User talk:Huntster/Archive 43

Mothball fleet image
Greetings, User:Huntster. Very excellent adding that image of the Mothball Fleet. I was just lamenting with an elder sibling the absence of one at that page. An entire generation Baby Boomers has that fleet imprinted in their minds, but there had been nothing to show for it at Wikipedia. It’s great to share it with those who never had the chance to see it themselves. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , it's just a shame that this image is the only one I could find on Commons. If you happen to know anyone that took photos of the fleet, getting them to donate one (or some) to Commons so that something of higher quality is available would be amazing. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd wondered if you were the original uploader; the interface on a smartphone would not reveal it. I thought I had looked for an image at Commons when I made edits on this subject a few years back.  Guess not.  No matter...I have found some excellent images that I think can be used here, with proper attribution, but am a bit over my head on the matter.  They are from the New York State Digital Collections, and are, for example, used at a blog, crotonhistory.org's  Ghost Fleet web page, with a generic attribution statement. I believe the same basic images would work well here.  They start appearing at page 2 here.
 * How do we attribute them? I'm willing to do the uploading, as soon as I know what licence and language to use.  Thanks.  Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , I sincerely apologize for not replying to this before now, I simply failed to see that there was a reply. I've been mostly absent from Wikipedia as of late. Just haven't been feeling it. The archive above is an excellent find, but as their copyright page states, images that are known to be public domain will be marked as such. Unfortunately, the images you are wanting aren't. You would need to contact the NYSA (probably at archref@nysed.gov) with the identifier numbers of the images you want, and see if the copyright status can be better determined, or at least determine *who* holds the copyright, since it isn't clear from the image pages. It's hard to say, but if it was a State of New York work, then this suggests that the work will remain copyrighted. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

"Template:Mars map" coordinates now updated.
Thanks for uploading the higher-resolution file "File:Mars Map.JPG" - noticed that this altered the image map coordinates of the related "Template:Mars map" - since noticing the altered coordinates, I reset/updated the coordinates using the "Easy Imagemap Generator" at "http//imagemap-generator.dariodomi.de" - all now seems ok with the template (and related "Template:Features and artificial objects on Mars" and "Template:Features and memorials on Mars" templates) - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Doc, that's my mistake. I thought the coordinates in the template were based on the indicated size of the image, not the actual size. Sorry to make you do that extra work. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - Thank you for your reply and comments - no problem at all - I think I've improved the mapping locations a bit - besides, I thoroughly enjoyed the exercise, and reconsidering the relevant Martian locations to best feature - nonetheless, any further improvements always welcome of course - in any case - Thanks again for your reply - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

"File:PIA23126-CepheusC&Bregions-SpitzerST-20190530.jpg" may need attention?
Thank you *very much* for all your recent help, esp with the Tabby's Star plot image and related - on another matter - a different image may need attention => File:PIA23126-CepheusC&Bregions-SpitzerST-20190530.jpg - seems my initial attempts to upload this 50mb file could have been better - my final effort (noted as "more complete image - 2nd effort") seems to have been the best - should the earlier attempts (incomplete uploads & cropped complete but smaller versions - now perhaps taking up XS space) be deleted in some way? - Thank you for your help with this - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , it really doesn't matter to be honest. They are all your attempts, and unless you want to hide them for some person reason, they don't need to be removed. Deleting past versions doesn't actually remove them from the server, it just hides them from public view. So long as you are happy with things right now, it'll be fine. If, however, you still notice a problem with the image itself, I can try to finagle something wrt to uploads.
 * Here's a hint...for images existing at the NASA.gov url, you should be able to click the source URL radio button on the upload form and past the image url directly in, and let the server transfer it from there. It may just be for admins, but I think the NASA.gov url is whitelisted for everyone to transfer directly from. Give it a try and let me know how it turns out. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - and suggestion - no problem whatsoever re the earlier images (thought they might be taking up unnecessary space at Wikipedia) - as for the NASA.gov url (not clear about a "source URL radio button" on the upload form - don't see one?) - nonetheless - afaik - and if I understand correctly - all seems to be well here on what seems to be available - the source NASA.gov link on the upload form seems to work very well for => https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/figures/PIA23126_fig1.jpg - in any case - Thanks again for your comments and help - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , oh, perhaps you're already doing this? On the upload form I use (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uselang=experienced) there are two ways to upload... either with a local file or by direct url. That's all I was referring to. Direct url has a *much* better chance of uploading properly for large files. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , ok - got it - wasn't thinking about that particular form - but it's good to know - yes - agreed - a direct url seems better of course - Thank you for letting me know about this - it's appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Advice?
I need some advice, Huntster.

Two weeks ago, an editor did an undiscussed (no consensus) page move of Starship (rocket) to Starship (spacecraft), merely asserting in the move that "This is a spacecraft."

I did not catch it right away, and now it can not be straightforwardly moved back without an admin, since both names are now filled.

It is, of course, both a rocket, and a spacecraft; as the article prose makes explicit. Unusual, as you know.

But it seems to me, that unlike almost any spacecraft before it, it will live a long and somewhat fruitful existence as a rocket, before it ever first becomes a spacecraft. Moreover, SpaceX has begun to talk up single-Starship (no 2-stage Super Heavy + Starship) point-to-point Earth travel with the thing. I think that the more common name for it, in skads of news articles now, is rocket, so thinking "rocket" is the best disambiguator. But that's just my opinion.

Either way, I think it should not have been moved without a discussion, so many editors might weigh in and we could try to find a consensus.

So I just don't know the best way to bring the topic up now, given it was moved without consensus, and really should just go back the other way per WP:BRD, and then have the discussion joined if editor Soumya wants to make a proposal.

What is your advice for next steps for me to take?

Thanks. N2e (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * such an active topic shouldn't have been moved without discussion, and it wouldn't hurt to raise the discussion now. Bring all the points to the table. Thing is, the article has been moved since June 10...it's a bit late to move it back, imo. Personally, I support the "spacecraft" disambig, for the reason of its design intent. Yes, it effectively functions as a second stage, and maybe even a point-to-point system, but the intent is being a passenger and cargo carrying vehicle, far beyond the scope of merely being a rocket. For that reason, I think it is a spacecraft over a rocket. But, discussion to find consensus is the right way to go, I think. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your advice, Huntster. Appreciate it!
 * If it would be strongly debatable thing now (as perhaps indicated by your view), it would probably not be worth the time to articulate the issue and argue for proper process. So I suspect I'll not bother.  The editor that did that is doing quite a bit of edits that aren't standing up, and they typically leave no edit comments.
 * If an ex post discussion were to get started now, and Starship (spacecraft) were to be the outcome, even though no correct process was originally followed to move it from the status quo ante of Starship (rocket), I suspect editor Soumya-8974 would just learn the wrong lesson; which would be doubly bothersome to me.  Life is sometimes tough, but as one of my favorite profs used to say:  "Reality, is not optional."  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * , I can see why you might think discussion now might be counterproductive, but I think I disagree on that topic. Yes, perhaps the user might feel vindicated, but maybe he'll learn something about our processes. That said, I did notice that user is edging very close to being disruptive with his editing practice. This could easily be another talking point in your argument. In the end, do what you feel most comfortable with. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Amy Lee
Hi, the genre categories require sources and support in the article body, per WP:CATV. No mention of Amy Lee's genre in her article at the present time. Elizium23 (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * , sure thing. That's an incredibly brain dead requirement, when the inheritance is obvious and without question. Just another reason I work here less and less. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that you feel WP:V is brain-dead, but there are many excellent reasons why we can't just add naked categories without any documentation or support. Elizium23 (talk) 06:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the point, but sure. Cheers. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey there buddy
Sorry for not stopping by earlier. Just wanted to say hey - "hey". I hope life is treating you well. We'll have to have an email catch-up on everything one of these days. Really glad to see you're still plugging away here. All my best buddy. — Ched : ?    —  20:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , hey bud, it's all good. Just kind of...getting by at the moment. I'm mostly over at Commons now, though. ttyl. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

List of United States Air Force squadrons
Perhaps you would like to share your thoughts on this article at Articles for deletion/United States Air Force squadrons. --&#39;&#39;Paul, in Saudi&#39;&#39; (talk) 05:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Image File:Comet-2IBorisov-HubbleST-20191016.png - OK?
- To be sure - is the following image ok? => File:Comet-2IBorisov-HubbleST-20191016.png - thanking you in advance for your help with this - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * , of course! So long as it is specifically credited to Hubble, and the correct template is applied (either PD-Hubble for NASA/ESA, or ESA-Hubble for ESA/NASA) then any Hubble image or Hubble-producted graphic is going to be fine. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply - not sure how to apply the PD-Hubble template - seems no PD-Hubble is available in the Hidden category section on the file description page - only the PD NASA hidden category afaik atm - unless all is now ok as is? - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , you manually apply those license templates. If you look at the edit I just made, you'll see what I did. If it were "ESA/NASA" credited, you'd use ESA-Hubble on commons. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * OK - Thanks - I now understand - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Please block me
So that I can have a legitimate excuse not to edit anything.--Roland (talk) 09:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * , blocks are intended to be punitive, not prescriptive. If you truly want to disappear, I would suggest reading Courtesy vanishing and taking that route. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Portal guideline workshop
Hi there. I'm taking it upon myself to try to moderate a discussion among Portal power users with the intention of creating a draft guideline for Portals, and I'd like to invite you to join this discussion. If you're interested, please join the discussion at User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace. Thanks. ‑Scottywong | [spill the beans] || 21:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Image File:SIMBAD-ALADIN-SKY-ATLAS-LB-1.png ok?
IF Possible => is the use of the "File:SIMBAD-ALADIN-SKY-ATLAS-LB-1.png" completely ok - or not? - the image is currently being used in the newly created "LB-1" article - I found the image via SIMBAD - related copyright information *may* be at => https://aladin.u-strasbg.fr/aladin.gml - and/or - https://aladin.u-strasbg.fr/COPYING - Thanking you in advance for your help with this - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , no. There are several things going on here. Point of order, though...where did you come up with the CC0 license you applied? Regardless, the first element is the Aladin software, which is licensed under GPL v3. Second, the scans performed by the STScI were performed under NASA contract, and while this would normally mean a work is in the public domain, the *third* issue is that the original photographic plates are all copyrighted. See https://archive.eso.org/dss/dss-copyrights.html and http://gsss.stsci.edu/Acknowledgements/DataCopyrights.htm. This copyright carries forward through it all, meaning DSS material, even digitized, is copyrighted. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thank you *very much* for your comments - and efforts with this - after trying to understand the "GPL v3" wording (new to me atm), seemed CC0 might apply best - seems my choice could have been better - to be clear - seems a "speedy delete" may now apply to the image "File:SIMBAD-ALADIN-SKY-ATLAS-LB-1.png"? (if so, *entirely* ok with me) - I would think "screen capture images" of the sky location may not be ok as well (please let me know if otherwise) - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , ah, gotcha. On Commons the template would have just been Template:GPLv3. And no, screen capture would make no difference on copyright...the underlying work would still be non-free. I'll take care of the file. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

, BRIEF Followup - Seems a WikiSky star LB-1 screen capture image may be ok? - see my newly uploaded image => File:Star-LB-1-WikiSky-20191202.png - seems this is "PD-Hubble"? based on a similar WikiSky image already on Wikipedia at => https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HD_141569_Hubble_WikiSky.jpg - my own original WikiSky source is a close-up screen capture image of the LB-1 star location at => 06h 11m 49.0763s +22° 49′ 32.686″ => http://www.wikisky.org/?ra=6.1969655555556&de=22.825746111111&zoom=5&show_grid=1&show_constellation_lines=1&show_constellation_boundaries=1&show_const_names=1&show_galaxies=1&img_source=IMG_all - please let me know if this image is ok if possible - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I hate to keep shooting you down, but this one may not work either. That image specifically came from this photograph: http://server7.wikisky.org/starImageView.jsp?image_id=906397. Most of the images in the "Astro Photo" section of that website are from amateur photographers who have submitted it to the site, and unfortunately that image in particular isn't identified. I have sent an email to the site to see if they can dig up any additional information, but unless it is identified as being from Hubble or similar source, it'll be copyrighted. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks again for your efforts with this project (if need be, ok with me to sd image of course) - guess it's a learning opportunity re such concerns - seems there should be some suitable PD sky images some place - at NASA or somewhere else - but guess not - at least for the LB-1 star at the moment afaik - iac - Thanks again for your efforts - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , fact of the matter is that copyright is a very tricky, and often non-intuitive, issue. As for LB-1, until now it has been a simple, obscure star with no reason to direct much in the way of targeted photography, but I imagine that will change before too long. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

May need help - renaming "TOI-700 d" to "TOI 700 d"
If possible - may need help - renaming "TOI-700 d" article to "TOI 700 d" instead - seems an interfering redirect may need to be removed to do this? - relevant discussion at => "Talk:TOI 700" - iac - Thanks in advance for your help with this - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Handled and commented on that talk page. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Page protection needed at "Earliest known life forms"?
Protection may seem to be indicated for the "Earliest known life forms" page - Rationale => recent target of vandalism (at least 4 times in last 10 days? => 1 + 2 + 3 + 4) - possible Page Protection Type => "([Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (indefinite) [Move=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (indefinite))" - in any case - Enjoy :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , looks like Johnuniq handled the protection. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you *very much* for all your recent help - with this concern and others as well - your help is *greatly* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Help needed at "Perseverance talk-page"?
If possible - seems help may be needed at "Perseverance talk-page" in restoring the "Mars 2020" title to the currently named "Perseverance (rover)" article - the concern is that a special "undo" process may be required - nonetheless - if, after viewing the "talk-page discussion', any comments, that such a page move may not be indicated after all for some reason, would be welcome of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Twelve Years of Adminship!
 Wishing Huntster a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman ( talk ) 22:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . — Huntster (t @ c) 04:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello
Mind deleting Sonia Sharma, i accidentally recreated it. It had been moved to draft space while i was trying to fix it. Megan Barris  (Lets talk📧)  12:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've taken care of it, and moved the actual draft article back to Draft space after it was inappropriately moved to User space. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , Wow, thanks Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  12:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Edits to SpaceX Merlin
Hi, Huntster!

I see you removed an edit I made to the SpaceX Merlin page. Let me explain why I disagree with this choice. In my edit summary, I referred to a discussion on the talk page which I will summarize here. The current version of the Merlin page includes significant content related to the environmental impact of the engine. I and another editor believe that that section constitutes original research -- and the editor who wrote that content (User:67.61.89.32) states directly on the talk page that "there has been no research on the environmental impacts of the merlin engine... the research remains to be done."

Following WP:BOLD I removed the original research and instead found a secondary source which raises the environmental concerns of the editor. It is this secondary source which you then removed, stating in your edit summary "Source is perhaps one of the worst opinion articles I've ever read on Phys.org. Not a reliable source."

Per Talk:Phys.org, Phys.org is used as a source on a number of Wikipedia articles on scientific subjects. I agree that the source is an opinion article. Yet, per WP:BIASED, "[s]ometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." In a sub-section about environmental concerns, any source is likely to be opinionated, especially since (according to the editor referenced above) "the research remains to be done."

In my view, the source follows WP:RELIABLE for the purposes of establishing to readers that there may be environmental concerns related to the use of this engine. I am happy to be convinced otherwise -- either that such a section is inappropriate for this article, or that somehow this source does not satisfy the requirements of WP:RELIABLE for establishing the existence of environmental criticism. Note that a subjective evaluation of this source as "one of the worst opinion articles I've ever read" does not convince me that the source is not appropriate for establishing the concerns.

Separately, I believe the original research in the Gas Generator subsection should be removed as well per the discussion in the talk page. I am not interested in getting involved in an edit war, nor do I have the experience with Wikipedia's editing infrastructure to appeal to the relevant authorities/committees/etc. Yet, to remove the secondary source and allow the original research on the same subject with the same WP:POV to stay on the same page seems strange, to say the least.

Cheers!

Themillofkeytone (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * , Phys.org is (in a loose sense) fine when they are republishing material from another reliable source, though it's frustrating that people use that site as a crutch rather than simply finding the original article. The issue here is that The Conversation, which is the original source, is most definitely not a reliable source. It is first-party reporting, opinion pieces, and news bits without any fact checking. The article itself was written by someone without any apparent understanding of spaceflight (given their statements on polluting Mars, and that an object launched toward the asteroid belt will almost inevitably collide with something...they've watched too much sci-fi), which puts the rest of their analysis in serious doubt.
 * As for the Gas Generator material, I agree it should be at the very least trimmed down significantly, if not outright removed, but I am not knowledgeable enough about the intricacies of gas generator science to make that call. I've left a message on WikiProject Spaceflight asking for more eyes, but that place isn't the popular watering hole it used to be. Unfortunately, this topic seems to be a hill the anon is willing to die on. Even so, if you can elucidate what is specifically wrong with the material, I would suggest removing it to the talk page and making a case there, with the idea of WP:BRD in mind. The anon must be willing to discuss and find a better way forward, and not simply re-add it to the page. I can at least keep an eye on things from an administrative perspective. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * , thanks for the response. Given your thoughts about The Conversation, I agree that the author of that piece probably doesn't count as a notable "industry observer" or whatever I said in my original edit. I'm happy to leave that out. The anon does seem to be digging in their heels, as I have make a couple of suggestions on the talk page about alternative places to post that material to no avail. I'm going to follow your advice on WP:BRD and try to trim out what I see as the original research again. Cheers! Themillofkeytone (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm still engaged with the editor over at SpaceX Merlin -- the talk page is growing and growing. I've decided to stop removing material for the time being, pending some external input. I've opened up a section on the NOR noticeboard here. I think there are also potential NPOV and COI issues here, but NOR seems to be the fundamental issue here to me. Themillofkeytone (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * , goodness, that page blew up. You've taken the right steps going to the NOR page, and I see Guy Macon has stepped in as well now. I feel like the anon is trying to bring up an interesting and potentially valid issue, but they're just going about it all wrong, and possibly with a COI. You've handled this well, though, so I applaud that. I apologize that I'm not more active, but I'm fairly gnomish these days and just do little behind the scenes things, mostly on Commons. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * , no worries about engagement. Just thought I'd let you know what was going on. Cheers! Themillofkeytone (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of NASA Edge for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article NASA Edge, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/NASA Edge until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:VH1 artist
Template:VH1 artist has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

STOP IT
STOP COPYRIGHTING, IT DOESN'T EVEN TAKES YOUR LIFE TO STOP COPYRIGHTING CoolChib124 (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * , if you do not understand what copyright is, then I suggest you stop uploading images and educate yourself. Please read https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules for some additional understanding. You cannot take someone else's work and claim it as your own, nor can you take a photograph of someone else's work and claim it as your own. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Mars
I have nominated Mars for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey
Hey Huntster, I noticed you've popped in a time or two this past month - always glad to see that. I hope your holidays went well, and that the current weather isn't to nasty where you are. Just wanted to let you know that I recently blocked a user for personal attacks - I would have blocked longer, but since you chose to not block, I tried to follow your lead in a way. It's just that I felt it was enough that it couldn't be completely ignored. I hope you understand my point of view. I miss seeing you around more, and I hope you're doing well. Best always, — Ched (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * , I'm sorry for not responding earlier, I'm so stressed out with work I forget what day of the week it is. I'm waiting for the day I can no longer keep track of the month because of stress. Regardless, hope your holidays went well too; mine was pretty much nonexistent, just work. Thanks for taking care of the vandal...I vaguely remember something happening but since this isn't really my home wiki anymore, it was just a passing mote. But you're an admin, you are free to take action against folks who aren't here to support the site if you think it's necessary; don't worry about what I think. Take care of yourself. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm Back!
I got bored the other day and decided to overhaul the Perry County page after reading some of the aforementioned history books I had received. I've put it up for review with the Wikiproject U.S. Counties folks, but if you have a moment to do a QC check or proof read, it sorely needs it. nf utvol (talk) 12:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Heya, took a look at the article and made some minor style fixes, but nothing wrong stood out. Good work. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement
22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:EvFallencover01.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:EvFallencover01.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:EvCMWYScover01.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:EvCMWYScover01.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)