This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

2010, January Information

You will likely want to weigh in on this. Flyer22 ( talk) 22:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Fictional_universe_in_Avatar#What_is_that_large_content_deletion_.3F. The behavior of Erik seems to me repetively problematic. Yug (talk) 07:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Huntster, thank you for restoring the changes that I undid in the process of combating what I thought was copyright violation. I undid the content addition hurriedly (it seemed to be added every new day I checked Wikipedia) and should have followed up with keeping the good changes that happened afterward. I thought that the addition of content written elsewhere was a copyright violation, but it looks like it's different when it comes to Wikias. I'll still be reverting the content addition, though, because it is excessively in-universe and lacks real-world perspective, which goes against WP:WAF. I'll make sure I recover the good changes in the process. Happy editing! Erik ( talk) 12:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Huntster. Per your question on my Learn Na'vi wiki user page: Yup, that were me what done made that section, and yes, everything was carefully sourced from the media interviews and articles already contained in the References section. I've added a note to that effect on Talk:Na'vi language. Thanks for giving me a heads-up over at LN! If you have any further questions or comments on this particular subject, it's probably best to put them on Talk:Na'vi language. - Erimeyz -- 76.17.0.169 ( talk) 20:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

On their official myspace they say they're alternative rock. The answer is right there. There is no need for a see below when they clearly state they are alternative rock. -- Homezfoo ( talk) 07:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

hi huntster, i sent you an e-mail —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigglyfidders ( talk • contribs) 23:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Huntster - sorry I haven't been around .. just been so very busy lately. Hope to be back soon buddy - hope all is well with you! :) — Ched :  ?  12:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As of 2010-01-31, your personal info box says "IQ 158 (says an online test)". Unless an IQ score is exactly 100, the number makes no sense without also listing the standard deviation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enk ( talk • contribs) 09:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's like saying "my car can go 200" -- Without a unit of measurement it doesn't mean anything. And local/cultural defaults such as mph or km/h (or 15, 16 and 24 for typical IQ standard deviations) don't make much sense here on a wikipedia anyway ;-) Enk ( talk) 17:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I was just wondering if you could spend a little time copy-editing " Fata Morgana (Sanctuary)". The page is going under GA review at the moment, and one of the comments is that it requires a copy-edit from another party (I would have normaly ask Sgeureka, but the editor is semi-retired, so I'm not sure how quickly the user would respond). Thanks. -- Matthew R Dunn ( talk) 17:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

2010, February Information

Hey you buddy - hope all is well ...and hope to get back to ya soon. All my best my friend. (thanks for watching my back, and reply to nosebutton - I do appreciate that! :) — Ched :  ?  05:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but I made a mistake. The real new code is on the talk page. JIMp  _{talk· cont} 08:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

heya Hunster, I've been laughing at myself for my goof with the external links on NASA TV. I don't know why, but I honestly mixed up Yahoo! and YouTube there (must have been the "Y" starting both names...). So, thanks for fixing that! I'm not sure what the removal and comment re: the use of colwidth is all about. The use of colwidth=30em is becoming widespread over the use of a specific number (with 2 or 3 being the most popular other choices). I've no clue what you're talking about when referring to the 1600px, ...and besides, even if it was true that it didn't have an effect below that, what in the world would the problem be then? Regardless, I just don't get it. I don't think that all reflists should have columns, but generally any list over 10 items long tends to benefit from column use, which is why I generally choose to add them once the list is 11 items long or longer.
—  V = I * R ( Talk •  Contribs) 04:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me, bad mood yesterday and all that. Basically, I see no *point* in the existence of columns since the only people they improve anything for is those with very high resolution desktops. Anything lower than 1400px wide, and a reference at average length will wrap onto two lines anyway if used in columns, negating the reason for the columns in the first place. And, when they wrap lines, the refs become that much harder to read coherently. For articles with dozens and dozens of refs, perhaps I can see the use, but otherwise the value is lost unless the majority of refs are of shorter-than-average length. — Huntster ( t @ c) 04:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Bah, stop with the bad mood stuff, I'm not upset or anything, I'm more curious then anything else, really. Regardless, I didn't really detect any kind of "bad mood", so no worries! Lord only knows why I'm up right now, except that I'm watching the "Blizzard of the Millenium! more at 11" develop here in Jersey. Anyway, I'm still scratching my head over the 1600px/1400px thing, since it's just not true as far as I can tell. I have a dual monitor setup, and a separate comp in the other room, all using different resolutions (one's 1024x768, another 1280x1024, and the last is at... 1920 x something...?) but the point is that I see these things at all sorts of resolutions at various points, and the colwidth=30em things really makes a huge difference. If the lists are more then 10 items long, that gives 2 columns when viewed at 1024x768, 3 at 1280, and 4 if higher, and that really helps readability because it turns the list into manageable bit-sized chunks instead of a blur of lines (well, for me and most others, according to most experts), plus it reduces whitespace as an added benefit. Why do you think that newspapers and magazines use columns (and justification, but that's a battle which doesn't seem to have much interest here, likely because there's a certain browser that doesn't handle it well...) Actually, that brings up a point. Are you an IE user, yourself? I ask because that could make a big difference in perceptions.
—  V = I * R ( Talk •  Contribs) 06:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I use Firefox 3.5. Okay, to compare different types of citations and how columns affect them, I'll use two recent featured articles. For HMAS Melbourne (R21), columns work just fine because they are all short-form citations and when in column format, almost always take up only one row per citation. However, for the (unfortunately promoted) Bale Out, which uses long-form citations, it makes zero difference in overall article length whether columns are used or not. Not only that, for me at least, it is *much* more difficult to read long-form citations (which are predominate here) in column form. Another reason I don't like columns (I just remembered and witnessed), are situations like with the article Terrafugia, where the column code ran afoul of the infobox (or any similar thing), resulting in a lot of whitespace that is terribly unsightly. — Huntster ( t @ c) 08:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Huh, now that's interesting... see, to me, the columns make it easier to read, especially for the "long form" citations. Like I mentioned above, the principle is the main reason that newspapers use columns instead of just printing across the page. But, if you're advocating for the style used in HMAS Melbourne (R21)... I don't know what to say, since that's pretty much exactly the train wreck style that I'm trying to fight against. I've been asking around for about a month now though, trying to find some middle ground (especially for the NASA articles, since that's one of my main areas of concentration), so if you have any suggestions on how our two opposing views on this could come together then I'd love to hear them. Not to sling arrows, but I've unfortunately been finding that those who hold your own view tend to seem unwilling to compromise and work with others.
—  V = I * R ( Talk •  Contribs) 16:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You can go ahead and place the tag there. It isn't helping anything, and I just categorized the replacement image while writing this. Thanks for the heads up though on it. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 18:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that I have ever had a problem with that, but sure, I'll try to do so. I just figured that categorization would be good on a project this scale. That and the fact that some of them were categoryless was the reason behind my actions. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 20:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you learn something new everyday. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 23:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hunster. It's been good working with you on Bigelow Aerospace and related articles recently. I have an unrelated request for assistance.

This afternoon I discovered an entirely new WP article, Adam Smith House, was partially based on an incorrectly titled image. I have dialoged on that talk page, made a first-pass update to the article, and placed a comment (new talk page) on the mis-titled photo file. See my contribs to get all the links. My question for you, since you have considerable wiki-image experience: How should we handle the image file where the file is plainly mistitled, and such mistitling could lead others to misuse the image file again in the future? N2e ( talk) 20:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(Note: coincidentally, I happen to have a set of personal photos, in addition to the book source I cited on the talk page, that conclusively demonstrate the incorrect titling. I've only ever put a very few photos onto WP, but could do so again if you think they would be useful.) N2e ( talk) 20:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I had left the computer logged on under my name and my daughter was doing her reserch on James Cameron for her primary school project and apparently fixed the so called error :(( I am glad she caought it considerig her age but will have to now let everyone know that there are two Wikipedians from my home. Next time I am sure she will edit articles even without my login directly through IP :(( Taprobanus ( talk) 13:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I added the public connection note on my talk page. Taprobanus ( talk) 21:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Huntster

1. Did my reversion actually help, or hinder your editing? Sorry if it did. Being BOLD.
   
2. I query the first name of the guy involved. He signed his 'manifesto' as "Joe Stack". His aircraft registration HERE, identifies him as "STACK JOSEPH A" or Joseph Andrew Stack. But his 'county tax records' HERE has "STACK ANDREW JOSEPH III". News reports seem to have the same problem. Which is 'correct'? -- 220.101.28.25 ( talk) 12:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. Good to know all is well. Don't want to upset an admin! ;-) Probably waited a bit too long. Can't stand lots of RED in the references section! By far the biggest undo/reversion I've done. News here said something about the guy may have had ' accelerant' on his plane, but I imagine the fuel would do just as well? Anyway, Happy Editing! — 220.101.28.25 ( talk) 12:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello again Huntster,
You may want to look out for 69.14.26.116 who was adding silly links to the 'See also' section, both I and CalmCalamity reverted them once each. Just FYI. -- 220.101.28.25 ( talk) 19:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Huntster. You have new messages at talk:2010 Austin plane crash.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mjroots ( talk) 11:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with the rm of plane specs. - Stillwaterising ( talk) 20:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't remove this link again without discussion on talk page. There's a section for this already. It does not require "special plugins" to view a 3D model of the building involved. - Stillwaterising ( talk) 19:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• SketchUp model of Echelon Complex from Google 3D Warehouse using SketchUp plugin for Google Earth

I've checked into this from several different angles and it seems to be the right building too. If a page is created for the Echelon Building One then it can be moved there. - Stillwaterising ( talk) 20:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, it adds no intrinsic value to the article. It has no reason to exist as a unique link. — Huntster ( t @ c) 20:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, however please bring it to the talk page and allow at least 24 hours for a consensus to be formed. - Stillwaterising ( talk) 20:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not how it works. WP:BRD. You were bold in adding it, I removed it, and now it is up to you to prove usefulness (remember, it is always up to the person adding content to show that what they are adding will benefit the article). — Huntster ( t @ c) 20:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You haven't allow the D part, discuss, until 3 edits were reached even though I asked you each time to discuss it. I have a section in the Talk section proving its worth, now refute it there, not here. - Stillwaterising ( talk) 20:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Huntster. You have new messages at Template talk:Infobox university.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

In October 2008, you initiated the peer review and participated in the featured article candidacy of Volcanism on Io. A similar article, Exploration of Io, is currently undergoing a peer review. If you have a chance, please take an opportunity to give the article a once over, submit a review, or Be Bold and help to improve the article. I hope to nominate the article for a Featured Article Candidacy in the next few days if all goes well. Thanks you, -- Volcanopele ( talk) 23:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for tidying up my changes to the wiki entry for Máiréad Nesbitt. I'm still on that steep learning curve, but hopefully I can get some good references for these pages. Thanks for your patience. Emtigereyes ( talk) 16:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. I thank you for helping me! I'm from Brazil. I don't have any idea what I'm doing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrei Cvhdsee Brazil ( talk • contribs) 02:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

2010, March Information

I've created a subcategory, Category:Fictional indigenous peoples, which seems to be a common trope in fantasy and science fiction. I hope it's OK to include this under Category:Indigenous peoples (on the model of Category:Fictional civilizations, Category:Fictional families, Category:Fictional organizations, etc.). Goustien ( talk) 21:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hunster,

The section that I deleted has nothing to do with the template. It is another wordy rant that adds nothing to the improvement of the template. The same user has made many rambling entries on the page which should have been much more concise - but as long as they are on topic, I had let them stand - I just wait for the archive bot to get them out of the way. The entry that I deleted was way off topic. It concerns editors perceived workloads (a bizarre comment to make in any case). This has nothing to do with the template. If the Wikid77 needs to talk about his concerns for other editors, let him do it in user talk space, not in template talk space. Bleakcomb ( talk) 23:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Huntster. I apologise for my boldness. Though, I was a little surprised to see "another admin" revert my reversion while referencing TPG. Those guidelines suggest there can be grounds for refactoring or even deleting talk page entries made by others ( section Refactoring for relevance). This would appear to contradict your comment to me of "Do not delete comments of others unless it is blatant vandalism." Wikid77's entry was an off-topic rant which doesn't exactly fit the guidelines for refactoring or deletion under the section I mentioned, though it is very close. According to the guidelines the rant needs to be on-topic rather than off-topic to be edited. The same section also suggests moving off-topic exchanges to the talk page of the editor that started the discussion. The next section suggests using the {{ Inappropriate comment}} template to tag inappropriate comments as a warning. Would either of these methods in lieu of deletion be acceptable to you as a means of improving the talk page in accordance with talk page guidelines? Bleakcomb ( talk) 00:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I had not come across the guideline or the template before either and I have been here for a little while, too! The things you learn. What discovering the guideline has done is given me something concrete with which to discuss with Wikid77 the use of the convert talk page. If you read through the guideline and then review Wikid77's additions to the page, you'll detect several problems that are described concisely in the guideline (namely conciseness and relevance). I have concerns with the style of Wikid77's comments on the page because they waste space and editor's time to read; editors are turned off by the wall-of-words and disengage from the topic being discussed and any other topic that is being or should be discussed on the page; if there is validity to Wikid77's concerns with convert (and I have some doubts), then discouraging editors with the wall-of-words will not help his case or the betterment of the template. I understand your concern that only I have objected to the edit that I reverted but I still believe the section was inappropriate for the page it was placed in. And I would be concerned that other editors would feel intimidated by the wall-of-words and less likely to speak up.

Going forward, I think I will ask Wikid77 to remove the section we disputed or to move it to his user space, or to seek his permission to do so, inline with the guideline, though it will not be today. I'll see how that tack goes.

Some feedback in good faith, if I may; reversions are permitted, edit warring is not. The strength of you response to my reversions including the suggestion that I was wrong because you (an admin) and "another admin" said so even though I had some grounds to make the deletion in the guideline referred to by Martin was heavy-handed and quite intimidatory. I have hide of medium thickness. Remember that others, including new editors, may not. Bleakcomb ( talk) 03:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

hey, i started a new heading in the talk page over there...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_Austin_plane_crash#Hunster_.2C_my_edits_RE:_Facebook_page.2C_origin_of_.22capitalist_creed.22

... i'd appreciate your input. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.196.48 ( talk) 08:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hunster. You previously indicated you have a fair amount of expertise in the whole area of Wikipedia graphics/images rules and practice. Could you take a look at the new video recently posted on NewScientist here at this link. The NewScientist news folks say that the images were provided by Bigelow Aerospace. Might there be a legitimate fair use rationale that might allow one or two of these images (or screen captured images?) to be used within Wikipedia? Maybe on the BA article, but almost for sure, I would think, on the Sundancer article? What do you think? Cheers, N2e ( talk) 18:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey there buddy ... how ya doin? ... hope all is going well on your end. Hope to be back soon, miss ya! — Ched :  ?  05:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I have asked Jimp to (re-)consider becoming an admin for updating Convert, and to think about it for a few days. Even with a "new improved" subsystem in Convert, we still need to compare new-versus-old, and if the old subtemplates are still broken....we can't ensure the new results are correct, versus old. You are obviously extremely busy, and I'm wondering if User:Plasikspork might want to start updating dozens of those subtemplates. I had a recent 1-month block for unwise use of 2-accounts viewed as puppets, so they "hate" me, but we need to make all these trivial corrections much easier inside Convert. We're filling the Wikipedia databases with many minor edit-protect requests that should be 1-line changes to subtemplates, not whole new pages added to explain (with solid test-cases) a minor change. Respond below in a few days, if you have time. Thanks. - Wikid77 ( talk) 21:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Wikid, as I've said in the past, I'm always willing to commit changes if I'm around. If you foresee a very large number of change requests, perhaps that would be a good use for a new subpage...place all change requests in one spot rather than on the talk pages of individual subtemplates. It would certainly make it easier to watchlist and catch all the change requests at once rather than having to sort through the existing talk page and subpages. — Huntster ( t @ c) 23:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I agreed with your comment about not adding "Do You Own One?" messages. [1] You mentioned a consensus ... is there a reference for that handy? Thanks, Piano non troppo ( talk) 00:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not posting on User:James Cihlar's talk page as he has asked me not to, but with regard to this messgage, I don't know how I could have been any clearer - I explained, twice, that there are no supervisors, and told him at least three times where to ask for further comment/assitance. No need to reply. –  ukexpat ( talk) 04:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll reply anyway since you asked a specific question. You simply said there were no supervisors rather than explaining *why* there were no supervisors, or why the telephone wasn't an option. Think about it from his perspective...he knows nothing about this place, and may expect some kind of editorial hierarchy similar to what he is used to as a real-world writer and editor. — Huntster ( t @ c) 04:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)