User talk:Gedstrom: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
→ArbCom elections are now open!: new section |
Undid revision 692070804 by MediaWiki message delivery Removed notice about ArbCom Elections(talk) |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Thanks for your feedback about the scale of the USS ''Recruit''. I have changed it to two-thirds scale. I was sure that was right (the sailors could never even have boarded if it was one-third scale!), but the reference I cited has sometimes contained mistakes of fact so I didn't want to rely on it alone. --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 15:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN |
Thanks for your feedback about the scale of the USS ''Recruit''. I have changed it to two-thirds scale. I was sure that was right (the sailors could never even have boarded if it was one-third scale!), but the reference I cited has sometimes contained mistakes of fact so I didn't want to rely on it alone. --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 15:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN |
||
== [[WP:ACE2015|ArbCom elections are now open!]] == |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692057745 --> |
Revision as of 17:00, 12 January 2016
Good photos
I just came across your photos on the Northridge earthquake article, and wanted to say thanks for taking them and making them available on the 'pedia. The Image:Moki Dugway.jpg is also quite impressive. Good work. JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
USS Recruit
Thanks for your feedback about the scale of the USS Recruit. I have changed it to two-thirds scale. I was sure that was right (the sailors could never even have boarded if it was one-third scale!), but the reference I cited has sometimes contained mistakes of fact so I didn't want to rely on it alone. --MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN