Jump to content

User talk:Huntster/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15


2008, July

Rnd

(X-Posted) Hi Jimp, I can unprotect Rnd and Rnd/+, but I'd be more comfortable just copying code from your sandbox or wherever into the live template. I'm also leaving this to see if you are currently online...if so, then I'll go ahead and unprotect so you can do your thing. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, if you unprotect it now it'll ready for reprotection in five minutes or I could give you the instructions to fix {{rnd}}. P.S. {{rnd/+}} can remain protected (an idea floated across my mind but got rejected). JIMp talk·cont 06:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC) ... probably less than five & I'll get back to you once it's done. JIMp talk·cont 06:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Bah, it is cascade protected, so I couldn't unprotect it if I wanted. Point me to the Rnd and Rnd/+ code and I'll apply manually. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Cascade protection ... yeah, it'll probably remain that way for months ... okay, I'll forget the fancy page-moving I'd had in mind ... here's the new code for {{rnd}}.
{{rnd/e{{#expr:(({{{1}}}round{{{2}}})<0.0001)+(({{{1}}}round{{{2}}})>=1000000)}}|{{{1}}}|{{{2}}}}}
{{rnd/+}} doesn't need editing. JIMp talk·cont 07:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Okay, change applied. Please let me know ASAP if anything looks amiss. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 07:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
There is a problem, easy to fix, though ...
{{rnd/e{{#expr:(abs({{{1}}}round{{{2}}})<0.0001)+(abs({{{1}}}round{{{2}}})>=100000)-({{{1}}}=0)}}|{{{1}}}|{{{2}}}}}
JIMp talk·cont 07:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Update applied. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 07:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems to be fine except for one slight oddity (not something you'll often find) but this is a problem with {{ordomag}} ... seems like some parser function rounding error, I'd spotted it before but I think I might have figured it out ... stay tune, I'll be giving you some new {{ordomag}} code if you've got the inclination to patch up another of my templates. JIMp talk·cont 07:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's the new code for Template:Ordomag (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
{{ordomag/x|{{{1}}}|{{#expr:floor(ln(abs({{{1}}}))/ln10)}}}}
I've just checked: the problem is fixed. JIMp talk·cont 07:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Sorry for the delay, had a call I had to take care of in dispatch. Okay, so problem solved and Ordomag doesn't need updating? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 07:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
No, yes, no, {{ordomag}} does need updating ... I've got to learn to write more clearly: the problem with {{ordomag}} & therefore with {{rnd}} is fixed with the above code ... so perhaps I should have written "will be fixed". JIMp talk·cont 07:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Okay, fix is applied. Anytime you need a protected template fixed, just drop me a line, and it'll be priority one as soon as I see it. I consider Convert that critical and useful ;) And, I got a chuckle from the "no, yes, no..." line, heh. Unless you specifically need them to remain unprotected, I'll go ahead and protect the template sub-pages you created in this effort, even though they are currently protected through the cascade system. That didn't make much sense...I'll go ahead and protect these regardless. As always, very nice work here. I can understand the function of these things once I look at the code, but actually writing them? That's so far beyond me.... — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again ... I was just about to say go ahead and protect the lot (it did make sense). JIMp talk·cont 08:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
By popular request ... it looks like {{rnd}} is up again for a redesign. You know the background. I'm planning to raise the upper limit for regular notation from 100,000 to 1,000,000,000. Last night I was toying with another patch-up of the template ... I've since decided to overhaul it instead. This will take an edit to the main template & changing of protection status of various subpages (some yet to be written). I'll mention it on the talk page when I've got the new version lined up, I'll also drop you a line. JIMp talk·cont 01:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Copy. If you wanted to set up sandbox page that listed all the code I needed to copy, I could to it for you if I'm online. If you have a sorta-kinda timeframe for when that may be, I'll make sure to be around. Also, thank you for working on this change...as mentioned before, I too share the opinion that the number needs to be raise. I have utter confidence, as you are the template king when it comes to this stuff :) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm hoping to get the new version up and running by 8:00 am GMT. I'll give you a message round then as to whether or not I'd managed to get it done. If you hear nothing from me by then, this computer is broken or I've been abducted by aliens so check again by 8:00 pm GMT (I'm sure they've got the Internet on their spaceship). JIMp talk·cont 04:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Understood! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I see a flying saucer on the horizon, looks like it's spilling over with tax forms and the like. This computer is half asleep. I'm going to go for the half-day extension ... hope those aliens are cooking a decent dinner. JIMp talk·cont 08:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Hah, that's just fine :) I'm not sure when I'll be waking up (on break from work right now, so I'm enjoying sleeping in), but just leave a message and I'll attack. UFOs bearing tax forms are one thing...be glad they aren't carrying bobcats and velociraptors.... — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
... bobcats and velociraptors ... you never do know till they beam you up ... have a good sleep-in. JIMp talk·cont 08:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The forms had to be filled out in Martian but the aliens did cook up a decent curry. I think I've got the new code ready ...
{{formatnum:{{rnd/a|{{#expr:({{{1}}})round({{{2}}})}}|{{{2}}}}}}}
... but I haven't tested it yet. I'm currently arm-wrestling a velociraptor ... I haven't seen any bobcats on the ship ... so give me another twelve hours. JIMp talk·cont 19:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The velociraptor has gone to bed and I'm testing the new code. I don't see any problem. Please add it. Once it's added, you'll find that the following subtemplates are no longer transcluded.

Please unprotect them. I'm intending to recycle these subtemplates so as to extend the range of {{rnd}} to negative numbers. I've created a new set of subtemplates to replace the above. They are ready for protection anytime.

Note that all of the new subtemplates above (except {{rnd/c9}}) belong to Category:Subtemplates of Template Rnd. Please add {{rnd/-}} to the category also.

JIMp talk·cont 00:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The overhaul is complete all that's left to do is protecting the new subtemplates. JIMp talk·cont 09:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Jimp, sorry I have been away; Comcast services (everything...internet, TV, phone) has been down in my area of town for more than a day...I'm on my University's wireless for a few minutes to send this and check email. I've got their army of trucks rolling around trying to figure out what happened. Heh, apparently everyone around here has grown to just "accept" Comcast's problems, since I was, by their account, the first to report the problem. Sorry, I'm rambling/venting. In any case, once they fix the problem, I'll immediately take care of the updates, if they haven't been done already. Again, sorry. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 18:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Okay, I think everything is back in order on my end. I see Rnd has been updated by others, however, I'm holding off on protecting the subpages, as there appears to be a significant error generated by something related (as detailed on the Convert talk page). — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

False Information

(X-Posted) Hi, I see you've responded to several comments around Wikipedia regarding Filiquarian Publishing. It appears you may be in some way related to the company, or at least have some kind of conflict of interest regarding the issue. I would strongly suggest that you not edit the actual article for this reason; however, you are welcome to discuss things on the talk page and elsewhere, so long as it is done in a civil manner. If you have any questions, please leave a message on my talk page. Cheers. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

People are posting false information about filiquarian publishing without stating references. Whenever I have added or fixed things I have always added a reference. Doug Weller and moonraker are going are saying that books by Filiqurian Publishing do not include the gfdl license and are not following the rules, while their own reference to pete forsythes page states that ALL the rules are being followed. I am not with filiqurian publishing, but I support what they do. As someone who has contributed to wikipedia (under a username and not anonymously) I disagree with PediaPress's attempt at getting away with not including the gfdl license in pdf examples of what their books will look like. Filiqurian has followed these rules. I feel like an exception is being made for PediaPress while Filiqurians being attacked when they actually ARE following the rules.
One of the articles I have contributed a great deal to is the solar system article, while PediaPress has distributerd without links to providing credit or the gfdl license. It even includes pictures that don't include the proper licenses. Give me a break. One of those pictures was even one that was created by the lab I scientific study lab that I work for. No credit at all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.71.194 (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Sorry that it's taken so long to respond, I'm a bit occupied with work.
Well, I've not read every single bit posted around regarding this issue, but from what I have seen, it is acknowledged that Filiquarian is publishing under GFDL. The issue I saw raised is that Wikipedia is never attributed as the original source of materials...this copy of one of the books doesn't mention Wikipedia in any of the pages. There is apparently some question as to whether or not Wikipedia must be acknowledged as the source (not author, since the site itself doesn't author anything...just collates the GFDL work of other authors (us editors)), or even if a link to the site and article is required under the license. I'm not a lawyer, so I'll not make much of that point, but my own interpretation of the GFDL license makes be believe that some acknowledgement of the material source must be provided, though I see nothing that says individual editors must be stated. Relating to this, I read elsewhere that in a discussion with the owner of Filiquarian, the owner says that his company's lawyers advised that acknowledging, and thus using the term, "Wikipedia", would be a trademark infringement. This is simply wrong, and makes it sound like more of an excuse than an actual reason, but that's neither here nor there.
Regarding the PediaPress issue, this example of one of the books clearly has a copy of the GFDL license included, and on the bottom of every page indicates that Wikipedia is the source. I do find the unattributed use of images questionable, but the arguments in the "some question" link above could be used to apply to any GFDL images as well. Most of the others are NASA public domain images, so the only ones that would have to be excised or attributed are the Creative Commons ones, like the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram (thus, since it isn't attributed, it should not be included).
I too support the idea of what Filiquarian is doing. After all, we all agree to GFDL when we edit the site. However, I strongly disagree with the prices they are charging for basically no work on their part and the lack of attribution to source, which is a matter of common decency if not a legal issue. To wrap up, both "publications" could be argued as following the letter of GFDL regarding text...Pediapress just has issues with their use of some CC images. Some strong words have been exchanged on both sides of this issue, and both sides probably need to take a step back and take a deep breath. I'm curious, which image you are talking about above? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
If he's really been treated badly by PediaPress I feel sorry for him for that happening to him, but not for the way he has been abusing me and Moonraker. After I realised he probably wouldn't be back for a number of hours, I reported what he was posting to ANI, resulting in a one week block. Meanwhile, if there is anything either of us can do to sort any of this out, let me know. (I also have no idea of whether there is a difference in the way Filiquarian and Biographiq handle the GDFL, I'm unclear about the difference between the two, but am not happy to assume that everything they did is identical without some evidence). Doug Weller (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: see more on this issue at User talk:75.73.71.194#Filiquarian Publishing.

xkcd vandalism

Well at least I managed to amuse myself, I thought it was quite ironic. Anyway I consider the edit to be partially constructive, I mean referring to it as "changed" as if in some way it is different to regular vandalism is just hypocrisy. Plus I added the link to the wood article and a full stop. Yes linking vandalism to win and comic to fail was vandalism but in my eyes that's 60% constructive. If I change them back will you still consider it vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RohypnolFTW (talk • contribs) 07:27, 7 July 2008

(X-Posted) If you change them back to "win" and "fail"? Yeah, that'd be vandalism. If you mean change the other good stuff back, no, that's fine, actually. Also, I thought it was funny too, and I am one of xkcd's loyal readers. But I'm an admin here, too, so I gotta try and preserve the sanity of the article ;) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 12:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK crediting

I noticed you fixed the new DYK, but I haven't been credited for the Indy Fire Department, which was mine. Could you do the honors? Thanks.--Bedford Pray 23:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: take care of.

SG grammar question

Sorry, I was asleep during this English class: Is it "SG-1 encounter someone" or "SG-1 encounters someone"? Is it "The SG-1 team encounter someone" or "The SG-1 team encounters someone"? (It's also possible that the British do this differently, but I just need to know the American grammar version.) Thanks in advance. – sgeureka t•c 10:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Hey there. The first one is "SG-1 encounters someone", because in this instance, SG-1 is treated as a single entity. The second one is "the SG-1 team encounters someone", for the same reason. If the wording was "the team members of SG-1...", then it would be the singular 'encounter', because the people on the team are being referred to individually, or at least, it can be thought of that way (actual grammar rules elude me at the moment). Cheers! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

(X-Posted) Hey there, thanks for noticing the link on xkcd was no longer working. However, I've reverted your change and replaced the link with a general page which includes the article. In the future, please do not use Google cache pages on Wikipedia, as they do not last but for a week or so before expiring. Even if a link no long works, the link should remain (if it cannot be fixed) since it may be possible in the future to find it on an archive site like archive.org or webcitation.org. Cheers! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 19:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for warning me about using google cache. I guess I was still living back in the days when google archived everything forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meviin (talk • contribs) 02:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Amy Lee.

(X-Posted) Hi GothGrrrl, welcome to Wikipedia. I've reverted your changes to Amy Lee, because the site you referenced was just a random person's blog, and does not count as a valid source (since it is not fact-checked, for one). Further, the area of the page where you found "mezzo-soprano" was a fairly old copy of the Wikipedia article that the blog-owner copied to his webpage. Anyhow, I just wanted to explain why I reverted. Cheers! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifing that for me. I do have a reference obtaining her voice range, but I don't know if its enough. I'll post it on the page, and see if it is or not. Thanks very much.GothGrrrl (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)GothGrrrl
(X-Posted) Hey there, unfortunately, I've again removed Mezzo-soprano from the article. Wikipedia doesn't accept blogs and other wiki (such as the site you referenced) as sources, because they, like Wikipedia, are written by non-experts...just normal folk like you and me. I'd suggest you check out Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability for notes on what sources are acceptable and what aren't (particularly WP:SOURCES). If you have any questions, just leave a note on my talk page. Cheers! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh ok. I knew it wasn't a relible source, I'll find some others later on. Thanks again :} GothGrrrl (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)GothGrrl
(X-Posted) GothGrrrl, it is again reverted, as IMDB is also written by individuals. It is sort of like Wikipedia, except that submissions are moderated by people to make sure "trash" doesn't get in. As far as I'm aware, no fact-checking goes on. May I suggest, look for information in news articles, journals, similar type places (material written by respectable authors who fact-check their material). Instead of just submitting it, perhaps leave a message on my talk page with a link, and I'll let you know whether it is a reasonable source. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I knew it, lol. Next time I find a source, I will send it to you.GothGrrrl (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)GothGrrl

Hunt! Need Help

Is there a place where one can see all the "red links", so i could create an article if i know enough about it?

Also, none of the links you put up about your user page having been vandalized is working.

Thanks in advance.

Lucifer (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: Lets get around to a game of Risk sometime :D

(X-Posted) Hey there! Regarding the red links, I would suggest Wikipedia:Most wanted articles (though remember to check that the article name doesn't exist under some other variation...that is just a list of non-existant pages that a large number of articles link to), Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery (which is primarily dedicated to alternative methods of fixing red links, such as adding and removing diacritical marks, changing to a proper name, etc, but which does work toward creating articles to fill gaps, Category:Red list (which are editor-compiled lists of red-links), and Wikipedia:Requested articles (which is where people actually request new articles be created).
Also, yes, the userspace links on my page no longer function, because I deleted all the previous versions of my page since it used to contain some personally-identifiable information. And Risk does sound fun, though I've recently gotten into EVE Online, and if I'm not here, I'm normally there, lol. Cheers! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Themis Music

Hi Huntster
on 23:23, 16 July 2008 you Nominated for deletion Themis music. I have rewritten the article and ask if you would read it through and offer any help you might have. Would you reconsider? Thanks Mobrien9279 (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: this regards User talk:Mobrien9279#AfD nomination of Themis music.

2008, August

Pulitzer Center Blog

I didn't know it was a blog, but it seemed like there was a lot editorializing in the piece. I didn't think it was usable as a source, but didn't realize it was a blog. As hard as I try, I can't find any NPOV source for this "FOX Censorship" stuff. Thanks for clarifying that. Jason3777 (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) No problem. The total lack of NPOV sources is precisely why I nommed for AfD. I'm actually rather surprised that not a single convincing argument has been made for keeping the article...it is all claims of Fox's freedom of speech suppression and similar nonsense. Oi. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Consider this me vandalizing your talk page. Poo.

Anyhoo, I haven't heard from you in ages, mein Vetter. I think I'm going to be in Tennessee over labor day weekend. We must conspire.nf utvol (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Hey hey, yeah, haven't talked to you in a while...gimme a call sometime. Uh, I reverted your revert on TWRA. The reason is that the category that was added ("State law enforcement agencies of Tennessee") is a child (subcategory) of "Government of Tennessee", so there is no reason to have them both in there. Basically, parent categories aren't really useful for inclusion when child categories are presents...it's replication of effort. Make sense? Cause I'm tired and can't tell. blah. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha. Is that your sockpuppet or bot?nf utvol (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
(X-Posted) What, the user who originally changed out the categories? No, that's some other random person. I don't have any other accounts, or any bots. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that in one of your recent edits to Evanescence, you had removed the archive link to the Interview with DC101 radio on February 24, 2003 MP3 file which is referenced in the article. I just wanted to note that I had added the archive link when I ran the Checklinks tool (here) as the original link returned an HTTP 404 error at the time. I had no idea that the webmaster at evanescencereference.info would have this fixed the very next day. --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 23:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Yeah, I figured it was something like that. I will be performing a hard archive of all links with webcitation.org, so hopefully we won't experience any permanently lost links in the future. I hadn't used Checklinks in quite some time, and I don't remember it having its current level of functionality...definitely useful. Cheers! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Just wondering, did you ever manage to get photographs of the L-Per? OC hasn't been around much and I don't know if he's gotten any pictures. If you don't have any, then don't worry about it. If you do have them, though, that would be rather excellent. —  scetoaux (T|C) 06:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) No, I've not been home again to fetch an image, but I've not forgotten about it. To be honest, I really don't know when I'll be going back, but given how long it's been, hopefully sooner rather than later. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
OK. In that case, don't worry about it. I'll find a way to take them myself the next time I get to be around one. Thanks, though. :) —  scetoaux (T|C) 06:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I was wondering if you would kindly deal with my request here. Thanks, rst20xx (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - rst20xx (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: resolved.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Huntster/Archive_11&oldid=950928546"