Caine1138

one's

Have you ever seen this "business variety S-form"? Can you name an example? If it isn't in real-world use, we shouldn't mention it. Equinox ◑ 02:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Its important to not declassify valid usage, simply due to not identifying it in current practice. Exclusionary impacts are just as furtive as the inclusive. So, to address your request... any company with the word One, in it. All qualify for the use of Ones in business notation.

The company Business One for example, Business Ones name is a prime usage.

I've never heard of that company. Can you find a sentence using "Business Ones" in this way that meets WT:CFI criteria for inclusion? Equinox ◑ 14:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

http://businessoneconsulting.com/ You can see its possessive form in use clearly, the S-form is omitted. Though its possessive form is validly used in the same instance its S-form would be.

eyepoint

I don't understand what your definition actually means. Can you phrase it more simply? Equinox ◑ 19:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Your recent changes to definitions

None of your edits have been helpful; some have been wrong, and some have merely been incomprehensible, but all have made the entries worse. It may well be that writing definitions in English is not your strength. Please do not make any more alterations to definitions. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Yea, no, units do not get used in the military... so much as dubbed. It requires decoration, you don't just use a serviceman for whatever the fuck you want.

Perhaps, detailed suits the purpose better... used will not do.

Are you CORNELIUSSEON? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Look, used is not a sufficient term for a military unit. Try detailed...

A confirmation or denial of your identity would be appreciated. You are continuing to add back the changes that I have explained are problematic; if you keep doing this, you will be blocked. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Caine1138, Caine Reagen Whitmarsh, yourselves sincerely. Sorry for not explaining the reasons for doing so, but particulates are measures of heavy metal attributes. And as such, do not get carried away in international units. So these attributes should be recognized as time-variants... rather than particulate relocation. International units are not particulates. Of course that is if you want whats actually occurring to be the reference. Supposing it would be reasonable to do the other way, merely assumed you were going for accuracy. Read through, see that potential is the significance. And if its not best for to have accuracy, then do as was. Having shown so to the greatest degree of accuracy, I can. If that's not good, then I wont change again. Merely wanted to be sure you saw the point being made.

Furthermore... recognition and declaration as a means to target references, such as propriety and property, is counterintuitive. Antigens do not have capabilities of referring to such things, as propriety nor property. Since in both instances the self of antibody production is whats in the determination of posturing, symbiotic or parasitic. Antigens cannot override the propriety, nor the property, rights of the organisms compromising. The omission of those mentions is fully intended. Thanks.

Unrelated, but please do us a favor and sign the ends of your posts with four of these after every comment: ~~~~ Thanks. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)