User talk:Reportingsjr

April 2007[edit]

Please do not violate Wikipedia policy by introducing inappropriate pages, such as Luke yocum, to Wikipedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. CIreland 13:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

units[edit]

Hi, you seem to have made some wrong edits on g-force... the unit of acceleration is m/s² (meters per second squared) or m s^-2 (meters times seconds to the minus two), NOT m/s^-2 (meters per second to the minus two). Do you agree? If so, would you mind changing it back? (If someone else hasn't already.) Thank you! :-) --Steve (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:CaliforniaParkLitSide2.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:CaliforniaParkLitSide2.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:CaliforniaParkLitSide1.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:CaliforniaParkLitSide1.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia: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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free files in your user space[edit]

Hey there Reportingsjr, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Reportingsjr/California Woods.

See a log of files removed today here.
Shut off the bot here.
Report errors here.
If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:CaliforniaParkLitSide2.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CaliforniaParkLitSide2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Join the RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck[edit]

Hi Reportingsjr,
you are receiving this message because you are an active user of WikiLoop DoubleCheck. We are currently holding a Request for Comments to define trust levels for users of this tool. If you can spare a few minutes, please consider leaving your feedback on the RfC page.
Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts. Your opinion matters greatly!
María Cruz

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to modify your subscription to these messages you can do so here.

New, simpler RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck[edit]

HI Reportingsjr,
I'm writing to let you know we have simplified the RfC on trust levels for the tool WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Please join and share your thoughts about this feature! We made this change after hearing users' comments on the first RfC being too complicated. I hope that you can participate this time around, giving your feedback on this new feature for WikiLoop DoubleCheck users.
Thanks and see you around online,
María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to update your settings to change the wiki where you receive these messages, please do so here.

WikiLoop 2020 Year in Review[edit]

Dear editors, developers and friends:

Thank you for supporting Project WikiLoop! The year 2020 was an unprecedented one. It was unusual for almost everyone. In spite of this, Project WikiLoop continued the hard work and made some progress that we are proud to share with you. We also wanted to extend a big thank you for your support, advice, contributions and love that make all this possible.

Head over to our project page on Meta Wikimedia to read a brief 2020 Year in Review for WikiLoop.

Thank you for taking the time to review Wikipedia using WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Your work is important and it matters to everyone. We look forward to continuing our collaboration through 2021!

María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

re: Skylab[edit]

Hi, I reverted the edit you made to Skylab. Your edits changed the established order of units in the infobox and lead section from imperial (followed by metric) to metric (followed by imperial). Per MOS:UNITS, In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United States, the primary units are US customary (pounds, miles, feet, inches, etc.)

Note that the article also has the hatnote {{Use American English}}, which also helps establish the American MOS:TIES of the article. — sbb (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb: Hi sbb! I would strongly not consider the Skylab article to be non-scientific, considering the topic is a scientific space laboratory developed by NASA. Additionally, the source material for the updated details in the infobox is all provided in metric from the source material and are all more accurate than the old information that was in there. Per MOS:UNITS, In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for rotational speed, hands for heights of horses, etc.). As such I think it is most appropriate as a scientific article with source material from NASA in metric that the units be changed, and the information be corrected to the more accurate numbers. Unless you have further concerns, I am of the opinion that the revert should be reverted. Reportingsjr (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Reportingsjr: The Skylab article is not really substantially different from, say, Apollo 11 through Apollo 17. The Apollo 11 article is written imperial (metric), whereas Apollo 17 is written metric (imperial). Neither they, nor Skylab, are particularly "scientific" articles as much as they are historical documentation articles.

Regarding source material containing metric information, that can easily be used and incorporated into the article and still retain 'imperial (metric)' ordering with the {{convert}} template using the |order=flip parameter: {{convert|76,540|kg|lb|order=flip}} yields: 168,740 pounds (76,540 kg).

In general, MOS:RETAIN seems to be the over-arching principle here. It has been written and edited for a long time in an existing style, and it is incumbent upon editors to retain existing styles (such as citation/reference style, English variation, number and unit styles, etc.). If you still wish to change the article to 'metric (imperial)' style, please open a section on Skylab's talk page, so that other editors can chime in. — sbb (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]