User talk:Sandygrains

License tagging for Image:R Madhavan.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:R Madhavan.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 06:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Good luck and my support
Unfortunately, there are many who know better who will probably revert you. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, the world is not subdivided into great shining progressives using gender-neutral language fighting against the dark forces of misogyny, and the former group is not composed of fidei defensatrices. I did not revert you because of any supposed burning hatred of women, but simply because it is absolutely not the most common term at the moment – especially not when even those who think the term manned is unduly gender-specific can't even agree what terms to use to replace it. Nothing else. Double sharp (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's explicitly mandated by NASA that gender-neutral terms be used, and is a pretty common practice among those in the space community and science journalism to make it a point to stick to this. How does one decide when a term becomes common? Sandygrains (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but since when? Last year! Has it really diffused to a wider consciousness yet? Evidently not. For one, I've never heard of it and it is not hard to find sources from 2015 and 2016, ranging from scholarly articles to news sources, who retain "manned". After all, even the supportive blog post I linked to notes that unmanned tends to be reintroduced (hilariously ironically, often by women) for the simple reason that "uncrewed" is not in the dictionary, and that the average reader would do a double-take on seeing that new coinage. And it is pretty simple to decide when it becomes common. It must be because evidently we do it all the time when titling articles. From a subject I am more familiar with, just because the relevant international organisation mandates the name pentan-2-yl acetate for CH3CH2CH2CH(CH3)OCOCH3 does not mean that we title the article that. Instead we call it sec-Amyl acetate because that's what people who actually use it call it, even though that name is not strictly "allowed". Similarly, we use radon daughters instead of radon progeny in radon, again following common usage, even though the former might be similarly argued to be sexist. How is this any different? Double sharp (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Notifications
See wp:ping For me, add (without the nowiki stuff)
 * Stay off my page! ~

The yo, message, and signature "Jim1138 (talk) 07:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)" must be saved together with one "Save changes" or it may not work. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)