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.

Hey Huntster, I'm using template: random portal component and template: random portal component with nominate on this portal on the CKB, but they don't seem to work. I have been searching like crazy for an answer about this and how to fix this issue but I still can't detect what the issue is here, honestly. I've looked at the template talk and they said the max number should be the same number as you have in the subpages archive (so if it's seven articles the max for that section should be 7), I have done that in the selected picture subpages here, but no matter how much I clear the cache or refresh the page the pictures on the main portal will not change. I'd appreciate a little help or an advice when you can. Thanks—‎ Lost Whispers _talk 11:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Lost Whispers, forgive me, but I don't know the language and I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish. Is it that the randomising function isn't working? I've never dealt with those templates, so you'd be much better off asking someone from that realm to assist. I see that the code for Portal:Arts/Featured picture and ckb:دەروازە:ھونەرەکان/وێنەی ھەڵبژێردراو are completely different, but I have no idea what's going on since I don't know the language. — Huntster ( t @ c) 12:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Huntster yes, it should view a new article whenever you clear cage or purge the page. But it isn't working. I'm all over asking everyone but I really don't know who knows about these stuff on here..—‎ Lost Whispers _talk 13:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry I cannot help more, but at this point I'm just staring at the CKB page until my eyes cross, and I'm just not seeing the solution :( — Huntster ( t @ c) 14:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

That's alright, it's a foreign language after all :D thank you so much for your time!—‎ Lost Whispers _talk 14:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@ Huntster: @ Lithopsian: After User:Huntster edit here [1], I will instead removed the contentious statement altogether.

As Lithopsian] has point-blank refused to engage in discussion, blankly stating "I have given up engaging with Arianwiki1 since that author has been repeatedly abusive to me, making demands, chasing down my edits, and simply being difficult where it would be easier to be helpful.", there is no solution for compromise.

Worst the comment by Lithopsian for these recent changes were "just wrong" and "no consensus for this change, discuss first." No explanation was offered nor did this User bother to gain consensus themselves.

As for previous WP:RfC, even on other pages, nothing happened. Tried WP:ANI. Nothing happened.

All that occurs here is that Lithopsian does nothing. (Where this problem whole comes from.)

I have already also repeatably added comments on this Talk page, including this recent one. [2]

As for the removal of the ^{dubious – discuss} tag is quite unfair, because it highlights the issue with the text that I have already properly discussed on the Talk page. Dubious claims tacked on text only properly questions the statements or figures, and lets readers know this.

Suggest you start an WP:ANI, because I've absolutely had it with the abuse in trying to fix this. Arianewiki1 ( talk) 02:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@ Huntster: @ Lithopsian: Temporary solution. I've neutralised the impass with this edit. [3] Suggest statement be returned on consensus on the Talk page. If you disagree revert it, but know the statement is now uncontentiously true. Arianewiki1 ( talk) 03:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Hunster. I rather clumsily reverted a revert of yours on the section Wikipedia citation format (WCF) bibliographic database project. All my original edit was an update to a link in order to correct it as it had recently been archived. I cannot for the life of me see why that needed to be undone? Try the link in question if you need to confirm my revert. With best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison ( talk) 19:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC) Postscript: I see it was you that reverted the second time. Obviously some kind of race condition. Oh well. RobbieIanMorrison ( talk) 19:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

RobbieIanMorrison, it was entirely my fault. I went to click on a link on my watch page, but it was slow loading and something up top loaded in, shifting all the text down, causing me to accidentally click on a rollback link instead. So yeah, I self-reverted. Sorry for the confusion! — Huntster ( t @ c) 01:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Congratulations and thanks for re-writing the IRAC article for the Spitzer Space Telescope Fotaun ( talk) 14:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for giving that a work-over! Fotaun ( talk) 14:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For keeping an eye on a lot articles, for the hard work of maintaining the encyclopedia, and for being all-around decent editor Fotaun ( talk) 17:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For being a diligent editor Fotaun ( talk) 17:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Fotaun, I appreciate that. — Huntster ( t @ c) 21:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem Huntster have a great year! Fotaun ( talk) 14:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. ( T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. ( T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:HR 8799 Orbiting Exoplanets.gif, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 21:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Blabbermouth said that Teamrock got it. Teamrock called it an exclusive interview. How does this mean that AOL Build was the first of them? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 13:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

DannyMusicEditor, look at the publication dates? That's all we can actually rely on. Mind you, "Exclusive" can mean anything the publisher wants it to, such as they 'exclusively' got this particular detail. Mind you, the Teamrock details are quite a bit more in-depth than AOL's interview. I don't see it as a conflict. — Huntster ( t @ c) 13:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I want to make a request an article for protection. Could to protect the article titled "Paul Wesley" until July 1, 2017. Just like you protected the other article titled "Phoebe Tonkin" is protected until July 1, 2017. The "Paul Wesley" article has a high level IP edits or removing citation sources just like the same thing on the other article titled "Phoebe Tonkin" because it has a high level of IPs removing citation sources. And I know I watch some articles by removing vandalism myself and I was very frustrated on multiple IPs making bad edits. This is a urgent message, go to the article titled "Paul Wesley" and protect the article until July 1, 2017 and we don't want an another IP making a bad editing. I will look forward on your reply ASAP. Thanks. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D ( talk) 05:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Very good point. Done. — Huntster ( t @ c) 06:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting both articles. Well then, have a good one and see you soon. Bye. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D ( talk) 06:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

(Just a small thing [4]:) I considered linking only e.g. the Apollo 8 category to the missions sufficient, because the missions category is inherited that way. Of course, a nice lineup is helpful, that's why I kept the most prominent missions in the program page, although that was actually inconsistent. -- Mopskatze ( talk) 00:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Mopskatze, it's pretty typical to link both the article and category in series like that. It's just a nice, clean method of categorising. — Huntster ( t @ c) 00:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

With many pages also listed in the top of the category tree, finding the articles that are not covered by subcategories becomes rather difficult. (E.g. when a reader likes to systematically explore the articles in a certain area of interest.) -- Mopskatze ( talk) 01:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Mopskatze, I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to. Category:Apollo program missions? That's a pretty small category, and listing both subcats and the articles should make reader browsing easier, not more difficult (i.e., I'd find it more frustrating if I were browsing a category and pages were missing in the sequence). — Huntster ( t @ c) 01:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your improvements. GentleDjinn ( talk) 08:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Updated Masses for the TRAPPIST-1 Planets Quantanew ( talk) 23:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• 71.88.13.226 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hi,

Can you take a look into this IP's recent edits? They've continued their similar disruptive behavior after your two blocks, removing sources, etc. throughout TV-related articles. Thank you. 93.141.142.119 ( talk) 11:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've blocked them for two years for continued disruptive editing, since they were previously blocked for one year. I need a two year alarm clock so I can keep an eye on them in 2019! — Huntster ( t @ c) 22:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Of possible interest - latest Crab Nebula images/captions (ie => File:PIA21474-CrabNebula-5Observatories-Text.jpg & File:PIA21474-CrabNebula-5Observatories-Animation.gif - per NASA, 10 May 2017) have been uploaded and added to the Crab Nebula article - seems ok but perhaps worth a look? - to be sure - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 12:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Drbogdan, the problem is that XMM-Newton images are not freely licensed, per https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/xmm-newton/conditions. Both of those images contain elements from XMM-Newton. You see the problem? — Huntster ( t @ c) 00:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - wasn't sure but thought there might be some issue - at least one that might be more familiar to you than to me - it's *entirely* ok with me to handle this in any way you think best of course - let me know if you need help - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 01:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Atomship, Huntster!

Wikipedia editor Elliot321 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Page move caused article to become unreviewed.

To reply, leave a comment on Elliot321's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Elliot321 ( talk) 10:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

There has been some recent disruptive editing from IPs concerning the number of seasons the series has had. [5] [6] [7] They have been claiming that because it is a Netflix original, their count of four seasons of the series is correct. I have attempted to get them to discuss on the talk page, at the existing topic about it Talk:Mako: Island of Secrets#Labeling Season 2B?, but they keep making the change to the season count in the article without any discussion. I have already made three reverts to the article, and have requested semiprotection of it for now. MPFitz1968 ( talk) 01:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

MPFitz1968, thanks for the notice. I've been out of pocket for a while due to medical issues. I've responded on the article's talk page. — Huntster ( t @ c) 01:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hunster, what is "random" about the video link I added to "External links" in the Juno (spacecraft) article? Are you under the impression that Juno flyby videos of similar quality are commonplace? Given that video links are frequently added to the "External links" sections of other Wikipedia articles, what in your opinion is different about the Juno article that makes this inappropriate? Please explain. Thanks, WolfmanSF ( talk) 03:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

WolfmanSF, sorry for the delay, been dealing with medical issues. My reading of WP:EL is that the number of external links should be minimized to only an official website and a very limited list of others that are critical to the understanding of the subject. To that end, yes, I considering the video to be a "random" (per se) piece of media related to the Juno mission. That's not to say it isn't really, really cool!, but that's not enough to warrant inclusion. As to your second question, remember WP:Other stuff exists. While obviously not a policy, it is a great rule to edit by. In this instance, it is irrelevant that others articles link to videos in this manner. My opinion is that they ought not be doing so for the above stated reason. — Huntster ( t @ c) 01:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the number of external links should be minimized. However, in my view, these examples fall under the 3rd category of "What can normally be linked", namely, "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." Keep in mind that JunoCam was put on the spacecraft in large measure to allow amateurs to do image-processing work. If NASA believes that such work has outstanding educational value, then a few links to the best of such work ought to be appropriate. WolfmanSF ( talk) 07:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry if i made a mistake when I put the full date on the HST intro, But, why not have the full date? And where is this lead you mentioned? 50.64.119.38 ( talk) 08:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

50.64.119.38, it's no problem! When you look at the "code" of the page, at the point where you inserted the full date there was a comment, indicated by <!-- -->. This is just a note indicating there was a consensus in the past that a full date wasn't really appropriate in the very first paragraph of the article. Also, the "lead" or "lede" is simply the term for the first paragraph or section of an article that summarizes the entirety of the article. An article's lead should should provide a concise overview of the subject matter. Cheers! — Huntster ( t @ c) 01:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. 50.64.119.38 ( talk) 08:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

This is exactly the same image as File:OSIRIS-REx Instrument Deck.png plus the logo. Taking out the logo is a modification that is not acceptable, as it is a corruption of the original image ( http://www.asteroidmission.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Social-Media-Card-Spacecraft-Image.png) to avoid a possible copyright infringment. Both images are to me possible copyvio, not images from NASA at all but from the consortium that build the satellite ( http://www.asteroidmission.org/galleries/#graphics), and I would like to hear your arguments before I propose for deletion. Pierre cb ( talk) 18:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I've responded on my Commons talk page. — Huntster ( t @ c) 21:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

== 180.151.125.46 ( talk) 09:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC) Why are you reverting back changes on what you call "excess parameters"? They are referenceable data which should be available to those interested?

In regards to the Electron launch, but also more generally, what is Wikipedia's definition on what determines a launch failure from a partial failure? To me if a rocket fails to reach orbit its a failure. The organization can claim it as a successful mission, and that should be stated in the wiki page where appropriate. I'm not looking to override our decision, just looking for some clarity cause I've wrestled with this in the past. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CFLNFL ( talk • contribs) 14:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

CFLNFL, yes, it is a somewhat nebulous thing, but I don't think having purely binary "orbit/no orbit" results is the right option. Look at it this way: everything performed as planned (as far as we are aware) except that the second stage didn't burn for quite as long as expected. Overall, it's a major validation of the rocket system. I simply don't think that just calling it a failure does justice to the readers. — Huntster ( t @ c) 22:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Huntster,

I saw you were a member of admins willing to provide copies of deleted articles. I'm currently in the process of an appeals for restoring an article, but if it does not get approved, the deleted article had very good information and sources to be provided to sister articles. Would it be possible to provide a copy of the deleted article? The article is New York City FC 0–7 New York Red Bulls. Quidster4040 ( talk) 06:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Quidster4040, sure. I'll send a copy of the wikicode to your email. Please ensure that any material you re-use in another article is only citations or simple data. Any direct copying or quoting would require attribution, which would be difficult considering the article is deleted. Sound good? — Huntster ( t @ c) 06:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Huntster Sure thing, thanks! Quidster4040 ( talk) 15:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Re: your edits here, your change to MDY dates was improper, as the article is about a US military topic. Per WP:USMILDATE,

"In some topic areas the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern U.S. military, including U.S. military biographical articles, use day-before-month, in accordance with U.S. military usage."

I don't have time to manually change the dates right now, and I didn't think you'd like a blanket revert. If you could address this, I would appreciate it. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 08:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

BilCat, I have no problem changing the dates to DMY (it is my preferred format, and one which I strongly feel should be adopted universally), but primary usage in the article was MDY, which the very next section ( MOS:DATERET) of the page you linked suggests should be kept, and long understanding has been that retention is generally preferable. That said, I stay far away from the toxicity that is MOS, so perhaps standards have changed? — Huntster ( t @ c) 09:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I understand now that it mixed formats, and you were just trying to standardize. I'll take a look at the history, and see what was used originally. Thanks for your response. - BilCat ( talk) 14:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

About a month ago, you made a massive change to Proxima Centauri, which among other changes included this one just un-done. What provoked you to make that change? I periodically have to undo edits of this exact nature on Alpha Centauri, and didn't notice this here because it was such a massive edit. Regards, Tarl N. ( discuss) 20:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Tarl N., not sure. It's possible I still had the comparison image immediately above that one in my head. Sorry about that. Perhaps it would be useful to put a brief hidden comment in the image description noting this issue, that it is not a resolved image of α Cen A and B. — Huntster ( t @ c) 21:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not just southern objects: for all celestial objects, west is clockwise from north (because we're looking up, not down, as we do on terrestrial maps). But a good catch, nonetheless. -- Elphion ( talk) 23:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Elphion, yeah, I've always had difficulty with spatial orientation. Celestial object orientation gives me a headache, lol. — Huntster ( t @ c) 00:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Huntster. I was wondering, do you maybe have some kind of access to the liner notes of The Open Door? I need to create a credits and personnel section for "Lithium" and can't find anything online. My love is love 22:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

My love is love, I've been looking around and looking around...I can find neither my jewel case for The Open Door nor any PDFs of the booklet online. Sorry! — Huntster ( t @ c) 02:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello - seems Tabby's star may be dimming again - the 4th time since May 2017 - updated to the latest light curve - see => File:KIC 8462852 V-band Normalized Flux by Bruce Gary, 20170502-20170908.png - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 22:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello - if possible - in order to better save edit histories/talk page/etc => may need help to correct recent renaming by User:Renerpho of Norgay Montes to Tenzing Montes - in any case - Thank you for considerng the issue - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 18:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate any help. Renerpho ( talk) 18:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done, sorry it took so long, health has kept me away. — Huntster ( t @ c) 17:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you very much! Renerpho ( talk) 22:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

IF Possible, may wish to consider an " NGC 4993"-related image file - at the following => " https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GalaxyNGC4993-DsoBrowser-NgcIcProject-2017.jpg " - the file-nomination-page is at => " https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:GalaxyNGC4993-DsoBrowser-NgcIcProject-2017.jpg " - my related comment is =>

* KEEP - if *entirely* ok of course - the " description-page of the image file" notes => " https://dso-browser.com/pages/terms_and_conditions ( archived copy/20170922) => Terms and Conditions - The usage of this site is completely free and is provided as-is ... All accounts will have a default license applied to their images, which is Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International. " - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 15:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration in any regards - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 15:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Drbogdan, if the license is CC-by-nc-sa 4.0, why would you claim it is okay to keep on Commons? Commons does not and has never accepted non-commercial works. For that matter, why did you upload it as {{ cc-by-sa-4.0}}? — Huntster ( t @ c) 03:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply - and comments - seemed the image, if all would be *entirely* ok, could be useful for the " NGC 4993" article - the "terms and conditions", noted on the related website (esp the part re the free use of the site), suggested to me at the time, the possibility (remote, perhaps) of a workaround re the ok use of the image - guess there's no such workaround after all - this image has now been replaced with an earlier ok image on the " NGC 4993" article - Thank you for your reply and consideration in any regards - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 12:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

World radio receiver (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can you look this over? Seems like WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to me (i.e. what RS differentiates a "world" receiver from a shortwave receiver?) but wanted to give a new contributor a chance. Thanks, - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey Huntster. It appears that all the various BFR images were deleted as non-free. Apparently, SpaceX has not released images of BFR as freely (Flickr, etc.) as they did ITS images in late 2016. It seems we really need a fair-use image for BFR (rocket).

My question is: might you be willing to pick out one of those unreleased images of the BFR, and make a valid Wikipedia-license and rulz-compliant Fair Use image? ... so that article does not have to go bare and be image-less? Cheers. N2e ( talk) 04:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Huntster. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

At last, I got the landscape format photo of 505 (Nashville)! It had to be from the opposite direction as there are other large buildings in the way. Possibly a photo from the top of William R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower would offer a comparable perspective to the previous photos if it can be seen over the top of the Sheraton Nashville Downtown, but I doubt I would be allowed up there. I also took a photo from Broadway and 5th.png, which might be a nicer photo overall, but the Ryman Auditorium is upstaging 505. Thanks again for the idea. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 06:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jack! Fantastic. I admit, I think File:505 from Broadway and 5th.png looks better because of the lighting, and I really don't think Ryman upstages it because 505 is obviously the focus and Ryman is at such an oblique angle. However, I won't change the article image without your input. — Huntster ( t @ c) 06:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The view from Broadway also provides better context, as more people would recognize the location. In a year or two, this view will be obscured by a 32-story apartment tower called Fifth + Broadway in the lot to the left. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 13:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Your revert was again reverted by Michihiro. They appear to be going against the consensus in a disruptive manner. They also don't seem to understand how ledes work... Zigzig20s ( talk) 16:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a rationale to their edit though. I don't think they're necessarily in bad faith. Zigzig20s ( talk) 16:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Zigzig20s, yeah, at this point I guess I'm going to have to point him to the talk page and say "Go here now". There may be a rationale, and I also don't think there is necessarily bad faith involved, but it feels blatantly promotional when there is obviously no other companies mentioned in the lead of the article (especially when you consider HCA, Nissan, etc are vastly larger in employment and relative importance). It would be out of place in any city article. Most folks these days simply don't understand the concept of "encyclopedic", I think. — Huntster ( t @ c) 21:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Will you revert it back to normal? Zigzig20s ( talk) 22:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Zigzig20s, yes, I've made an edit just now. I'm sure he won't be happy, but I see no other way about this. — Huntster ( t @ c) 22:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you please restore the content that was removed, "The city is a center for the music, healthcare, publishing, private prisons,(Elliott, Stephen (September 14, 2017). "Cities Are Divesting From Private Prisons, but Not Nashville". Nashville Scene. Retrieved October 31, 2017. A lot of the money "that flows into the private-prison business" flows directly to Nashville, where private-prison leader CoreCivic has its headquarters. [...] Nashville's pension fund holds a $921,000 stake in the company formerly known as Corrections Corporation of America, according to the most recent investment report.) banking and transportation industries, and home to numerous colleges and universities."? There is no need to censor this. It's fully cited. Zigzig20s ( talk) 22:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Zigzig20s: Done, but with caution. I'm not entirely convinced it is a good (and properly representative) item for the lead, considering it is really just that one company representing the industry here, I believe. Certainly not the first, second or hundredth thing that comes to mind when you think about Nashville. — Huntster ( t @ c) 23:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not in the marketing literature about the city, but Wikipedia is not an advertisement--this is an encyclopedia. The Nashville Scene article makes it crystal clear that it is an extremely important aspect of the city. Zigzig20s ( talk) 23:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for revert. Wiki software strikes again, the wiki search was images over 121801 pixels. I assume the bigger image data was somehow still active, maybe some caching issue (at least the reducing bot would have just thrown the template out anyway). Ronhjones   ^(Talk) 22:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Your change of status of the Falcon 9 launch from "Success" to "Unknown" was a very fair and reasonable compromise. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.189.42 ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! While we certainly want to have accurate information, we always want to wait for solid sources to provide that accurate information. Right now, we just don't have enough data on Zuma to say one thing or another, other than it is reported but unconfirmed that the satellite suffered a failure. — Huntster ( t @ c) 04:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Hunster, sorry, but if ABC News tells that an U.S. official unnamed or not has confirmed that Zuma is lost in the Indian Ocean, that's an important development and without any information against, it must be told. I'm restoring this information. MaeseLeon ( talk) 14:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

You simply restored unnecessary detail to the lead, which didn't actually change the already present meaning. Please don't do that. — Huntster ( t @ c) 14:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I revered because that article is basically spam. Most of the sources are internal to NASA with a couple legit it's very weak notability. She isn't in the same universe of notability as the other two who share common traits of notability as sort of rock stars. Listing every NASA person in the see also section isn't good. -- Green C 14:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

GreenC, I wouldn't necessarily agree that the article is spam (though it could use some TLC), but I can understand where you are coming from. Just take the time to add edit summaries in the future...it really does help inform other editors and avoid confusion. — Huntster ( t @ c) 18:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)