1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |||||||||
purge view |
Low to moderate level of vandalism. | 3.0CVS / 2.6RPM according to DefconBot 09:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC) |
Contents
ISS
Thanks for correcting my edit on the International Space Station. Sloppy of me... kencf0618 (talk)
Untitled
Huntster Thanks for the prompt revert
I was just hoping there would be a fair review of sites without it seeming like there is a bias towards/ against a particular domain. Would appreciate your review and action towards Dubaifaqs and topuniversities as they have both received an excess of over 200 links each without anything being done about it for a number of years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuraitechy (talk • contribs) 07:34, 15 November 2015
Hi
I have missed you my friend. How the heck are ya doing? — Ched : ? 21:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ched, hey buddy. Health isn't great, work sucks, same old story but I'm getting by. You? — Huntster (t @ c) 02:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Uploaded several Mars images related to NASA recently - they seem ok but may need an opinion - to be sure - the two images are as follows: 1) File:NASA-MOLA-Map-MangalaFossa.jpg and 2) File:NASA-MOC-MOLA-Map-MangalaValles-HeadRegion.png - and involve two articles (ie, "Mangala Valles" & "Mangala Fossa") - Thanks in any regards of course - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Drbogdan, to be honest, I'm concerned that, while the actual topographic maps are PD-NASA being MOLA products, the annotations, scales, insets, etc may have been added by the authors of the papers, which would almost certainly produce a new copyright for the original public domain product. I'm very tempted to suggest that the precautionary principle should be in effect, but I'm going to think on it. Going forward, I would strongly suggest that you no longer upload images taken from papers, conferences, etc, unless you are 100% certain there could be no copyrightable material (or, you know, toss me a link and I'll try to help determine its status). I know there is good material in them, but the potential for inadvertent copyright infringement is simply too high. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Huntster: Thank you for your comments - and suggestions - yes - *entirely* agree - should note that one of the authors of the related studies suggested that the images may be useful to the article(s), but only if *entirely* ok all around of course - perhaps accessing the original PD-NASA images (without any later modification) may be a better option instead of those from the studies? - in any case - Thanks again for your reply - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Drbogdan, talk to that author if you still have contact and ask what kind of post-processing they did...perhaps somehow it was taken directly from a NASA website? I tried recreating the images using the MOLA PEDR Query Tool and other tools on that same site and couldn't come up with anything similar to those images. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Huntster: just sent an email to the author (in the UK) - with a copy of the current discussion up to the time of your last post - and encouragement to add to this discussion - he may respond with better details than we may have at the moment - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Huntster: Brief followup - author (somewhat inexperienced with Wikipedia editing) has replied that he is not knowledgeable about the image procedure(s) - and suggests the two images be withdrawn - at least until the issue (and/or procedure?) can be better clarified - as a result - I've substituted other ok images in the two articles (ie, "Mangala Valles" & "Mangala Fossa") containing the two images of concern - hopefully, that's *entirely* ok - let me know if otherwise of course - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Huntster: just sent an email to the author (in the UK) - with a copy of the current discussion up to the time of your last post - and encouragement to add to this discussion - he may respond with better details than we may have at the moment - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Drbogdan, talk to that author if you still have contact and ask what kind of post-processing they did...perhaps somehow it was taken directly from a NASA website? I tried recreating the images using the MOLA PEDR Query Tool and other tools on that same site and couldn't come up with anything similar to those images. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Huntster: Thank you for your comments - and suggestions - yes - *entirely* agree - should note that one of the authors of the related studies suggested that the images may be useful to the article(s), but only if *entirely* ok all around of course - perhaps accessing the original PD-NASA images (without any later modification) may be a better option instead of those from the studies? - in any case - Thanks again for your reply - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Evanescence genre categories
Noticed they're listed as alt metal and hard rock among others in the categories. Would it be logical to remove those as well? To those who find this page that have never read it before (provided they're coming from one of the category pages) it might end up striking as a bit odd that none of those are listed in the infobox. Just a thought. dannymusiceditor ~talk to me!~ 23:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia library Newspapers.com renewal
Your free one-year account with Newspapers.com will end on December 22 2015. Newspapers.com has offered to extend existing accounts by another year. If you wish to keep your account until December 22 2016, please add your name to the Account Renewal list here. I'll let Newspapers.com customer support know, and they will extend your subscription. If you don't want to keep your account for another year, you don't have to do anything. Your account will expire unless I hear from you that you want to keep it. All the best, HazelAB (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Template problem
It would be nice if you could comment here. 80.132.94.160 (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, tried to explain the situation as best I could. It's a weird thing. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
NASA/ESA Exoplanet image ok?
@Huntster: Image of Jupiter-sized exoplanets worthy? - and ok? - URL is => http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA20056 - one concern is that the "image credit" is "NASA/ESA"? - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Drbogdan, in this particular case, NASA/ESA means the image was created by the STScI Hubble team (not the ESA Hubble team). So, you would use the license "PD-Hubble" rather than "PD-USGov-NASA". — Huntster (t @ c) 04:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
For better or worse.
You ARE "THE ONE". I would not be here if it were not for you Huntster. As much as in real physical life - you truly do have my heart and soul. I wish you the most joyful holiday season possible. I will never forget that you were there when I needed someone. Without shame I say: "I love you" ... thank you. — Ched : ? 02:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)