User talk:Huntster/Archive 37
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 30 | ← | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 |
Doeville and Doe Valley
The Doe Valley article originally redirected to the Doeville article. They're actually two separate communities, so I moved the relevant Doe Valley information from the Doeville article to the Doe Valley article, and simply removed the redirect. Does this work, or does the redirect article need to be deleted first? Bms4880 (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Bms4880, no, I think that's okay. You made sure to credit where the information came from in the edit summary, which is the main thing I believe. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Rosetta (spacecraft) revert.
Your decision to revert my edit in which I removed a section is understandable, but why did you also revert the change in the caption of the comet image? The comet picture appears near the beginning of the article, and it is relevant to mention the picture was taken by Rosetta, or some people might assume that the picture already existed before the spacecraft visited the comet. Either mention that the picture was taken by Rosetta or move the image more to the end of the article. Thanks, and ping me if you reply. Huritisho (talk) 07:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Huritisho, no, that was a mistake. I've readded it. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
May need to lock this article. It has been getting slammed all week. Bms4880 (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
KIC 8462852 images ok - or not?
@Huntster: If possible, maybe review the KIC 8462852 article - to be sure all's ok - esp status of images? - uploaded by other editors - Thanking you in advance for your help - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I looked for sources for alt. metal, and unfortunately came up empty. Can I get a link to this "consensus" to see if it was built on appropriate and relevant arguments and/or see if it's small enough to even be worth arguing? Otherwise it comes off as a bunch of original research to me. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- DannyMusicEditor, read through the archives at Talk:Evanescence; there's no one location. This has been discussed many times over many years, and always returns to the same thing: use a base genre for all articles, which evolved as Alt Metal. No one genre can describe all songs on any given Evanescence album. Trying to pigeonhole whole albums and even individual songs has led to tremendous strife in the past, even when those genres were properly sourced. The only thing that has kept the peace over several years time has been the use of Alt Metal as a neutral ground. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Y'know the same argument can be used for the band page. If this is consensus for their recordings, why don't we put it on the band page? That would only make sense. I mean, it's going to get vandalized anyway, let's just get as accurate as we can without listing every single genre. Leaving it blank only spawns genre vandals who are all "But wait, there's no genre for them! The most important thing is missing!? I have to fix this." dannymusiceditor 22:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- DannyMusicEditor, actually, quite the opposite. Using the link to the genre section considerably cut down on genre warring on the band page. Counter-intuitive, I know, but we've honed things to a fine edge in the Evanescence space over the years, finding what works and what doesn't. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Days occupied / continuous human presence in space
I added my rationale to the talk page of International Space Station. Please respond there or here if you are interested. Thanks. Brian Everlasting (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Uluru request
(I don't know the right place to enter a message to you, so suppose you will delete this if it doesn't belong.) I was going to correct bad wording on the Uluru page, but it is locked. Apparently you have rights to edit there. I was going to change "plethora" to "abundance" because the former term means "too many" or "an excess", and it is implausible that there can be too many springs anywhere in a desert. Maybe you can take this up? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.122.73 (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Done, thanks for the suggestion 68.196.122.73. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Untitled
Huntster Thanks for the prompt revert
I was just hoping there would be a fair review of sites without it seeming like there is a bias towards/ against a particular domain. Would appreciate your review and action towards Dubaifaqs and topuniversities as they have both received an excess of over 200 links each without anything being done about it for a number of years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuraitechy (talk • contribs) 07:34, 15 November 2015
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Image of "Mars Carbon Paths" ok to use?
@Huntster: - Is the Image of "Mars Carbon Paths" ok to use? - seems useful to Mars article(s) - Image credit => "Lance Hayashida/Caltech" - perhaps funded by NASA and/or US Government I would think - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- Drbogdan, unfortunately without explicit credit to NASA or NASA/JPL, we cannot assume a free license for that image. Sorry! — Huntster (t @ c) 15:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi
I have missed you my friend. How the heck are ya doing? — Ched : ? 21:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ched, hey buddy. Health isn't great, work sucks, same old story but I'm getting by. You? — Huntster (t @ c) 02:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Uploaded several Mars images related to NASA recently - they seem ok but may need an opinion - to be sure - the two images are as follows: 1) File:NASA-MOLA-Map-MangalaFossa.jpg and 2) File:NASA-MOC-MOLA-Map-MangalaValles-HeadRegion.png - and involve two articles (ie, "Mangala Valles" & "Mangala Fossa") - Thanks in any regards of course - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Drbogdan, to be honest, I'm concerned that, while the actual topographic maps are PD-NASA being MOLA products, the annotations, scales, insets, etc may have been added by the authors of the papers, which would almost certainly produce a new copyright for the original public domain product. I'm very tempted to suggest that the precautionary principle should be in effect, but I'm going to think on it. Going forward, I would strongly suggest that you no longer upload images taken from papers, conferences, etc, unless you are 100% certain there could be no copyrightable material (or, you know, toss me a link and I'll try to help determine its status). I know there is good material in them, but the potential for inadvertent copyright infringement is simply too high. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Huntster: Thank you for your comments - and suggestions - yes - *entirely* agree - should note that one of the authors of the related studies suggested that the images may be useful to the article(s), but only if *entirely* ok all around of course - perhaps accessing the original PD-NASA images (without any later modification) may be a better option instead of those from the studies? - in any case - Thanks again for your reply - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Drbogdan, talk to that author if you still have contact and ask what kind of post-processing they did...perhaps somehow it was taken directly from a NASA website? I tried recreating the images using the MOLA PEDR Query Tool and other tools on that same site and couldn't come up with anything similar to those images. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Huntster: just sent an email to the author (in the UK) - with a copy of the current discussion up to the time of your last post - and encouragement to add to this discussion - he may respond with better details than we may have at the moment - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Huntster: Brief followup - author (somewhat inexperienced with Wikipedia editing) has replied that he is not knowledgeable about the image procedure(s) - and suggests the two images be withdrawn - at least until the issue (and/or procedure?) can be better clarified - as a result - I've substituted other ok images in the two articles (ie, "Mangala Valles" & "Mangala Fossa") containing the two images of concern - hopefully, that's *entirely* ok - let me know if otherwise of course - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Huntster: just sent an email to the author (in the UK) - with a copy of the current discussion up to the time of your last post - and encouragement to add to this discussion - he may respond with better details than we may have at the moment - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Drbogdan, talk to that author if you still have contact and ask what kind of post-processing they did...perhaps somehow it was taken directly from a NASA website? I tried recreating the images using the MOLA PEDR Query Tool and other tools on that same site and couldn't come up with anything similar to those images. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Huntster: Thank you for your comments - and suggestions - yes - *entirely* agree - should note that one of the authors of the related studies suggested that the images may be useful to the article(s), but only if *entirely* ok all around of course - perhaps accessing the original PD-NASA images (without any later modification) may be a better option instead of those from the studies? - in any case - Thanks again for your reply - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Evanescence genre categories
Noticed they're listed as alt metal and hard rock among others in the categories. Would it be logical to remove those as well? To those who find this page that have never read it before (provided they're coming from one of the category pages) it might end up striking as a bit odd that none of those are listed in the infobox. Just a thought. dannymusiceditor ~talk to me!~ 23:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia library Newspapers.com renewal
Your free one-year account with Newspapers.com will end on December 22 2015. Newspapers.com has offered to extend existing accounts by another year. If you wish to keep your account until December 22 2016, please add your name to the Account Renewal list here. I'll let Newspapers.com customer support know, and they will extend your subscription. If you don't want to keep your account for another year, you don't have to do anything. Your account will expire unless I hear from you that you want to keep it. All the best, HazelAB (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Template problem
It would be nice if you could comment here. 80.132.94.160 (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, tried to explain the situation as best I could. It's a weird thing. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
NASA/ESA Exoplanet image ok?
@Huntster: Image of Jupiter-sized exoplanets worthy? - and ok? - URL is => http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA20056 - one concern is that the "image credit" is "NASA/ESA"? - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Drbogdan, in this particular case, NASA/ESA means the image was created by the STScI Hubble team (not the ESA Hubble team). So, you would use the license "PD-Hubble" rather than "PD-USGov-NASA". — Huntster (t @ c) 04:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
For better or worse.
You ARE "THE ONE". I would not be here if it were not for you Huntster. As much as in real physical life - you truly do have my heart and soul. I wish you the most joyful holiday season possible. I will never forget that you were there when I needed someone. Without shame I say: "I love you" ... thank you. — Ched : ? 02:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Ched, love you too man. I really appreciate the words and your support. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for bringing up that concern with the {{Remove border}} tag I placed on the Marvin the Martian NASA file. It was because of that I realized that the template's text and Twinkle's explanation of the template did not match. So, I updated the template's wording. Steel1943 (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you Steel, that certainly explains my confusion over the situation! — Huntster (t @ c) 02:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
May need to lock this article. Vol fans are having fun with it. Bms4880 (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Bob Shoop
Sorry about the lost content. There was some heavy vandalism from multiple IPs and young accounts, and I likely missed a few bits here and there. --allthefoxes (Talk) 17:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Allthefoxes, that's no problem! Thank you for keeping an eye on things. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Can you peek at Seyfert galaxy?
I'm trying to guard against reflexively fixing typos whenever there *might* be a chance I have no idea what I'm doing, so... Could you peek at section Type II Seyfert galaxies where it says "..., nuclear light reflected of a dust cloud was measured, ..." and see if 'of' shouldn't be 'off'? Thanks, Shenme (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- Shenme, you are absolutely correct, it should be "off" rather than "of". Hope you don't mind, I went ahead and applied the correction. Thanks for catching that! — Huntster (t @ c) 07:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Raptor preburner testing photograph
FYI, there is a high-quality US government photograph of the testing of full-scale oxygen preburner for the Raptor (rocket engine) in the Stennis/Lagniappe source I just added to the Raptor article. Thought you might want to have a look, and see if you think it worthy of inclusion as a Wikimedia image. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- N2e, check the Raptor article for the new image. Good catch! — Huntster (t @ c) 23:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. That's perfect Always glad to have your superb help in image getting, and uploading, and taging/categorizing, etc. at Wikimedia, and your good sense in placement within articles. My image fu is not strong.
- I've thought that that article could really use an image for a while now, and now it has a really good one. N2e (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Accretion
Hello. I've been expanding the stub at Accretion (astrophysics) and I would be happy if you could check it out and give it a makeup as needed. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Reference-maker
Hello and thanks for the help at the Accretion article. For about 10 years I've been using this machine to generate my references: [1] Can you recommend another similar system using an updated format? Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
- BatteryIncluded, I format all references by hand, because I dislike how the auto-ref programs format the citations. I would never ask anyone to not use them, however, especially content writers such as yourself, which is (overall) far more valuable in my view. I just enjoy doing gnomish work, filling in any bits that may have been missed. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
More SpaceX F9 F21 photos
There are some really excellent Flickr photos of the rollout (on the TEL, or TE, whatever they are calling it now) of the Falcon 9 Flight 21 F9 v1.1 (the LAST one of that model, or "Block 2", or whatever) at VAFB to the launch pad. Very detailed and clear pics; best I've seen of this rocket.
Thought you might like to take a gander. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
- N2e, welp, someone beat me to uploading them. They are available at Commons:Category:Falcon 9 Flight 21. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Huntster - if possible, perhaps an image review may help => "File:Reconstruction image of Archicebus.jpg" - and related "WP:SPA" accounts => User:IvanStallenko (talk | contribs), User:Matseverson (talk | contribs) (also see article history) - and related articles => "Mat Severson", "Archicebus" - *all* may be *entirely* ok of course - but perhaps a review may help? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Drbogdan, I've emailed Mat Severson to confirm this is his upload. Is there something else specific you want me to look into? — Huntster (t @ c) 06:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Huntster: Thank you for your reply - and for your comments (& related) re the Archicebus image - they're *very much* appreciated - yes - *greatly* helps clarify my concerns - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)