User talk:Obscurasky - Knowledge (XXG)

607:, and whether an article might not be on a recognized term is not among them. The only possibly relevant tags would be no show of importance, which only applies to apply to articles about people, organizations, individual animals,and planned events-- this article is not in any of these classes. The other would be G11 promotionalism, and that does not seem to apply either, as no specific thing or company is being promoted. If you still want the article deleted, you should use either WP:PROD or WP:AFD-- WP:PROD is only useful if you think there will be no objections to the removal ,because anyone, even the creator, can remove a prod tag, so I think that leaves AfD. I cannot judge whether or not the community will decide the article should be deleted, and it is not up to me. 114:

documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well all by itself. For those it can;t do by itself, it gives you a pull-down (or up) menu of templates to choose from, which you can then fill in manually. Often the problem is "No title found" - sometimes the title is obvious (especially if it's a pdf), bit, if not, just open the page yourself and choose soemthing appropriate if there's not already a clear title there. Happy editing!

2142:....the reason being that sufficient scholarly material exists to demonstrate, to an acceptable degree, that the world is indeed round - however, he same is not true in this regard. I have changed the citation in the article to a more reliable source, and I believe its inclusion sufficiently demonstrates that disagreement on the effectiveness of butterfly enclosures does exist. If you're still not happy please take this discussion to the talk page of that article. 1529: 1485: 1441: 2981: 1386: 1330: 196: 2881: 2698: 2529: 2421: 2211: 1819: 1650: 1577: 735: 21: 1405:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see 1349:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see 215:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see 3148:@Obscurasky You seem to be much older than me on Knowledge (XXG), I respect your experience, also request and suggest calming down. The article, may be I have not edited much, is in my watch least. Many times I take initiative to facilitate discussion, my effort is to reduce misunderstanding. Some times sharing a word helps. 2111:

they are - and therefor that disagreement on their effectiveness exists. I don't know of any scientific study to support either side of the argument, but clearly some people don't believe they work and some people do (or they wouldn't exist). This is your edit; if you're not happy with the citation I

650:

I did indeed put this on that page also.There is no need to add a reference to remove a speedy tag. I do not know where you found that imaginary rule. Please read the policy pages I linked to. If you re-add the tag, it will likely to be considered disruptive, and I shall ask some other administrator

159:

doesn't actually have a link to the Partridge book anywhere (and as far as I can see, it didn't have it in the first revision). Could you go back and see where you found it, and fill the citation in there? It's the only time that named ref, or any Harvard ref, is used, so filling straight in between

3151:

Those users seem to have already started some discussion at the talk page -means some level of consultation- and there after deleted some content. If there is any previous consultation you can all the way point out at the ongoing talk page discussion there and that may help reduce misunderstanding.

1929:

I've just spent some time reading through their website and, honestly, I do not believe the changes you've written about warrant inclusion in an encyclopaedia. If you feel strongly enough about it you're perfectly entitled to reinsert the information, but you should write encyclopaedically and stick

760:

on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit

2127:

Reporting every layman’s opinion is not the purpose of Knowledge (XXG). People who did investigate the matter found that hotel insects don’t work – no published scholarly articles, but still reports of investigations by competent people. People who report no investigation (and, in this case, make a

1891:

Hello Obscurasky, TripAdvisor is a company and its business model is based on its web activities. You should go on their website and check the evolution I was reporting is not just a "revamp", it evolved from a website to a social network. Maybe the tone was not the good one, but I tried to make it

370:

Please don't insult my intelligence with that tired old "just a statement of fact" stuff. You made that particular statement, more than once, and after I had asked you not to be personal, in order to undermine my argument by implying that I might have a personal agenda, and you know it, and I know

3155:

You are much more experienced than me so you are likely to know policies better than me but still up to my present understanding other than RfC proved consensus rest is much fragile and usually onus rests on who wish to retain or add content, not otherwise. So it's always better to look for strong

2128:

profit from selling the thing) claim they do. Those claims, not having equal grounds, are definitely not of equal importance with respect to Knowledge (XXG)’s purpose, which is knowledge, not beliefs. The article about Earth doesn’t say that there is disagreement about whether it is round or flat.

912:

would be an example of us bypassing a well known official name in favor of a more concise informal name, so there is precedent in using a fourth criterion, when a colloquial reference is as or more recognizable than an already well known formal name. I realize OFFICIAL alone would be weak, so I am

2090:

A blog that defines itself as “an ‘influencer’ within the home and garden sector”, written by a “creative director and art director”, with numerous links to commercial insect hotels on Amazon, which shows no research and doesn’t even actually state that these hotels are beneficial to butterflies,

341:

You wrote 'Removing material on the basis that it appears to paint an organisation in a bad light should not be a motivation for edits' in a context that implied that I was doing that. If you think so, then have the courage to say so outright, and if you are not willing to say so outright, don't

113:

tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for pdf

1662:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1831:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2504:

I think the article’s probably grown since the lead was written, and the introduction could benefit from a rewrite. It states Dad’s Army is a BBC sitcom, but the article covers all its incarnations; the stage play, the films, radio show, and the ‘lost episodes’ - produced by UKTV.

1059:

Many thanks for the encouraging comments. I never intended to do so much, and was in fact planning to take a break from Knowledge (XXG)! i regret that neither of the suggestions is of real interest, as I'm a walker rather than cyclist, but if I have a moment I might try and do

3091:

I am not going to debate with you here. If I see any further attempts to force through your preferred version of an article through by the gross misuse of the term 'vandalism', which absolutely DOES NOT apply in the circumstances, I will report the matter. Your choice...

2015:. Did you read the reference provided (which you didn’t remove) before doing that? The reference supports what I added; actually, the author wrote it in order to explain that butterfly hotels are not used by butterflies. Without my addition, the article is misleading. 3068:

is the subject of debate.......", in fact that statement has been in the article for seven or eight years. Yet you think it's ok to remove this established and long-agreed section without consultation, and you still claim that's not an act of vandalism?

1589:

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

3115:

I'm not forcing through my prefered version, I've been reinstating the long-agreed version that has existed on that page for many years. The fact that you're trying to twist these clear facts says everything there is to know about your motivation.

26:

I like to keep conversations in one place. If you make a comment here, I'll reply here, so keep an eye on this page for my response. If I left a comment on your talk page, I'll be watching it for awhile, so just reply

3038:

I am surprised, to say the least, that someone who has been editing Knowledge (XXG) since 2009 should be as utterly unaware of Knowledge (XXG) policy as you appear to be, in your recent edit summaries concerning the

2926: 2743: 2572: 2464: 2254: 1859: 1690: 1617: 1288:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 1233:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 2910:. 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 2727:. 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 2556:. 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 2448:. 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 2238:. 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 2172:

I do not believe sufficient scholarly study exists to be able to a conclusively state that butterfly houses are useless. When a dispute like this arises the correct procedure is to is take it to the

1843:. 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 1674:. 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 1601:. 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 613:

I see you replaced the tag I removed, and this is not permitted. See WP:CSD and WP:Deletion policy. I do not think any administrator would delete the article on the basis of the criterion you used.

42:: This only repeats what is presented lower in the article, and supported by sources already named in the article. It's common to have the fewest number of citations in the introduction (see 603:, when reviewing the article as an administrator to see if it should be deleted a I removed the tag because speedy deletion is strictly and narrowly limited to those instances enumerated at 2895: 2712: 2542: 2434: 2224: 2044:

I've just read the reference article, but I notice that many other articles support the claim that specifically designed insect hotels (or special areas incorporated within insect hotels)

1798:

Instead of reverting significant edits over a dispute about part of the edit, could you maybe just fix the specific thing you are talking about? Or leave a note on talk and I can do it.

356:

People who make edits with personal agendas undermine the whole basis of Knowledge (XXG). The above is just a statement of fact........something I'd like to think you agree with it.

904:

formal reference to the album when the official name could cause confusion, such as for someone searching for the album's article. Although as a counterexample I would argue that

929:'s discomfort with the parenthetical construct that forms my argument. I'm using that combination of policies to augment each other into what I hope is a persuasive combination. 564: 694: 539:

I'm afraid I don't have a strong opinion on this issue. On balance I'd favour the lower case option, mid-sentence, but the most important thing for me is that there

524: 690: 307: 1979: 1187: 840:

In particular: May I point out that saying that the official name takes precedence over colloquial names is contrary to our own article titling guidelines,

704: 438: 422: 276: 2048:

beneficial to butterflies. I would suggest the wording you add should read something along the lines of 'their suitability for butterflies is disputed'.

462: 434: 1417: 1361: 227: 1118:

Thanks. It is most helpful to have another pair of eyes, especially as an over-the-hill hiker I felt a little out of my depth, especially re usage.

458: 135: 3012:"If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it" 777: 177: 129: 2829: 1975: 1546: 1502: 1458: 1183: 700: 418: 272: 2949: 2766: 2595: 2486: 2276: 1873: 1704: 1631: 1313: 1258: 2653:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Knowledge (XXG)'s 266: 262: 1153: 769: 146: 2945: 2762: 2591: 2482: 2272: 1869: 1700: 1627: 1341: 1309: 1254: 469: 68:

seems very much POV, and the second was because I'd like to see some kind of reference to support the claim that the terms were

2919: 2736: 2565: 2457: 2247: 1852: 1683: 1610: 785: 697:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 269:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2664: 1180:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 415:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2618: 2610: 2107:

The citation is not intended to demonstrate that butterfly areas are effective; it is there to demonstrate that some people

1716: 1401:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 1345:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 789: 211:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 2989: 1406: 1350: 216: 49:

for the first sentence) sufficiently cover these points, then perhaps you'll choose to remove the citation-needed tags.

1300:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

1245:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

748: 2931: 2748: 2577: 2469: 2259: 1864: 1695: 1622: 1305: 1250: 909: 576: 171: 123: 2993: 412: 2657:

and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.

1965: 1773: 1763: 1172:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

681:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

2344:

but unfortunately didn't add any further details of the source - do you still have it so we can add the details?—

1730:, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted: 796: 3156:

academic RS as much as available and RfC consensus will be less fragile in long term. Wish you happy editing.

781: 753: 742: 2062:

Could you then please add those other articles as references, so that the wording your recommend is supported?

815: 682: 108: 104: 2907: 2724: 2553: 2445: 2235: 1840: 1671: 1598: 527:

to decide the "The/the" issue, hopefully once and for all. Feel free to add your name there if you so wish. ~

2834:. It is obvious that it is a contentious topic, but the denomination is indeed a branch from Protestantism.-- 99:- (tools:~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py) - it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete 1920: 1897: 2646: 1969: 914: 3097: 3052: 2161: 2133: 2096: 2067: 2020: 871:

Very interesting indeed, and certainly trumps my argument, although I'm still not convinced that changing

686: 445: 376: 347: 331: 323: 311: 163: 115: 54: 2307: 1397: 1301: 1246: 921:

nickname, the redirect from TWA pointing straight to that page implying no ambiguity concerns over using

773: 3187: 3064:

It's neither untrue, nor controversial, to state that the "The scope and precise definition of the term

2804: 2789: 1769: 1557: 1535: 1528: 1513: 1491: 1484: 1469: 1447: 1440: 1150: 1090: 504: 893: 876: 845: 207: 96: 43: 2355: 1952:

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

1799: 1042: 998: 962: 940: 859: 829: 237: 2889: 2706: 2536: 2428: 2218: 1961: 1827: 1658: 1585: 1567: 1277: 1268: 1222: 1213: 66:'the terms used to describe this condition are subject to a process called the euphemism treadmill' 2030:

Hello, no I didn't see a reference. If the claim is supported it is certainly worthy of inclusion.

1019: 872: 430: 3044: 3015: 2973: 2903: 2720: 2549: 2441: 2231: 1836: 1667: 1594: 1297: 1281: 1242: 1226: 1099:

Hi. I've written something on the talk page, it would be great if you could add something there.

100: 3001: 2848: 2341: 1916: 1893: 1756: 1123: 1065: 926: 896:

alone is not quite strong enough for my liking, with the closest match for the album being that

315: 3174: 3093: 3048: 2402: 2359: 2322: 2173: 2157: 2129: 2092: 2063: 2016: 1995: 1203: 720: 486: 454: 372: 343: 327: 292: 50: 2915: 2732: 2561: 2453: 2243: 1892:

as short as possible and comprehensible. Could you reconsider your revertion? Philippe49730--

1848: 1679: 1606: 1293: 1285: 1238: 1230: 913:

advocating that it is the combination of that showing our lack of binding to official names,

3182: 3163: 2938: 2799: 2784: 2755: 2584: 2476: 2266: 1726:

Hello, Obscurasky. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started,

1553: 1509: 1465: 1144: 1086: 2918:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2911: 2735:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2728: 2654: 2564:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2557: 2456:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2449: 2246:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2239: 1851:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1844: 1682:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1675: 1609:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1602: 1296:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1289: 1241:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1234: 841: 604: 3197: 3117: 3070: 3019: 2859: 2676: 2506: 2383: 2363: 2177: 2143: 2113: 2077: 2049: 2031: 1931: 1784: 1425: 1369: 1100: 974: 880: 637: 567:

to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band "

544: 386: 357: 231: 73: 2632: 2626: 2622: 2303: 1783:

You have to give me a chance to edit this page first John, I only moved it 5 minutes ago!

1402: 1346: 212: 90: 1972:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 1953: 1138: 757: 600: 2968: 2642: 2638: 2997: 2835: 2658: 1986:

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

1727: 1720: 1194:

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

1119: 1061: 711:

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

662: 620: 477:

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

283:

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

3056: 3040: 2398: 2394: 2318: 2314: 2012: 1991: 1987: 1199: 1195: 1173: 1037: 993: 957: 935: 854: 824: 716: 712: 482: 478: 288: 284: 2980: 2880: 2697: 2528: 2420: 2210: 1818: 1649: 1576: 580: 572: 2362:. Interestingly, the latter says it was also 'the first commercial steel alloy'. 768:

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's

765:—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 583:, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ 385:

I think you're very rude.....someting else which has no place on Knowledge (XXG).

3159: 1930:

to the facts; not the spin that Stephen Kaufer has published about the changes.

1885: 584: 528: 508: 91:

Here's a little bit of magic which can save you an awful lot of time and effort!

72:

If this claim is referenced later on in the article I haven’t spotted it. Rgds

2621:, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from 734: 2985: 1907:

You could maybe just fix the tone? (The information was significant enough to

1421: 1365: 599:

Anyone but the originator of the article may remove a speedy tag, as I did at

254: 2345: 848:? Our own title guidelines say to use a common name over the official name. 563:

Hello Obscurasky; this message is to inform you that there is currently a

2387: 1177: 657: 615: 3205: 3190: 3167: 3125: 3101: 3078: 3027: 3005: 2953: 2922:

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

2867: 2852: 2807: 2792: 2770: 2739:

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

2684: 2669: 2599: 2568:

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

2514: 2490: 2460:

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

2406: 2371: 2348: 2326: 2280: 2250:

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

2185: 2165: 2151: 2137: 2121: 2100: 2085: 2071: 2057: 2039: 2024: 1999: 1939: 1924: 1901: 1877: 1855:

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

1806: 1792: 1777: 1708: 1686:

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

1635: 1613:

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

1561: 1542: 1517: 1498: 1473: 1454: 1429: 1373: 1317: 1262: 1207: 1162: 1127: 1108: 1094: 1069: 1048: 1004: 982: 968: 946: 888: 865: 835: 804: 741:

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an

724: 666: 645: 629:

Please move this discussion to the talk page of the Cross necklace page.

624: 589: 552: 533: 513: 490: 394: 380: 365: 351: 335: 296: 243: 183: 81: 58: 3047:

actually says, and then discuss the disputed content on the talk page.

2996:

and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.

2899:

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

2716:

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

2546:

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

2438:

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

2299: 2228:

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

1957: 1284:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge (XXG)

1229:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge (XXG)

111:, then paste the bare url (without brackets) between your <ref: --> 411:

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to

2972:

supply a reliable source when you add information to an article. The

258: 795:

Note that "he's a celebrity!!!1!1!!" is not one of the exceptions--

780:

for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant

2779:

Why did you delete the welcome message at a new editor’s talk page?

2156:

The new source doesn’t report any investigations; it’s irrelevant.

308:

Knowledge (XXG):Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Christian_Concern

905: 47: 3196:

I gave a perfectly adequate explanation in the edit description.

2935:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 2752:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 2581:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 2473:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 2382:

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

2294:

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

2263:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 1755:

you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on

973:

I have responded under my original comment on the page. Cheers,

2925:

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

2893:

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

2742:

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

2710:

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

2571:

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

2463:

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

2253:

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

1858:

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review

1689:

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review

1616:

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review

756:, which states that an editor must not perform more than three 651:

to tell you so. Had I left the tag on ,or deleted the article,

322:. If you have concerns about my motives you may raise them on 2540:

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

2432:

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

2295: 46:). If you agree that the sources named in the article (e.g., 15: 1031:

I'm letting you know in case you'd like to review your vote.

1549:

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

1527: 1505:

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

1483: 1461:

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

1439: 1384: 1328: 733: 194: 3043:

article. I would strongly advise you to take note of what

2340:

a reference (Stoughton 1908, pp. 408–409) to the article

571:" mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either 2858:

Please take this ti the talk page = I'll respond there.

2637:

Information that can't be referenced should be removed (

2222:

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

1759:. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway. 310:

which you might like to participate in. Please use the

2906: