User talk:Huntster/Archive 32

Murder of Kylie Maybury
Can you do me a favour and give Murder of Kylie Maybury a once-over and expansion/clean-up? Paul Austin (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * , I did a little bit of tidying in the article, but biographies are not my strong point. I did notice that the quote "looking a bit lost" is not contained in the associated citation, and does not seem to exist in any online reliable source. You need to replace that with something citable, since it is supposed to be a direct quote, and mention who (even if in a general sense) said it. For example, and "looking a bit lost", according to a passing motorist. Cheers! — Huntster (t @ c) 16:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , I'll find the quote. By the way i originally wrote that Kylie was using a toy handbag but someone removed the "toy" phrase. Should that be put back as "handbag" by itself is usually the type used by adult women and toy handbags like Kylie's have Barbie or other licenced themes - Kylie's toy handbag had a Strawberry Shortcake theme. Paul Austin (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , If there is a source for "toy handbag", "child's handbag", or something similar that would be useful. I agree it would add a bit of context. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * , User: ‎Stefan2 disagrees with me adding the front page of the city newspaper from the time of Kylie's rape-murder. What should I do? Paul Austin (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * In this situation, I agree with Stefan. You already have one non-free image in the article, and fair use policy demands that non-free image use be kept to the absolute minimum. The newspaper image is additionally redundant since the text is mostly too small to make out and the image is the same as the one already in the article. I cannot see any possible justification for including it. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * , OK, I understand. Could you delete the newspaper front page files? I'm sorry, I only wanted to do Kylie Maybury justice. She hasn't been helped by the bizarre things her relatives have gotten up to in the years since. Paul Austin (talk) 15:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * done. And I understand your motivation, but we have to be careful when it comes to things such as copyright law. Wikipedia is overly strict in that regard to minimise the chance of running afoul. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

IC 1101
Well that didn't seem to help as much as I would have hoped.... Now I've set up an editnotice on the page, so hopefully that will finally dissuade people from changing the size or mentioning it as the largest known galaxy. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * , lol, yeah, that amused me. What would help the situation is for the experts to get back to me on the talk page and give me a figure I can plug in with a solid citation. Other than that, I'm afraid it's an uphill battle, as the whole 5.5-6 Mly thing has abruptly resurged in popular media lately. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I did put in that the 5.5- 6 Mly figure was a wrong figure on the IC1101 page.--I am. furhan. (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC) i am. furhan.

Selfie vs Self-Portraits
Hello.

I'd like to ask you to reconsider your edit on Curiosity (rover).

These are not the same thing. And "selfie" is not inherently wrong, worse, or just a slang expression.

"Selfies" are a cultural phenomenon driven by technological changes which merit separate treatment from the much older tradition of self-portraits. (A quote from the self talk page, specifically the discussion on merging the two concepts)

I would argue that Curiosity took a selfie rather than performed a self-portrait, even a Self-portrait - do note that all examples in the linked section are from 1919 or earlier; while "selfie" is the contemporary term.

Linking selfie has the added benefit of being more specific: "self-portraits" cover many more reproduction techniques than the photographic one. Also, even if "selfie" is redirected to Self-portrait sometime in the future, the link will still be more relevant than a basic Self-portrait link.

Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It is slang, regardless of its acceptance into a modern dictionary. Yes, contemporary, but I honestly don't feel it is very encyclopedic in its general usage. I'm not sure of what relevance it is that the examples in the photo-portrait are from 1919 or earlier...modern examples could easily be added. Mars rovers have been taking self-portraits since well before the term "selfie" came into existence. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you see it that way. Selfie is accepted by Wikipedia with its own page, so the "it's slang" argument feels more like a personal judgement call. I repeat that I feel that a link to Selfie would be more useful and appropriate in this context now that this term exist than the outmoded and less specific information a reader would get from Self-portrait. And so I ask you to reconsider. Thanks, CapnZapp (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW - I *entirely* agree with the comments posted above by User:Huntster - the "self-portrait" term seems more encyclopedic and preferable; the "selfie" term is slang (see also => The Source; Internet Slang; Online Slang; Urban Dictionary) - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Cosmology - task
I decided to drop you a message to make sure you check out the first task of the cosmology project: Help improve the Universe. Please feel free to remove this message after you read it :) Tetra quark (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , thanks for the note :) — Huntster (t @ c) 03:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Question re. Jonesborough Tn photographs
Hunster, Thanks. I would like to know how to change some of the data associated photos I've uploaded. For example, for the Johnson/Range House the gps coordinates associated with the photograph are in Pawnee, Oklahoma. Now, this is obviously my fault, as I was obviously not attentive enough when I was doing the uploads (I also DID upload some photos from Pawnee, Oklahoma, so there must be an autofill I did not pay attention to). I can also work on the categoriesSteven C. Price 16:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven C. Price (talk • contribs)

Pursuit of Happiness
Thank you for cleaning up my edit of this article. Coke is left out of many discussions of History and Law, but he is a rich source. I think a link to dower is called for, I am going to try to effectuate it. 15:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Eschoir (talk)


 * , while I appreciate your edits in this matter, the additional quotations added begin to take away from the intended purpose of having Coke's quotation, which is its remarkable similarity to the Declaration's phrase. I think a brief explanation is useful to define why the dower was considered such an important, if not fundamental, guarantee in the eyes of the law, but no more than that. I've rewritten the quotations in my own words, and would appreciate if you'd double-check how I've condensed this. Also, in the original Coke quotation, there is no "and" before Dower. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Double checking, as was your charge, one discovers an errant quote in the source relied upon. Whitehead, whom I used solely for a sourced explanation of dower under English common law, apparently gets the quote wrong, as he adds the "and" to the passage. [I did a google search of "Edward Coke" and "Life, liberty, dower" and came up with but five sources, one of which is this article, and none of the others is qualified as a source for this usage, being internet archives; whereas, a search of "Life, liberty and dower" turns up many sources.] Insofar as the reason for the inclusion of Coke's words is for its consonance with the phrase upon which this article is based, I would defer to your judgment on what the proper quote is.


 * Writing as a lawyer, I do think you overlooked that the purpose of Whitehead's book was an explanation of Illinois law, and in the passage used he illustrates the difference between common law and statutory law, by explaining that "Dower in this state is a common law, and not a statutory [e.g. created by the state legislature] right" indicating that the Illinois General Assembly, though not creating or conferring common law dower, passed legislation extending dower beyond that which obtained in Coke's and Locke's and Jefferson's time, namely that reciprocity was added, meaning that husbands/widowers could receive the benefits of dower. I think if you re-read the passage you wrote, you would change the language, deleting the "and widower" and changing "spouse". I don't know why you need the definite article The in reference to Dower. I would propose "Dower, the right of a life estate in part of all the lands the husband owned during the marriage, was closely guarded in common law as it provided the means by which the widow and orphan of a deceased landowner could survive, free from attachment by the deceased's creditors." But then, I am probably over-writing.

Eschoir (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , yes, I'm a bit confused why Coke's original quotation has been changed in virtually every republishing to add that "and". I'm guessing his original work has historically not been widely available, so use of the quote grew from another, much more widely read source that got it wrong (or even intentionally misquoted for modern grammar's sake).
 * Regarding the rewrite, thank you for looking at it. I really am looking for something very brief that's easy to read. I do now understand your point about dower having been more recently extended from common law into statutory law, thus giving widowers the same advantage. Perhaps wording that would specify that it's referring to dower in Coke's time: "In his era, a dower was closely guarded in common law as it provided the means by which the widow and orphan of a deceased landowner could survive." I don't see a need to expound on it further...there is an internal link to the dower article should the reader want a more detailed explanation of the term, as it does for common law and widow. I try my best to not write from a professional perspective so that the common reader will more easily comprehend; "the right of a life estate in part of all the lands" and "free from attachment by" will probably not be understood by most readers, and aren't really necessary for comprehension here anyway. Would you concur with this rewritten line being used in the article? — Huntster (t @ c) 04:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would concur on the excisions. I write too much.  I would quibble with using an article before dower, as it is not enumerable as a thing, like a dower or the dower, it is just the right of dower. I am thinking: "At common law, dower was closely guarded as a means by which the Widow and orphan of a deceased landowner could keep their lands."  Shorter by five words, and as  we are playing off the similarity with "life, liberty and property" this would underline the similarity of Coke's quote, that both Coke and Locke's rhetoric treat as equivalents "life, liberty and inherited real estate," whereas the Jeffersonian "pursuit of Happiness" is taking a quantum leap towards a government destined not to be run by a voting population consisting of landed white men.Eschoir (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , great rewrite, I'll change it immediately. Thanks for your excellent thoughts on this matter! — Huntster (t @ c) 04:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for a respectful collaboration. One last thing, which I think will provide better context, changing the last word from "lands" to "real property" with the link.  I looked up Real Estate and it linked to this real property article.  Especially satisfying is the reference to Scottish usage of real property as "heritable property" which seems to be Coke's drift.  It changes my appreciation of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" when I think it was a response to the then common usage of "Life Liberty and the right to inherit without interference from the Crown," which was "the ultimate owner of all real property in the realm." The widows' property would otherwise revert to the Crown by escheat.
 * It strikes me that Wikipedia is like common law, with input over time from a lot of judges [editors] sorting out the content by consistent application of accepted rules generated from a few specified principles [like a Constitution]. By the way, I looked at the common law article, and it is pretty lame.  See you there? :) Eschoir (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , done. Good change, and great observations. I don't know what I could do at the common law article, though. While I work in law enforcement, that's the practical application of law, rather than the theoretical study of it. Not one of my strong suits, unlike astronomy and spaceflight topics. ;) Do let me know if there's anything in particular I can help with, though! — Huntster (t @ c) 16:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I looked up the quote in the facsimile edition of Coke in the John Adams library, and you got the quote right - no "and" just Life, Liberty, [which indicates status as a villean a step above serf, entitled to own real property] Dower. Nice call! Eschoir (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Help - Evolution Article - Possible Vandalism
@ - If possible - May need help with apparent vandalism on the Evolution article - Thanks in advance for your help - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * - BRIEF Followup - problem now seems to have been resolved - Thanks in any regards - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, glad to see Favonian handled the issue in short order. Thanks! — Huntster (t @ c) 23:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding books to articles
In the English Wikipedia a lot of members who know the Russian language. And im definitely interested in this information. Mixrunya (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It would be different if they were being used as citations, but they're simply extraneous otherwise. Especially if readers cannot locate them. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding books Anufrienko - here is the link

http://kik-sssr.ru/CNII-50-1.htm Mixrunya (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Cirex
Regards Huntster I was looking for an active administrators who can help me with this draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cirex Has been several weeks backlogged, I took my chances if it get not approved. Same article is on other 5 wikipedias... Please, hope you can help! :) Thanks in advance Bnotepr (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Kepler-444 Image Ok - or Not?
Hello - if possible - maybe take a look at the File:Kepler444-5PlanetSystem-20150128.jpg image used in my somewhat newly created Kepler-444 article - to see if the image is ok - or not - the image was published on the NASA Website and seems to be  widely published in the popular press - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , unfortunately there is no indication that this is a work by NASA. Notice that the credit line does not start with "NASA/". Always check the credit lines of images before transferring them from NASA websites...if it doesn't start with NASA, it shouldn't be uploaded without further evidence of being free. By your leave, I'll get that image removed.
 * Also, and I've been meaning to talk to you about this, but when you upload an image, please don't throw every category you think of at the image...that just creates more work for others. Only use the most specific categories. In this situation, the only appropriate category would have been "commons:Category:Artist's impressions of exoplanets". The "Planetary systems" category is not appropriate as it is a parent category of "Exoplanets". Placing the image in the Kepler category would ordinarily be inappropriate as the image was not created by Kepler or was of of Kepler; however, I've just now created "commons:Category:Exoplanets discovered by the Kepler Mission‎", and such images would now go there. Let me know if there's any questions or concerns. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - and efforts with this - yes - no problem whatsoever with me to remove the image if you think best - also yes - images credited first and foremost to NASA seem easiest for me atm - some images falling into a grey area (at least for me atm) may need a "second opinion" so-to-speak - hope that's *entirely* ok with you - please let me know if otherwise of course - also yes - I expect to improve my image category selections (most specific categories are preferred afaik) - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , don't ever hesitate to ask if you're unsure about an image. I'm more than happy to help in any way. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Roger Goodell edits
Dear User Huntster. That's your opinion. If you'd like to make constructive edits to the most recent version, please suggest some. But don't go about reverting a group en masse and leaving an insulting edit summary to boot. You've obviously been around Wikipedia way too long for conduct like that. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , if you would like your edits to not be reverted, then please be more careful in your editing. Other editors do not exist to clean up your work. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * They are perfectly legitimate edits to a not very well written article. I saw a minor typo in one, and amended a sentence. I see you are a sysop here at Wikipedia. Please let your good sense prevail and not have to see this escalated.  Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Do whatever the hell you want. I'm unwatching the article. I maintain your grammar is poor, escalate all you want, I just don't care anymore. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)