User talk:UtherSRG/Archive May 2007

Thank you for your friendly words of welcome. Sincerely yours --Ivan T. 23:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the welcome, it was a long way back, sorry I didn't say thanks earlier. And thanks for helping me with my articles. Michael Jay Williams 12:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome! ^^ I can't think of anything to say that others haven't said to you already but... I really appreciate it, thanks again! -Kyattei 02:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! We seem to have a lot of common interests in animals in general. I just put my name on the WikiBird project and saw your name there. I have done some massive work in categorizing the birds, and I was hoping you could review some of my edits and see if I am conforming to everything ya'll have agreed on. I have been categorizing the parrots recently and I am not sure what should be a parrot or not. Mostly I've just been putting general categories on things that have no cat. at all, trying to get them all corralled in so more precise work can be done on them.

Also, something happened with the columbiformes category (Category:Columbiformes). See the Category:Birds and see that somehow about a dozen of them got saved. I've no idea how that happened or how to fix it without going into each one (a pain with how slow wiki has been running lately.) Till later.--DanielCD 22:43, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, with WP being so slow, I'm having a hard time looking, so I'll give some general advice from what I see. First, I believe categories in general are still a little buggy... moving an article from one category to another will show it in both until something forces the cache to be flushed and reloaded from the database. Second, watch your capitalization. Since broad-tailed parrot is all lowercase, Category:broad-tailed parrots should also be lowercase. Finally, I consider myself a junior member of the bird project. Give a knock on the talk pages of a few of the more bird-active folks and see what kind of category schemas they may have kicking around their heads. - UtherSRG 02:12, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations on your profile in Wired article on Wikipedia, and thanks for all the work you do! Jokestress 16:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They seem to think that you are female though (they evidently didn't notice your middle name) ☺ — PhilHibbs | talk 17:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They need to make Wired a wiki! ;) Jokestress 17:10, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

{sigh} I've been dealing with my gender-neutral first name all my life. I suppose I can suffer it some more for a good article.... even if Daneil didn't include my "hacker manifesto" quote. - UtherSRG 17:15, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Congrats on your Wired mention: you've entered a whole new level of geekiness! :) FYI, they finally corrected that gender "oversight". – ClockworkSoul 01:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whoa! I had no idea you were on Wikipedia...and so prolific! I thought I had your e-mail address but when I tried to send something it bounced, so I figured I'd google your real name and this came up first. Anyway, Uther and Uther's_Lackey are about to be reaped on LambdaMOO. Drop me an e-mail (etoile at amanita dot net works) so I can ask you some things about the situation - whether you're coming back, and if not what you want done with the objects you own.

-Etoile 05:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi UtherSRG,
Almost all publications of the AMNH (American Museum Novitates, Bulletin of the AMNH) are now available on http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/ . I've already downloaded lots of papers. Maybe there's something interesting for you, too. Ucucha (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Uther,

I have a question regarding translations from the German Wikipedia. As there are lists for everything here, where do I find a list with articles that exist in German but not in English? Just like the Requested articles, only more specific. — Shantris Te'Amdoraja 02:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm. Good question. I don't believe there is such a beast, but it's a worthy topic. Why don't you ask on the Village Pump? - UtherSRG (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll have a try, thanks. :) — Shantris Te'Amdoraja 14:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So this is the answer :) Another question: I just fixed some links and wondered if there is a bot for this. For example, there are more than 500 links that point to "women", although you are redirected from there to "woman". — Shantris Te'Amdoraja 22:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've yet to get bot to work. Ask User:Tawker, perhaps. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem, Tawkerbot can do that in its sleep. Do you want the Wikilinks to show up as women or woman, either is pretty easy to do. -- Tawker 05:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uther,

You welcomed me several months ago; I’m asking something here because the Village Pump doesn't seem to have specific enough information.

I'm translating point d’ironie from the fr wikipedia into irony mark (not yet posted) and I’m having some trouble with the images. Since they won’t show up in the English version, I've assumed that I have to re-upload the images myself into the English image database. I just wanted to know if you wouldn't mind corroborating whether I've licensed them properly. The fr images all imply that any rights have been forfeited, but the way it is worded varies. When I attempt to indicate that another user has released his rights, the licensing information that appears on the image details implies that it had a copyright that was subsequently released, but the French details indicate that they had no copyright to begin with. The tag that I'm getting in the en details is obsolete, but none of the alternatives given seems to be exactly appropriate (e.g. the template for "uploader releases all rights" is almost it, but I didn’t release them; it was the original uploader from the fr wikipedia who did so).

The images in question are: From fr: [[1]], [[2]], [[3]]), ([de conviction.jpg|11px]), ([[4]]), ([[5]]), ([[6]]) and ([[7]])

And as I've uploaded them in en:

File:Pointsdironie.jpg, File:11px-Pointdironie-.jpg, ), (), (), (), () and (). Note that the first two images have different wordings in the fr detail pages.

I'd appreciate it if you could let me know what the most appropriate licensing option is. Thanks in advance. Rod ESQ 19:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, thanks for the referral to the legality questions. I'll let you know what they said. Rod ESQ 20:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for helping fixing the mess I made. Pretty much everything but a few pages (Biodiversity, Spider, List of extinct animals...) has been reverted now (I've been off up to half an hour ago). Circeus 23:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I notice that a few days ago you deleted redirects at Megalonychidae and Bradypodidae, which redirected to Sloth. Why did you do this? I have undeleted, as it clearly makes sense to have redirects in those locations. john k 22:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, they should be their own articles. Folivora is the only taxon that should redirect to sloth. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why won't Phyllophaga? Ucucha (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean besides the fact that there should be both Phyllophaga (June beetle genus) and Phyllophaga (a synonym or container of Folivora), and Phyllophaga would be a disambig page, none. If Phyllophaga is a synonym for Folivora, then it should redirect there. If not, then it should be its own article, describing how it contains Folivora and what else it contains. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In theory they should eventually have their own articles. Until then, they should redirect. At any rate, the basic information that would be found in an individual article about those families is found at Sloth - the genera and species in each family. It doesn't make sense to have them as red links in the meanwhile. john k 16:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, creating redirects makes it appear that there is an article written. Having redlinks shows there are articles that need to be written. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our primary concern should be for the reader, not for the wikipedia editor. If the redirect is not terribly useful for the reader (as it wasn't, for instance, when we had a bunch of articles on individual Dukes of Norfolk redirecting to the main Duke of Norfolk article), then we shouldn't have it. But this redirect is distinctly useful, and the Sloth article gives as much information about each of the two sloth families as many individual family articles give on their respective subjects. As such, I'm restoring again. If you want to make an article, make an article, but stop deleting useful redirects. john k 18:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm deleting them again. How many readers are likely to be looking for either of the families? If they are, they'll use the search feature (and find the sloth article) or they will be driling down from some other article that lists the famlies as well as the sloth article. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to bother with undeleting again, because this is getting stupid, but I myself have twice now tried to enter the Sloth families in directly, and come upon "no article" notices. Instead of wasting time deleting redirects for no reason, why don't you write up the articles? john k 05:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly there are advantages to both ways. Maybe we should have another colour for "a redirect, but only temporarily, honest" ;). Pcb21 Pete 16:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um... yeah. *grins* - UtherSRG (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllophaga Owen, 1842 was used for sloths by McKenna & Bell (1997), instead of Folivora Delsuc et al. (2001) [8]. I have the whole PDF. They argue that Phyllophaga should not be used because it's also a beetle genus. As far as I know, that's not a common procedure in nomenclature, and I myself would use Phyllophaga, but I think we should follow MSW for that matter until it has been shown that consensus of xenarthran specialists indicates otherwise.

I don't think we should not make "un-equal" redirects. Redirects are intended for pointing people to the correct name - or the name we wish to use - for an article, not for redirecting some vaguely related topic. Ucucha (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect created. I'll also create the disambig page. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate a copy of the email that you sent to Colin Groves. Thank you. Figaro 15:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please forward the text to my talk page. Thanks. Figaro 16:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sending me the copy. I appreciate it very much. Figaro 16:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for also sending me Colin Grove's response to your email. I appreciate it very much also. Figaro 13:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would love a copy. But the name isn't that important, only for clarity for other people.Plus you redirected the Common Dunnart link, so all is cool man. Enlil Ninlil 05:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, UtherSRG. Australopithecus anamensis, which you've edited recently, was nominated for ITN. Does this qualify ? Please respond on Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Thanks. -- PFHLai 00:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bwindi gorilla does not make any sense, with capital or not. Most articles on the Bwindi forest population indicate the Mountain gorilla as the subspecies, not a new name. What is your idea? KimvdLinde 04:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note on the link to "hominid." If you would like this linked to something besides Hominidae, please choose an appropriate article, not the "Hominid" page, which is a disambiguation page. (I don't see the reason for linking it to something else; "Hominid" means "member of the family Hominidae.") Please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links for information about disambiguation. --Iggle 23:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't revert my legitimate disambiguations. I have spent hours on this. Linking to a disambig page is not wiki policy. Please stop now. Iggle 00:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, many disambig pages have "lots of information" on them. That doesn't mean that a user who clicks on a link should be taken to a general page instead of the specific applicable article. A link to "Hominid" should link to what a hominid is (i.e., one of the Hominidae), not to what it isn't. Iggle 00:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a request for help on this on the Hominid talk page. Perhaps we can continue this discussion there. Iggle 00:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, made [9], maybe there's some use for it on the project. The name should be Homininaetree, i guess. Dreg743 12:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that? The head reseacher in the field, who does a lot of work on the Milne-Edwards, Dr. Patricia Wright, refers to them as Propithecus diadema edwardsi. [10] The paper listings at the bottom use my version. Sifaka ^talk 16:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duke University lemur center, which is the biggest research station with regards to lemurs, calls them diadema edwardsi too. I am familiar with a lot of the research and I would call them the authority. That gov list was compiled in 1993 by the way, so it may be out of date... I will try to find a history of the taxo name, maybe they changed it when they found they were a subspecies and not their own species... Sifaka ^talk

I sent an error form to them by the way, telling them to update it. If they respond soon, I will see what they have to say about it. Sifaka ^talk 17:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for bombarding you with messages, but in the meanwhile, should I change it or leave it. I a pretty sure I am correct in this case, but if you feel we should stick with the "official" version, I will do so. Sifaka ^talk 17:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i appreciate your work on Lemuridae and related articles. i have a minor question. is there a reason you used upper case "L" for lemur in the more detailed species name. For example, most of the literature ive seen uses Red-bellied lemur" instead of "Red-bellied Lemur". By the way you may want to check out a recent article i created Madagascar dry deciduous forests. best regards Anlace 16:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

What's wrong with my edits to Gorilla? The proposed third species is not yet accepted. - Richardcavell 02:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Have a look at what I did with Eastern Gorilla. Does this make it clear? - Richardcavell 02:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uther/Stacey --

Thank you for the welcome. This looks like a great community for writers.... Keith Keithwalsh88 02:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you have a quick look at Bardia Mural and give me some feedback on my attempt to create a Wikified Page Or tell me how I can get such review/advice? (Jws42 22:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, I think the page should not be moved. The official name in Milne-Edward's Diademed Sifaka, not Edwards's. Link to Suny page written by researcher is here [11] I have also been having troub;e with the taxo name which is not right on most of the articles. There is a discussion about this on my talk page. Sifaka ^talk 18:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention I wanted advice to avoid edit warring. Sifaka ^talk 18:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

News to me! Thanks for pointing that paper out. I haven't heard about it yet. It's very recent too. Sorry for putting up such a fuss. I will read this paper over and email the DULC and see what they think about it because I don't think their information has changed. I might try Dr. Patricia Wright too. I have been out of the research loop recently, so thanks so much for this info. Sifaka ^talk 19:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know the book I have is not the de facto standard for bird articles, and I do use the standard North American list (which is accepted) when it comes to species' names, but as for the books I have, those are useful for description if for nothing else. For example, one of my books is The Sibley Field Guide To Birds (of Eastern North America) and I've seen Sibley guides used as sources multiple times. Now whether all data from books outside the standard choices are completely banned from use is ambiguous as detailed on the WP:birds page, but I was under the impression that the Handbook of Birds of the World, the AOU's Check-list of North American Birds, and the ABA checklist, while the law of the land as for taxonomy of birds of North America, were not necessarily inclusive sources for all ornithological information (don't I use big words? Fancy). That although the Handbook of Birds of the World is to take priority over other books detailling information about birds of the Northern hemisphere, it does not rule out the use of other books as sources of information, such as the Smithsonian Handbook of Birds of North America, to contribute knowledge about a particular species, genus, or family to wikipedia.

Perhaps I interpreted the guidelines wrong. If so, explain to me what I was supposed to gain from that page, and what part of the page expresses that meaning. Thank you for watching out for ne'rdowells, but I assure you I only have good intentions and try hard to stay within the rules. If I actually have slipped up here, feel welcomed to correct me. -Monk of the highest order 17:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page was protected by you, but it doesn't have the protected tag. It's sort of confusing to figure out you can't edit it by seeing where it says view source as opposed to edit this page. Could you add the tag as to not confuse people? --69.145.123.171 02:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello UtherSRG,

In response to your message regarding my change of the Marsupiala rank from subclass to infraclass: based on the way you said it you seemed to want to point me to the fact that incorporating that change to 'all existing marsupial articles' would be a huge, time-consuming job. I realize that, but what's most important is correctness. Just because incorporating the change to other articles would be a huge job doesn't mean it should not be done. Not when it is factually correct to do so. To list Marsupiala as a subclass makes no sense when the Theria page list it as an infraclass. Eutheria is also listed as an infraclass to Theria, so the same should be done with Marsupiala.

EDIT: I've taken care of it. Might have missed some obscure ones though.

Jerkov 14:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:REF: ==Notes and references== section: Used if there is no separate section with general references, and if all sources of the general content of the article are covered by the footnotes, but see the note about this below. Why did you revert the change? --Fasten 11:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copied: I reverted because all of the footnotes are not notes; they are all references. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I didn't distinguish sources, notes, footnotes and references sufficiently. I think WP:REF isn't very good at explaining the intended differentiation. Thank you for clearing up the matter. --Fasten 14:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am Simon Scheldt, Son of Dr.Peter Scheldt who has done intensive research into monkies all around the world. He is credited to the discovery of atleast 5 new species of monkies , one of the being the Rakesh Chandra Adhikari Species. I would like the world to know of the contribution of my father,as very little documentation of his work is present. I will provide u valid proof with photographs in a weeks time if u give me your mailing address. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raaka (talk • contribs) .

Publish the information in a reputable journal, and put the information online with references and pictures. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello UtherSRG,

Since your source has a bigger backing than mine, I suppose the revert concerning the ranking of Pliopithecidae was correct. I guess the Paleobiology Database isn't infallible; they also still list Dravidosaurus as a stegosaur. Jerkov 20:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello UtherSRG,

Why did you remove the extinct genus Dolichocebus from the classification of the family Cebidae? It does belong to that family, and it's not unusual to add extinct genera on genera lists of still-existing families on the Wikipedia. Jerkov 10:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo UtherSRG,

I see you corrected the classification of Smilodectes using Mikko's Phylogeny Archive. I doubt that's a bad site, but is it more reliable than the Paleobiology Database?[12] Mikko's Phylogeny Archive is edited by a single person or perhaps a few more, while Paleo DB edited by hundreds of paleontological researches from various museums and universities across the globe. I realize that it's not 100 % reliable (Dravidosaurus is still listed as a stegosaur), but I do get the feeling it has more credibility than Mikko's Archive. Jerkov 17:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see a single reason to delete this, since wallabies are rarely pictured in comics, animated series or literature, and Monty Python did include this comic book in some books they have published (I have read this comic in Serbian, for example). I really don't see what seems to be the problem. Vitriden 15:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly a prominent bit of popular culture. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see why it has to be so prominent. And Monty Python is definitely an important part of modern culture. Anyway, it does no harm (it's half of a sentence) and someone might find it interesting.

Vitriden 16:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you already know the new species of lemurs published recently? See nl:Gebruiker:Ucucha/Nieuw/2006. M. mamiratra was published yesterday, so it's not very likely you've already heard of it ;-). Maybe you can use it. The original description is at http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/publications/opapers/ops/OP259.pdf . Ucucha 17:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd known about it (or at least its former incarnation), but since I can't translate Dutch... - UtherSRG (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there are at least four other new species (this was #5, I thought). It makes you wonder how many described species there will be in this family in five years (40?). Ucucha 11:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't have a citation (yet) -- but will locate the paper describing the species. I work with conservation orgs and museums on biodiversity research in Papua, and this was information I got straight from Flannery himself prior to publishing the paper. That said, I will check to confirm. Arjuna 01:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. It was described from a single (damaged) specimen collected in 1961. This is in the Flannery/Groves paper. Arjuna 01:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I made one minor edit to your citation. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Claire's Mouse Lemur, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for the contribution! It's on the Main Page now for DYK! Cheers -- Samir धर्म 07:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this for a Featured article a week ago and had been meaning to tell you as I know your animal interest. It can be found here. Marskell 13:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation on why "Numbat" is capitalised in its article. The capitalisation thing drives me up the wall, but at least now I know why it seems so prevalent on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lomaprieta (talk • contribs) .

No prob. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seeen you're the main contributor of Sifaka and I hope you could help me.

In working on the corrispective italian article (see: it:Propithecus).
I've observed that your classification differs from the one used in the french version.

Could you help me in better understanding the story of the taxonomy of this genus, in particular the subdivision in species and subspecies?

Between the two classification which one comes first?

Please answer here --Esculapio 16:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you very much and let me know if you have any news! (I'm going to update my pages ...) --Esculapio 17:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

here may be you'll find the key! --Esculapio 19:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know in 'Mammal Species of the World, 3rd ed.' it states that (Parantechinus apicalis) is the Southern Dibbler, and that (Pseudantechinus bilarni) is the Sandstone Dibbler. So technically speaking you are correct according to the books, but I am correct as it has been offical for sometime but most of the books have not been republisghed yet.

When the Dibbler was discovered it's 'Aboriginal Name' was adopted, which was Dibbler, and then after the Dibbler was discovered the so called Sandstone Dibbler was discovered, and at the time named (Pseudantechinus bilarni), and its common name being offically "Sandstone False Antechinus" (or unoffically "Sandstone Antechinus". Beucase Aboriginal tribes didn't interact that much (mainly becuase of the different languages) they all gave differnt names to the sames things, like how some animals have completely different names on the opposite sides of Australia. Later on, when more and more Australian Marsupials were being discovered someone (I forgot his name decided) to call the "Sandstone False Antechinus" the Sandstone Dibbler, becuase they looked similar, which is correct. But then the Dibbler had to be renamed to avoid confusion and it was renamed the Southern Dibbler, beacuse was found in the South-West of WA, and the "Sandstone False Antechinus" was found in Northern Australia. This would be fine if the 'Engligh' names were used, such as instead of Dibbler they would call it the "Freckled Marsupial Mouse".

But the Aboriginal name was used for the Dibbler and Sandstone False Antechinus, but this would never be possible for them both to be called "dibblers" as Aboriginal tribes of the areas could never find out what the other had called this small mouse-like creature. The northern population has not even been documneted to have an 'Aboriginal Name' as there were so many other 'mouse-like' animals up there they reffered to them collectivly.

So I beleive the "Southern Dibbler" should be renamed in Wikipedia as simply the "Dibbler", and the "Sandstone Dibbler" be renamed in Wikipedia to the ""Sandstone False Antechinus".

P.S. This is offical, and is becoming more and more well-known as the republication of 'mammal books' occur.

Thanks Michael Jay Williams 09:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your comments. i've added replies to a couple. —Pengo ^{talk • contribs} 23:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I knew I could rely on you. I was lazy about references because I was certain that you would come along shortly and deal with it for me. ;-) Hesperian 03:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC) (i.e. the hack formerly known as "Snottygobble")[reply]

Hi UtherSRG -- On the Chimpanzee external links section, I noticed that after someone (not me!) added a link to a WNET page about their chimpanzee documentary, you removed it for being an ad. I was hoping you would explain the contours of that assessment -- I'm not exactly questioning it, but to me, the page is about (a) a documentary by a reputable documentary producer (NET); and (b) includes a reasonable amount of web-accessible content, including educator resources, which are typical for PBS-produced documentaries. So even though the link was added by someone who describes themselves as "Naturewebmaster" I would deem this link to be relevant & valuable enough to keep. Is that not the norm on wikipedia, though? I noticed you're an admin & patrol for ads, so I thought you might be able to respond (or at least point me to the appropriate guidelines). Thanks. --LQ 14:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The external link policy says it better than I can. In this case, one should not post links to ones own website. Also, external links should primarily be used as a source of information that can, at a later date, be added to the article. A page that's a promo for a documentary contains too little information, an no citations, that can be added to the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking with you on the rationale for removing: 1. local names 2. category: primatesGuest818 20:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We tend to frown upon collections of trivia in articles. A list of local names counts as trivia, although a particular local name might be worthy of inclusion, depending on circumstances. I removed the category because category:prosimians is included in category:primates; only one is needed. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the clarification. The widely used local name in publications is "mawmag" in Cebuano, the dialect spoken in Bohol. Maybe we can put that back. In line with trivia, the second paragraph from the top, is also trivia. Publications say most commonly found in - Bohol, Samar, etc., but is open to all and any other islands in the Philippines, Sarangani included...Including the 2nd paragraph will open the article for more such kinds of trivia, as the species may be found in other islands/provinces as well, other than Sarangani. - Guest818 21:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing trivial in the 2nd paragraph; the natural range of a species is always of interest. I agree that the most widely used name would be a worthy inclusion. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am with you in the importance, not only interest, of the natural range of species. The 2nd paragraph is not entirely right: "For a very long time it was believed to exist only in the provinces of Samar, Leyte, and Bohol, Philippines. Tribal people like the B'laans and T'bolis have been, for a long time, reporting sightings in the province of Sarangani. Unfortunately, these reports were merely discarded as a hoax until March 30, 2002 when a pair of this tiny nocturnal mammals was captured in the mountainous areas of the municipalities of Maitum and Kiamba and was brought to the public, proving that this species exists in this coastal province." - The species has not been believe to exist only but particularly... More specifically, Proclamation 1030 states that: "...the Tarsius syrichta, commonly known as the Philippine

Tarsier, is an endemic species found in the southeastern part of the Philippine archipelago, particularly in the islands of Bohol, Samar, Leyte and Mindanao..." [[13]]... :::For foregoing means that it is open to all southeastern provinces, including Sarangani and many many more...- Guest818 22:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You did a good job with the footnotes! It's amazing! I am not too used to footnoting yet. I have added some more info with their references, but you may have to do what you did with the other references. --Guest818 03:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment.

As well as having just added a small extra bit of information, I have now also made a start, with respect to putting the references in the main section, in using the references as you requested.

As all of the books say much the same thing, it is difficult to position each of the references separately within the text of the article (this was the reason why the references were listed the way they originally were on the page).

Because of the use of the various books as references for the whole article, the references are now positioned together in a single area at the end of the text. I am not able to do anything further right now, because I will now have to log out of the computer, but, when I have more time to do so, I will see if I can list the references more appropriately within the text of the article. Figaro 21:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The references are now positioned in the appropriate places throughout the text — and there is also now another reference added to the previous ones. Figaro 15:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you had a problem with adding an External Links section, and specifically, had a problem with the particular link? Thanks. Arjuna 19:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The website is under construction. I found no information there. Come back later when you are done, but also read WP:COI and WP:EL. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the website is under contruction, but with respect, if you didn't find anything there, you didn't look closely enough: http://www.tarsier.org/Pages/tarsiers.html. I will add the External Links section back in, along with several other links so it is clear that this is not pushing any single site. Aloha. Arjuna 19:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I request clarification on why you insist on removing the perfectly legitimate link to tarsier.org. Yes, the site is under development, but if you had bothered to check the link I sent above you would note that there actually is indeed quite relevant information. Since your explanation as to why you removed it is inadequate, I shall put it back again. Aloha. Arjuna 19:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is upon you to explain how the site "violates" [WP:EL] or [WP:COI] -- I have read them and can find no such conflict. Arjuna 20:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: :Are you the author (or primary contributor) to that site's creation? If so, then it violates WP:EL and WP:COI. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have nothing to do with it, which one would be able to tell by noting that from my user page that I live in Hawaii, while the person who created the website is a professor in Singapore. Arjuna 19:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't know what your problem is, but you seem intent on being a Link Nazi. I answered your questions as to how these links do NOT violate WP:EL or WP:COI, and still you persist. If you continue to do so, I shall be forced to report your behaviour. Arjuna 20:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to amend my previous comments. Let's assume we are both reasonable people, which is what Wikipedia is based on. I am open to discussion, if you can provide other good reasons why those links do not belong. As you have not done so, simply as a matter of principle, I will continue to revert your edits until such time. It seems to me that if your intent is to improve the quality of this rather dismal article, you could do worse than to remove the "Media Appearances" section, which is fairly frivolous. Maybe that belongs there, maybe not, but at the very least the links are far more relevant to people interested in learning about tarsiers than that animatronic tarsiers were used in a Quizno's advertisement. Aloha. Arjuna 21:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, that section should be removed. That doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia is not a collection of links. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then why don't you do it rather than rather than have this very petty disagreement? Do something useful rather than simply acting as self-appointed unquestionable arbitor. I added the "Conservation Status" section to the article yesterday, which though brief is a useful thing to have given the very short and anemic state of the article, so over whether or not 3, rather than 6, links is "excessive" is rather inane. Thank you for sending the ISNOT link, which supports my position. It states, among other things, that links should be "proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)" - on this count the links are appropriate and provide relevant information. These links are demonstrably not what Wikipedia is trying to avoid. Given the meager information in the article, I'd even say that it could use more informative links, at least for now, were there any other good ones to link to. I have outlined why the links are appropriate, but all you have done is cite Wikipedia policy without adequately explaining how any of those negative ones apply. So, given that 1. Wikipedia is a collaborative endeavor and 2. both of us are presumably busy people, how do we find a way to avoid wasting each others' time here? Aloha. Arjuna 19:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm not the only one who has removed it, please keep the links to the smaller number. And if you'll note, I did remove the "Media Appearances" section when I said it should be removed. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an argument. Explain to me how a bibliography on tarsiers does not add relevant content. Morover, the timing of the other removal can be seen as suspicious. Good on you for removing the MA section. Now further improvement to the body of the article would be even better, but please stop deleting Tarsius dianae -- it is an apparent synonym and is classified as such by IUCN. Arjuna 20:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should get your information straight before you try to come off looking like an authority: http://www.cites.org/common/com/NC/2006/E-NC2006-Fa-09.pdf

I did. MSW3 gives precedence to T. dentatus, relegating T. dianae to a synonym. A synonym in biology is not equal but junior. (as opposed to in English where the two are equal, although with perhaps different shadings.) Please comply. I have been editting the primate articles for quite some time now, and I know what I am doing. Your edits are against policy, and against WP:TOL and WP:PRIM. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I misread the database -- you are right. I concede on this point, and offer regrets for my earlier impolitic remarks. On the links issue, however, you still have not offered a cogent reason, only an aesthetic one. Arjuna 23:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetics is easy - don't link to websites under construction. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is progress of a sort, I suppose. What I object to what seems to be your generally arbitrary and unilateralist approach in which no reasons were provided. Unfinished websites -- that's a good reason (despite the fact that the bibliography on the page I linked to is perfectly decent and not provided anywhere else in the article), so congratulations on finding a reasonable justification. Next up: why is http://www.bohol.ph/article15.html not a good link? It provides good info on Tarsius syrichta, while "Primate Info Net - Primate Factsheets & More: Tarsius sp.", a link you evidently approve of, is basically a useless set of links to other sites. Arjuna 22:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the conservation rating of Bennett's Tree-kangaroo back to Roger Martin's more recent and up-to-date rating after checking personally with Lewis Roberts. Roberts and Martin are considered among the very top authorities on Bennett's Tree-kangaroo in the world. Lewis Roberts is adamant that now, with most of their range protected and no hunting by Aboriginal people that there is no concern about their conservation status - in fact they seem to be increasing in numbers. If you are not happy with me reverting your edit - please contact me on my Talk page and discuss why.

Also, did you add the "Image:Status LC.svg"? If so, why? This lithograph was first published in the late 19th century and is, therefore, well out of copyright. How can I remove the tag?

I am not angry - just puzzled - and happy to discuss these issues with you at any time.

I look forward to hearing from you. sincerely, John Hill 14:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to keep with the IUCN status to maintain consistency. This is the standard for all of the WP:TOL articles. I believe you indicated the wrong image as an issue. The image you listed is part of the status section of the taxobox. The lithograph is a different image, and I don't now how to remove the copyright info. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I now have several free images on the Philippine Tarsier in Commons. Are you open to putting a Gallery section the article? Pls respond in my talk page. Thanks .--Guest818|talk 19:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/taxobox usage#Images:

In addition, a caption may be provided using image_caption, which also serves as the alternate text for the image.

Emphasis added. When you reverted you said that the caption doesn't add value [14] but it clearly adds value to the visually disabled (nevermind that it says where the animal is from). Furthermore, WP:PRIM#Use a taxobox doesn't say anything about an image caption nor what determines its "value."

As a general rule, if you're going to revert and link to another page that explains your rationale for you, then you better be sure that that page does otherwise, IMHO, it reflects poorly on you. :) I request that you respond on my talk page if you desire to do so. Cburnett 05:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edit. Apologies for using the wrong names. Are these names always to be used? All Australian references I checked used the other names. Thanks again. Frickeg 00:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your encouragement! Frickeg 00:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to thank you for all the editing you've been doing on my articles. You've probably realised I don't have a copy of Groves (I haven't seen it in Australia yet) so thanks for your help with page numbers (I've been doing my best!) and other blunders. I try to learn each time one happens! Frickeg 04:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think the only ones that haven't been done as of now are Long-footed Potoroo and Bettongia. Frickeg 05:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This session the ones I have created are Nabarlek, Rothschild's Rock-wallaby and Proserpine Rock-wallaby. Frickeg 06:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the rest of the rock-wallabies, as well as the Herbert River Ringtail Possum and Cinereus Ringtail Possum. Incidentally, I've never heard the latter species described as "Cinereus" (which I think means grey) but always as "Daintree River". I think Groves has been making some odd choices for common names. Anyway, thanks for your continued help. Frickeg 07:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

first off, let me say that i appreciate you digging up that goodman-1998 ref, it kept me from having to do it! but seriously, i see no good reason that the article shouldn't refer to the gelada as a baboon; the label is scattered all over the literature. i mean, look at the pic right there on the page! however you want to group them taxonomically speaking - however distinct you believe them to be - geladas are baboons, and it's not just me talking. further, it seems distracting to boldface "Theropithecus" halfway down the paragraph from the common names already boldfaced in the intro. lastly, it seems kind of archaic to capitalize Gelada wherever it appears in the article/sentence - it's not a proper name. one would not do the same with Puma, for instance, capping the first letter each time, regardless. either way, it should be done if only because that is largely the common convention in wikipedia.

anyhoo, don't mean to snipe! i do tend to "nit-pick" at times. just want it to be a decent encyc article, is all.

i'll post this at Talk:Gelada, just in case you want to continue the thread....

Metanoid 06:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - it has come to our notice that you have recently created a new stub type. As it clearly states at WP:STUB, at the top of most stub categories, on the template page for new Wikiprojects and in many other places on Wikipedia, new stub types should be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies, and whether better use could be made of a WikiProject-specific talk page template.

In the case of your new stub type, it is already covered by existing stub types - notably insectivora-stub - and it does not meet the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type (60 currently existing stubs). Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any reason why this stub type should not be proposed for deletion at WP:SFD. And please, in future, propose new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 23:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please also update other articles which refer to order insectivora, such as Mammal. Eli Falk 07:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Just checking - any chance for the article to be nominated for GA status soon? What are still needed and what other help can we do? Please advice. --Pinay (talk•email) 18:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...for your reassuringly sane contributions in the Category:Apes matter. --Ziusudra 01:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Just wondering if the Philippine Tarsier is not up for nomination yet as WP:GA. Please advise. --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 07:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my Homo sapiens page. This information should have its own page. If you think that "Homo sapiens" is the wrong place for it, how about "Human taxonomy"? Jonathan Tweet 15:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bring it up on talk:Human. I disagree with you. The relevant info is already at "Human", and more details are at "Human evolution". We don't need a third. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, Uther! Can't believe I did not immediately realize who UtherSRG was when I saw the user id. I must be slowing down in my old age. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 17:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC) aka Donal[reply]

I picked up on this repeat offender on one of my watch pages and noticed the same IP engaged as recently as today with editing in childish and somewhat crude remarks on a monthly basis and sometimes although blocked numerous times, the pranks seem to be escalating especially in December. It's apparently a school computer and only for a limited time in each instance, but methinks another block is warranted. I'm fairly new at this but moderate several forums and have seen the type too many times. I defer to you as you blocked this prankster in September. HJ 03:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uther/Stacey,

Perhaps I could trouble you for your opinion on a couple of redirects I have recently noticed. I may be being a bit of a curmugeon, but I find them to be useless, if not worse.

• Motherfucking snakes → Snakes on a Plane

Yes, the phrase occurs in the target; but it strikes me as unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a compendium of ephemeral catchphrases...or is it?

• Harmless → Earth

I myself have a certain appreciation for HHGG. However Wikipedia is not a compendium of punchlines to in-jokes...or is it? Perhaps the redirect might have some value if the target were changed to indemnity, which discusses the legal phrase hold hamless.)

I would appreciate your perspective. --Ziusudra 02:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right on the money I've deleted the first and reverted the second. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.. --Ziusudra 12:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you add merge tags, the onus is on you to follow the "discuss" link and start the discussion. Say why you think a merge is in order, and whether you intend to volunteer to do the work. Then maybe I'll support you. Dicklyon 07:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I must have forgotten that step. If you look at my edit history, you'll see I'm a very prolific editor. If you could provide a link to the article I made a mistake on, I'll correct it. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me why you removed the report on the attack.Thanks!--al95521 15:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't add anything to the article, and it was added in an improper form. For the former, not every attack needs to be listed in the article; the text was sufficient to describe attacks. For the latter, putting a link in "See also" would have been the correct form. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uther-- yes, that was terrible. I have shoved in something very quick and not well documented on ape behaviour and cognition just to plug the gap - please see the Talk page for discussion of how we should handle this. I fear the section will need constant monitoring to stop tripe being plastered into it, though. Now I've got to go to a dull dinner. seglea 19:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked that page you gave (WP:BIRD). Two things:

1. Right at the top of that advisory page, it says:

In general, these are only suggestions, and you shouldn't feel obligated to follow them.

2. The recommendations are for articles about birds. I know it's customary to see such names given as "Peregrine Falcon". But not for elephants or other mammals. I still say the present capitalization used here is just plain wrong. (Check another, real encyclopedia for comparison.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see anything that needs to be addressed. Yes, they are guidelines. New edits don't have to follow them - because folks like me will come along and tidy them up. Be that as it may, it's better to follow them so folks like me don't have to come along and clean up afterwards. Yes, that section refers to birds, because it's the WP:BIRD. Many other articles and projects with regards to species have followed that lead, and we always point back to WP:BIRD because it's there are written well. The logic holds equally well for mammals. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting response: you're basically saying "don't worry about how the articles are capitalized, because I'll just come along and capitalize them the way I think they ought to be". That's not a proper rationale or explanation.

The current scheme, again, is just plain wrong. Compare, for example, this article from the online Encyclopaedia Britannica, and notice the capitalization. Pick up any printed encyclopedia and note how names of flora and fauna are capitalized (with some notable exceptions, such as birds, as the Wikipedia policy page you pointed out suggests). Care to address this? I think the capitalization here should conform to norms used elsewhere in the language, not what a group of Wikipedia editors think is the right way to do things. +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments have been made about the capitalization logic before, and have been shot down. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where? I honestly don't know of any instance of that happening. Still not a proper reply; are you just being obtuse? Please let me know, as I don't want to waste any more time bantering with a crank if that's the case. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was that not in fact, a cited reference of a bush baby in popular culture? It is information that is true and pertains to a bush baby in popular culture, hence the header, "References in Popular Culture". I didn't see a sign that said "Only Scientifically Relevant Information".--Zombiema7 06:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture sections are pure trivia. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to thank you for blocking the whale vandal - and noticed thistalk above - You should see the edit wars we had at orangutan -and popular culture - some editors have tended to boot sections off into separate articles if they have been long enough. Mind you the rat article seems to have a defender or two... Consequently if thats the way you perceive the issue - check out the 'animals in popular culture category -...SatuSuro 14:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I was there for that, and for the one on gorilla before that. When there's enough content to make a section on pop culture, make it an article, with a link and summary on the topic's page. When there isn't, just leave it off entirely. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies I remember now - we just had a wiki meetup here in perth an hour or so ago - I'll blame the beers. Yup - mind you a post-modernist oriented academically trained editor needs cleanup do everyone of those arts - they lack refs - most contributors are usually american teenagers with strong tv habits with no sense of an alphabet or order...sigh SatuSuro 14:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be kind enough to watch the other Ive just been warning - think it needs help...so to speak... sorry to bother...SatuSuro 14:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to have stopped for now. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editing is the epitome of subjectiveness, but you make the rules or at least you enforce them so it's out of my hands. It's not that big of a deal and I'm not gonna start an edit war over something so trivial, but I don't understand how it is regulation to deprive readers of a fact in one area (tivia) if there is not a "sufficient" amount of information to go with it. So basically, if fact "A" does not have a fact "B" and a fact "C" to go with it, readers are not allowed to be enlightened with fact "A". Knowledge, be it silly triva, is still knowledge, and it outweighs asthetics. So what if there's a whole section just for one peice of information! It's still factual information isn't it? I'm arguing on principle here now. I don't really care about the dumb bushbaby reference anymore. --Zombiema7 08:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, if there isn't enough information to warrant a page, then the trivia is unencyclopedic. Wikipedia:is not a collection of indiscriminate information. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet there are still stubs and stubs that get thousands of hits every day beacause people still read information even if it's not that much. They don't care if it's "unencyclopedic" they just want to know.

As for it not being a collection of "indiscriminate information", of course it's not. The discriminators are admins like you who are human beings just like every editor and have your own subjective opinions just like us except you have your fancy buttons that ban, revert, and permanently delete which seperates you from us. "There are those with guns and those who dig." You might argue that anybody has the ability to revert or delete, but you know the admins will be there to inspect what that editor did and then override them if they feel it's neccessary. Wikipedia had good intentions and would work in it's utopian form, but controllers are inevitable. They have the authority and decide what is relevant and what is not. There is a hierarchy of wikipedia editors. I'm sure you already, more than likely, have a response to this argument binded to your keyboard by now, but no matter how you justify it's neccessity, you know it's true.--Zombiema7 00:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Take it to the populace. If you don't like something I do, and we can't work something out, there are any number of ways to get more people involved, admins and non-admins alike. - UtherSRG (talk) 06:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.--Zombiema7 07:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, what are these ways of getting people involved that you speak of?--Zombiema7 08:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For content disputes, WP:RFC would be a good place to turn to. There are links there for other issues as well. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--Zombiema7 09:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? WHAT? Why the heck was I banned for voting on an article for deletion? That is not a valid reason for a ban if I recall! Joemale-malesign 21:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the last few edits of yours before the vote. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look, this guy's going nuts with teh point, civ, and NPA. He's going to dig hiimself a deeeeep hole. ThuranX 23:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather you didn't RV all that. There may be something to all this idea of the section being poorly written. I think there are far more encyclopedic ways to write it. I'm going to revert it back to the last version without the section, then take on a new angle on it. ThuranX 03:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I've rewritten the section. My goal in this was to create a simpler, more direct introductory passage, and let interested readers utilize the included link to the main article. The rewrite is less specific in the ways that could be challenged for citation, while also bringing to the reader's mind easily recognizable examples which fall under WP:COMMON, avoiding the citation issue entirely (Although I will TRY to look through my ERB and REH stacks to find the stories to meet the citations. I THINK Tublat was the Gorilla in Tarzan, and that it's in the third or fourth book where Conan wrestles a Gorilla in the wizard's tower, but my memory's only so good, LOL. ) that said, I'd appreciate you reading the new version and offering constructive criticism. WHile the IP's behavior was awful, his intent and goals were not, and we can use the incident as motivation to improve the article. ThuranX 03:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've been to the article since my edits. Any thoughts on it? ThuranX 21:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't read it until now... was doing vandalism reverts before. Looks good. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I do not want an edit war at Giant Forest Genet. Allow me or someone else to check the facts, find references and generally tweak it. I don't want to fight you about this. -El Maxo 16:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Now will you read the text you were blindly inserting? - UtherSRG (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Species of rats and Category:Species of mice etc... Headphonos 14:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep a civil tone. This is not about winning or losing, but about creating a worthwile encyclopedia. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah...it's about u trying to get another barnstar by posting frivolous +tags and plugging up the wiki...I am advising u to no longer post to my discussion section, as I having nothing further to discuss with u. If u do I will report it as vandalism...bye! Headphonos 14:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. You've been editing Wikipedia for less than one month, you've had no interaction with me in that month, and you presume to know what I'm about. See that conclusion over yonder, please to not be jumping to it. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[15] Why did you redirect it? Ucucha 19:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it was it was suuperfluous. All of the information is essentially on the species page. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it is a distinct subspecies, so doesn't it thereby qualify for a separate article? Ucucha 06:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my question at Talk:Cougar#Felis concolor vs. puma concolor. Question arises from your change here that I reverted here for reasons stated in the summary: I have a picture to prove that the zoo calls it Puma (felis concolor) and I think that name should be maintained. Cburnett 03:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It costs money to change signage, so zoos often have incorrect information on their signs. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can a synonym be incorrect? Cburnett 13:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is incorrect in that "synonym" in taxonomy isn't the same as a "synonym" in English. In taxonomy, synonyms are outdated names and should not be used. They are listed as "synonym" because they refer (albeit incorrectly) to the same taxa. They are used in listings only to clarify the taxonomic history. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin, you should know that the "rollback" function is inappropriate to use except on vandalism. It is also inappropriate to mark it as a minor edit. Again, you should know this Help:Minor edit:

A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute.

Clearly this is not the case. Or are you just trying to be unfriendly, uncooperative, and "it's my way or the highway" because you sure are treating me that way and I don't appreciate it. Cburnett 13:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but WP:IGNORE. I dislike having to manually edit the edit summary when there is a nice simple one-click "revert" capability. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. You will probably want to comment: Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules#This is invoking lazyness because I've brought your escape route for lazyness into question. Cburnett 15:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chip, all rollbacks are marked as minor. Guettarda 14:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Touche. I must have been too lazy like Stacey here to have noticed that. Thanks, chief. Cburnett 15:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is helpful. You're both big boys and thick enough skinned to forget about this. You're both great contributors to Wikipedia and on the side of good. So quit arguing about trivia and work on making this a better encyclopaedia and a nicer place to work. Please. Guettarda 18:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UtherSRG (and Ucucha if you're listening),

You've clearly noticed the new Category:Species of Wolf. I'd really like to encourage you to also note the following: Category: Species of mice, Category: Genera of mice, Category:Extinct species of mice, Category: Species of rats, Category: Genera of rats, and Category:Extinct species of rats. This was a result of a long process which started when User:Headphonos (the author of the new "Species of Wolf" category) removed these articles from categories set up on the basis of taxonomy/relationships and moved them to two new categories called "Mouse breeds" and "Rat breeds". This went up for several "category for discussions" and "category for deletions" and the result of those decisions led to the categories you see now. I was away for an extended period of time and wasn't able to enter into this discussion until it was essentially over.

If you note the makeup of these categories, it's completely nonsensical. If you take a look at Category: Species of rats you'll see that it includes representitives of 7 subfamilies and 4 families of rodents. Any of these is much more closely related to members of other categories than to members of the same category. This scheme seems to suggest that there is any reason at all to unite these animals into a category. There is simply no such thing as a "rat" (as it is used here). There is no possible criterion for inclusion into these categories. If I create an article on a particular muroid, I would have no idea what category at least half of them belong to and would just have to wait for Headphonos to come along and offer his/her opinion. (How is Maxomys a mouse instead of a rat? Why does the Togo Mouse qualify as a mouse, but the brush-furred mouse does not? How is the subfamily Spalacinae (blind mole rats) a "species of rat", but the related bamboo rats are not?)

Anyway, I can't imagine I need to convince you that the prior method of categorizing on the basis of relationship is superior. I'm curious if you have any suggestions as to how to proceed with correcting the problem now that the current status has gone through several rounds of voting. I'm certainly too late to just revert this all back without discussion.

I think part of the issue here is that these discussions are taking place at locations (such as CfD) where the wikipedia community at large deals with them. I suspect the "Species of Wolves" discussion will run into a similar issue. A cursory glance by someone patrolling those pages will lead to the conclusion that "breeds of rats" or "species of wolves" warrant a category, yet fail to notice that 1.) The category doesn't pertain to "breeds of rat" or "species of wolf" and there is no such thing as a "rat" as used in this case, 2.) It is not in line with the formatting of other TOL categories, and 3.) The appropriate category for these articles already exists. I think if it was dealt with at WP:TOL or WP:MAM the conclusions reached would be different. Any suggestions? --Aranae 04:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the point of lumping everything with a common name ending in "rat" or "mouse" either. I think all those cats should be deleted. Ucucha 06:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this goes back to Oct 26 of last year. There was a Prod tag on NoManZero, which was articled up here for being a modern rock band.

Are you able to retrieve what was the reason on that tag? My email is xxxxxxxxxxxx, and I authored the article but am not a band member.

Please alert me to what gives. I will appreciate your explanation; thanks. 68.9.142.241 05:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

16:16, 26 October 2006 UtherSRG (Talk | contribs) deleted "NoManZero" (prod > 5 days)

Can do: "Does not meet the notability requirements of WP:BAND. Does not provide credible, third-party sources as required by WP:V. Does not meet the neutrality requirements of WP:NPOV." - UtherSRG (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the proposed deletion tag from this article. While I agree it doesn't seem to satisfy the notability requirements, the article was already submitted for proposed deletion once, and the proposed deletion was disputed. Since proposed deletion only applies with unanimous consensus, an article from which a prod tag was once removed may never be prodded again. However, the article may still be taken to articles for deletion, where community consensus will determine if the article should be kept or deleted. Seraphimblade 16:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uther, if you'd rather have Jaguar rather than the generally used jaguar, I suggest you work up consensus on lion and tiger and all of the more readily hit animal articles. I've written English for as long as I can write; large mammals are not capitalized. If we are going to do so, let's make a rule that people can point to. Marskell 00:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about the elephant articles? The apes? Are those not large animals? - UtherSRG (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In its generic uses, elephant is not capitalized on elephant; in fact you didn't capitalize it in the sentence you type above. Like most native users, I'm sure you're unfamiliar with the usage.

I realize that species names are proper nouns; if language were a science we'd capitalize, but language isn't. From the talk a few months ago: "lower case is used at Britannica, Encarta, the BBC, the US gov source listed here, and the first three abstracts I randomly looked at (I'll assume the others are consistent)." I'm a descriptivist; we should do what our sources do. Marskell 08:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing what my primary source (MSW3) does. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get other opinions. I started a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals. Marskell 10:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is futile. We've already had the discussion, and nothing was resolved, but ok. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're at four reverts. I really don't understand this "I don't need to talk about it" behaviour. Marskell 11:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Count again. I'm at three. And should not the discussion happen with the article in the state that you found it in that you disagree with? - UtherSRG (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I guess that means I'm only at two, but whatever. This is still incredibly unilateral behaviour on your part.

"Should not the discussion happen with the article in the state that you found it in that you disagree with." I'm not quite getting that. You mean leave it at your preferred because it was like that last night? Uther, you made the change a week ago without so much as a peep--no edit summary, no discussion on talk. And I didn't "find" the article like this; I wrote most of the article in its present form and have been watching it for six months.

Do you want to go to dog and cat and capitalize every proper noun usage? Is that going to make any sense to people? Marskell 12:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For species common names in biological articles, yes. Making sense is part of the educational process. I originally found the usage a little odd, but the rationale and time have won me over. Go read every primate article and you'll quickly adjust. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, a pizza:

I offer you this pizza because I don't want you to think that I've stopped respecting your efforts here 1000%. I was feeling quite bad after the fact about having reverted with you. The pizza, as near as I can tell, contains no meat; I was thinking your love of animals may have led you to a vegetarian diet.

I think we should save the broader discussion for the mammal project talk. But I must say this regarding the "educational process". I'm utterly an amateur with taxonomy, though I try my best. I'm less of an amateur with English (I do teach it a bit, even if my talk posts are loaded with typos), and the first thing to bear in mind is its accidental nature: whether we call humans "apes" matters; whether we capitalize jaguar does not matter. Linguistic debates over orthography often have no real relevance to the information the language imparts. You aren't "educating" anybody by using upper case; you're making an arbitrary decision because you want a rule. I want a rule too: because it does not actually matter, I think we should do what everybody else does and not capitalize common mammal names. Marskell 20:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza is always good, but your assumption is incorrect; I'm very much a meat eater. (I'll skip the cliché about rising to the top of the food chain....) While calling humans apes is scientifically and culturally important, you are correct that capitalization of species common names is much less important. However, I stand by my guns. The education happens when someone asks "Why is this capitalized?" Questions like that lead to a discussion, and that's where the education comes. *shrugs* Perhaps this starts to slip to WP:POINT. Perhaps mammal articles should have a mix of capitalization because certain species are much more in the public consciousness than others are. Our household felines will always be "cats", even though there are 40 species of cats, ranging from the Tiger to the Domestic Cat. Certainly, when I say "cat" someone will think I'm talking about the household feline, yet context may show I'm talking about some other species. Look at the three chimpanzee articles: chimpanzee, Common Chimpanzee, and Bonobo. I particularly like the opening paragraph in Bonobo, which sets up the capitalization as well as the distinction between the common name for the genus Pan and the common names for the two species. Ok... enough rambling... I haven't had my morning coffee yet....- UtherSRG (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God - that was one of a muck around a few hours ago -Using the oa art and putting it in asian singers arts and ignoring warnings - I was almost ... well its over...For the moment SatuSuro 14:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Just passing on the good news to you! Check it out here! Thank you for your significant contributions. It was a pleasure collaborating with you on this article. Best regards. --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 21:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...my capitalization changes and thanks for your corrections. I wasn't aware that fauna had gotten exceptions from Wikipedia's opressive capitalization rules for article titles and many of the references within the articles were in lower case so I just assumed. —  AjaxSmack  05:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did they remove mention of "octopussy" from the octopus article! I see on the talk page that you were in favor of it. I hope you will support me in re-including it. TS3 23:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

You recently protected[16] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 19:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Just a note that you missed Category:Genera of rats. You seem to have dealt with all the others. --Aranae 06:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a job rather a PhD now so will have less time, but we'll see how it goes. Thanks again, Pcb21 Pete 17:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the edits to your article, I see that you didn't like it. I am trying to add more info on the Barbary Macaques of Gibraltar as I have recently come across a good source of first hand information which I personally think is worthy of uploading onto Wikipedia. Is there anyway you wouldn't mind adding a link from your article to Gibraltar Barbary Macaques? I will be adding more info to it shortly.

Please share your views on this with me. Thanks and sorry for the bother. Gibmetal77 15:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for updating the WP:ARCHIVE page, and for writing and letting me know. I appreciate it very much. All the best. Figaro 14:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that what the Polyamory page was discussing, and the page I linked it to, were very similar if not the same topic. If it was disruptive, it was not intentional. Master Deusoma 23:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for welcoming me and for your advice on my edits. I'm only new here and am slowly finding my way around all the different policies and guidelines. Any feedback is most welcome! Cheers --Fnpw 02:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be under the misunderstanding that monkey is a scientifically valid biological category. It is not, it's just a generic term for all sub-human higher primates. To say new world monkeys and old world monkeys are monkeys, but chimps and gorillas are not makes no sense biologically. So obviously it's not a taxonomic classification so trying to impose a strict precise scientific definition for a man-made construct makes little sense & has little relevance for how this term is used in the real world. And btw you've used up your 3 reverts for the day Influencey

Old World monkey is a strict grouping. New World monkey is a strict grouping. Anything out side of those two group is not a monkey. Apes are not monkeys. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-human apes are described as monkeys all the time. There's no scientific reason for grouping new world and old world monkeys into a category that excludes non-human apes, so why do it? You're just confusing the hell out of people who are used to common English? Influencey

The difference is that we are an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Dictionaries describe how a language is used, but in typical and in less typical fashion. An encyclopedia is to give the facts to clarify, and not to promote poor usage. Apes and monkeys are both simians, but moneys are not apes, and apes are not monkeys, no matter how often people incorrectly use the terms. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no correct way of defining a money because it's never been used to describe a coherent taxonomic category. Why is limiting the term to just new-world monkeys and old world monkeys a superior way to apply this word since these monkeys have nothing in common that they don't share with non-human apes. Expanding the term to include all non-human higher primates (as is done in common useage) is far more logical because all non-human higher primates have traits in common that clearly distinguish them from human primates: Fur, quadrupedalism, inability to speak. Influencey

I see you are not open to debate, in the face of the facts I have provided. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A correct, cladistic, taxonomic usage of the term monkey could certainly include apes (including humans) due to the fact that apes are more related to OW monkeys than new. The term is, however, almost never used as such. People will occasionally call chimps or gorillas "monkeys", but that's almost always due to an ignorance of the differences, not an attempt to be phylogenetically accurate. Right now the term is basically treated as either "monkeyhood" evolved once and was subsequently lost in the line leading to apes or evolved twice independently. When the scientific community starts regularly calling humans and other apes monkeys it will be time to change the article. That day's not here. There's definitely no justification for treating only nonhuman apes as monkeys. If they are we certainly are. --Aranae 22:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been brief but it was an important mention, and since it gets little media coverage, it can be mentioned when it does appear. Michaelritchie200 17:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that tip ("how to say citation needed"). Also, I love the word "laborious". "Labor intensive" is misused and overused. Nice job! Tparameter 17:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I conceede, looking it over, that my question did rather look like it was written by a fifth grader. I also conceede that anonymous IPs are annoying to users--there's no guarantee that they'll respond back. (I try to look over my own edits about once a month, but even then only for the IP which I then have, which switches every few months)

Regardless, it was a genuine question. (And I somewhat resent the implication that I'd be stupid enough to use Wikipedia for homework.)

Some species of primates have opposable thumbs. And some do not, correct? I'd heard that the racoon is the only non-primate to have opposable thumbs, however I've also heard that the red (and sometimes giant) panda has a structure which serves the same purpose. The opposable thumb evolved over time, so it seems reasonable to wonder what lemurs have with regards to that.

If the lemur does have an opposable thumb, it would be an interesting feature to note, as it is a relatively rare evolutionary feature. If it has a digit which is semi-opposable, or a thumb pad, it would be even more so.

If it has no opposable thumb, it would--of course--not be worth noting. It still does not mean that my inquiry is frivilous.

Since your interest is apparently in primates, you either A. Know the answer, and consider one less interesting a fool for not knowing, or B. Do not care, and consider interest in the question frivilous.

If A, it would have been a relatively simple matter to respond, if B, it would have been even simpler to do nothing.

Of course, it would have been simpler for me to do nothing as well, which I probably should have done (this is why I stopped major revisions, then stopped making additions directly to articles beyond the occasional wording issue), but I realized this after I'd written most of it.

I'm going to put my question back. After that, I'm not interested in fighting it. You can respond or not, and you can revert it or not. I'll stick to the "one-revert policy" I've adopted since I abandoned my username.

Thank you for your time, and have a good day.
~Luke --71.192.117.127 23:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't change anything about my reverting your initial query. Talk pages are for discussing and improving the article. Your wording was not about working on the article, but was discussing the subject. You should reclaim or reregister. You'll get more respect. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent reversions on the Florida panther page (you keep changing it back to Caps without explanation).

Edit wars are silly, but really, Florida panther is the accepted usage, not Florida Panther. Examples:

• US Fish and Wildlife Service Species Profile http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/SpeciesReport.do?spcode=A008
• Official US Fish and Wildlife Service Florida Panther Recovery documents (of course the document titles have a capitalized 'p', because all the words are capitalized, but click on the docs and see for yourself. These include the recovery plan, and several publications about it in the Federal Register. In all cases, you see "Florida panther" being used. http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/WhatsNew/Press_release/Panther_Information.htm
• The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's pages: http://myfwc.com/panther/
• And the scientific literature says "Florida panthers", see the abstract in this review: http://www.wildflorida.org/critters/panther/Beier-Panther-SRT.pdf

So it doesn't go "either way". There is accepted usage here. People who want to change it back to Panther should engage in this conversation and not just revert. Revert is for vandalism. Buck up and discuss. And give citations! Pigkeeper 08:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please see for example this style manual for scientific terminology from the University of Minnesota [17]. It says:

In general, do not capitalize the names of wild and domestic plants and animals. Capitalize only proper nouns and adjectives used with their original reference.

• English ivy
• Rocky Mountain sheep
• dutchman’s breeches

Looking at Wikipedia's conventions, we see that some animal species are capitalized and others aren't, and it says mammals are a mixed bag, "mostly capitalized". If we look closer though, we see that yes, your area (monkeys) is that way, but in other areas this isn't the rule. Some places it's sloppy, like the polar bear article. Other places it's clearly a toss-up, like with the bat species pages. Many bat species are lower case, many are upper case. So it's a gray area. However, the wiki naming conventions also say:

In general, Wikipedia follows academic practice in each group of organisms.

I think this is the closest there is in terms of wikipedia policy here. And I have demonstrated that there is near unanimous academic and management practice for saying Florida panther, nor Florida Panther.

I'd appreciate it if you'd drop this. If you won't, please at least engage in the discussion and don't do reverts without justification. It feels insulting.

I HAVE read the commentary at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals, too. Please see Beyazid's reasoning for returning cheetah to lower-case. Those substantive reasons apply to the Florida panther case, too.

I've posted the above (with minor changes, i.e. I'm not just talking to you) at the Florida panther discussion page. It's probably best to respond there rather than here.

Pigkeeper 08:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing work on carnivora, it does need it. I tried to sort out the taxonomy for linsangs from the data I could find but it still is probably a bit messed up so if you could find the time to sort it out it would be much appreciated --DSWebb 17:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that i've made the articles like how you set out and they're pretty much up to date now. --DSWebb 19:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source of this image? If you took this photograph, please indicate that. Otherwise, please include a link to where it came from. Jkelly 19:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake.... it was from commons and I cropped it, but then uploaded it to en. I've deleted it and reuploaded it to commons. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you being so rude on the User Talk Homo page? First, you are preachy. Then, after I address the article as discussed, and put a note in, you are reverting stuff on a talk page? I don't think it's your place to decide whether or not my talk is there or not—if I want to remove it, I have the right, especially if it's no longer relevant to the development of the article. The request was made, and I put a note saying that the change was made. Enough.

Your continual reversions feel threatening to me, and I would appreciate it if you delete my post as well as your preachy response, optionally, as I have tried to do several times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Denn333 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You do not own your edits on articles or their talk pages. You do not have the right to blank out your comments, or those of others. You only have that right on your own talk page. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have the right to edit pages to delete things that are no longer relevant.Denn333 05:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to the Wikipedia regulation that justifies your claim?Denn333 05:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, because they are always changing. I know what I've seen, and once you have made a comment on a talk page, you can't take it back just because it has been addressed. The only option is to archive the talk page, which I have now done. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you are making up rules. Are you perhaps upset because I pointed out that you were being preachy to me? (You were, and it was not necessary. You could have been MUCH more gentle.)

Hello! If you are receiving this message, that means that your user page is in a specific year category. Per a recent user-category per deletion, all specific year categories are to be deleted. If you wish to continue using year categories, you have two options:

• Using an age group category, such as Category:Wikipedians in their 30s
• Using a decade category, such as Category:Wikipedians born in the 1970s.

If you wish, you may do both. Hopefully, this change in categorization will be quick and painless. Happy editing! --An automated message from MessedRobot 12:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been restored after its deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review. As you deleted the article in conjunction with WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. -- nae'blis 21:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

News. 5 November, 2000: 'Extinct' lions (Cape lion) surface in Siberia. Downloaded on 2 July 2006.

Read my dear professor.. if cape lions are found ALIVE in Siberian zoo... means that the subspecies is EW... Flavio/Tigre Reietta 16:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Have you seen what John Guy Royers contributed to the Flag of Israel page? --14:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was the anon before him that put the Nazi flag in in place of the Jewish flag. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding. I saw that. But did you see his edits? They are clearly there simply to provide false POV and incite what is happening now? The guy has existed less than 24 hours, makes no specific answers towards those changes and you're disciplining me? Please, REREAD HIS EDITS! I cannot be clearer --15:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I was wondering why you keep deleting the link on the Mountain Gorilla page that links to the blog about protecting Mountain Gorillas in the Democratic Republic of Congo. It is most certainly relevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.30.16.252 (talk • contribs).

Blogs are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I can't seem to find any rule against blogs on Wikipedia, and many pages seem to have them when they are relevant to the topic. They are an invaluable source of information and a blog about a Congo Ranger's efforts to protect the Mountain Gorillas in Congo, including a wealth of information on the Gorilla families living there, seems entirely appropriate.

Hey, seriously, where is the rule that states blogs are not allowed on wikipedia? I wish you'd get back to me and give me a proper answer rather than just taking the link off. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.30.16.252 (talk • contribs).

It's WP:EL. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it you were more careful on your rollbacks (in fact, you're not even supposed to use the rollback function if it's not vandalism). For example, on Felidae the scientific name for domestic cats isn't needed in the lede at all, considering none of the other species have their scientific names there. When you hit rollback, you undid all of my changes, instead of just the ones you are disputing. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 21:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:151.188.16.33 It's a school IP please soft block —The preceding unsigned comment was added by K Watson1984 (talk • contribs).

I'll watch their edits. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have the album "Harambi" on my shelf right in front of me as I write this. It dates from the seventies, before the internet was even imagined. Are your one of those people who hold that a thing can't exist because you haven't heard of it?- Beefart. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captainbeefart (talk • contribs).

Here's their website. It lists albums back to the 70s. The one you cite is not listed. Please do not add data to Wikipedia without a reference to verify the data. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. The message you sent me was correct. In the future, i will keep discussion on talk pages. Oddball 2002 19:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. Your user page has some things I would disagree with. Please look at mine, and you will see differences Big differences.

what would you suggest doing about this user? He/she is going around placing information in articles without references, adding {{commons}} tags to articles that have no commons information, using images without proper copyright info (apparently thinks that saying it is free from copyright makes it so), etc... I've not run across this situation before with a user that absolutely refuses to abide by the rules. If this is how they run the italian wiki then someone from legal may want to look into it because "there's some 'splainin' to do Lucy" Nashville Monkey 01:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should you rollback all my edits in Gray wolf? That page is not yours but all the wikipedians can add something... is not right? If you want to block me.. sure make it...but I do not vandalize nothing and not all my contributions are vandalism as you think... watch them before to decide... For Gray wolf... Could I insert some image from Commons? For Cheetah... in the article that I linked it is write that only two subspecies existed..Why should you do not accept modern revision of taxonomy? If you like the old..OK.. but Thath encyclopedy is not YOURS or MINE... and here we must have objective... If my edit is right it is must to not rollbacked... but if it is a vandalism.. is must to rollbacked, is not right? In any way if you decided to block me anyway... please make the sentences quikly... I hate attend a punishman... yours Flavio/Tigre Reietta 06:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because your English and your edits are sometimes atrocious. You make more work for me and other editors and admins. I would rather revert ALL of your edits than have to hunt through for which ones are good and which ones are bad. But since you ask for sentencing to be swift, I'll just go ahead and block you now. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 6 month block on it.wiki was given for the same attitude he is showing here. A mix of correct and incorrect edits that is very hard to deal with, making his overall contribution unreliable. Careless removal of templates from articles. Unwillingness to understand policies on images upload. As far as I can see he has not changed a bit. Keep an eye on him because I suspect you will have to extend the block.

Regards, Snowdog 16:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm an admin of it.wiki. I have seen that brandani uploads images without or wrong license there too. For example, this image (Image:Cerdocyon thous.jpg) doesn't exists on it.wiki and never been uploaded - and brandani's text is false, yet. Can you verify other images uploaded by Flavio.brandani on en.wiki? Thank you. Excuse me for my English. Thank you. Bye! --Leoman3000 20:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to place the word Sondeli somewhere appropriate. I was relying on someone shrew-d knowing where to place it properly. Sorex or the other genus. Thank you. 88888 18:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uther, could I have your opionion on the Marcellus page? Someone from the same IP provider keeps introducing "marcellus" = "deadly striker" over and over again. He never has the same IP address, and doesn't site where the etymology comes from. This time, in the actual DAB article, mhe said "confirmed by Plutarch" and I have no idea what that means, except that I think he's getting frustrated with be reverting. Mrendo 20:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing the cladogram in the Carnivora article! DaMatriX 20:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 21:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... So are vernacular names now the standard?--I thought they were too fickle to be depended upon in a documentation sense. Granted, this is a public information project and not a journal, but look at the mess on that list. There isn't even an alphabetical order to it unless one is using the binomial nomenclature.

If you want to make the lists of mammals more confusing than they already are, I suggest starting with the following which aren't listed in the "vernacular name first -- taxonomic/alphabetical order second" format:

Perognathus
Peromyscus
Myotis
Rattus
Sciurus
Spermophilus
...and those are just off the top of my head.

I see you've already gotten to Lepus.TeamZissou 19:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going by order. Why would I skip around from genus to genus in a haphazard fashion? Although yes, I'm picking orders in the order I wish to do them.... but MSW3 is arranged by orders, so that makes it simple for me. As for common vs. scientific, the vast majority of mammal articles I worked on already listed by common name, and that is where the articles are located as well. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. I wasn't implying that you should do anything to any particular genus, just that MSW3 may not be the best way to present species within a genus on Wikipedia. See the discussion I started on the Wikiproject:Mammals discussion page.[18] Aranae has some good points on the subject, and discussion would be preferably to an edit war.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TeamZissou (talk • contribs).

Hey there :) Okay, beng a knee-jerk editor of English vs. a primatologist, it seems to me that the plural of Bonobo would be (?) Bonobos. A single Bonobo. A group of Bonobos. Assuming this is the case, the phrase "the Bonobos' habitat" would be punctuated as shown (plural possessive). "The Bonobo's habitat" would imply the habitat belonged to a single Bonobo.

Having belaboured my rationale, I reverted the edit you made to the placement of the possessive apostrophe under the Conservation section of the Bonobo article. Please drop a line on my user page and let me know if I'm incorrect--I checked a few sites other than Wikipedia, including the Bonobo Conservation Initiative, and it seems that (insofar as common usage goes) people generally use "Bonobos" to denote more than one.

Thanks! Wysdom 20:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but it's a matter of perspective. A species is a single group of individuals. The Bonobo is a species. It (singular) has a particular habitat. That would be the Bonobo's habitat. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello UtherSRG. I'm user Bradypus from the German Wikipedia and I just saw you translated the baboon articles. I also somtimes check the English Wikipedia and found out you use a very different kind of primate classification (for instance giving the Aotus-monkeys family status under the name Nyctipithecidae) than we do. We have a rather "traditional" classification. What is your source? Regards,--80.108.59.151 07:23, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) Bradypus (I don't know how to do this Interwiki signatures)

Hello UtherSRG. I really thought you speak a little bit German, because those Babelfish-translations are not very exact. (This is a useful dictionary which I often use, maybe it helps). I looked at the 5 baboon specieses and the Cercopithecinae. Please check my addendums, for I'm not a native speaker and word order, spelling and such things can be wrong. --80.108.59.151 20:04, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)(Bradypus)

Sorry, my mistake! I misread the hierarchy on the New World Monkeys page, thanks for putting me right (so quickly).--Bwmodular 17:39, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You wrote: "What is your interest in Primates?"

Purely platonic :) Just a fascination with them. I took the Tarsier image (Tarsier.jpg) in Sulawesi years ago, and made some edits to that page, but I'm not an expert on primates. I'm working on a primates image gallery at the moment (to be added to the other animal galleries Wikipedia:List_of_images/Nature/Animals) but I don't think I'm qualified to join the project. If there are any non-technical routine tasks (finding images for taxoboxes, etc) that can be done, I'll gladly help, but I can't contribute in any way that requires technical / scientific knowledge.--Bwmodular 09:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll try and find out for sure, but I think it is a Spectral Tarsier (Tarsius spectrum). I saw them in Tangkoko National Park, North Sulawsi - if I can find out for sure, I'll let you know.--Bwmodular 10:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's a Spectral Tarsier now - I've looked at a few studies which took place in Tangkoko and they all refer to Tarsius spectrum. --Bwmodular 11:28, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How is mentioning that Tarsiers are not simian vandalism? While what was originally there claiming they were not primates appeared that way, I was under the impression that the original sentence was only caused by someone not understanding the difference between Primate and Siman and thought the version I had left there was fine.Jebus0 19:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The initial inclusion of that line was vandalism. It's already mentioned that they are prosimians, there is no reason to mention the Pygmy Marmoset, nor the rest of that line. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to insert myself here. It seems to me, UtherSRG, that you are using the term "vandalism" entirely inappropriately. The sentence you call vandalism was "However, they are not simians, and are not to be confused with the Pygmy Marmoset, a small simain native to South America which is generally regarded by experts as superior.". Now, that is not the best sentence ever written and could use a good edit, but vandalism it is not. Vandalism is adding adolescent four letter words or gibberish to an article, not a legitimate point. Given that Wikipedia is supposed to be(come) an encyclopedia for the general public, who may not understand what a "simian" is and thus need specific clarification, as well as specialists, who already do and presumably don't need to consult Wikipedia to give them basic facts about tarsiers. You may want to consider adopting a more collaborative attitude more in line with the spirit of Wikipedia, otherwise you may end up proving Citizendium's point. Aloha. Arjuna 19:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the copying, this is my first submisison to wiki... I have to work on several articles, I was using this one as an opportunity to learn the syntax for wiki. I am working on a revision for this page right now, and I am going to paraphrase and revise the older data. Thanks for the input, I didn't even know the talk feature existed! Salud!

Clathe 22:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraid I could not recall the name of the animal itself; and had to put up a request on the Reference Desk to know what animal it is. :( Nichalp 17:59, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Where did you hear or read that this lemur's call is second only to the howler's in loudness? - User:UtherSRG (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm sorry I've not replied sooner. I've been browsing but not logging on much. I also hope you don't mind me replying on your talk page. I'm a bit new to this.

In reply to your question, I used to work with several species of lemur. The 'black and whites' were my favourite. It was my job to give a talk to the public on the various species and this was one little factoid that was included. I'm afraid I'm not sure where it comes from as I was never given a reference, but the talk had been written by a reputable lemur keeper who had been working with them for many years.

Hope that helps. Thanks for taking the time to contact me. - --EmSmith 13:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... so nothing that is citable, so it should not yet be a part of the article without a {{fact}} tag. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amended as advised. EmSmith 08:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really think 402 is closer to the true than 350. It's from my own lists (Mammal Taxonomy which are probably relatively correct (although the number of species might be affected by the fact that I include many extinct species.. I'll change that). What do you think of "at least 350" or so? Ucucha 14:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Groves (2001) lists 350, but there have been a few new species identified since. This list should be of extant species. If you included extinct species (of which we will never have a nearly complete list) in your edit, you should revert all of your changes to what was there before. - UtherSRG 14:44, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

No I should not, as that has not really contributed in the numbers of species. With or without extinct species, they were too low. In any case, my "extinct" species were only Holocene ones, of which the list may be relatively complete. Ucucha 15:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted your change to the classification list. All of the primate articles, via WP:PRIM, are following Groves' Primates section in Mammal Species of the World, 3rd ed, due to be published in a couple of months. Where did you get your listing from? - UtherSRG (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hope it's okay to reply here (I'm still figuring out etiquette and such). Thanks for the welcome! I have several sources for the edits I've made. First off, I just finished a Master's on gibbon phylogenetics. Gibbon taxonomy is still very much under debate and changes frequently. My former adviser spoke with Colin Groves personally, who admitted that due to complications from other authors, the section on gibbons will be out of date before it is printed. My reclassification is based on one by Thomas Geissman, another prominent gibbon biologist. His changes have been reviewed by other researchers, such as R.A. Mittermeier, and have been incorporated into the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Estelahe 19:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note to myself, T. Geissman's work is now at this page. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the picture of the gibbon? Hurkummer 14:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-re: removal of image so what would you suggest for future pictures? we remove the gibbon from it's natural playfull state and pose it on a rock to get a passport picture? The shot clearly shows a gibbon in it's natural element and demonstrates it's particular playful behaviour, but heck, if you have been declared the god of gibbon pictures, feel free to remove it, great way to encourage new wikipedians to add to the creative commons. Especially when you remove it without stating your reasons prior to removal. Your behaviour is indicative of trend I notice of certain individuals who, without entering into meaningful dialogue simply do what they feel "belongs on their wiki".. Hurkummer 12:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, but is there a reason you'd prefer species' common names to be capitalized? I've never seen that anywhere in the scientific literature that I recall, but then again it's not something that I obsessed over. - Estelahe 16:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be one of those people that harp on a subject, but I've one more point to make about capitalizing species' common names (I promise I'll stop after this!). I'm not certain that using the conventions of ornithologists is such a great idea, as only ornitohologists insist on capitalizing common names. Other taxonomists (botanists, entomologists, herpetologists, primatologists, you name it) don't do so, and even those who work on birds but aren't strict ornithologists (e.g. conservation geneticists, community ecologists) won't capitalize. There's some debate [pdf] even among strict ornithologists about this. As far as clarity goes, linking/bolding the whole common name should be clear enough. If every article in Wikipedia used the ornithology system, I wouldn't buck the trend, but I've found a bunch of articles that don't (For breadth, I viewed species that popped into my head: Rainbow trout, tree frog, dolphin, nematodes, octopus). If you don't agree or would rather not reformat everything, I'll bow to your seniority--though I'd prefer to know which reason! :) - Estelahe 04:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know there's much debate in the scientific community. There's been much here as well, with topics ranging from article naming consistency to species being viewed as singlular or plural items. I find many of the ornithological arguments very strongly compelling, including the distinction of adjectives about an individual and adjectives as part of the common name. ("Wow, that's a red silver leaf monkey!" "The rare common chimpanzee in Fooistan...") vs ("Wow, that's a red Silver Leaf Monkey!" "The rare Common Chimpanzee in Fooistan...") - UtherSRG (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wondered whether I should put that in. Unfortunately, the source I found only had a mention of Pan troglodytes. I was planning to replace that with something more scholarly when time permitted. Do you know whether Goodman or others have published anything about Pan paniscus being also reclassified? Did he mention P. paniscus in the paper, do you know? Grace Note 01:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if he did, although I suspect he did. However, most news sources won't report on there being two species of chimpanzees, especially on an issue like this. It's too much reader education that would need to be done. The other possibility is that he's one of the holdouts that don't accept that there are two species only one.... - UtherSRG 02:59, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Cheirogaleus should not be linked to Lesser Dwarf Lemur. The Cheirogaleus article should be about the genus, not one of the species in the genus. I've deleted the redirect. - UtherSRG 00:16, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

My original idea was to make a link from the genus if Wikipedia has a single article on a species in that genus. But you're right, it's wrong to do that unless the genus is monotypic. I will remove the other inappropriate redirects I made. Gdr 09:07, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that you have changed the scientific name of Nilgiri Langur and reclassified it in Old World monkey instead of Surili. I just wanted to know the reasoning since I read in an Indian book that their scientific name is Presbytis johni. If you can throw some light I'd be glad to know about it. --Idleguy 03:21, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

HI, yes I would like to have a copy of Groves' MSW contribution in a Word doc. my email id is idleguy@hotpop.com tx --Idleguy 17:43, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

On WP:PR, I've seen that you're working on primate articles and I consider the Aye-aye quite an extraordinary animal. There's no rush or anything, but it's quite stubby. Could you perhaps consider bringing this one up to par? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:43, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

It currently reads, "the 'higher primates' very common to most people: the monkeys and the apes, including humans."

You realize that that makes it sound like humans are included in the category of monkeys or apes. Replacing "including" with "and" shows we are among the higher primates, but we are not apes. It would also make sense to say "the 'higher primates' very common to most people, including humans, as well as monkeys and the apes." When you reverted me without an explanation, that makes me look like a vandal. I don't like that. CanadianCaesar 20:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed on talk:Simian. - UtherSRG 20:50, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Really sorry. Misunderstandings galore. CanadianCaesar 22:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was a missing section on what happened to Neanderthals. From what I had read about the way wikipedia worked, I was supposed to change the article. So, I added in what I had read in other places. I thought others would see what I had written, expand on it or rewrite it, add their own references, and make the article better. I hadn't expected that it would simply be reverted with no explanation. I've now added a section in talk:Neandertal saying that I think there's a missing section on what happened to Neanderthals. In general, is that what I should do, or should I attempt to make the change myself? The welcome documents for wikipedia seem to conflict with the practice. Derekt75 17:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. As of 2003, "not all anthropologists and biologists have completely accepted the revised terminlogy". But it is now 2005. ---Decius 13:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hominid as disambig still makes sense for two reasons however. First, to avoid confusion with Hominoid and second because hominid is still treated in everyday discourse (in Webster's for example[19]) as if it applies only to humans and related species. I have no problem if the disambig reads:

the correct meaning is...

you may hear it incorrectly as...

don't confuse it with...

Is this fair? Further, is the taxonomy settled for Orangs settled? as I'd thought not

Also, you're suggestion to "stop editing the primates" section is fair if I or Decius were vandalizing but is inappropriate otherwise. I will edit in good faith as I please. Marskell 13:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I was never suggesting that the great apes shouldn't be included in hominidae only that the term hominid is used in many often contrary ways. As my (now removed) comment at Decius stated, if chimps and humans are more closely related to each other than either is to other species than the old taxonomy really was senseless. It was, as far as I understand, the human-chimp relationship that really shook things up in the 80s. Where goes one, so goes the other. The main problem, of course, is how utterly over burdened the Latin hom- prefix is. At least linguistically, hominid seems a logical derivative of a super-family, a family, a sub-family and a genus. Further complicating it is the tendency for Discovery channel type info to pick morphological and behavioural characteristics as dividing points. "The hominid is the ape that can walk on two feet..." "It was tools that made us human..." etc.

Anyhow, I'll post the suggestion that hominid be left as a disambig on the talk page for the Primate group. Marskell 14:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now then, you've pointed out not being hasty with changes so why unilaterally make Pongidae a redirect to hominid without discussion? This seems to underscore all of the debated issues. Fine (apparently) it's settled--Hominidae is all there is to it with us and the great apes--but does that mean we systematically eliminate older taxonoms people might still look up? I think Pongidae should be a page--really. Point out why it has become obsolete, but leave it on its own. Marskell 22:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify this slightly--obviously I don't expect a stampede of people of people looking up Pongidae but Great Ape does redirect there and Great Ape requires clarification if only to point out that should be taken as including us. Maybe all of this can be solved by making Hominid the disambig. Marskell 07:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then make the page first, and then turn the bolding into a link. Don't do it in the reverse order... links that redirect back to the article they link from are not good. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:03, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

First, thanks for the quick edit on my user page.

Also, I made two notes on WP:PRIM, one regarding the final move to the hominid re-direct page and another about a-p-e-s and genocide. I don't want to privilege it by putting the two words together... It's stuck in my craw since I first noticed it and I was wondering what others thought. Marskell 22:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Groves has named a new genus for the Hoolock Gibbon, very surprisingly named Hoolock. Hoolock hoolock isn't really related to Bunopithecus sericus, he thinks. He has sent me a PDF, maybe you can try too. By the way, I'm just writing nl:Hoelok. Ucucha (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Minor edit above.) Sweet! Please send me the PDF and I'll update the en: and species: articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Ucucha (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that H. leuconedys is also considered a separates species now. Ucucha (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yup! I saw that, too. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've got my first run of edits done to Hoolock gibbon. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it. It was already a good article, though: most of nl:Hoeloks was translated :-). By the way, I've discovered that it will probably be possible to make "real" interwikis from Wikispecies (it's possible on Commons too, at least). I've proposed to ask the developers to do this in the Village Pump. Ucucha (talk) 14:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and thanks for the small edit. Real interwiki links on species: will be so nice.... - UtherSRG (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hi Uther

i saw on a website that Proconsul (genus) is the link between Old World monkey and apes, do you have this information? can you tell me if that is correct? have you heard about it?

Mateus Zica 00:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to Proconsul (genus) so you can see where it falls in the phylogeny of primates. It is alternatively treated as a precursor to the split between Old World monkeys and apes, or as just a more primitive ape. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uther, thanks for explaining. You're obviously more knowledgable than most when it comes to monkeys apes, so I bow to your judgement :) I did have a poke around, couldn't really find much that wasn't already in the main article, and figured a redirect was sufficient, but no harm, no foul. Keep up the good work! Proto t c 09:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To let you know in advance, I changed the capitalisation of this article from "Allen's Swamp Monkey" to "Allen's swamp monkey" and similarly updated all article links to the page. If I find the time, I plan to do the same for other monkeys' names as there is currently an inconsistent approach across articles (compare say Blue Monkey and Spider monkey).

Let me know if you disagree and I'll revert the changes (or you can do so yourself). I'll hold back on any more monkeying around until I hear from you either way. :-)

Thanks, Stelio 15:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. See WP:PRIM. Blue Monkey is a single species. Spider monkey is a genus. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. That makes it a lot clearer now, thank you, and adds another layer to the experience of reading the articles. Now I can tell whether a term refers to a single species, or a group or genus, just from the capitalisation. Useful. :-) And indeed section] clarified the policy in detail. Thank you again.

Stelio 09:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If one does a quick search of Google Scholar, one will find that in an overwhelming majority of academic journal articles mandrill is not capitalized, given that it is not a proper noun. Thus, why does the Wikipedian consensus deviate from these standards? -Merobi 05:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have responded to your comment on Merobi's page. I would apreciate your feedback. -Elindstr 20:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I've made a start on the Calabar Angwantibo, and I hope to get to the others soon. Thanks for asking! Perodicticus 23:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask you why you reverted my change to the Homo sapiens section in Human evolution. The sentence that you reverted to doesn't appear to make any sense:

..there was a migration of H. erectus out of Africa, then a further speciation of H. erectus from H. ergaster in Africa...

First, erectus migrates from Africa, and then the speciation event giving rise to erectus occurs. I thought the text had become scrambled somehow, and a phrase from the erectus section had inadvertently been place in the sapiens section. I therefore changed two words:

..there was a migration of H. erectus out of Africa, then a further speciation of H. sapiens from H. erectus in Africa...

So why did you revert? Anthon.Eff 16:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I messed up. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugg. I'll get around to drafting a proper oppose in a couple of hours. Unfortunately three people have already supported... Marskell 08:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just came to the ape page for the first time in a while and am noticing that people keep taking humans out of the article, saying we aren't apes. I will be keeping my eye on it, so just wanted you to know you aren't alone regarding that issue. The Ungovernable Force 07:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the last three support votes may be sockpuppets on the Ape vote. The three users have similar contribution dates, editing on the 12th and 20th of February before disappearing for a week and a half only to show up on Ape to vote support all at once. Marskell 10:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain to me why you removed my vote for being a "sock puppet"? A cursory view of my editing record should make it obvious that is not the case. I'm not sure what authority you have to remove the voice of any user based on your opinion, but if you do plan to do so in future, could you please at least research more carefully. I'd also like my vote reinstated. Thanks. Rockpocket 19:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your question to me Uth, I did have the thought "where to take this?" in looking at the page today. What to do if a page move goes 12-8 say, but you're pretty certain sockpuppetry was involved? I don't know precisely. The Admin noticeboard (WP:AN) seems the obvious spot but things can go unnoticed there. You're an admin and decided to strike through some votes--if need be we can go to WP:AN and if it gets brought up later, I can say it seemed right looking at the contrib's, because it does look like sockpuppets.

But of course we both voted. It's not that I mind getting voted down, but I'm really not sure about who is voting here. I can't not think that the specific fellow we debated with a couple of months ago is back trying for a back door of proposing "humans are not apes" info. Marskell 23:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reinstating, i see the basis of the misunderstand now. No harm done. I'll keep an eye on the resolution and lend my support where is can. Rockpocket 00:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that "big-hole" sounds spurious, but that really is what the words "cro" (hole) "magnon" (big) mean in Old French. It refers to the hole in the rock where their skeletons were found. Maybe you could find a more elegant way to present this info, but I believe it's relevant & should remain on the page.Funhistory 16:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your placement of the text made it look like Les Eyzies meant big hole. As such, it would have been appropriate to put on the Les Eyzies artile and not on Cro-Magnon. I've restored and editted. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hominoid taxonomy 7.png. I couldn't get the names to fit without either spoiling the parallelism with the other diagrams, or else making the names too small to read. Gdr 18:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you already know about the three new Lepilemur species? See nl:Gebruiker:Ucucha/Nieuw/2006 and http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/6/17 . It was published under CC-BY, so I've uploaded some beautiful photos. Ucucha (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC used the uncapitalized version. So does the Animal Diversity Project at the University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. Neutrality^talk 03:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HI Uther, It is me who always put a lot of things in the siamang page, actually it is part of my assigments for my study. I have to put something that i can extent from a wikipedia page. The due date of this task will be close soon. And i always failed to add some words in the siamang pages. Would you like to give me advice, i don't have a lot of time to writing another subject. Just FYI i have been wandering the sumatran rainforest since 1998 to study the siamang ecology, i just want to share something that i got from the field. I just realize that you who always edit and removed some words or pictures that i added to the siamang pages. Just give me input so i can accomplish my assigments or i'll be fail on conservation biology course....Many thanks Anton.

It is not my job to help you pass your course, nor is it Wikipedia's job to help you pass your course. Please utilize the various help and tuorial pages to familiarize yourself with what is acceptable as article content. Also, sign you talk edits with 4 tildes (~). - UtherSRG (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks mate...Just FYI, in the last meeting at Cambodia around three weeks ago the status of siamang is became ENDANGERED... Anton.nurcahyo 06:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you do not want to list the two species of the pan genius separately, but there is currently much discussion on either changing humans from the homo genus to the pan genus or moving bonobos out of the pan genus. If the former happens, do you remove humans? If the latter happens, do you start listing bonobos? Reading through the discussion on the Ape page, it seems like the bonobo question comes up periodically. Many people don't realize that the name "bonobo" refers to a kind of chimpanzee; if they don't see bonobo mentioned SOMEWHERE in the article then they'll go on thinking bonobos are some kind of monkey. It's sad when so many people don't realize that bonobos are even APES when they are not only apes but the apes most closely related to humans. Bonobos need more visibility, and the APE page COULD serve as a gateway for that. I know this sort of advocacy doesn't seem neutral, but it still seems like bonobos need some sort of shout out considering that the difference between "chimpanzee" and "common chimpanzee" is not well understood (I realize that many of these references should probably be capitalized, but I have not yet learned the rules behind that). --TedPavlic 20:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Learning those rules, and how to maintain NPOV is a very good idea. For starters, try proposing changes instead of making chnages. Especially do not try to make changes that have already been made in the past that the community has shot down. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still am not convinced this simply about neutrality. You mention that gorilla (could) represent five different species. However, there's no ambiguity between the name "gorilla" and any one of those particular species. In the case of "chimpanzee," it is very easy to confuse "chimpanzee" and "common chimpanzee." --TedPavlic 02:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you not accept my edits on Cheetah... I cited autorevol font... why...explain to me... Flavio/Tigre Reietta 12:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Reduct" is not a word. Neither is "autorevol", and "font" doesn't apply in this context, so I don't know what you are saying here. The six subspecies are what is published in Mammal Species of the World, 3rd edition, 2005, which is the latest word on the subject. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YES is a MV wolf pictured in Alaska!!!!! As you know alaskan wolf nowdays are mv wolf... could you reinsert the image please! Flavio/Tigre Reietta 12:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please STOP creating a new section every time you comment here. I've asked you before, but you ignored me then. Comply with this request.
2. My comment still stands - there is nothing in the picture that indicates that it is an MV Wolf. The image stays off the article.

- UtherSRG (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept... forgive me... Flavio/Tigre Reietta 12:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image that you are deleted on european otter was legaly and I like it... do you hate gallerys image? I'm an estethics boy Flavio/Tigre Reietta 12:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are not showcases for images. The images should be used to give a better understanding of the material in the article. Folks can go to commons if they want to see more images. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dear Stacey... whay about of my edits? I'm very happy that you do not rollback neither means that my edits are not vandalism....:-) I'm an esthetics boy and I love adorne wikipedia with images and curiosites... Reguards Flavio/Tigre Reietta 12:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly - I'm just too busy at work today to look close enough at all of your edits. If you are adding images that are out of context or are otherwise just adornment, I'll be removing them. Wikipedia is not about images and curiosities. And I question your aesthetics, given how some of your changes change the layout of the articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool dear Stacey... I do not comad you to revert all my edits... is you own decision...because you do not think that I contribute constructivily...;-) But I love wikipedia and I do not destroy or vandalize either... on it.wiki I commited more mistakes...but never vandalism.... In any way I mecy you to see me...I enjoy your work for saving me...You are the best sysop that I meet on it.wiki or en.wiki...but...if I should tell you...you are soo professional... Flavio/Tigre Reietta 13:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of the article. This was my first article related to a species. And I was finding some difficulties in structuring the article and had to copy some stuffs from a related species article. I have plans for creating a few more species related articles. Hope I'll get your advice when in need. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ave, Must The linkes "wikispecies" and "commons" be put were? Under "References"? And if they deforms the text? and the galleries that you hate, were do I possibly put? Under "References"? And what can I put in Galleries that you will appreciate or in any way will not rollback? My reguards Flavio/Tigre Reietta 15:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those links should go in the last section, preferrably the "External links" section if it exists, but put it above the actual links because those templates put their box to the right, while the text is aligned to the left. Galleries should not be used at all unless they are depicting something unique that the taxobox image is not depicting. If you are adding a picture just because you like the picture, then don't do it. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there i was just wondering why the illustration i made for my University Research project had been removed? I don't understand the problem with using one of my own images? I understand some people dislike illustrations, however until something else replaces it why has it been removed? Reguards:-Jwebster_102 (talk) 00.08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If it is your own creation, then it is original research and that's a big no-no. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So due to the fact that i havn't had my work published, irrespective of how comprehensive it may be it isn't allowed on wikipedia? May I ask how anything gets on wikipedia? In my understanding there are very few people who have worked on this incredible species, Cullinane being one of a handful. In order to improve public knowledge i feel my contributions could be very benificial. Could we not work together on this to find a way of increasing the amount of information available for the general public?:-Jwebster_102 (talk) 11.48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi UtherSRG. I believe you were concerned about my edits to bamboo lemur calling the lac alaotra bamboo lemur a subspecies. First thanks for not reverting it right away, even though I haven't addressed your concern for a while. I thought that was very polite and considerate of you. So thanks! Anyway, this page out of suny stonybrook calls them a subspecies. http://info.bio.sunysb.edu/rano.biodiv/Mammals/Hapalemur-griseus/index.html and so does this http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=101410 A quote from the second one so you don't have to dig through it...

• On the basis of our analyses, H. g. alaotrensis is indistinguishable from H. g. griseus. The very short genetic distances found between H. g. griseus and H. g. alaotrensis (0.00281 to 0.00847) suggests a combination of these two groups into a single subspecies.

If you are still concerned, put a note on User:Sifaka's talk page. This silly comp won't let me log in for some reason. Thanks again! 71.226.56.79 23:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those are years out of date. Mammal Species of the World 3rd ed. (2005) and Conservation International's Lemurs of Madagascar (2006) says full species, as does personal communications with Colin Groves and Russell Mittermeier, the two foremost experts in priamtes. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding and changing the edits. Since I had some other edits not related the subspecies conflict I am going to re-add those. I would be curious to see the in date results of the genetic analysis. That way in case a lac alaotra bamboo lemur page is set up, I can reference it since there was a debate about whether it was a full species or not. Thanks again! Sifaka ^talk 01:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good day! I have just one small question for you in regard to your edits to puma. Wouldn't it be best if we could redirect the page to cougar? They are the same species, are they? Well, I'm pretty sure unless you know more than me. Please take my thoughts in to consideration and respond to me here. Thank you very much and have a great day! Radical3 03:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we could make a page called Puma (genus) and transfer all the information from puma and put it there. And with puma, we could redirect it to cougar. So, what do you say? Should we do that? Radical3 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a suggestion. The reason I wanted that is because some non-users might come, search for puma, and get something they didn't really want or need.

Thanks anyways! Radical3 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC

The fun has only begun on cougar (or Cougar ;). Note on the talk page I've left a to-do list; I'm going to model it on jaguar and try to get it to FA as well. It's tough going in some respects. The info that was there before I started I'm sure is good info, but because there are no in-line citations I basically have to rebuild the entire article. I was actually going to post to you about it. Specifically, could you double-check the sub-species versus MSW3? I'll likely have other requests as I keep working.

Bobcat? Maybe Canadian lynx. It's third largest in the Americas, yes? Marskell 13:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the MSW3 ref, but it needs page numbers. It's right at the top of the page beside Cougar in the infobox. Marskell 08:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he was removed from there before but persistent editors who don't know the full policy about future fictional events keep adding it back.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed you blocked 72.87.203.76 for vandalizing Talk:Cat, but was blocking it indefinitely a good idea? It doesn't look like a proxy, and blocking dynamic IPs for long periods of time is frowned upon, right?-K@ngie^meep! 00:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You reverted another user's edits without written explanation. I asked him/her why he/she removed content, and that user said that when the cause is unknown, that is what they usually say. Full details on my talkpage. If you dissagree and say that even the statement that those sources say that when they're not sure, maybe you could explain to that user your edits. Should we start a consensual debate? Thanks. – AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?)} 00:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It has been noticed that you have merged 9.6 year cycle of lynx abundance with Canadian Lynx. You probably weren't aware that the article survived a deletion vote: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9.6 year cycle of lynx abundance and a discussion on merge Talk:9.6 year cycle of lynx abundance in which the views expressed where not to merge. You haven't left any comments on the talk page so it is difficult to see what you were thinking. Would you have any objection if I restored the article? Regards SilkTork 17:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think "the present" is better. Thanks. --Tony Sidaway 23:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness gracious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maxman280 (talk • contribs).

Hrm? - UtherSRG (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a proposal, based of his own list on his talk page, that should lay down the guidelines and requirements for his continuing contributions to wiki. Have a look, make adjustments/suggestions, and let me know what you think. Nashville Monkey 15:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added the comment about koalas being violent. They are well known to maul people when disturbed or woken (its that bad that they shouldn't even be given to tourists to hold). Maulings happen. Leave it, it's important. Mattabat 09:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article may have more information based on a extended abstract I briefly saw, however I'll need to track down the full PDF to confirm (the small abstract mentioned doesn't provide full details): http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=WR9800035.pdf I'll find more references in the meanwhile. Depend upon it, those claws are not just for show. Mattabat 10:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a reference in the NSW Parliament pointing out handing is only safe for baby koalas and even then repeated handling can lead to aggression (violence): http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/HansArt.nsf/66662d17d79b79d7ca256cfd000e0c22/ca256d11000bd3aa4a25644a00824515!OpenDocument

Now to find a link that refers to awakening them being dangerous.. Mattabat 10:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make the appropriate citation in the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful if you could explain you deleted the article "Rick Mullen". It was deleted a while ago, in Nov 2006, so I hope you still remember. N-edits 14:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable bio, uncontested {{prod}} - UtherSRG (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain the undone of my edition? Your comment is not specific enough to understand your idea. You even deleted the category I introduced. Kilroytech 14:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the category. Your edit was just a string of data. Please use complete sentences. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a field guide. While it is appropriate for a field guide to just list the facts, this is not the case for an encyclopedia. Also, use an inline reference and a proper reference citation template instead of just sticking unformatted reference in the reference section. I believe {{cite book}} is the one you need to use.- UtherSRG (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments appreciated, wasn't aware of such template, I'll use it in future additions. As a matter of fact, the text was from a field guide. Thanks.

I saw your message today regarding the taxoboxes and the unilateral decision to remove the suborder information I added.

In general, I agree the 'convention' to use significant ranks makes sense (else, the taxoboxes would get too large). However, the ‘convention’ does not aim to exclude suborders, when the inclusion of same is salient to the general understanding of animal relationships (e.g. Blue Whale, Fin Whale, etc).

I believe the understanding that (for example) Hyenas are more like cats than dogs is significant to any layperson reading an encyclopaedia with the aim of gaining knowledge.

I undertook to make the additions to the taxoboxes with balanced consideration to the ‘conventions’ and the purpose of the encyclopaedia. Further, such work was not a minor undertaking and your reversals without dialog are inconsistent with the Wikipedia ‘convention’ of “Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them”.

I will respect your position, and give it consideration prior to re-instating the suborder into the Feliformia related articles. I look forward to your response that we might reach a consensus. Oz Spinner 09:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

So you want to make a change, against convention, and then get upset that someone reversed those changes and informed you of that. I do respect you, that's why I let you know what I did and why. Do not unilaterally restore your edits against convention. Perhaps one or two of those edits can be restore, as you indicate, on hyena articles, but for the most part, (the Felidae articles) it was totally uncalled for. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed your comments above and must admit am not sure what your point is (perhaps I am just slow on the uptake).

I appreciate that you have considered my previous comments regarding the significance of feliformia and the value this represents in the understanding of the relationship of hyenas and cats. This equally applies to mongooses, civets, et al. and the extinct taxa now understood to be part of feliformia. My problem with only including this knowledge in articles on fauna less like ‘true cats’ is that someone reading Wikipedia to understand cats and their lineage is unlikely to jump to Hyena’s (for example) to find out if they are related.

I have reviewed the ‘convention’ of taxoboxes and note that throughout Wikipedia suborders, subfamilies (and in some cases subspecies) are included in taxoboxes. This would appear to be in contravention of your statement, in my (talk), that “The standard is to put only major ranks in the taxobox”. As mentioned in my previous comments, believe including suborders makes sense when salient to the general understanding of animal relationships (as is the case with Feliforms versus Caniforms within Carnivora).

For reference, I am not upset. I took the time to understand the Wikipedia policies and practices, prior to deciding to contribute. The “assume good faith” and “don’t be upset of others edit your work” principles apply to how I viewed your reversions. Nonetheless, in considering the unilateral approach you took in these reversions, I am mindful of these same principles.

The good faith I have acted in is based on the relatively recent understanding of the relationship of feliforms and the value this knowledge represents to many interested in understanding cats. Prior to my article on feliformia, this knowledge was not presented in any depth (though the suborder was embedded as a [unterminated] link in many articles dealing with the subject).

After further consideration of the above, I have reinstated the suborder to the relevant taxoboxes. Please do not revert these changes without further discussion. While we may (or may not) have a “dispute” on our hands, I draw your attention to the Wikipedia policy: “Do not simply revert changes in a dispute”.

Lastly, could you please place any responses in my (talk) page (that I may be alerted of these).Oz Spinner 04:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to give you a heads up that you are one revert away from a 3RR violation on Gray Wolf. I'm sure you probably noticed, considering your wealth of experience here, but I wanted to make sure. --Wildnox(talk) 22:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my wrong, as was the case in citing a reference the other day. Thanks for the explanation -- I'll try to keep those rules in mind and stick to convention. Maybe it is a good idea to clarify this in a generalized footnote in taxoboxes, since the difference in nomenclature is likely to fool other non-professional Wikipedians? Or am I alone in this? Iblardi Pongo_pygmaeus" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">22:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the standard taxobox gives little room for understanding relationships between orders. Can't we at least give the superorder (Laurasiatheria etc.) a place in the taxobox? This will help to make relationships between orders clear, which can be especially usefull with extinct orders. DaMatriX 15:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's clear now :) DaMatriX 12:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Echidna article, I think the syntax of the second half of the second sentence sounds better as "...all in the family Tachyglossidae," rather than the current wording in which "family" follows "Tachyglossidae." Thus my edit last night. Tomwithanh 21:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both are correct and proper, hence my revert. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize that both are correct. However, the sentence seems to work better the other way. I think we should always be on the lookout for ways to improve the flow of the sentence. Tomwithanh 02:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You blind reverted one of my edits on Cat, claiming that I shouldn't change British versus American English. Two things though:

First, the spelling (American versus British) should always be consistent and go with the form that was first put into the article. That means American spelling. The couple of British spellings I changed were put in at a later time by someone who probably didn;t know any better.

Second, your edit also returned some improper capitalizations of subject headings. You should pay more attention to what you are doing instead of just reverting. If you had a problem with the spelling, fix the spelling (but of course we have to be consistent so you shouldn't have), don;t just undo a whole list of changes including unrelated ones. DreamGuy 23:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

You've nominated Matrixism for deletion, but haven't given a reason, and I can't see anything wrong with the article - it might be a hoax, but it's a notable hoax, and the article's sourced and referenced adequately. If there's a valid reason for the nomination that I've missed, can you add it to the AfD, otherwise it will be resulted as a speedy keep — iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is at DRV now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello UtherSRG, i'm user that posted the "Profile of Asian Wild Cat" in wildcat topic, to my understanding, wildcat is a general name like cat, tiger, elephant. They have their species and should be described under the same title. Please referred to title cat, tiger and elephant in wiki to see how people managed the title and its species under the same title, it is fine to delete if the species are non relevant but all the species of wildcat under the "Profile of Asian Wild Cat" are valid and true, please check before further remove its species under the title. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.48.102.111 (talk • contribs).

Incorrect. Wildcat is one species of cat. See Felidae for the complete listing of cat species, only one of which is not wild. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created the rice field rat article -good to see it devleoping!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 14:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Why do u have a problem with this?Lizzie Harrison 18:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you have a problem following WP:CRYSTAL and insisting on not waiting until the episode airs? - UtherSRG (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have embedded my references in the text for the Indri article. Thanks for your help! I hope to contribute more to the lemur articles!

Ah, sorry about the lack of formatting on the previous comment. This is better. I am new to Wikipedia, obviously.--Leighmur 17:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's about time you moved that article! ; ) I would have given up long before you did, sorry, I meant to suggest it a couple months ago but figured you had it under control. : ) Happy editing. IvoShandor 20:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, You reverted my edit to Sminthopsinae in which I inserted a link to Wikispecies's page on Sminthopsinae. I was under the impression that all Wikipedia pages on animals were supposed to cross-link to the Wikispecies sister page. Please let me know whether my impression is correct. Thanks. --M@rēino 16:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to go back and put the tag in the appropriate location in the article. Please see that you do not just blindly place the tag, but put it in an appropriate place. Above the taxobox is absolutely wrong. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Dalmation 05:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, thanks for helping me get things into the proper format. But why did you remove my Malagasy English Dictionary citation? Is that an unreliable source for any reason? --Leighmur 16:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because when I went there and entered "babakoto" it said it didn't yet have that entry. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the problem. "Koto" is the word I looked up with that dictionary; you will find that it means "little boy." I actually got the "baba" definition from the Bradt travel guide, so that did need a different citation. I changed the wording/citations so it should be more clear now. --Leighmur 00:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I have been trying so hard to do the right thing on this site but no one really explains things very well. I have asked before doing certain things, then requested a review to make sure that I was not violating. Now my whole name has been banned because I apparently "advertised" something - what, I don't know. It would have been nice it to have been contacted first or have my page "tagged" like others which have been tagged for MONTHS for things like no citations or references, or needing clean-up (i.e., Kenny Loggins). ALL of my contributions were pulled down within a day of my alleged infraction. Yet, when I tried to contact the list of "administrators" for assistance, NO ONE IS EVEN HERE ANYMORE!

Thanks to the patient assistance of the one Administrator/Editor that I could find (and who responded to me in a timely manner), I finally got the part about not writing about anything that you are too close to, even with references. There have been other violations that I have inadvertently made, AFTER asking and receiving vague instructions and/or information. But I got "tagged" for it, then I straightened it out and asked that the revision be checked. But, not only was my bio removed and my name prohibited from ever being spoken again in the portals of Wikipedia, but my late husband's and his band's pages were removed. Why? He and the band are as well-known as many of the other bands that you have here and their bios are more accurate. Having worked for several of the artists you have here (no, not as a back-up dancer), I can't believe some of the articles - they are blatantly inaccurate. (I won't reveal that info here, so as not to humiliate another contributor like I was).

My little-bitty bio (re-edited a kazillion times, one spoonful at a time) had references to my songs and production assisting, with the references from a major music database - the one used by NARAS (the Grammy Awards) to verify membership requirements. My husband bio and his group's awards and impressive discography can also be found at that site, among many other places.

With much effort, I finally found that one Wikipedia editor to explain to me, in lay terms, what I did wrong, if anything, and the guidelines, policies, and procedures. After over a year, I FINALLY GOT IT! I knew that I was really that stupid, being very accomplished, talented, educated and intelligent in many, many other areas. And I have struggled to follow the very vague and confusing directions here so that I wouldn't end up like this. This is embarrassing! I thought that, with my knowledge in my chosen field, I could be of some value to this site. I am a great writer - as good, if not better, than some of the contributors whose articles are accepted. To say nothing of the ones whose articles have been tagged for months! It seems that if I had just left my articles alone (they'd been up for months), rather than try to update them, I would have been better off. Now all of my efforts are completely gone from the face of the earth! That was a lot of work and effort - all wasted.

OK, that said, I respectfully request an explanation for having my own name BANNED and the other articles summarily REMOVED! At some point, when I and others who would like to be of assistence here figure out how to fit in, some one might want to put MY bio up (I got the thing about not writing about oneself, even though who else knows you better). And please don't humiliate me more by "spanking" me publicly. I can be reached directly at badlady717@comcast.net. That's what the one Administrator that I was able to find did, at my humble request, and his help was invaluable. To show you how difficult this is, it took me 30 minutes to find the little "~" thingy in order to "sign" my name! I've had some manner of computer for 25+ years and I never used that symbol!  :-)

Thank you for your time and cooperation in this matter.

Bad Lady 06:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like I have had any interaction with you. It all seems clear to me: Don't edit a topic that you can not write from a neutral perspective on. You are not banned for life; in fact you have never been blocked from editting Wikipedia. I don't believe you have ever editted the Kenny Loggins article. What seems to be the problem? - UtherSRG (talk) 06:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am almost there with this article. All of the sections needed have been created and only some tweaks are in order before an FAC nom. One thing: I can find virtually nothing on the cat outside of North America. No population figures for South America etc. What level of detail does the MSW3 go into in? Could you see if there's anything worth adding there? Marskell 13:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have decide not to dilly-dally: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cougar. Any ideas for improvement most welcome. Marskell 13:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uther. I'm a sysop of it.wiki and user of other projects in italian languages. Brandani makes several problems in these wikies: i. e., he uploads images with wrong license or copyright violation. He started since october 2006 in it.wikipedia and now he continues with his wrong and constant contribute on Italian Wikibooks. The contents in this project are unverified, because there isn't any source! We had some work on 'books for verifying images and contents; but I hope that in en.wiki isn't the same problem. Thank you, and excuse me for my English. Bye! :-) --Leoman3000 21:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. Another problem: in "our" projects, too, he writes sentences like "Mi dispiace, un bacio, vi voglio bene, sono innocente!!!" (I'm sorry, kisses, I love you, I'm innocent!!!). IMHO, a strange character... --Leoman3000 21:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Leo. I'm trying to keep an eye on him. If he gets out of hand, I'll shut him down again. And no need to apologize for your English. Now his on the otherhand... ;) - UtherSRG (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dear Stecey I'm here now after a block on wikibook were I tried to refuge myself! In your opinion Could I have a possibility here? If I insert wikilinks I could do something utility? yours Flavio/Tigre Azzurra 12:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I really don't think you have a future here. But I will give you every chance to succeed or fail. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if I put wikispecies link as I have done into Sus cebifrons is it legaly? Help me to understand wikilinks... please I'm hopeless sincerly yours Flavio/Wiki pest 14:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Don't link to "Sus" from "Sus cebifrons". If the article doesn't exist on Wikispecies, don't put a Wikispecies link. How much clearer can this be? - UtherSRG (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could I possibly find a menthor before that you block me?

Attend please.

p.s

I 'm not an evil user. But I have an evil destiny.

Please wait (=attend?) yours Flavio/Wiki pest 15:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have write my request of menthoring to user:Jollyroger who know english in 3 livel and italian. Do you know something that know both english and Italian? Please Flavio/Wiki pest 16:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also send my safe request to User:Gligan. Yours Flavio/Wiki pest 17:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Stacey Robert unfortunately I have failed because Gilgan and Jollyroger have been refused to menthoring me. Alas. Now I try to research another wikipedian. Please attend Yours Flavio/Wiki pest 12:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested in mentoring this errant Wikipedian? - UtherSRG (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would I have to do, should I accept the offer? --Fibonacci 21:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's not entirely sane as far as I can tell, but his primary language is Italian. He needs someone who can monitor his edits, guide them through process, etc. I've blocked him a few times, and the next time I do it will be for 6 months. I'd rather he get assistance to be a better Wikipedian than get to that. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello UtherSRG. I was wondering if you could tell me what else needs to be done about an article our friend Bean64 created, namely Jasbond. I managed to find out that the article has already been deleted and recreated 14 times(!) (through accidentally bringing up the last AfD), but since there ie currently an AfD for this name, the one I created sort of didn't come out the way I wanted. I would really appreciate your help (as I learned you're an admin) in getting this article properly AfD-nominated (although I believe it might well qualify for speedy-delete at this point). Any and all help are much appreciated in advance. :)--Ramdrake 14:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted and salted it. I'm watching this user's actions now, and will block them shortly. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]