User contributions for 69.140.25.127

Search for contributionsshowhide

⧼contribs-top⧽

Username, IP address or CIDR range:

Namespace:

Invert selection

Associated namespace

Tag filter:

Invert selection

Only show edits that are latest revisions

Only show edits that are page creations

Hide minor edits

⧼contribs-date⧽

From date:

To date:

Show only edits pending review

Hide probably good edits

18:0918:09, 7 March 2020 diff hist +783‎ Talk:Crux ‎ →‎"Asterism" and Southern Cross: new section
18:0518:05, 7 March 2020 diff hist −9‎ Crux ‎ Following the pattern of Ursa Major article, Southern Cross is the common English name for the constellation, not just the asterism of the 4 brightest stars. Previous wording was leading to a misconception in other articles that the Southern Cross "is an asterism" when of course in common usage the phrase's meaning is identical with Crux (which of course literally means "Cross"). Will add a Talk page entry.
16:4116:41, 7 March 2020 diff hist 0‎ Beta Centauri ‎ See talk page - Crux (Southern Cross) is an official IAU constellation, not an asterism.
16:3916:39, 7 March 2020 diff hist +439‎ Talk:Beta Centauri ‎ →‎"Asterism": new section

16:2316:23, 2 February 2020 diff hist +192‎ Talk:Stavka ‎ →‎Acronym or not-Acronym
16:0516:05, 2 February 2020 diff hist +194‎ User talk:Entropy ‎ →‎Stavka: new section
16:0016:00, 2 February 2020 diff hist +1,023‎ Talk:Stavka ‎ →‎Acronym or not-Acronym: new section
15:5415:54, 2 February 2020 diff hist +32‎ Stavka ‎ Since "written in uppercase... *although* it is an acronym" makes no sense, how about we just acknowledge there is debate (at least here on Wikipedia) about whether it is an acronym.

19:5819:58, 14 December 2019 diff hist 0‎ Roy A. Jodrey (ship) ‎ Fixed typo in date (see article body)

01:0001:00, 16 October 2019 diff hist −152‎ Laurie R. Santos ‎ →‎Featured work: Removed quotation that was both out of context from the cited article and also was edited with brackets [...] in a way that strongly implies a suspicion (of Santos) not in any way supported by the cited article (which is in fact primarily devoted to summarizing Santos' explanation of the very issue mentioned). Mention of the retractions themselves, along with the citation, seems sufficient and proper here, given lack of ongoing controversy.