User talk:Adrian J. Hunter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Editor of the Week[edit]

Project editor retention.svg
Editor of the week.svg
Nuvola apps edu miscellaneous.png
Adrian J. Hunter
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning June 12, 2016
An editor who started editing in August 2006, a dedicated WikiGnome who helps wherever he can
Recognized for
Work at the Help Desk
Nomination page

Editor of the week barnstar.svg Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week for your courteous help at the Help Desk. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Worm That Turned submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Adrian J. Hunter to be Editor of the Week for his work at the Help Desk, where he's helped hundreds of users. He's been around for a few years (2006), but no one seems to realise how much good work he's done. He always uses the edit summary which displays his courtesy focused nature toward fellow editors.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Worm That Turned and Kevin. What a pleasant surprise!
Now, I shall celebrate my special week by mostly ignoring Wikipedia throughout a frantic flurry of marking! Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 03:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Penicillin production today[edit]

Hello Adrian. I have left a response for you at Talk:Penicillin#Penicillin production today. (You asked that question in 2007, but it might still interest you.) --David Göthberg (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Ha, thanks Davidgothberg. That made my day! I don't remember asking the question, but your response was interesting to me nonetheless. I've read tidbits here and there about optimisation of penicillin production in fungi (which seems to be ongoing [1]), but didn't know algae were also used.
Wikipedia's coverage of industrial biotech seems to be pretty patchy. Algaculture#Other_uses is rudimentary, and we don't seem to discuss the pros and cons of different organisms for fermentation anywhere. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 08:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Haha, yeah, I know the happy feeling when someone answers one of one's several years old questions here at Wikipedia. I am not sure why it is so funny, but it is. :)
And thanks for the link to algaculture. At least it confirms that algae are still used for some kind of medicine production. (Thus it seems my memory is not wrong.)
--David Göthberg (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Are Reality Stars Considered Actors?[edit]

Hello! I have a question. On Wikipedia, are reality stars considered actors? The way I see it, acting in a reality TV for years requires some acting talent. Just wanting to know for sure. Israell (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Whoah, tough question, Israell! Looking around the 'pedia, I see that most people in Category:Reality television participants are not also categorised as actors (unless independently known as conventional actors), and Category:Reality television participants is not a subcategory of Category:Actors. So it seems that, by and large, reality stars aren't considered actors. But I take your point that there may be certain stars who bend the definition of "reality" television, and might become known for their acting skill as demonstrated on reality TV. I think that's something to be considered on a case-by-case basis, ultimately deferring to reliable sources: if well regarded sources describe a particular person as an actor, then we should do the same. But if they're normally referred to as a participant/star/competitor/personality/whatever, then it's not up to us to declare them an actor.
But that's just how I see it, and I rarely edit TV-related articles. You could also ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television.
Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 03:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Adrian J. Hunter. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Note of thanks[edit]

Hi. I just wanted to thank you for your input on the interactive gene structure diagrams. I put you in the acknowledgements in the recent WikiJournal article (here)! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Evolution and evolvability – what a nice surprise! I just made some minor tweaks to the article, though I'm not sure whether it was naughty of me to edit the published version. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 08:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Unintended edits[edit]

Hi! Thank you for bringing the unintended edits to my attention. I do not recall editing the articles 'Pentose phosphate pathway' and 'Chlorophyll b', and I have no idea what has happened or which part has been revised. Please help me revert the articles to their original state. EverythingCountsInLargeAmounts (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi EverythingCountsInLargeAmounts, no worries, I already restored both articles. It was just a matter of clicking "diff" next to both edits when viewing your contributions history to view the edits, then clicking "undo" to restore the articles. I also reverted a bunch of your other edits before realising you weren't actually a vandal, and had to un-revert them. You might have received automatic notifications about that.
It sounds like you left yourself logged in to a computer that someone else used after you, causing their edits to be attributed to your account. If you're sure that's not the case, you might want to change your password as a precaution. Anyway, no harm done.
Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 03:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC) p.s. Great username!

Thanks again, AJH! EverythingCountsInLargeAmounts (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Deng Adut[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 7 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Deng Adut, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that despite being shot in the back and witnessing atrocities as a child soldier in South Sudan, Deng Adut is now a defence lawyer in Australia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Deng Adut. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Deng Adut), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Retired from WP[edit]

After loss of the argument at the local level, regarding the first-time-to-appear, self-publication of medical imagery here, followed by imposition of a topic ban in my absence to disallow me to tag plagiarised and other policy- and guideline-violating content—I give up. I wish you well here, and if I manage to make a successful case, top-down, you will certainly here of it. In the mean time, the wasted time devoted to change from the grassroots is at an end. Cheers, bonne chance, perhaps we will cross paths at a meeting in the real world. Le Prof (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you've had enough, Le Prof. Wikipedia would be a far more reliable source if everyone shared your dedication to accuracy and rigor. Someone needs to turn what you've got on your userpage about citation mining into a guideline about best editing practices.
If you were to leave a note at WT:MED, I'm sure many would wish you well. I see you've had a rough time lately, but I don't think anyone doubts your sincerity or your commitment to the project.
All the best, Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 11:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Please don't delete my template[edit]

Hello there, you have spoken against my template Template:Di. This template is the only template for difflinks that uses the internal wikilinks which make it possible to immediately verify that an internal link is present, as opposed to the templates Diff and Diff2-4. Hence, please don't delete it, but use it. --Mathmensch (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I see that this applied to a different template. Just ignore the above. --Mathmensch (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Standard Life logo.gif[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Standard Life logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

When is a circle not a circle[edit]

Hi Adrian J. Hunter. Re your question in the summary for this edit, you're technically right, but I had to view it in its original size on Commons to see the overlap. The thumbnail view in the article shows no overlap for me, using two different browsers and two separate monitors. Are you seeing overlap? In any event, I suspect a crop might do more harm than good because the repeated portions aren't quite identical (for instance, look at the spire of the Chrysler Building). RivertorchFIREWATER 05:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rivertorch,
That's odd. Here's what I see:
  • On my computer, with three separate browswers (Chrome, Firefox, IE) – thumbnail with a horizontal scroll bar. Initially shows part of the image but scrolling reveals the entire image, including overlap.
  • On an iPad 2, iPad Pro, or cheap mobile phone in mobile view – thumbnail of the entire image, including overlap.
  • On the same mobile devices in desktop view – thumbnail showing only part of the image, but scrollable by touching the image and dragging sideways to see the entire image, including overlap. There is no visual indicator of any kind that the thumbnail is interactive. It just looks like a regular image.
The thumbnails on mobile devices in mobile view are miniscule. Cropping one end should make them a little taller. I see that the two ends aren't identical, but I'm not sure there's any value in keeping the right end, which loses detail to shadow and somehow shrinks that spire. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 06:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. On my Macs, in either Firefox or Opera, there's no scroll bar but mousing over changes the cursor into a hand, which suggests that dragging to scroll should be possible...but it isn't! I hadn't checked mobile devices, but yeah, it's the same as you said. I certainly have no objections to cropping, but even if it stays as is, I don't really see the need for the caption to note the overlap. It's not exactly unprecedented in a panorama shot, after all. RivertorchFIREWATER 06:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like a bug in MediaWiki. I'm ambivalent about the caption. Mostly I just wanted to end the cycle of reversions. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 06:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Adrian J. Hunter. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Vitruvian Barnstar Hires.png The Technical Barnstar
Thanks for helping me figure out that diff thing. A significant improvement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Cheers Doc James! Glad it's all sorted. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 23:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

January 2018 GOCE barnstars[edit]

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Adrian J. Hunter for copy edits totaling over 8,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE January 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


If you read the study in which you site, , it states in "conclusions": Evidence is improving in quantity, quality and reporting, but more research is needed, particularly for Shiatsu...

Shiatsu is a vague frame of practice. There are different styles of shiatsu, some much much older and more effective than others. I, myself, practice one of these very old styles. I use this art and treat professional athletes, doctors, and many different clients with different ailments in the Seattle, Washington area. What I do is practiced by less than 20 practitioners in the world and has been passed down through a small group of individuals for over 30 generations. If studies through Shiatsu are based solely on the newer generation of practitioners, then your conclusions will be weak, to say the very least. They incorporate a style that is based more on massage then true Shiatsu practices. These true practices are based on old theories in Traditional Chinese Medicine. When incorporated, Shiatsu helps the body to heal. The human body battles numerous variables in its challenge to heal and keep the body healthy. Shiatsu simply helps that process to be more efficient using techniques that are not, by any means, "magical" or "hard to believe". The right techniques are very easy to understand, and most importantly, noticeable immediately.

True Shiatsu is not efficiently researched. The variables needed to understand what Shiatsu is doing is simple but asks those studying the practice to look at the body differently then most would. This is ultimately why the minimal amount of research specifically on Shiatsu (There were only 9 studies done in your study your site) is unclear and incomplete.

Plain and simple: More research... BETTER research needs to be conducted. The right individuals need to be studied. The same goes for anything not fully understood.

2603:3023:127:F900:F948:4C25:FE02:33F3 (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Just about every scientific paper says further research is needed. Your edit contains the unsourced implication that shiatsu is beneficial. Please see WP:MEDRS for the kinds of sources needed to support claims of medical efficacy. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 06:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


Hi, Adrian; thanks for being such a kind voice throughout. I think it best to leave this here until an independent party closes the RFC. Someone outside of us has to decide what consensus exists at the RFC. I am not sure if it is possible for @Doc James: to inquire at WP:AN if an admin might make an early close? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy, and sure, no problem. I guess it's better to do things by the book, given there have been complaints already about process.
It's great to see you back, though I was sorry to hear about the circumstances of your return. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 13:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Adrian :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)