User talk:Huntster/Archive 29

JSTOR Survey (and an update)
Hi! Just a quick update that while JSTOR and The Wikipedia Library discuss expanding the partnership, they've gone ahead and extended the pilot access again, until May 31st. Thanks, JSTOR!

It would be really helpful for growing the program if you would fill out this short survey about your usage and experience with JSTOR:

SURVEY

Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Murphy Center
I created the gallery on the Murphy Center page to park that old photo for a day so it wouldn't be orphaned. I am planning to go to Murfreesboro tomorrow or Sunday to take exterior photos of the building and significantly expand the gallery. Is there a better way to do that? --Zpb52 (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * , "orphaning" images isn't a problem, really. They are all collected together in the Commons category at Commons:Category:Murphy Center. It's great that you're planning on taking some photos...a clean shot of the interior without crowds and a "beauty shot" of the exterior are really needed. I actually work on campus and was planning the same thing eventually, but don't own a good camera at the moment. Just remember that TSSAA Girls session runs through Saturday (busy! And Boys session starts on the 12th) and I don't know that the building will necessarily be open on Sunday. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * , Good to know. I may not make it inside the arena, but if I can get a good exterior shot, I will. --Zpb52 (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * , sounds great. Once I get a new camera, I'm going to try to get a shot from atop the stadium's skybox, lol. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * , I went by Murphy Center right around dusk today and got some good exterior shots with my iPhone camera and placed them on the page. Let me know what you think. --Zpb52 (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * , nicely done. I've added a number of categories to the pics. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

(very brief) Review request
Hey Huntster, I have a video review request that was just added to SpaceX reusable launch system development program by IP ‎66.27.48.94. WOuld you take a look at it. With the low quality of that vid, and no real context for the crappy quality, I'm questioning if that is an okay Ext link for a GA article. I can go either way; but wondered... Thanks. N2e (talk) 05:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * honestly, I'm usually a very hardcore anti-miscellaneous-external-link person. I would actually like to see the list trimmed down considerably, as such a list of test flights can grow tremendously if allowed (think what it would be like if every test flight for Morpheus was in its article EL section). For the time being, however, and until a pared down list can be determined, I have no negative feelings toward that video staying...it is a pretty momentous occasion, certainly moreso than a "standard" Grasshopper flight. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Works for me. I had wondered, but wanted a second opinion.  Fine with me if it stays.  Thanks for taking the time to take a look at it.  N2e (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * , never a problem. I had seen that IP's edit earlier and thought about the situation then as well, so I was well prepared to respond when you wrote, lol. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Date format
Hi Huntster. I see you went to a lot of trouble with the date format here. Is that a personal preference or is this actually the WP recommended format, especially as we are talking about details that are not visible to the reader? Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * the MOS only states that there should be a standard date format in an article, rather than a mishmash of different formats. I chose MDY format simply because it was predominate in the article, rather than any other factor. Also, those accessdates are part of the citations and are visible to readers. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Huntster. I agree with not having a mishmash of whatever sort. By "not visible", I meant on the first plan. You can see them only once you hover and you see one at a time, which - visually - does not have the same impact as far as lack of consistency goes. Seems like a thankless job, but for now you have my thanks for the dedication and I've learnt something on MOS. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 12:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you can help
I've 'damaged' something in the Portuguese WP, asked for help from colleagues, but on-one has come forward yet. I wanted to change unsuitable wording "Áreas remotas sob soberania de países europeus" (there is nothing "remote" about some of these EU territories) here. Somehow the changes have not taken effect, as you can see both the new and old wording are showing, as page title and in the page, and here it has lost its formatting - see bottom of page, should be one of the expandable boxes. Do you think you would be able to help? It would be highly appreciated. Regards, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The issue was with this edit. The "#REDIRECIONAMENTO" must be present when you redirect one article/template/etc to a new name, so that previous instances of its use continue to work. I've also restored your previous edit to pt:Predefinição:Territórios especiais membros da União Europeia, as that's also necessary after changing the title. Everything should be fixed now. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Huntster. It is all working now! Wonderful. Much appreciated. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem Rui, any time. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

MACH-ing Me
I feel that reverting my x-15 contribution, based on the reason given is trivial. I agree that the Mach measurement is subject to altitude and density. But, NASA and the US military who contracted the X-15 specified that the aircraft had to achieve a MACH 5 minimum, not a MPH minimum. So, the use of the MACH designation is appropriate and relevent, altitude/density variables, notwithstanding

Also, it is correct to state that a record is "still" in effect.

-Peter


 * , nice section title, I grinned, though my intention was not to mock. Regarding "still", while it is not improper English, it is redundant in this context, and the goal of any article is to avoid redundant language. By this, I mean that if it holds the record "as of 2014", then of course it "still" holds the record, but Wikipedia favours "as of" statements since this version of the article may be read a decade from now. Providing date-stamped statements is the best way to present potentially dated information.
 * Regarding the Mach number, it simply isn't appropriate for the lead. Mach numbers may be used in a technical sense to express velocity in a very specific flight profile, but it is meaningless to the average reader. The lead should present an overview of the article, not such specific details. That information already exists elsewhere in the article, which is its appropriate place.
 * Also, when using a talk page, instead of manually signing your post (as you did with "-Peter"), simply type out four tildes ( ~ ) and it will automatically sign and date your post. Cheers! — Huntster (t @ c) 02:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Huntster

Thanks for the pointer. On the last point, some editors on topics of high performance aviation and aerospace might disagree with your take on the use and relevance of MACH terminology...much the same way astronomers use of AU's and Parsec's, even though these terms are "meaningless" to most readers.

The MACH 5 realm delineates the fuzzy borderline between supersonic and hypersonic flight; the latter being where the slipstream begins to ionize and other weird things happen, which is specifically relevant to the discovery mission of the X-15 program.

HamiltonFromAbove (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, I don't disagree with the importance of that delineation, just that the specific mention of Mach in the record doesn't really have a place in the lead, since it is supposed to be a brief summary. That said, some mention of program goals in the article, such as the intent to explore aerodynamic properties above Mach 5, would be great if a detailed source can be located. I found http://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-052-DFRC.html, which mentions the Mach 5 goal, but is rather short on other goals. I'll see if I can work that into the article somehow. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Re. /* Privileges */ added note re. optical comms
Hi, I see you've deleted my addition.

There are ongoing discussions about having optical comms added to the amateur radio exam, in fact there was an article posted as recently as January 2014 suggesting that laser and light safety be added to "future proof" things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.16.70.20 (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure, I understand that, but I could not find any articles discussing it. If you can provide a citation or two, I can work your addition back into the article. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Wicca "tense"
Greetings.

I understand your change here, but I used "intended" to refer to the spells, not the Wiccans. I think "intended" flows / conveys meaning better, but am not going to make a fuss about it; I mention it mostly so you don't think I'm some semi-literate, although I wouldn't object if you put it back to my phrasing, either {grin}

Best regards

* Septegram * Talk * Contributions * 14:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * , okay, I see what you were getting at. It was the grammar that concerned me, since "intended" didn't quite work grammatically the way it was. I've shuffled things around and restored "intended". I think it flows much better now. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It still feels a little awkward, but I can't figure out anything I could do that would improve it, so I'm going to leave it alone. Thanks for the collegiality: have a


 * , I agree, but as you say, I can't think of a better way at the moment. But hey, that's why this is a wiki! Take care, and thank you :) — Huntster (t @ c) 23:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

USCGC Southwind
Thank you for your contributions and interest in preserving the history of the U.S. Coast Guard. I noticed you signed Semper Vigilans at Southwind talk page. Were you in USASA ? If so we have something in common. Bravo Zulu and Semper ParatusTjlynnjr (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC).


 * , oh, nothing as interesting as that. U.S. Air Force Auxiliary (Civil Air Patrol), back when it actually meant something. It's such a shadow of its former self these days. And while I love aircraft of all types, naval vessels hold a special place in my heart. I'm always looking out for more and better images of these icebreakers...some are terribly underrepresented here. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Skyhook - again
Just a note to let you know that the IP editor is back at Skyhook (structure) pasting the same biased (spamy) and incorrect information. Space tethers made with carbon nanotubes are simply not available, yet he keeps writing it is. He even wrote in the edit summary "added POV statements", so he aware of it, and is defiant. Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I've added the article to my watchlist again, will try to keep things from going wonky, but I'm reluctant to interfere in the actual article as I know next to nothing about this particular subject, especially with regard to the viability of the tech. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I took it out of mine. I am burned out by fanatical single-purpose users. Thank you for the help anyway. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * , yeah, I understand. This fanatical devotion and didn't-hear-that behaviour is troublesome. If no clue is forthcoming, I'll have to reevaluate options. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, you had the right idea. Screw all that and the editors who defend such single purpose BS. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

edit war at Bring Me to Life
By convention and guidelines (WP:NSONG and WP:SONGCOVER), all notable covers of an individual song are covered in one joint article. They are not split into multiple articles by recording artist. In the event that someone made a separate article about the Katherine Jenkins version, it would get immediately merged into the Evanescence version anyway. Please stop removing this section: it would appear that ShaneFilaner is simply trying to follow Wikipedia guidelines about where to place the material.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * With infobox and additional category(s) for that cover? That makes no sense. I've no problem with information about the cover being here, and I admit I shouldn't have wholesale reverted (my patience is wearing thin, lately). But I do feel this is a strong undue weight situation. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the norm. Take a look at Last Christmas, or Blue (Bill Mack song), or Train Kept A-Rollin', and on and on. If the cover is notable enough that it would normally qualify for its own article, the section typically gets a separate infobox.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow, no words to describe how insane that is, at least in my view. So be it. Now I feel like unwatching all music articles, if this is the state of affairs. Thanks for the words regardless, Kww, and know I have a lot of respect for you. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Help with Image License if possible.
Hello - seems I may need some help applying the correct license, if any at all apply of course, to an image (File:IllustrisSimulation-Box.png) I uploaded recently to Commons re my newly created Illustris project article - the image and some permissions seems noted at => http://www.illustris-project.org/media/ - Thanking you in advance for your help with this - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 04:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , so I'm not sure where you got the CC-0 license from, because there is no license release on that website. "Public release" is not the same as "public domain", and does not mean it is free from copyright. Unfortunately, this means that the image is copyrighted and cannot exist on Commons. You should tag the image with or something similar. ~
 * @ - Thank you for your help with the unintentionally mislabeled image - yes, I *entirely* agree - and have rm relevant image code from the article - and, as well, have attached as suggested - thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , yeah, I hate that it couldn't be kept. Just remember in the future that licenses must explicitly be stated at the source, and cannot be inferred from the wording, unless you know beyond a doubt otherwise (such as known NASA-produced images on Flickr stating All Rights Reserved or non-commercial). — Huntster (t @ c) 10:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Please fill out your JSTOR email
As one of the original 100 JSTOR account recipients, please fill out the very short email form you received just recently in order to renew your access. Even though you signed up before with WMF, we need you to sign up again with The Wikipedia Library for privacy reasons and because your prior access expired on July 15th. We do not have your email addresses now; we just used the Special:EmailUser feature, so if you didn't receive an email just contact me directly at jorlowitz@undefinedgmail.com. Thanks, and we're working as quickly as possible to get you your new access! Jake (Ocaasi) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Image for Comet Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Hello, you reverted my use of a European Space Agency image of Comet Churyumov-Gerasimenko back to the original free telescopic image, arguing that "when a freely licensed image is available, it should be used in place of non-free images, even if the non-free image is technically better". But this is not merely a question of technical improvement. The ESA image's non-free use rationale states that it is being used "to illustrate the surface features of the comet". The free image does not illustrate the surface features at all - it shows merely a speck of light. Hence, it seems to me that the ESA image can be used because its subject matter is entirely invisible in the free image. Am I wrong about this? It would be wonderful to use the ESA image and the rationale makes sense to me, but I have no wish to simply get reverted again! Arsia Mons (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * , I would suggest bringing this up on the article's talk page, see if there is any consensus toward using the non-free image. I interpret the non-free rules as meaning that when a freely licensed image of a subject is available, then regardless of the superiority of any non-free alternative, the free image must be used. We are, after all, a project that strives to provide freely licensed material to readers. Prettifying the articles should be an entirely secondary objective. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, will do. Arsia Mons (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * , the talk page proposal looks great. I only wish all editors were as collegiate and easy to work with as you. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)