to them. Thank you for your kind advice... --[[User:Ecemaml|Ecemaml]] ([[User talk:Ecemaml|talk]]) 14:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC) |
But possibly you're right. Anyway, I guess you've seen my regular comments and editions and they far from other thing than decorum. Anyway, you're right. It's up to them. Thank you for your kind advice... --[[User:Ecemaml|Ecemaml]] ([[User talk:Ecemaml|talk]]) 14:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Gentle suggestion == |
|||
I know that you know that no map that covers an entity over a long period of time can be perfect because of inherent conflicts due to boundary changes. Nonetheless, looking at your [[File:The British Empire.png|350px]] fine map of the Queen's realm, I can't help but think that you should also have included the [[Oregon Country]]. I mean, for a map of the Empire in 1900 it obviously wouldn't be appropriate, but given that you're including 18th century holdings that were lost before [[WWI|The Great War]] as well as holdings from 1914 that were not [[Berlin Conference|obtained]] until after the loss of the 13 Colonies, why not include Oregon as well? Just a thought. [[Special:Contributions/98.82.34.167|98.82.34.167]] ([[User talk:98.82.34.167|talk]]) 12:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 12:20, 17 May 2010
You're right but...
... I do not think I have to put up with uncivil comments against me...
But possibly you're right. Anyway, I guess you've seen my regular comments and editions and they far from other thing than decorum. Anyway, you're right. It's up to them. Thank you for your kind advice... --Ecemaml (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Gentle suggestion
I know that you know that no map that covers an entity over a long period of time can be perfect because of inherent conflicts due to boundary changes. Nonetheless, looking at your 
fine map of the Queen's realm, I can't help but think that you should also have included the Oregon Country. I mean, for a map of the Empire in 1900 it obviously wouldn't be appropriate, but given that you're including 18th century holdings that were lost before The Great War as well as holdings from 1914 that were not obtained until after the loss of the 13 Colonies, why not include Oregon as well? Just a thought. 98.82.34.167 (talk) 12:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)