User talk:Huntster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
1 2 3 4 5
Low to moderate level of vandalism. 2.73 RPM according to EnterpriseyBot 06:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/HR 8799 Orbiting Exoplanets[edit]

HR 8799 Orbiting Exoplanets.gif
An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Your image, File:HR 8799 Orbiting Exoplanets.gif, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 21:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Disagreement about[edit]

Blabbermouth said that Teamrock got it. Teamrock called it an exclusive interview. How does this mean that AOL Build was the first of them? dannymusiceditor Speak up! 13:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

DannyMusicEditor, look at the publication dates? That's all we can actually rely on. Mind you, "Exclusive" can mean anything the publisher wants it to, such as they 'exclusively' got this particular detail. Mind you, the Teamrock details are quite a bit more in-depth than AOL's interview. I don't see it as a conflict. Huntster (t @ c) 13:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Article for page protection request[edit]

Hello, I want to make a request an article for protection. Could to protect the article titled "Paul Wesley" until July 1, 2017. Just like you protected the other article titled "Phoebe Tonkin" is protected until July 1, 2017. The "Paul Wesley" article has a high level IP edits or removing citation sources just like the same thing on the other article titled "Phoebe Tonkin" because it has a high level of IPs removing citation sources. And I know I watch some articles by removing vandalism myself and I was very frustrated on multiple IPs making bad edits. This is a urgent message, go to the article titled "Paul Wesley" and protect the article until July 1, 2017 and we don't want an another IP making a bad editing. I will look forward on your reply ASAP. Thanks. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Very good point. Done. Huntster (t @ c) 06:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting both articles. Well then, have a good one and see you soon. Bye. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Apollo missions[edit]

(Just a small thing[1]:) I considered linking only e.g. the Apollo 8 category to the missions sufficient, because the missions category is inherited that way. Of course, a nice lineup is helpful, that's why I kept the most prominent missions in the program page, although that was actually inconsistent. --Mopskatze (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Mopskatze, it's pretty typical to link both the article and category in series like that. It's just a nice, clean method of categorising. Huntster (t @ c) 00:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
With many pages also listed in the top of the category tree, finding the articles that are not covered by subcategories becomes rather difficult. (E.g. when a reader likes to systematically explore the articles in a certain area of interest.) --Mopskatze (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Mopskatze, I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to. Category:Apollo program missions? That's a pretty small category, and listing both subcats and the articles should make reader browsing easier, not more difficult (i.e., I'd find it more frustrating if I were browsing a category and pages were missing in the sequence). Huntster (t @ c) 01:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


Thanks for your improvements. GentleDjinn (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)