This 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.

Huntster, I don't suppose you might be able to find an appropriate license to cover the getting the two versions of Merlin 1D engines (Merlin 1D and Merlin 1D vacuum) that are, apparently, currently on the SpaceX.com site, so that we might have them to use on the Merlin article? Here is a link to where I saw them today: [1]

And do note, the post immediately before that forum post, seems to have a good photo of the all the Merlin 1C models; but I don't see a specific source given for where that 1C photo came from. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 21:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

N2e, so the images came from http://www.spacex.com/news/2013/02/11/falcon-9-progress-update-14 and http://www.spacex.com/news/2014/10/16/spacex-completes-100th-merlin-1d-engine, respectively. I'll get them uploaded under the Cc-zero-SpaceX license shortly, so check Commons:Category:Merlin (rocket engine) in a bit. Also, the three-engine picture seems to be a press photo from a local news agency, so its a no-go. Nice, though...it shows an M1C from Falcon 1, an M1C from Falcon 9, and an M1C Vacuum engine for comparison. — Huntster ( t @ c) 05:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

N2e, here you go:

• File:Merlin 1C Vacuum engine at Hawthorne factory (2008).jpg (note this is an M1C Vacuum engine, not an M1D. Those didn't exist in 2008.)
• File:100th Merlin 1D engine, built at SpaceX's Hawthorne factory (2014).jpg (pretty pic!)
• File:Merlin 1D engines under construction at Hawthorne facility.jpg
• File:Falcon 9 Octoweb assembly with Merlin 1D engines.jpg

— Huntster ( t @ c) 05:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Those are awesome! The Merlin (rocket engine) article has been sorely lacking a good image of Merlin 1D's for years now. So good to have those. I've put two of them in that article; feel free to move the images around etc., or add any of these to other articles as you think might be warranted. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 16:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey Huntster. Just a question. I notice you did some citation cleanup in SpaceX private launch site. Cool, and thanks.

But I'm unclear on how date formats work in Wikipedia. I created that article in 2013, and I used dmy format from the very first edit. (Although I'm American, and very familiar with mdy format, I find the other formats (either dmy or international digits like yyyy-mm-dd) to generally be best for the global and multi-lingual peoples who read the English Wikipedia.) However, having said that, I usually just put my dates in prose or citations, and let bots worry about keeping articles consistent with the Wikipedia process standards for such things (i.e., maintain the older/orginal standard format of each article...).

Just wondering, how did you see to make your changes mdy format? I wonder if someone changed the article in the two-year course of its life without a discussion. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 04:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

N2e, honestly, because the dates in the article seemed to be all over the place, with prose dates in MDY, citation dates in DMY, and accessdates in YMD, I mentally flipped a coin, slightly weighted since U.S. location articles tend to be MDY. I can easily switch them over to DMY since that is your preference. — Huntster ( t @ c) 07:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll appreciate that. And no worries on having done that; I know you are just endeavoring, like all of us, to make a better encyclopedia for our readers.

So is it the case that any decent and longish articles ought to have one of those {{ use}} templates added. I've done it in a few articles I've created, but never systematically. Is that the recommended approach?, to always have one of those?

N2e, it's not really necessary, but at the same time, it doesn't hurt anything. — Huntster ( t @ c) 15:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't own the album, but do you know what the order they're listed in the liner notes? We could do it the way it says there. dannymusiceditor ^{~talk to me!~} 03:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

DannyMusicEditor, hmm, I had the CD case somewhere, but I can't seem to find it right now. I'll keep looking. Hopefully I didn't throw it away on accident. — Huntster ( t @ c) 04:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on the revert. Perhaps something to note, using the mobile version of wiki the page notice doesn't show. Possibly look into that via the pump or elsewhere. Anyhow ta. NJA (t/ c) 19:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

NJA, well that is interesting. Given the limitations of mobile (in all aspects) I suspect nothing can be done, but it's definitely something to keep in mind. Thanks for that. — Huntster ( t @ c) 19:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Hunster, I have just finished a long and arduous process of rewriting Autonomous sensory meridian response. It is not perfect, but it is of the standard in terms of structure, style, and content commensurate with articles I have authored for publications. Yet a user has tagged it with two criticisms: that it lacks structure and flow, and that it may need rewriting entirely.

Since joining WP, I have risen to criticisms placed in tags, and have learned a lot. But on this occasion, I cannot seem to reconcile the tags with the article. If it really is an example of one lacking in structure and flow, and needs rewriting, then frankly, I am of no use to Wikipedia, because it represents my most focused work. I took a look at the user who placed the tags and he/she does not have any contributions that I can see. However, as the author of the ASMR page, I am obviously biased and would very much appreciate your intervention and opinion. Many thanks. Prolumbo ( talk) 08:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Huntster. You have new messages at Talk:Hyperloop pod competition.
Message added 14:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

N2e ( talk) 14:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Per the spirit of WP:PRESERVE, as you did in this edit. [2] I've been a huge cheerleader of that policy over the years, and while I almost never edit in the hard sciences (well, unless ya know, aliens hah hah), it's really nice to see an editor either exhibit common sense or to have been paying attention to the WP:EP. I might even dream tonight that that is standard procedure on a whole lot of Wikipedia I never get around to. Kudos! -- Kendrick7 ^talk 03:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I would like to continue the discussion I began on the Orb-1 talk page but am hesitant in view of your notice in red at the top of this page. If it's okay with you then I will go ahead, otherwise discussion will probably have to be spread over a number of pages. Thanks. Abul Bakhtiar ( talk) 15:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Abul Bakhtiar, that's fine, continue the discussion there! I have it watchlisted, so I'll see when/if you post something on that talk page. — Huntster ( t @ c) 20:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

COASTIE I am ( talk) 01:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I have made several corrections to the Welch College page. Every time I make the corrections, however, you revert them. On my most recent correction, I left a comment on why I was reverting your corrections. Yet, when I looked at the page again, you had placed a block on it. I am affiliated with Welch College. The corrections you are making are incorrect. It is obvious that you are not affiliated with the college by the incorrect revisions you continue to make. I would appreciate it if you would take the block off the page and allow me to make the corrections so there is not false information published about the college on this page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.208.236 ( talk) 22:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@ 68.52.208.236:, please use the Welch College talk page to discuss the changes you are suggesting. One of the issues is that you are making formatting and grammar changes which go against Wikipedia's style guides. You also say you left a comment somewhere as to why the changes are made, yet I've edits from this IP address and I see nothing. Material that you have removed has been taken from the Welch College website, most notably the line "Welch College serves more than 300 students and is the national college of the 300,000-member Free Will Baptist denomination", which comes from http://www.welch.edu/about-facts. The proper names for the Societies comes from http://www.welch.edu/campus-life/community-life. I have reimplemented the changes to Athletics per the website. You also keep adding an "acceptance rate" field to the infobox, but no such field exists for that template, so it will never show up. Everything else is style and formatting. — Huntster ( t @ c) 05:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/04/astronomers-just-saw-farther-back-in-time-than-they-ever-have-before/ — Ched :  ?  12:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@ Ched:, yep! I'm gnoming at GN-z11 now. It's going to be interesting to learn about, especially once the James Webb Space Telescope launches and can take an even more detailed look at it. — Huntster ( t @ c) 04:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Dearest Huntster, I noticed you have removed the link to the data server of Earth2014 with the argument it is linked via the homepage. That's indeed the case. However, your edit is not consistent with other links on the Digital elevation model page where GTOPO30 links to both homepage and ftp server are provided. Please edit consistently. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geodesy2000 ( talk • contribs) 02:14, 4 March 2016‎

This oversight has been corrected. Remember, you can do this yourself as well. — Huntster ( t @ c) 04:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a pleasure to collaborate on an article again, after all these years. The last time I believe we have the pleasure was when HD 106906 b was just discovered in 2013 and the page came together like clockwork. Unfortunately, information on this ancient (and possibly dead) galaxy won't be available for another few days, when Pascal Oesch releases the final draft of their findings. Looking forward to it! DARTHBOTTO  _{talk• cont} 08:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@ DarthBotto:, indeed! Very interesting discovery, look forward to learning more about it. Also, in your opinion, what image would be better: the current one with the deep field, or an image of just the galaxy? — Huntster ( t @ c) 04:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I actually prefer what we have now, as it gives context and perspective. Grr, it's a little frustrating not having right ascension, declination and what-not. DARTHBOTTO  _{talk• cont} 06:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hunster,

You removed a couple of references I added - one to new Horizons, one to Noise. Could you let me know why you did this please? Both of the references were to my books, and both these books are very relevant to the topics, so seem helpful to me.

Many thanks

Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJG639 ( talk • contribs) 14:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC) MJG639 ( talk) 15:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@ MJG639:, plain and simple, you have a conflict of interest on these topics, and a non-neutral reason for including these entries since they promote your book. I'm additionally concerned about the publisher Grammaticus, which I cannot find any information about and am concerned it may be a self-publishing affair, which is certainly not acceptable on Wikipedia. You may suggest its inclusion on the talk page, but you may not edit war to keep them in the articles. Please do not continue. — Huntster ( t @ c) 21:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I just added the Spaceflight infobox to the Schiaparelli EDM lander article, but I am getting two error messages ("Invalid parameter") that am unable to fix. I will appreciate if you could take a look at it whenever you have a chance. Thank you. BatteryIncluded ( talk) 17:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@ BatteryIncluded:  Done, apparently "Lander" had to be lowercase, which caused everything else to fail. Weird, because the template should be set up to allow for that. I'll have to take a look. — Huntster ( t @ c) 20:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@ Huntster: Thank you! Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 20:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:Orfur has been nominated for merging with Template:Or-fu-re. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 12:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Sorry if I made mistakes, is my first time in a talk page and English is not my mother language. Said than I am beginner and I want to respect the rules, I would like to talk about the videos copyright and the fair use of copyright material. I would like to point that between the fair use, a clear factor is when the material has a educational purpose. In all the cases I put a link to a video, all of them are of a high educational nature.

There is a second question helping my opinion about the fair use nature of the videos we talk: There is not an effect upon work's value. In this factor (the 4th factor listed in the above link), the burden of proof here rests on the copyright owner, who must demonstrate the impact of the infringement on commercial use of the work. Some of the videos were aired for free in a public tv broadcasting.

As a matter of fact, some of the videos are improving the owner work's value because the close caption added and promoting the diffusion of the video, the main reason of making a video aired in a public broadcasting.

I think it is correct to review the video links posted, but not all cases they will be a infringement of the copyright laws. It had to be considered case by case, and in some of the video links I made, in my opinion there is a fair use for educational reasons and without an effect upon work's value.

Regards -- Cnkcnkcnk ( talk) 19:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: I am still waiting an answer about if I can make links to educational video files or not

-- Cnkcnkcnk ( talk) 20:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@ Cnkcnkcnk: Sorry for the delay. The key here is that we deal with fair use in a far more restrictive way on Wikipedia than actual law allows. Wikipedia has a rule for fair-use, which is that its use must be kept to an absolute minimum, with a preference to zero usage. For example, with articles dealing with biographies of living people (or BLPs for short), fair use is completely prohibited, since it is felt that in some way a freely licensed image or other media could be obtained of that living person. The idea of burden of proof or added value has no relevance on the use of non-free material on Wikipedia, and that extends to external links. Incidental use of videos in external links, such as being included in a news report or similar, is typically not an issue, but linking to a page that is nothing but video, such as YouTube or similar media site, just isn't okay, if the person who posted the video is not the copyright holder. I understand your desire to add educational value to articles, but please don't confuse what the law allows with what Wikipedia allows. — Huntster ( t @ c) 17:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey Huntster. Would you please consider taking a look at the mess that has become off the article Arcade City.

I created that article, with a number of regular old reliable sources etc., on the day or two after one of the economists I follow on Twitter tweeted links to several of those media articles. I thought it deserved a Wikipedia article, and clearly met WP:GNG. I've created a number of initial stub articles in that way; many of which I've not done anything, or very little, with thereafter.

In this case, I happened to subsequently become involved with this company/mobile app. So now, it would of course, not be appropriate that I work on that article, and have not.

This article has become a complicated mess, and needs attention from experienced editors etc. I'll just leave it at that.

Cheers. N2e ( talk) 18:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@ N2e:, to be honest, I'm not really sure what I can do here. It badly needs more reliable sources outside the niche BTC realm, and I'm very concerned about ArcadeCityJenny editing through COI, if she is indeed associated with the company. I know nothing about this particular topic, though; I've never even ridden in a cab, much less a...rideshare? Jenny removed that term, so I'm not even sure what this is. — Huntster ( t @ c) 02:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at the situation. N2e ( talk) 23:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)