User talk:Huntster/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 44

Book ref problems for Evanescence

I've been trying to get this ref to work on Fallen and their discography page, but I just can't seem to figure out how to properly format it. If you go to Fallen, you'll notice that ref number 4 (or something close) says "Moore 2004", and the rest of the details are in the source code at the bottom of the page. The title and other details just don't show up. It's a Google book, which I know are allowed when there are previews of it. But why isn't it showing up? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

DannyMusicEditor: I see it in Fallen but not the discog page. The problem is that the Moore reference isn't an actual citation, but a shortened footnote using {{Harvnb}} (which should really be {{sfn}}) that relies on a separate citation at the bottom of the page. I see you added Moore with this edit, so what book were you referring to, and what made you not add the actual citation to the article? — Huntster (t @ c) 01:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I looked at an article that used books for sources (Life Is Peachy, to be exact) and I tried to format it like that. I was going to use it in the discog page when I figured it out. It's titled Omnibus Press Presents the Story of Evanescence by Simon Moore. Maybe I put even less in there than I thought. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

DannyMusicEditor, okay, I see the problem now. Let me ask this: are you using this book for more than just that one reference? If not, this extra material is completely extraneous and you can just put the citation in the prose like all the others. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

That's a great solution. But I'd still like to know in case I come up with a time when I would need to use it more than once. In fact, it's possible I'd use multiple pages for their discography. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 17:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

DannyMusicEditor, you had the right idea with putting the ref at the bottom of the page, but it cannot be inside the "reflist" template. Look at University of Tennessee Anthropological Research Facility, which is my archetype for that system. I made that years ago, lol. Take a look and let me know if you have any questions. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Tennessee

We may need a lock on this article. BrineStans (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

BrineStans, I'm keeping an eye on it now, if they flare back up, I'll put up a temp lock. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Time interval abbreviations

I noticed a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Wrong/contradictory examples for time durations in "Mixed units" where people are talking about what h/m/s abbreviations should be used. As an example, Ranger 9 is using {{time interval}} as follows.

• {{time interval|23 Dec 2015, 10:27|3 Jul 2016, 03:48|show=dhm|abbr=on}} → 192d 17h 21m
• {{time interval|26 Mar 2016, 14:52|14 Jun 2016, 11:43|show=dhm|abbr=on}} → 79d 20h 51m
• {{time interval|2016-04-10 13:57|2016-05-11 13:19|show=dhm|abbr=on}} → 30d 23h 22m
• {{time interval|2016-07-20 13:45|2016-08-26 10:11|show=dhm|abbr=on}} → 36d 20h 26m

The template is only used in a handful of pages at the moment, and I have no concern about what abbreviations are used. Moreover, MOS is a guideline only, but if you are aware of articles where the above results are wanted, you might like to comment. I think the lack of a space would cause many MOS people to faint... Johnuniq (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I tend to not get involved with MOS stuff, and rarely look there...they love tossing around "require this" and "require that", without remembering that it is only a guideline. It's just drama I do not want. If you think following their idea of "min" for minute is appropriate, I'd say go for it, if only so there isn't any future drama. I personally don't use "abbr=on", but use "sep=," to keep things short and orderly. I'm sorry I haven't deployed Time interval to more pages, but I've got a huge backlog of things I'm working on and little time to do them. I do plan on going through all of the Moon missions, etc, at some point and install it, as it *is* the superior template. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Avoiding the MOS pages seems sensible to me! I have no plans to change anything, regardless of what the current MOS discussion concludes, and just wanted to alert you. No problem about the template—there are lots of things I haven't got around to, and one of them is doing anything much with the date/age modules. Johnuniq (talk) 09:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Huntster. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Huntster. You have new messages at Talk:Raptor (rocket engine).
Message added 12:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Possible fair use photo of Raptor firing? You are a better judge of that than I am. N2e (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

looking for more ITS images

Hi Huntster.

I just used this source ( ) in the article ITS launch vehicle.

Some of those images (the pretty artistic renderings, 18 of them) are in Commons, in the category Interplanetary Transport System. Cool.

I'm looking for usable images of the other material: the LV cutaways, Raptor engine render, etc. Do you know if these are available anywhere in a form we might use? N2e (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

N2e, I don't know of any other sources at this time, unless you took screenshots from the video itself. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'm sure we'll have some as wiki-illustrators and "fair use" folks get on it and add a few. For now, the article just won't have any graphic of that type. N2e (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

References

OCO

I just want to point out the meaning of the acronym in case the reader missed it. CO2 ist not an official name, but it is surely not a coincidence that OCO reminds of the formula of carbon dioxide, i.e. O = C = O. --Eio (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Eio, its really not necessary to point that out in the parenthetical part reserved for alternate names or abbreviations, especially considering the same sentence specifically points out the spacecraft's tie to CO2. That said, you are correct about the similarity, and the mission team has used a stylised chemical structure graphic before to represent the mission. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hyphens and such

Good catch. Yeah, that one was not a compound adjective, but I put the hyphen in anyway; thanks for fixing it.

I've also been writing with a lot of compound adjectives, so it is easy to let the hyphen habit slip in when it shouldn't. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

CSD G6 Request

I G6'd {{MPC}} yesterday to make way for {{MPCdb}} (wikiproject approval discussions linked to in the CSD template). No one's processed it yet, and the tracking cat has grown from 11 to 29 since then. Could you take a look at it?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Tom.Reding, sorry for the delay, but I've moved MPCdb to MPC. Let me know if there are any issues. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks good, thank you!   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

SpaceX satellite constellation

Hi Hunster. I want to do aa article move where the "main" article and the "redirect" switch places, and I don't believe I can do it. If you are able, and willing, cool; or otherwise just tell me where to go to request such things.

I created the article SpaceX satellite development facility nearly two years ago, and at the same time, a redirect from SpaceX satellite constellation. The article clearly discussed both, and only one article was needed. I think only a single article is still needed.

Since that time, it has become clear that the single article is clearly mostly about the new sat constellation, and not about yet another SpaceX development office. I just did some updates, and extensive copyedits to the article, today to make the article focus (in the lede and in the history) work with the reverse of the two article names. See what you think. And if you think acceptable, just go ahead and do the complex double move (that I think only admins can do). If not, let me know what you think.

I can do any cleanup after the move to get the redirect pointed to the best section, etc., if you'd like. Cheers, N2e (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

N2e, done. Let me know if anything else is needed. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the move swizzle. I've done some additional cleanup, including pointing the redir to the specific section where that facility is mentioned, rather than to the top of the article. Better now, methinks. N2e (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Image upload

We had talks about this before too. But I'd like to upload a photo to commons, the photo is not mine but I asked for permission and they agreed that I can post and use it. The picture is a photo of Evanescence's new vinyl boxet. What should I do to upload the picture without it being deleted? Thanks. —Zhyar Merlin _talk ‏ 21:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhiar Merlin (talk • contribs)

Zhiar Merlin, two things to deal with here. First, does this person even have the right to release such an image? In other words, is this an official representative of the band or the record label? Note the article box set: the sole image is used under fair use because its likeness is copyrighted, the same reason the album images in our music articles are all fair use. A random person taking a photograph of the box set is not acceptable and cannot be uploaded to Commons under a free license.

Second, if all that somehow checks out, that person will need to send an authorization email to our OTRS system. See C:Commons:Email templates for the email address and an email template they can use. You can upload the image and tag it with C:Template:OP so that an admin will know that it is awaiting OTRS review.

Out of curiosity, where are you wanting to put this image? — Huntster (t @ c) 22:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm currently the only one working on the Evanescence articles in the CKB Wikipedia, I want to use it for the upcoming article about the vinyl box set. And regarding the photo, the person said they preordered the box set, and the photo is taken by them. I can put it on Flickr so you can take a look at it yourself if necessary. —Zhyar Merlin _talk ‏ 01:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhiar Merlin (talk • contribs)

Zhiar Merlin, aha, gotcha. Well, I can tell you now that you won't be able to upload it to Commons for the reasons I outlined above. However, just as you did with the main Evanescence image there, just use fair use within that project's rules, which may be different than en.wiki's (I don't know as I do not read Central Kurdish and Google Translate makes an absolute hash of it, but it must be quite difference since en.wiki would never allow fair use for an image of living people). Nice job, by the way, of getting Evanescence to featured article status over there! — Huntster (t @ c) 01:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I gave it my best and will always, and thank you for the help! —Zhyar Merlin _talk ‏ 01:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

"Template:Mars map indicating landers" renamed and changed?

@Huntster: FWIW - may need some help - seems "Template:Mars map indicating landers" that we worked on earlier may have been renamed and significantly changed - in size (now much larger - see "List of rocks on Mars") - and in imagemap hyperlinks (now no longer working?) - perhaps some sorting out may (or may not) be indicated? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Drbogdan, as you've noticed, I've reverted the changes made and left a note for Philip on his talk page. Obviously these changes were not appropriate on a variety of levels as I've mentioned to him. That said, the template does need some fixing, such as adding Schiaparelli. To do that the existing text is going to have to be changed in form somehow, otherwise Schiaparelli will not fit; this text change is also necessary to ensure future functionality as more landers/rovers get to Mars. Also, I've kept the new template name, as it is actually more appropriate than the old name. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Huntster: Thank you for your efforts with this - yes - some improvements to the template may be needed - may try to consider this more at the next opportunity - other ideas always welcome of course - iac - Thanks again for your efforts - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Huntster and PhilipTerryGraham:  Done - for now perhaps - added some temporary code to fit the current status into the "Template:Features and artificial objects on Mars" template - including the "Schiaparelli" lander - (if interested => compare: "current" with "original") - hope this helps a bit in some way - at least for starters - comments welcome of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Drbogdan and Huntster: Thought I'd throw in my reasoning/explanation - My biggest concern when I went in and redesigned this template was the fact that this map was almost always intrusive on the page layout. I always found, before I made the changes, that there's a (mostly) a coherent layout, sections and paragraphs as it should be, then suddenly, bam! Out of nowhere a navigation map, which takes up space on the article and leaves a lot of white space, considering how small it originally was, too. And then after the map, suddenly we're back in normal article mode, with the "see also" and "references" sections usually following. My solution to this was to simply make it a navbox - it was a navigational template, and it would fit rather well among the other navboxes and not being intrusive on the design of the page. I also upped the size, since the thing was extremely small for it to properly fit all of the spacecraft and the names, while at the same time having enough of the map of mars behind it to know what the viewer was even looking at. However, I see these were rather controversial moves... I just didn't want there to be a small map out of nowhere in the middle of the article, that's all. :/ Philip Terry Graham 19:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

PhilipTerryGraham, I understand that reasoning, and, honestly, share some of that concern. I'm not really sure what the best solution is, but giant images and imagemaps in navboxes are definitely to be avoided. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Huntster: alrighty. We can agree that it doesn't belong in the body of the article, and rather with the navboxes at the bottom of the page, yeah? Philip Terry Graham 19:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

PhilipTerryGraham, see, I don't really agree with that. Ah...hmm...I'm going to put more thought into this situation. Honestly, it may be most prudent to take this to WT:WikiProject Spaceflight or similar to get some additional opinions. I like the data, but I'm not sure that any location is going to be better than any other location. :/ — Huntster (t @ c) 19:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Huntster: Well, it is a navigation template, is it not? Philip Terry Graham 19:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

USCGC Eagle

Hello, I've noticed that you have twice removed my mention of the 2017-2018 scheduled replacement of the auxiliary power system for USCGC_Eagle_(WIX-327). I agree that the events of 2014 and 2016 had some redundancy and a revision of the article makes an easier, more coherent read. But I'm quite puzzled why you twice removed the planned re-powering of the vessel with it was cited by a reliable source? I actually picked up on this plan from the Webb Institute's web site as one of their faculty members is a member of the team working on this project. It appeared in an industry publication and there is active work being done to have everything in place as scheduled next year. Barring something unforeseen it's almost certain to take place so this does not fall under WP:Crystal. Have you had some past experience with Maritime Executive getting some things very wrong or publishing speculation? Blue Riband► 00:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Blue Riband, actually, I did *not* remove the engine replacement the second time around, just the redundant bit about Eagle going into the Yard (since that is part of the yearly cycle of the four-year refit plan). That said, I'm wary of the Maritime Executive bit, as it is not an article but a press release from BMT. I'm not completely against press releases, god knows we have to rely on them all too much in the spaceflight arena, but I'd really prefer to see a third-party source. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

m1 citation reviewed by administrator

Huntster, I attempted to follow the process you requested by communicating on the talk page of your previous reversion and not "talking back" on your talk page. Maybe you did not see that. You do a tremendous job protecting Wiki from spam, but this is not spam. The previous classification as "linkspam" was successfully appealed to Wiki administrator James B. Watson. Please revert your reversion. My reasoning was explained in my appeal. It looks like this reversion might have been done by software Twinkle. If so, could you please update Twinkle. I prefer not to go through the appeal process again. Your administrators probably have a better use for their time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.7.129 (talk) 11:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

70.195.7.129, no "classification" was appealed to by James B. Watson. Your block simply ran out (it was timed), and was not lifted manually. It was also only his opinion that it did not look like spam. I am removing the links because https://messierobjects101.com/ is in no way an authoritative website, and considering it is a Wordpress site, is almost certainly personally operated. Links to it, either in the external links section of article or (especially) as citations, have no place in WIkipedia articles. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

References

About my edit in Mars Science Laboratory

Hi, I made a mistake on that edit, because I copy and paste part of the text so I had the ref. That is why it looked nonsense. On the other hand, it was to create an internal link, that in my observation was interesting, I would understand the case of promotion in a politician or something like that, but you think that I'm trying to promote an engineer? Really? From the technical view the SkyCrane system is a big change in the way that NASA sends missions to planets, and it's proposed for a few more mission like Mars 2020, and a mission to the Europe moon. So, in my mind, I thought it was worth mentioning one of the creators of the system, at least the one that is known for his conferences about the subject. Regards.--JoRgE-1987 (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

JoRgE-1987, it's called WP:Undue weight, where one engineer out of many is called out unnecessarily, in a place where it simply is unnecessary to list out any of the engineers. If there was an article dedicated to the sky crane, perhaps there would be a case for inclusion, but not in a general article about the MSL, where the sky crane is a part of a part of the whole package. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	Thanks for correcting alignment on Template:Tennessee clickable map! MB298 (talk) 04:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Admin thing

Hey Huntster. Didn't know you were an admin. I would do this myself, but I'm not an admin. Can you go and edit the links in Evanescence discography to make it show up as a Featured List? It hasn't been done and it's been an FL for over a month. To be clear, that's the languages parameter to the left of the article - when I go to another language of the article, it doesn't show it as a Featured List. Much thanks, dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 13:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

DannyMusicEditor, it should be done. This is actually not an administrator-only thing. For future reference, to set one of those icons in the language list, just click the "edit links" button, which takes you to Wikidata. There, click "edit" in the language list, and you can set badges of various kinds of any of those articles. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Really? It told me I needed admin access or some kind of "special access" for it when I tried. Could you tell me how I might obtain those permissions? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 18:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Huh? That's weird...I'm only an admin on En.wiki and Commons, not Wikidata. I honestly have no idea. I personally hate Wikidata, as it creates an extremely difficult to monitor but highly effective vector for all kinds of vandalism across many many wikis, but that's a rant for another time. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for your hard work and keeping Wikipedia safe, and also for helping me understand more! —Zhiar Merlin talk ‏ 02:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Huntster.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

UT Vols logo

I uploaded a new version of the Tennessee Vols logo that came directly from a PDF at UTSports.com... I don't know how to compare the two to see if they are the same or different, but you might take a look. Thanks! Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 10:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Corkythehornetfan, the differences are infinitesimally small, so it doesn't matter to me (though I wish the visual size was larger, but I really don't care to manually translate measurements, lol). But please put the URL of your source in the file description. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done here. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 04:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Image file - needs checked?

@Huntster - FWIW - may wish to check image file => "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ilc_9yr_moll4096.png" AND/OR "https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ilc_9yr_moll4096.png" - seems an apparent "WP:SPA" (ie, apparently related to "Kompastv, Galaxy." noted at => "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ilc_9yr_moll4096.png&action=history") may have added a related image file "description page" (?) which seemed like "WP:SPAM" and which I tried to remove - but not sure if all went well - Thanks in any regards - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Drbogdan, yeah, Commons suffers those kinds of drive-by advertising attempts all the time. Just revert and ignore, they never stick around. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Easier way

Re: this edit – we're trying to automatically place the school colors into the articles and one way is an automatic header {{CollegePrimaryHeader}} or {{CollegeSecondaryHeader}}. An example would be {{CollegePrimaryHeader|team=Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders|Year|Coach|Record}}. It has automatic contrast, and automatic text-align. Just thought I'd give you a heads up. Corkythehornetfan (ping me)

Corkythehornetfan, thanks for the message. I suppose I just prefer markup over templates, but no problem with others tossing it in. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I can see your point there, but this helps us so when we go update the colors module for a team, it updates all of that team's colors in the articles that use the school's colors (Infoboxes, navboxes, etc). Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 02:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

About Wikipedia

Hey Huntster, I have heard some news circulating online about how Wikipedia is going to shut down if you don't donate, I wanted to know how true that runout is, if you know anything about it? It really made me sad hearing that. Thank you —‎Lost Whispers _talk 23:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Lost Whispers, this is a perennial rumour that always circulates when the fundraiser is active. It is entirely untrue. Mediawiki is secure in its funding and future operations. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Well that's a relief. Thank you for that.—‎Lost Whispers _talk 03:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Sunrise

LOL....You pulled that sunset shot out of sunrise. So now you are following the photo around. Here's some info for you: The science editors put one of my moon photos in that slot to show how a planet close to the surface of the earth, appears wider than taller. It was there for YEARS. I told them that if I ever get a Sunset or sunrise shot that gave them the same measurements, I would exchange it. I exchanged it last month. I felt a shot of the sun was more appropriate. You just popped in and removed it without any investigating, using an excuse that was obviously done just to annoy the science community. It's edits like that, that sometimes make me want to go somewhere where hard work and donations are appreciated. Pocketthis (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Pocketthis, I'm sorry that you are upset over this. I had simply looked at how the image was being used, and noticed that discrepancy. It was glaring to me. You say there was discussion over this image, but I do not immediately see that on the talk page nor in the article history, so I don't know where you would expect me to investigate this. Also, your statement of "obviously done just to annoy the science community" is bizarre in the extreme. There is no "excuse", nor any agenda against this or any other image. It appeared out of place, and still does in an article about the sunrise. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussions were archived. It was years ago. DOwenWilliams (talk) placed the moon shot there in 2012 I think. He is a meteorologist. Someone deleted it for the same reason you did. Then the science editors put it back to illustrate the expanding horizontal size as a planet nears the earth, or departs it. Go to any sunrise page edition prior to a few months ago, and you will see what was placed there 'not by me' years ago. You should do this, because some science editor will revert you when he notices your edit. P.S. Please don't confuse 'being upset' with being 'bewildered'. You have many barnstars for doing great things. I'm impressed, however, please keep doing "great things', and not just 'things' to justify your public appreciation of your contributions. You are great at giving advice. I am not a greenhorn here, and would like to remind you that this is a 'learning institution', and sometimes you have to look past the obvious to find the lesson. All the best - Pocketthis (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, you've given me no reason to want to interact with you any longer. You've now personally insulted me twice: by claiming I intentionally made the edit to antagonize the editors on the Sunrise article (just to annoy the science community), and by claiming I edit for self-aggrandizement (justify your public appreciation of your contributions). These are beyond the pale, and you would do well to remember Wikipedia:No personal attacks. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I did nothing but "compliment" you above my friend. What are you talking about. My point was this: Sometimes we get so used to kicking vandals out of articles, that we assume that anything that doesn't smell kosher at first glance, must be removed. The photo shows a refracted light, not necessarily putting the planet (sun, moon, whatever) in the spot in the sky it appears to be in, and so the shape is bent light. Didn't matter if it was the moon, or the sunrise, or sunset. It was a point of scientific fact. I am sorry you interpreted my compliments for insults. I guess we are from two different worlds. All the best - Pocketthis (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is the info you were looking for: Sunrise article December 14th, 2014, the science editor above, placed one of my "moon" setting photos in the article to illustrate the phenomenon. Reason: There are no sunrise photos in commons with a crisp rising sun to measure the width and height. On January 12th, it was reverted, and on the same day it was put back by another science editor, and was there for two years. I did not write the caption, or place the photo. Then, recently, I exchanged the moon shot with the sunset shot, and never touched the caption. Please do the right thing, and investigate these dates in the Sunrise "view history", and replace either of the photos. I don't care which you choose. In fact, if you find one you feel illustrates the example better......use that. But please don't leave the slot blank. I've already had to revert some iphone photo from there this morning...lol. Pocketthis (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Image CC Check?

@Huntster: Not sure about the "CC Status" and all re the following "image" by the "image creator" (or even of any real possible usefulness to Wikipedia at the moment - although it may seem worthy and may seem comparable to a similar [less available] graph at "Pew Reseach (October 20, 2014)" and "Pew Research (January 26, 2016)") => "File:ADecentBreakdownOfAllThingsRealAndFakeNews-20161212.png" - seems best to ask for comments and related first before further presenting the image to Wikipedia - Thanks in advance for your consideration with this - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Drbogdan, you missed that the CC license on the image is CC-by-nc, aka, non-commercial. Unless you have an objection or wish to challenge it, I'll delete the image as not being permitted on Commons. You know, while an interesting thought experiment and for the most part pretty correct, there are some placements on that chart which make me scratch my head. For example, placing MSNBC and HuffPo so far up and to the center, and calling Al Jazeera very reputable and centrist. Ah well. I agree with the Pew Research graphic far more. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Huntster: Thanks for your reply - yes - seems I missed the "CC-by-nc" - also - I have *no objection whatsoever* if you would like to delete the image - if interested - a somewhat recent & related post by the "image creator" is at the following => http://www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com/?p=65 - Thanks again for your own comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Huntster: BRIEF Followup - and FYI - made a related template-image (ie, "Template:News media") - which, so far, seems ok with most other editors ( see "discussion" ) - maybe better than the earlier (deleted) image-file (after all, the new "Template:News media" template-image is based on the better (ie, "Pew Research Center" reference at => http://www.pewresearch.org/pj_14-10-21_mediapolarization-08-2/ ) - Thanks again for your help with some of this earlier - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)