User talk:Huntster/Archive contents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This represents the totality of my talk page archives. I'll eventually add a breakdown of major topics covered here.

Contents


[edit] 2006, June to July

[edit] Welcome

Hello Huntster/Archive contents and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad you've chosen to join us. This is a great project with lots of dedicated people, which might seem intimidating at times, but don't let anything discourage you. Be bold!, explore, and contribute. Try to be civil by following simple guidelines and signing your talk comments with ~~~~ but never forget that one of our central tenets is to ignore all rules.

If you want to learn more, Wikipedia:Tutorial is the place to go, but eventually the following links might also come in handy:
Help
FAQ
Glossary
Manual of Style

Float around until you find something that tickles your fancy. One easy way to do this is to hit the random page button in the navigation bar to the left. Additionally, the Community Portal offers a more structured way to become acquainted with the many great committees and groups that focus on specific tasks. My personal favorite stomping grounds are Wikipedia:Translation into English as well as the cleanup, welcoming, and counter-vandalism committees. Finally, the Wikimedia Foundation has several other wiki projects that you might enjoy. If you have any more questions, always feel free to ask me anything on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Draeco 17:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Draeco for the welcome, though I've been here since 2004, just lurking behind the scenes. :) Hopefully I'll be able to do more to contribute than constantly rv'ing the vandals. Huntster 17:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Userpage Header

(X-Posted) Greetings! I happened across your userpage, and thought your header was exceedingly well made. I am wondering if you'd mind me using the code as a basis for one of my own (change a few things here and there to fit my needs, but keep the overall design). Credit to be placed in the code perhaps? Thanks in advance. — Huntster «Talk • Contribs • Email» 03:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem - help yourself. :) Ian¹³/t 08:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Thanks much :D — Huntster «Talk • Contribs • Email» 08:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:NikoSilver/Signature shop#Huntster...

Came up with smthng. Call again! :NikoSilver: 12:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] and another Poll...

Hi. There's a debate about how much "X-ian" one must be in order to be considered "X-American" (or X-Yian for that matter) and be categorized as such. The poll is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Rules for lists of X-Americans. Kindly weigh in! :NikoSilver: 22:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonia (terminology)

Well, that'll be the first article we're not bitching too much about! :-) :NikoSilver: 22:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Large scale modifications have taken place since you made it. For more details, please refer to the link above, and to the article itself. :NikoSilver: 12:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: Full citation for everything and a lot more prose has been added. TOC too. 2 users have already shifted to support. Kindly re-evaluate. :NikoSilver: 13:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Niko, I hate to do this, but for the article, the best I could go is Neutral. It is a fantastic article, full of good data and has stuff I've never seen before, but I can't shake the idea that it is more properly a grand list. So, I'll change my vote to neutral, so I won't damage the effort if the overall concensus is one of support. ···Q Huntster (T) • @ • (C) 14:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your non-objection. I wish I could change your mind to support, but your neutral position in view of a consensus is highly appreciated. There will be some further improvements as it seems, so kindly keep an eye on it. I wouldn't want to bug you all the time with this...:NikoSilver: 15:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forever Charmed

As I haven't actually seen the Forever Charmed episode, I had read that Phoebe was pregnant with her third child. What this true/easily seen in the shot? When I was rebuffing anon-67.67, I hoped I got it right.

Thanks. --Joe Christl 18:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Aye, Phoebe was shown with two daughters (being babysat by Billie) and was rushing to the hospital to give birth to the third. Paige was shown with two daughters and Henry Jr. And of course Piper was shown with the two boys and the girl, whom I will call Melinda 'cause it can't be proven otherwise ;) -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006, August

[edit] Subheadings in AfD listings

I know it seems like a good idea, but please don't create "Comments" headings in AfD listings. This is because the entire debate shows up on the listing for that day and having a subheading there mucks the page up. BigHaz 08:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Understood. I had thought I'd previously seen a Comments section be utilized, but perhaps it was merely bold text used to divide the page up. -- Huntster T • @ • C 08:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St. Clairsville, Ohio

Please do not revert this page as I have moved the St. Clairsville High School Sports page to a separate page dealing solely with St. Clairsville Schools for a more focused read. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.23.108.15 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Understood. I did not see any references to such a subpage, and was cleaning up after a known vandal IP. Sorry for the confusion. -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Understood, and much apprectiated with the vandalism. The separate section is a new page viewable by clicking on St. Clairsville High School. Once again, thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.23.108.15 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Hi, Huntster/Archive contents, thank you for applying for VandalProof. I am happy to announce that you are now authorized for use, so if you haven't already, simply download VandalProof from our main page and install it, and you're all set!

Warning to Vandals: This user is armed with VandalProof

Please join the VandalProof user category by adding either: {{User:Vishwin60/Userbox/VandalProof}} (which will add this user box) or [[Category:Wikipedians using VandalProof]] to your user page.

If you have any queries, please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Welcome to our team! - Glen 02:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Open Door, you're right

(X-Posted) Macarion, in reference to the bonus track material, this album does not compare to your example of Superunknown, since on that album the bonus track is physically on the disk of both the LP and the Foreign versions. With "The Open Door", the bonus track is *not* part of the physical album, and is simply a bonus being given away online. It is admittedly a fine line, but I do not see how this bonus, in this case, can be considered part of the album. I strongly believe this should be reverted back to just the regular 13 tracks, but I do not wish to be in an edit war over such a minor thing. Do what you feel is correct, but please consider my suggestion. Jump over to my talk page if you want to discuss this issue. Cheers -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

and it is a minor thing. ok. --Macarion 20:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OS:Microsoft Windows switches

  1. {{User OS:Microsoft Windows XP}} to {{User:The Raven's Apprentice/Userboxes/User MS Window|XP}}
  2. {{User winxp}} to {{User:The Raven's Apprentice/Userboxes/User MS Window|XP}}
  3. {{User windows}} to {{User OS:Microsoft Windows}} - LA @ 11:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The order of the first two switches is critical.

The summery should read...

Changed your Windows version template with the [[Template:User OS:Microsoft Windows|master]] template. Hope you don't mind.

Is that reasonable? - LA @ 09:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If you feel so inclined, you can tackle these as well...good work with the previous ones~

{{User windowsXP}} to {{User:The Raven's Apprentice/Userboxes/User MS Window|XP}} done... - LA @ 08:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
{{User windowsxp}} to {{User:The Raven's Apprentice/Userboxes/User MS Window|XP}}

TIA! - LA @ 17:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You are fabulous! I hope that you know that...

If you start having problems with users not liking this, you can always forward them onto me, and I will deal with any fallout. You can send them to this talk page of mine, User talk:Lady Aleena/Userboxes. You are doing me a huge favor, so you shouldn't have to deal with any fallout. - LA @ 02:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Also, re those UBXs, no complaints thus far...and fallout is the least of my concern. If they want to revert a perfectly good and working UBX into one that's, ahem, broken...that's their perogative. Hope they enjoy! :D -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IRC exit

My connection dropped suddenly, and I have to wait about 20 or so minutes for my ghost to clear in IRC. I didn't just poof away... I will be back as soon as the ghost clears. - LA @ 07:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

(X-Posted) I understand :) can you not use the /ghost command on freenode? /msg nickserv ghost <username> <password> if you've not tried it. highly useful for these situations, if I'm reading correctly. -- Huntster T • @ • C 07:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Could you do me a favor and see if there is anyone in there that can kill my ghost? I keep getting the error that my user name is already in use then diconnected before I can do anything about it. - LA @ 07:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Okay, your ghost dropped from the server, and you should be able to rejoin. I was just about to ask someone for assistance when it happened on its own. -- Huntster T • @ • C 08:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Asgard Vessel

It was 100% an O'Neil, D-J's have different tail fains etc etc, anyway see this image Image:O'Neil class battleship fireing at Ori ship.jpg. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 08:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Aye, the tail fins are precisely what I noticed during the recap. It's odd that a number of sites out there do call it a science vessel, or just "ship"; I don't recall finding any that explicitly call it an O'Neill. I'm just glad they showed that particular battle scene during the 200th Episode Special. -- Huntster T • @ • C 15:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lemuria

(X-Posted) Do you not understand the idea behind No Original Research? The idea that fans think it might be Lemuria, even though there is absolutely no factual basis behind the idea, has no part on that page, and is completely in the realm of speculation. I'm reverting this once again...please do not replace it without *citing* some sort of source as to why it has relevance. As for your last note, it is just as possible that the city ship's name could be "Xtmprszntwlf", but it's not being included because there's no reason to believe it actually is. (note: I'm not trying to sound hateful, but this is frustrating. I hope you can see where I'm coming from.) -- Huntster T • @ • C 07:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Calm down there! I know what you mean, but I still think that it at least should be mentioned somewhere if possible, don't you? I see no reason to blot out something just because it wasn't confirmed. For all we know it could be Praclarush Taonas or it could be Lemuria, the fact is we don't know for sure I see where you're going at but I think there should be room for some type of speculative stuff somewhere on the page. I know it's currently not wiki policy for such things but if the cause is good enough, rules to change.
How about a new section on the bottom of the page or something that has a label "Please do not use for reference as it is speculative" or something? Faris b 08:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
(X-Posted) That's the problem though...how speculative are you willing to get? I understand your side, I do, but at what point do we say that one speculation is worthy of inclusion, but another isn't? The only way to prevent a feedback loop that keeps building and building until it cannot be contained is to stop it from happening in the first place. Wikipedia strives to be a source of factual information, both of the real world and the fictional ones. Personally, I love debating what could be and couldn't be, what some piece of technology in Stargate or Star Wars might be capable of, how fast it can go, possible etymologies and histories, etc etc, but that is better left to message boards and blogs, not a place like the 'Pedia. In those places, people can debate and come to a consensus on the best mix of speculation and "fact", but this simply isn't the place. Revert wars (and thus 3RR), NPOV, OR and a whole host of other guidelines are in place for one reason: to help those looking for real data to find it, and not be led astray by a third party's vision of the truth. There's a reason citing sources is demanded...for Stargate, and all other things, let's stick to what can be proven, okay? -- Huntster T • @ • C 09:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] no problem

thanks actually for changing the windows thing. take care. Abdelkweli 21:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006, September to October

[edit] Mikegrant userpage

I would just like to say thank you, i hadn't even noticed it needed changing. Thank you all the same. Mike 17:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shepard Smith

Thanks for adding those cites the correct way. I guess I better learn how to do that. Thought I'd poke around as I have time and see if I can find some references for the stuff in the SS article. Misstory 21:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Not a problem. See WP:CITET for templates of cites. That's not all there are, but those (I feel) are the best. Good stuff! :) -- Huntster T • @ • C 09:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
My apologies, I stepped on your edit. I think we both reverted to the same thing, so I think no harm done. Misstory 13:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
(X-Posted) No harm done at all. Just a minor fix to remove an unneccessary wikilink, and everything is as it should be! -- Huntster T • @ • C 15:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars: Battlefront III

Where did you read that the game will be on the 360? The reference doesn't even mention the 360. Please reference this or it will be deleted. KdogDS 02:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Hey, I believe that is my fault. When I was doing some cleaning, I referenced a source article, and it apparently fails to mention the 360 connection, whereas other related articles do. I'll add a second cite to back it up. Thanks for pointing that out. -- Huntster T • @ • C 05:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Evanescence

(X-Posted) Hi, saw the edit you made to the Evanescence article, removing the gallery for album covers. If the goal is to reduce the instances on the page, why not take down the covers in the article sections and leave the gallery, as it is a much nicer formatted version than existed previously and now. Just a thought. If other images are desired to replace the sectional images, they can certainly be obtained. -- Huntster T • @ • C 05:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason I took the album covers out of the discography secton is that cover-art galleries aren't acceptable under the fair use criteria. Showing the cover art in the sections about each album is probably okay under a claim of fair use, because they're illustrating an area of the article that specifically discusses those albums. Putting them in the discography, which can convey exactly the same information as a list or a table, is just decorative, which isn't allowed. --keepsleeping slack off! 13:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charmed

haha thanx for fixing my edit, i didnt even notice i spelled phoebe wrong Malevious 22:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post on talk page

hey man...you posted on my site —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheSoundofTheStreets (talk • contribs) 13:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Yes I did, because of your previous edits to the Murfreesboro article. The edits you just made look good, so keep up that kind of editing. Just don't include non-notable items such as you did previously. -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A fellow Evanescence fan I see...

What's up man? I see you've been contributing a lot to the Evanescence article lately... are you gonna go to the concert? I got tickets a couple of weeks ago off of eBay (in Los Angeles they sold out within ten minutes of going on PRESALE!) for like $100. Well worth it though. It's this weekend and I'm so stoked!

Oh, and did you play the old Tie Fighter computer games? I see a Tie Defender on your user page. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 00:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Greetings! Yes, I'm trying to maintain order 'round these Ev articles ;) Unfortunately, there are no concerts around where I live (Nashville, TN), and even then, school and work would conspire to keep me away. I'm quite envious though, I'd love to see them in concert! And yes, I love me some X-Wing and TIE Fighter games. You just can't beat a good TIE Defender (though I wouldn't mind having a Skipray Blastboat in my stable, hehe). Cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Evanescence

(X-Posted) Out of curiosity, why did you remove the includeonly for Category:Evanescence from this page? -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I removed the category from the template because it was automatically adding every Evanescence-related article to Category:Evanescence including all their songs and albums which belong in the subcats Category:Evanescence songs and Category:Evanescence albums respectively. Category:Evanescence already contains all the necessary articles, so it is unnecessary to place the cat in the template again. --musicpvm 12:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Understood. I knew the function of course, but I supposed that it would be useful to have all of those in the Evanescence category, and then further break down into the albums and songs subcats. Ah well, I'll keep it in mind for the future. -- Huntster T • @ • C 14:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 2006, November

[edit] Charmed Season 7 DVDs

Hi!

Here's something else to add about Region 1 Season 7 DVDs. Info on Amazon and DVDEmpire:

We've added a release for "Charmed" to the site. "The Complete Seventh Season" will be released on 2/06/2007. For all the information, you may visit http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/releaseinfo.cfm?ReleaseID=6267

Please help support TVShowsOnDVD.com by ordering the title from the links on our site. It's through people using those links that we are able to pay for the operation of the site.

Buy this title from:

Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000JLTRIG/tvshowsondvdcom Amazon.ca: http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000JU7JBY/tvshowsondvdc-20 DVDEmpire.com: http://www.dvdempire.com/Exec/v4_item.asp?item_id=1244403&partner_id=11367434 DVDPlanet: Not Available Yet


You were sent this email because you have expressed interest in having "Charmed" released on DVD. If you no longer want to receive these emails you may change the setting in your User Options - "Change Account Information".

Thanks, TVShowsOnDVD.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robinepowell (talk • contribs) 20:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Thanks for that, it allowed me to convert the existing cite to a non-retailer site, which is always preferable. TVShowsOnDVD.com is an excellent resource. -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome, thought I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to do say. Lol! :D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robinepowell (talk • contribs) 15:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Lol, I meant that I replaced a previously added citation that linked to a retail site with the site you provided. It is always better when possible to use a citation to a neutral website (such as TVShowsOnDVD) so that it does not appear that wikipedia is favouring a particular retailer. Also, remember that when you comment on talk pages you should sign your message with ~~~~ (four tildés) so that your nickname and timestamp will appear, just like this one --> "-- Huntster T • @ • C 01:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)"

Thanks, I think, I've got a lot to learn about Wikipedia! Robinepowell 22:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki aide

Where do I put my name? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robinepowell (talk • contribs) 15:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

(X-Posted) You mean to sign comments on talk pages? Okay, just place the ~~~~ immediately after your comment. Just look at how I sign my comments: not on the next line, but directly after the last word of my comment. The four tildés are important, so that both your name and the timestamp are included. -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
You mean like this?Robinepowell 01:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Robin :o)
(X-Posted) Yes, that's perfect! Also, remember you don't have to start a new section for every post you make. You can simply hit "edit this page" at the top and scroll to where the conversation is taking place, or hit "edit" next to the section you want to add something to. This helps keep the conversation flowing. When you do this, use a semi-colon (:) in front of your message to indent it (like this post is); you can use more than one to indent several spaces. Take a look at various talk pages and you'll see what I mean. This is also useful for conversation organization. Cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 06:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VrakTV

Here's their website: http://www.vrak.tv/grille/index.jsp

Since you have a link for TNT's and Showcase Diva's schedule listed for Charmed (with a little number too) thought you could to the same for VrakTV. Robinepowell 11:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the update! Robinepowell 04:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evanescence fair use blah blah blah

If we're gonna keep that image, you'd best argue for its inclusion at

and

because as it stands right now, it'll be deleted in a week.

Good compromise. Thanks for coming up with it. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 23:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and in response to this:
"Okay Armando, please calm down and think rationally. I do not understand why you are taking such offense at this."
It's pretty clear he's upset from the double standard in enforcing the Fair Use Criteria. I was none too happy when Roguegeek first stripped our article of good images either. In cases like this when a person is strongly upset by something, they're gonna vent their anger toward somebody, and in this case it was Roguegeek for cracking down on our articles and not others. I must say, I sympathize with him. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 23:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rating-4

Thanks for creating that, fills an important gap. Rich Farmbrough, 14:13 11 November 2006 (GMT).

DO you feel like doing a raing-3 template? (What's the Story) Morning Glory? looks a bit oddt the moment. Rich Farmbrough, 12:57 12 November 2006 (GMT).
(X-Posted) Hey Rich, I'll be more than happy to take care of that (might make a rating-6 also, as they've been known to exist). I'll get the code set up in a few hours, and create the images when I get home from work. I'll let you know when Rating-3 is complete, and set links on the existing templates. I think we need to find an appropriate place to advertise these, as I've not seen a mention of them anywhere in the Wikiprojects. Not sure where would be most appropriate though. Also been thinking about modifying the existing templates to accept 0.1 incriments of input, while still using the half-star icons, but I'll worry about that later. Thoughts? -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - yes I've seen the "stars of 6". As for .1 increments, on the talk page of rating-10 I suggested an additional parameter as an alternative "alt" text for just this reason. Rich Farmbrough, 20:20 12 November 2006 (GMT).
(X-Posted) Aye, I saw that comment, which is what got me thinking about allowing actual imput of 6.9 which would render the approximate amount of stars and alt text. It's just a concept idea, and I don't know how difficult it would be to impliment it. -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
(X-Posted) ::Just letting you know that {{Template:Rating-3}} and {{Template:Rating-6}} have now been created. I still need to create the graphics, but I should have that done around 12-14:00 ET Monday. Also, that full decimal system works fine, and I don't see any need for additional graphics outside of the half-star system already in place. Cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Okay, just updating that images are finished and everything is ready to go. I wanted to ask, though, about your Rating-10 template. The resulting image is very wide, and somewhat unwieldy with the current infoboxes. To that end, would you mind if I created some custom, smaller stars for this template, and rework the code? My thought is to reduce the size to about 60 to 70% of current, so it is longer than the other ratings, but not so wide that it doesn't fit well inside the infobox. -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, make any sane changes you like. Rich Farmbrough, 20:52 13 November 2006 (GMT).
(X-Posted) Alright, changes finally made to {{Template:Rating-10}}. If you don't like it, please revert. -- Huntster T • @ • C 10:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks fine to me, and disposes of the "hack". Rich Farmbrough, 18:05 17 November 2006 (GMT).

[edit] Shepard Smith Page and the word "payoff"

I got into a revert contest over the word "payoff" in the SS article. I think it's OK because it's a quote. It keeps getting changed to "settlement". I put it in quotes, but still got changed. I changed it back and stuck it in discussion. Seems like people are really touchy about the word "payoff", and I don't think it is any different than "settelement". Here is my question: Do quotes from cited articles have to be NPOV? Can people change quotes just because they don't like what they say? When you get in a war like this, who makes the final decision? Are there moderators to defer to? Do you have time to go into the article and add your two cents. Thanks. Misstory 00:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Hey, thanks for bringing this to my attention. While I'm not an admin, I must say that a quote is a quote for a reason, and to change the wording renders it not a quote, and at worst places the quotation in questionable legal status (aka, misrepresenting the newspaper). I'll delve into this and see what I can work out. -- Huntster T • @ • C 00:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for having a look. Also, I apologize for reverting more than 3 times. I got a little excited. Misstory 00:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again. Misstory 16:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] After all that...

Words cannot express my frustration at losing our last Evanescence image. And that after such a heated debate and a widely accepted compromise, too! Grrr... —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 02:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fallen album cover

Hello Huntster. I emailed the cover for Fallen to your MSN address, although I probably should have sent it to your wiki mail address. If that causes any problems, just let me know and I'll resend it. // Sasuke-kun27 14:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Oh no, I'm sorry but that email address is a black hole. I only use it for instant messaging due to massive spam problems with Microsoft. I was going to email you my address just to be safe, but you've not confirmed an email addy with wikipedia. So, lets try this: huntster74205-wiki *at* yahoo *dot* com. Thanks for your help in this! -- Huntster T • @ • C 17:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Just to make sure, I'm replacing the *at* and *dot* with @ and . right? Anyway, I have to go to Home Depot right now (why? I have no idea) so I'll resend you the picture in about 15-30 minutes. // Sasuke-kun27 19:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone seems to have beaten me to it by scanning their own image. Oh well. If you want me to, I'll try to get the Open Door cover when I get it back from my friend. // Sasuke-kun27 18:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Man, I totally forgot about them! Well, I only have Fallen and Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge by My Chemical Romance (the scan looks like crap, though. There's not much that I can do with it but hopefully you could improve it). I'd gladly send Fallen over to you (and possibly Three Cheers if you want) if you're still interested. // Sasuke-kun27 01:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charmed Mulitmedia

Hey!

Not sure what you're trying to say with this: [quote]Hey, saw your edit at Charmed multimedia. I called it different from Region 1, as the original production is based in Region 1, rather than one of the others. Just as if a DVD was produced in Britain, everything would be different from Region 2.[/quote]

But at the top of the page it says "Most regions share the same cover art; only the covers for Seasons 3, 5 and 7 have been changed for their Region 1 releases." Which is why I changed it back to Region 1 from Region 2. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robinepowell (talk • contribs) 21:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

(X-Posted) And upon re-reading what I originally wrote, it should have been "changed *from* their Region 1 releases". Oi. -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re. Evanescence-related sprotects

(X-Posted) You are my hero. Thanks for the quick action regarding The Open Door and Lithium (Evanescence song). -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. :-) Keep up the good work.--Húsönd 04:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 2006, December

[edit] Evanescence covers (X-Posted)

(X-Posted) Greetings! I noticed you restored the covers on the article Evanescence. This has been some debate lately, and one that needs to be settled. I take it then that scanned (aka "digitally photographed") reproductions are allowed as not falling under fair use? Or are they still fair use (despite not being originally owned by the company) are simply meet FUC? I appreciate all assistance in clearing this issue up, as we do hope to eventually raise this article to FA, or at least GA, status. Cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The only relevant copyright is that of the album cover itself, so that's all that the fair use analysis needs to consider. An accurate photograph of a two-dimensional work is not itself independently copyrightable, because it's merely a copy that adds nothing original. This is not controversial, even if it is not widely understood. Postdlf 19:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Thank you for responding to this, it helps a lot. Thanks also for posting on the article's talk. -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism userbox

I hope you don't mind me borrowing your vandalism counter userbox for my own user page. It's convenient, since I can put it into my sidebox, and it looks a lot better than what I had there before. Thanks! :) Algebra 05:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

(X-Posted) No problem, seeing as how I stole it from someone else's page ;) -- Huntster T • @ • C 06:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Season 8 DVDs - France

I tried to add France since it's not listed and I found on another Charmed site that someone mentioned the release date for Season 8 on Feb. 19/07 http://www.alapage.com/-/Fiche/DVDV...charmed&sv=X_ML

Can you tell me what I did wrong? http://www.alapage.com/-/Fiche/DVDVideo/926692/DVD/?id=34051141895159&donnee_appel=ALAPAGE&fulltext=charmed&sv=X_ML

http://www.theprophecy.net/showthread.php?p=2484448#post2484448

Robinepowell 23:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent deletions of categories

You recently attempted to delete Category:Fictional heroines on various redirects "per WP:CFD." However, you also deleted all the other categories which still exist and have no WP:CFD template. I've fixed Layla Williams, Kristin Wells, R Dorothy Wayneright, Gwen Stacy (clone), Maggie Reed and Ramika already. If you are doing this with a bot, the bot needs to be fixed. Gimmetrow 14:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Well, thank you for correcting my obvious error. I had previously understood or been told that cats weren't necessarily appreciated in redirects; thus, the removals. I shall sit in my corner quietly and ponder the err of my ways :) -- Huntster T • @ • C 15:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, no problem. In the past it was unusual to categorize redirects, but as far as I can tell, the devs said it was OK. Gimmetrow 15:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evanescence Logo

No, the only difference between the old logo and the new one is that now the first "A" has a longer tail. Though, which one did you think was blurry? The blue-background one? That's just compression artifacting, which I can fix if it's decided to use it. Really though, I don't care which logo is used, I just thought the blue one would blend more nicely with the infobox border...and no, I *seriously* doubt the colours are going to be changing anytime soon, given how much debate and hem-hawing went into deciding the current scheme; Everyone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums seems to agree with it. -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

My bad, I forgot what letter had the small change. ;)
The new logo looks good bro. We should go with that one and, if you're willing, you can clean up the bluriness at your convenience. And if we end up keeping the third photo of them, the entire infobox will end up blending quite nicely.
Good job man. =) —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 23:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australia Cover Art

As you can see Australia is getting the same cover art as Germany, which leads me to think we're all getting the same for Charmed S8. http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/791159

The Netherlands is also matching with a cover: http://www.dvd.nl/nieuws.php?id=2495

I attempted to change the "cover art" section but once again I goofed. I still need to figure out Wikipedia's "maze" of links. Lol! Robinepowell 16:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Slight problem here. Just because Australia has the same cover as Germany means nothing...they have always had the same covers. It is the United States which features different covers, so until the US image is released, we won't know if region 1 will look different from regions 2, 4, etc. I'm going to revert the page for this reason. Btw, I'm just about to get to sleep (worked midnight), but I'll be on AIM if you want to chat this evening. Cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 16:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get your message until now, after I changed it a second time. I doubt we will get a different cover for Season 8 in Canada/USA. Only odd seasons have changed. And isn't just Australia, The Netherlands too now. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robinepowell"

Thanks for your support with the other user "Mal". I posted a reply on my page. I just made on small change. Where it says at the top "different covers for different regions" I changed it to "a different cover for Region 1" since everyone in other countries seems to be getting the same cover. Robinepowell 09:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evanescence

(X-Posted) Hey, just saw your modification to Evanescence. While you've done a good job here, I question the necessity of devoting that much of article space to what amounts to a relatively minor early controversy. There simply does not need to be that many quotes to get across a fairly simple point. I'm going to attempt to pare it down a little, and I encourage you to find ways to do the same. Lets keep this to one large paragraph or two small ones at most, eh? Thanks! -- Huntster T • @ • C 10:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason I put those in there was simply to restore what was taken out--taken out because the citation to a few claims no longer existed. That it was taken out when no adequate source was then available is understandable, but I don't think it's unreasonable to put it back in. "That" much is only a single paragraph (at least the text I included), and the controversy did get its share of press. Thus, "comprehensive yet concise" seemed to be the way to go.
When I originally saw the section, it left out a number fairly important facts relevant to the controversy to the extent that it made it look as if the belief of Evanescence being a Christian band was based merely on rumors (indeed, I believe that word is still there in the section). The truth is somewhat different, and thus the section as it was struck me as giving a bit of a false impression. To get the full picture one ought to know the actions and words that the group previously made (consider in particular Ben Moody's words before and after, since they seem especially relevant)--and "that" only takes a paragraph. I hope you won't mind its inclusion, though I agree some of the section could be trimmed a little bit. If it were up to me I would’ve made the section shorter. I was worried that tampering with it further might upset some people. (I felt I was pushing my luck as it was, painting the full picture as I did.) --Wade A. Tisthammer 04:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Hey, no, you are right, it does paint a clearer picture. I've done some minor work to it...not much shorter, but a bit less choppy. Hope you are okay with it. I still think it could work with fewer quotes, but I'm actually fine with it as-is. Thanks! -- Huntster T • @ • C 08:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evanescence archive

(X-Posted) Hey Armando, in the future, don't archive *all* of the talk page. There were still discussions that were actively going on, and now many newer people won't be able to find them (and you aren't supposed to comment on archive pages anyway). So discussion has effectively stopped for any outstanding issues. Besides that, the page wasn't very long...look at previous archives which were twice as long as the new one. Just a tip for the future...don't archive until you have a significant number of dead topics. -- Huntster T • @ • C 06:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What? It's really very long. I've cerated this archive Talk:Evanescence/Archive_2 and it's 73 kbs long, while the others are 30 kbs...Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 15:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Oh, I know it was long physically, but the number of articles contained was small. I understand why you archived, I'm just suggesting you don't archive everything when doing so. -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC);
Oh, OK. No problem! Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 22:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charmed Mythology

As you suggested, i started a charmed mythology type article, currently its here User:Malevious/Charmed_creatures until its ready to be put in mainspace. If you have some spare time on your hands I'd love it if you stopped by there and gave me a hand with it. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Hey, that's great to see. I'll try to contribute something, but I'll admit, I'm much more of a copyeditor than an original author :) -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy note about ArbCom proceeding

Hiya, just wanted to drop you a courtesy note to let you know about a current ArbCom proceeding where your name is briefly mentioned: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions. No action is needed on your part, though if you would like to participate in the case by offering a statement, evidence, or comments on the workshop page, you are more than welcome. FYI, Elonka 05:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 2007, January

[edit] The Open Door image

Just wondering, how exactly is the cover of the above image not fair use? If you are referring to the fact that Eacz12 uploaded one under CC-by-SA, that doesn't count. A scan of a copyrighted image maintains the status of the original image i.e. the one uploaded by Eacz12 was still under full copyright of Wind-up and/or Evanescence (a scan doesn't have sufficient originality to be copyrightable). If this isn't what made you say that my image wasn't fair use, please tell me what did. But I'll just point out that the image uploaded by Eacz12 has exactly the same status in copyright and he/she does not have the authority to licence it under CC-by-SA (since either way about my image, you seem to be supporting the view that he/she does). This also applies to the image of Fallen and Anywhere but home. If you do not believe me feel free to confirm this by asking at WP:COPYRIGHT but do not upload any more images under licences which you do not have the authority to issue or replace properly licenced (fair use) images with ones uploaded as such - unless you have another reason for replacing mine (again, scanning it does not give you the right to licence it) - ??????(t • c • e) 13:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) All I know is that this issue was discussed with a couple of admins, who stated that scanned images are equated with digital photographs, and that they do not fall under fair-use, similar to how you can take a photograph of any other product (vehicle, sofa, etc) and it be a valid exclusion of FU. Perhaps CC-by-SA is the wrong tag, but I'm convinced by both the above statements and by that logic, that these are valid images. No offense, but I'm getting somewhat perturbed by the rediculous amount of contradictory information presented here. -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I accept that someone else has said otherwise, but I can assure they're wrong in this case (unless I'm misinterpreting what you said). I would advise you to confirm this at WP:IMAGE or WP:COPYRIGHT, or alternatively if you'd rather see an example of a case which proved they are not independantly copyrightable you could also look at Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corporation. To summarise, the Library had made digital copies of paintings whose copyright had long expired. Corel reused the images without permission on the grounds that the copyright had expired (even though Bridgeman created the digital versions). Bridgeman subsequently filed suit. In the end the court ruled in favour of Corel, citing that digital copies of images aren't independantly copyrightable as they show no originality, or at least not sufficient originality (applies to US law, which is what is applicable for Wikipedia). If you want to see more detail, like I said, just take a loook at the article. - ??????(t • c • e) 20:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Also the photo thing was certainly wrong. For example, a photo of a chair is yours to copyright, because the chair isn't a copyrighted work. Even if you photograph something which is copyrighted (for example a logo) in many cases it will still not be infringement unless the copyrighted work is the main idea in the photo. For example, a photo of a television does not infringe on the logo of the manufacturer, because it is not the main idea in the photo and would not be particularly prominent but it may infringe on the rights of what is displayed on screen (e.g. a TV show). - ??????(t • c • e) 20:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Thanks, but after discussing this on IRC this morning with both regular users and admins, I'm at the point of throwing up my hands in disgust, especially with one of the closing statements by an admin being "Admins don't know any more about copyright than you do." While it may be true, this is a disturbing statement to make, as it calls into question the ability to accurately assess the licensing. I frankly don't care anymore if you nominate every bloody image for speedy; perhaps the articles would be better off without any images, free or fair-use (a policy which I consider to be a joke, given the number of holes and the vagueness in which it is presented). Anyway, do whatever you want, I'm quite finished caring. In any case, I'll toss up a message on the main Ev article, and I suggest it might be a good idea for you to do the same. -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not particularly concerned about the copyright problems myself in this case (but I do agree they need to be there). Whoever said that on IRC today was very wise. Knowing how the copyright works is not neccessary for adminship. The main reason I was against the images is because they have the same copyright status as ones from digital sources, but the digital sources (such as iTunes) will be better quality. - ??????(t • c • e) 20:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Das Ubergeekness of the Clan

Yep, it must be in our blood. ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nf utvol (talk • contribs) 21:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Hey! You found me! My username is much easier to find than yours...I didn't think to only capitalize the first letter. Yeah, if you ever have any questions about the wiki, just ask. Also, there is an IRC channel that's great to hang out in, and occasionally ask questions, irc://irc.freenode.net, channel #wikipedia. Also, when you write on other folks' talk pages, remember to sign your post with ~~~~ (four tildes), so that it'll put your name and time at the end, like so: -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Whee, will do. What prog are you using for IRC these days? The first capitalization is a glitch in wiki anyways, never intended to have any capitalization... Nf utvol 04:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) That's a good point, though there is a template somewhere that will at least allow the article title to display in it's intended format, even if the actual title is malformed. I'll attempt to find it. I'm still using mIRC, newest version. It simply works. -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you perchance going to be available any evening this weekend? I'm coming home and was contemplating a trip to Nashville.Nf utvol 16:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) No, unfortunately :( I have to work at midnight, so my sleep schedule is all screwed up. Arg! When are you returning to K-town? -- Huntster T • @ • C 16:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evanescence

(X-Posted) Hi, regarding your recent edits to Evanescence songs, please do not link to YouTube videos featuring copyrighted material. This is not acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks! -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the remainder. May I be informed of any related Wikipedia guidelines? Ktsquare (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) :Well, it's hard to point to specific guidelines without frames of reference, and I'm certainly not an expert in these matters; I just have knowledge of many items that I've come across in my time here. For example, copyrighted imagry may be used on Wikipedia if it falls within Fair-use criteria, but videos and other related material cannot be reproduced in full because that violates certain copyright laws (this includes news broadcasts, music videos and full songs, television episodes, and the like). Like I said, I'm not good at dispensing information without having specifics to work off of, so if you have any procedural questions regarding specific events or occurances, I'll do my best to help, or try and refer you to someone/someplace else that can give you better information. Cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 15:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What?

(X-Posted) Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Evanescence. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a question for you, how is adding a album and singles chart [[[vandalism]]? It makes in better! It shows the number on the rock, hot 100 charts for Evanescance's albums and singles! If you have a problem then tell me mre, because showin what i did was better not bad!--Musicaltheatrewiz 21:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Okay, perhaps this one was a bit strong. However, we have pages that are mostly dedicated to providing chart information, such as Evanescence discography. There really is no reason to include that information on every page of Evanescence, when it can more appropriately be accessed from that page, or from the Album articles. Also, you added something about a 2007 release, that is not verified, and looks completely made-up. That is what really prompted the above tag. Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I hope this makes sense. If you have any questions, please let me know. -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand now what i di was wrong, thankyou for telling me. But the 2007 release hasn't been released yet but will, if you want to she that i'm telling the truth go to www.allmusic.com and look up Evanescance. When you get there go to Discography and it will show that album.--Musicaltheatrewiz 21:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Interesting, but that is definitely a mistake. All Music Guide has been known for some blatant errors in the past, and should be taken with a grain of salt. Lets refrain from adding this under there's some independent confirmation, okay? -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
okay, thankyou.--Musicaltheatrewiz 21:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

I could have sworn that I had the grammar right there, but looks like we never stop learning ^_^ Thanks for fixing my mistake and setting me straight, apologies for reverting your good faith edit. ˜ The Haunted Angel (The Forest Whispers My Name) 23:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Hey, don't worry about it; like you said, we never stop learning. It's true wisdom to understand that fact :) Cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frederick Baron

The same IP continues to add an external link. I am not sure of the policy re a link of the subject of the article - but it seems unnecessary to have mulitple links. If you can help (I see you deleted it once), it would be great. I think this same person continues to add this. THanks. Jance 03:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'll add it to my watchlist and keep an eye on it for the time being. -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: AFD BattleFront III

(X-Posted) Regarding Battlefront III, perhaps it would be best to AfD this article. That seems to me the most reasonable thing to do, given the complete lack of information we have on it. Personally, I tend to believe those articles that were originally introduced, but I'd be just as happy to have the article removed and wait for more concrete evidence. What say you? -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more -- I watched a week or so ago, someone nominated it for speedy deletion, but it never actually was deleted. If it's nominated for deletion, you have my vote. ˜ The Haunted Angel (The Forest Whispers My Name) 19:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shepard Smith

You beat me to the "cite a published source edit"! I happened to be watching Smith's Studio B show last friday 1/19 at 3:30 and he told his side kick Jane Skinner that he is "Happily divorced". Engaged men don't say that, especially not on TV. I'm going to check around for video. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Misstory (talk • contribs) 19:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) See, I'm just talented like that ;) However, even if you find a video, we cannot link to it, because doing so would violate copyright laws. Citing sources is definitely a finicky thing... -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
You rock, Hunster! I see your point. The published source is best. The "Patricia" entries and comments are very similar, though by various Id's, just sayin'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Misstory (talk • contribs) 19:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Video

Hey, Why have u deleted all the Video info from all that Evanescence singles articles??? Armando.O (talk|contribs) 19:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) I haven't deleted any recently, but the video links I did delete were ones on YouTube or other such service. They are copyrighted, and being present on YouTube is a violation of copyright, thus, we cannot link to them. I'm working on getting this fixed, and links to properly copyrighted videos established. -- Huntster T • @ • C 07:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007, February

[edit] Barnstar

Barnstar
I, Eacz12 hereby award you a Tireless Contributor Barnstar for contributing tirelessly to the Evanescence, related pages and many other articles. Keep up the good work and please, don't stop contributing!!!  Armando.O  (talk|contribs) 21:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Myspace

Hello. How does one know that a particular myspace is the OFFICIAL myspace of a person/band? (there are many fake myspaces). Cdrod431 17:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Replying to user, if a page falls under the "MySpace Music" category, that indicates an official presence. Regular profiles probably should not be used, unless, for example, they are linked to by the official website. Like I said, it is really a case-by-case basis. -- Huntster T • @ • C 17:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Regards and thanks for clarification. Cdrod431 17:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Never a problem :) I would suggest, though, that you review the edits you've just made and determine if they should be kept or reverted. I've got to run, so won't be able to. -- Huntster T • @ • C 17:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Will do. Cdrod431 17:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evanescence

Hi, I've seen you frequently around the article Evanescence and other related articles. Please consider joining the WikiProject Evanescence, an effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage and detail regarding Evanescence.

If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks that you can help with. Thank you!!!

 Armando.O  (talk|contribs) 01:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, why don't you join the project?? You are one of the best contributors on the Evanescence's articles.  Armando.O  (talk|contribs) 23:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
(See complete discussion at Armando's Archive 3.)

[edit] Commons

A question...if the Evanesence logo is licensed under the CC BY SA 2.5...shouldn't it be uploaded to Commons? (yeah, I know I'm a noob :S)  Armando.O  (talk|contribs) 19:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

(See related discussion at Armando's Archive 3.)

[edit] XM Radio

Good call on XM Satellite Radio external links. Vees 16:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See also

See also is better for the sections, because actually, the sections don't talk exactly about the albums but the current events that happened during each album era...The sections could be even without the that section templates... Armando.O  (talk|contribs) 23:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) In this current usage, "Main" does work better because the sections in question only talk about events surrounding those albums. "See also" is good for the Anywhere but Home section because it also refers to Moody's departure. Were that section only to refer to the album, I'd suggest "Main" be used for it as well. -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Ohhhhhhh.....well It's ok... Armando.O  (talk|contribs) 23:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

This is for all your good work on the Charmed articles!

The Working Man's Barnstar
Good job on all your work on the Charmed articles! --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 15:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Thanks so much for that Mal, I appreciate it :) -- Huntster T • @ • C 15:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
No prob, you deserve it! --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 15:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Evanescence

(X-Posted) Hi there, I'm sure you were trying to revert the previous vandalism to the article Evanescence, however, you reverted my edit instead. Please try to be aware when vandalism has already been reverted, especially if you happen upon an edit conflict (though I don't know if one was presented to you or not). Thanks! -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see your edit until I returned to History to access the vandal's talk page. When I noticed that my revision had deleted some of your changes, I reverted to your edit. Sorry about that! --Ann Stouter 03:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Heh, Wikipedia apparently does many strange things...I thought I had reverted your revert, but it looks like it accepted your change instead of mine. It's all good now, in any case ;) -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Matthew Jay article incident

Hi Huntster. Thanks so much for your support and for cleaning up the mess of my talk page. p.s. I believe that R. Magowan is actually Ms. Rachael Magowan so feel free to edit your message to reflect her correct gender! --Paul Erik 00:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Style question

(X-Posted) I just noticed your edit on Call Me When You're Sober, where you converted all the numbers from numeral to written-out format. I have to ask why this was done...numbers over ten are acceptable as numerals in any circumstance. The MoS only says you are allowed to write them out if they are only two words, not that you must. I find your changes...curious. -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I used to find it "curious" as well, but Mel Etitis (talk · contribs), a university professor of English, said a while ago that many major manuals of style stipulate that numbers under 100 should be written out. I also think it reads nicer, but I won't be bothered if you revert.
By the way, I've seen some of your edits to the various Evanescence articles, and I just thought I'd tell you what a great job you're doing. You help to keep Wikipedia from "going under" :). Extraordinary Machine 18:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Thanks for your kind words, I appreciate them! I am not going to revert, I was just curious because I've never seen such a guideline before. Thanks for the reply. -- Huntster T • @ • C 00:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007, March

[edit] MTSU Horseshoe & Pressbox

(X-Posted) Hey! I see you added a pic of the MT horseshoe to the article. While it is of great quality, the angle of the shot makes it more than a little uncomfortable to look at, truth be told. If you are ever in a position to take another shot, it would be fantastic if you could make one with normal verticle alignment. (I would, but I don't have a camera...) Remember, we're not going for artistic shots here, just a high quality, clear representation of the target. Thanks for the contribution! -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, you may want to look at your Image:MTSU Pressbox.JPG, as it is currently labeled for deletion because you indicated it was licensed for use on Wikipedia only. Might I suggest that you change the license to {{PD-self}}, which is what you used for your Horseshow picture, or one of the other licenses suggested on the Image page? -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a better picture, I just thought this one looked cooler, and made it seem a bit bigger than it actually was. Also, I'll get on the pressbox one too. Thanks for pointing that out. I have a few more pictures, mostly of athletic stuff, but I'm waiting on Spring to come to take more pictures for Wiki.Raider ATO 05:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Great change to the horseshoe image, in my opinion. Provides fantastic clarity. I look forward to seeing other pictures you create! Some ideas as far as possible targets go: perhaps an interior Murphy Center photo during a game, some kind of panoramic shot of the Greek Row properties (a little difficult given the nature of the curve?), student activity in front of the KUC, and some architecture shots (Library from the courtyard, MassComm, couple of other decent looking buildings). I'm going to try and get permission to post up a campus map, or make one from scratch. -- Huntster T • @ • C 07:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do. I don't know how to get Wiki to be cool with pictures other than taking them myself. I have an aerial image from the 1952 yearbook showing what the campus looked like then. It's pretty amazing how much has happened since then. These last 50 years showed a lot of growth compared to the first 50.-Raider ATO 07:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Well, I'm fairly good with the licenses, so if you want, go ahead and upload it and I'll take care of that side of things. Aerial images are always great, should be interesting to see. -- Huntster T • @ • C 08:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:MTSU_1952_Aerial.gif <-- There is the aerial. -Raider ATO 08:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I also have 2 pictures from Operation Full House (largest crowd in the Murphy Center) but neither are mine, and I don't know where they came from. I imagine the DNJ. I'd have to do some searching. -Raider ATO 08:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Okay, the aerial photo has been taken care of. That really is a good image...now just have to find it a nice home in the article somewhere. As for those other photos, since the source isn't known, they really should not be used; if you happen to locate the source eventually, then we can determine the correct license and give proper attribution. Thanks for your work here! -- Huntster T • @ • C 08:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MTSU Group

Thanks for joining! Sorry I've been out of contact during my midterms. JNAllen 10:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Boyd

(X-Posted) Hi there, I see you helped out with the recent problem with the renaming of William Boyd in articles to Will Boyd. Just wanted to drop a note saying thanks, but that if he's so bloody adamant about renaming that he's going to start a revert war, he can have the (@#$!) name. I will not become involved in such a war, not only because of 3RR, but for simple civility issues as well. I'll start the process of renaming and reediting all the articles so it is actually done correctly. Sorry to moan, I'm not usually like this...just the proverbial last straw and such... -- Huntster T • @ • C 13:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries. It appears that (s)he does not realize that "Will Boyd" has been redirected to "William Boyd (musician)". :-) — Indon (reply) — 14:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daedalus

(X-Posted) Great copyediting, but be careful to use American English for an American-based television show article, rather than traditionally British English terms like 'dialled' and 'manoeuvre'. Personally, I prefer those words as well, but the manual of style dictates otherwise. Just a thought. Cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 15:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally the only American word I know is "color" (I really can't fathom how they pronounce words properly, to be honest). I'll install an American dictionary into Firefox anyway. Matthew 15:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Hehe, I understand. Not a big deal; I catch what I can. I'm a born American and I still use British spellings in my personal work. -- Huntster T • @ • C 16:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007, April

[edit] Re:Flags in Articles

(X-Posted) Greetings. I am not going to revert your edit again, at least not until I've taken more time to consider the issue, but I would encourage you to not go around removing flags without local consent. I've read through the material on the issue and while I see a number of people who wish them to be gone, I see no overwhelming majority and certainly no guideline demanding their removal. Note also that the article you linked to in the edit summary is nothing more than an essay, and cannot be considered as a guideline or otherwise. Just a few thoughts on the issue. -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll put it back in, you're right.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 02:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, um, I hate to ask, but I'm having to use a Handheld to use internet for now, and for some reason, I am not able to enter the flag back in. Could you if possible do it? You will not receive conflict from me... Thanks and have a nice day! Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 02:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Wilco, thanks for the reply :) -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template signing

(X-Posted) I see that you are currently using a template to transclude your signature onto talk pages when you sign. Per WP:SIG this is forbidden, and you need to stop using such templates for your signature. If you have any questions, please let me know on my talk page. Cheers, -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

When? I last did that about 4 months ago, yes in 2006. I don't use it anymore so we needn't worry :) Mr. Garrison (talk · contribs)
(X-Posted) *Hits his forehead* Please accept my apologies, I saw the use of the {{User}} template and stopped thinking, automatically assuming that it was a personalized template. Again, I'm sorry about that :( -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
No worries I did a lot of crazy stuff when I started Wiki.... :) Mr. Garrison (talk · contribs)

[edit] Images in chronology

(X-Posted) Please stop including album covers in the chronology sections of articles. This is a violation of Wikipedia's fair-use policy regarding images, because the images are not being discussed, and are merely decoration. -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry...I got the idea from whoever did it to The Used chronology...I didn't know it was against any sort of policy. I shall stop DaronMalakian47 April 19th, 2007 08:04 p.m.
(X-Posted) Thanks :) Yeah, there was considerable debate about this type of thing in various related WikiProjects and Policy pages, and it was determined to fail fair-use. As for The Used, it does appear they are in bad violation of these image policies. I probably won't make changes myself, but may bring it to an admins attention, so they can make the determination as to what should be done. I'll just have to determine the history. Thanks again for understanding. -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course I understand. I don't read all the wiki policies and regulations...so if I ever violate one, just kind of gently push me into the right direction. DaronMalakian47 April 19th, 2007 08:12 p.m.

[edit] Fallen Artwork

Ok i have waited for a decision to be made like you ask but nothing at all has happened. There is no actual proof that there is two different artworks for the two different issues. I will gladly send you photos of both the original (bought in august 2003) and the reissue (bought in 2005) and tehy both ahve the same artwork. the only difference between the two were the stickers on them. The artwork you claim to be the original artwork is just an image used for promotional purposes. Now please could you do something about this issue instead of continuing to sit around and ignore it? never be good enough April 20th, 2007 04:00 p.m

(X-Posted) Just because your copy doesn't have the same cover as the image here isn't grounds to remove the image. Just because I don't have that cover doesn't mean anything. A claim was made that this is the original press cover, backed up by evidence from the official website and by multiple other sites. Unless stronger contradictory proof can be found, we need to keep the images the way they are. -- Huntster T • @ • C 06:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Then what contradictory proof would you like? I've made a list below of things that may help. Please take the time to read them.
  • Both my FIRST and SECOND edition copies of Fallen were bought from well known major music stores but both carry the "second edition artwork"
  • When i first purchased Fallen in July 2003 every single music store i went to had all copies of Fallen with the "second edition artwork" when the second edition hadn't been released anywhere (My Immortal hadn't even been released as a single then and no one had ever heard of the Band Version which was the whole reason for the second issue).
  • Every single customer uploaded image on amazon is of the "second edition artwork", including a picture of the artwork inside a CD case displaying one of the promotional stickers that the very first copies of Fallen were sold with.
  • Even though there should be literally millions of people with the first edition why have I, a great evanescence fan, not as of yet seen one copy of Fallen with what you call the "first edition artwork" in person or in photo and as of yet haven't met anyone claiming to have a copy?.
  • The official Bring Me To Life single was released BEFORE the first edition of Fallen yet on the inside artwork under the heading "First single from the debut album" it shows a picture of the "second edition artwork".
  • The official Taiwanese Fallen and the official cassette tape Fallen, both made in 2003, have the "second edition artwork".
  • All the official T-Shirts for sale on the official website in 2003 that had Fallen artwork all had "second edition artwork".
  • Official merch that i own that was made in 2003 under licence by C&D Merch, including a Fallen sticker and a Fallen badge/pin, all use "second edition artwork".
  • Both the official Fallen Guitar-TAB book and official Fallen Piano/Vocal/Guitar book, first published by Warner Bros. Publications in 2003, use the "second edition artwork" as their front cover.
All these points by themselves might not mean much but together they all clearly point to one thing. That the first edition of Fallen simply CANNOT have had what you claim to be the "first edition artwork". What record label trying to push a band would release all the products meantioned above then use different album artwork on the main product they were trying to get people to buy. And seriously what record label would make such a change to the main album art anyway? If you still have a disagreement please reply to this because i want to set this right. For all the points where it's possible to do so I am prepared and willing to provide photographic evidence if need be. - never be good enough April 20th, 2007 08:50 p.m.

[edit] Commas in wikidates

(X-Posted) Hi Robin, just a note, I've replaced the commas you removed from Charmed. Wikidates need to be written in the form that is commonly used in the country of origin for the article. Since Charmed is filmed in the U.S. and targeted to such an audience, the article should be written in the grammer and format commonly used in the U.S. (by contrast, the article for Wicca is written in British English format because its origins were in the UK). It really doesn't matter how it is written in the article, as registered users who have set their preferences will see wikidates in their preferred formats. It is just the 90% of the rest of the world that will see it as it is written in the article. Cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 16:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robinepowell (talk • contribs) 17:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please teach me how to add a wikiproject to the list

Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial Arts Please teach me how to add to list Wikipedia:Project shortcuts. Tkjazzer 00:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) No problem, its very easy. First of all, you have to find a shortcut you want to use, such as WP:MARTIAL or WP:WPMA (since WP:MA is already taken). Once you determine what you want to use, just create the article and make a redirect to your WikiProject (aka, type *only* "#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial Arts]]" in the article, without quotation marks, and save). Once that is done, you can include the shortcut on the list of redirects page. You will also need to include the following code at the very top of your main WikiProject article: {{shortcut|[[shortcut]]}}, where "shortcut" is the WP:whatever shortcut you choose. That should be all you need to do. If you have any further questions, just let me know, I'm happy to help, or review what you've done after you've followed the above instructions. Cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Chattanooga Up For Deletion

WP:CHA Qmax 02:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Okay, I've moved the deletion to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Chattanooga to follow proper deletion protocol (you cannot use Prod on pages that aren't articles, templates, and similar). So, head on over to the new page and cast your vote, and see if your Chattanooga history project friends might want to do the same. -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that! Qmax 11:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evanescence sales figures

(X-Posted) I know you said you checked SoundScan, but what website or publication is this data located in? Please do provide a proper citation, or provide the information for me and I'll do it. Thanks. -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Only memebers can have access to the site, but every week in some forums, some people post the SoundScan numbers, and I believe they're for real since Billboard confirme them every week.
Top 10 by Nielsen SoundScan:
1 VARIOUS NOW 24 89,213 -58 213,180 532,538
2 MCGRAW*TIM LET IT GO 65,807 -63 176,592 567,657
3 AKON KONVICTED 59,733 -20 74,643 2,133,326
4 BRIGHT EYES CASSADAGA 58,354 999 357 58,713
5 TIMBALAND TIMBALAND PRESENTS SHOCK VALUE 58,314 -58 138,331 196,839
6 DAUGHTRY DAUGHTRY 54,258 -45 98,426 2,258,477
7 BEYONCE B'DAY 51,217 -59 125,974 2,550,463
8 MCBRIDE*MARTINA WAKING UP LAUGHING 49,995 -64 138,666 187,023
9 HELL YEAH HELL YEAH 44,878 999 265 45,146
10 KRAUSS*ALISON HUNDRED MILES OR MORE: A COLLE 41,988 -42 72,771 114,821
You may check out last week new (04/18/07) on Billboard.com and see these sales, and seem to be accurate.
Then I believe these are for real too:
81 PRETTY RICKY LATE NIGHT SPECIAL 9,526 -17 11,430 416,617
82 TURNER*JOSH YOUR MAN 9,495 -32 13,967 1,764,519
83 MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE BLACK PARADE,THE 9,412 -33 13,988 1,043,009
84 BEATLES LOVE 9,142 6 8,637 1,396,681
85 SHADOWS FALL THREADS OF LIFE 9,074 -63 24,259 33,559
86 EVANESCENCE OPEN DOOR 8,969 -29 12,599 1,683,456
87 ATKINS*RODNEY IF YOU'RE GOING THROUGH HELL 8,960 -40 14,868 887,248
88 HAPPY FEET SOUNDTRACK 8,890 -33 13,225 322,776
89 RED HOT CHILI PEPPERS STADIUM ARCADIUM 8,840 -40 14,722 2,033,195
90 RELIENT K FIVE SCORE & SEVEN YEARS AGO 8,787 -48 16,913 112,206
Kraft. 03:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Well, I'm not comfortable with not having a proper source for these data, but I suppose it is better than what we have now. Personally, I'd like to get rid of all sales figures that aren't backed by verifiable sources, on all Evanescence articles. I may very well do a sweep at some point and do this, since it would be well within the bounds of Wikipedia policy to do so... :/ -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whoops!

(X-Posted...complicated) Please stop trying to add {{Episode list}} to the article List of Charmed episodes. The template is currently broken, resulting in major display errors. Beyond that, you are creating a tremendous mess, with broken image and episode links. If you have suggestions as to how to improve the article, please discuss them on the article talk page before attempting to make these changes yourself. Thanks, and if you have any questions, just ask me here or on my talk page. -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, why are you uploading copies of images we already have, like the Charmed DVD covers? Please don't replicate data. -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

So THIS is how u talk here? Huh. I've been sending u emails, lol. Sorry about that.

I haven't been ignoring you, I did email you, I didn't know how to work the thing.

I most certainly have NOT been vandalising the Charmed Page. I have been improving it & you keep erasing it! I'm gonna rewrite some of it & then maybe try again. Just check your emails for my replys to your first message. I can see how you might think I was vandalising but I just typed a few things wrong & that's why they came up red. See, i typed in the CORRECT episode title & sinec it was incorrect on here, it came up as red. But don't worry, I fixed that too so they're all correct now. Well, Season 1 is, I didn't bother fixing the others coz Season 1 wouldn't stick.

Okay, in future, i will consider talking to you before I edit things, okay? Okay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LilMizPiper (talk • contribs) 04:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

(X-Posted) Okay, I don't understand why you created entirely new articles for the episodes, capitalizing terms like "from", "of", etc. This is improper form for any kind of title. Some of the other changes you made have broken the links, directing them to other non-Charmed episodes. Like I have said previously, this page was stablized long ago. Please don't be offended, but I'm going to revert the changes again, including the change to the Season 5 cover (again, this is not the Region 1 image, which is what we are using for this article). Also, your edit to the article Piper Halliwell, while okay, is also somewhat inappropriate, as Wikipedia tries to avoid Trivia sections when they don't add anything to the article. Pointing out likes and dislikes simply isn't encyclopedic. If you choose to add such material in the future, please state which episode established the item. Cheers. -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
As if you wouldn't be interested in Trivia! i go through each episode writing down every little detail I hear, lol. Meh, your loss.
I changed the Season 5 cover because region 4 (which is what I have) looks better. Same with Season 7.
Oh, yeah, the whole capitalizing 'of' & 'from'? I'm a perfectionist. I can't help myself, lol.
But make sure the title 'When Bad Warlocks Go Good' is changed to 'When Bad Warlocks Turn Good'
Hey, where do you get those, ah...userboxes? I think that's what they're called. in your profile you have a think that says 'This user is Wiccan' & it has a pentacle. Where do I get one? I'm Wiccan too *smiles*
Mkay, I'll leave it...But can I PLEASE have the coloured underlines? In The Gilmore Girls one they have that, it looks so cool!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LilMizPiper (talk • contribs) 00:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Going through things one point at a time:
Yes, I like trivia, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Can you imagine such material in Encyclopedia Britannica? I know those DVD covers look better, but I've explained the reason Region 1 images are used. I'm a perfectionist too, but using capitalized minor words (the, of, that, from, and similar terms) is never correct in titles, be they books, movies, etc. This is broken several times on current Charmed titles, and I'll fix them when I have a day to dedicate to going through them all. And yes, I've fixed everything about the When Bad Warlocks Turn Good article, thanks for correcting this.
Hey, always good to meet another Wiccan, our numbers are simply too few. Ah, I believe that you can find them at WP:UBX, or at least on subpages. There are a ton of them, scattered all over Wikipedia. The easiest thing to do is when you find one you like, just click "edit this page" and copy the code (just remember to not save the page afterward). Then, add the userbox code to your own user page.
I don't care about the divider lines, but remember that we're not trying to make things pretty. That comes after making things correct. Cheers, and I'll talk to you later. -- Huntster T • @ • C 05:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Tasks

Thanks for doing that modification to AzaToth's template!  :-) I got it working on all of my WP:RETAIL templates if you care (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Retailing#New WikiProject Retailing template for a live example). Regards, Tuxide 01:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Wow, that was fast! The change was only live for...15-20 minutes?...when you posted that. Well, hopefully others will find it useful as well. Thanks for the message! -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TN project template error

(X-Posted) Hey, what is the error that the ??? causes in the class argument? I've not seen a problem thus far. Cheers. -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Try it out, I have a copy of the banner in my sandbox: User:DoxTxob/Sandbox
Take care, doxTxob 21:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
(X-Post) Yeah, I'm trying out new code on mine as well. (Btw, I hope I can convince you not to impliment the auto-collapse thing...I truly hate it...) -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
(X-Post) Okay, after examining the code a bit closer, I've found it would be highly impractical to enable support for "???", and even the guy I've been working with from Mediawiki can't figure out a simple way to impliment it. I'll be fixing all the article to which this was added. Oi. -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
There should not be many articles that have the "importance=???" in it. The automatically tagged articles have the project banner tag without the parameters in it. {{WikiProject Tennessee}}. A lot of the rest I have tagged by hand searching for TN articles and I left the "???" out. doxTxob 18:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Oh, already taken care of. Just had to go to the fake template page that was indicated (Template:???-Class importance, I believe), and click on the "What links here". -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{Tennessee-media-stub}}

Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 06:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Goodell

Perhaps it can reflect short-lived and controversial, both of which are factual and true? If you read the link to Book of Daniel, one will see it was not just short-lived, and not just controversial, but highly controversial and that's why it was cancelled. If Goodell's family was the source for the show's writer, that seems noteworthy for his article. The writer specifically mentions in the link:

Twenty-three years ago, he began a relationship with Michael Goodell, who remains his partner to this day. Kenny was fascinated by Goodell's contradictory family: emotionally closed-off Republicans who were also socially liberal and welcoming to him. He became just as fascinated by their participation in the Episcopal Church, which he found more liberal and tolerant than Catholicism.

Daniel's family was very loosely inspired by Goodell's--"None of them are addicted to Vicodin, but there is a lot of behavior that is exciting to me in that world"--and he has studied them closely to get the Websters' interactions just right.

Thanks.Kritt 23:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Hi there. All I'm saying is the term "controversial" implies a point of view...not everyone might call it that (though I would). Using it by itself in an article generally isn't advised, but if you can find a quote from a news article or other source, stick that citation in there, it would probably be okay (since you are then citing a third-party's opinion). It's just one of those things with Wikipedia. (And no, the existing citation which uses 'controversial' probably wouldn't be a good one to use, since it is ever so slightly biased against the subject, being a religious publication and all). Saying all that, I won't revert again, but I will still advise against using this term without a citation. Cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Huntster: I'm still confused. The show was cancelled by NBC, and there are tons of sources for the reasons, so why is calling it controversial er....controversial? Thanks again. Kritt 02:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) "Controversial" is one of those descriptive words that, as I see it, fifty percent of a population will agree with and fifty percent will disagree with (just to use those numbers as an example). So including it in an article will leave half of the readers wondering, "Who says it's controversial?" Including a citation of a specific example of an uninvolved critic or journalist calling it controversial provides that frame of reference. I know, it is mostly semantics, but I've learned that one has to be very careful of language used here on Wikipedia. -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Youtube

Do you know what the policy is on referencing Youtube videos? Thanks.Kritt 02:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) As for YouTube, external links or citations to videos can only be used if the owner of the video in question has placed it on the site, because it is otherwise a copyright violation (uploaded without permission of the owner). Usually, it is safe to cite a video when the uploader has the little "Director" icon under his username, but other than that, use a little common sense. If it's a TV show or a music video or whatever, and the owner or licensee isn't the uploader (as is the case for the vast majority of videos on YouTube and other video-sharing sites), don't use it. -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 2007, May

[edit] Charmed / Halliwell vandal

You were too gentle with BauerFanatic87. They are a long-term vandal with a curious mono-mania. See Lakerfanantic87 for one previous manifestation. If you see any more, tag the articles for speedy and request a block at WP:AIV.

Looks like a user name ending 87 is a good clue: see User talk:Batmania1987 and User:Borat87. -- RHaworth 00:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Hey RHaworth, thanks for the heads up regarding BauerFanatic87 (talk · contribs). I've had no dealings with the sockpuppet side of things, and haven't cared enough to learn their habits, as I focus more on the articles/vandalpatrol than administrative bits, but I'll keep an eye out in the future. -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fallen artwork

You asked for me to provide stronger evidence on this matter and I did. You have just simply ignored it. If you are seriously dedicated to maintaining the evanescence related pages then you will take the time to review the points I posted. If you simply don't care then could you please tell me of other people high up in this evanescence project who I could contact who may be willing to actually help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Never be good enough (talk • contribs) 04:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Okay, after speaking to to person who originally made that edit, he says it does seem likely that it is just a promotional image. At that, I'm removing the promo and placing the "second pressing" cover in its place. Thanks for raising this issue. -- Huntster T • @ • C 00:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kimpton Hotels

I have tried adding some constructive additions to the kimpton hotels section of wikipedia and you reverted my changes twice without offering any constructive criticism. I understand that I am new to wikipedia and kindly ask that you help me change my posting so they are more appropiate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.166.48.98 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Greetings, these edits were reverted because (as I noted in the edit summary) they read like an advertisement. Such detailed information is simply unnecessary in an article of this nature. If you can do some research and summarize each hotel in two or three sentences, that might be acceptable. Or, if you can find some news articles or other third party information about that particular hotel, you may be able to create an article for it alone (though, please do not create one without those third-party citations). If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message, and I'll try and help. Cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colbert

I understand that "Not everything Colbert says is notable!" but why not include that the USS Rhode Island was selected due to the crews appreciation for Colbert? It is definitely worth a small note at the very least. -- Boatman666 06:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Ah, I see. The problem was that there were several anons trying to write exactly what you wrote with no explanation, which is why the article is temporarily semi-protected. Instead of just writing that the boat is the "official sub" of Colbert Report, write a brief explanation of why it is the official sub. Or, you can write a lengthy explanation and I'll do my copyedit thing and pare it down to an appropriate size ;) Cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 06:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
How about?
On Tuesday, May 8, 2007, Stephen Colbert named the USS Rhode Island the official nuclear ballistic missile submarine of the Colbert Report after receiving numerous photos of a Colbert Nation poster taken by the crew in various locations aboard the ship
Link to the video -- Boatman666 17:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Hey there, using your material (and the video link was fantastic), I've written the appropriate material into the article. Thanks for all of that. -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thank you, it is nice to find someone who can listen and work resolve a conflict such as this withought a bull headed attitude -- Boatman666 19:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Importance of Being Phoebe

I can understand the removal of the books on the Charmed book page but the image used on the Importance of Being Phoebe page was specifically mentioned in the trivia section. Thus it is valid to be used. Artemisboy 23:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Greetings. I automatically remove any image that is speedied for deletion. If you can add an appropriate 1) source, 2)license, and 3)Fair use justification, then go ahead and re-add it. -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy response. I've added additional information and references to both the image page and the episode page. Please let me know if everything looks above board or if additional information is needed. Artemisboy 23:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bloodsource

Can you explain to me how I vandalize your stuff. I cant recall this. Also can you explain who or what Sweet t 666 music is. You know it could be just a name but i've tried to research them but ended with nothing. Later. User:Bloodsource -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.229.196.49 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Um, what are you talking about? I never claimed that you were vandalising anything, just that your messages on Talk:Evanescence were off-topic from the article. As for the "Sweet t 666", it is probably some one-man operation that the band (or one of the members) used to publish X number of songs. when you google exactly that term in quotes, it gives you a handful of links where the name is mentioned, but no 'official' website. -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
No you wrote a message saying something about vandalizeing your userpage and cleaning up after it. I dont remember. later. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bloodsource (talk • contribs) 11:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Okay, I finally figured out what was going on. An anonymous user (I don't know if it was you or someone just using the same IP address as you) wrote a telephone number with no area code on my talk page saying something about me being single and for me to call that number. I then left a message on that anonymous user's talk page asking them to not vandalise talk pages like that again (and yes, such random material is considered vandalism) and thanked them for removing it themselves. Here's the diff showing where that user removed it: link. So, does that explain things better? -- Huntster T • @ • C 16:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thats pretty funny. Did you call that number? I think someone has a girlfriend. Yeah that helps. Where did that come from? Later! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bloodsource (talk • contribs) 11:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) No, I couldn't call the number, as there was no area code (see the link I provided for a copy of the message). I know nothing about it, other than the person who wrote it used the same IP address as you do (same school, possibly? that would be a coincidence of the highest order...) -- Huntster T • @ • C 16:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
well the area code around here is 662. I need help getting my background purple on my user page. I have no idea what to do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bloodsource (talk • contribs) 11:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Seems that number, with the 662 area code, returns to someone named Tressa Johnson in Thaxton, MS. Interesting. Anyway, I couldn't figure out a way to make your userpage purple (neither "div" or "body" tags worked). Wikipedia tends to not play well with anything other than very basic HTML codes. In lieu of that, I just fixed up the coding of different parts of your userpage...basically made everything work with each other. Hope you don't mind. -- Huntster T • @ • C 17:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
No i really dont mind i am really haveing a hard time doing this stuff. How do i make my own images? Thanks a lot!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bloodsource (talk • contribs) 12:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Your own images? It depends on what you want to make, I suppose, but first you'll have to have a graphics editing program like Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro or similar. However, Wikipedia somewhat discourages editors from uploading images that are only meant for use on their userpages, though it is allowed within reason. What specifically are you wanting to make? -- Huntster T • @ • C 17:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
One of my favorites. A heart with a sword going through it with dripping blood. I think it would go good on my page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bloodsource (talk • contribs) 12:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Ah, that shouldn't be too hard. Heck, if you didn't have anything else, you could probably just draw it in Microsoft Paint and save as a GIF file. Just remember, when you upload an image to the site, give it a very unique filename so that it won't overwrite anything else or be overwritten in the future. -- Huntster T • @ • C 17:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] look dude

(X-Posted) Please do not revert the article Alicia Warrington again. Your initial edit was fine, except that we are only supposed to use the most specific category available. In this case, "American rock drummers" is a subcategory of all three of the ones it replaced. Please see WP:CAT for more information, or leave a message on my talk page. Cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 11:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Sigh...instead of simply reverting or changing back, why not contact me to get more information?? "Multimedia" simply provides some separation to distinguish between general information websites (like her personal site, etc) and sites with interviews, specific audio or video pieces, etc...aka, related multimedia. Just because you haven't seen it before doesn't mean it is acceptable practice. -- Huntster T • @ • C 14:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
i really do not think multimedia should be in the article, I have NEVER seen it in ANY wikipedia articles so stop trying to put it there! so stop reverting my edits unless you provide vaild proof -- Migospia 15:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your defence of Wicca!

The Special Barnstar
For tireless defence of the beleaguered Wicca and associated pages Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 21:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nothing POV about this

The first two players suspended by Goodell were the Titans Pacman Jones and the Bengals Chris Henry. He has also met with Falcons QB Michael Vick and Bears DT Tank Johnson. It has been noted by many that all of the targets of Goodell's attention have been African American. Two of which have not been convicted of any crimes since entering the NFL.

Although Goodell promised to punish teams as well, when he unveiled his new conduct policy the Bengals have had 11 arrests between May 8th 2006 and May 8th 2007. [10] Many wonder if that flurry of activity hasn't warranted any punishment, what kind of activity would warrant action.

Quit editing my page or YOU WILL BE BANNED!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geber22 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) First, applying what appear to be appropriate warnings to your talk page is not a bannable offense, so please don't make threats to that affect. Second, the material you are writing reads as very POV, even if there is truth in it. Nothing is cited, and phrases like "many wonder" and "noted by many" simply don't belong on Wikipedia (aka, *who* said that?). Also, a lot of your material is inflammatory in its wording...you seem to be implying that Goodell has racial motivations in his actions. I reviewed link you originally provided, and it actually doesn't say anything that you wrote (for example, it simply states that the Jags and Bengals have a higher average arrest rate than other teams, and I don't remember reading anywhere that the teams were supposed to be punished along with the players (another news story only mentioned potential punishment, and didn't say they actually would be; please give me a link if I'm wrong here, because that would actually be good material to add).
You have to remember one of the basic tenants of Wikipedia: we should report not what is given to be true, but what can be verified by reliable sources. Read the first sentence of WP:VERIFY. That is official policy, and I am removing your edits based on that policy. I know as well as you that Pacman and Henry were suspended, but it shouldn't be included if a citation isn't made available. Now, if you can provide some source material for these two paragraphs, I'd be more than happy to write it up in encyclopedic and cited format. I am not for or against Goodell, and have no opinion about him, but I do like to see everything that goes into Wikipedia try to meet policy standards. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page. Cheers. -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
From the OJ Page, no sources cited complete POV per your definition.
"There has been significant criticism of the prosecution and the police, and many contend that Simpson would have been found guilty had there not been so many mistakes and irregularities made by the prosecution and the police investigation of the case. Conversely, the jury has fallen under criticism for their ruling as well as the defense team for their courtroom tactics. Immediate reaction to the verdict was noted for its division along racial lines." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geber22 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) I've never visited that page before, and know virtually nothing about the man, so I wouldn't begin to know what is true or false. But yes, that paragraph (and really, a tremendous amount of the whole article) is very poorly written, which is surprising considering how high-profile Simpson is. Here's another thing to consider while working with Wikipedia: just because one article does something, doesn't make it right. Doesn't matter if the highest-profile and most visited and edited page on the site does something one way, if it isn't following policy, it is wrong. Going back to the Goodell article, I have no problem with the information being included, none whatsoever, because I'm a semi-inclusionist...I believe that if it can be properly sourced and it's notable, then pump the article with as much information as you can. But you have to find a proper source for the information. That's all I'm asking. -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Eddie Halliwell
Bag It Up
CSS Charleston
Interstate 140 (Tennessee)
CSS Columbia
CSS Texas
S8G reactor
CSS Fredericksburg
Greatest Hits (Creed)
Jason Lewis
CSS Savannah (ironclad)
Listen to the Rain
Ernest Halliwell
CSS Baltic
Simone Simons
Whisper (song)
Mi Chico Latino
Blindside (album)
Kara Zediker
Cleanup
Incident Command System
Downtown Memphis, Tennessee
Bill Baxley
Merge
Gigaton
McKenzie Arena
Seraphin (Xena)
Add Sources
Holly Marie Combs
Loverboy (Mariah Carey song)
Stargate Command
Wikify
Decipher, Inc.
Unwound
Anton Ivanovich Denikin
Expand
Persecution of Hindus
Jason Ritter
The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007, June

[edit] Evanescence Picture Original 'Permanent' Members

Hey dude, look u undid the version of Evanescence that included a picture of the three remaining 'original' and in certain way 'permanent' members, cause Troy and Will Hunt will only be playing live until September of this year.. to finish the Family Values Tour, so what's the problem with the image?? Rocky and John are no longer members, so it is not right to show them in the image of the band, because they're PAST!. like it or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ivanescence (talk • contribs) 15:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) I reverted this image because Wikipedia guidelines prohibit the usage of fair-use images (which the image you inserted was) when a free-use image is available, whether or not it reflects the current makeup of the band. Hey, I'd love to have perfect pictures reflecting how things are "right now", but my first responsibility is to uphold the policies of this website. If you have any further questions, please leave another note on my talk page (and remember to insert new comments at the bottom of talk pages, not at the top, and sign your comments with four tildes, ~~~~). -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Rose McGowan image

(X-Posted) Hey there, this is a request to undelete Image:Rose_McGowan_07-22-06.jpg. This was not a video capture as was guessed. Image was taken at Comic-Con, where McGowan and others were taking part in a panel. The image shows a projector image, often used at such events that have a large audience, so that everyone can see the panel members. This is no different than if the panel itself was being photographed (just that the person who took the image was either a bit too far away or didn't have a clear shot of the panel members). If there are any questions, please leave a message on my Wikipedia page at en:User talk:Huntster. Thanks! -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I had deleted it because it showed up as blue in a list of images I'd deleted, and it's one of those ones that kept getting re-uploaded by different users; I hadn't realised there was a discussion about it/that it was a projection and not film or a television feed. As far as I know a direct projection onto a screen is not copyrighted... though I am not sure. If the issue comes up I will let you know. Thanks for pointing it out :) -- Editor at Large • talk 20:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Thanks for that undelete, much appreciated. -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: It was eventually determined, after much discussion on Commons, that even though this was a photograph taken at a live event, because the photograph was taken of a projector image rather than the panel themselves, the projector image would be copyright Comic-Con.

[edit] Justification/Alignment

Where do I find the info on this here? I'm trying figure out the codes to use, similar to when putting words in bold or italics but I'm not having much luck. For that matter, where would I find info on changing text size too? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robinepowell (talk • contribs) 01:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) As long as you are referring to your own userpage, just use <div align="left"></div>, "right", "center", or "justify" around the text you want to align, and it should work. However, you should never, barring a very unusual circumstance, change the alignment of text in an article. You shouldn't change text size in articles either. -- Huntster T • @ • C 07:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Now if could you tell me how to change the wording for 7th Heaven from "Multimedia" to "Syndication and DVDs" I'm all set. :o) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robinepowell (talk • contribs) 11:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox suggestion

I didn't look at what you tried with "Cite court", but I point out that there are several {{Template sandbox}} pages for template testing. There are several sandboxes so as to avoid collisions between several editors; just look at their History and choose one which hasn't been altered recently. (SEWilco 14:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

(X-Posted) Yes, I'm well aware of the existance of the sandbox, thanks. I thought I knew what the problem was, but it appears to be more complex than a minor quick fix. -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: HermesBot

(X-Posted) On the same subject, I'm monitoring several articles that use this category, and on one article (Will Hunt) the tag was removed from main article but never added to the talk page, and on another (Troy McLawhorn) the tag was added to the talk page and never removed from the article. I was curious as to if this was just because of the significant number of articles using this category and that Hermes will eventually cycle through and clean those up, or if there was something else afoot. I can certainly fix the stuff myself, but would that confuse Hermes at all? -- Huntster T • @ • C 17:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup. The Bot isn't done yet. I have over 8000 articles to edit, so it will take a while. You can go ahead and do it yourself if you want, as the Bot won't make changes if it already done. ~ Wikihermit (HermesBot) 18:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

(X-Posted) Greetings Mr Reed, hope all is sailing smoothly at BA. I've noticed you are tagging the images you are uploading with conflicting licensing tags. For example, on the images Image:Sundancer in orbit.jpg & Image:GenesisI.jpeg, you are using the tag {{Attribution}} (which is a free-use tag) and {{WithPermission}} (which is a fair-use tag). These two tags cannot be mixed, so it must be decided whether the image will be released as free-use (Public Domain, GDFL, or similar) or will be released as fair-use (all rights reserved, etc). Of course, Wikipedia prefers freely released media, as it can be used virtually worldwide without restriction, but the choice, of course, remains with Bigelow Aerospace as the copyright holders.

Basically, you need to review the images that you have uploaded and correct the licensing information, or they risk being deleted at any time if an administrator discovers the discrepancy. If you need any assistance with this problem, for any reason, don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page and I'll do whatever I can to help. -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Got the image tags under control... Thanks! Spitwater 23:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 7th Heaven Syndication

Since this Otto user is determined to haved DVDs on the main page, could you just restore the Syndication instead? Thanks!

(X-Posted) Considering the level this has escalated to, you need to take this issue to an administrator for further review if you want. Also, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~)! -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Before I take it to an Admin, I need some answers. How do I do that and how do I explain it in a way to make them understand what you and I trying to do with the main page of 7th Heaven?

[edit] Isha Sesay

Just a quick question regarding your recent edit to this article - is that citeweb template the way we're doing things these days? PC78 16:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Hi there; no, {{Cite web}} isn't a requirement, but I prefer it because citation templates provide a high degree of uniformity and professional look to the articles, and if something needs to be changed format-wise in the future, you only have to change the template to affect all the related articles. Just a neat, simple way of doing things. I highly recommend it! ;) You can check out WP:CITET to see some of the other citation templates available for different purposes.
Out of curiosity, why was the "Minister for Economic Development" bit removed? It is the specific title given in the Mano Vision citation, as opposed to just the generic "advisor" title. Also, images are normally best left at the top of the page, rather than somewhere midway (though, to be honest, I should have removed the image entirely as it constitutes a fair-use violation). -- Huntster T • @ • C 17:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I reverted that part of the text because I think you're reading the article wrong - that was her role in the government at the time the article was written (2000), not her original position (or, to the best of my knowledge, her current one). As for the image, yes it quite probably is a weak claim of fair use, but since fair use images cannot be used merely to show what a person looks like, they should therefore be used in reference to the article text, in this case her career. Regards. PC78 17:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Gotcha regarding "advisor"...good middle ground. Weak rationale for the image, perhaps, but I do suppose it skims by for now. Don't be surprised if it eventually is removed, as I doubt an admin would permit it to stay. -- Huntster T • @ • C 17:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
No worries, I knew I was pushing it with that image when I first uploaded it, so I won't put up a fight if someone wants it removed. At least I gave it a rationale though, which is more than most have! :) PC78 17:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charmed Artifact

(X-Posted) Neil, I changed the header colours on {{Infobox Charmed Artifact}} because it was too dark. The dark purple colour you reverted back to makes the text nearly unreadable. At least find a colour that is a bit lighter. Also, why on earth is purple being used in the first place? It has no significance that I'm aware of. -- Huntster T • @ • C 05:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I only reverted it to the purple colour so that it matched all the other templates being used for Charmed articles. As I was not the one who implemented the colour scheme, I have no idea why purple was picked. If you want to change the colour again to the lighter colour, feel free, but make sure you alter all the templates so they have the same colour scheme for all articles. Thanks.--NeilEvans 15:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible bot malfunction?

(X-Posted) Greetings; MetBot recently tagged Image:Roanhighbluffnorth1.jpg as possibly having an improper license for Commons and thus may not be deleted. Please take a look and see if you can figure out what is wrong with the material, as I cannot see any problems. Cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 14:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Good timing, I just created a help page for that task :-) See User:MetsBot/Comons tagging. —METS501 (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) You mean, User:MetsBot/Commons tagging? Sorry, I'm a spelling nazi ;) In any case, thanks for taking another look at that image. I was scratching my head as to what was wrong! -- Huntster T • @ • C 16:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Whoops, thanks for pointing that out! —METS501 (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Royal Gothic

You can go ahead and delete that template because it old anyway. --Bloodsource 19:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categorizing and alphabetizing Meav

(X-Posted) Greetings. I noticed you made some changes at Talk:Méav Ní Mhaolchatha, but they seemed to be slightly inappropriate. I've restored the "Date of birth" category to the page, since it is not otherwise indicated there or on the main article. I've also fixed the name in the DEFAULTSORT tag, from "Meav" to "Ni Mhaolchatha, Meav", since that is the proper "last, first" arrangement. If I've unknowingly 'corrected' some new policy that's not yet made itself well-known, just let me know. Thanks! -- Huntster T • @ • C 07:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you communicated with me regarding this edit—the best editors always feel that all our endeavors are dependent upon achieving Wikipedian consensus. As to Category:Date of birth missing, I lacked sufficient space in the edit summary to fully detail the deletion, writing only, "...deleting Category:Date of birth missing, which is already included within the "defining" article-page Category:Year of birth missing (living people)". That Category, which encompasses the absence of month, day and year of birth, has not yet been appended to the article page. I frequently wait 24 to 48 hours after editing the discussion page to enable the original editor(s), who have the page watchlisted, and who may prefer to edit the article page themselves, to do so. Category:Date of birth missing, which only identifies the absence of the month and day of birth, with the year already having been appended, would thus be unneeded.
The other matter, name alphabetization, deals with an artist's professional name, nickname or nom de plume. Typically, Wikipedia articles are titled with the name by which the artist is best known to the public. Méav uses only that single name in all her professional designations—concerts, album covers, etc. In fact, the only site to use her surname in the title is IMDb. Even the link to her entry in the Finnish Wikipedia illustrates the point—it is titled simply "Méav", with the surname indicated in the opening sentence. She would, therefore, be in the same Category as Cher who is not categorized as "Bono, Cher" or "Allman, Cher", but simply "Cher". You may decide to move the title of the article to "Méav", which creates an automatic redirect to her full name, in case anyone should decide to type its every letter. Even if one insisted upon leaving the entire name as the article title, there is plenty of precedent, especially with people in the musical profession, to forego name reversal in alphabetization. Scores of examples can be found in Category:Stub-Class biography (musicians) articles and Category:Unknown-priority biography (musicians) articles. Others are in Categories found in Category:Biography (musicians) articles by priority. I've spent over a year on these matters, thus we are only scratching the surface, however, it may already be more than many editors wish to know. In any event, I'm always here if more specific details are desired.—Roman Spinner (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Thanks for providing that insightful explanation. To be honest, I don't keep track on the intricacies of that particular debate ("Date/Year of birth missing") as I seem to recall it vacillating often. Thus, I categorise based on what logically makes sense to me, and to me, "date" logically means the fully month, day, year formula, not just month and day. I made the erroneous assumption that "Year of birth missing" referred to those people that *had* only the month and day available (and some people will only release that info) or those situations in which only the year was likely to ever be known. Obviously, I've not delved deeply into this particular matter.
Also, while I do somewhat understand the idea behind titling an article by the most commonly known name, I rather strongly disagree with this practice. Because we have redirects available to us, it only makes logical sense to have the article title as the person's proper name, and set up redirects from names that people may search by or type in...in the above case, have the proper title as "Méav Ní Mhaolchatha" with redirects from "Meav Ni Mhaolchatha", "Méav" and "Meav". It just seems...inaccurate...to only title by a common name [though I'll admit that I've recently gone against this in keeping an article titled Amy Lee (maiden name) over Amy Hartzler (married name)]. Ah well, what do I know ;) -- Huntster T • @ • C 12:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
You are, unfortunately, correct about the vacillating state of Category:Date of birth missing, with many editors assuming that it referred to month/day/year (Category:Year of birth missing seems to have been primarily understood). A number of editors even covered both possibilities by appending Category:Date of birth missing and Category:Year of birth missing to biographical entries which, as in the case of Meav, did not contain either one. However, since their creation, the Categories (all sixteen of which are listed in Category:Articles missing birth or death information) had specific introductory directives elucidating their use and purpose (there are no provisions, incidentally, for including the month and day of birth without the year). Discussions over the past year reached a recent consensus to repurpose the "Date/Place/missing/unknown" Categories to talk pages, while leaving the "Year" Categories, which have been designated as "defining", on article pages. Again, there are numerous additional details involved, but as you probably know, editors overly concerned with such matters have been designated as (or grouped with) wikignomes.
As to name alphabetization, putting aside whether the article should be titled Méav or Méav Ní Mhaolchatha [her own website refers to her only as "Méav", and the sole (minor) example/guidance to come from another Wikipedia is provided by no. 13 (in order of the number of entries), Finland, which also uses Méav—Wikipedias 2 through 12, including German, French, Polish, Dutch, Italian and Spanish---have not, so far, had editors willing to undertake the task], we should be more specific in the use of DEFAULTSORT (see my comment at the bottom of Talk:Charmion for an example). Redirects are not categorized [except as redirects] and therefore do not appear in Category listings. Only the main article name appears in Categories, so it should be logically the one known to the public. In most cases when fame is achieved early in life under a maiden name, such as in the case of performers—(Amy Lee is, indeed better known to the public than Amy Hartzler} or athletes (Zola Budd rather than Zola Pieterse and Mary Decker rather than Mary Slaney. I moved Sandra Reynolds Price to Sandra Reynolds, since the public only knew/knows her under her maiden name. She was also originally DEFAULSORTed as "Price, Sandra Reynolds" instead of "Reynolds Price, Sandra". In the case of television personalities (although not actresses) the standard seems to be that the married name becomes the only one used (e.g. Kathie Lee Gifford (Kathie Lee Johnson), E. D. Hill (E. D. Donahey) and Lucy Owen (Lucy Cohen)). To enable alphabetization, DEFAULTSORT needs only the first letter, thus John Adams needs only "DEFAULTSORT:A" to show up as "Adams, John" in Category:1735 births but, as a result, DEFAULTSORT will not be able to distinguish alphabetically between "Adams, John" and another common name, "Adams, Robert". Such an experiment would confirm that common names need a full "DEFAULTSORT:Surname, Given Name" combination, while for rare and unique names, one letter suffices (although most editors still prefer to spell out the name for consistency's sake). Only the "M" will suffice, for example, to place the entire name, Méav Ní Mhaolchatha (diacritical marks over the "e" and "i" still present in the Category listing) between Roly Meates and Brandon Mebane in Category:Living people.
Ultimately, however, the name alphabetization consensus decision will be made by you and the article's other editors. Méav's name is not a pseudonym, but none of the pseudonymous music personalities, such as Meat Loaf or 50 Cent reversed their names. Single-named musical personalities such as Cher, Jewel, Brandy, Aaliyah and Ireland's Enya, whose surnames were not generally known or used, might also serve as examples.—Roman Spinner (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 2007, July

[edit] Copy Edit

Would you mind popping over to List of Power Rangers: Turbo episodes and doing a copyedit for me? I just wrote the entire thing and I doubt my grammar and spelling is perfect. Would be much appreciated if you did a quick clean up for me :) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Hey, I did a quick copyedit on the page, fixed some spelling, minor grammer and external links. Without knowing anything about the show, however, I'm somewhat limited in what I can do. Cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanx, just wanted to make the page look decent :) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your userpage

Hi, I've already rebuilt your userpage. Hope you like it. If not, simply revert my edit (don't forget about the header). Andrij Kursetsky ⊗ 20:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm at your service ;) Andrij Kursetsky ⊗ 14:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No prob

(X-Posted) Thank you sir for catching the vandalism to my userpage. Subject vandalised again after your final warning and has been reported to WP:AIV. Cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no problem...Whack-A-Vandal is fun...anyways...Peace. Spartan-James 01:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hayley Westenra

I'm not sure if this is the correct way to respond to your editing, but here goes. Regarding the Hayley Westenra edit about having "perfect pitch" and your editing comment: Undo; how is it clear? It is specifically stated as such in the book? What page in the book? Be more clear or it will be considering original research. The incident referred to in the article is described in the book Hayley Westenra: The World at Her Feet on page 25: "Hayley's class teacher came to me and said, "[...]I've never heard a child so tone true. She's perfect" and later on the same page quoting a friend of Hayley's mother (i.e., not Hayley's class teacher), "There is this wee little thing with such an accurate voice [...] It's not hugely strong, but she just has perfect pitch." It is evident that the intent here is comments on a 6-year-old's unusual pitch accuracy and vocal quality. Nothing about this suggests that Hayley was observed to have "perfect (or absolute) pitch," and I know of no other sources (Hayley's interviews, writings, etc.) that ever claim she has absolute pitch. The writer of the main article simply misinterpreted the family friend's reported comment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jpbrownca (talk • contribs) 20:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Reposted at Talk:Hayley Westenra#The editing conundrum over the wording 'pitch perfect' hoping for more knowledgeable discussion. -- Huntster T • @ • C 10:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weight in?

Talk:Battle of P3Y-229 Gamer83 15:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: And to think I just mentioned elsewhere how much I disliked these types of things...heh. -- Huntster T • @ • C 10:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Whisper Latin Chorus (Evanescence)

I specifically asked on last october to my Language professor at my high-school. This professor has got upper studies and knows Latin quite good, he is a teacher at high school and university in the same school. He asked me whether it was a catholic verse from the bible, because the first meaning he gave me was the one stated. But then he consulted some books and told me that was not exactly correct, and another possible translation was "Save yourselves.." because of the ending of the verb 'Servatis'. Nevertheless he was not sure. This March though, another professor, author of some books published by the school (in Mexico) told us he knew Latin. I asked him as well, and he told me he did not know exactly what did "servatis" mean, possible "save me", "save us" or as an imperative form, "save yourself". There can be no reference about that, don't you think? I tried to search in wikipedia and other sources about this particular suffix, -tis, but was unsuccessfull. My only source I have explained to you. Thanks for your time, and I hope you take this into consideration, as it is NOT an invention of mine. 189.130.123.80 17:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(Replying here as anon uses a dynamic IP address) After considering the issue, I realised that translations in general would fall under Wikipedia's no original research policy. To that end, I removed the theoretical translation from the article and reworded to show that the existing translation came directly from Evanescence's website. -- Huntster T • @ • C 10:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Enough Video Captions

Again me, I know it must be boring. Ok if you visit the reference I put on the article, you will find in the news archive for July 11th, 2007, a small post that announces that they will NOT post the pictures because the management requested so, seeing as these images were leaked onto the internet without their consent. The official video release is not stated. But I think this confirms that the captions are from the video. I do not know whether I may remove my previous reference where I link to the page that holds the captions, and I'll leave that to your consideration. Again, than you for your attention. 189.188.2.95 21:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(Replying here as anon uses a dynamic IP address) The issue is not really that the photos were available or not, but that the announcement was referenced from a fan-site. Wikipedia policy states that such websites should not be used for citations, because they have little or no accountability, verifiability or notability (except among a limited subset of fans, which simply isn't good enough...no pun intended). This is similar to the reasons why Evanescencereference.info and random Evthread.com forum posts (except for those explicitly written by Amy Lee or another band member) cannot be used as references. Also, realise that the mere leaking of a few pictures really isn't that notable in the scheme of things. The leaking of the song or video itself is only marginally notable, and usually receives little more than a single sentence. Just keep such things in mind when adding content in the future. -- Huntster T • @ • C 10:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for offering to help with my signature but I will try to figure it out on my own. You've already done enough for me. Getting me out of trouble and all that. So if i can, if you ever need me i will be more than happy to return the favor. --Bloodsource 18:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logos

(X-Posted) Greetings, you recently added title logo images for Good Enough and Sweet Sacrifice. I've removed these per Template:Infobox Album#Details and WP:ALBUM#Details (note that several other editors have also removed similar images from albums and songs), which states not to use these, as violation of fair-use. To this end, I ask that you not re-add these types of images in the future. Thanks! -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the info. i hadn't realised so, but then you should also check the pages for Call Me When You're Sober and Lithium, because they have logos on the titles too. Thanks again.
Ps: I'm also the one with IP adress 189.188.2.95, but sometimes i forget my password and edit without login in lol...so as I've filled uselessly a big space of this page, you may want to delete my posts, I merely tell you those were also my contributions and you can erase them if you want to ;). Ivanescence 21:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Yeah, I'm currently working my way through some other stuff, and then I'll remove the images from the remaining Evanescence articles. Cheers! (Also, be careful to not remove others' posts on talk pages when you write something. I've fixed mine, just be aware of it in the future.) -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of terms in Charmed

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of terms in Charmed, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms in Charmed. Thank you. Corpx 07:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Would we be able to use The Book of Three to source the article? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Re: Book of Three...I have no idea. Given they are both primary documents, it really wouldn't make a difference. -- Huntster T • @ • C 17:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I swear, people got bored and decided to wage war against any article that is related to TV. First images, then the war over episode articles, now lists. What's next, the main articles?! --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) To be perfectly blunt: yes. Next up for deletion will be supporting articles (characters, main artifacts, etc). Main articles will remain because there can be absolutely no justification for removing television series main articles. It has been tried. As I'm dealing with over on a Stargate article, it might be a good idea to archive all the Charmed articles and re-establish them over on a Wikia site (have I discussed this before?). -- Huntster T • @ • C 17:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikia sucks though (in my opinion), the only thing keeping the cruft to a minimum here is the policies. Over there cruft is everywhere. I've been able to use the Charmed magazines to add set info to some of the episodes, hopefully I can find some more of my magazines and find ways to source other articles. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deceased TV

You said that perhaps a checkuser is in order; you are welcome to request one at WP:RFCU. >Radiant< 11:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gilmore Girls

I'm trying to figure out a few things when adding Season 7 and Complete Series.

I somehow added an extra square and don't know how to undo it and I'm still trying to figure out background colours. Can you take a look and tell me how I can fix it? I don't want you to fix it until I give it a shot. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinepowell (talk • contribs) 16:28, 20 July 2007

Is there some reason why you haven't gotten back to me? I even sent you an e-mail on the subject, did you get it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinepowell (talk • contribs) 17:44, 26 July 2007

[edit] 2007, August

[edit] Images

(X-Posted) Please do not add non-free images to infoboxes in articles, as this violates Wikipedia's fair-use policy. To qualify for fair-use, a non-free image must directly address a particular topic within the article, and not simply be used for decorative purposes.

Beyond that, I don't understand why you are using what appears to be photographs of promotional pictures. While using the promos themselves isn't advisable, using photographs of them is even less so. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. -- Huntster T • @ • C 06:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

How about screenshots taken from television. Would they be appropriate to use in infoboxes in articles I have edited? Kkbhe 05:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) No, because television programs are copyrighted, and no fair-use images should be used in infoboxes except in cases where it is impossible to get a free image (like CD or DVD covers). Living people should ideally never have fair-use images on their articles, except for times where the image itself is part of a description or specific topic within the article (such as caps from music videos). Yes, it is a tricky situation, and there isn't really a definitive answer, and I'm not an even an expert, but I'd advise that until you learn more about how various systems work on the site, don't include fair-use images at all. Just give it some time, and meanwhile, go out and take some pictures yourself for the site! :) -- Huntster T • @ • C 09:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
How come you keep replacing my Piper pic with the free image of Holly Marie Combs, but not the Promo Pheobe pic with the free Alyssa Milano image or the Prue pic with the free Shannon Doherty image? The unusual ruling about images isn't placed on any other charmed character's pages or any other fictional character's pages for that matter, so why does it apply to the Piper Halliwell article, but no-one else's?Kkbhe 05:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Kkbhe, do not replace the free Holly Marie Combs image with a fair-use image. This violates our fair-use policy, which states that if a free image is available (especially when the subject matter looks identical to the person they portray, and in this case, Combs' image is fine for ID'ing Piper), that the free image must be used. Cheers. -- Huntster T • @ • C 11:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Non Constructive" edits

I made the edit to the Evanescence article while I wasn't logged in. I just forgot to sign in. Anyway, I do not in any way understand how marking Evanescence as a one-member band is in any way non constructive, especially with this article circulating the internet from an interview she did: From http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3807713:

"I am Evanescence. I am the only original member. I have basically hired the band. Evanescence has become me. It is mine and it's exactly how I want to be."

I will be readding the tag to the article per this interview. If you still find it to be non constructive, please tell me why. Marsofel 04:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Regardless of what Amy Lee says, the band is not a single member deal. If there are multiple signed or hired members, there are more than one persons involved in the band. Please do not readd this without some discussion on the article's talk page. Cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 06:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dombarovskiy

I'm curious about your recent edit to Dombarovskiy. Your edit turned prose text into a bullet list. Usually Wikipedians prefer text to lists -- what was the motivation for the reverse in this case? Thanks! (sdsds - talk) 19:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) In my experience, while prose is usually preferred, when it appears that additional data can/should be added that would make such prose bulky and unreadable, lists are the better way to go. Given that more than just the Genesis modules have launched from Dombarovskiy, it seems reasonable that additional missions can be included in this format. Hence, the {{expand list}} template. If you don't like it, feel free to change it back to prose (though I'd suggest a completely new wording as opposed to a simple revert), but I felt this was the better way to represent this particular set of data. -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lillix: a template would be good

You were asking about the Lillix category going away. A nav template is usually preferred for linking band-related articles. See Category:Band templates for extensive examples. Feel free to drop by Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians if you have any questions. Cheers, Xtifr tälk 05:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Thanks for the suggestion, I'm not sure why I've not made a template yet. I work extensively with Evanescence, basically made it's template how it is today, so that will be no problem. Cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 05:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Fallen (album)

Hey Huntster, could you jsut clear up why you removed some of the personel listed on the album on this edit [1]? thanks --Childzy ¤ Talk 12:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) :A standard has got to be found for these albums. Some were beginning to list every single credited person on the case, which completely fails our indiscriminate information policy. I'm toning it down the absolute basics. If a better method can be found, fine, but till then I'd suggest leaving it in minimal form. I'm frankly getting sick of the crap that tends to creep into these articles over time, and this is just one part of it. -- Huntster T • @ • C 13:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you there but i did add some more back, such as the drummer, bassist, choir and guest vocals. I think all of them that are now listed did play a recognizable part in the album you agree? --Childzy ¤ Talk 13:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Btw i like how you have set it out on Origin (demo CD) --Childzy ¤ Talk 13:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Thanks, and I sorta-kinda agree with the extra personnel in that regard, to the extent of compromise. However, when we start adding individual names of a choir and programmers and such, it is a sure sign of bloat. The other question is, exactly how are some of these guests notable, other than simply being there? I'm trying to find a middle ground as many people want as much data as can be tossed in, even though I'd strongly prefer having only the primary band members listed...it is really the only unbiased way of proceeding. -- Huntster T • @ • C 15:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah i remember that it once actually listed every member of the choir which is excessive! I think guest vocalists can be considered notable as the usually play a major part in a song. We could come up with some sort of draft guideline to use at WP:Album for whom to include on the personnel section. It may prove handy --Childzy ¤ Talk 15:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Certainly, though even background or guest vocalists are a slippery slope. If they are considered vitally important to a song, aren't the directors and producers and compilers vitally important as well? It just seems dangerous, but it'll work for now. Personally, I like guidelines and policies, so any you want to propose over at WP:ALBUM is good with me :P -- Huntster T • @ • C 15:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I like guidelines as well really, it just keeps things smart tidy and encyclopedic instead of just being rambling lists of crap that end up appearing. The best thing that happened to the site was the whole thing about removing trivia, I hate trivia sections lol. But yeah I'm sure together we can come up with a basic outline of what should and shouldn't be in personnel sections. Obviously all band members should be listed. Secondly and guest vocalist should be added or are we not sure on this one yet? Thirdly and choir or backing group/singers that make a continued appearance on the album should be included. As for the producer then I'm not sure, if the article has an infobox then its always mentioned there so it needn't be written twice. What do you think? --Childzy ¤ Talk 15:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 2007, September

[edit] Picture of Chloë

(X-Posted) Are you saying that the image you posted on Chloë Agnew is not a modification of any image that was found on the Internet or a promotional image (or other copyrighted image)? Remember, simply modifying an existing copyright image does not grant you the right to copyright/copyleft it yourself. -- Huntster T • @ • C 08:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The image I uploded to wikipedia was make by myself using paper and wax pencil...and scanner to the computer. This a free image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitthus (talk • contribs) 08:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Thank you for the clarification. I would strongly suggest that you add wording to that effect to the image page itself, or if you would prefer, I'd be happy to do this for you. I'm sorry if I came off strongly, but I'm very picky when it comes to licenses. -- Huntster T • @ • C 08:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
By the way, if you are looking for Brazilian userboxen, check out Wikipedia:Userboxes/Location/Brazil to get started. Welcome to Wikipedia, and if you need any assistance, don't hesitate to leave me a message. Cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 08:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I hope it is all right now. Thanks. Mitthus - 09:36, 1 September 2007

Note that this image was later determined to be a photomanip of a copyright image.

[edit] Please explain to me...

Please explain how The Avenue Mall is promotional material. I'm new to this and I'd like to try to improve my articles. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murfreesboro (talk • contribs) 21:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) I'll be honest, given it was a full month ago that this article was created, I cannot remember exact reasons why I prodded it for deletion. In any case, the deleting admin must have agreed with me in this situation. More than likely, it was the way the article was worded, perhaps not maintaining a neutral POV, presenting material in the form of an advertisement, having a lack of notability or acceptable sources, or maybe a combination of these and/or other factors. I honestly cannot tell you at this point.
What I can provide you are some links on how to best write articles. Check out Wikipedia:The perfect article, Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles, Wikipedia:Guide to layout, and the various links provided in side columns and footers on those pages. There are lots of resources for writing articles, but the basics are as I mentioned above: maintain a neutral POV, present all issues equally, include material that is potentially useful to a wide audience (not just a single town or small group) and cite appropriate sources.
Feel free to ask for assistance any time you need it, I check Wikipedia at least once a day, usually much more :) -- Huntster T • @ • C 00:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murfreesboro (talk • contribs) 13:09, 3 September 2007

[edit] Re: Personnel subsections

(X-Posted) Please refrain from adding subsections to the Personnel section on the Evanescence albums, as they are completely superfluous to the needs of that section, being little more than short lists already. There is no policy or guideline that states subsections must be used in place of bold text, at least none that I can locate. Please do correct me if you can find such a statement, but I looked into this long before now. Cheers. -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe it follows from WP:MOSHEAD#Markup and WP:MOSBOLD#Boldface that proper headings should be used instead of simulated headers using bold text. Also note that using ";" alone is abusing the HTML <dt> element which is meant to be used together with a <dd> element to create a definition list. Also note that WP:ALBUM#Track listing says to use subsections, so it's quite reasonable to do the same in the personnel section. So my position is that if there is to be a subsections in the personnel section, they should use proper headings. However, I don't think a subsection is really warranted in this case. --PEJL 05:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) As you prefer, I'll follow up here:
Hmm. While I understand that ";" is intended to be used alongside ":" for definition lists, using it alone does not break any code, thus can hardly be considered abuse. Also remember that in this situation, we are not necessarily needing to fully subdivide or subsection the material into individual sections, which is considerable overkill, merely to set one list apart from another. I'd be just as happy using the traditional '''bold''' markup, but since the text is entirely on one line, it uses five fewer bytes of wikimarkup, which while minor, seems more proper to me. Yes, I'm a headcase like that :) More specifically, I strongly dislike cluttering up the TOC with such minor material when a single section header suffices. I almost consider this instance to be a type of table header, though it realistically is not. -- Huntster T • @ • C 06:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Well it breaks HTML, which is why I consider it abuse. Using ";" or ''' also causes problems for readers using assistive technology, whereas using proper subheadings with proper nesting as outlined at WP:MOSHEAD#Markup makes the content accessible to all. I don't think there's really a fundamental difference between subdividing a section or setting one list apart from the other. It's really the same thing. If a section is to be set apart from another, using subheadings is the way to do so, for the reasons listed at WP:MOSHEAD#Markup. --PEJL 17:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cait g328

Looks like you reverted this person's edits a few months ago, something about a person's name, well, it looks like all she does is go around changing peoples names. Check her contributions. I've undone a lot of them. Ospinad 02:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Thanks for the notification; I've removed that particular edit. User originally cited IMDB, as I recall, and the name is not even reflected there anymore. Seems user is randomly adding made-up names to articles, but time will ultimately tell. -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] P.S.

(X-Posted) Dhaluza, excellent work on the ARCHER article, it is obvious you've put considerable effort into it. Well sourced and well written. Just one thing: while I sort of like the use of quotes in the reference templates, I don't like how they overly clutter the article body area. They aren't required for use, and I would suggest that they be removed...it shouldn't be difficult for an interested reader to locate the appropriate section in the cited text simply by searching or narrowing down based on page number or whatever. Removing them has two positives, it keeps the article body code clean and easier to handle (as I mentioned above) and keeps the citation area clean and easier for readers to use. Any thoughts? -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I deliberately use the quote function on all citations for two reasons: 1) it allows the reader to quickly verify the info and see how it was modified in the the article, and 2) more importantly, web links often go dead and having a quote makes it possible to find content after it has moved, or to find other versions of the material for cross-checking. I think use of the quote function should be encouraged. The visual clutter is a small price to pay, and it is mitigated somewhat by using the {{reflist}} template. Dhaluza 02:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
P.S. If you liked Airborne Real-time Cueing Hyperspectral Enhanced Reconnaissance you may also enjoy 300-page iPhone bill Dhaluza 02:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Heh, don't get me wrong, I love the citation templates, and citation work is a significant portion of what I do on Wikipedia, I just don't like the clutter induced, but you raise valid points. One thing I should mention, however, is that #2 can easily be solved by visiting http://www.webcitation.org and either manually entering websites for archiving or running the "comb" tool over the final Wikipedia article (with "consider all links" checked). This guarantees that the cited website information will never be lost. I'm currently in the process of doing this to all the articles I monitor, and do it with all new citations. Extraordinarily handy in a way that the Internet Archive isn't.
Also, I should say that I was very impressed with the iPhone bill article, enough so to warrant another Keep in the AfD :) -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, based on your encouragement, I nominated both for GA, so feel free to review or comment. I did cut down the quotes and removed the blank cite fields to clean things up at ARCHER as well. I also tried the Webcitation service. It's a neat idea, but it's a lot of work. We really need an automated bot to do this. I can't imagine doing this all by hand! Dhaluza 17:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WTVF Edit

The user that added that edit is more-than-likely banned user BenH. He makes edits like this from IP accounts often, 99.99% of which are reverted. There is alot about him on the WP:TVS talk page. Take Care and Enjoy Your Weekend...NeutralHomer T:C 07:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimaina Atlanta

Hello, Thank you for volunteering to be a part of the Atlanta Wikimaina bid southeast team. We are holding meetings weekdays at 7:30pm EDT in #wikimania-atlanta on irc.freenode.org. For more information about IRC see m:Wikimania_2008/Bids/Atlanta/IRC. If you are able to make it, that would be great.

We now also have Google group for coordinating this bid. To get updates on the bid and our progress, please join the Google Groups mailing list at Google Groups wikimania-atlanta.

There is also a group on the social networking site Facebook in which interested parties can express their support for the bid.

If you do not wish to continue to receive these notifications about the bid or would rather they go to a talk page on a different project please change m: Wikimania_2008/Bids/Atlanta/Notify_list --Cspurrier 22:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chloë Agnew image

Hi. I post a message for you on Talk:Chloë Agnew. Thanks.--Mitthus 01:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Benjamin, I already read the topics about license process that you sugest. I will need your assistance if Celtic Woman Ltd give this license. Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.43.39.35 (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyrights

(X-Posted) Hey Na, quick note, we can't use copyrighted images like logos in the User space. I went ahead and removed them from your front page. Sorry! -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Dang...really? I was thinking that for identification purposes copyrighted images could be used pretty liberally.Nf utvol 03:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Nope, unfortunately. Pretty much, copyrighted and other non-free images are completely restricted to articles. Not even supposed to be placed on talk pages. Kind of odd, but they have their reasons. -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh well. Can you get on AIM or IRC?Nf utvol 03:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) I'm at work right now, probably won't get home till 12:30, then straight to sleep. Long day of classes tomorrow. -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Haha, okay, stop with the Latin, it's just annoying ;) "Magister Artium" indeed... -- Huntster T • @ • C 17:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

haha! but it sounds so much smarter! by the way, take a look at 118th Airlift Wing. I stuck up the copyright notification this morning, and cleaned up what I could. Take a look at the earlier versions though, it's a jewel.Nf utvol 18:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Problem: Any Air Force, and thus ANG site, is considered to be in the public domain, so thus there is no copyright violation unless that particular web page quotes or otherwise provides copyrighted text. Probably will want to take down that copyvio notice and clean it up yourself into something more pretty and diverse. -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Even though it's public domain, it is still considered plagiarism, which goes against wiki rules, right?Nf utvol 18:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Note that I later phoned User:Nfutvol to explain the intricacies of public domain material. I think I presented it well enough!

[edit] Wikimaina Atlanta meeting

We will be holding a meeting tonight at 9:30pm EDT in #wikimania-atlanta on irc.freenode.org. For more information about IRC see m:Wikimania_2008/Bids/Atlanta/IRC. Please try to be at this meeting as it is one of the last ones before bidding ends and we still have lots that need to be discussed. --Cspurrier 19:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Piper Halliwell

I think that the statement that you restored regarding her ability to freeze witches should be removed. Per the talk pages, I thought that this issue had already been resolved. Missjessica254 21:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AWB edits

(X-Posted) Hey there, please check your AWB edits. I just caught where <ref name="france"> was capitalised (diff), thus breaking the ref. Might see about fixing it so this cannot happen. Cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, well spotted! I must have thought it was a template. Thanks for notifying me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk • contribs)

[edit] 2007, October

[edit] You, you, YOU PAGE BLANKER!

(X-Posted) Hey, it's not very nice blanking your page, I worked very hard writing some of the stuff there! j/k :) -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Efficiency, my dear Watson, efficiency.nf utvol 02:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Whatever, I think you just like vandalising your own talk page. :P -- Huntster T • @ • C 05:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
That's actually true. No one thinks me important enough to vandalize, therefore I feel the need to do it myself...HELP ME!nf utvol 15:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Well, I keep telling you that your editing privileges are revoked, but you just won't pay attention... Kinda hard to come to university to enforce that, ya know? Show some self control! -- Huntster T • @ • C 15:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
On a side note, you need to make a trip up to Philly. You're the one who always said living in a city was better, anyways.nf utvol 15:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks on my bad!

Good fer you, bad for me! thanks. (kin I blame de missing </nowiki> it on section editing? Waaaaaaahhhh! boo hoo!) Cheers! // FrankB 17:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Well, it's bad on me too, considering I forgot about the tildes that signed my name in your place. Good thing you caught that or people would be wondering why I got intelligent all of a sudden! ;) -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OK My Bad

(X-Posted) Greetings, and thank you for contributing the Evanescence graphic you recently uploaded to Wikipedia. However, that graphic is their old logo...the one that is currently on the article is their new one (note the extended "A"). Please take a look at the cover of The Open Door and "Good Enough" for actual examples. -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for flipping out i never noticed that extended A. I will try and amend my graphic if my font has that character! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke255 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) No offense, but why do you want to replace the current graphic? It was designed very specifically to meet fair use guidelines, which specifies that non-free graphics and images must be of a minimal size, such as that used for the album covers. -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Most bands have SVG logos eg Metallica, HIM (band), Arch Enemy, Apocalyptica (band). just thought i'd bring the Evanescence one up to speed seeing as they my fav band :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke255 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Gotcha. However, please don't be annoyed if the image is removed or reverted by someone else, as I believe there may be some kind of caveat to the fair-use rule that copyrighted logos can't be in SVG format (an "even though others use them, doesn't make it right" sort of thing)...I'm simply uncertain on that. Also, when writing on talk pages (either user or article), do remember to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
KK Im not completely familiar with this code but I'm getting it. If you're right and it is removed then no big deal I still have it for my personal use! Thanks for your patience and help Luke255 02:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) No problem at all, everyone has to learn somewhere :) If you need any future assistance, don't hesitate to leave a message for me. -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the extra info on the Ev logo Luke255 16:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clutter

“ The thing is, I'd be all for something like this if it did not require a complete reorganisation of the existing formats. While it would be a good idea to standardise the docs (I may work on that at some future date), I don't really agree with the idea of splitting into conditional subpages and getting into if-then-else statements potentially in both the doc pages and the main templates, when the doc system was created to move any of that stuff out of the template. I'd be interested in see some other editors thoughts on this. -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC) ”

The Purpose of the /doc pages method had nothing to do with clutter, but with preprocessing issues, in particular, the size limits imposed on template expansions on pages. I was both central to and outside the preprocessing issue as it was because of my nattering to CBD via emails asking things like: "why the hell are we were hiding usage in talk pages, thereby making template use inobvious (since most utility types could be explained succintly in brief) and thereby require editors to follow several links to find out how to use same." and so forth. CBD conferred with Tim! on the systems aspects when the template expansion ceiling was set at two megs, and the solution was born that fencing things off with noinclude blocks allowed both better protection of key templates (interwikis and category edits could happen in the /doc page), but also the benefit that all pages using a template would not add to the reprocessing que, only changes to the direct template used... and allowed the current semi-standardized template documentation using the /doc method. Subsequently, Ligulem took Tim! and CBDs discussion and boldly put together the first systemization of WP:DOC as a method, and about that time I had to travel for several months. But the genesis was technical more than for editor convenience, which was a side effect of my concerns. Complexity within a /doc page is irrelevant, if its ignored, hence standardisation using parserfunction tricks is not an issue.

The key is, /doc causes far less system loading, as the page is cached only after an edit to it is made, and has NO RIPPLE EFFECT on articles, while DRASTICALLY cutting the numbers of bytes sucked in as part of the preprocessing (The stuff within a 'noinclude' block gets ignored, plus multiple uses of a template [prime example is {{tl}}, suck in multiple source code really swelling the problem when used multiple times on some page... this was a principle effect, BTW).

Subsequently, the /doc technique was exported to our sister projects via the WP:TSP project, which I founded to both improve and standardize template documentation, and share templates technology. Some sisters liked that, some didn't care, and some fought it, which dissenting factors (energy, time), soured me on all our wikis all this past summer... at the expense of standardizing the template documentation never really got off the ground. It's not a sexy thing to work on. God knows I spent many a boring night doing such upgrades on simple tools templates and such that are and were exported elsewhere. If we complicate a small set of /doc pages for multiple displaying (or category declaring, etc. lof the citations templates, at least it will be for use here 'In-house' without all the side politics issues. The techniques really don't clutter things up much anyway. My tendency to comment things a lot probably does that MORE, but leaves a clear picture of WHY [I hope!] <g>), we did a lot of that sort of editing in satisfying the various sister projects declarations of categories in WP:TSP. The issues across sister projects are political (Some projects simply do not like anything from wikipedia, period.)

Standardization is however still desirable, but the complexity of logic used inside a /doc page or (other named such page (e.g. common usage pages like {{indent family usage}}) has no deleterious issues to that by my definitions and understanding. Per me, standardization requires a clear presentation of parameter behavior and options for the template tyro (Novice editors, or technically nonadept, including those who like staying as ignorant as possible!) plus a 'descent presentation'. Selectively disabling multiple examples in a given citation template can be replaced in an if-then-else to a link for the specific templates page... showing the greater number of examples. In short, I think it will be far far less messy than you seem to think.

How's this idea -- copy the most five or ten commonly used citations templates /doc pages to a /doc2 page. Morph those, and test the concept. That will give concrete discussable results with a clear picture of how many work arounds are needed, and an idea of exactly how much clutter is involved. At worst, failure will require a few compensentory {{db-author}}s, but even then, we will be ahead in knowledge gained. I have some time today, if your willing to take on a helper. ttfn // FrankB 18:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Hi FrankB. I'm not quite sure where the issue of clutter was brought up...the last line about moving stuff out of the templates and into doc pages was meant to reference the problem with preprocessing issues before. Sorry that you spent such time explaining the problem. I'm definitely familiar with the situation—I'm quietly campaigning for {{Convert}} to be broken into sub-templates due to its extreme bloat—and the value of the doc pages. Interesting nonetheless to hear some of the history behind the issue.
My idea of standardisation of the citation docs may be a simpler thought than what you have in mind, in that I only am worried about having each doc use the same section standards ("Usage" with the copyable blank templates, "Description of fields" with details of each field usage, "Verbiage" with examples of usage, plus a "Additional notes" section to cover all other details within subsections (COinS, Metadata, Notes, Cite styles, etc etc). The contents of these sections can be left up to the needs of the individual template. I'll be honest, I'm still not quite seeing what value the if-then-else statements would be...I'm a visual thinker, so words don't always get through my brain. Creating an userspace example may be the best thing.
One simple idea that would at least solve the categorisation problem would be to add them to a {{/cat}} subpage, rather than the doc page, then transcluding that page into the template exactly the same as the docs are now. If the standardisation of doc layouts were to be effected, the TOC thing won't be such a problem. I'm just very cautious when it comes to the mal-cluttering and misuse of categories. -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
In a way, your 'standardisation' concept is farther along... as within a specific template grouping, there are cliques with their own 'values' such as your list of sections. My interest would be in checking off systematic coverage of certain introductory points that aid someone new to such to understand what they're seeing, and what they're options are. Hence a focus on clarity of exposition and explaination, not on the format of that, so more on content than on form. (e.g. What the heck is COinS or Metadata, in the context where it's used--so on basis of understanding building as well as specifics relavant to a given case.) Nonetheless, I think we've some common ground. Give me a list of the five or six most commonly used cites templates (on my talk) to cover in your experience, and I'll dummy something 'visual and concrete' up for you and I to discuss further. I'm not heavily engaged today (just had a nap, as a matter of fact--we've a holiday here in Boston. Ahhhh, the good life! <G>) on anything else (yet!) The four or five I've used extensively are cite book , cite web, cite video, cite visual, and cite news, so I'll start with those and add in any you suggest. Look for /doc2 pageS of those names and you can follow along in Template:Tt1 (edit talk links history), using the talk as the hypothetical wikipage showing the output aggregated. We should be better able to evaluate the category issue there as well, which I see as a minor annoyance given the precedent of help pages like Wikipedia:Redirects and the several sub-page aids like that on various topics. Sometimes you just let them pile up and ignore them! Thanks // FrankB 23:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ouch!

re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACite_book%2Fdoc&diff=156818112&oldid=163251722

  1. with expansion of the standard doc page pattern boilerplate, the header templates add to the page top. There is most likely at least one other logic bug in what I've prepped as a replacement Cite book/doc page in /doc2 [I just saw a minor one in the diff], but this is the kind of thing.
  2. I should have started with a shorter/easier one.
  3. Found it's really easier to use another subpage to exclude what's not wanted when that content is a wikitable, as this page had several of. The pipe operator/delimiter is much to much overused when combining wikitables and parser functions if you've never had the hair-pulling-out displeasures! Don't know why I forgot that though--must be an age thing--we had to use hard coded XHTML to interleave tables with logic in the fanciest WP:TSP templates.
  4. I see you peed/peeked in and made a fiddle. As an old programmer, if a system coherces case, I let it worry about same. Those of us with C/C++ coding backgrounds are quite used to all lower case, which spills over into all sorts of other eccentricities in computing. What we need to do now, is subst doc2 for the doc page, and see if anything shows up missing.
  5. unfortunately, I had to code some stuff as testing for /doc2, so that transfer should involve an intermediary stop in a text editor with a search and replace of that string as /doc before pasting it in as the doc page.
  6. I'd hold up on that for now... between the histories and the diff lines I stubbed in during my last save in Ttl, there's enough to get a feel for the technique.
  7. There's a stray } character that needs found manifesting from somewhere as well.
  8. Testing for the 'page to be' name seems the best way to implement the logic to bypass stuff, as the 'else' case is what is one the page as is now. That minimizes pipe side-effects all by itself.
  9. No if block is common stuff
  10. Testing for the PAGENAME, FULLPAGENAME, etc. then used to enable the categories, interwikis and such wanted on the template page, but not on the compendium.
  11. I may come back, but it's already after midnight, so I think I'm wrapping it up for the night.

Cheers--any reactions? // FrankB 04:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harumph

Just reading this over after closing, I realized the easiest thing is to extract the stuff to display in the compendium into a separate subpage like my {{Cite book/docA }} [which would be backwards to what I'm saying here and now]... that leaves all the categories and larger mass of text unmolested, but puts the compendium stuff where it can be found.

Note the test within it to only display the edit link from within the /doc2 page... an modified doc page pattern by conditional test, if you like. Hence, it's easily accessible when maintaining the doc page, and [the edit link] is otherwise invisible... when used in a compendium or the template page proper. This would limit the page changes to the extraction, replaced by the call of the new subpage inside a short succinct logic block, plus, adding such exclusionary altered doc page pattern logic in the new subpage plus the pasted in text for both displaying pages. What I just had to do in my /doc2 really just uses too many if statements for ease of both implementation and future maintenance. In short it was a pain comparatively. Dah-Ohhhh! G'night! // FrankB 04:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

re: Very sorry for not commenting or working on this tonight, I'm exhausted to the point of delirium. Let me get some sleep and approach this with fresh eyes tomorrow. -- Huntster T • @ • C 05:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't be silly! Real Life has priority over any wiki--which includes things like being a Dad or Mom, eating, making a buck, paying a bill, and Sleep (once in a while) <g>-- and I was going to bed too. I've real life obligations too, and you can see from the pace of my replies on Wikikpedia talk:Citation templates the time I've for wiki activities varies day to day, week to week. Then again, there is no reason to rush this. Better to get it up carefully, than put oneself into an emergency rush mode--the project has done without it so far. In the meantime, I'm going to do one (possibly two) other page adaptions (begining) now in line with my last comments on speedy and senisble development.
The only real 'tough part' of the technique is the two headers, so I'll use {{Tt2}} to create a temporary boilerplate page extracting both from the {{cite book/doc2}} and {{cite book/docA}}. A little judicious search and replace in a text editor, and Voila, working page tops.
Have a great day. // FrankB 13:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BTW

re: Template:Convert (edit talk links history) (Just followed that reference answering Eziki)

FYI -- The issue with this is not breaking it up... the works are already in place in Category:conversion templates. See the section on my talk immediately above where we've been conversing!

BUT! Looks like a sound TFD nom to tag with depreciated in favor of Eziki's family of templates would be in order.

My personal philosophy is if a tool is useful, and some find it more convenient (Since they're used to its syntax, ignorant of alternatives, etc.), then it's analogous to your local garage, where two co-workers have different tools in their respective tool boxes.

Their choice... their money spent. In this case, money equates to a volunteers time, plus the time to replace such. Even a BOT replacement has a cost in man hours. Placing an depreciate tag on it in favor of such templates using {{template list|...}} links would gradually do the job and tell people what else is available when someone checks.

From what I can see by the tables, {{Convert}}s arguments are far more cryptic than say {{km to mi|15.4}} (15.4 kilometers (10 mi))or {{km2 to mi2|23444}} (23,444 square kilometers (9,051.8 sq mi)), AND despite Eziki's comment this morning, they are coded pretty small.

(update... re: {{Tt1}} work...
'Cite press release' and subpages will be and should be the model we use per me. I need to do some real life stuff, so won't be active until evening once I finish that up. The other two have "issues" and will be more complicated... this method uses the /docA for the compendium resource, and affects the current /doc page least... leaving only that which is wanted to be displayed on all three pages (the template proper, the primary /doc page, and the compendium) in the /docA and therefore using the least number of if-then-else tests, et. al. Far simpler, as my experience "sense" suggested back on Wikipedia talk!)
  • Now we need a good name for the compendium page we want to build. Any good ideas? I'd prefer to avoid a subpage name. Wikipedia:Citation templates is the overdense page that's similar, sans parameter definitions. Wikipedia:Citation templates II, WP:CITET2 and WP:CIT2???

Cheers // FrankB 16:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shepard Smith (response)

(X-Posted) I noticed you recently performed a "cleanup" on the Shepard Smith article. I've partially reverted this edit because you delinked wikidates against WP:DATE#Autoformatting and linking (...kept other edits made). Any reason why you did this? -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Read the second sentence of the last bullet at WP:DATE#Autoformatting and linking: "Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic."
Having a link to the particular month and/or year in this article does very little to "deepen readers' understanding of [this] topic." I find it unlikly that someone reading the article would see a link to November 17 (for instance) and click on it to find out more about that date; none of the events listed for that day would have any bearing on Smith. Also notice that some dates in the article are linked and others aren't; the choice of linked dates seems random at best. I hope that sums up my decision. -NatureBoyMD 03:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Your example is targeted specifically at the preceding sentence, "Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia." AKA, instances such as "November 2007" should never be linked in the form of "[[November 2007]]" or "[[November]]" or "[[2007]]", because linking to those does not help in the autoformatting. Full dates, such as "November 25, 2007", or even just "November 25", should always be linked so that user preferences are taken into account, as is exemplified in the preceding bullet on that MOS page. By the way, hello from a fellow Tennessean. :) -- Huntster T • @ • C 07:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
No, no, no... My main argument is this sentence: Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic. I don't think it can be made any clearer than that. By the way, I also went to MTSU. -NatureBoyMD 16:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) If I understand what you are saying, you want to apply that sentence to the entire section on wikidating. It isn't intended for that; rather, just to the preceding sentence on linking lone terms like months and years. Your edit to the article removed three wikidate codes, namely "[[November 17]], [[2000]]", "[[July 20]], [[2001]]", and "[[August 29]]". These links are, as I've mentioned before, necessary to allow for user preference in date format. I just don't know how to explain it further. :/ -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Wikipedia:Record charts

(X-Posted) Please do not run AWB over this page again, or other articles in its present configuration. It is improperly formatting line breaks by removing the backslash, which is improper HTML, and on this page in particular, it formatted one of the superscripted numbers as an actual superscript character, which is intentionally avoided. Are you using the default settings, or is this something you have set up yourself? If default, let me know and I'll have to speak with the creator of the program. -- Huntster T • @ • C 17:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Sorry for doing that. It's the second time I think, it's just that the [[WP:CHARTS]] page is on my watchlist. AWB is default set to change the superscript. It was me who setup the <br /> --> <br> because they both do the same thing. --¤ The-G-Unit-?oss ¤ 20:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Cool, thanks for replying. They do the same thing, but the <br /> is more correct for modern HTML (actually XHTML) than <br>, so please don't change those in the future. Cheers -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, sorry for the incovinience. --¤ The-G-Unit-?oss ¤ 21:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, So it's basically to make WikiPedia compatible with programs/people who try to read the whole sites code?. I'll be sure to change my AWB settings to change all variables of <br>, <br\> etc to <br/>. --¤ The-G-Unit-?oss ¤ 15:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It was later noted by User:PEJL that this should not be done either, for a variety of reasons. For example: it results in unnecessary edits, Wikipedia automatically converts the code anyway, and it may inadvertantly convert material that was intended for a specific display.

[edit] Uluru

(X-Posted) Greetings and welcome to Wikipedia as a registered editor! Your first edits, to the article Uluru, were really quite good (especially your use of the citation; for that I applaud you), but I would like to take this moment to point out a couple of things.

First, because of the wide range of English dialects used throughout the world, editors are asked to use local English for articles taking place in certain places. For example, the Uluru article should use Australian English rather than American English. For this reason I reverted your spelling change of "color" to "colour".

Second, editors must take care to make edits in a non-POV manner, neither favouring one side or another. If I may guess, it seems you favour the Creationist theory, which I respect, but please remember to not edit in such a way that might push this viewpoint. I have reworded the paragraph you added to the article to maintain a non-POV aspect, but still present the arguments raised in the journal article you cited. Remember, whether we personally believe one thing or another, both evolution and creationism are still theories, neither fully proven nor disproven except in our own minds and hearts. If you would, please take a look at my edit here and see what I mean. If you have any questions, any at all regarding editing on Wikipedia, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page and I'll assist in any way I can. Again, I officially welcome you to the website :) -- Huntster T • @ • C 07:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your revision of my edit at Uluru. It made it much more NPOV than my feeble attempt. :) Sorry about the local English thing, nasty American habit on my part. I'll try to remember your advice in the future! Goo2you 03:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimania 2008/Conference of the Americas

Hello, As you may or may not know, Alexandria, Egypt was selected to host Wikimania 2008 [2]. So as to prevent the hard work of the many Wikimedians involved in the Atlanta bid from going to waste, we have decided to host a conference for the Americas. This is in no way an attempt to compete with Wikimania or make a statement against Wikimania.

As one of the people signed up to help with the Wikimania Atlanta bid, we hope you will join us at the Wikimedia Conference of the Americas. We will be having a meeting tonight in IRC tonight (Oct 15) at 9:30PM in #cota-atlanta on irc.freenode.org to discuss the conference. For more information about IRC see [3].

For more information about the Wikimedia Conference of the Americas see http://www.cota-atlanta.org and our wiki http://www.cota-atlanta.org/wiki.

If you do not wish to receive further notices about the COTA please remove your name from our notify list. --Cspurrier 20:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serious Advice

The Evanescence Discography is highly unsourced and does not follow Wiki rules as it has way too many tables. The last portion of the article is highly long and odd. I would like to advice that the discography follows Gwen Stefani discography. Thank You! Indianescence 17:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Yes, that article has always been the 'step-child', if you will, of the Evanescence series, intended mostly to draw away the garbage that folks once added to the articles themselves (a task, I must add, that it has done admirably, saving the actual article editors quite some grief). I don't know how much can be done to rectify the problem, but thanks for the link, I'll check it out. -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Just informing you. Discographys are very easy to make FA. If done properly it is very easy to bring to FA. It requires minimal work. So evanescence has a chance to get a FA. Indianescence 12:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Las of Karma

(X-Posted) Hey Fuzzypeg, I like the edits for the most part, though I still don't really think they need sections unto themselves, especially given how short they are...such are generally discouraged (at least that is what I've found in my time here). Perhaps these could all be placed in expanded prose under a general "Beliefs" second-tier header? However, I don't quite understand this sentence: "Some Wiccans believe in the las of karma as well as the Threefold Law." What is 'las'? In a brief search, I can only find that 'las' is another term for karma. Any help here? Also, unless a citation can be found, that particular section/sentence should probably be deleted after a week or two. -- Huntster T • @ • C 10:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't know about the LAS of KARMA and yet you consider yourself competent to edit an article on Wicca? How dare you!!! No, seriously, I intended to write the "law" of Karma. I'm really happy for those sections to be removed, and I just ran out of time to do it gracefully (and to proof-read my edits, it seems). I trimmed out all the repeated info and stuff that was clearly irrelevant, and I hoped someone else would deal with what was remaining, by either removing it or working it in better with the rest of the article. Cheers, Fuzzypeg? 21:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) No, I don't think I'm competent to be editing the article, but I try anyway ;) In all seriousness, I think people don't do much to the article except for vandal fighting because you and Kim seem to be by far the most knowledgeable and competent writers we have on the subject! And that's as strong an endorsement of skill I can think of. -- Huntster T • @ • C 00:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Aw shucks. (blushing) Thanks. I don't really feel like an authority, though; there are a lot of knowledgeable people who don't bother trying to explain things to the outer world, and I'm merely one who does. Fuzzypeg? 02:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miroku and Sango Image Rationales- Thank You

Thank you so much for putting a Rationale for both images. I could not understand how to go about putting a rationale on, either because 'm being stupid or I have had so much homework here lately my thinking ability is limited lol. Anyways, thanks so much. Kagome_85 20:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Lol, it is no problem. I had originally noticed the images because when the license template was included, it had been subst'd, which expanded the template and placed the pics into several odd categories. Wasn't all that hard to use my handy dandy (just pick the ones appropriate to the image) cut'n'paste rationale list and fill them out. And yes, I understand the problem with limited brain power 'round this time of year! Cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 2007, November

[edit] Emmalee Thomsan page

Hi I just wanted to let you know that the image that was in the Prue Halliwell page can't be used to identify the actor as well. As WP:FU states, if the image is replaceable it can't be used, and pictures of living people are available, and must be used instead of screencaps, which aren't free use. The image is fine in the Prue Halliwell page though. Thanks for your help. Ejfetters 05:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Extra track listing template

(X-Posted) Hey PEJL, few things regarding your change to this template.

  • 1) Is something wrong with, or is there a reason why, the {{!-}} template should not be used? It worked fine from what I could tell.
  • 2) The empty cell that was removed was intended to act as a separator between sections of the infobox, since the template can use two separate colour sections for its own use. I'm placing this back in since it was there *long* before I made my update and does serve a designed purpose.
  • 3) On the /doc page, you made bold the "current track" bit. I understand the issue has gone back and forth for a long time, but the last I'd heard was that bold was a bad idea when in use like this for the same reason it was a bad idea for use on album chart tables...that it was not only an unnecessary use of bold, which MoS says to avoid, but it was perceived as a violation of NPOV. Has something changed?

Cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 08:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your note.
  • {{!-}} is identical to {{!}}- but using the latter has the advantage that that template is used elsewhere in the template, so there's one less template transcluded, which means one less template listed on edit pages, and potentially slightly improved performance.
  • I thought the empty divider cell was a new addition, since it wasn't visible in the template documentation in the past. I see now that it isn't. Still, I question the need for this separator. The other extra templates ({{Extra album cover 2}}, {{Extra chronology 2}} and so on) don't use such a divider, even though they sometimes use different colors than the rest of the infobox. To me the change in color works as a separator. In any case, it would be nice to have visual consistency with the other templates.
  • The current item is bolded in {{Infobox Album}}, {{Infobox Single}} and {{Infobox Song}}, so I think it should be bolded in this template as well for consistency. I agree that excessive bolding should be avoided in most cases. Navboxes are allowed to show the current item in bold though, and these can be seen as navboxes of sorts. In either case, we should be consistent with the infoboxes. --PEJL 08:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see now what you're saying about the separator. You're saying this is needed when both {{{Album}}} and {{{altAlbum}}} are used, so that there are two colored bars right after each other. Can't we make it conditional then and only include it in those cases, not including it when only {{{Album}}} is used? --PEJL 08:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, could you add an example of this usage to the template documentation page please? --PEJL 08:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Regarding point 1, perhaps {{!-}} should be deprecated in favour of your method...it certainly makes sense, even if I'm unsure whether the process savings would be significant enough to note. I'll come back to point 2 in a moment. As for point 3, I can see where the bolding process for navigation footers might be applicable to the infoboxes. No big deal in any case.
Okay, regarding the empty cell spacer, I haven't tested it but the ---- code may work as well, and may be more favourable in terms of letting the server format as it wants to. However, if kept, this format would be best served by placing it in each of the "Misc" field items, to visually separate one from another (rather difficult currently when each instance is the same colour). Or, and I thought of this just now, completely reformat {{Extra track listing}} so that there is no difference between using the {{{Album}}} and {{{altAlbum}}} fields...have it so there is only a single coloured header box, thus removing any doubt as to the division between sections. Actually, now that I'm thinking about it, that would be the better option, and would be exceedingly easy to code. I'll whip up something in my user sandbox. Thoughts? -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
As for {{!-}}, see Template talk:!-#TfD nomination of Template:!- and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 9#Template:!-. I wouldn't object to deprecating the template. It turns out I didn't quite understand the rationale for the separator after all, but I think I do now. So no objections from me to having some sort of separator when needed for clarity. Let me know if you want input on a mockup. --PEJL 21:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Okay, so the code has again been updated at {{Extra track listing}} to resolve this issue and another one posted on its talk page. The second bar has been removed, and the documentation updated to show the use of {{{Tracks}}} field. Let me know if there are any problems. Also, I noticed the {{Extra musicsample}} template the other day, and had to wonder just how much value there was to it, given that it seems a bit of a stretch to justify fair-use on a music clip in the infobox (outside of critical commentary). I know we are lenient with the album covers in infoboxes, but this seems to be going a bit too far.... -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Re {{Extra musicsample}}, I think it's ridiculous to say location in an article affects fair use. A sample in an infobox is just as legitimate as a sample elsewhere in the article. Putting it in the infobox is an aesthetic issue only. If the use of a sample qualifies as fair use in an article, where it physically appears in that article is almost irrelevant. Putting the sample link in the infobox because putting it elsewhere (A) hides it or (B) breaks the flow of text is no reason to object on a fair-use basis. Boy, I hate the fair use police! John Cardinal 05:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
← Regarding {{Extra musicsample}}, see WT:ALBUM#Standardizing audio samples if you haven't already. --PEJL 11:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I just read it. First, the discussion is about album articles, not song articles. Second, the discussion has a whopping total of two people talking to each other. Two people make short comments and then change policy, a great example of a general problem in WP. Can you please explain what you wanted me to learn by visiting that discussion? How does it apply to changing {{Extra musicsample}}? John Cardinal 14:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't realize you were talking about song/single infoboxes specifically. I wanted to alert you to the discussion, to give you the opportunity to join in. The problem with too few editors being involved in discussions is quite simple; get more editors involved. No policy has been changed yet, it's still a draft. If you disagree with any part of the draft, please raise that at WT:ALBUM. In this case my interpretation is that the changes in question are mostly required for compliance with Wikipedia's policies on use of non-free media, so that part may be difficult to change. --PEJL 16:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genesis Spacecraft Images

Thanks for taking care of the Fair Use rationale on the spacecraft renderings, taking on that evil bot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spitwater (talk • contribs) 17:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Hey Chris, not a problem. I made a sweep through all the Bigelow articles and fixed up the contents of each image, so we shouldn't have this problem with the others.
I apologize for not doing any work on the Bigelow articles for so long, but university and work have had to take priority lately. I have, however, placed a final version of the Galaxy article in my userspace to get a review by you to make sure all the information jives...it was a little hard to put everything together, given the general lack of historic data on it (and I was also unsure of when the name changed from Guardian as there were no good sources, so I made a general statement regarding the timeframe and situation). It's located at User:Huntster/Sandbox if you'd mind vetting it. Also, since no other image (I can find) publicly exist of Galaxy, would it be permissible to take the size comparison image from the Bigelow website, cut Genesis from it, and use it in the article? That is, if the result even looks reasonable, which I don't really think it will...just too small. Thanks, and cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CAP

I apologize for being late, but Civil Air Patrol has been unprotected. If he shows up again, I'll semi it. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 23:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rutherford county article

Your editing on the Rutherford county, TN. article on the subject of the Bible park has a few errors in it. The article linked said the park will develop on land behind the Blackman United Methodist Church, but not that they support it, or proposed it. The church and pastor are against the park as a google search of the church's name and the term "bible park" would show. I'm not good at editing links, so could you edit it to show the church's pastor is against it, and they are not the sponsor of it? The church is being proposed by Armond Bar-Tur, the main financier. Thanks --gunnerclark 21:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Greetings. I went ahead and removed that particular bit from the Rutherford County article, as it really doesn't fit in the article in the first place. I'm not sure why I even kept it in there in the first place. Anyway, problem solved, thanks for the notice. The article itself really needs to be significantly more expanded before such material is placed back into it. -- Huntster T • @ • C 06:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supercouple on Leo Wyatt and Piper Halliwell

I don't get your reverts here. I can add a valid source to their listing in the Supercouple article validating them as a supercouple, if that's one of your concerns on this matter. Having an internal link in their articles to the Supercouple article is no different than it being in David Beckham's article, the Katie Holmes article...and other articles of both real-life and fictional people.

I came across these articles at first because I see that they need to be improved in a major way, like so many other fictional character articles on Wikipedia, thus I made a mental note to start working on these two articles soon. My adding the Supercouple internal link was just one edit, that I saw/see no different than it being in the articles of other real-life and fictional people. I would have preferred you talk out why you object to it being added to these two articles first...before reverting my edits (with no true explanation in the edit summary, as if I'm some spam vandal). If you wouldn't mind, I'd like you state your reason here on your talk page. I'll add this talk page to my watchlist, and would prefer this issue take place here than on mine. Flyer22 08:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. I'm not sure that you were going to answer, but, nope, I don't need an answer. And as stated, before I was going to begin to add some real-world context (and if possible, some real-world impact) to those two articles, but I'm not sure if you'd want me to discuss that with you first or not. It's just that there are so many fictional character articles on Wikipedia that are nothing but plot summary and are written in an in-universe manner (which deletionists love to target), and need fixing up. I, however, have far too many fictional character and supercouple/couple articles to fix up than to worry about the fictional character articles mentioned above in this section. I'll leave you to them. Flyer22 06:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
X-Posted Hi Flyer. When you placed that link on the Piper Halliwell and Leo Wyatt articles, I assumed that it was just more garbage the likes of which get added all the time. I didn't take the time to read what it was about, and for that I apologize. I've gotten so fed up with the useless crap that gets thrown into fiction articles these days that I've developed a knee-jerk reaction to most of it. If you desire to work on these articles, then by all means do so...they really are in desperate need of cleanup and paring down. I myself, however, will be distancing myself from secondary fiction articles from now on...I'll keep watching the main Charmed and Charmed media pages, but no more characters, locations, artifacts, etc. Obviously I cannot maintain a neutral perspective with them anymore. Again, my apologies. -- Huntster T • @ • C 14:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining on my talk page. I commented. Anyway, I'll see you around. Flyer22 19:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I should probably address this on Huntster's page, forgive me for taking up space on yours, but since this is about two subjects close to me, I'd like to volunteer to help clean up any Charmed articles that need cleaned. I, sadly, think I have every episode memorized except S1 because it wasn't that well written. I offer here so you know I'm not jumping in without warning since you did mention that "knee jerk reaction" thing. Feel free to discuss further on my talk page. IrishLass0128 14:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) As I mentioned, I will no longer watch these pages, so I won't be doing any more work there. Thanks for offering to help with the cleanup. -- Huntster T • @ • C 14:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Huntster, I understand what you mean about the fiction articles, particularly the fictional character articles. As I stated on your talk page, there are far too many that need fixing up. So, really, I don't feel that I needed an apology from you about your knee-jerk reaction, but I appreciate the apology and am glad that you took the time to explain. I hate to lose a good editor overseeing these articles, and you seem like a good editor, but I also understand your frustration. I'm not sure I have as much knowledge about the Charmed series and characters as you or IrishLass do, though I did watch the show and sometimes watch its reruns, but I know that I could fix up those articles pretty well. However, as I mentioned to you before, I am so busy with other fiction-related articles that I'm not sure when or if I'll fix up those as well. I'm going to leave the Leo Wyatt and Piper Halliwell articles on my watchlist and will most likely add the other (main) Charmed characters to my watchlist to make sure they don't get any more in need of improvement, since you have stated that you will no longer watch those. I'd rather you still keep an eye on them as well, but you gotta do what's best for you. We all have our wikistress and have to find our own way to counter it. Flyer22
(Discussion continued on Flyer22's talk page, but in an unrelated direction.)

[edit] Amtrak banners

As the person who added the state project banners to the article, it was because the article is contained in the categories of each of those state's "Trains by state" or whatever category, which itself a subcat of the state's main category. Also, honestly, by making each state project, in a sense, interested in the article, it gives the members of those projects a reason to want to work on the article. Of course, personally, I question the value of all those trains by state categories anyway, but I'm not really in a position to demand that they all be removed. John Carter 16:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re. Extra track listing template

(X-Posted) Hi there. I noticed the revert to {{Extra track listing}} and wondered what, exactly, was the problem. All of the versions in the time frame you mentioned seem to work fine for me, and the changes I made were as well-tested as I could make them (I didn't see anything out of the ordinary, neither in display nor HTML output). Reverting is fine, but it's nice to know the reason behind it, so it can be fixed ;) Thanks! -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Where the Streets Have No Name looked screwed up (tables lying all over the place) before the change, and now looks fine. I'm not sure which diff on the template contained the error, but I knew for a fact that it was working before 3 Nov, when I last saw/edited that article. Dihydrogen Monoxide 22:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Thanks for the reply. Fixing was just a matter of moving the first line of code off of the <includeonly> tag. Unfortunately, the base problem is inherent in the way the Misc field subtemplates are designed...they cannot stand alone, and thus require code from the infobox to display properly. I'm sure everything could be redesigned (personally, I think that would be fun to do), but I'm sure there would be significant resistance! Take care. -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Haha...I know nothing about templates (well, a bit...) and would never have picked that up. Thanks! Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charmed character box

Just curious why it is so much bigger than any other infobox I've seen on Wikipedia and who did it. Wondering if you could direct me so I can discuss the box with others. Thanks so much. IrishLass0128 14:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I replied on my page. IrishLass 14:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) I assume you are referring to {{Infobox Charmed Character}}. If so, I'm not sure about what you mean regarding it being bigger than other infoboxes...wider?...longer? Doesn't quite seem that way to me. Zythe originally created it, but that doesn't mean anything. If there are concerns, let me know and I'll try to exact a fix. -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
My concern is it is very big compared to other infoboxes. It is the only one that takes up a quarter to a third of my screen when I open a page. I mostly work with soap and the box for soaps and other fictional characters is much thiner, not so wide, left to right. I just wondered if there was a page for discussion. I have a "healthy" size screen and it's relatively huge on this screen. Just trying to contribute. IrishLass 14:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Example here where you can see the difference: {{Infobox soap character}}. You'll see it's not as wide and fits comfortably on the page. IrishLass 14:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
(Issue has been resolved.)

[edit] Template:Infobox University

I saw on the above template's talk page that you had suggested removing a number of fields. I think it has been long enough that you can safely remove them. The template is way too bloated and people are still trying to add more. I would remove them, but I don't want to mess it up. KnightLago (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(Issue has been resolved.)

[edit] Charmed

I tried clarifying that awkward sentence after you did your last edit. What did you mean in the edit summary? It made no sense. I went from a perspective of having no clue what just "cover" meant so I made it cover version to make it clearer to people outside of the music business. CelticGreen (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) I don't care what it says, so long as it has proper grammar and the wording is clear. The point of providing Wikilinks is so that unclear words can still be used. Beyond that, I seriously dislike the addition of "the same version". This is extraneous, given that the sentence fragment about The Craft can only be referring to the aforementioned song. -- Huntster T • @ • C 17:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Not true. Because you mention that it's a cover, it could be the cover you are talking about, not the version played on Charmed. Without noting it's "the same version" it could be either song. That's why I added the phrase, for clarity. I don't tend to add frivolous words just because. I do it to make it clearer to the reader. Too many editors seem to write for themselves and not the general reader. I understand adding the Wiki links, but it doesn't mean you change the word of the link "just because." The sentence has to make sense to all. CelticGreen (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) I may be missing your reasoning...are you differentiating between the Charmed theme and the LSL song because the theme is a diced version? If so, then that's fine (though still disagree with the necessity); if not, then I'm lost. Just curious. -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I have never seen The Craft, nor do I have any desire to. It's not gotten great reviews in my circles and I won't waste two hours on the movie. It took a separate search (off Wikipedia) to find out if you/the other editor meant that the version played on Charmed was the same version that was used in that POS, The Craft. I clarified the sentence so others wouldn't have to go through what I did to figure out what was meant. I've made it two sentences that make sense to someone who's never seen The Crapfest, I mean The Craft. I think what you are thinking is that I was the one who made a big deal out of the fact that the song isn't the original version. That wasn't me, that was some other editor. I was just trying to clarify it for non-Smith fans and those that have never seen that movie. I assumed the other editor is a Smith's fan that is one of those that was pissed some other band's version was used. They rewrote the sentence about a dozen times yesterday. CelticGreen (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Woah, hey, calm down. I don't care about the situation either way, so don't make some huge deal of it. And I don't know about two hours, but I simply found the soundtrack on Amazon.com that confirmed the song used in the movie was the version by Love Spit Love. Irregardless, I simply wanted to know why a specific differentiation was needed between the actual song and the Charmed theme, when they are essentially the same thing. -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
HUH? CALM DOWN? Who was upset? By "two hours" I meant the length of The Craft, which is the running time when it shows on television and it's not time I'm going to waste on a movie that not one person I know recommends. Here's where the basic problem is lying, I didn't make the differentiation, that was another editor. I was only trying to correct the grammar that he used. Check the edit history, you'll see all I did was trying and make the sentence friendly to readers who appreciate grammar but might have issues with the way the sentence was structured and restructured so many times. For someone who is merely trying to help with grammar, you're giving me a lot of grief and making some not so nice accusations. Where did I become uncivil or raise my voice with all caps (sans the beginning here where I emphasized your words)? I read you acted the same toward Flyer22 when she tried to help with a Charmed article. I was just trying to help because IrishLass asked for help with articles she'd edited before she left on vacation. I'll have to tell her what a "pleasant" experience it's been. CelticGreen (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Sorry, I interpreted your railing against The Craft, which I too have not seen, as anger or annoyance. I apologize for that, and for the error of the two hours thing...perhaps I just need sleep. Aside from that, what accusations have I made? I never said you were uncivil or anything. I'm more confused now than before. Again, I was only trying to understand what type of differentiation was being made. Just disregard. -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I just like using any excuse to bash that hack of a movie. I guess there's a general misconception by both. Your comments came off as harsh and the "calm down" was pretty strong. Let's step back and start again. I only addressed the issue of grammar in regard to the sentence. I make no distinctions between the two versions (or is it three). I was just trying to word the sentence so if you were unfamiliar with the song, it would make sense. That was my sole role in the edit. It was the other editor Dasmian that set out to make the distinction and then made six edits to "perfect" his sentence. I was just trying to make it readable to someone who knew nothing about the song, who sang it, and where they might have heard it. That's all I was trying to do. Hope you understand my role here today. CelticGreen (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thx

Thanks for fixing the coding in List of cities and towns in Tennessee. I copied that code from a featured list (Towns of Alberta), and I couldn't find documentation of that feature anywhere. I'm glad you knew! --Orlady (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CAP Thanks

Huntster, thanks for fixing my change on the Civil Air Patrol article! I looked around for that template a bit but just couldn't find it! (It was late, brain was dead?) I knew there was a better way but just wanted to get the net effect and hopefully someone smarter than I could format it better and I appreciate it. VigilancePrime (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007, December

[edit] CAP Song

(X-Posted) Don't know if you discovered this yourself already, but thought I'd point out that this website, CA31 Billie L LeClair Cadet Squadron, is the only place on the Internet where the lyrics for this song can be found. My guess would be that someone from the squadron itself is trying to push this thing forward. Gotta say, not very imaginative lyrics! -- Huntster T • @ • C 17:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I have seen the CAP Song before. I'm not entirely sure where, but it was, IIRC, written back in the WWII days. Yes, not very imaginative lyrics, but then, it was written in the 40's. I could see this, referenced (even to a paper document), on a "History of Civil Air Patrol" page, but not on the (FA) Article main. I think it was in a history book once sold by the Bookstore, but I'm not entirely sure. All I can say with certainty is that it does not belong on the main CAP page! VigilancePrime (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Interesting. I suppose then that the problem would be finding a verifiable source (such as that book) documenting it as an official song, but that is an issue for another time! -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wicca citation removals

(X-Posted) Hey Fuzzypeg, I was looking through some of the changes made recently, and noticed two citations were removed without any being adding in their place. I'm just curious as to why this was done. Regarding Hermetica, I thought the citation dealt specifically with animism; for High Magic's Aid, was the wording really changed significantly enough to render the citation unusable? -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Huntster, I believe the two citations you're asking me about are the Hermetica citation for the statement "Wicca is essentially an immanent religion, and for some Wiccans, this idea also involves elements of animism"; and the High Magic's Aid citation for information regarding the Law of Threefold Return.
For the first, I don't see how the Hermetica, a body of writing from late antiquity, provides any verification or explanation for the fact that modern Wiccans see divinity as immanent, or take an animist world-view. Looking back through the article history, I see the citation was originally attached to the statement (written by me):
Since the Goddess is said to conceive and contain all life within her, all beings are held to be divine. This is a key understanding conveyed in the Charge of the Goddess, one of the most important texts of Wicca, and is very similar to the Hermetic understanding that "God" contains all things, and in truth is all things.
For the second, Gerald Gardner in High Magic's Aid doesn't describe the three-fold law as such; rather the passage in question is a description of the 2nd degree initiation, and specifically that point where scourging is returned threefold. The original cited text read as follows:
A possible prototype to the Rule of Three may be found in the prescribed ritual practice of the newly initiated second degree Wiccan scourging her initiator with three times as many blows at the end of the ceremony as she has received from him at the beginning. Gardner maintained that his 1949 novel High Magic's Aid contained elements of Wiccan belief presented in the form of fiction, and he wrote of this scourging: "For this is the joke of Witchcraft, the Witch knows though the initiate does not, that she will get three times what she gave, so she does not strike hard."
In both cases the intended text has been removed, but the citation has not. Neither of these citations are useful in the context of the current text, so I removed them. Cheers, Fuzzypeg☻ 03:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Good deal then. I just seemed to remember the animism reference when researching the proper citation for Hermetica, but I suppose I am mistaken. My only real problem was that references were removed (though in this case removing them was the right thing) without new ones being added. Perhaps something can be found in the future. -- Huntster T • @ • C 09:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template talk:US-airport

Hey, if you have a chance, you might want to take a look at Template talk:US-airport. A bunch of guys trying to spam their web sites throughout wikipedia (see edit history) and sock puppets (see edit history). I've replied a few times but it's pretty much going in circles at this point. Touchdown Turnaround (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Hi there, thanks for the message. To my eyes, your concerns appear to be quite valid. I would take this to the admins, probably. Two places to start are WT:WPSPAM and WP:SUSPSOCK. You may also request protection of the page at WP:RPP. However, protection may not be a good idea, because if they post their website at the page you gave me, you can easily check to see if it has been included in other articles by entering it at Special:Linksearch, which allows for easy cleanup if needed. -- Huntster T • @ • C 16:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page for templates relating to pagan topics

Hello there Huntster, I'm aware that at least five different templates have recently been produced and added to pages within this general area. I'm a bit concerned that this profusion has taken place without much discussion from editors who work on these articles, and I'd suggest that this should be discussed centrally so that there is a degree of uniformity in articles within the same family. I'm writing to you because I know you have been involved with these articles quite closely. If you would like to join this discussion, please do not reply here, but go instead to the talk page I have set up for this purpose. Of course if you want to have a 1:1 discussion about this, then please do reply here or on my own talk page. Many thanks! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 00:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WPEV

Sorry to said this, but you just can copy and paste code from another template without even knowing what it is. You've added some useless things, since the WikiProject is not that big.

You've also created categories like this . Category:Evanescence articles with comments] ¿? It's not even necessary that people write their reason for rating an article with "Stub" or "B" since there is already a criteria for that. Check Wikipedia:WikiProject Evanescence/Assessment. I've just created this page and deleted that field.

Now look this. You have changed all the categories in the template: Category:Top-Importance Evanescence articles -> Category:Top-importance Evanescence articles. I've already fixed all of that. Another thing you have done, is to repeat and repeat and repeat some codes like 'switch' for the categories. The template is a mess!!!!! I've also deleted the needs-infobox, since all oif the Ev articles have infoboxes, and as I've already written, this WP is small.

Another thing is the peer-review options...that options is used in WikiProjects that have their own peer review department. So I've deleted that too. Well, you may think that here Wikipedia:WikiProject Evanescence/Peer review, articles are reviewed that that's only a list of articles being reviewd by Wikipedia:Peer review.

Now, I've kept the merge, attention and reassess field. Armando.Otalk • Ev 19:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) First things first, I thought I placed that template in the sandbox...I actually put it live? Ugh, I must stop doing stuff when I'm tired after work. I don't know what I was thinking. In any case, regarding the old template, there is a lot of functionality that can be added, and some that *needs* to be added. It is very very basic. I'll work on it when I have some time...I just ran out of that time earlier. Also, those switches you mentioned, they are very necessary to non-article pages don't receive importance ratings. I don't write code unless it has a specific function, though I admit I do tend to get ahead of myself. -- Huntster T • @ • C 00:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hehe,that happens to me sometimes too. anyway, i know switches are important, but what i meant is that you repeated the code twice...i've already fixed the template completely. Armando.Otalk • Ev 00:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Okay, so the template has been properly updated now, and everything appears to check out...all categories in place, all intended functions operational. A few notes: it is unnecessary to give categories, templates and NA-class material importance ratings, because the template automatically filters those out. I've taken out the need for a disambig category and had it removed; as yet, there are none, and frankly I cannot forsee any possible need for one within the scope of this project. I've removed all additional functionality besides the "attention" flag; this is all that is needed, as any specifications can be described on the article's talk page (and I've worded the bit to say as much). The only real thing added is the "listas" function, which is identical to the DEFAULTSORT function you see in articles. I believe I have taken care of all the articles which would need this parameter. Also, I still don't understand what you mean by the switches duplication functions. I know what every line of code does, and don't see any duplicated effort. If you can point out exactly which section, I'll fix or explain what is going on. -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Forget it....I've deleted that thing of the explanation of ratings since it's not necessary. Will someone explain why an article is an stub or a GA??? No one. Armando.Otalk · Ev · 3K 23:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Yeah, that's fine, it was purely an optional thing anyway. -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
K. I've made some changes. It looks fine. Armando.Otalk · Ev · 3K 23:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CSD G8

CSD G8 does not apply to talk pages of images on Commons. --- RockMFR 21:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Apologies about that. Was trying to clean up after a well-meaning editor. Was using Twinkle, and that was the only thing remotely resembling non-local image talk pages. For the purposes of that project banner, it doesn't need to be used for Commons images...they are being taken care of locally. Message has been left with that user, so hopefully this won't happen again. Thanks for your assistance. -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tennessee image comment

(X-Posted) Hey Dan, thanks for adding the banner to these Tennessee images, but please do not add the banner to pages that are currently on Commons. If the little "Image" tab in the upper left corner is red, then the image does not actually exist on Wikipedia, and there is really no point in adding the banner (takes a bit of effort just to pull up the image, and most people aren't going to try that hard). So, just be careful, and if there are any questions, let me know. -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad to and sorry for the mishap. Is there anything that I need to go and revert back from what I did earlier? -- Dan9186(T • E • C) December 19, 2007 07:17 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Nope, everything is taken care of :) Thanks again for the work! -- Huntster T • @ • C 07:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schools and notability

(X-Posted) Hey there, regarding your removal of the speedy tag on that page, while I don't really care either way, it seems quite inappropriate to say that they are "generally notable by precedent" when Wikipedia:Notability (schools) itself says there is no agreement on the matter. For this article alone, there is no assertion of notability and no sources provided aside from its own website, which of course fails two of the basic tenants here. Just me being curious about the decision. -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm, from what I've seen, high schools are usually kept in AFDs, but I think you're right here. I'll AFD the article, is that alright with you? Thanks for the notification. Keilana 01:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Oh, that's fine; I don't even care if you want to let it stay, I just tend to have a hate-hate relationship with these kinds of stubs (though my focus is on media rather than articles, to be honest). And thank you for the reply! -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll AFD it anyways, there is obviously not a complete consensus for its existence, please feel free to comment. Thanks! Keilana 01:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 2008, January

[edit] youtube video

Hello Huntster, how is it going. We have discussed about posting youtube video link on wikipedia about a year ago (song by Evanescence). I came across Chandra Crawford today that two youtube links are there. How would one judge on the issue in such case? Ktsquare (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Greetings Ktsquare. These videos are absolutely a copyright violation; doubly so, since the subject matter (Olympics coverage) is copyright the International Olympic Committee and the "local" broadcasts themselves are almost certainly copyright the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Basically, any authorized broadcast video coverage of the Olympics will be copyrighted...they often have a disclaimer which says something to the effect of "The telecast is a copyright of the International Olympics Committee; any reproduction (rebroadcast?) without authorization is strictly forbidden." I've gone ahead and removed the two links. — Huntster (talk • email • contribs) 22:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roan Mountain Images

Looks good! I thought about using the image gallery format but kinda liked the large thumb images. Thanks for the help.Eleutherosmartin (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) No problem. Images larger than 300-350px tend to be discouraged except in particular circumstances, such as panoramic views (and even then, they should be kept to a minimum size). It's mostly to keep things clean-looking on the articles, but also because they are considered just that, thumbnails, with the larger image just a click away. — Huntster (talk • email • contribs) 00:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amateur radio article...

Huntster - Could you please look at the section example of callsign structure for any problems? It was added today, and needed copyediting. Now, I'm assuming (you know what they say about assume!) that the ITU is the prescribing authority for callsign structure, I've been looking through their website and have not been able to find any reference material...Edit Centric (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "other links"

Not all links can or will look like the IMDB links. I know you like the Charmed article to be to your standards but you are going against nearly every other Wikipedia article about a television show or character. It's nearly impossible to have all links look alike but how I input the link originally is how it's done on very many pages. I did try to pretti-fy it to look similar to the other links, but that's not realistic in general. Maybe a discussion on the talk page would be in order. KellyAna (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) I'm not formatting it per my standards, I'm formatting it per how almost all templated links appear (such as those directly above the TNT entry). Seems to me that is fairly standard, else they would not appear that way. I don't link things like the TNT.tv, since I dislike linking things that aren't immediately related to the article content, but that's my personal preference. However, I would suggest linking to the Turner Network Television article rather than the website (unrelated external links are strongly discouraged, as opposed to internal links). I would like to remind you that just because it is done a certain way on other pages, does not make it correct (this applies to both of us...neither of us will always get what we want, but we should strive for a look of professionalism. This is an encyclopaedia we are building!). — Huntster (t • @ • c) 05:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A mini-meetup in Nashville

User:LaraLove/Bathrobe Cabal/Meetup. The 'boro is certainly close enough that I'm sure you can manage to swing by. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TN importance rating

(X-Posted) Hey Dox, I noticed you were rating a number of TN articles, but why did you rate them all (at least the ones I noticed) as "low"? If it was just to get a rating on them, that's not a good idea...if no rating is present, at least someone can come around to give a proper one...now no one will really know. TBI, TWRA, UT, etc, should at least be Mid, if not High or Top. TBI...top, TWRA...mid, University of Tennessee system...high. Just curious as to your reasoning. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 16:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Huntster, I did not rate them all low, just most of them. As a matter of fact, I assigned an importance rating to all TN tagged articles that did not have one. And you are right in one point, I indeed had the idea to get them all rated to get a basis. I rated them in comparison to each other, that's why I did the whole bunch in a day. Remember how difficult it was to find proper formulations for the importance ratings, how to define them? I used the importance rating definitions (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennessee/Assessment#Importance_assessment Assessment) as a basis for my rating. It was some 800+ articles that were rated. If you take any 800 random articles and rate them you will end up with 90% stubs and 90% low rated articles, probably more. There will always be some sort of disagreement. Maybe I underrated a few of the articles and overrated others and on again other articles, we might just have different opinion about.
The importance rating is a mysterious topic. I found that out when I started the assessment page for the TN project with your help. I compared a lot of different ones. You know what the core thing is they disagree about? The importance rating! Some treat it as the importance of an article for the project, very few use priority instead of importance. Again others (like the TN project) make it dependedent on the casual reader, and what he or she might have previous knowledge about or might be most interested in. The FAQ of the assessment page also encourages every member of the TN project to add or change ratings. If you find a rating you disagree with, please change it! That is how Wikipedia balances out, in my opinion. doxTxob \ talk 23:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Oh, I'm not trying to complain loudly or anything, I was just curious as to what was going on. Mostly I thought that the rating of some, such as those above, didn't make particular sense, given that I'd consider them of importance to more than just a local town crowd. Eh, we'll figure something out. Perhaps we can organise a "rating day", and divide up articles between willing participants for a thorough count based on agreed upon standards. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that the conversation was continued in a somewhat negative fashion by others. See User talk:DoxTxob/Archive 1#WP:TN importance rating.

[edit] Express Yourself!!! (Invitation to Fun)

  • Hunster, I would like to invite you to come on a fun trip with me as I write, hopefully together with a few "friend Wikipedians", some future (?) WikiEssays. All in good fun, and I think it'd be a great outlet for some of the recent nervous energy and excessive typing some of us have done on recent debates. I have some formatting laid out and invite you to Be Very Bold in contributing to the articles if you feel so led. It's all meant to be in the spirit of good fun and collaboration, kinda like a mini-WikiProject or something. Check the "proposed" essay topics out here. You can also add your name to the "contributors" or even "planned contributors" (if you can't add now but plan to soon/eventually) list at the essay talk page. You'll see it's all laid out pretty simply. Yes, drop-down... just like an Advent Calendar... I know... I Hope to See You There!!! VigilancePrime (talk) 05:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC) :-)

[edit] EV

Honestly, I'm surprised at your apparent position given Illa's non-arguments, and the history of this article. You remember the fuss with the old logo in this article? That *had* commentary as I recall, and the entire thing was removed. I think you know that text could be written about the logo and its relation to this band. The logo has been more stable than the lineup. And I might have done it had this started as a talk page request saying "hey, it would be helpful if there were some commentary on the logo, and it would be good to get that done by March when the fair use crunch happens". But that's not how these image sweeps seem to get handled. Gimmetrow 06:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that this was in reference to a discussion of the Evanescence logo on Talk:Evanescence. I think.

[edit] Template:Countytabletop

Hunster, you've helped me on this before and I know you're better at this than I am. I have tried a lotta stuff to get the FIPS part of the table top working. Everything else is working fantastic from where you had fixed parts before, however the FIPS reference just doesn't want to include what is put into the parameter to make the reference URL work like it should. It is putting the variable name in {{{state_initials}}} instead of putting the value of the variable. If we can get that part working all else will be fixed and could start putting it into use. If you have a second please take a look at it. You can wipe out the sandbox if you want I've just been trying to some random things to get it to work. I appreciate your help. Thanks. -- Dan9186(T • E • C) January 28, 2008 23:56 (UTC)

I saw where you have worked on the template some and I certainly appreciate the help. As for "intruding" on my sandbox, its a sandbox I was under the impression that it was there for whatever was needed of it. It seems to be that you're very well on top of things but if you have any questions just let me know, you can e-mail me on here and I will get it at home or work. Thanks for the help. -- Dan9186(T • E • C) January 31, 2008 02:46 (UTC)

[edit] InfoBox University

Huntster, I noticed that, in the course of editing the template for the infobox university back in November, you removed the public transit field entirely. Any particular reason for this? I didn't see any discussion anywhere regarding this topic, so I'm wondering if it was just a mistake. Aepoutre (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted from Template talk:Infobox University) Yes, look below at the #Extraordinarily bloated section (two below this one); this wasn't done unilaterally. The issue with extraneous fields had been raised more than once. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 13:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008, February

[edit] Charmed

There's an issue with User:Olympic god doing mass changes to the Charmed article. I'm done trying to maintain order, ,I've reverted three times so I can't fix the damage he's doing. You definitely need to step in. KellyAna (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Single

Could you please not revert my edit of replacing archaic typewriter quotation marks with typographically correct quotation marks? (Template:Cquote uses exactly the same quotation marks.) Thanks. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 11:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) The problem is that such things should not be changed just for the sake of changing them, which is what has happened here. Also note that there is nothing "archaic" about typewriter marks, and they are still very (very) widely used...almost any keyboard you come across will use them, and they certainly have a dominant market share in terms of use due to this. There is nothing inherently right or wrong about either format, and no preference in which should be used. I cannot predict if others will or will not say anything, but please don't be surprised if they do; I've certainly seen it before. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 14:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of State Symbol Items

Huntster, I saw that you removed the banner from the channel cat fish article. If you feel that it shouldn't belong on those then what are your thoughts on it being on the other articles of the items in List of Tennessee State Symbols. If you feel that it doesn't belong on those as well please let me know and I will be glad to remove them. I figured that maybe they had been looked over simply cause it was a "in front of your nose" sorta deal. Sorry for the over zealous trouble. -- Dan9186(T • E • C) February 5, 2008 01:42 (UTC)

(X-Posted) I meant to toss you a message after I found that instance, but I was forcibly torn away from the computer by a rather bad phone call. I shouldn't have removed it in the first place without speaking with you, oops. In short, no, I do not believe that any state symbols should be placed under the project unless there are extenuating circumstances. As far as I can tell, ours would be the only project to do so, despite many items being symbols of other states. Further, looking at the two fish articles that were tagged (channel catfish and largemouth bass), Tennessee isn't mentioned once in the articles. Think of it this way; our project should cover locations, objects, events and other topics that are uniquely Tennessee-related, have a strong bearing on the state, or have been strongly influenced by the state. For example, that is why I don't tag articles of football players who happened to play for University of Tennessee when I am reviewing newly created recommended articles. That's what I view these generic symbols as being: just tangentially related. If a symbol is uniquely associated with Tennessee, maybe that would be okay, but most things aside from seals and songs are found over a wide geographical area and are associated any number of states/countries. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 12:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I will take care of any that haven't already been dealt with then. As for talking with me first, you are the more experienced one and a better decision maker than I am you keep doing what you're doing and I will help out where I can. Sorry for the trouble and inconvenience. -- Dan9186(T • E • C) February 6, 2008 02:11 (UTC)
Huntster something that I would like your oppinion on, these following articles do mention Tennessee in the articles. I will leave them to you to remove the banner from the ones you deem needing it. Otherwise I have removed the banner from the other ones I had tagged.
-- Dan9186(T • E • C) February 6, 2008 03:37 (UTC)

[edit] FAR of Civil Air Patrol

Civil Air Patrol has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

[edit] Barnstar

(X-Posted) Thanks so much Yinyang for the barnstar. I'm not much of a content contributor, but I do try to keep things looking clean and professional around the place. The article is about due for a rewrite, though I'll wait until well after series two concludes to do that. BTW, interesting username! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem Huntster! I have seen your many contributions in the past to h2o and to the list of episodes, and by the way thanks for the compliment about my name ^^ . Yinyanglightningthrash (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Open Door - B-Sides

Together Again and If You Don't Mind are B-Sides of The Open Door. Here's a transcript of an Metal Edge interview. http://lnx.evanescencewebsite.com/PressArchive/news.php?id=130 And there's a scan too. http://lnx.evanescencewebsite.com/TheOpenDoor/albums/OPEN%20DOOR%20ERA/Magazines/Metal%20Edge/004.jpg Check the last lines of the first column and the second column. So I'm adding this to the The Open Door article. Armando.O talk ● Ev ● 3K 20:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Well done in finding and implementing that, thanks! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 13:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Masdar City Image

(X-Posted) An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Masdar City.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC) --— Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed the cc tag and put the real tag in can the deletion notice be removed Trulystand700

[edit] Template:Extra track listing

Am I the only one who sees major problems in articles like All You Need Is Love, I Want To Hold Your Hand, and Come Together? I'm pretty sure it's coming from that template, but I have no idea why/where/how. I was just testing various things when you reverted my edit; perhaps you have a better idea of what the problem is (if there is one)? - Boss1000 (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Hey, sorry for the revert and run, I was trying to fix at work and had to leave. The problem may be with the template, but I'm not so sure. I'm going to investigate, but I know the edit you made didn't change anything, which is why I reverted (better to attack from a preexisting angle rather than adding an unknown element). Hopefully I or someone else can quickly figure something out, or the template may have to be temporarily disabled. What I don't know is why it would all of a sudden stop working. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
It's completely fine; I didn't really know how to fix it, so I wasn't doing much, anyway. I did do a check, and the number of { and } are the same, though they could still be misplaced. Hope you find the solution! - Boss1000 (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that there was no problem with the template. I never found out what was wrong, but I suspect a parser error caused the display problems. Everything was magically fixed within a couple of hours.

[edit] Tennessee Images needing Fair Use Rational

Hunster I've noticed today that the Memphis seal is tagged as needing a fair use rational or will be deleted. I am taking care of it but it rose some curiosity for me and I've checked a couple of other images and such that are in the projects image category and noticed that there are some that do not have a rational at all. I have time to correct a few and such but not all that I find. Might we wish to make a way to tag the ones that need rationals without tagging them for deletion so that we may go through over time and remedy the situation? If you would let me know your thoughts on this please, thanks. -- Dan9186(T • E • C) February 20, 2008 16:25 (UTC)


[edit] 2008, March

[edit] SR 840

(X-Posted) Hey there, I see you added back Category:Transportation in Nashville, Tennessee to Tennessee State Route 840. Frankly, your edit summary makes no sense...yes, it affects traffic in and around Nashville, but it also affects traffic in certain ways to all the cities and towns in the state, as all major interstates and highways do nationwide. The category is normally intended for those items that are actually in the city. It isn't a big deal, but I prefer accuracy, and to me this is like putting Murfreesboro, Tennessee inside Category:Nashville, Tennessee or Category:Davidson County, Tennessee because "hey, Murfreesboro is little more than a bedroom community for Nashville!" ;) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems more like putting Murfreesboro in a Nashville suburbs category, which would be in the Nashville category. The real problem is that the category is misnamed; it should probably be Nashville area transportation. --NE2 05:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Well yes, but I was speaking literally given the categories already established. While you might see about having the category changed, the norm as seen at Category:Transportation in the United States by city indicates that it is most properly by city or county rather than region. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The first one I tried, Category:Transportation in Boston, Massachusetts, includes Route 128, Boston's beltway that doesn't enter it at all. --NE2 17:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Special:ExpandTemplates

Thanks very much for the Special:ExpandTemplates tip. TJRC (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amateur radio

Thanks for fixing my change, even after 9000 edits I'm still learning (I guess that is what I get for not doing much article writing). BJTalk 20:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Heh, not a problem. However, you removed the "Cited" and "General" headers again. In my mind, these are needed specifically for the names of their titles...cited references are specifically referred to in the article body, whereas general references are not. No, they are not required since the cited ones refer back to the article body, but it does help in differentiating. If you have questions regarding citations, feel free to let me know. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting edits

No need to be snotty in your edit summaries. You simply put "formatting" or "minor." Your edit here was uncalled for and unnecessarily rude. The removal, or non-removal, affected nothing. A simple notation of "minor" would have sufficed. KellyAna (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) I wasn't aware that my edit summary was either snotty or rude. I simply like bringing a little levity to what is otherwise a very droll thing. I'm sorry that you interpreted it as such, but no, it was not intended that way. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate you explaining your thoughts. My apologies if I took them in a way they were not intended. As I'm sure you are most aware, it's often times hard to communicate humour over the internet and mistakes sometimes occur. I know we can move past this little misunderstanding. Thank you for taking the time to reply. KellyAna (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Original Body Farm

Huntster, I'm kind of new at this :) Could you please help me with how to change the article name? Do I just copy paste the entire article into the new page? Also, is there a way to keep the discussions page? We have to include a printout of the discussions page when we turn in our assignment. Thank you! ~ Leila —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.129.68 (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: See replies and continuation at Talk:University of Tennessee Forensic Anthropology Facility#Moving the page.

[edit] Calling someone a liar

If you ever call me a liar again you will be immediately reported for incivility. I will NOT stand for anyone calling me a liar. IrishLass (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted from Talk:Charmed) And I rather take offense at you saying I accused you of something I did not, leaving a message on my talk page to that effect. If you have a problem with a discussion here, leave the message here. I was specifically referring to the "List of women warriors..." and "List of action heroes" links which you *did* add to Xena, and you did add the entire See also section to the series article. That is all I was speaking off. I never accused you of lying, just that it probably wasn't a good idea to use those specific examples above! I don't accuse people of lying unless I am damn sure they are, and I know you aren't lying...there was nothing to lie about. Now, if there is an issue I'm not seeing, please address that, but do not make such extraordinary accusations. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 18:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: I really don't know what is going on here....
It's simple. You said I added the lists to articles to support my argument. This equates to you stating I falsified articles in order to "be right" which is not the truth and you accusing me of doing so is effectively calling me a liar. I am not a liar. I did not create lists where none existed. I added to existing lists. I did, however, mix up the two Xena articles during my copying but I did not falsify articles by adding lists. The articles I listed had "see also" sections. I did not create them just to win an argument. Saying I did is calling me a liar. It's that simple. IrishLass (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
*headdesk* I never said any such thing. I said using those articles as examples for your argument might not have been the best thing; I did not say that you intentionally included them expressly to win the argument. You are a good editor, and I would not accuse you of trying to subvert something when you obviously weren't. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 19:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Obviously implicatins of being called a liar hit a nerve. My apologies for jumping. It strikes a cord that goes back many years. I apologize if I took your words the wrong way. IrishLass (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
It's no problem, and I too apologise if what I said gave the wrong impression. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 19:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: Given that IrishLass and KellyAna (author of above "Formatting edits" section) were blocked for being apparent puppet master and puppet, respectively, it isn't hard to see the similarities in editing style and feelings of incivility. IrishLass's attitude was the reason I stopped dealing with the Charmed article series.

[edit] University of Tennessee Forensic Anthropology Facility

Thank you for fixing up our references section! Weilingz (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008, April

[edit] Request for your comments

As someone previously involved in a discussion re this issue, I would appreciate your comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Release_dates_listed_pre-release. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lori Rom

Hi! I recently added some info to an article about an actress called Lori Rom. Would you mind editing it? Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lori_Rom. Thank! Neptunekh (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flag Icons

Hi, i've re-added the flagicon back into the infobox on the H2O: Just Add Water article. The use of flagicons in infoboxes on wikipedia articles is standard practice. Furthermore, they are in no way against wikipedia policy. Thanks and have a nice night :-) TheProf - T / C 23:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

From what i've seen in my wiki-travels, the general consensus on flagicons is that they are preferred in infoboxes and unwelcome outside them. And i've never seen an admin remove one from an infobox. A good example of what i'm saying is at Doctor Who. Because this is a popular TV show worldwide, it gets a lot of interest on wikipedia. Most of the pages main editors are administrators, and they have never removed the flagicon from the infobox. In addition, i would read WP:MOSFLAG#Help the reader rather than decorate as a ruling not to have flagicons willynilly, and compress them to certain areas (like infoboxes). Anyway, you're right, it's not something worth getting wiki-stress levels up for! Thanks for your co-operation and patience :-) And have a nice day! TheProf - T / C 12:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
TheProf - T / C has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

It seems the flag icon on Doctor Who is now in dispute. Not yet by an administrator, just a normal user. It seems you are not alone in your views. I'll let you know how it pans out. TheProf - T / C 17:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: Unable to pull full discussion due to user request to delete User-space pages.

[edit] Evanescence Discography

Hi. Can i have the reason for reversing my edits?? Evanescence's album has sold 1.9M in the US(only platinum RIAA certification) and there's source for that. Plus, there's no data for Turkish sales (there's not even an official chart) and ww sales of "Open Door" were over 4 M but didn't reach 5million copies. Also the first album of Evanescence didn't sell 110,000 copies (lol this is impossible for an international act) but it was certified 2xplatinum by IFPI. Finally, "Fallen" has sold over 13 million copies and not 15M. Thank you :-)--Chronisgr (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please give me the source of turkish sales and where did u find that Open Door sold 2.1 m in US and 5 million ww??--Chronisgr (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Do not remove valid chart data when sources are provided, as you did to "Sweet Sacrifice" and "Good Enough", as it is considered vandalism. Both articles had sources attached for the respective numbers, and you provided no reason for removing them in the first place.
Now, to answer the questions you left on my talk page. First, the Turkish figure came from the source provided with it, namely an issue of Billboard Turkiye. Second, for The Open Door, I do not know where the U.S. figure of 2.1 million came from; I apologise for reverting that change earlier, so feel free to change it back to 1.9 per the album article. As for the 5 million worldwide, I presume it came from the source attached to it, listed as accessed in late 2007. I would *not* change that, because we must assume the source is correct as of the date provided. I watch the page and always try to remove information that is unsourced.
Anyway, the primary issue is that you are replacing unsourced information with additional unsourced information, which makes it no more correct than the information you are replacing. If you are getting your information from somewhere, then provide that source. I'd be more than willing to help you format citations and/or the data itself, but please do not simply throw numbers out there and claim it is correct. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry then. Here is a source for OPEN DOOR US & WW sales: http://www.evanescence.com/bio.asp
And where is the source for OPEN DOOR sales in Turkey? Greets--Chronisgr (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Judica Cordiglia brothers

Why did you remove the reference about Judica Cordiglia brothers in Yuri Gagarin article?--Dejudicibus (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Hi, I removed them because, to my eye, it is mostly speculative in nature and relies strictly on the brothers' claims of factuality (despite the recordings). As far as I've seen after dealing with this Cordiglia thing popping up in various places recently, there doesn't exist much of anything else to support their claims, and certainly nothing official. I am not suggesting they are wrong or lying or anything else, but to challenge an event that can be proven with one that has not (and likely cannot, unless the Russian gov't decides to release records) is remiss. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 17:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, apart that I heard their tapes, they are considered really reliable in Italy. The problem is that Soviet Union could not admit failures in that period, and today the new nationalistic mindset of Russia does not help to discover the truth. We have testimonials in Italy of soviet cosmonauts disappeared from official photographs. Also USA did not like very much the idea that the two brothers discovered the secret frequency of Explorer I. I think that you should reconsider your position, maybe rephrasing the paragraph, if you like, to give evidence to the difficulties to understand what really happened, but the tapes of the two brothers are very clear. I heard the most impressive one, that one of the first female cosmonaut burning while reentering in the atmosphere.--Dejudicibus (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
(X-Posted) I fully understand and appreciate what you are saying, but it doesn't change the that their evidence is entirely their own and not supported by any other material as far as I can tell. That's the problem with any conspiracy theory, whether entirely fake or entirely real (and I do suspect this situation is real)...unless solid supporting evidence can be located or is given up by the government in question, it can only be considered here-say. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I understand your point and I respect it. You are right: they are the only ones who recordered those voices. Unless Russian Government will decide to apply some glasnost to that mistery, we will never know the truth. I am just sad to think that those women and men have been heros and nobody will remind of their names. In Italy (really Latin), we use the term damnatio memoriæ (erasing of memory).--Dejudicibus (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
(X-Posted) I absolutely agree, fully. It is always sad when those lost cannot be remembered. That is one reason I've always been so proud of the transparency in which the U.S. space program has operated, and how, years later, we have departments actively searching for the remains of those soldiers missing and lost in action from previous wars. Everyone deserves to be remembered...let's just hope that those Cosmonauts, if they existed, will someday become known. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Investment

Hi, Thanks for your help setting up WP:INVESTMENT. I'm really excited to see things gaining traction. For example our current collaboration is actually being collaborated on. I'm new at using templates so your help with the banner is definitely appreciated. Greg Comlish (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Not a problem at all, and I wish the project great prosperity. As I mentioned on the project talk page, should template assistance ever be needed in the future, just let me know. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Sweet Sacrifice" in the Turkish chart

well, it's official and valid "sweet sacrifice"s 11th place in the lists. the site of billboard turkey only lists the top 20 of the week, but well with their monthly magazines, you can easily see their TRUE 11th! i hope, you will not again erase it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triancula (talk • contribs) 00:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Irregardless of whether it is true or not, Wikipedia works off Verifiability. If it cannot be proven through sources, it should not be included on the website. Please do not readd this again without a valid source, namely one that actually states facts about the single. This can be a website, magazine, or most anything else. I'd be more than happy to help you determine what is and isn't a valid source, but you *must* have something. Similar to this, I'm likely going to remove the other charts, since they too don't list any sort of source. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
yes you can be right about the sources and not me but anybody can right wahtever his/her wants ok i agree BUT i didn't get outta my head the chart poisiton, i saw it and it's 11th and it seems funny if you still want to assure me. if you say that i put maybe 1st or 2nd and rechange all the lists yes you were right, but sources always changing and they do NOT mean that x song hasn't succed in x countries official song. that's wrong for me and i will do what it's for me right. and don't forget, all the lists all the songs are changing and it's undercontrallable at some point. i didn't say because i'm near you opinons against, as i said before yes you're right, but again i'm telling you that you HAVE TO be against the ones who changes ALL the chart poisitons with the new HIGH ONES! Not the ones who imports the RIGHT POSITIONS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triancula (talk • contribs) 20:23, 11 April 2008
(X-Posted) I mean no disrespect, but I couldn't understand some of what you wrote. The fact is, I'm against virtually anything that is not accompanied by a source, or that is readily apparent to others (such as which television series). A statistic such as a chart position doesn't meet that last point, and thus needs a source. You say it can be found in a magazine...why not use that magazine as the source (provided you specify issue number and date of publication)? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
well could you really offer me some way to put a photo of the position :) if you really want i will take its photo and upload to one of the photo sites but really funny. with a meanfully of no disrespection. as i said before i agree with you but you have to seperate the people who is serious and who is not. and it's really easy with the page history! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triancula (talk • contribs) 20:39, 11 April 2008
(X-Posted) That's the problem, though. We cannot say to one editor, "Oh, your edit is not backed up by any evidence of proof but we'll keep it because we trust you"; but then say to another, "Sorry, your edit isn't backed up either, and we're deleting it." I hope you can understand where I'm coming from here...it is fairly discriminatory to allow one thing but disallow another, when both are based on nothing but the word of the editor alone.
I'm not asking you to take a picture of the magazine, but to simply provide the title, publication number, date (or month/year) of publication, and anything else relevant to it (basically, we want to fill in as many of the blanks at {{Cite journal}} as possible). And as I said above, I'll likely be removing the entire section of chart material since none have references, except yours, possibly. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
ok. i looked down and "July 2007/9th magazine of billboard türkiye" you can edit the referance link with this. July 2007- Billboard Türkiye. is it okey? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triancula (talk • contribs) 20:58, 11 April 2008
(De-indent; X-Posted) Yes, that is great information. If you can fill in the blanks in the following template, that would be even better:
{{cite journal |title= |journal=Billboard Türkiye |publisher= |location= |month=July |year=2007 |volume= |issue=9 |pages= |issn=1307-0959}}
Title is the article name or section name; Location is the physical location of the magazine publisher, but this is not very important; Volume typically relates to the year of publication, but it may be that Billboard Turkiye does not use this; Pages is just the page number or numbers that the info is found on. Thanks! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 :) well done! your template is really over-quality and sorry for being so much childish :) i editted the page number it's 92. and you wrote "weekly top 20" so i do not really know the volume. so that's it :) isnt' it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triancula (talk • contribs) 22:31, 11 April 2008
(X-Posted) Yes, that is all the information that is really needed for a citation. It will allow someone who really wants to confirm the information to look it up themselves. As for the title, I just wrote "Weekly Top 20" as a placeholder, since I had to put something there. If you know the proper title of the article or section, or can put something more appropriate there, please do so. Cheers! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
i wrote "yabancı şarkı" instead of weekly top 20,they're both same, yabancı şarkı means foreign song in which means the same but i changed to make excellent ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triancula (talk • contribs) 22:42, 11 April 2008
(X-Posted) Excellent! Thank you for working with me on this. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Giuseppe Firrao jr

The crucifix sign was placed, because he is deceased, but if you say its place looks to be improper I do not insist about it at all. I really thank all of You that assisted in this complicated case. I will say again, I respect the User:Attilios work and I would never raise that problem,if I didn't feel myself abused. And about my work I can guarantee, that I would never do such kind of thing to any other user. I have edited some articles, but I have always respected the work of the users before me, and if I do more than typos edit I always inform what and why I am doing in the talk page of the author or the last major contributor and editor of the article.Drjmarkov (talk) 08:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: this is an extension of a discussion on Talk:Giuseppe Firrao, Jr.

[edit] re: Template:Infobox Company

I have lowered the protection level on the page. You should be able to post your change now. I would ask that you watchlist the page, though. The price of lower protection is that we have to get more people to watch the changes being made to it. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Regarding this, thank you for lowering protection, I'll apply changes shortly if one of you wishes to re-protect. In any case, I do have this watchlisted, so I'll catch any inappropriate-ness. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Templating simple:Template:EveryWiki

The da Vinci Barnstar
For working hard on a template that was for use on another Wikipedia and not your home one, for correcting my mistakes when trying to make it. Microchip 08 15:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Thanks for the barnstar Microchip, I appreciate it :) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 15:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wicca portal template

X-Posted Hey Fuzzy, am I guessing correctly that you don't care for the new {{Wicca portal}} template either? If this is the case, I will probably go and revert those changes as unnecessary...the template itself is nothing more than the existing Portalpar template with the Triple Goddess symbol included. If you peeked at his contributions, he apparently went template crazy with more than just Wicca. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I don't approve of the new template, not just because it's an unnecessary code clutter for a minor improvement, but because it's not actually an improvement. Portals are a special feature of Wikipedia which exist for a number of subjects, and that little jigsaw-piece icon is their established symbol. If we disguise it as something else (turn it into eye candy), it makes navigation more difficult for our readers.
Sometimes conventions are good, and I don't think we need to change things just because we can. If you open the Encyclopedia Britannica to the entry on Wicca, you don't find glitter and pictures of fairies glued all over the page, do you?
By the way, thanks for being such a dependable editor. There are so few like you in this area of interest... Fuzzypeg★ 04:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Civil Air Patrol

I'm moving Civil Air Patrol/sandbox History of Civil Air Patrol to my userspace. I'd like to work on it some more there, and besides that it doesn't belong as-is in the mainspace. Just an fyi. I'm still trying to work on bringing Civil Air Patrol back to featured status. It appears to be just you and me working on it now that VigilancePrime has been indefinitely blocked. —  scetoaux (T|C) 02:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to go ahead, be very bold, and move the page again to mainspace as an actual article, remove the entire section from the main Civil Air Patrol article, and fix to make a small section that sums everything up. —  scetoaux (T|C) 03:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
(X-Posted) Hey, thanks for dropping me a line. It definitely still needs some work, mainly along the lines of expansion of post-WWII material. It is a start, though. I just wish we had some varied sources. Now, I had no idea that VigilancePrime had been blocked. Considering the reason for blocking, I'm more than a little concerned over the possibility that he might be working within the program with children. But, I suppose that's neither here nor there. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)