Precoical young are typified by being born covered in down, having open eyes, and the ability to run around and feed themselves to some extent. The contrasting state are altricial young, which are born more or less "helpless", being typically blind for some time after birth (on average until _____), have only a small covering of down if any, and whose movements are restricted to the nest alone. Although, the young of a few species fit each category precisely, the majority do not, resulting in the terms semi-precocial and semi-altricial, referring respectively to ...
https://books.google.com/books?id=riYBCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA34 https://books.google.com/books?id=OGyQDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA440 https://books.google.com/books?id=_9tczTapYXMC&pg=PA88 "altricial-precocial spectrum" https://books.google.com/books?id=j39rQ9yfwrwC&pg=PT192&
| Action | Count |
|---|---|
| Edits | 90689 |
| Edits+Deleted | 99380 |
| Pages deleted | 17074 |
| Revisions deleted | 605 |
| Logs/Events deleted | 2 |
| Pages restored | 599 |
| Pages protected | 408 |
| Pages unprotected | 16 |
| Protections modified | 369 |
| Users blocked | 900 |
| Users reblocked | 58 |
| Users unblocked | 18 |
| User rights modified | 14 |
| Users created | 2 |
| Mass messages sent | 1 |
You could also click on the signature button that looks like this: [[File:Insert-signature.png|link=Wikipedia:How to sign your posts]] located above the edit window which inserts the tildes for you. When you save, this will automatically format as a signature with your username displayed and the time you posted the comment.
Notability has a specific meaning here. It does not mean lacking in merit, that the subject is unimportant, or is not valuable. It means that in order to warrant encyclopedic entry, a topic (in this case you), has to have been the subject of substantive treatment in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Please see WIkipedia:Notability. The reason for this guideline is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, that properly only has articles on topics that have already been significantly published about—that the world has taken "note" of, and from which published material an article can be written with verifiable information. Thus, if a subject has not been sufficiently recognized by mainstream, reliable sources (books, magazines, etc.) by their publication of significant content about that subject, Wikipedia should not have an article about the subject.
In any event, the article on you was deleted at a deletion discussion which can be viewed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Bowers. If the necessary reliable sources to sustain an article exist, they weren't in the article when it was deleted and were not found by those who discussed the content. Note that this page is not for undeletion of articles that were deleted after discussion, but only for requested undeletion of articles deleted uncontroversially. If you can supply the reliable published sources that weren't in the article, that would be a start, and if you can't, well then you are like the vast majority of people: worthy, valuable, unique but not a proper topic for an encyclopedia article. [[Image:Button sig2.png]]