User talk:Spinningspark/Archive 26

5003:. The 2nd AfD, motivated by a clean-up effort spearheaded by Project Dog participants, closed with “no consensus” and that is the only reason the article remains. The prevailing consensus now is that Roy’s close was a correct one, despite his closing the discussion the same day another admin extended it with hopes of reaching a consensus. Life goes on, not a big deal. In the interim, editors can try to find RS, despite years of inability to find any, or try to fix the article. I predict that if the latter doesn’t happen in a month or so, another AfD is highly likely. I think we may have potential for one RS in the works, thanks to RS/N, but for an article to pass GNG, multiple RS are required. We need to focus on fixing the article or deleting it if it cannot be fixed rather than denigrating or targeting hard working editors who are trying to clean-up a neglected topic area that has fallen victim to disruption by SPAs and advocacies. Thank you for your consideration and participation in trying to resolve the issues, Spinningspark. Happy editing. 1649:

fact that you can't find any clear attempt of the engineer to distance himself or at least explain why his theory got connected to the scam. As you seem to be well-informed about historical scientific information, I'd really appreciate it if you could let me know if you can find any references which actually do explain how Yunitisky is not at best indifferent to how his theory is being abused in multinational and complex scams, and at worst profiting from it himself. Maybe then you could create two articles, one about the theory and the other about the dangerous scam. But I can't find any and as much as I'd love to support his engineering concepts I can't find a single reference distancing the two and I'm extremely worried about the references I do find as part of the scam to the STRING TRANSPORT Knowledge article. Any feedback would be appreciated. Kind regards, Zachar Laskewicz February 2018

1680:

review the validity of the technical information, edit it or adjust the introduction to include valid scientific information with a real reference that isn't either self-referential or circular. If you can't find any valid references maybe you could reduce or contextualize the 'rolling stock' references. It has to be clear because there is a real risk of people being duped by a scam if excessive technical information is not contextualized as abuse within a real existing scam. I know people who have lost money in it and I've seen scammers making changes to this page. I have friends who've lost money in this scheme because they found the Knowledge article. The user 'Kmarina86' has also made corrections to the article and they also seem to be informed about science without being necessarily biased so I'll try to contact them as well to see if they can help. I'm looking forward to your reply.

1107:

retired railworker. The clock unveiled by the Queen on the opening of the station was the 1960's clock totally refurbished to English Heritage Specifications by Thwaites & Reed, and taken down when London and Continental Railways commissioned the new Dent advertisment from Smiths of Derby a mere few months later. Later the 1960's dial which was the one authorised by English Heritage was painted black as an art display, totally masking the painstaking conservation work done by Thwaites & Reed. This was reported in the British Horological Institute Journal. Perhaps you might consider reverting your edit as it does not give an impression of the original as intended. If you would like photographs of the original just email and these can be sent to you.

4446:

comment was slightly less on topic, and I admit I probably would have left the hat be if it was only covering the follow-ups to the IP or even less so if it was only covering after BB's first response. Not that your and the other responses were that bad but while they may have been somewhat ontopic to the followups they were less so to the original question so technically the hatter may have been right. Still while I wouldn't have agreed with the hat, it wasn't severe enough that I would have removed the hat in that case. But this wasn't what happened and I since the hat was IMO unjustly placed I just removed it completely.

643: 3597: 1156: 921: 6027: 31: 4351: 2737: 4296: 5986: 5699: 5051: 5341: 3258: 2851: 2243: 2073: 1974: 1830: 1271: 998: 435: 2673: 579: 231: 5927: 5868: 5640: 4630: 3481: 697: 5817: 5762: 5301: 5203: 4579: 4119: 3128:

inaccurate. The paragraph I inserted pretty much implies that the source covers the reason for the move so there isn't really a problem. Every single specific fact in the sentence you added the cite to fails verification in that source. This was the whole reason I was very careful to write the sourced information as a separate paragraph. You are attempting to mix that up again.

822:

details as to builder, launch and previous and subsequent names corresponding to Miramars record (with the strange exception of Alert being missing!). Norham is listed on the List of shipwrecks in 1932 here on wiki. I feel safe adding this detail now. First year of name I'll stick with Haigh - Miramar must be wrong, and Graces fails in light of Haigh as a RS

4009:

that images created by me by choosing positions, views, and colours were my creation, not his, and that copyright should be assigned to me, not him. In his opinion, this was no different from an artist creating an image with Microsoft Paint. The copyright of the artwork lies with the artist, not Microsoft, the maker of the tool used to create it.

5542:, which definitely do not include "Bibliography section needed sorting". Sorry that you feel that you need to withdraw, but I have no wish for that to happen. I fully understand that my revert has caused you annoyance and accept that you may feel you can't carry on. I tried to only do a partial revert, but their was just too much there. 4235:

of purely real reference impedance has far reaching consequences. Further, the statement that all references should be purely real is untrue as related in: "Scattered Reflections on Scattering Parameters-- Demystifying Complex-References S Parameters", Amakawa, Shuhei, IEICE TRANS. Electron., Vol.E99 No.10 October 2016.

4234:

I am AE6TY. I have further references to add regarding the statement that |Gamma| can be greater than 1 in passive systems. The implications are far reaching as many the formulae concerning SWR or Return Loss are based on this assumption. The serious reader should be made aware that the assumption

3538:

Infoboxes aren't a GA requirement so even a complete absence of an infobox is not "incomplete" from a GA perspective. I don't have any more information on the specification of the ship so I don't see the point in repeating the bare data from the infobox in a prose section. Frankly, if it comes to a

2996:

that might be the case. It is actually quite possible the person who authored the wikipedia article also authored the book. Or maybe someone got hold of his drafts and published them. Or maybe the book was taken from Knowledge. Or whatever. Simply undoing is not good as if you get it wrong its a

2466:

I am sorry that what I have done has caused you so much trouble.I have realized that I have made a mistake and I am trying to re-create a new page.Since I am building a entry on wikipedia for the first time,there are a lot of unclear places,and I apologize again for the trouble that have caused you.

1679:

Changes I've made to the introductory section to the STRING THEORY article creates an unfortunate dissonance between my possible changes and the contents of the article which refers to the track structure and the 'rolling stock'. If you can find anything to backup this theory, maybe you could either

757:

Do you have access to Haigh which you use as the principal reference in the article? Miramar which is usually a RS for ships gives a continuing history for the ship after 1915 with it finally being wrecked as the Norham in 1932. Furthermore it gives the renaming year as 1901 and Graces guide gives it

4445:

as I felt it was unneeded with the hat removed. I felt the hat (not by you I know) was inappropriate placed as the first answer at least was somewhat on topic, and in fact the hat itself was mistaken as the question specifically talked about coal and not graphite. Perhaps the followup including your

3992:

Out of curiosity, why did you word it this way? "Any entity", "any purpose"... I've nearly convinced myself that either you are god (as everyone else is), or you are part of the team that helped create this coded reality, or simply you're a smart guy who believes e.t.'s could possibly find your work

1753:

Really sorry for misnaming 'String transport' as 'String theory'. It's so confusing because 'String transport' was presented as the SkyWay theory and it is very easy to confuse it with an already existing scientific theory you hear about so often. I find myself typing it all the time. I mean to type

1648:

Thanks for mentioning the difficulty of differentiating the Skyway scam from the actual science behind it. As a result I've really attempted to find any references that show how they aren't inextricably linked. The very fact that it SEEMS to be scientific in and of itself shadows meekly behind the

331:

goes into a conversion. For instance, if the source contains the figure of 200 nautical miles, we must decide whether to show the conversion as 400 km, 370 km, or 371 km. To pick the right one, we must make a decision on the degree of precision the source was using. They may have rounded from 190

4706:

Believe me, I have struggled with this issue and have spent a great deal of time researching. BTW, self-distributed is not self-published, and there can be contractual contingencies when dealing with publishers - I used to be one. Regardless - the issue I was trying to bring to your attention (and

3148:

and I'll leave it at that . If you want to delete the dates, the map reference etc feel free. The AFD decision was to merge the meagre amount of text that could be asserted as not completely untrue which was everything about a prior MR station existing and that's what I did. There is nothing that

1106:

It is not good to keep reverting, but there are records with National Rail and Thwaites & Reed which show the original clock. It is much smaller than the later copies, about 6 foot diameter, not 23 as now, and there is documentary evidence that the numerals were put on by the current owner, a

364:

mention Suwayfah. As to whether or not Suwayfah is a part of Dibba Al-Fujairah: if you Google Suwayfah or check Google maps for the area, you get a bunch of hotels, all of which have addresses in Dibba Al-Fujairah or talk about being in Dibba on their websites. Radisson Blu's resort explicitly uses

159:

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the issue, the bottom line is that deletion would not be uncontroversial and speedy deletion is not appropriate. In my view, navigation templates should not be deleted while they are still in use on articles. Your claim is that the template can adequately be

5392:

and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion

5123:

I plan to GA review this article. This will be my first review. I've read the instructions and fairly confident I can do it. It is a fair old size but it will give me something to get my teeth into. Since it is my first review, its a different kind of skill, hopefully you can keep me right. Thanks

4894:

31 hr block, but the t-ban discussion is still ongoing. It is certainly not the hill I want to die on, SpinningSpark, but I will not tolerate being bullied any longer by an obvious SPA and potential COI editor. All the information you need is in his edit contributions and at the ANI. Please don't

4008:

The wording is simply the standard wording of the Knowledge public domain template, not anything I concocted myself (although that does not preclude me from also being God). I was in communication with the software creator about the copyright at the time the article was written. His position was

3127:

It also doens't support the map reference, and it doesn't support the claim that the original location is actually underneath the motorway. Sorry, you can't write unsourced information in front of a reference citation. Most especially since the unsourced dates were challenged in the AFD as being

3884:

should not be used in mainspace? The lack of other entries in the category does not prove there is any such consensus. It only proves that pedantic busybodies have been enforcing a guideline that doesn't exist. Please try and think of what is of benefit to the reader rather than complying with

804:

Haigh doesn't give any later history. He says categorically that the ship was scrapped, but then, he is only interested in submarine cables. Maybe both are true—the ship was scrapped as a cable ship and its cable gear transferred to another ship (as Haigh said), but the hulk was sold on and used

2402:

Hello! Profssor Li(Jian Li) is my tutor,she called me to create an entry on wikipedia that introduces her.All the information I found from Google and her university homepage.As for the previous photo,I found it from her homepage.As for the photo that was just deleted,it was taken with her mobile

821:

Thats what I suspected. Haigh's interest would end when Alert ceased to be a cable ship. Also its possible that when he saw sold in some record he synthed that to sold to be scrapped. Further checking on the plimsoll line site (which has online copies of some Lloyds registers) confirms Norham's

3232:

Both articles are still at AfD. I would say wait for the conclusion before deciding what redirects, if any, are needed. These are incorrect/alternative capitalisations that break our guidelines on caps. Any article using them should be retargeted to the extant articles. Alt capitalisation

5558:

Thanks for your reply, which was appreciated. I 'm not at all comfortable with pulling out, and we are disagreeing on issues that are easily resolved. I'll look carefully at your revert, and see what I think is still not right, with a view to continuing to review the article. It's a really

5522:

Hello SpinningSpark, That was one heck of a revert you did today, considering how much there is to do on the article to get it up to GA. That Bibliography section needed sorting. If you don't mind, it might be worth me withdrawing from the review. Your opinion would be valuable here.

332:

nmi, 150 nmi, 199 nmi, or even 200.1 nmi. In many cases you just don't know and would be guessing. By putting the km conversion first and converting back to 200 nmi in brackets, you may be misleading the reader over the precision of the figure, or even completely distorting it.

3021:. But all said and done I will in general support any reasonable good faith removals of a possible copyright violation even if that is subsequently found to be incorrect. This probably doesn't help much. You might consider it safer to fly off and get an image for commons of 3572:. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. You had no direct involvement in the AfD apart from suggesting me to relist it. Thankyou. 3378:

Hello! I have noticed in the past you have deleted articles relating to Tommy Wright III, before, and that is the current topic I wanted to add information to. Is there an indication of why those pages were deleted so I wouldn't get mine deleted as well? Thank you.

1948:

I couldn't care less what problem Wikidata is having with this; that's for that project to sort out internally. It's the same subject and putting the interwiki on a redirect page is useless to the article readers. There is no double interwiki on the article page.

4322:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

377:, Suwayfah is a locality, not a legally recognized separate entity. All in all, that's a pretty reasonable indication that Suwayfah is the name of an area or neighborhood within DAF. Since there aren't any substantial in-depth sources discussing Suwayfah, per 138:

and the outcome there would not have any bearing on this navbox or vice versa. I do however understand your confusion, due to a number of similarly named Lovecraft templates, and the fact the navbox creator also seems confused by this on the talk page.

3353:

Nope, that one's all yours. If it isn't on my work in progress page, then I have no plans for it. At any one time that page represents about five years of work to complete and I'm always adding to it. I have no requirement for additional suggestions.

5559:

interesting and informative one, and carefully written, with some great resources to back it up, but it's not GA yet. I can of course pull back from making changes myself, but I'm used to being bold and amending the article when it needs minor edits.

2518:

Hello! What you mean is that I need to create a new page,When someone clicks on the link in the disambiguation page,does it jump to the page I created? Besides,regarding the picture,I uploaded a photo of my teacher who took my own mobile phone,can I?

880:

can flesh it out some more - I don't have access to the Times reports of the casualty and it is possible when she was re-engined the paddle wheels were removed and she became a conventional twin screw. I suspect she was PS until then and MV thereafter

5499:

Well, as you asked my opinion, I don't much care for nbsp either. It is more code clutter making edit view hard to read. If it really has to be done, I prefer the nowrap template which at keeps the text being modified readable inside the template.

4717:'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." 1706:

I'm confused about what article you are talking about, and why you have started two different threads on my talk page. I deal with hundreds of articles every week, so next time please link to the article you are talking about. If we are discussing

3746:

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are

3424:

for instructions. This page has previously been deleted four times, which makes it much more likely that any new article created directly in the mainspace will be deleted quickly. Hence my recommendation to write as a draft. Please also read

4736:

but it is hard to find editors willing to do the research unless they are truly interested in the topic. We have a mess on our hands and I probably wouldn't care were it not for innocent people being scammed and relieved of their hard-earned

4238:

A further complication is that if the reference impedance is not purely real then the traveling wave voltages do not correctly predict the power transferred. It is a messy topic, I only wanted to make sure the serious reader was warned.

3169: 1674: 180:). Both navboxes are currently present on each article. The problem with not speedy deleting a navbox while it is still in use is that you have a "chicken and egg" situation. "Unused" is not a required condition for a navbox to meet 4827:

Your opinion is as valid as mine, so I'll keep mine and you can keep yours and we'll both be happy. Now that is a KEEP consensus. Oh, and consensus can change and usually does when the wrong one has been asserted. Happy editing!

4461:

I'm good with that. If the RD wants to start removing unhelpful dumb comments by BB entirely and immediately, I would support that, but if they are left to stand, so should the replies, especially if they are actually informative.

3179: 5140:

Thank you for taking this on. I'm sure it's the length that has been putting off more established reviewers. It certainly wouldn't have been my choice for a first review! So best of luck, and I look forward to working with you.

3556: 4738: 4990:

both of which are more on point with regards to behavior. There are plenty more at ANI in both the prior and current cases, and of course, taking a moment to review user contributions is also helpful. Bottomline with regards to

3674:. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh 5373:, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read 2500:

No problem, I understand how difficult this can be for new users. The golden rule here is that if you are reverted, go and discuss it first and get an understanding of the problem before you do anything else on that subject.

2166:

back into the ohm page? It is a useful tool to show people how the names and values thereof relate to the Ohm. I just had this today where I informed a fellow that his electric motor windings had zero Megohms of resistance.

963:

pages that I find well written (in particular I like the introduction of the reactive power concept), I will like your opinion and, if possible, from other selected contributors, regarding the appropriate introduction of the

789:

Oh I didn't mean it in an accusatory fashion, you might have only had some google book sections to look at so the later history of the ship might not be included. If that was the case Miramar's info could well be correct.

2436:

As I explained on your talk page, you must not create this page by overwriting other information. This is not the only person of that name who has an article here. A new page must be created. You uploaded the photo at

3738: 4026: 1245:

I wouldn't want to change the table as it is associated with article text, but I might be prepared to make a new diagram for you. What page is the code on in the document? What Knowledge article is this improving?

4326:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

3522:

Re your GA nom, the article is incomplete. Infobox is missing such items as names/dates, flags, official number/code letters. Article itself needs a description section giving details of dimensions, engines etc.

3025:

before Brexit stops you (I am not being serious .. small aeroplanes scare me!). Back on subject I could take the article to DRV myself but that would probably be seen as obtuse. Thankyou for restoring the talk

836:

Haigh doesn't give the year of rename. What the article currently says is the GPO took over the ship in 1890. The rename may, or may not, have been immediate. I think you're probably safe in adding that also.

5157:

I'm now read it a few times and will start reviewing it tonight. Interesting article Spinningspark. I see there is a whole block around Telegraphy including the biographies you have completed. Excellent work.

4923: 128: 4531:, but you need a login for that site too. It's in Turkish, so I can't navigate it very easily. The AIP says it is under the "AIP Turkey" tab in a folder named "Obstacles". You could also try a request at 2112: 4727:

journal, it is still trivial mention that requires OR because there are no RS or valid documentation that passes WP:V. It is all anecdotal. I included more detail (probably too freaking much) at WP:RS/N -

2886: 2686: 4824:

I don't need to forum shop - I've been editing long enough, and have been through plenty of GAs and FAs as both a nom and reviewer to know what GNG requires - I did not fall off a pumpkin truck yesterday.

2971:

from an apparently reputable publisher which has near identical text. But your comment has caused me some doubt now. The book does not predate the article (2009 against 2005) and other articles such as

1643: 5676: 5617: 3871: 2573:

When ready, submit the draft for review. If it is accepted, the reviewer will move it to the main space. If rejected, the reason will be explained and you can then improve the draft and submit it again.

3989:

Hello. For the page File:5-cube 7x7x7x7x7 solved.png... you wrote, "I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."

4042:. However, this file can move to Commons. I considered that you are worried about that the complete history of the local file cannot keep on the Commons. Wikimedia Foundation recently created a tool, 1146: 5274: 4193: 4671:

Why do think passing mention in a self-distributed book by a defunct publisher of self-distributed books authored by a dog fancier is enough to justify the inclusion of a stand alone article in WP?

3874:

decided that this should not exist on Knowledge anywhere. The template invites readers to create the page – not an appropriate thing to do given the AFD decision. Where is the guideline that says

3581: 5176: 1626:

and copied your comment there to keep it on record. I'll look at updating the article when there are a few more comments. You're welcome to put something in yourself now if you feel so inclined.

1388: 336:

also comes into this, and that guideline is repeated at the end of MOS:CONVERSIONS. There are times when converting everything to metric in an article is appropriate. This was not one of them.

4068: 1699: 3777: 3767:

means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

3191: 1368:

You voted to keep this list during the AfD discussion, ass did I. I am working on editing the list, but it is massive. I would appreciate your comment on the talk page of the article. Thanks

3790:, despite clear consensus against his edits. I wanted to alert you since you had experience engaging him and I believe having input from an administrator in this instance might be helpful. 2598:

Hey,friend!I have created a new page, but why is my link on the disambiguation page deleted again?Is it necessary to wait for my newly created page to pass the review before it can appear?

2192:

you can think about recreating it at its original location, or (probably less controversially) as part of another article. Alternatively, as stated by the closing admin, you can take it to

2666: 4192:

You can do that with a built-in feature nowadays. Go to your contributions, select the article namespace, check the "Only show pages that are page creations" box and enter. You should get

1754:'string transport' but I type 'string theory'; when I check it quickly before posting it I suppose it looks sufficiently okay. I'm kicking myself for making this mistake again and again. - 1789:

in case there are queries about it on the day it runs, as well as the previous day. If you have questions or concerns, feel free to post on my talk. Thanks for building quality content!--

135: 5730: 5671: 1169: 5324: 1527: 3870:

The template you tried to put on the page certainly isn't appropriate. It invites readers to search for the page on Knowledge under alternate names. That is wasting readers' time –

1129:

please link to the article you are talking about, preferably with a diff. I remember reviewing an edit that removed an image of the St Pancras clock, but afair, I didn't revert it.

5226: 3214: 3210: 928: 2185: 2344:. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 1206: 3569: 3558: 2938: 2777: 3993:

useful. Which is it? If you don't mind me asking... I'm an uneducated 21 year old American female so if you don't see it important to respond I understand, I'm just curious.

2825: 1041: 592: 244: 3756: 3721: 1668: 1176:

for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a

3014: 2699: 2122: 2024: 2896: 160:

replaced with another. Doing that does not require deletion to proceed. If you can achieve that uncontroversially, then I'll be willing to delete the template as unused.

5421: 4525: 4285: 2286: 2065: 5573:

I'm fine with "bold" so long as you're fine with "bold revert". But you might be better off on matters of citation style to ask me to do it myself. Or else ask me what

5448: 2843: 2378: 2576:

When you have an article in mainspace, only then can you add an item to the disambiguation page. And yes, the link will then automatically take the reader to the page.

2818: 2744: 2730: 2705: 2392: 1623: 5958: 4524:

Sorry, I can't get access to that. I only have a basic access account, you probably need the Pro account to see it. The url has ENR 5.4 in it. AIP 5.4 for Turkey

4336: 4319: 3998: 3565: 2174: 717: 2148: 5840: 4485: 4163: 3458: 2923: 2605: 2547: 2526: 2495: 2474: 2431: 2410: 1462: 572: 515: 5934:, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See 5875:, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See 5647:, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See 4637:, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See 3512: 3488:, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See 1377: 5532: 4134: 3809:

I do not see what you are talking about. Was it factual and truthful information, if so, what's wrong with posting it? Can you be more specific or enlightening?

3182:, I think you accidentally put outside of your comment something that was either meant to be part of the comment or not to be there at all. Mind cleaning it up? 3112:

I agree the reference doesn't support the dates but it does explain why the station had to move and that is why I included it as my last edit summary indicated.

419: 406: 3930: 2639: 2592: 2563:. Read both those linked guidelines. There is no point going any further unless you can meet them. If you do not, ultimately you contribution will be deleted. 2512: 2460: 2370: 1499: 605: 567: 5134: 4380: 3152:

PS I agree that merge was not the best AFD result considering how little of the deleted article was possibly correct hence my not leaving a redirect in place.

2755:

edit summary said the person was moving this between the sandbox and draft space. This article does not Ned to be stand alone but connected to another article.

2353: 1869: 1360: 969: 224: 5082: 4928:

reverting repeating vandalism by IAmYourNemisis. (ClueBot NG and PearlSt82 were the other two.) The other events are a series of snapshots glued together to

4661: 4432: 3440: 1239: 4085: 2837: 1051: 474: 347: 214: 198: 171: 4602: 4020: 3244: 3051: 3035: 2987: 2229: 2207: 2034: 871: 269: 5904: 5604: 5588: 5568: 5553: 5517: 4110: 3956: 2954: 2725: 2296: 1960: 1140: 713: 316: 5168: 5152: 4719:. There is also WP:NRV and WP:FRINGE at work here. It doesn't matter if the 2 paragraphs about that particular crossbreed had been published in a 200 pg 4546: 3312:

if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

2905:

if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

2305:

if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

2131:

if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

2043:

if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

1888:

if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

1338:

if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

1060:

if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

493:

if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

5963: 5845: 5110: 3902: 3084: 3079: 2403:

phone,and with her consent,there was no infringement.So I hope that you will be able to pass the review and not to delete my photo.Thank you very much!

1592:

there are two stick-insect networks with tapered bodies. These networks are unusual, but got me thinking of other examples of tapers, including; horns,

1257: 1211: 773:

What do you mean by "do I have access to Haigh"? Are you implying I am citing a source I haven't read? I paid real money to get it on interlibrary loan.

287: 118: 4977: 4473: 890: 848: 831: 816: 799: 784: 5790: 5416: 5268: 3976: 3365: 3226: 3088: 1763: 1726: 1637: 1549: 1450: 1441: 1421: 1412: 739: 6017: 5899: 5511: 3550: 3233:

redirects are not really needed any more for searching. The search function has been sophisticated enough to find the article anyway for many years.

1077: 629: 369:

job-hunting site shows jobs in Suwayfah, Dibba. Google maps shows the boundaries of Dibba Al-Fujairah inclusive of the area Suwayfah maps within. Per

5735: 5703: 5648: 4207: 2992:

I don't have access to the article but what I'm assuming your saying is that the article content at 2005 pre-dated the book at 2009. I had simply a

1879: 1319: 5993:

for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can

5785: 5706:

for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can

5058:

for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can

5016: 4841: 4807: 4791: 4773: 4757: 4701: 4279: 3896: 3161: 3139: 484: 5539: 3770:

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

3417: 3071: 2060: 4961: 4887: 4879: 3942: 3398: 2323: 370: 5239: 5028: 4607: 3732: 3631: 3348: 3340: 3293: 2328: 1608: 1512: 1417:

I've emailed you the article (4 pages) from this book. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't appear to match what appears in the web version. —

1226:

but don't have the time or SVG editing skills at the moment to do so. It would be really cool if you were able to update the image! -- DE K6WEB

4941: 4729: 4105: 1781:

Hi, this is to let you know that the above article will appear as Today's Featured Article on March 15, 2019. The blurb to be used can be found

1329: 4455: 3018: 4999:

back in 2013, only 2 editors participated, both voted keep and there was no further effort. It was actually a pathetic AfD that was listed in

4223: 4002: 3759:

our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular,

3303: 4552: 3945:(only viewable by admins). Since you have raised a requested move, it will be better to let that play out rather than me taking any action. 2928: 2184:

Before doing anything with that table, you should look into how you are going to source it. The lack of references was the primary issue at

5247: 4908: 4527:

is the air navigation obstacles AIP, but it does not give any data directly. It refers to an "electronic file" (probably a spreadsheet) on

1942: 1905: 1798: 5689: 5682: 5630: 5623: 5422: 5329: 5287: 5280: 4249: 3818: 2101: 2092: 990: 687: 4796:

You might can have that opinion, but despite forum shopping in multiple places (AFD, DRV, RSN) none of them seem to be agreeing with you.

4518: 4503: 860:

Are you intending to do anything with this? I'm about to nominate it for DYK, it would be helpful if it was done before it gets reviewed.

510: 5189: 5182: 4028: 3013:

and see what happens or does not happen. In my view marketing is a mess, copyright reporting is a tightrope, and I am pretty tainted at

2879: 2870: 2677: 1966: 1616: 1520: 945: 4859: 1531: 153: 5439:. It won't take long to do, and will improve the article and help me check the refs more quickly. Can you let me know what you think? 4875: 2235: 1355: 2661: 1933:). So apparently people consider them to be two different things, don't they? Double interwikis to the same article are misleading. -- 1401:

Yes, got it, but I've only got snippet access to that. It will be good for confirming the accuracy of the online web version though.

5397:. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the 4412: 4308: 4047: 3841: 3329: 3196: 2720: 1116: 985: 547: 295: 5105: 5389: 5370: 5366: 5334: 3799: 389: 5429:

Hi SpinningSpark, I have left a comment on the talk page of the article, as I want to replace the current style with the template

4268:

I'm sure you have noticed that I already opened a discussion on the article talk page. The issue needs to be thrashed out there.

3217:. This is causing other content to be deleted due to redlinks on these redirects. Can the redirects be restored place. Thankyou 672:, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! 365:

the word Suwayfah on its Google result, yet on its website under location states it is within Dibba, and has an address in Dibba.

4443: 4398: 4261: 4096:

Thank you for straightening out my bollixed Afd. I am such an inclusionist that this is my first ever Afd in over 10 years in WP.

2617: 2613: 2538: 2534: 2486: 2482: 2422: 2418: 973: 767: 5820:

This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.

5765:

This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.

5304:

This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.

5206:

This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.

4582:

This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.

4372: 3005:

copy can be kept for viewing during the discussion) and you might consider self-referring to DRV. Alternatively (try to) apply

2628:, nothing else. Drafts do not count as articles, pages in other namespaces do not count, pages outside Knowledge do not count. 1715:

is an entirely different subject with no relationship whatsoever. It would be inappropriate to write anything in that article.

5330: 2798: 2178: 5994: 5707: 5059: 3864: 2383:

The edit I made on Reed Custer High School’s Knowledge page has nothing to do with promotional or advertising use, thank you.

5238:

The eighth article to achieve featured status for which you are the sole author (unless I overlooked any) - congratulations.

4437: 4408: 3752: 3394: 3121: 3093: 1817: 1217: 543: 1579: 1096: 5254: 4871: 4492: 4157: 3586: 3075: 2934: 1822: 1808:

Hi Spinningspark, thank you for the kind welcome and the advice at DYK! Very kind of you to reach out and I appreciate it.

1773: 1395: 5458:

I do not systematically change double spaces to single between sentences. (I've been accused of "systematically" removing

3788: 3454:

I appreciate the response, and will defiantly take your advice and continue drafting. Thank you so much for the help mate.

533: 5231: 3994: 2337: 1809: 1571: 427: 4913:

Straightening out the FACTS: The warning for edit warring by editor Magog the Ogre was accidentally put on my Talk page

4186: 4074:

That is not the issue, and the file can be copied to commons anyway. It is just requested that the local copy is kept.

3532: 3105: 2080: 1981: 1837: 442: 6093: 6085: 6080: 6068: 6063: 6055: 5980: 5921: 5862: 5693: 5634: 5045: 4624: 4112: 4091: 3922: 3475: 3373: 1278: 1005: 97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 5493: 4966:

It's better off here than on the DRV page where it is an utterly irrelevant distraction to the meaningful discussion.

4684: 3309: 3265: 2902: 2828:

since it obviously isn't ready for mainspace and per your move summary you intended to put the notes in draft space.

2652:

Sorry I didn't see that mess starting before you had to open the RFC. Absolutely clear cut case. Thanks for the 3RR.

2302: 2128: 2040: 1885: 1335: 1057: 490: 4917: 4914: 4891: 4883: 4867: 2858: 2250: 177: 4926: 3984: 1504: 4762:

The passage is short, but IMO still more than trivial or a passing mention since it directly addresses the topic.

3743:

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

2976:(apparently not by same editor) also appear copied in the book. I'm considering undoing my close – your opinion? 111: 4983: 4741: 4394: 3725: 3489: 3421: 3206: 3202: 3067: 2942: 2802: 2704: 2645: 2567: 1922: 1910: 1511:

A fine article, well deserving FA status. Congratulations. I look forward to whatever you may be writing next.

1480: 1263: 1231: 4043: 4032: 366: 4920: 4479: 2449:. That page says "Copyright 2018 IEEE - All Rights Reserved" so on the face of it, it was a correct deletion. 2106: 1863: 1695: 1664: 1306: 1182: 3101: 2161: 4732:

since you appear to be interested in the topic. Getting the dog articles right is rather important to us at

3250: 3201:

The Tool XFDcloser appears to have performed actions, in particular I notice the removal of the redirects to

2684:

has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath

2609: 2530: 2478: 2442: 2414: 590:

has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath

302: 242:

has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath

3748: 3607: 1596:, matched loads and various tapered transitions. Smooth bends and twists are also considered to be tapers. 5350: 4039: 3826: 2814: 1026: 1017: 908: 583: 416: 386: 235: 3097: 1426:

Yes, you're right. This is a much later article than the series of articles from the 1880s reproduced in

529: 5378: 5232: 4386: 4341: 4257: 4229: 3856: 3390: 2790: 2748: 2726: 2002: 1993: 1535: 708: 703: 668:

and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a

262: 4496: 3782: 283:

with the modern units in brackets, not converted to something else to feed into a conversion template."

6034: 5954: 5836: 5394: 4733: 4504:

http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight/LKBVVV5JVZLQA/EN/AIP/ENR/LT_ENR_5_4_en_2010-09-23.pdf

3471: 3464: 3313: 3299: 2906: 2892: 2794: 2306: 2292: 2271: 2262: 2132: 2118: 2044: 2030: 1889: 1875: 1362: 1339: 1325: 1061: 1047: 494: 480: 38: 3282:, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was 2875:, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was 2267:, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was 2097:, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was 1998:, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was 1854:, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was 1295:, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was 1022:, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was 459:, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was 5935: 4385:

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

4312: 4303: 4287: 2366: 2349: 2193: 1586:

Departures from constructing with uniform transmission lines in distributed element circuits are rare

520:

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

305:. Next time, please link the article you are discussing. It is not always obvious to busy editors. 105: 3001:

would likely mitigate. Overall this probably makes a deletion challenge at DRV reasonable (where a

2624:

It must wait until there is an article in mainspace. Disambiguation pages must only list Knowledge

2441:, which is a different project to Knowledge. You should take up the issue there. According to the 5990: 5876: 5357: 5078: 4657: 4598: 4152: 4062: 3926: 3812: 3144:

No the reason for the move was cited but frankly I'm not bothered and I've marked the insertion as

1774: 1505: 1430:. The last two pages you sent me (758 and 759) seem to be corrupt, they are showing as zero bytes. 1101: 950: 274: 192: 147: 6043: 5965: 5906: 5847: 5792: 5737: 5678: 5619: 5583: 5548: 5506: 5276: 5263: 5178: 5147: 5100: 5030: 5013: 4972: 4905: 4838: 4802: 4788: 4768: 4754: 4696: 4681: 4609: 4554: 4541: 4468: 4274: 4202: 4101: 4080: 4050:. So, I wish that we can get your permission to move this file to Commons first. Thanks! This is 4015: 3962: 3951: 3891: 3577: 3545: 3460: 3435: 3360: 3239: 3222: 3134: 3061: 3046: 3031: 3022: 3006: 2998: 2982: 2950: 2810: 2646: 2634: 2587: 2507: 2455: 2224: 2202: 1955: 1813: 1721: 1632: 1544: 1476: 1436: 1407: 1252: 1216:

I'm in the middle of researching semaphore and telegraph issues, and came across this reference:

1135: 866: 843: 811: 779: 750: 624: 412: 401: 382: 342: 311: 209: 166: 47: 17: 2968: 5726: 5667: 5600: 5564: 5528: 5444: 5320: 5087: 3878: 3833: 3621: 3175: 1938: 1112: 981: 970:

Talk:Q_factor#A_suggested_new_order_for_the_presentation_and_inappropriate_illustration_picture

941: 618:

What exactly is your objection to the referencing style, and how does that infringe DYK rules?

291: 4949:, I am so sorry that Atsme has dragged this onto your Talk page from the board it started on. 5950: 5945: 5832: 5827: 5222: 4514: 3270: 2863: 2388: 2255: 2085: 1986: 1842: 1782: 1373: 1283: 1082: 1010: 447: 3695:

Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers.

5917: 5910: 5803: 5796: 5538:

I've given a detailed reasoning for the revert on the review page. You might want to read

5410: 5055: 4996: 4638: 4402: 4245: 3918: 3912: 3795: 3413: 3407: 3386: 3382: 2601: 2522: 2470: 2406: 2362: 2345: 2162:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Orders_of_magnitude_(resistance)&oldid=864372314

1858: 1849: 1691: 1683: 1660: 1652: 1589: 1235: 730: 537: 521: 5000: 3180:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects

3170:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects

2945:

seems like a good spot (I'm assuming that article pre-dated the Knowledge one). Thanks.

1675:

REQUEST for inclusion of the possible relevance of the theory in the STRING THEORY article

1603:

article was nice to see. Can the water between Dover and Calais properly be described as

1218:

https://www.princeton.edu/ssp/joseph-henry-project/telegraph/The_Telegraph_Manual_p114.pdf

8: 5976: 5969: 5858: 5851: 5748: 5741: 5074: 5069: 4982:

Thank you for your generosity Spinningspark. Apologies if I grabbed the wrong link - see

4957: 4937: 4653: 4648: 4594: 4589: 4451: 4138: 4052: 3508: 2833: 2806: 2341: 2330: 1560: 1073: 886: 827: 795: 763: 463: 454: 374: 187: 142: 4405:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 1202: 1173: 540:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 5578: 5543: 5501: 5433: 5258: 5243: 5142: 5118: 5095: 4967: 4946: 4797: 4763: 4691: 4536: 4463: 4332: 4269: 4197: 4097: 4075: 4010: 3946: 3886: 3573: 3540: 3449: 3430: 3355: 3344: 3234: 3218: 3129: 3041: 3027: 3010: 2977: 2973: 2962: 2946: 2629: 2582: 2502: 2450: 2219: 2214: 2197: 2170: 1950: 1759: 1736: 1716: 1627: 1612: 1539: 1516: 1431: 1402: 1382: 1305:

almost completely isolated Germany from the worldwide telegraph network by cutting its

1247: 1130: 956: 861: 838: 806: 774: 665: 649: 642: 619: 396: 337: 333: 306: 204: 161: 4950: 4491:

Can you do the same for this no-permission link, which is the only source provided in

3670:

Recently, several Knowledge admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were

3296:. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page 3149:

stops subsequent edits removing the merged material as unverified and/or unverifiable.

2889:. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page 2289:. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page 2115:. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page 2027:. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page 1872:. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page 1322:. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page 1044:. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page 477:. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page 5722: 5717: 5663: 5658: 5596: 5560: 5524: 5489: 5477: 5440: 5316: 5311: 4992: 4428: 4419:

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

4253: 4168: 3774: 3729: 3528: 3325: 2919: 2773: 2695: 2681: 2319: 2153: 2144: 2056: 1934: 1901: 1794: 1495: 1351: 1124: 1108: 977: 937: 601: 587: 563: 554:

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

378: 256: 239: 3911:

to an English title. Why have you done that when it is an Indian television and the

2760: 2690:

and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

596:

and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

248:

and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

5218: 5213: 5161: 5127: 4744:. Hopefully things will smooth out now that the disruptive sock has been removed. 4712: 4666: 4510: 4219: 4182: 3671: 3624:

if your Knowledge account password or email password is reused on another website,

3517: 3187: 2657: 2384: 1786: 1708: 1369: 1155: 1092: 506: 353: 5369:, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge. This has been done under 1785:. You are free to edit the blurb, and may want to watchlist that page, as well as 279:

You said "The units used in the source and the historical period should be stated

5811: 5756: 5405: 5399: 5295: 5197: 5041: 5034: 5007: 4987: 4899: 4832: 4782: 4748: 4675: 4620: 4613: 4573: 4565: 4558: 3908: 3791: 3157: 3117: 2883:

included a system that strung wires from rooftop to rooftop of domestic premises?

2716: 2397: 1803: 1593: 1300: 1290: 1227: 1177: 960: 877: 751: 721: 468: 324: 6042:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

5393:

tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with

5094:

Discussion moved to article talk page where it belongs so others can take part.

3614:

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

2759:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge are appreciated, pages may be

920: 181: 136:

Knowledge:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 November 30#Template:H. P. Lovecraft

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

5931: 5872: 5644: 5453: 5374: 5088: 4953: 4933: 4634: 4447: 4368: 3961:

Hi, and thanks for the ping, Spinningspark. I think the most apt guideline is

3504: 3499: 3485: 2829: 2560: 1193: 1069: 882: 855: 823: 791: 759: 678: 4690:

Who said it was self-published? And publisher defunct is entirely irrelevant.

3420:. I strongly recommend you submit any new article as a draft for review. See 3416:

which gives the reasons for deletion. The original deletion discussion is at

2113:

Template:Did you know nominations/British and Irish Magnetic Telegraph Company

1389:

Knowledge:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Archive_61#F. C. Webb

5595:

ll make some suggestions! My assessment should be finished in a day or two.

4328: 3966: 3938: 3760: 3675: 3336: 3286: 3277: 2887:

Template:Did you know nominations/Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom

2446: 1755: 1732: 1712: 1687: 1656: 1447: 1418: 1392: 3618:

Use strong, unique passwords for your Knowledge account and associated email

6013: 6000: 5941: 5895: 5882: 5823: 5807: 5781: 5768: 5752: 5713: 5654: 5485: 5469: 5307: 5291: 5209: 5193: 5065: 4644: 4585: 4569: 4532: 4424: 4420: 3739:

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

3524: 3495: 3426: 3321: 2915: 2691: 2315: 2189: 2140: 2052: 1897: 1790: 1491: 1487: 1347: 658: 613: 597: 559: 555: 328: 5802:

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

5747:

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

5286:

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

5188:

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

4564:

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

4350: 3539:

choice, I'll dump the infobox altogether. I've never been a fan of them.

2783:

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing

635: 5349:

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read

4215: 4178: 3183: 2653: 2556: 2280: 1468: 1310: 1088: 1035: 502: 4363:

For bringing selected technical articles to highest quality standards. ~

1926: 955:

I don't know if it is an appropriate way, but as you have worked on the

5004: 4896: 4829: 4779: 4745: 4672: 4390: 3848: 3625: 3335:

Nice article. Perhaps you are planning a complementary article on the

3153: 3113: 2712: 1911: 525: 250: 5985: 5698: 5384:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may

5050: 1087:

No worries at all. I was mostly making sure I didn't miss something.

758:

as 1894. I've loath to change anything as Haigh might well be correct

176:

I already did that, but the navbox's creator added the template back (

4778:

WP:NRV - failed. But I actually don’t care anymore. Happy editing!!

4364: 4126: 3651: 2361:

The deletion review unsalted the title, and I accepted a new draft.

2010: 1930: 1915: 696: 669: 661: 4046:, can completly move the local history of your files to the Commons 3257: 2850: 2242: 2072: 1973: 1829: 1270: 1222:

Which includes an image of Bain's code. I'd love to see it added to

997: 434: 4724: 4720: 3040:

More eyes on this is probably a good idea. I'll self-refer to DRV.

2438: 1223: 965: 876:

Done my best. Its possible one of the merchant ship specialists at

354: 4174: 2711:

Hey there, are you intending to expand this at some point? Thanks

2672: 578: 230: 6009: 6004: 5891: 5886: 5777: 5772: 4038:

Our editors on Chinese Knowledge use your file to translate this

2941:

but forgot to check the talk page was restored. The CSD G12 for

1731:

Sorry about polluting your talk page with extraneous information.

1180:

whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining

1031: 974:

talk:Q factor#A_proposed_“modern”_introduction_to_Quality_Factors

4177:

but that no longer works. Could you tell me where this is now?

3706: 2186:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Orders of magnitude (resistance)

1467:

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

1147:

Thank you for being one of Knowledge's top medical contributors!

5465: 3570:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Enterprise marketing management

3559:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Enterprise marketing management

2939:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Enterprise marketing management

2014: 1472: 5926: 5867: 5639: 4629: 4118: 3702:

How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)?

3480: 1042:

Template:Did you know nominations/Cuthbert Hilton Golding-Bird

4863: 4125:

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

3692:

Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable).

3689:

Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites).

2997:

copy violation which is worse, although attempting to follow

2667:

DYK nomination of Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom

2109:

to Ireland failed because the cable would not reach that far?

2025:

Template:Did you know nominations/Submarine Telegraph Company

2018: 1644:

ADJUSTMENT to SkyWay's 'STRING TRANSPORT' page - October 2018

114:, please note that as demonstrated on the talk page, neither 5816: 5761: 5300: 5202: 4578: 2287:

Template:Did you know nominations/Electric Telegraph Company

1427: 968:

page, see the last two threads in the associated talk page:

5460: 4886:

raised about socking which he downplayed and was clarified

1711:, I have little interest in doing any serious work on it. 1532:

User:Spinningspark/Sandbox#Telegraphy in the United Kingdom

5472:.) MOS neither prescribes nor proscribes; I must, however, 4866:

with that editor. He has been highly disruptive beginning

1624:

Knowledge:Peer review/Distributed element circuit/archive1

360:

With regards to your reversion of my redirect: the target

4528: 4320:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of Indian heat waves

4173:

When I wanted to check user article creations I would go

3822: 702:

Hello, Spinningspark. This is a courtesy notice that the

286:

Where is this explained in wikistyle or any other guide?

4862:. I have gone beyond the limits one might refer to the 4814:

AfD is not forum shopping. Where did that come from? 😳

4486:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Glen Pean powerline span

3720:

This message was sent to all administrators following a

4730:

Knowledge:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Bully_Breeds

4389:, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 4301:

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

2801:

process can result in deletion without discussion, and

1471:, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 524:, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 4895:

encourage him further. It is turning into harassment.

2766:

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the

1870:

Template:Did you know nominations/Gutta Percha Company

475:

Template:Did you know nominations/William Montgomerie

4307:

is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge according to

3292: