User talk:Huntster/Archive 20

= 2010, July =

Strafidlo
Thanks for the back up. I don't know what to do with this editor. I have encouraged, urged and cajoled. I have tried gentle mocking, shaming and threatening to revert. Nothing seems to work. While s/he has started to change an incorrect "they" to "it" sometimes while editing, in other places, s/he has continued to replace "its" by an incorrect "their". The "$45 million dollars" thing is just bizarre. I don't want to start reverting edits, because s/he does seems to want to contribute constructively, but I have run out of ideas on how to stop the repeated introduction of grammatical errors into others' work. Any suggestions? Ground Zero | t 13:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I think I will have to escalate it to AN/I. I just don't seem to be able to get any cooperation from the guy. I don't think I have ever run into a situation like this -- a mostly constructive editor who is completely unwilling to work with me. Usually this sort of person is either a vandal, someone who just wants to use Wikipedia as a platform for his or her own ideas, or someone who appears to be mentally challenged. Stafidlo doesn't seem to fit into any of these categories. Ground Zero | t 11:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

A request
Hi, Huntster. I see you are sysop here and I have a request. Could you check the edits from the accounts Δ and Betacommand? He is removing valid interwikis and replacing for the wrong ones. The binomial name of a specie are the same everywhere and the interwikis should be based on it. He is doing it on other wikis too, which is even worse. We talked to him at his page on pt.wiki but he didn't seem to agreed with what was said. Thanks.-- T ele S ( talk / pt-wiki talk) 06:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi TeleS, friendly talk page stalker here. :) It says on Betacommand's talk page that any problems should be taken up with his mentors: either or . – B.hotep •talk• 08:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:Dance Academy
To reply to your comment, the reference is needed because the ABC1 Advance Guides retrieved from TV Tonight only cover episodes from Mon-Thu for some reason, In saying that all Friday episodes (5,10,15,20,25) need separate references Matt-tastic (talk) 07:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Admin highlighter on Commons
Is now done. Commons:User:SoxBot/adminrights-admins.js ( X! ·  talk )  · @855  · 19:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Masdar City
Sorry, got distracted by other cleanup. It was intended the cover the international agency category. Can I blame it on the well balanced very drinkable wine I'm enjoying? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Poster size
Actually, thank you so much for mentioning the "400 px on largest size" fair use limitation. I know about the 300x300 for album covers (stated at WP:Albums), but for the life of me, I couldn't find the poster fair use limitations (and I did look for it). The fair use rules all seem to be scattered randomly throughout dozens of pages, so I gave up looking. But since you told me, that settles it, and my future uploads will be no larger than this. As for the Forbidden Rose poster, my apologies if I made the situation more confusing than it ought to have been. I thought the easiest answer was to just remove it, which I'd intended to do long ago anyway. –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  15:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

= 2010, August =

Additional spacecraft template ( or templates?)
Hi Huntster. Saw your comment on Talk:CST-100. I agree with you that a new Infobox spacecraft is needed. I'm not sure whether creating "a template specific to human-rated transports, similar to Infobox cargo spacecraft," is the best way to go. Let me see if I can articulate my rationale in a way that makes sense.

I think it is true that there are a number of characteristics of spacecraft that go both to and from space stations that are different than the vast majority of one-time use, launch-and-never-return spacecraft, but I'm not sure that human-rated vs. cargo is the best distinction. Other potential key distinctions include:
 * template-for-a-specific-craft-as-built, that is a particular instance of what may be a class of spacecraft, and template-for-a-class-of-spacecraft. Lots of stuff in the standard Infobox spacecraft template seems oriented to one specific mission, and does not fit a class of spacecraft quite as well, in my opinion.  Or,
 * template-for-a-launch-and-never-return spacecraft (typical) vs. template for "transfer vehicles" (which obviously could be cargo, or crew, or crew-plus-a-little-cargo). Clearly Dragon is an example of a single class of vehicles that can/will do both; there may be others.

The class of spacecraft that I think we need a better/new template for include: CST-100, SpaceX Dragon, Dream Chaser, Orion Lite, Cygnus, the ESA Automated Transfer Vehicle, the Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle, and the Russian Progress spacecraft. Thus, if we decide to create a template for something along the lines of transfer vehicles (not sure that is the best name, but maybe it is; say Infobox transfer spacecraft), then clearly some needed parameters would include, endurance (design point for time on station), crew capable (yes/no), crew capacity (if applicable), size (length, width, height, or diameter, if round), mass, reusable (yes/no, or maybe yes by design but not yet achieved in practice, or ...), pressurized volume, unpressurized volume, launch payload, return payload, carrier rocket, crew necessary yes/no; e.g., is the crew required for docking, as I believe it was in Gemini and Apollo, maybe Soyuz, or not? Even if a transfer spacecraft is crewed, if the crew were incapacitated, could it dock? I suspect that in today's designs nearly all transfer vehicles are automated, so we don't need the automated word in the template; but maybe some designs might need humans, in which case this parm would capture that design criteria). There are others, for example, see the ESA ATV; I don't know how general those are or should be when a template is created.

One other item, in my view, within the class of transfer vehicles that can carry crew or cargo, the key distinction to be made, probably within a single template, is "crew" or no crew, not so-called "human rated". I think "human rated" gets into a bunch of POV issues that are best left out of templates, where it should just be crew yes or no, in the view of the designers or in practice, as supported by sources of course. This could affect how one names the parameters when creating a template so I thought I should put my opinion down in text. Any additional "human-rating", just like a UL seal of approval, is something additional and perhaps need not be included in a template at all, or would be picked up only in flexible yet-to-be-named template parameters on an as-needed basis. N2e (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Huntster -- are you still interested in this topic? I don't know how to do templates, even though I support the concept as best for WP if folks want to create them.  As it stands, the CST-100 article (with the template) is decidedly short of good infobox information relative to the other competitive spacecraft that don't use the inadequate infobox template.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Saw your note on my Talk page.  I have taken your suggestion and added some thoughts to User_talk:Huntster/Sandbox/2 as you suggested.  I will try to monitor that page during your development work on the new template(s).  N2e (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi again Huntster. Did you ever proceed on this project to get a better infobox proposed and then used?  I just looked at your Sandbox and can't find anything.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey Huntster. Interesting discussion at Talk:SpaceX_Dragon.  I think you will want to be aware of it and, perhaps, weigh in on it.  N2e (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply on my page. I will start to monitor—and comment as appropriate—your Sandbox page once again.  It looks like others on the Spaceflight project may help us get a more robust consensus on the new templates.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

DVD Covers used in CSI pages by LB
User Langston Bonasera no longer seems to be acting in good faith at all, since they have replaced all the covers removed, and replaced our notations on their talk page with "stop complaining about my pictures. They also refuse to use citations other than blog pages - even though they have been told repeatedly by me and others this is not correct. I have tried being polite (as you saw) to no avail...I'm not sure there is anything I can do now, so I leave it to you as an admin. Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And they have now changed their name to Rizzoli Isles. Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In case you were not aware, before being warned, LB replaced almost every season in all three CSI series with DVD covers (which they were told were not public domain and then they posted snotty message on their talk page). There has also been a problem with this user placing unconfirmed character names in CSI & CSI:NY repeatedly. Then two IPs were doing it repeatedly and LB (nor new name of Rizolli Isles) have edited in days - I think there may be a sock problem with at least one of the IPs. CSI: NY had to be temp semi protected, and it looks like I will have to request the same for CSI and L&O:SVU. I am not sure how to fix the non free use pics uploaded, so I hesitate to touch them. Just letting you know. Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

compresses edit links?
Sup Huntster,

You undid my edits here and here. I am curous as to the term of Compressed edit links. Currently both articles have a large amount of space which is caused by inserting the images below certain sub-sections. I am sure this is not the way the articles are intended to look. If you have another way of fixing them, then I am open to it. Otherwise I don't see how my edit makes things worse? Please explain? Quaz Gaa  19:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, I found the problem to be visible when using different/old internet browsers.  Thanks for leaving your talk page open for support!  Quaz  Gaa  20:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC).

User 88.210.238.25
I noticed that you restored this user's talk page after the user blanked it a few days ago. I thought you might want to know that he/she has blanked it again twice since then (I restored it both times). I'm letting you know in case that calls for banning from talk page editing in addition to the current ban this user is under. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Bubbling Under
I think you're mistaken in this diff. Taylor Swift discography, a FL, uses 1xx figures for songs that made the Bubbling Under but not the Hot 100 proper. It's a common industry shorthand to use 1xx figures to represent bubbers-under that never made the Hot 100 proper; for instance, if it peaked at #1 on Bubbling Under, most discographies list it as a #101 peak. I know Joel Whitburn uses that format, as does Mike Curb on his official website. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Help
Could you please help remove the article List of Dance Academy characters, the article is of no importance and most of the character descriptions are small, don't make sense and the article provides no references. Matt-tastic (talk) 04:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirected as extraneous. I don't understand why people feel like there must be "List of ... characters" for every show out there. Personally, I see no reason for such articles, period, even for shows like CSI or the like. Just pointless trivia. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, even though I did make a character list for The Shak, however I couldn't fit it into the parent article. Matt-tastic (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Blanik photo
Pity about the permission on the photo of the Blanik glider. Thanks anyway for replying. I have replaced the photo, though if you can get clearer permission that it was taken by someone in the pay of Uncle Sam, it will be re-instated. JMcC (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

IP user vandalising my talk page.....
After we both reverted their speculative writings about Ryan Wolfe ((Your revert - (Undid revision 380663537 by 202.128.18.230 (talk); remove speculative and unreferenced information.) ))

I'll leave it on my page long enough for you to see it, then revert it. I wrote back and did my best to hold my Irish temper. Just letting you know about this...I don't want you to think I expect you to be the playground monitor around here. I'm learning to deal with more on my own, but have trouble since I cannot log in at work. Thanks for all you do, Huntster...you're awesome! Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

User:88.210.238.25
I hope you don't mind me sticking my nose in... I see you extended this user's block for a month because s/he was blanking their own talk page... can you clarify that for me, seeing as WP:OWNTALK says that a user is allowed to do so? I realize the user was blocked for disruption but I'm wondering if just letting the user blank his own talk page in purgatory for a month might not have been the best way to go. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I also noticed this and Auntof6 told me to ask you about it. According to WP:BLANKING, as well as WP:OWNTALK, it seems he is allowed to edit his own page, including blanking it. Is there anything we're missing? Ishdarian&#124; lol wut 08:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up. I really appreciate it. Ishdarian&#124; lol wut 16:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

= 2010, September =

Response requested
I added content with a full and complete reference to the Nashville, TN entry, and you deleted my work. Can you please explain. Thank you. Dougmac7 (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC) dmac7

H2O
Regarding this edit, H2O wikia aside, doesn't the version you reverted from more correctly comply with WikiProject Television/Style guidelines? Luke Mitchell was listed in the opening credits, while Brittany Byrnes wasn't; ie the series producers have determined that Mitchell was main cast while Byrnes wasn't. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem with your edit of my edit
1. Regarding "deceased" status of an astronaut astronaut - I would rather agree with you - the link shouldn't be there, I first detected it on Pavel Belyaev page and decided if it is allowed there it would be appropriate on Gagarin's page too. 2. Your bringing back the insignia size to 30px renders in again almost invisible, so I doubt the practicality of strict adherence to template parameters. (By the way - are you a moderator?) 3. Your accusation of my changing the template is incorrect. In fact I attempted to restore the CORRECT template. If you check my contributions in Lenoir, Gagarin and a number of other entries deceased cosmonauts - you will notice I was correcting the mistake that applies to a large number of entries on deceased cosmonauts and astronauts by reverting the erroneous line date_death it to the original template Infobox:Astronaut standard death_date, since that mistake makes the date of death invisible on the actual page. 4. Your idea of appropriateness is your personal view which has nothing to do with encyclopedic knowledge. The age at which a person dies is a relevant piece of information pertinent to a person's biography, it is used throughout Wikipedia in most other templates, mentioning it has nothing unethical about it. Infobox templates are not written in stone and can be corrected for the purposes of providing more accurate information. Given that, rather than correcting my 'mistakes' as you see them and deleting the age at which an astronaut died I suggest you correct the actual mistake in the template which prevents readers from seeing an astronaut's date of death :).--Alvez3 (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You sound a tad confusing - you 'cannot seem to get your point across', so you erase it? Well, erasing and never communicating a message is a surefire way to prevent it from getting across. So I'll simply say this: I appreciate the advice and I'll be more mindful about the parameters in the future. A little advice on my part - try to be more attentive to what you are correcting. For a rookie making a mistake is nothing, especially if he corrects his mistakes himself right away, for a guy who tends to position himself as something of a mentor it could be a little embarrassing. :).--Alvez3 (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Nashville area?
There is some talk of a Nashville area meetup. Would love to have your participation! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

We Are the Fallen on Evanescence
Hey, I saw the addition of "We Are the Fallen" on the Evanescence infobox and went right to the section you cited during its removal so that I could remove it as soon as it was posted, but I saw the line "Groups which have spun off from this group". I honestly don't recall that being there the last time "We Are the Fallen" was removed. But it's there now, and I'm just a bit confused on how it fails now. Is it just that "We Are the Fallen" is not considered a "spin-off" of Evanescence? All but one band member came from Evanescence, so I would consider it a spin-off and that's why I left it... Do you have any insight? =D Thanks  ~ [ Scott M. Howard  ] ~ [  Talk  ]:[  Contribs  ] ~  17:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox university
Could you change "faculty" and "staff" to "academic staff" and "administrative staff", as requested in the talk page over 3 years ago? I tried to revive the discussion, and either everyone agrees with it, or nobody is interested. Evenfiel (talk) 12:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)