User talk:Mutt

Welcome
I see you've been around for a long time but noone saw you yet. So I am welcoming you here :-) --Ton e  15:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Fu Hao
Sorry about that revert, I saw the missing text on my watchlist and assumed the worst. That said, I don't think there's enough detail to warrant to separate articles on Fu Hao (One for her and one for her tomb). However, if you do insist on having two separate articles, I would recommend a paragraph summary about the tomb on the Fu Hao article with a "for the full article see Tomb of Fu Hao" lede at the beginning. Very interesting additions, by the way, how scholarly are they? Elijahmeeks 21:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * After sleeping on it, I think you're right, because the tomb of Fu Hao is such an important archaeological find. I've got a stack of Sandai period scholarly texts that I'll dig through and see what more information I can find.  Elijahmeeks 19:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking for high resolution Zhoukoudian photograph
Dear Mutt,

We are preparing an exhibit on Zhoukoudian here at the university and love your photograph of Upper Cave with the mountains in the background. Although your photo is quite large, for a 1.8m x 1.5m enlargement we would need an even larger image. Would you be able to send us the photograph in the highest resolution possible please? You can find me on www.ucl.ac.uk/anthropology staff list.

Thanks, Isabelle Microcebus (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Scientific support for Multi-Regional Theory of Human Evolution & the independent evolution of the Chinese from Homo Erectus
Dear Mutt,

Thank you for your good faith edits!

It is tempting to simply dismiss the new peer reviewed scientific evidence that contradicts the previously accepted "out of Africa" theory of human evolution where, supposedly, all humans were descended from the same group of Homo Sapien ancestors and which subsequently gives "strong support" in favor of an independent East Asian origin of a separate archaic branch or separate species of humans, the modern day Chinese people. But unfortunately, the reality of human evolution during the past 4 billions of life on our planet Earth is not as clear cut as the "out of Africa" theory attempts to address it. The "out of Africa" theory tries to say that "ALL" humans are descended from the same group of anatomically modern "Cro Magnon" or Homo Sapien Sapiens and while some of the older previous studies did initially seem to support that theory, those studies were not all inclusive and did not test many aspects of human genetics and evolution. But within the last few years, new genetic evidence has been discovered as a result of numerous scientific studies that have been conducted which lend a strong support for the theory that the modern Chinese people, or conservatively, a subpopulation of the Chinese gene pool are descended NOT from anatomically modern African Homo Sapiens like other humans on Earth, but rather that they are the product of a separate evolutionary lineage going back at least 1.8 million - 2 million years ago to Homo Erectus in East Asia. And that the modern Chinese people today are not necessarily classified as "Homo Sapien," but more accurately they could be classified as a highly evolved anatomically modern form of Homo Erectus. You must remember that regardless of whether we are talking about Homo Neanderthalensis or Homo Erectus that we are talking about human beings. And even though they are a classified as a separate species of human beings, nothing can take away their "humanity," for if one of them were dressed up in a modern day suit, they would still be recognized as "humans."

I am a scientist and I would like to introduce to you the peer reviewed scientific evidence supporting a separate independent evolution of the modern Chinese people from an archaic species of Homo Erectus.

Please watch these links:

1.) Scientific evidence from the Chinese Academy of Sciences 2.) All Non Africans Living Today Are Part Neanderthal 3.) New evidence that Neanderthals interbred with Humans

Adding further support to the Multi-regional theory of human evolution are the recent DNA discoveries that anatomically modern African Homo Sapiens interbred with Homo Neanderthalensis or the Neanderthal man, in direct contradiction to the thesis of the "out of Africa" theory which specifically states that Homo Sapien did not interbred with Homo Neanderthalensis and that the Neanderthal simply "went extinct." Which has now been shown in peer reviewed scientific studies to be untrue, and that the Homo Sapien and Homo Neanderthalensis did indeed interbreed with each other. These studies are additionally supported by previous archaeological finds that show skeletons of humans who show hybrid morphological and anatomical traits of both species of humans, both Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis.

Please read the following evidence:

1.) NewScientist Neanderthal genome reveals interbreeding with humans 2.) Archaic admixture in the human genome, Neanderthal genes in modern humans 3.) Signs of Neanderthals Mating With Humans 4.) Discovery News "Neanderthals, Humans Interbred, DNA Proves" 5.) USA Today Neanderthals and humans interbred, fossils indicate 6.) BBC "Neanderthals 'mated with modern humans'" 7.) Official report Neanderthal/Homo Sapien interbred 8.) Cosmos Humans and Neanderthals interbred, according to our anatomy 9.) Neanderthals live on in DNA of humans

Below I have provided the results of scientific DNA studies that provide strong irrefutable support for an independent origin of the Chinese from Homo Erectus. These scientific studies have both been published in peer reviewed scientific journals and are well received by the scientific community. Please take some time to read them and feel free to ask me any questions regarding human evolution.

1.)Genetics Society of America's Genetics Journal, "Testing for Archaic Hominin Admixture on the X Chromosome: Model Likelihoods for the Modern Human RRM2P4 Region From Summaries of Genealogical Topology Under the Structured Coalescent" by Murray P. Cox, Fernando L. Mendez, Tatiana M. Karafet, Maya Metni Pilkington, Sarah B. Kingan, Giovanni Destro-Bisol, Beverly I. Strassmann and Michael F. Hammer.

2.)Oxford University's Oxford Journals, Evidence for Archaic Asian Ancestry on the Human X Chromosome by Daniel Garrigan, Zahra Mobasher, Tesa Severson, Jason A. Wilder and Michael F. Hammer

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.251.209 (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Films
Hi Mutt! Thank you for creating all of these Turkish film articles. It is definitely an area of expertise I don't have. Would it be possible to add the date or even the month of the first airing of the film into the infobox with Film date? If you just put the year, than the film will be put in the category of upcoming films, which could be misleading. Thanks! BOVINEBOY 2008 10:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I second Bovineboy's thanks on creating so many Turkish related film articles. I love the work on the film festivals. I've linked all the blue-linked films on this article back to the film festival, and cited what awards they've won. If you have any questions, please ask at the film project talkpage. Thanks again and have a great 2011.  Lugnuts  (talk) 11:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Old movie screenshots
Hi, thanks for your work on those old movies. Just FYI, check out the way I re-tagged your image. You might want to do the same for some of the others you have uploaded. As they are apparently old enough to be in the public domain, we don't need to bother about declaring them non-free. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear Secrets
Hi there 'Mutt'.

Re this page which you created back in 2008, I was wondering if the sources for this actually referred to "Islamic Bomb" in reference to Pakistan's atomic weapons program? It still said that until about December 2010, when someone edited it for "improved wording" (but poorer grammar). This is the term IMDb uses, but there aren't really any other good sources on the page. Plus the possibility that was taken from Wikipedia. Any comment on this? 220  of  Borg 14:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Publication history
Thank you for your work on expanding the publication history sections of comics character articles! Keep up the good work. BOZ (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Walter R. Booth animation
I can agree that taking a look at the actual videos of The hand of the artist can be considered "original research", but I find it hard to ignore such clear evidence in favor of some written lines that apparently only assumed something was animation. Unfortunately many writers on the subject of animation and/or Booth seem to have copied previous assumptions without actually having seen the material or even proper sources that subscribe the claim. Luckily I also found Donald Crafton's conclusion (https://books.google.nl/books?id=rJUkCgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA25&ots=Df-LjmHGfo&dq=%22the%20hand%20of%20the%20artist%22%20booth%20animation&pg=PA25#v=onepage&q&f=false) and I used that on the film's page. Crafton at least looked at a a good source: the 1906 catalog description. The line "hand-drawing techniques that led to the first British animated film" in the Walter R. Booth page is obviously wrong and is probably a false interpretation of the referenced sources: they don't really claim that The hand of the artist was a result of hand-drawing techniques. That for me seemed enough reason to delete the line. The film's page already described "photographic images" being brought to life before I edited anything. I think ''The ? Motorist (1906) by Booth may include some early stop motion (I'm not sure yet) and according to IMdB this was released before The hand of the artist'' (1907). The 1910 or 1911 remake "The automatic motorist" is more convincing and he zeppelins in "The Airship Destroyer" (1909) look like a nice example of some type of mechanical animation (painted on sliding glass plates?). I hope to find some more films with animation by Booth. Please let me know if you agree the information on the Walter R. Booth page should be altered and if you know any good sources that subscribe Booth's status as animation pioneer (preferably based on any decent analysis of films or authentic descriptions).Joortje1 (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Joortje1 Let's continue the discussion on the talk page of The hand of the artist, so there's a clear thread that others might be able to contribute to.

Selcuk Altun
Hi Mutt, I hope you are doing well! It's a great pleasure to see that you've created an article about Selçuk Altun. It's really extensive, and it seems like you've read all of his novels ;). Altun has just published a new book called Ayrılık Çeşmesi Sokağı. I believe they will soon be publishing an English version of it. You should definitely read it. It's a masterpiece... I just wanted to say hi and thank you for all of your contributions (it's a shame that we do not have Altun's article in Turkish...). I wish we had users like you in Turkish Wikipedia... Regards, Dakmor--Dakmor Tojira (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Caves at Ye Olde Salutation Inn
Hi there – back in 2008 (!) you added some content to Ye Olde Salutation Inn: "An investigation by the Thoroton Excavation Society in 1937 dated the caves to the 9th century..." There doesn't appear to have been any previous mention of these caves anywhere in the article, so the addition needs expansion to make sense. Do you still have access to the original reference material? I've added a tag at the appropriate point in the article. Be good if you could add a citation at the same time. Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've no idea what the sources I used for that were, but I've tidied it up and added what sources I could find. I've taken the liberty of removing your tag, but please put it back and let me know if you think more work is needed. Thanks, Mutt (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Good job. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The "Blue Barbarians"
Hello, in April 14 2008 you added extensive information regarding He Dan Jia, and amongst the information offered was "In the fourth year of his reign he launched another attack against the Blue Barbarians." I have been trying to find information regarding Blue Barbarians, but to no avail. Are the Blue Barbarians a faction of the Four Barbarians? Was this simply a mistake on your part? You have also written that Xian occupied Banfang, only to be defeated by the King's ministers, but I have never found a mention of Xian rebels conquering Fanbang, instead finding accounts about Lanyi, Fanbang and Shēn Guó rebelling by themselves, without any sign of Xian occupation. Here are the sources I've found pertaining this:   Sir Rapator (talk) 08:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed
Hello Mutt! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! &mdash; MusikBot II  talk  17:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC

Proposed deletion of Los Bandoleros (film)


The article Los Bandoleros (film) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Appears to fail WP:NFILM"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Donald D23  talk to me  15:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Hi my name is Hellboy ad.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hi my name is Hellboy ad.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Oz TPB Cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Oz TPB Cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mitford family.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Mitford family.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)