User talk:American1791

Welcome

Hello, American1791, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page United States customary units did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

.303 British

When the .303 British was designed there were no C.I.P. rulings, so I understand your point. During the 20th century the UK became a C.I.P. member state. C.I.P. (technical) rulings use metric units and relevant old imperial units and (pressure) measuring methods have been converted or changed according to C.I.P. standards and methods. You do not have the luxury of executing personal opinions regarding C.I.P. rulings in a C.I.P. member state. These rulings have the power of law out there for every civilian and deviating from them is illegal. The punishments for not observing C.I.P. rulings differ from member state to member state. Normally involved persons at least lose their licenses/permits to possess/handle arms and ammunition. As the .303 British has the UK as origin it is logical to use the current UK standards in Wikipedia.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Units of measure

Please don't change units of measure in articles without providing a valid reason and/or discussion on the article talk pages. Also, those changes you have been making are not "minor edits". Vsmith (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I apologize for not leaving a reason, that is my bad. I considered it a minor edit since it is solely changing the order of units, and not their context. My reasoning for the change is; since half of the Niagara River and a majority of the falls (possibly half, depending on your view) are located within the United States of America, I thought it appropriate that the unit order should reflect that. Whilst Canada and These United States share this wonder, and I am fully aware of their official adoption of SI, their use is not absolute nor historical, and the population of the Canada, and thus its visitors and people interested in the falls, is dwarfed by the USA. Because of this I think it makes logical sense that USC units ought to be put before SI.

         Note: I will be reintroducing my changes and copying this reason there. Once again my apologies for foregoing a reason.

I second that. Your edit history suggests you are seeking locations where borders are shared with the US, and changing the units of measurement so the imperial units come first. If this is your single purpose on Wikipedia, I urge you to read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and several other policies regarding single-purpose editing. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Metrication opposition, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. —Aranya (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]