User talk:Huntster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
1 2 3 4 5
High level of vandalism. 6.80 RPM according to APersonBot 18:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


Then if you're going to revert me then please do me a favor and fix up that poorly written sentence. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 17:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@DannyMusicEditor: It wasn't intended as a slight against you, simply making sure that the wording clearly reflects what is in the citation. I have looked at that wording, and while certainly not ideal, I'm unsure of how it can be written better while preserving its form. It may come down to removing the quote altogether and just using own words. Huntster (t @ c) 21:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

UK vs US English[edit]

Maybe I should tell you about this on the bottom? I don't know if you care, but I don't want to be hiding anything. Sammy D III (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sammy D III:, thanks for the heads up. I don't know what I can add to that conversation, as my views on ENGVAR are extremely unpopular, lol. Huntster (t @ c) 21:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Confused by Rv reason (out of curiousity; I wasn't involved in the edit)[edit]

Hi~ I was looking at recent edits and happened to notice Special:Diff/731804171. I'm confused by the revert reason in the edit summary because I thought the added link was mostly okay according to Wikipedia:Further_reading#Relation_to_reference_sections and Wikipedia:General_references#General_references. I thought maybe that editor or someone would have fixed the formatting/placement/use eventually? (By the way, I'm not the one who made the edits and I'm not suggesting anything should/shouldn't be done. I just felt confused and am asking out of curiosity since I'm not very experienced in editing.) Sorry if I misunderstood or asked a silly question. Zeniff (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@ZeniffMartineau:, thanks for the message! And no, there are no silly questions, only silly answers (I excel at those). The reason I reverted was that long experience told me it was a case of drive-by linking. It certainly wasn't vandalism or anything like that; it was a good faith edit that was simply lazy for not providing any content. While citations of that manner are not prohibited, there needs to be some use of that citation in the body of the article. Otherwise, why is it there? For that matter, even if there had been prose written in the article, it needs to be linked in some way to the citation so that it is verifiable (using {{sfn}} or similar). Huntster (t @ c) 21:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Silly answers are better than no answers and I think are often more interesting! :) I see! I certainly need to gain a lot more experience, as I haven't enough yet to decide those cases myself. Thank you very much for the good explanation and template link! I'll put it to good use! :) Zeniff (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
ZeniffMartineau, any questions you have about editing or technical things here, please don't hesitate to ask. I enjoy helping any way I can. Huntster (t @ c) 05:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I certainly get confused about the editing/technical stuff often enough.. I'll keep in mind to ask you:) Zeniff (talk) 07:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Book ref problems for Evanescence[edit]

I've been trying to get this ref to work on Fallen and their discography page, but I just can't seem to figure out how to properly format it. If you go to Fallen, you'll notice that ref number 4 (or something close) says "Moore 2004", and the rest of the details are in the source code at the bottom of the page. The title and other details just don't show up. It's a Google book, which I know are allowed when there are previews of it. But why isn't it showing up? dannymusiceditor Speak up! 20:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

DannyMusicEditor: I see it in Fallen but not the discog page. The problem is that the Moore reference isn't an actual citation, but a shortened footnote using {{Harvnb}} (which should really be {{sfn}}) that relies on a separate citation at the bottom of the page. I see you added Moore with this edit, so what book were you referring to, and what made you not add the actual citation to the article? Huntster (t @ c) 01:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I looked at an article that used books for sources (Life Is Peachy, to be exact) and I tried to format it like that. I was going to use it in the discog page when I figured it out. It's titled Omnibus Press Presents the Story of Evanescence by Simon Moore. Maybe I put even less in there than I thought. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 01:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

DannyMusicEditor, okay, I see the problem now. Let me ask this: are you using this book for more than just that one reference? If not, this extra material is completely extraneous and you can just put the citation in the prose like all the others. Huntster (t @ c) 02:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
That's a great solution. But I'd still like to know in case I come up with a time when I would need to use it more than once. In fact, it's possible I'd use multiple pages for their discography. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 17:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
DannyMusicEditor, you had the right idea with putting the ref at the bottom of the page, but it cannot be inside the "reflist" template. Look at University of Tennessee Anthropological Research Facility, which is my archetype for that system. I made that years ago, lol. Take a look and let me know if you have any questions. Huntster (t @ c) 17:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)