Picea omorika, commonly known as the Pančić spruce or the Serbian spruce, is a species of coniferous tree endemic to the valley of the Drina in western Serbia, and eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina, with a total range of only about 60 hectares (150 acres) at altitudes of 800 to 1,600 metres (2,625 to 5,249 ft). The species was originally discovered near the Serbian village of Zaovine on Mount Tara in 1875, and named by the Serbian botanist Josif Pančić. It is a medium-sized evergreen tree that generally grows to a height of around 20 metres (66 ft), with a trunk diameter of up to 1 metre (3 ft). It has buff-brown shoots with dense hair coverage and needle-like leaves. Its cones are fusiform in shape and grow to a length of 4 to 7 centimetres (2 to 3 in). They are dark purple when young, maturing to dark brown, and have stiff scales. This young female P. omorika cone, with a length of 22 millimetres (0.87 in), was photographed near Keila, Estonia.
This is a Wikipediauser page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RAJIVVASUDEV.
RV is my pseudonym, and I am a textile professional and an avid reader with a strong interest in learning about new technologies. I have a passion for both historical and modern textile subjects, and the majority of my editing work focuses on topics related to textiles.
Welcome to my User Page
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are. — User:Ian.thomson
Blend (textile) The fact was ... that in the 12th century, when wearing pure silk was forbidden for Muslim men, a silk-and-cotton blend known as mashru solved the problem?
Revenge buying The fact was ...that revenge buying after the lifting of a 2020 COVID-19 lockdown helped a Hermès store set a record for the most shopping at a luxury outlet in China in a single day?
Caffoy The fact was ... that caffoy was a fabric similar to cut silk velvet, made from wool and often used for decorations such as hangings and draperies?
Lucy Adlington The fact was ... that after publishing a fictional account of women who survived a Nazi concentration camp by sewing dresses, Lucy Adlington was contacted by descendants of actual dressmakers?
Care cloth The fact was ... that during the time of the Church Fathers, thevelatio nuptialiswas used by the church to validate the sacrament of marriage and emphasize its importance?
Mughal emperor
?
Tissue (cloth) The fact was...that the word 'tissue' in textiles refers to types of fabric that are delicate, lightweight, and sheer in nature?
Fashion psychology The fact was... that fashion psychology is an interdisciplinary field that studies the interaction between human behavior, psychology, and fashion?
Echte Wagner... that an album of collectible cards from the German margarine brand Echte Wagner in 1930 presented a vision of the future that incorporated concepts such as wireless personal phones with screens?
Thanks for your efforts in building up the encyclopedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
The Christianity Barnstar
Dear RAJIVVASUDEV, I award you The Christianity Barnstar for all your hard work in WikiProject Christianity-related articles, especially your recent creation of care cloth. Keep up the good work! Your efforts are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 08:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
No, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful.
Wikipedia’s policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of “true scientific discourse. It isn’t.
Nicely done. Wales is essentially saying, we have standards. Deal with it.[2][3]
.svg){kind=small}
