User talk:PEHowland

Hi, PEHowland, good work on removing the vandalism from War. In the future, though, you should check the page history; we nearly lost most of the introduction there. Melchoir 06:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Border Morris and Morris
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at border-morris, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Thank you for your message on my talk page. Like I'm sure you will, I'll continue to tweak the entries, and, in particular, I'll be adding more scholarly citations. Though I am confused why you would delete a citation and then put in that a citation is needed. This is the second time that you have done so. This would appear not to be in good faith. Furthermore, I did not negate a history of blackface in the UK. Instead, I had referenced and cited a history of blackface. I am also confused as to why you would at all delete scholarly citations when you yourself had said to another contributor in the talk page on border morris, "Deleting the paragraph because you disagree with the question is not appropriate. People do question the connection and it needs to be addressed. Far better that you devote your energies to finding a robust rebuttal." The edits that you made this time, left much of what I had written, but deleted a citation and also placed conjecture on par with research scholarship.

''You are clearly very upset about the deletion of your "scholarly reference" and I apologise wholeheartedly for the distress it has caused you. If you read the article now, I hope you will agree that all the correct citations are in place. The reference was lost whilst cutting and pasting your original text within the article. I did not deliberately delete any reference. I have no problem with you posing an alteranative point of view, backed by evidence, as long as the other interpretations are also provided.'' Paul (talk)

I did delete aspects of the entry that, while were about blackface, seemed highly unnecessary to have on the page as the page is not about the history blackface in Europe or the UK. There are other places to expound upon that. Deleting extraneous information is not vandalism. Deleting scholarly citations that directly relate to the topic and provide evidence and then stating that there is no evidence is most certainly vandalism.

''Those items are relevant. Two refer to mediaeval references to morris with a black face - yes, in France and Spain - but given the fact France and England shared their monarchy and aristocracy at that time, and the British and Spanish also occupied each other's courts - not to mention the close economic ties and other interactions then these have to be considered. The fact that they challenge your favoured argument about 19th Century minstrels is not a reason to delete them. You also deleted the directly relevant quote about morris including a "King of Morocco" in Shrewsbury in 1688 - this is primary evidence of a welsh border dance. I can see no reason for its deletion. In any event, I have now restored these items, but presented your viewpoint and others in separate subsections. The reader can form their own conclusions.'' Paul (talk)

I would like to mention that what I had written followed the historical evidence and the scholarly work that there is.

''The articles you quote are interesting and support a particular theory. However, they remain as much speculation as any other theory and lack convincing primary evidence. One of the articles, for instance, is all about the Britannia Coconut Dancers, who are a one-off North West side with black faces, that have nothing to do with Border Morris. If you have ever seen them dance, and see a traditional border side, like Silurian, you will realise that there is no direct connection. They really are a 19th Century anomaly and I believe accept that in their history. So, in an interesting article, but it doesn't really move the understanding of border morris forward too much. It is of course a valid theory, and deserves space in the article, but is no more than conjecture. Richard Carlin's link is nothing more than a posting of a photograph and asking the question whether there is a link - so not really very "scholarly". The American Morris News article is more balanced, but is largely based on Buckland's article and cites this. Indeed, the strongest statement in this article is "Possible influences of American minstrel shows are also seen in border Morris". Hornback's article is very unconvincing, and it is clear that his work was written with the conclusion in mind. Statements like "racial impersonation in the Morris dance is reflected both in accounts of face-painting and in the distinctive raised or bent-limbed gestures, vigorous step-dancing, and wheeling about which historians associate with West African dance movements" is just non-sensical and I can only assume he has never actually seen a border morris side dance! He paints a picture of a crude imitation of an African war dance, which is really rather bizarre. However, Exmplaria is such a minority journal I guess they'll publish anything. Greenhill is focused more on the reaction to contemporary morris dance in Canada, and adds no new information to the debate, again quoting Buckland.'' Paul (talk)

I realize that you dance in blackface and do not see this as problematic, and I also realize that it is a popular narrative that the history of blackface is a disguise.

''I assume you are trying to patronise me here? Of course I can understand how the black face might be problematic - particular in the US with its troubled history of race relations and racism - but I balance this by the fact that I have performed in front of people with African origins on many occasions, and spoken with them, and they have thoroughly enjoyed the show and not been offended or seen it as minstrelry. Further, if the other explanations of the blackface are true (and I find them as convincing as the minstrel link, although recognise that the culture interpretation could well have changed over the centuries) then there is no reason to feel that there is anything problematic.'' Paul (talk)

I will expound on this popular narrative in my future edits. Those who have studied the issue in depth, and relying ethnographic work and historical archives, have found that the popular reasoning for blackface (being a disguise) was something that was placed in history by Cecil Sharp. Sharp, as you likely know, was keen on reviving morris dance as piece of national culture that is strictly English, divorcing it from any smack of other origins. He was keen on making it white. (This is substantiated by the researchers who I cited in the entry). This attempt to make the morris white included his writing about the blackface as a disguise.

''Sharp viewed border morris as a degenerate form of the pure, ancient English fertility tradition he was trying to uncover. It didn't fit in nicely with his image of men dancing on the village green in their cricket-whites. You are correct that he identified the back-face as disguise, but this doesn't make that explanation false - and none of the evidence you cite does anything more than speculate on the causal link. Which came first, Sharp's interpretation or that of the dancers' themselves? None of the evidence addresses this. It is pure speculation on the part of writers expounding a particular position. All I can say is that wearing the black face certainly is an effective form of disguise - my own mother didn't recognise me the first time she saw me - and there is clear evidence of the use of black-face as a form of disguise in the 17th Century (Waltham Black act). It's circumstantial evidence versus speculation I'm afraid.''

''However, if Sharp truly wanted to dismiss Border Morris, why didn't he simply write it off as a modern invention based on a poor copy of the minstrel shows in the music halls? Surely that would have been a far more effective way for him to dismiss the tradition and preserve his pure view of the morris? I find it very interesting that he didn't do this - it would have been an obvious interpretation for his time. Why make up the disguise argument and give the tradition an air of legitimacy if he believed it was degenerate? I am not sure what you mean by making morris white and what this has to do with the black face. Frankly, the morris (at that time) was white. Have you ever been to the countryside in England? It is largely "white" even today. I doubt there were any people of African origin in the borders or Cotswolds in 19th Century England, let along doing morris dancing. I'm no fan of Sharp and his romantic view of the morris, but I really don't think race was on his agenda. That's a case of retrospective interpretation, surely?'' Paul (talk)

I did not state anywhere in the article that dancers were intentional in being racist. Instead, as I cited (through Buckland's peer-revied work), dancers have learned this false history of blackface because of the publications based on Sharp's work. This point is not disputed by scholarly work.

''Yet in this paragraph on my Talk page you link border morris dancers and neo-nazis. If you are not intending to be offensive, I would ask that you consider your language and insinuations. Again, Buckland is specifically talking about the Britannia Coconut dancers who, if you have ever seen them, you will be aware have no connection with border morris. Their dance tradition, music and costumes are completely different. The linkage with Sharp is again, pure speculation. Correlation does not equal causation, as any academic worth their salt will be aware.'' Paul (talk)

Those who do dispute it are dancers who are not familiar with the historical record or who deny the historical record. In fact, in attempted to find sources that substantiate the disguise as the reason for the blackface, I could not find any scholarship that demonstrated that. (And it would have been great if I could have found that--as it would be an important point about blackface.) What I did find were two groups supporting the hypothesis, but had no historical evidence supporting their hypothesis: dancers and neo-nazis. (Stormfront posts discuss the topic).

''You are beginning to make this sound like holocaust denial, with your language of "denying the historical record" and "neo-nazis". I find this offensive and somewhat troubling. What is your real motivation here? There is absolutely no link between neo-nazis and border morris dancers, and I find this suggestion bizarre in the extreme. If neo-nazis have a viewpoint on morris, I am amazed, but again please do not confuse correlation and causation. I'm sure they have opinions on all sorts of nonsense. I agree with your disappointment about not finding more sources on the blackface, but you will see in the article that there are hints in historical records of morris and black face long predating 19th Century minstrel shows. Sadly, there is little written evidence of anything. Even your own "scholarly references" are primarily based on a single article written about an unrelated tradition - and even that has no primary evidence of the linkage. However, there is evidence that black-face was commonly used as a disguise in the 17th Century, and we know that morris occurred during this period. We also know that the dancers themselves view the black face as a disguise - and if they say they are wearing it as disguise, surely they are? It is not overwhelming evidence, but it is no less convincing than the minstrel arguments.''

''Frankly, I suspect there are elements of truth in all three arguments, and that the cultural interpretation of the black face changed with time. From Moroccan imitation to disguise to minstrelry back to disguise. Arguing that any one theory is the only one is rather simplistic. Paul (talk)

I have been basing my edits to the page based upon a careful reading of the scholarly literature on the subject. It's true that these researhers are more removed from the subject that you are. To my knowledge, none of them has created a Wikipedia page featuring their own picture. (You wrote on the talk page that you are third from the left with the concertina).

''Again, you're getting rather personal here. Easy to do form behind a pseudonym created solely to edit an article on morris dance. I rather suspect you are one of the authors you are quoting with such enthusiasm. The "scholarly literature" you quote is interesting, but not at all definitive. It raises questions and identifies potential linkages. It provides one theory. But it also confuses correlation and causation and seems to really come down to one particular article, interpreted through the troubled racial history of the US. Yes, I uploaded a picture of Silurian Morris which includes me in the picture. I did this because Silurian are the original revival side of the tradition - so it is the best side to use as an example of the revival in terms of appearance (most other sides have now copied this look), it is a nice photograph and because - surprise, surprise - I happen to have a copy of that photo and own the copyright! What do you expect? Unlike you, however, I have been honest about who I am and prepared to post without hiding my agenda behind a pseudonym. It's a pity that you feel unable to do so. It would be nice to have this discussion in a format other than my Talk page on Wikipedia...'' Paul (talk) 07:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

--Historian1970 (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Border Morris
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Border_Morris, you may be blocked from editing. After having received my earlier request not to delete scholarly information, you went on another related page and deleted scholarly citiations and replaced the information with unsubstantiated claims. For example, you deleted all of the peer-reviewed citations that provided empirical evidence to blackface and racism involved in border Morris and replaced it with text that stated that there was no evidence. I would like to think that most people on Wikipedia are contributing in good faith, but to so boldly delete evidence and then write that there is no evidence is extremely disconcerting. I am currently working on the page to restore with appropriate and reliable sources --Historian1970 (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

''There is nothing disruptive about my editing or vandalism. In your update to the article you deleted much original material and references to the black face that appeared to contradict your viewpoint. I'm fine with you adding to the article with a section that discusses alternative modern interpretations of border morris and possible interpretations by a North American audience, but please also respect the original article and sources. You deleted quotes and references to the black face from the 14th Century that obviously undermine the arguments of minstrel linkages - why was that? I have no idea who you are, or what your claim to knowing about border morris is? I dance with Silurian and grew up in the area these dances were collected from. I personally know the late Dave Jones and Keith Francis who collected these dances in the 1960s and the history behind them. The old men at that time were clear that the black face was for disguise. No mention of minstrels. Indeed, if you knew Herefordshire and Shropshire it would be quite clear to you that the last thing on the mind of a villager is black faces - even in the 1980s when I lived in the area, there were no immigrants from anywhere. The racist interpretation you put on the tradition is uncalled for and offensive and your "academic sources" are no more reliable than any'' other speculation. I see no primary evidence in anything that you quote. Paul (talk)

Morris Dancing
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Morris_dance. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Hi, PEHowland, I've reverted the copy of Morris Dancing back to include the many deletions that you made. As a contributer and academic, I understand that you may have differing opinion on the subject. That's cool. However, it's really important for Wikipedia to include peer-reviewed sources and trustworthy resources in their articles. (In fact, as we both know, they are striving for that.) You deleted the sources from the article that contained content from reliable sources. Again, I'm cool with you disagreeing about what those sources said, but rather than deleting that trustworthy material, I would implore you to do research and add peer-reviewed, scholarly sources that contradict what you deleted. I think it would be great if you added scholarly material that substantiated your viewpoint rather than deleting a valid contribution. Thanks!--Historian1970 (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian1970 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Radars
Thanks for articles the radars from Pardubice. While I have absolutely no clue about the technology details the general info looks all OK (I am from nearby). Pavel Vozenilek 09:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for edit summary
Thank you for your contributions. And I have a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries more often when you contribute. An edit summary helps others understand what you changed when checking the watchlist or the recent changes, and often times complements studying the diff. Think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. I hope you don't mind. :) Cheers – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Information about Ilmari Karonen's edit
Hi,

Don't feel offended by Ilmari Karonen's edit of your user page. All he did was mark the template of User atheist by one that said the page no longer existed. Now as this one is no longer valid, you should stop using this template. For your benefit, I am deleting it from your user page.

I would suggest you to go through the following article: assume good faith.

Also, I feel that in the future, you might find this article useful: Hanlon's Razor.

Cheers,

Ambuj 11:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I didn't even do that. I fixed the User evol-4 box that had also been deleted, but I (my script, actually) missed the atheist box.  Sorry about that.  I would've fixed that one too if I'd noticed that it had been deleted.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Your atheist userbox has been restore and substed. Have a nice day.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah OK, I understand. I missed that fact your script had fixed a deleted Evolution userbox and instead saw a load of "deleted page" stuff instead, which coincidentally appeared due to the deletion of the Atheist template at the same time.  Thanks for your efforts. Paul 20:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:SilurianMorris.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SilurianMorris.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I created the content, so I have tagged the image appropriately. Thanks for the heads up.  Paul 17:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Censorship
A watered-down version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much. Loom91 12:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Kolchuga
Hi Paul, You are sure the formula: d=130(\sqrt{hr(km)}+\sqrt{ht(km)}) that you indicated in Kolchuga passive sensor article is correct for any type of transmitter receiver pair. Can you give some references for it? Thanks. --Feel 22:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Kolchuga_passive_sensor --Paul 07:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ElmarOliveira1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ElmarOliveira1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Vasile Gliga
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Vasile Gliga. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Vasile Gliga. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Amplitude-Comparison Monopulse
Reading over the article on Amplitude-Comparison Monopulse, I don't see any functional difference with monopulse radar. Radar Handbook treats the two terms synonymously. Is there any reason not to merge the content into a subsection, with phase comparison in another? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference is subtle. I would argue that Amplitude-Comparison Monopulse is a signal processing technique, whereas monopulse radar refers to a particular class of active radar system.  However, there are radar systems - such as passive radar and some HF radar systems that use Amplitude-Comparison Monopulse but would not typically be considered as a monopulse radar in the sense described in the article.  I can see what you are saying, but would argue that there is merit in retaining the distinction.  It might be appropriate to simplify the monopulse radar article to simply refer to the Amplitude-Comparison Monopulse article when describing the technique, however.  (And improve the Amplitude-Comparison Monopulse article with any additional information from the monopulse radar article that describe the signal processing in more detail).  Paul (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello PEHowland! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Merrill Skolnik -

Speedy deletion nomination of Maalstroom
A tag has been placed on Maalstroom requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Shadowjams (talk) 09:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Romania
--Codrin.B (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Computational electromagnetics
Here you posted a PDE form of Maxwell's equations without defining your variable $$g$$. Please do that! DreadRed (talk) 08:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This was recently discussed on the Science Reference Desk: apparently this equation has persisted, unaltered and still with an undefined term g, for many years! I have amended your section to add a definition for the variable.  Please let me know if you think my edit is in error.  Nimur (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:BistaticRange.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Another one of your uploads, File:BistaticAngle.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Apple Inc.
Hello ,

You've been identified either as a previous member of the project, an active editor on Apple related pages, a bearer of Apple related userboxes, or just a hoopy frood.

WikiProject Apple Inc. has unexpectedly quit, because an error type "unknown" occured. Editors must restart it! If you are interested, read the project page and sign up as a member. There's something for everyone to do, such as welcoming, sourcing, writing, copy editing, gnoming, proofreading, or feedback — but no pressure. Do what you do, but let's coordinate and stay in touch.

See the full welcome message on the talk page, or join the new IRC channel on irc.freenode.net named. Please join, speak, and idle, and someone will read and reply.

Please spread the word, and join or unsubscribe at the subscription page.
 * RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) and Smuckola on behalf of WikiProject Apple Inc. - Delivered 15:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Joint Morris Organisation


A tag has been placed on Joint Morris Organisation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page 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 tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. ~ Amkgp 💬  11:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of BORAP passive sensor


The article BORAP passive sensor has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No references, no evidence of notability and written as an advert."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Alan Islas (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)