User talk:Huntster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
1 2 3 4 5
edit
purge
view
Very low level of vandalism. 3.2CVS / 4.1RPM according to DefconBot 01:00, 13 July 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)

Date format[edit]

Hi Huntster. I see you went to a lot of trouble with the date format here. Is that a personal preference or is this actually the WP recommended format, especially as we are talking about details that are not visible to the reader? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Rui Gabriel Correia: the MOS only states that there should be a standard date format in an article, rather than a mishmash of different formats. I chose MDY format simply because it was predominate in the article, rather than any other factor. Also, those accessdates are part of the citations and are visible to readers. Huntster (t @ c) 03:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Huntster. I agree with not having a mishmash of whatever sort. By "not visible", I meant on the first plan. You can see them only once you hover and you see one at a time, which - visually - does not have the same impact as far as lack of consistency goes. Seems like a thankless job, but for now you have my thanks for the dedication and I've learnt something on MOS. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you can help[edit]

I've 'damaged' something in the Portuguese WP, asked for help from colleagues, but on-one has come forward yet. I wanted to change unsuitable wording "Áreas remotas sob soberania de países europeus" (there is nothing "remote" about some of these EU territories) here. Somehow the changes have not taken effect, as you can see both the new and old wording are showing, as page title and in the page, and here it has lost its formatting - see bottom of page, should be one of the expandable boxes. Do you think you would be able to help? It would be highly appreciated. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Rui Gabriel Correia: The issue was with this edit. The "#REDIRECIONAMENTO" must be present when you redirect one article/template/etc to a new name, so that previous instances of its use continue to work. I've also restored your previous edit to pt:Predefinição:Territórios especiais membros da União Europeia, as that's also necessary after changing the title. Everything should be fixed now. Huntster (t @ c) 01:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Huntster. It is all working now! Wonderful. Much appreciated. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
No problem Rui, any time. Huntster (t @ c) 02:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

MACH-ing Me[edit]

I feel that reverting my x-15 contribution, based on the reason given is trivial. I agree that the Mach measurement is subject to altitude and density. But, NASA and the US military who contracted the X-15 specified that the aircraft had to achieve a MACH 5 minimum, not a MPH minimum. So, the use of the MACH designation is appropriate and relevent, altitude/density variables, notwithstanding


Also, it is correct to state that a record is "still" in effect.

-Peter

Peter, nice section title, I grinned, though my intention was not to mock. Regarding "still", while it is not improper English, it is redundant in this context, and the goal of any article is to avoid redundant language. By this, I mean that if it holds the record "as of 2014", then of course it "still" holds the record, but Wikipedia favours "as of" statements since this version of the article may be read a decade from now. Providing date-stamped statements is the best way to present potentially dated information.
Regarding the Mach number, it simply isn't appropriate for the lead. Mach numbers may be used in a technical sense to express velocity in a very specific flight profile, but it is meaningless to the average reader. The lead should present an overview of the article, not such specific details. That information already exists elsewhere in the article, which is its appropriate place.
Also, when using a talk page, instead of manually signing your post (as you did with "-Peter"), simply type out four tildes (~~~~) and it will automatically sign and date your post. Cheers! Huntster (t @ c) 02:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


Huntster

Thanks for the pointer. On the last point, some editors on topics of high performance aviation and aerospace might disagree with your take on the use and relevance of MACH terminology...much the same way astronomers use of AU's and Parsec's, even though these terms are "meaningless" to most readers.

The MACH 5 realm delineates the fuzzy borderline between supersonic and hypersonic flight; the latter being where the slipstream begins to ionize and other weird things happen, which is specifically relevant to the discovery mission of the X-15 program.

HamiltonFromAbove (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Peter: Oh, I don't disagree with the importance of that delineation, just that the specific mention of Mach in the record doesn't really have a place in the lead, since it is supposed to be a brief summary. That said, some mention of program goals in the article, such as the intent to explore aerodynamic properties above Mach 5, would be great if a detailed source can be located. I found http://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-052-DFRC.html, which mentions the Mach 5 goal, but is rather short on other goals. I'll see if I can work that into the article somehow. Huntster (t @ c) 20:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Re. /* Privileges */ added note re. optical comms[edit]

Hi, I see you've deleted my addition.

There are ongoing discussions about having optical comms added to the amateur radio exam, in fact there was an article posted as recently as January 2014 suggesting that laser and light safety be added to "future proof" things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.16.70.20 (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I understand that, but I could not find any articles discussing it. If you can provide a citation or two, I can work your addition back into the article. Huntster (t @ c) 09:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Wicca "tense"[edit]

Greetings.

I understand your change here, but I used "intended" to refer to the spells, not the Wiccans. I think "intended" flows / conveys meaning better, but am not going to make a fuss about it; I mention it mostly so you don't think I'm some semi-literate, although I wouldn't object if you put it back to my phrasing, either {grin}

Best regards

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 14:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Septegram, okay, I see what you were getting at. It was the grammar that concerned me, since "intended" didn't quite work grammatically the way it was. I've shuffled things around and restored "intended". I think it flows much better now. Huntster (t @ c) 11:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
It still feels a little awkward, but I can't figure out anything I could do that would improve it, so I'm going to leave it alone. Thanks for the collegiality: have a
Civility barnstar.png The Civility Barnstar
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 13:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Septegram, I agree, but as you say, I can't think of a better way at the moment. But hey, that's why this is a wiki! Take care, and thank you :) Huntster (t @ c) 23:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

USCGC Southwind[edit]

Thank you for your contributions and interest in preserving the history of the U.S. Coast Guard. I noticed you signed Semper Vigilans at Southwind talk page. Were you in USASA ? If so we have something in common. Bravo Zulu and Semper ParatusTjlynnjr (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC).

Tjlynnjr, oh, nothing as interesting as that. U.S. Air Force Auxiliary (Civil Air Patrol), back when it actually meant something. It's such a shadow of its former self these days. And while I love aircraft of all types, naval vessels hold a special place in my heart. I'm always looking out for more and better images of these icebreakers...some are terribly underrepresented here. Huntster (t @ c) 23:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

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)