User talk:Huntster/Archive 39

Protection on Brittany Byrnes and related IP editors
I noticed you recently protected Brittany Byrnes based upon the edits of and other non-registered users. 70.212.44.85 has also edited Heather O'Rourke, which has also seen recent IP vandalism/unhelpful edits. I compared the edits of other similar editors and found a list of IP accounts that have edited at least two (some more) of the following articles: Judith Barsi, Heather O'Rourke, Nancy Allen, Babe (film) and Mary Kay Bergman. In addition to the one linked above, here are the other IP users:

There are multiple similar edits to Judith Barsi by other IP users beginning with the 2600 prefix, and several edits by other IPs with the 70 prefix are made on the other linked articles. I recently requested protection on Judith Barsi, but (at no fault of the closing admin) based upon evidence presented at that time during the request, no action was taken.

Can you please take a look at the edit histories of the linked IP users above as well as the articles? There is an uncanny coincidence of edit histories as well as styles of editing (adding days of week to dates, changing cause of death in infoboxes to "Complications from...", wikilinking common words, adding trivial details to infoboxes and article spaces, etc.). Also, since the IP users are editing at least two or more of the articles linked above with the same styles, they are likely the same person.

Not sure what appropriate next steps should be, but I would be interested in your feedback on these issues. Thanks—AldezD (talk) 04:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Even better, this editor—who must be one and the same—has several times changed Cause of death from "[X]" to "Complications from [X] causing death", and re-added "Cremated" to the parameter despite several reminders pointing to the RfC. On a few occasions, "[X] was born on [day], [date], [year], to [his/her] expecting parents ..." has been added. Jack Albertson, Mabel Albertson, Madge Sinclair and Christine Cavanaugh, among others, are also targets. &#128406; ATinySliver / ATalkPage 04:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh boy, I didn't realise it was this bad. Um, this is right at the end of my day, and I have work tomorrow, so I'll try to figure all this out tomorrow evening. What I'll probably do is just block these IPs for a while if they don't appear to be used by several people, as I'm concerned about trying to protect so many articles. I might have to consult with someone more experienced, as my realm of expertise is image copyright. If you notice any additional IPs acting similar, please add them to the list going forward. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Here are all the IP users I could find. For those who are only editing one of the articles listed, I included the IP because edits matched those of other similar IP addresses in the table below. The five in the bulleted list from my original comment are included in the table below.

There are likely other articles involved and possibly more IPs. Let me know your thoughts. AldezD (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Add to the list at least two  by. It's as if this person is paid by the word ... &#128406; ATinySliver / ATalkPage 02:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Added to the table above.
 * What are your thoughts on next steps? I'm happy to initiate ARV with the above table and background on Brittany Byers as a start. AldezD (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * holy moly, that's an amazing list. If you have experience with the ARV tool and AIV procedures, please feel free to do so. You are obviously more knowledgeable about this situation than I am. I'll help out however I can. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'm in agreement with Huntster—this appears to be a situation with which you're most familiar and I'd be happy to see you take the lead, with our assistance as needed. Additional articles as I've noted should likely be included; I will be watching them in the meantime. &#128406; ATinySliver / ATalkPage  19:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Based upon the structure of WP:AIV, do you think this should be posted at WP:SPI instead? Or stick with AIV? AldezD (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd go AIV; if this is as I suspect and it's one user who gets a new IP with each session, it would argue against the intentional use of multiple accounts to circumvent policy. &#128406; ATinySliver / ATalkPage 20:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Start with AIV, and it can escalate to SPI if needed. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Started AIV but another admin moved to ANI since that would get the best level of attention. If you're interested, here it is Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks for your feedback! AldezD (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts AldezD. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Evanescence discography
Mind taking a look at it? Do you have any suggestions for improvement? I'm sure there should be some. I want to make it a featured list so I can make their studio albums a good topic.  danny music editor  Speak up! 19:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Solar radius
I work on convert as well as date modules and I gather from our recent discussions that you are active in astronomy. I'm hoping you would be able to sort something out for me. A recent request asked for a new "solar radius" unit for convert. It currently does this: The plural "solar radiuses" has been questioned at Template talk:Convert with the statement that it should be "solar radii". I have no opinion on that but I would like the unit fixed. However, I don't want to act without some confirmation that others agree. Would you mind replying here with your view on what the plural should be? If there is any uncertainty (WP:ENGVAR?) would a discussion at WT:ASTRONOMY be appropriate? Johnuniq (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * → 2.5 solar radius
 * → 2.5 solar radius
 * Actually, it would be even better if you were to comment at the convert talk page...if you have an opinion. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * LOL, right after posting my follow-up, I saw a new comment at convert which rather settles things. Johnuniq (talk) 07:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , glad that was resolved. I definitely like radii over radiuses, though. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hermitage Springs, Tennessee
Can you delete this redirect page? I'm going to create a short article for this community. BrineStans (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * , sorry for not responding for a while. Um, you can just edit the redirect page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hermitage_Springs,_Tennessee&action=edit )...there's no need to delete it. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * So, it's ok to just ditch the redirect command and add content? BrineStans (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * absolutely. A redirect is content just like anything else. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

"Template:Human timeline" May Need Page Protection From Vandals?
IF Possible - my newly created template => "Template:Human timeline", transcluded on over 30 pages at the moment, may require some protection - somewhat in advance of possibly likely vandalism? - perhaps similar to that performed on "Template:Life timeline" and "Template:Nature timeline" not too long ago? - in any case - Thanks, at least, for considering the issue - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * we don't normally pre-emptively protect templates unless they are in extremely high use. If it does become a target of vandalism, let me know. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments - yes - understood - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems the "" page, transcluded on over 94 pages at the moment, has been recently vandalized ("unexplained page blanking") by ip 117.197.24.160 - perhaps time for page protection? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm going to be very blunt. You need to stop spamming those three templates, and honestly, you should probably self-revert. You're throwing them into every conceivable article about humans you can seem to find, and further into articles about films and the Flying Spaghetti Monster! This is absurd in the extreme, and any section dedicated to just these timelines needs to be removed immediately. Let *others* discover your templates and expand their usage...doing it yourself gives a very strong appearance of self-promotion, whether intended or not. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - yes - *completely* agree - no problem whatsoever - (the FSM edit has been rv) - tried to add the templates to relevant articles - as a possible improvement - however - please understand that it's *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce any of my edits (including templates) of course - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

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


 * 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
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)
 * , 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)
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 Further_reading and 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)


 * , 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)


 * , 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)