User talk:Hildeoc - Knowledge (XXG)

3481:. It is the same kind of nomenclature that is used there, because that is what is available in sources for the person. They are only called members when they reached the court to be sentenced and tarred with idea of being one big unit working against the Nazis, but wasn't like that at all. When a modern person looks at that and see membership, oh, member of the golf club or member of a bridge club. It couldn't further from the truth. When your in Nazi land and your trying to find folk to trust, it is very difficult. That whole idea of Nazis everywhere is the core. That set the stage in the determination to stay hidden and that defined how folk behaved in open company. There is research how they decided to collaborate and their state of mind, a kind siege mentality and how they made connections using weird speech patterns and being divergent in conversation, describing e.g. a vase one of them, bought, in minute detail to try and determine if the person had a particular bent or particular idea, but not to actually saying out loud or asking a question. It nothing like the modern idea of how to live or work together, it so different. So taking members of group, when they weren't isn't ideal. It doesn't, fit so please do not change it. The Rote Kapelle wasn't only German. There was units in most of Europe, particularly big networks in Switzerland, Belgium, France, the UK, Holland, Italy, USA, along with the Caucasus which were smaller as less strategically important and there was even an attempt to establish a unit in in North Africa. I don't want to come back except to work on something else. 1684: 2750: 716: 824: 3196: 2219: 1981: 1780: 924: 3298:. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in 2068: 3283: 1571: 676: 60: 3440:

and doesn't reflect the nature of the situation. They were not members, they were all seperate wee groups of 2-3 people. It doesn't align with whats known about them. Lastly, I never created that category. It gives the wrong impression of what was going on. Please do not revert it. If you do, I'm going to take you to the edit warring noticeboard.

596:

community has decided, through deletion policy, to not allow speedy redirects of old redirects. That's not semantics that's community consensus. We've all found consensus against what we think is right frustrating at various times but accepting such situations is part of the need to work in a collaborative encyclopedia. Best,

95: 3373:

I have to revert your good faith move. Firstly they were not members, it wasn't a club. Secondly this is one of two template,s that explicity deals with the German Rote Kapelle only and more to follow. They were dozen to hundreds of others folk in other countries that were mostly Soviet agents of one

1953:

I agree it could be (better) explained, I am not sure I am the one to do it (I don't know zit about the subjet...) but I may try, by the weekend. Yes, some links there are somewhat problematic. Maybe the said explanation could deal with that? (as in, ... the Xanthochroi were later associated with the

3508:

Most links to disambiguation pages are mistakes and end up on a list of links that need to be fixed. To distinguish these mistaken links from intentional links to DAB pages, the intentional links include ‘(disambiguation)’ in the title, even if that title is a redirect. You can read a bit more about

1529:

Every opening tag requires a closing tag. The fact that sometimes, unclosed tags happen to render the way you want them to render, is a situation in which the software is compensating for your error by guessing where the closing tag should go. There is no guarantee that the software will continue to

1514:

No, I got what you meant. And my comment was referring exactly to that: When you have a heading, and you put an opening bold tag before it, the whole heading will appear bold – even without a closing tag. As I already implied, in the relevant lists, I made use of the "Search and replace" function in

573:

Come on, guys, let's not play with the semantics here – this is a needless redirect with an obvious misspelling and without any backlinks. Why do you want to harass me with expecting me to go all the way and bother RfD with this trivial matter? They already have more than enough on their plate round

3439:

No it doesn't. I spent three years writing the red orchestra article so I know what I'm talking about. Do I need to take you to the edit warring noticeboard? The correct name is "People of the German Rote Kapelle resistance group". The members thing in the article is the nomenclature used by author

1212:

Thanks a lot for your comment. Of course, you are absolutely right about the usability of the source I picked. But this was actually only meant as a means to show the reception – though in this case a hard-core critical one with regard to modern Catholic Church – of that term; it was not meant as a

642:

Hi, please don't edit articles just to remove formatting invisible to the normal reader. Such edits waste other editors' time, and remove formatting useful to other editors, such as by making headings, sections, paragraphs and images easier to see while making substantive edits or checking quality.

501:

because as Amory, who is a sysop, linked to yesterday, it is not recently created and is thus ineligible for R3. In general if anyone other than the page's creator, but especially a sysop acting in that role, reverts your speedy deletion it's a good sign you should try a different deletion process

3158:

Thanks, I wish someone would. It's a problem on mostly mid-to-late 20th and 21st century presidential navboxes. I've reverted them and tried to explain in the past but am ignored. On the image thing, please look at the Jefferson navbox on smaller widths than you may have your screen and maybe that

2851:

may give more clarity here. I sincerely did not want you blocked, but I guess admins have knowledge of when to apply for a lesson-learned type of block (my only two blocks were those type). I can see the good faith in your additions, but please realize the size of these navboxes on smaller screens

595:

the community has chosen to strictly limit the content which can be deleted without community consensus. This is true in a wide range of areas. Considering I can find a wide range of sources which use "Thermostatic Expansion valve" it does not seem like a misspelling at all. But even if it was the

877:

Another reason why Allison Mack is on the left, not just for staggering purposes that the MOS suggests, but because she's looking right. It clearly states in the MOS that the preferred direction of images of people is to have them looking at text and not away from text. The reason Tom Welling and

3125:

navbox is a good example. My personal choice is that some imaging is fine as long as the size of the navbox isn't greatly impacted, as these U.S. presidential navboxes have been. The problem is another editor has and keeps adding every bill that crosses a president's desk onto their navbox, even

1016:

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it.

2357:

I think our friends may now have focused their attention on Truth Social, with the intent to sever it from any Alt-Right and Alt-tech connection. Trouble is, the "liberal media" don't seem to be spending a lot of time on the site, then writing about it. I may do some OR to satisfy my curiosity.

1469:

of the relevant lines are headings, which is to say there is no lightfaced text to follow within the relevant lines. I did this for reasons of a simplified systematic formatting clean-up process (using the "Search and replace" function by applying the generic table header beginning search term

2819:

Long-standing until an editor continues to go around adding every bill that crossed a president's desk to the navboxes, which has greatly extended them. Once they become too large a photo removes a great deal of horizontal spacing. Guidelines actually discourage use of images in navboxes, so

1013:, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Knowledge (XXG). 3322:

Please leave an informative edit summary with every edit you make but particularly with page moves but it's unclear sometimes why you moved an article to a different title. Leaving an explanation helps reduce other editors' reverting your edits. Thank you.

2884:

There are no examples given here, but personally, I don't think images generally have a place in footer navboxes. They do not assist in the functionality of a navbox, i.e. they provide no navigational benefit, therefore they are just clutter. Anyway, per

2416:

article's lede. I'll pass on rewording it myself. So far this year I've avoided clashing with an editor who routinely trolls my edits and reverts them for picayune, piddly, prick-assed reasons, and I want to keep that streak of avoidance alive. Cheers.

2384:, but I would have worded it much differently. Let's see how long it lasts before someone else monkeys with it or reverts it. Traditionalists are lurking everywhere. They move more slowly than zombies but they're harder to eradicate. Cheers. 1515:

order to remove double boldfacing from the tables by first removing all bold tags, and then systematically setting those headers in bold by simply putting opening bold tags in front of them. You don't need the closing tags there.--

1101:

Thank you very much! I guess I'll just give it another try then. "Actually, after I submitted I got sent to an earlier response of mine. I definitely have." — What exactly are you referring to? Sorry for my slow-wittedness … Best

1306:

for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. I've gone ahead and removed them, along with the ancestry.com reference which is similarly unreliable. If you disagree, let's discuss it. You may want to check

2785:

Please stop and revert your addition of images to overly large navboxes (navboxes can accept images up to the point of disruption of the size, as a very large navbox needs horizontal space to spread the links). Thanks.

2441:

Sure: "dated" sounds argumentative since there's no supporting cite. Same goes for "non-theoretical". That I agree on both counts doesn't matter. Knowledge (XXG) just has a rule against original research such as this.

2489:

What are you doing? You replaced an English wikipedia article link with a non-existent Spanish article link, and added someone else without an article. We don't add relatives to the infobox unless they have articles.

3241: 2264: 2024: 1823: 967: 2426:

What if I promised to keep an eye on that issue and make sure you won't get reverted there for such spurious reasons? Apart from that, would you mind explaining what exactly you find fault with as to my wording?

532:, emphasis in the original. Both "recently created" and "implausible" must be met. Seeing as the redirect was created in 2014, there is no plausible scenario where this counts as "recent." You can take it to 3058:

What could possibly be ambiguous here? How does a picture of Thomas Jefferson on a navbox literally called "Thomas Jefferson" help to navigate between all the different Thomas Jefferson related articles?

2679:

Strewth, that was close! Thank you soooo much. My only excuse is that it's late here, and the more I read confusions, the more I absorb them. I appreciate your rescuing me from mathematical disaster.

273:

I have no idea what you're asking, but when I look at the Help Desk and Teahouse archives and see questions that weren't answered, I try to answer if I can. This is one of those cases where I can't.—

3225:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 2248:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 2008:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 1807:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 951:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 3477:

article, I expanded from stub, along with his wife and wrote a couple hundred other articles from scratch on folks who were associated with Soviet espionage networks in Europe. Here is the leader:

3425:

unambiguously and exclusively refers to the German resistance group in question AFAIK. Otherwise, I would have to kindly ask you to prove the opposite. Hoping for your understanding / cooperation,

771: 3210: 2233: 1994: 1793: 937: 2140: 2398:: How would you have worded it then? What are your objections? Feel free to reword me. There doesn't seem to be a lot going on there recently anyway. What do you have to lose? Best, 1404:

In the hope that this will de-escalate the situation: I regularly cleanup a number of unreliable references, and check that they don't get replaced with similarly poor sources. --

665:

Sorry once more, but the problem is that such enclosing blank lines cause the rendering of extra line space. Hope this helps to make my proceeding more understandable. Best wishes

1382: 3159:

would illustrate the image problem, thanks. (the ban club isn't so bad and we have better parties, if a user isn't banned at least once they're probably not doing it rigtht).

3374:

type of another. So the move was incorrect. The template to a certain block of folk were all Germans. Another reason the move was incorrect. Thanks for taking a look at it.

2916:: Is there consensus on this regarding the navbox class in question? Also, please note that a representative likeness and the presidential seal are definitely anything but 1432: 1428: 1713: 878:

Erica Durance are both on the right in that section is because the cast is a bulleted list, which is why we didn't stagger it there (and they are both looking left).

2078: 767: 720: 123: 1539:, a list of errors that WP gnomes are working to eliminate. The articles you edited incorrectly, which other editors then needed to fix, populated the top of 122: 1264: 1027:

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

385: 147: 2354: 832: 828: 3343:: I moved the page for typographical reasons, since a hyphen was used instead of a dash. However, I usually try to provide at least a short summary. 2934:

But how does it assist navigation of the topic? If it doesn't perform a function, I'd say that it is arbitrary. However, I've seen much worse than

1190:

and not a reliable source for anything, especially not Catholic apologetics. Nonetheless you are correct about the "Holy Inquisition" designation.

3409: 3078:

Also, bear in mind that the inclusion of images could often mean that we are often repeating the same images multiple times in the same article.

2332: 1260: 2967:

This illustration scheme has been well-established for quite some time as to the template class in question here, and the images as such do

2336: 3264: 2287: 2047: 1897:

Thanks a lot for notifying me. I think your suggestion is very reasonable. However, currently, the term in question is still not explained

1845: 989: 2304:

I'm trying to bump this issue up to a 'higher authority', such as a project. Surely someone knows about populating a footer? Any ideas?--

1250: 2513:"replace an English Knowledge (XXG) article link with a non-existent Spanish article link". Why do you say that? Also, please note that 1234: 72: 3025:

No. How does having a picture aid navigation between the articles in this navbox? The functionality is the same with or without it.

2763: 2323:: Thanks for your willingness to make that important effort (and for notifying me). I've already tried my luck to receive such a hint 551: 444: 309:

and I'm not sure what you are trying to do. Since you were the last to edit that page, I'm guessing you haven't found the solution.—

2866:

Once again: Have you reached or at least sought consensus on your stance? If not, your edit-warring is to be considered nothing but

1868: 1161: 1129: 1082: 322: 286: 236: 42: 2944:. We do have to consider that any image will be seen on every page this navbox is transcluded on, and whether that then causes an 2328: 2579: 1614: 3260: 2283: 2043: 1841: 985: 796: 3234: 2257: 2017: 1816: 960: 2805:: No. There is no consensus on your POV about this. These images have been quite long-standing in the presidential navboxes. 2119: 25:

but I see what you mean. Or at least I think I do. This seems like a software issue and they answer questions about those at

3044:

Because, if it's unambiguous, it helps in briefly grasping / summarizing the overall context of the relevant relationship.

1575: 1481:. You removed the closing bold tag from many lines, but left the opening bold tag, leaving entire lines looking like this: 684: 2834:

Please seek specific consensus on this issue first. Apart from that, would precise guidelines are you referring to here?

1246: 3394:: Thanks for contacting me. However, I'm sorry to say but you are mistaken in your line of argument: see, for instance, 459:

I saw you just nominated this for speedy deletion again. If you think the redirect should be deleted please bring it to

414: 407: 1543:, which is a list of the articles with the most Linter errors, refreshed daily. Please close all tags that you open. – 775: 736: 688: 3246: 2269: 2029: 1828: 1477:

I am not talking about the edits that completely removed bold formatting from headings. Please see my diff above, and

972: 536:

if you think it should be deleted, but please do not continue to disrupt the page by adding another R3 speedy tag. ~

395: 1613:. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The 2985:

Navboxes are for navigation, not information or identification, but tbh I don't care enough to rock the boat here.

1116:

It scrolls down to a previous section called "Your help desk question". And I gave you the same advice back then.—

352:

Thank you very much once again for your interest and notification! I took this as an incentive to have another go:

2618: 2515: 1667:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a

3119: 2938: 2540: 2560:

says "Names of siblings or other relatives; include only if independently notable and particularly relevant." –

2483: 64: 3287: 3086: 3067: 3033: 2993: 2956: 2901: 2456: 2339:. In any case, feel free to ping me as soon as you start a corresponding meta-thread on this issue. Greetings, 1044: 3222: 2523:

article. Also, which guideline says you shouldn't name relatives in infoboxes if there's no article on them ?

2245: 2005: 1804: 948: 67:

to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the

2550: 1625: 648: 76: 2099: 1254: 691:

have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the

3521: 1753:, just hoping it made the article better quality and more likely to remain on Knowledge (XXG). Thank you! 1606: 1141: 1059: 547: 440: 353: 724: 696: 2771: 2413: 1630: 1155: 1123: 1076: 840: 316: 280: 230: 220: 36: 2886: 378: 139: 22: 63:

Welcome to Knowledge (XXG). Thank you for reverting your recent experiment. Please take a look at the

3474: 3396: 3164: 3131: 2857: 2825: 2791: 2363: 2359: 2320: 2309: 2305: 1758: 1722: 1650: 1435:

and multiple similar articles. Can you please restore the closing bold formatting to those articles,

1233:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

3204: 2756: 2749: 2680: 2227: 1988: 1787: 1668: 931: 732: 692: 306: 143: 68: 3299: 3112: 3081: 3062: 3028: 3006: 2988: 2951: 2913: 2896: 2848: 2684: 2565: 1677: 1673: 1548: 1498: 1444: 1195: 1040: 601: 507: 468: 195: 3543:: Okay, mate, I just fixed it accordingly. Thanks a lot for enlightening me! 🙏 Have a great day! 3510: 3218: 2241: 2074: 2001: 1800: 944: 3529: 1921: 1872: 1697: 660: 644: 2945: 1579: 1018: 1010: 2971:

in terms of a quick, intuitive identification and visualized overview of the relevant subject.

3291: 2734: 2580:

https://www.state.gov/narcotics-rewards-program-target-information-wanted/joaquin-guzman-lopez

2452: 2443: 2418: 2395: 2385: 2202: 2183: 2152: 1660: 1610: 1594: 1586: 1280: 888: 863: 807: 747: 707: 564: 543: 456: 436: 255:

Thank you very much for your interest! Unfortunately, no, I didn't get a response. Greetings--

3230: 2597: 2455:: Thanks for clarifying that. As I wrote in the summary, I borrowed this categorization from 2253: 2013: 1812: 956: 3484: 3456: 3443: 3391: 3377: 3253: 2654: 2640: 2604: 2495: 2276: 2093: 2036: 1835: 1655: 1439:? Thanks. Using the syntax highlighter gadget or LintHint will help you catch the errors. – 1149: 1117: 1096: 1070: 979: 836: 347: 310: 274: 250: 224: 30: 3233:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3226: 2256:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2249: 2016:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2009: 1815:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1808: 1683: 1645: 1536: 1461:

Thanks for your notification but please note: In these cases the closing tags are actually

1330: 1312: 1308: 1299: 1295: 1187: 1145: 1069:

Actually, after I submitted I got sent to an earlier response of mine. I definitely have.—

1063: 959:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 952: 575: 533: 517: 460: 424: 420: 171: 146:

because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion

26: 3520:

again because I don't want to get into an edit war, but the proper format for the link is

3478: 3160: 3141: 3127: 2853: 2821: 2802: 2787: 1959: 1880: 1754: 1733: 1718: 1409: 1390: 1373: 1338: 1320: 185: 1303: 2852:

precludes the use of images which then take up a great deal of navbox horizontal space.

1257:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 2575: 2561: 2084:

If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request:

2067: 1635: 1544: 1509: 1494: 1456: 1440: 1207: 1191: 728: 597: 568: 503: 479: 464: 191: 3144:: That's a different point, and I don't at all object tackling this particular issue. 2358:

Hmmmm, wonder whether there are center-right NPOV outlets who cover TS? Wish me luck.

1530:

do so; many similar errors have stopped being worked around by the rendering software.

3540: 3525: 3517: 2719: 2144: 2130: 1693: 1271:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

177: 1493:

fixed all or most of your errors for you. Please be more careful in future edits. –

3544: 3460: 3426: 3368: 3344: 3145: 3045: 3012: 2972: 2921: 2871: 2835: 2806: 2730: 2726: 2695: 2622: 2583: 2524: 2460: 2428: 2399: 2340: 2198: 2194: 2163: 2148: 1940: 1906: 1750: 1737: 1516: 1355: 1276: 1272: 1214: 1103: 900: 879: 859: 800: 792: 779: 757: 740: 700: 680: 617: 592: 579: 498: 485: 357: 256: 3195: 2218: 1980: 1779: 923: 719:

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Knowledge (XXG), as you did at

715: 160: 3401: 2143:. Please note that these titles are required to be lowercase by the guideline at 1431:, hoping that you would not repeat the error, but the error has been repeated at 413:

Hello Hildeoc. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of

2650: 2636: 2614: 2600: 2506: 2491: 1939:… (Thus, it would probably be best to mention Huxley's concept there as well.)-- 1935: 1864: 1183: 1031: 1022: 3421:, not limited to clubs, as you falsely implied here. Secondly, the German name 1354:

Do you want to remove all IMDb refs from Knowledge (XXG) now? Have fun then …--

1955: 1892: 1876: 1405: 1386: 1369: 1349: 1334: 1316: 1294:

Hi Hildeoc. I noticed that you recently used ethnicelebs.com as a source for

1640: 1238: 2649:

And my apologies for misreading the diffs wrt to the spanish article link.

1736:: Thank you too! I think your edits are fine. Why exactly are you asking?-- 417:, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: 2578:: Right. IMHO, notability and particular relevance are evidenced e.g. per 1905:

should be added in the target article, if you ask me. What do you think?--

150:. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please 71:

instead, as someone could see your edit before you revert it. Thank you.

3340: 3325: 3304: 2187: 3237:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2260:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2020:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1901:

yet. Hence, ideally, at least a short definition of Huxley's concept of

1819:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1298:

in two articles. Please note that the general consensus as expressed at

963:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

831:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is

675: 59: 3214:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2237:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1998:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1797:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1383:

Knowledge (XXG):Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_231#myheritage.com

1003:

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

941:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2355:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Conservatism#Is TruthSocial Alt-tech?

854:

not to remove special names for references! It's very damaging if not

2715: 3552: 3533: 3491: 3468: 3450: 3434: 3384: 3352: 3334: 3313: 3268: 3168: 3153: 3135: 3092: 3073: 3053: 3039: 3020: 2999: 2980: 2962: 2929: 2907: 2879: 2861: 2843: 2829: 2814: 2795: 2775: 2738: 2703: 2688: 2658: 2644: 2630: 2608: 2591: 2569: 2532: 2499: 2468: 2457:

Complement (linguistics)#Predicative, subject and object complements

2446: 2436: 2421: 2407: 2388: 2367: 2348: 2313: 2291: 2206: 2171: 2156: 2104: 2051: 1963: 1948: 1914: 1884: 1849: 1762: 1745: 1726: 1701: 1552: 1535:

Unclosed tags flag the page for inclusion in the Lint error list of

1524: 1502: 1448: 1413: 1394: 1377: 1363: 1342: 1324: 1284: 1222: 1199: 1167: 1135: 1111: 1088: 1048: 993: 908: 893: 867: 844: 809: 787: 749: 709: 652: 625: 605: 587: 557: 511: 493: 484:

No, why? This is an obvious misspelling in the sense of WP:CSD#R3.--

472: 450: 400: 365: 328: 292: 264: 242: 199: 80: 48: 1671:

you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting

3011:

So, clear identification does not benefit easy navigation then? --

643:

Many thanks for your understanding and cooperation. All the best,

3361:

Template move: People of the German Rote Kapelle resistance group

516:

You have now been reverted a third time. Have you actually read

386:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Portals/Design#Portal:Typography

3250:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 3126:

those they had almost nothing to do with except for signing it.

2714:

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

2273:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 2182:

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

2033:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 1832:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 1242: 976:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 166: 3240:

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

3208:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All

2263:

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

2231:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All

2023:

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review

1822:

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review

966:

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review

772:

Knowledge (XXG):Requested moves/Technical requests/Instructions

695:. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the 2459:, which explicitly mentions several corresponding references. 1992:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All

1791:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All

94: 2766:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

2748: 2617:: In that case, we would also have to remove the mention of 2066: 1717:! What do you think of the recent improvements to the page? 899:

Okay. Then sorry and thanks for settling that! Best wishes--

1869:

Historical race concepts#Thomas Huxley's racial definitions

799:? Please don't change RM without discussion. Warm Regards, 766:

is supposed to, in fact, make sure that the shortcuts from

616:

is supposed to be the point in insisting on recency here?--

1617:

are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

776:

Knowledge (XXG):Requested moves#Requesting technical moves

2141:

Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security

1871:. I hope you agree it is a good enough target. See also 1585:

When editing Knowledge (XXG), there is a field labeled "

935:

is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All

3221: