User talk:UtherSRG/Arch11

Archives

 * Archive1: User talk:UtherSRG/Arch1
 * Archive2: User talk:UtherSRG/Arch2
 * Archive3: User talk:UtherSRG/Arch3
 * Archive4: User talk:UtherSRG/Arch4
 * Archive5: User talk:UtherSRG/Arch5
 * Archive6: User talk:UtherSRG/Arch6
 * Archive7: User talk:UtherSRG/Arch7
 * Archive8: User talk:UtherSRG/Arch8
 * Archive9: User talk:UtherSRG/Arch9
 * Archive10: User talk:UtherSRG/Arch10
 * Archive11: User talk:UtherSRG/Arch11

Thanx for welcoming me
Hey, thank you for welcoming me to wikipedia and backing up what i wrote on the article about chimpanzees. Irresponsible 14:17, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Woo, thanks, didn't know you did Wikipedia! I made one tiny change a while back, but this is still very new to me, but something I'm very fond of (I have become convinced that Wikipedia is the greatest treasure trove of information this world has). Somnior 02:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the welcome OmegaWikipedia 06:36, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for welcoming and four tildes advice =) -- Akaabc 07:16, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. Bambaiah 12:06, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome and the advice! Mithrandir1986 16:41, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

That habit of seeing things needing fixing is not yours alone; typos speak to me. It is a huge relief that Wikipedia lets me fix them. :) KSmrq 16:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! Hohokus 17:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Belated thanks for my welcome! It must have worked: see how long I've stayed here! Brequinda 14:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome too, you seem like a great guy to know around here Gregbains 18:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome! :) Nice to know there are great people like you around. Foolish question removed, sorry, didn't read through your entire message. :p Valhallia 8 July 2005 15:22 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome... Not much more to say than that i guess :p, but thanks. Wait, just thought of something. How do you know when someone just starts edit. - TonyJoe

Thanks for the welcome. I am mostly just a random reader of articles. But I might fix a spelling error or ask a question in talk. And my only connection to bird watching is being acquainted with Chan Robbins. PerlKnitter 12:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I also appreciate your kind welcome. Is that your official Wikipedia job, or what? Adso de Fimnu 00:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Stacey, I appreciate the welcome note, will read. Happy editing!! Sfawbush 07:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, and yet another thanks for the welcome. I'm getting off to a slow start as a Wikipedian, as you can tell by the timestamp below, and the fact that you left your note on my user talk page back in June! We share an interest in Bookcrossing. Be well! BWatkins 21:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome! My job with Wikispecies to be continued later... --Gyllenhali 12:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. Melianis 10:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC) (nowadays with a signature)

Primate Classification
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)

Tarsiers
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 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)

Tarsius spectrum
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)

Lemur
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)

Numbers of primate species
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)

Gibbons
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)
 * 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)

Nomenclature
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)

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)


 * 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)

Species of chimpanzees
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
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)

Doubt on Nilgiri Langur classification
Hi, I saw that you have changed the scientific name of Nilgiri Langur and reclassified it in Old World monkey instead of Surli. 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)

Aye-aye
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)

Why revert my change on Simian?
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)
 * Addressed on talk:Simian. - UtherSRG 20:50, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Really sorry. Misunderstandings galore.  CanadianCaesar 22:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Classification
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)


 * 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) 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)


 * 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)

Pongidae
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)


 * 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)

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)

Ah hominids...
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)

Hoolock
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 Hoelok. Ucucha (talk)  13:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * (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)
 * OK. Ucucha (talk)  13:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I just saw that H. leuconedys is also considered a separates species now. Ucucha (talk)  13:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yup! I saw that, too. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

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


 * I saw it. It was already a good article, though: most of 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)
 * Thanks, and thanks for the small edit. Real interwiki links on species: will be so nice.... - UtherSRG (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Proconsul (genus)
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)


 * 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)

Sumatran Orangutan
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)

Birds
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)

List of New York Subway stations
Thanks for the additions to the list, and sorry if you got an edit conflict. --SPUI 05:23, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2 Seventh Avenue Express
Hi, sorry to tell you this after you went to so much extra work, but SPUI, I and a few others have been disambiguating between "Lines" (Sea Beach Line, Seventh Avenue Line) and "Services" (A, B, C, etc.) This way we have only one line name for a particular station. We have taken the line names from current official sources, and they are at User:SPUI/New York City Subway lines. The whole ball of wax is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Subway. Please join us there! The explanation of lines, services, etc. is at New York City Subway line, route and station nomenclature. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:44, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah! So it would still be "Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line"? And that would mean that there are now a few redundant entries in List of New York City Subway stations because I just added 'em. Ok. I'll get them in the (real) morning. It's time for me to head off to sleep. I'll join the WikiProject in the morning, too. - UtherSRG 07:52, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * And it would also be (for the "2" service) "White Plains Road Line," "Lenox Avenue Line," "Eastern Parkway Line" and "Nostrand Avenue Line." I already made the changes on the 2 line. Have a good night's sleep! :) -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 08:06, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I fixed all the stations in the master list (and added the rest on those lines), so no worries there. I labeled the 4-5 part of Borough Hall as Joralemon Street Tunnel, since we don't know for sure what line that's on. --SPUI 08:25, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so insomnia has hit me. I've done the 3 service, and I believe I did it correctly this time. *grins* WikiProject_New_York_City_Subway/Line_templates is a big help! I'm moving onto 4 now, and I see there are many real links that will need to be moved. Fun! - UtherSRG 10:42, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * We're actually doing the station lists on the line pages, to avoid duplication across the service pages (and the inevitable duplication of changes when the MTA changes something). R (New York City Subway) is an example of a service page done this way; Queens Boulevard Line is an example of a line page. As for the templates, you want to use the stuff like, so a change of that template will propagate to all the lists. You should probably take a close look at the source for the QBL page. If you're unsure of a line name, check it against Image:NYC subway origins.png (the one thing to note is that we're using Broadway-BMT Line for the BMT Broadway, since it appears the MTA does that now). --SPUI 12:51, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah dear oh dear. Ok. Well, I finished up 4 anyway for consistency. I'll see what I can attck next. - UtherSRG 01:35, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

New York Subway tables
I really appreciate your work on the New York subway tables, although I have a few concerns. I think it look smuch better if the word "free transer to" is not used, as it is fairly redundant as it is assumed. Further, please use "table align=center" to centre all of the tables, otherwise they look a bit odd being left-justified. Thanks! Páll 23:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe I'm done with what I had planned ot do. Be bold and make adjustments as you see fit. - UtherSRG 00:37, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Wired article
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) &#9786;   &mdash; 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)

Wikispecies format
Hi, Uther. I notice you've been doing a lot of work creating wikispecies pages. I've been arguing that project should be structured in a way that allows for variation in classification systems, and have tried setting up an alternate standard on the protist pages. However, it hasn't received any real support. I was wondering if you had any thoughts on the matter, since it's something I think would be important for ancient hominids, and from experience your opinions are generally trustworthy. Thanks, Josh


 * It's a tough call. I don't think most casual users will want to know all the possible variations of classification, although they may be interested to know some of the more prominent schools of thought. On the other hand, users of a more professional caliber will want to be able to explore the variations. I think for navigation it will be easier for the readers and editors to pick a specific classification and stick to it until it gets superceeded. Variations and schools of thought can be described and discussed the the article text. Thinking of the various avian classification systems, though, it might well be better to use a dual navigation system, one for the standard used by Wikipedia, and one for the more current schools of thought. If this is the case, then I'm not sure the incrementally indented navigation system is a good one to use.


 * Come to think of it, I'm starting to not like it at all.species:User:Planetscape.de has started a push to use taxoboxes. That might be a realm of exploration we can use for showing alternate classifications, or it might prove to be more difficult than not. I like tree diagrams that show can show schools of thought on when taxa were thought to have divided as well, or at least show that a listing of taxa is actually a few groupings of taxa and that they are not all as closely related as a simple list would show.


 * In general, I run hot and cold about Wikispecies. I think the concept is good, but that it became open to the public too quickly. More work needed to be done on these kinds of decisions before users were invited to come and play. *shrugs* - UtherSRG 12:36, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * The programming for Wikidata has started. This will enable to have Wikispecies with all classification systems. GerardM 13:41, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikispecies admin
Hi Stacey. You are now an admin at Wikispecies. Talk page redirects no longer work, and as an admin at Wikispecies, it would be best if users could leave you messages there now. Angela. 10:25, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, so again: Welcome as admin! Silly question: do you know how to replace the grey logo by the colored version whilst the debate about the final logo is still going on? The file is wikispecies_logo.png. Thanks, Beneditk

Wikispecies vandalism
Are they using different IP ranges each time or would a range block help? Are they damaging the same pages or just random ones? If the same ones, perhaps temporarily protecting those would help? Angela. 20:20, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't realise you meant it was the ass puss vandal. This is a known issue across many wikis, especially meta, wikinews and wikibooks. There's nothing that can be done other than blocking the user and warning people on the other wikis that the user has attacked again so they can block him too. Angela. 22:10, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Giant Squid
Please stop removing the link I placed on the Giant Squid aritcle. the link has good content, and it deserves to stay as a resource. If needed, contact me at my talk page. --Zeerus 20:53, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you changed some of my edits on the Giant_Squid page, and just wanted to ask about your sources (I was 24.205.80.49). The most questionable of these is that you put back the claim that giant squids cannot lift their arms out of water-- I find this extremely dubious, from what I know about cephalopods in general. Although Architeuthis is less muscular for its size than many more agressive squids, and so is believed to be a relatively passive ambush predator and slow swimmer, it is still a very muscular animal. Cephalopods in general are very strong, being composed almost entirely of muscle, so I would be shocked if Architeuthis is unable to move its arms out of water. I think it's a valid point that given its anatomy and what is believed about its lifestyle, it is unlikely to attack boats, but really, it is my understanding that only the very gelatinous deep-sea cephalopods are so weak that they would have trouble moving their arms out of water.

Also, it's possible that my parenthetical notes were too awkward, but you removed a comment that some experts believe that there is only one species of Architeuthis, A. Dux, and that the other species classifications were overzealous classification. I'm pretty sure that Steve O'Shea is of this belief-- he says " The genus Architeuthis contains the single cosmopolitan species A. dux and adults are found throughout the temperate oceans at depths of 400-600m." in http://www.tonmo.com/science/public/deepseacephs.php and I believe has advocated this view elsewhere (I don't have the refs, but he is a frequent participant in the forums on TONMO.com, so I can ask). The CephBase article linked at the bottom does seem to reflect the multiple species view, though, so perhaps this is a bit of a rogue viewpoint. However http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Architeuthis suggests that Clyde Roper gives credence to the notion that only 3 species are legitimately distinct.

Lastly, I noted that colossal squid eyes may be bigger than giant squid eyes-- the only full specimen caught appeared to be immature, so while its eyes were not present, and may not be bigger than the largest architeuthis eyes ever measured, there is some reason to believe that in a mature animal they would be. see discussion at http://zapatopi.net/cephnews/colossalsquidcaught.html

Anyway, mostly I had just wanted to change the gross errors in the bouyancy and statocyst information, since it's been bugging me that it was referenced many placees around the web, so all of what I'm asking about is fairly minor in comparison. Just thought I'd ask, though; I'm particularly interested in where the idea that Architeuthis would be too weak to lift its own arms out of the water came from, since I'm quite skeptical (but I'm not a teuthologist).

Oh, I'm also not sure how best to address a glaring error: if the "first real evidence" of the existance of giant squid was in 1873, how could it have been taxonomically typed in 1857? Presumably Steenstrup had a physical specimen-- isn't that a requirement before the name is officially date-stamped?

(you can email me at monty@gg.caltech.edu if you would like to discuss any of this...) (This is my first time editing wikipedia data, so I apologize if your "talk" forum is not the best place for this, or if it is bad etiquette to not register before editing, or something... at first, I tried to get one of the real teuthologists that frequent tonmo.com to fix up the page, but they were too busy or not interested) (I just made an account montyy0 on wikipedia, too.)

--Montyy0 19:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)--Montyy0 19:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

more on architeuthis
I have also read that the emerging consensus is that the eight species model is not supported by observation and that it is more likely that A. dux is really the only species. At any rate, I thought my edits made the article more neutral on a subject where the jury is definitely still out. Ben-w 1 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)

I read the document you provided -- thanks! I can certainly point you to books which support the lumper perspective over the splitter one, and it's my understanding that the multiple-species approach has very little to support it other than first-mover advantage -- all of those species were named specimen-by-specimen. If there is any indication whatever of any specific difference between a japonica and a kirkii, I certainly haven't heard it. There's certainly no proof of the viable-offspring test either way. WP:CEPH admits that the taxonomy is far from settled, and I think the article should simply accept these ancient taxonomies without even acknowledging that differences of opinion exist.

Please have a look at my latest effort on Giant squid! I've left the ITIS version as the "primay" explanation, added what I think is a cautious and NPOV mention of other views, and added that report as an external link. I also removed the redlinks to the various species and redirected "Atlantic giant squid". Even if there are eight different species, we're unlikely to ever know them well enough so they'll each merit an article .... Ben-w 8 July 2005 07:00 (UTC)

Well, I don't know why you keep taking out information, and adding redlinks that can never possibly go anywhere. Ben-w 8 July 2005 17:32 (UTC)

Humboldt squid
You removed a section quoted from elsewhere as "copyright violation". I'm not convinced quoting a section from a diver's account is in violation (I don't think it counts as a "substantial part") but hey, fair enough. Perhaps you'd like to add to the article seeing as you seem to know a bit about squid/nautilus/ammonite. It'd be better than taking stuff out of the article....

Nautilus
Hey, I added some pics at Nautilus, but they don't seem to fit. I thought I'd see what you think. If you think it's too sloppy, I can just revert it. I just thought the camouflage thing was neat. Thanks for your time. --DanielCD 19:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, did you think I'm wrong about the scar or did you think it just didn't fit well? It doesn't matter to me; I'm just glad you found a way to fit the pics in. I'm still learning the pic syntax. I guess you'd have to see the actual shell up close to really tell about the scar anyway. Thanks again for your help! --DanielCD 12:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ammonite
Hey there Uther. I did some major shifting at Ammonite and created some sections out of the mass of material that was floating around there. I was just hoping you might take a peek at it when you get a moment to see if I made any goofs or misplaced anything. I prolly still need to get in and change some wikilink locations. Any suggestions about improving the section divisions are quite welcome. Anyway, thanks for your time! --DanielCD 21:54, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Uther_MOO?
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)

Wombat
In your recent edit to Wombat, you cut the authorities. Can you restore them, please? Gdr 15:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I restored them myself. Gdr 11:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Subphylum
I see your point. Would you recommend I actively remove sub-taxos from species' pages or only if I notice them? Grika 21:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

the use of &dagger;
As a zoologist (and a non-christian and a non-native English speaker) I take offense at you changing the &dagger; symbol into an English word. I do a lot of effort researching and creating new contents for WikiSpecies, just to see a lot of my work changed in some non-standard, personal version. This has nothing whatsoever to do with religion (or do you oppose the use of the &alpha; and the &Omega; too, or the aleph in mathematics?). The dagger symbol denoting extinction is standard accepted (and used) in Biology (in casu taxonomy and paleontology). I read some of the comments on this topic on yhe Village Pump and in some archives, and you seem to be the only one to stumble over the use of some well established symbols. May I lastely quote the Encylopedia britannica? Lycaon 21:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:CP
Hi, you've reported copyright infringements to WP:CP in the last week, a new measure was recently passed to allow the speedy deltion of new pages that are cut and paste copyvios. Please follow these instructions if you come across this type of copyvio. Thanks. --nixie 00:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

In other news
I've awarded you a much deserved barnstar! If you'd rather it be on the Talk page feel free to move it and please if you ever need help on any animal category just let me know. Marskell 21:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thankies!
"Frankly, I applaud Bushytails for doing it!" Thanks... I expected a bit of debate, but I've spent all morning typing now, and no one seems to like me...  heh. :) Thanks, Bushytails 20:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC).
 * No sweat. Enjoy your barnstar! :) - UtherSRG (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * And thankies again for the barnstar! :)  Bushytails 20:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * ... and thankies for reverting all those pages; you beat me to User:Irixman. :)  Bushytails 20:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Dolphin articles
Hi. I'm bummed you deleted my "see also" additions to the DOLPHIN pages. The reason i added them is simple. First of all, it is not apparant to all that the taxonomy box terminology is the same as vernacular termonology i.e. "mammalia" is equal to "mammal" even though it is to us geeks.

Another reason i added them to the bottom of the page is because Wikipedia REALLY needs a tag link to take us to the TOP of the page after we've read the article. To scroll up every time is very stressful after reading umpteen pages.

Also, by adding "Dolphin" to the "see also" additions, one can go to the original "Dolphin" page that is not included in the taxonomy box. "Dolphin" is NOT the same as "Delphinidae". Granted they are very similar, but not identical.

I concur that the method of inserting these in the "see also" additions is not the best way of handling this. I would recommend another taxonomy bar at the bottom of each page that includes all the information of the top. Similar to how it is down for geography and other categories.

I know this may seem redundant for many of these articles that are short and have no need of scrolling, but for the longer, almost unending ones, it seems a blessing indeed. Many of the shorter articles are only currently short because no one has taken the time to make them complete. As i've seen the interest in Wikipedia explode in the last few years, i'm sure this will change and the shortest articles will expand.

So in short, i believe these pages need a taxonomy bar at the bottom of the page or simply a link to take you to the top.

Astropithicus


 * It is standard practice to only add See Also links for articles which are not already linked to in the article, regardless of the naming of the link. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Does standard practice mean carved in stone? Are none of my points valid? Why must one search through the entire article to find the relative terminology that may or may not be included in a taxonomy box when it would be convenient for every article to have a handy navigation bar or something like it on the bottom of the page? ---Astropithicus


 * (Please use ~ to sign your talk edits.) If a "see also" link is redundant with a link in the rest of the article (including sidebar links like those in the taxobox) they should not be listed. If there is some link that is similar but not the same, then do try to find a good place in the article to link it before jumping to the "see also" step. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Image from different language wiki article, image deletion
Yeah, I got a question. Could I somehow use image without downloading it and than uploading to english part of wiki????? Otherwise sound like waste of resourses. Actually, I would love to add the second image from this article Венера Экспресс to Venus Express But I dont really want to download/upload it. It would be really apriciated if you could answer this. TestPilot 04:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, if the image is uploaded to Commons instead of to a specific language wiki, then all of the language wikis can use it as if it were uploaded locally. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok I noticed that there is few images have no copyright info. Those images were tagged for deletion. But deletion date has expired and no action was taken. How could I delete those images? In fact I found that one image actually copyrighted and I written so in image description (with a link to copyright holder web site) - but still there were no action. TestPilot 05:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Just let me or another admin know which images the warning has expired for, and we can delete them. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Su-35.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Su-27.jpg  - this one unveryfied copyright tag was placed more than a year ago. TestPilot 00:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Done! You can register your request to become an admin at Requests_for_adminship. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

More about Dolphin articles
OK. THanks for the the tips. But i still feel my question has not been answered. Maybe you are not the one to answer it, and in which case, who can i ask? I'm still thinking that some kind of navigation bar needs to be put on the bottom of a species list with all the relative related hierarchy of terms. I think it's really bogus that one has to scroll through the article and the side bars and wherever just to find them. Why not put them on the bottom? This is done in geographical articles. Just check out California for example. All of the geographical info is in a box on the side at the top and then at the BOTTOM there is a box with all the related articles relevant to the state including regions, cities, counties etc. Why can't we include the same type of feature for the kingdom of life subsequently broken down into more closely related terms? Who can i point this out to in order to actually make it happen? Astropithicus 18:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)Astropithicus
 * That's still a "sidebar". Look at all of the Mammal orders. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Still more about Dolphin articles
Yes, and i think these are great, but should be included at the bottom (regardless of semantics) for families, species and every form of life. I would go even further and have the bottom "side bar" include all kingdoms of life and then the phyla above the orders. I think redundancy is good in this case. No? (UTC)Astropithicus


 * I disagree. But you're talking about a big change. Go to the talk for WP:TOL and see what they say there. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Timeline of human evolution contradiction
sorry i get that information on timeline of evolution and add information on parts that i know more. i dont have i great knowledge about primates. i see that you like Primatology, and must have a greater knowledge than me. i hope that you can this the erros on two articles. and i hope i can learn more with you.

languages
Hi there! Thank you for your message, but I'm actualy a wikipedian for quite a while, although I did not edit articles much until recently. But I want to ask you something: I realy want to edit articles on subjects I know a lot about. However, I am reluctant to do that too often, since English is not my native language. So my contributions will not be in correct English, and will have some grammar en spelling flaws. Is that a major problem? My most major contribution to this moment is that on carnivoran phylogeny, reading that paragraph will give you some idea about my level of knowledge on the English language. I am actualy Dutch, but I rather want t be an editor for the English wikipedia, since that is much more often used.

Greets, DaMatriX

PS what is the best way to use talk pages? Most of the time I do not know exactly how to add comments on talk pages. DaMatriX 19:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Be bold and edit as you feel best. You can check the history of an article to find folks who might be interested in proofreading your edits. There are a number of Dutch Wikipedians editting on en:, so perhaps they will have good ideas, too. Check in on Category:User nl for some, but User:JoJan comes to mind as someone you can rely upon. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you an Admin?
If so, care to take a look at Special:Contributions/204.184.160.238 again? It looks like you might have blocked him a while back, and he's apparently gotten bored in his German class again and is hacking off bits of Wikipedia again. Iain McClatchie 22:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it looks like everything has already been dealt with. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Please do not protect the main page featured article
Please see user:Raul654/protection &rarr;Raul654 19:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

An "anonymous" person at my school
Heyo, I just got on Wikipedia today and noticed there was a warning, or actually several warnings for this IP address. =/ Just thought you should know this IP address is for a public high school and not just for someone's personal computer- they probably think they can get away with it. If you block the address, will I still be able to log in my own account and edit pages, or will I have to wait until I get home and such? -Sarranduin 19:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

vandalism alert
user:Zmaj that you welcomed is vandilising wiki pages... HolyRomanEmperor 18:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)