User talk:Huntster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
1 2 3 4 5
Moderate to high level of vandalism. 117/5.2 HG Jab843 (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Cary Fowler Page[edit]

I am fairly new to wiki writing and I want to make sure I am making acceptable changes. As I look at our respective versions of Cary Fowler compared I see how it could look like I added a lot but actually I added a “career” section and moved some of the current “background” information there and supplemented that information. Then took some of the honorary degrees out of background and added them to the section labeled “awards” so I renamed that “awards and honors.” My purpose was to add information so the article would no longer be considered a stub. I spent time reviewing other notable people’s wiki pages and followed those examples. Can you review again and and revert to my version with edits or give me any tips? Thank you so much for your help. --Me4action (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2013 (EST)

Skyhook - again[edit]

Just a note to let you know that the IP editor is back at Skyhook (structure) pasting the same biased (spamy) and incorrect information. Space tethers made with carbon nanotubes are simply not available, yet he keeps writing it is. He even wrote in the edit summary "added POV statements", so he aware of it, and is defiant. Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

BatteryIncluded: I've added the article to my watchlist again, will try to keep things from going wonky, but I'm reluctant to interfere in the actual article as I know next to nothing about this particular subject, especially with regard to the viability of the tech. Huntster (t @ c) 03:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I took it out of mine. I am burned out by fanatical single-purpose users. Thank you for the help anyway. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
BatteryIncluded, yeah, I understand. This fanatical devotion and didn't-hear-that behaviour is troublesome. If no clue is forthcoming, I'll have to reevaluate options. Huntster (t @ c) 19:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Nevermind, you had the right idea. Screw all that and the editors who defend such single purpose BS. Huntster (t @ c) 19:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

edit war at Bring Me to Life[edit]

By convention and guidelines (WP:NSONG and WP:SONGCOVER), all notable covers of an individual song are covered in one joint article. They are not split into multiple articles by recording artist. In the event that someone made a separate article about the Katherine Jenkins version, it would get immediately merged into the Evanescence version anyway. Please stop removing this section: it would appear that ShaneFilaner is simply trying to follow Wikipedia guidelines about where to place the material.—Kww(talk) 13:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Kww: With infobox and additional category(s) for that cover? That makes no sense. I've no problem with information about the cover being here, and I admit I shouldn't have wholesale reverted (my patience is wearing thin, lately). But I do feel this is a strong undue weight situation. Huntster (t @ c) 21:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
That's the norm. Take a look at Last Christmas, or Blue (Bill Mack song), or Train Kept A-Rollin', and on and on. If the cover is notable enough that it would normally qualify for its own article, the section typically gets a separate infobox.—Kww(talk) 22:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Wow, no words to describe how insane that is, at least in my view. So be it. Now I feel like unwatching all music articles, if this is the state of affairs. Thanks for the words regardless, Kww, and know I have a lot of respect for you. Huntster (t @ c) 00:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Help with Image License if possible.[edit]

Hello Huntster - seems I may need some help applying the correct license, if any at all apply of course, to an image (File:IllustrisSimulation-Box.png) I uploaded recently to Commons re my newly created Illustris project article - the image and some permissions seems noted at => - Thanking you in advance for your help with this - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 04:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Drbogdan, so I'm not sure where you got the CC-0 license from, because there is no license release on that website. "Public release" is not the same as "public domain", and does not mean it is free from copyright. Unfortunately, this means that the image is copyrighted and cannot exist on Commons. You should tag the image with {{speedy|Mistaken license, not freely released}} or something similar. ~~~~
@Huntster - Thank you for your help with the unintentionally mislabeled image - yes, I *entirely* agree - and have rm relevant image code from the article - and, as well, have attached {{speedy|Mistaken license, not freely released}} as suggested - thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Drbogdan, yeah, I hate that it couldn't be kept. Just remember in the future that licenses must explicitly be stated at the source, and cannot be inferred from the wording, unless you know beyond a doubt otherwise (such as known NASA-produced images on Flickr stating All Rights Reserved or non-commercial). Huntster (t @ c) 10:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Please fill out your JSTOR email[edit]

As one of the original 100 JSTOR account recipients, please fill out the very short email form you received just recently in order to renew your access. Even though you signed up before with WMF, we need you to sign up again with The Wikipedia Library for privacy reasons and because your prior access expired on July 15th. We do not have your email addresses now; we just used the Special:EmailUser feature, so if you didn't receive an email just contact me directly at Thanks, and we're working as quickly as possible to get you your new access! Jake (Ocaasi) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Image for Comet Churyumov-Gerasimenko[edit]

Hello, you reverted my use of a European Space Agency image of Comet Churyumov-Gerasimenko back to the original free telescopic image, arguing that "when a freely licensed image is available, it should be used in place of non-free images, even if the non-free image is technically better". But this is not merely a question of technical improvement. The ESA image's non-free use rationale states that it is being used "to illustrate the surface features of the comet". The free image does not illustrate the surface features at all - it shows merely a speck of light. Hence, it seems to me that the ESA image can be used because its subject matter is entirely invisible in the free image. Am I wrong about this? It would be wonderful to use the ESA image and the rationale makes sense to me, but I have no wish to simply get reverted again! Arsia Mons (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Arsia Mons, I would suggest bringing this up on the article's talk page, see if there is any consensus toward using the non-free image. I interpret the non-free rules as meaning that when a freely licensed image of a subject is available, then regardless of the superiority of any non-free alternative, the free image must be used. We are, after all, a project that strives to provide freely licensed material to readers. Prettifying the articles should be an entirely secondary objective. Huntster (t @ c) 03:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, will do. Arsia Mons (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Arsia Mons, the talk page proposal looks great. I only wish all editors were as collegiate and easy to work with as you. Huntster (t @ c) 22:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Arlene Dahl[edit]

I have an OTRS ticket from the subject's rep asking us to correct her DOB to 1928, including a photograph of her passport with that date. We can't use the passport obviously, but maybe we could consider that with the source that uses 1928 as sufficient? Actresses are notorious for fiddling with their birthdates, and I guess that has finally caught up with Mrs. Dahl. If you're OK with this, please let me know. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

FreeRangeFrog: Huh, don't have access to that queue for some reason, which is unfortunate as I'd like to see that photo. Do what you think is best. She's apparently told numerous reporters that 1925 is correct, but it seems unlikely for a passport to be falsified. Whatever the decision, it should be backed by several reliable sources, a note pointing to that OTRS ticket (as that's one of the reasons OTRS exists), and wording (as I included in a later paragraph) noting that various sources say otherwise. Keep me in the loop, I'll do what I can. Huntster (t @ c) 03:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)