User talk:UtherSRG/Arch4

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them;


 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Tip: you can sign your name with ~ 

snoyes 20:07, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Archives

 * Archive1: User talk:UtherSRG/Arch1
 * Archive2: User talk:UtherSRG/Arch2
 * Archive3: User talk:UtherSRG/Arch3
 * Archive4: User talk:UtherSRG/Arch4

Vim
Re: your recent post: 'Vim' is given a date of 1843 and related to the accusative of vis 'strength'. I see this in the On-Line Etymological Dictionary http://www.etymonline.com/ --Not 100% convinced myself... Wetman 13:13, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ships of the US Navy
Your valiant efforts to make links for hulls from List of ships of the United States Navy are appreciated, but if you're finding it tiresome, I'll go ahead and add the rest of them using software tool trickery in a couple days. (That's how I created all those specific-type lists - too much work otherwise!) Haven't done it up to now because I was waffling about whether to do that after adding destroyers and subs, but then the list would be huge and require a split, which is harder when the db is crawling on hands and knees like it is right now. Stan

Great work on the ships! Ready for an encore with destroyers and subs? :-) I have one observation BTW; there's little point in making links to 1-sentence "permanent stubs" for hulls never completed; I've gone to leaving them inline and redirecting hull numbers there, since there is no additional information available. (The links in USS Vallejo are now circular redirs.) Stan 06:02, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Brianism
I do not know if you are watching Brianism Talk, but it is fair that you should see this: An Open Letter from Rex Mundi, co-founder of Brianism. In view of this, I have changed my vote to Delete. Link has apparently been "e-mailed to participants in the discussion", but not posted on WP by the writer - which is why I am doing it. I also do not see how the writer would have all the e-mail addresses involved. Kind regards, Anjouli 13:56, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Brianism is archived here!

By the way, I'm thinking all Brianists on Wiki (and other places) should put a circumpunct on their user pages and put a small one (&#x2299;) next to their sigs, maybe with a link to Brianism? Don't see anybody would object to that and it would spread the word. Anybody reply to you yet? SpellBott 07:37, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC) &#x2299;

&#8857;
Please remove the &#8857; symbol from the welcome message you are using. It is highly inappropriate and suggests to new users that the site is in some way supporting this "religion". Angela. 19:16, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC) &dagger;


 * While we're discussing it, I've taken it off. Has anyone complained? You're the only person I know who has stated any disapproval of my using the circumpunct in my signature. As someone who was not raised as a Christian, I've had to put up with the ever-present Christianity assumptions and religious symbol wearing. I've decided to work to counteract that attitude.


 * Here are my options I'd like to use, and my rational for them.


 * Use it after every ~, or as some macro that works in a similar manner, including in the welcme message. Anything I sign is a personal statement. If I don't sign it, it is for general consumption as a part of the work of encyclopedia building. If people are allowed to wear religious symbols at all as a personal statement, how is putting it in my signature any different.
 * Only in things I sign that are evenr more personal. I can see how the welcome message can be interpretted as coming from the site. It's not true, it is just a personal welcome from me as an individal user to another individual user. I can limit the usage to other edits to talk: pages, and to polls I sign.
 * As I've been doing, only in the welcome message. It's a one-shot deal and a user never has to see it again on other pages.

-- UtherSRG 20:46, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC) &#8857;

No, I'm not the only person who has objected. Adam Bishop and Danny have been following your edits and removing this symbol as well. If you look at their contributions lists (and mine), you'll see that dozens of these have been removed today alone. Many new users will assume that a welcome message is something official, and if that comes attached with religious connotations, they may be put off contributing here. It's also untrue to suggest that "a user never has to see it again on oter pages" - I've seen it in hundreds of pages. Wikipedia is not a place to be pushing your religion. It's no different to someone putting spam on every page they make a comment on. Angela. 20:55, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * As has Maximus Rex. And again, except for you, nobody has complained to me about it. After the first time you left me a message about it, I stopped putting it on every talk edit or vote signing. I'm not trying to push any religion... I'm trying to counteract the over-arching, ever-present Christianity attitude of most English speaking countries, but particularly the attitudes here in the USA. - UtherSRG 21:01, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * As for the removal from the elcome messages I've already left, wouldn't it have been more appropriate to have me remove them (so that I'm editting my own edit), and isn't the removal going to draw attention to them... all those users will now have a You have a new message link, and anyone who is at least halfway clueful will use page history to see what's changed. - UtherSRG 21:09, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I agree also (although people should have asked you nicely, rather than engaging in wholesale revision). I think it sets an unfortunate precedent, one the crazies may take to most unfortunate conclusions. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 21:15, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I suppose we did get wrapped up in a bit of anti-Brianist zeal, although it was just easier for others to do it rather than wait to see if you were around. Besides, it strikes one as somehow POV to link to a certain religion when, as far as newbies know, you are giving an official Wikipedia welcome. (It also cluttered up the "what links here" for the Brianism article.) Adam Bishop 06:48, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC) ¶

Is the &#8857; a problem on non-welcome comments? Angela, you took it off a standard comment about an article on my talk page. Is it inappropriate there? Also, is the dagger after your signature above ironic/sarcastic? --Spikey 22:51, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * That was probably a mistake. I thought I was only doing the welcome ones. The dagger was indeed sarcastic. Angela. 18:03, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

Hehehe that was funny sarcastic then Angela the dagger. But to the point. I got a welcoming message from UtherSRG and indeed I considered it an official welcoming message. If I'm not mistaken UtherSRG is also part of the welcoming committee (or however it is called). The circumpunct after his signature didn't give me the impression Wikipedia is supporting Brianism, it was clearly part of his signature. But I think it's better you remove it in your welcoming message, UtherSRG, to avoid any misunderstandings. To my opinion it isn't a problem if you use it on other places.

Lockheed Martin
Hi, interesting to see that you work for Lockheed Martin as a Software Engineer. Since I am studying Computer Science, I have profound interest to learn what is needed to work for a company like L.M. and what they ask for in order to hire a new software engineer. Do you think a 3-year british Bachelor is enough? Thanks. btw I answered to your question on my talk page. Optim 19:27, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi again. I plan to work either in UK, USA or Canada. May I ask whether previous relevant work experience is required by similar companies? and what is needed, in general, for the US security clearance? Thank you. Optim 05:10, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC) (talk)
 * If you are being hired right out of school, you shouldn't need experience. I didn't. I don't know what all has changed for getting a clearance. I got mine in the pre-9/11 days, but I know it is more difficult. - UtherSRG 05:17, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answers! Optim 05:24, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Your WikiCookies!
Congratulations! :) Optim 19:44, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)



"as of 2003"
Dunno if you're aware of it, but in articles like USS Antietam we use as of 2003 and friends to find statements whose truth may change from year to year. So at some point during 2004 or later, people can look here to see if they're still true, and either update to say "as of ", or else edit to describe the change that happened in 2003. Stan 21:53, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Newcomers
Wow! You are doing an amazing job welcoming newcomers. Nearly every one I see has been greeted by you. You might be interested in helping to develop the Welcoming committee. Keep up the great work. :) Angela. 18:19, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

Welcoming
Hi. I just noticed that your boilerplate welcome notice contains the same bit of information on assigning edits to a user name twice. ("If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username."). Cheers, snoyes 18:22, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll fix it. :) - UtherSRG 18:33, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Battery links
Thanks for finishing off the redirecting of links to Battery following my disamb of it. That was for me a long process about to pass the two-month mark, not only for lack of a bot, but bcz i ended up editing a lot of the pages linked to it for other changes besides the link.

My own summary for the electrical-minded redirects (most of them, as you'll have observed), is on reflection still IMO a little sparse:
 * relink to Battery (electricity) per disamb move

I settled on it before i had the sense to put it where i could paste it in; i should have updated it once terseness no longer saved me time:
 * relink to Battery (electricity), to short-circuit links via Battery, following a move that makes Battery a disambiguation page

I mention this to get your reaction: in my mind, the disamb is just
 * the renaming,
 * the moving of any disamb language in the old main-article disamb (if any) to the disamb page, and
 * creating broken links or stubs where additional articles can be foreseen.

Yes, the link changes should go with that, but they are not part of it -- especially since link changes are called for following changes of name not occasioned by disamb. Am i being offensively prissy making the distinction? --Jerzy 01:30, 2004 Jan 18 (UTC)

Tnx, and nah, i'm probably just overcautious with strangers. [smile] --Jerzy 04:59, 2004 Jan 19 (UTC)

Yr attention to my recent revert (or, if my revert is countered, to the changes made by the next version would be welcome. Obviously the content of Baghdad Battery will also be relevant.

I'm not sure my wording
 * any such knowledge was a "dead end" in the history of electricity

is perfect, but IMO the dumping back in of this irrelevant material is not the context to work that out in. (However, if you have the interest in the article, improving that and/or things like the nonsense abt being called batteries because they beat you up could IMO only improve things.

I'm hoping to find at least one editor who'd keep me from being the only one reverting this. I've had little occasion to strike up relationships here, and knowing from you of others who'd likely consider standing up for the revert would be a help, if that seems appropriate to you. ---Jerzy 04:53, 2004 Jan 21 (UTC)


 * Looks good, but i think it would be good to have the dates in the two articles coincide... so change the date in Battery_(electricity) to match the range give in Baghdad Battery. Perhaps this as a replacement for your "dead end":

"Such ancient knowledge of electricity bears no known continous relationship to the development of modern batteries. It's form, though, is nearly identical to the principles that are in use today."

I'd love a sidenote between those two sentences, something about how the device wasn't used for the electromotive force, but rather for the useful although very ancillary effects it had. I dunno. - UtherSRG 05:11, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * All of this is helpful, tnx!
 * BTW, yr reference it Charge reminded me what i learned here at WP: did yr E&M prof point out to you that "the quantity of electricity is the quantity of charge", or was your education as deficient as mine? [wink] --Jerzy 05:27, 2004 Jan 21 (UTC)

Lizard King
Hi. Angela pointed me to the previous talk about Lizard_King on User talk:Tim Starling. It seems that LK and scifiterx do not access wikipedia from the same ISP. That would make him slightly more cunning/determined than the usual trolls that target wikipedia. But there's still is no doubt in my mind, as you said, that scifiterx could well be a friend of LK's or that LK simply has access to two different ISPs. --snoyes 02:56, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh, and also: It is a good idea, if you start a vote, to restrict it to users who have been active for a little while and have a couple of edits, as was done on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage. --snoyes 02:58, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wish Tannin had restricted voting. I hadn't started the voting. What can be done about Lizard King? I'm getting ready to start the Arbitration process since he seems unwilling to be a productive Wikipedian, and I can not stand idly by while he makes terrible edits to articles. - UtherSRG 03:01, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * To be honest I don't really know what the answer to your question is. I am in a similar situation: I've asked for someone to be banned or at least given a final warning, because they have made dozens of hateful personal attacks. But the answer was that at the moment, unless something really serious happens, nothing will really be done, as the mediation and arbitration committee thingies aren't set up yet. I also haven't gotten an answer as to when they will be set up. At the moment wikipedia is rather vulnerable to trolls such as LK. All I can suggest is to perhaps suggest that because there was no clear winner in the vote, the decision will be delayed. And then in a week or so hold another one where one has to have been at the site for at least two weeks and made eg. 50 non-minor edits. --snoyes 03:17, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * grumbles One shouldn't stop an older system until the newer system is ready to be launced..... How about Angela? Can you have her stomp on him for me? *grins* - UtherSRG 03:22, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * As much I would like to get rid of obvious trolls like LK in a rather expedient manner, we do have to keep a balance between dealing efficiently with trolls and having a clique that can expell users with impunity. --snoyes 03:28, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah... but the developers should be doing just that until arbitration and mediation are set up. Part of the job, whether they like it or not, to keeping a system up and running is dealing with trolls and ingrates, or setting up systems to deal with them. - UtherSRG 03:32, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * No problem. It does add a nice "human touch" to a project where a lot of fighting and animosity occur. --snoyes 03:29, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Yup. :) UtherSRG 03:32, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I decided to bail on the whole Lizard King (talk) debate. Life's too short. :-)  I will of course keep an eye out for him and his possible-alter-egos on the pages I follow.  I'm still waiting for one of them to yet again revert my changes to Strength level (comics). -mhr 05:36, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That's quite ok. You added a nice level of calmness to the discussion, until this evenings round or tirades started again, filled with the typical degree of dishonesty or ignorance or some mixture of both. I have no doubt that the lot of them will eventually get banned, and we'll have our work cut out for us, undoing the damage. - UtherSRG 05:41, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That said, I need to leave in about half an hour and won't be back for most of the day. But I'll take a look at Talk:Yeti when I get back. (I've seen this mentioned elsewhere.) - Hephaestos 14:47, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, and now I see where it was mentioned. I blocked the User:The Agent account on the 12th for being created with no other intent than vandalism; as you can see in the contributions it was all done with regard to that article.  I think I should recuse myself from voting on the issue on that basis, but I encourage you to bring this fact up in the debate if you think it's appropriate. - Hephaestos 15:06, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ah nice. Thanks. - UtherSRG 15:49, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC) &#x2299;

Thanks for the invite to the Talk:Yeti page, but I'd rather stay out of it, for now at least. It looks like an absolute troll fest! :) By the way, do you really think it is appropriate to go scattering the &#x2299; symbol everywhere? Some poeple might find it offensive. Angela. 21:06, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, Uther. The edit histories of the sock puppets make for interesting reading, as you have no doubt seen for yourself. Tannin

I'll revert bad flawed changes that LK and compatriots make to pages that I'm working on, but for the time being I'm going to stay out of arguing with someone who seems so unwilling to enter any real discussions. Let's see what he and his editing companions do in the coming weeks; hopefully once these mediation, etc., committees get set up, the committees will be able to do something productive about this situation. --Lowellian 23:57, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks (again) Uther Tannin
 * Uther, I hope you don't take offense at what I said on the CBU page. I was trying to offer a way out of this maelstrom because I think it's sapping the energy and spirit out of a couple of fine editors here.  My limited awareness of LK does not give me high hopes, but I didn't want to be one more voice on the page giving LK an enemy.  Besides, I did think LK had goaded the two of you into being far ruder and more angry than is your usual, and I always hate to see that happen...it's a sign of our conflict resolution process breaking down.  I understand and largely agree with your frustration at this interim period while the committees are organizing.  Because I have not ever fought with LK, I am still of the perhaps too-idealistic opinion that LK is potentially salvageable, and I hope that you recognize that my expressing that opinion (and the opinion that all three of you were being too rude) should not be taken as an attack on your work here, which in my experience has always been first-rate.  I've seen too many good editors fight a troll too long, get too wild in their accusations as time passes, and ultimately leave feeling defeated and frustrated.  I don't want to lose an editor like you, which is why I made the suggestions I did.  I know this is awfully long, but I did feel that you were owed an explanation of my post.  I think it is good advice, but I recognize that you might perhaps have felt I was tarring you with a brush unfairly, and I wanted to clarify.  I hope this ends well for all concerned, or as well as it can.  See you around the 'pedia...Jwrosenzweig 15:55, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * No offense taken. Your read of where I'm at with LK is accurate. I'm not as hot-headed as I appear if one only looks at my interactions with him. Don't worry - I'm not going anywhere. I'm an old-timer from LambdaMOO, where we had user-run Arbitration/Mediation of the most abyssmal sort. Having an admin system here will help make the process much smoother. I do think you are being too optimistic with regard to LK's reform. He's not going to let up. Recent edits to Talk:Yeti show he's going to attack my words no matter how nice they are, especially when he's drunk. Thanks for the kind words, though! It does go a long way to know there are people out there noticing my edits and liking them. - UtherSRG 16:04, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I bailed on the whole thing after his response to my numbered summary. Well, except that the "Don't confuse me with facts" line was too good to pass up (I'm kind of a sucker for things like that; probably because I cut my Internet teeth on the talk.abortion group on USENET 15 years back).  Once it became clear that the admins seemed uninterested in the whole thing, it didn't seem worth continuing. -mhr 17:18, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * No prob. I'm really glad you stayed as long as you did. It really helped me to have him throw outrageous insults and accusations at someone else for alittle bit (even if he also continued throwing them at as well). "Shared happiness is multiplied, shared misery divided." Plus it helped show that the problem lies with him a whole lot more than it does with me. Let's just hope he and his buddies don't start up again with the Marvel vital statistics. - UtherSRG 17:29, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Your mediation with Lizard King
There is a request for mediation between you and Lizard King. If you still assent to that process, could you indicate which mediators (the full list is on Mediation committee) would you would prefer to mediate between you two. You may indicate a strict order of preference, or list those mediators acceptable to you, or those which are unacceptable to you; or any combination of the above. (Tuf-Kat has indicated that he will not be available for mediating between you two.)

Do note the fact that if there is no mediator that is at the very least acceptable to both, mediation is untenable. This would be very unfortunate, and may (although not automatically) in the most serious cases possibly cause the dispute to move directly into binding arbitration without a mediation phase.

(for the mediation committee)
 * Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 05:14, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)

Mediation with Lizard King
Hi. I'm part of the Mediation Committee, & I sent you an email 2 days ago concerning your conflict with Lizard King. However, I have yet to hear back from you. If you received that email, could you send your response back to me as soon as possible, so we can resolve the differences that led to this conflict? Thanks -- llywrch 19:32, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm working on it. With all the snow we have here, my online time to reply has been tight. Thanks for the reminder, though. - UtherSRG 19:36, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It's been over two days since my last reminder. I would like to get this mediation moving, & Lizard King has been very patient with both of us. If I could see your response to my questions within the next 24 hours -- by 4:30p PDT -- it would definitely help bring credibility to the mediation process. -- llywrch 00:34, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Uther, I just got your emailed response this morning. (From the headers, it appears that there was some problems with reaching my email server; I'm sorry about that.) Because I hadn't heard anything from you, I had assumed that you were not interested in mediation, & considered this on hold. Let me see if I can't reopen the process & see if we can get something worked out. -- llywrch 17:55, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Paranthropus
Your revert was wrong in many ways. I have never added an image to an article before. Adding images to articles is to be encouraged, not reverted. this image was neither copywrited nor was it vandalism. I personally requested LK to create this image, as I was intruiged with what an artists interpretation might be. Discuss things like this in talk, and at the bare minimum be aware of the situation before reverting. Jack 13:00, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wikiholics
Yes, I'm an RC junky. ;-) Check your email. --snoyes 05:01, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Funny, I was just adding it when I saw your comment. :). I think we need to start Wikiholics anonymous. --snoyes 05:24, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes! Definitely! Um... but not tonight. :) Email coming to ya... a quick silly. - UtherSRG 05:30, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Hehe. The quote did not come out of a vacuum. I sent an email to the wikipedia-english mailing list reiterating my call for the ban of a specific user. ? (With said quote - naturally) ;-)--snoyes 05:38, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You still on WP? looks like you might have left a half hour ago. I need to find a sysop, & where in the world is Angela when i need her! (Shame on me.) --Jerzy 17:00, 2004 Jan 21 (UTC)

VfD split-up
Hi Uther,

have you read my rationale on wikien-l for the VfD splitup? . I believe this can be a reasonable compromise between the anti-voting and the pro-voting factions on Wikipedia.

Regarding your objections, my vision is for the consensus phase to basically become a collection of argument trees for and against deletion. It doesn't matter who makes an argument, it just matters whether it is correct -- and this is decided by the participants. That is, if nobody responds to a refutation of a particular argument in the tree, we can assume that we have reached consensus on this individual point.

This is essentially what we do on Featured article candidates as well, where there are no simple "Add" or "Don't add" comments either. We should strongly encourage refactoring on this page to avoid redundancy and personal attacks. There would also be a clear message that "policy discussions should take place elsewhere", e.g. if a page contradicts an existing policy, arguments against that policy do not belong on the Deletion requests page, but on the talk page for that policy.

I think this could be an interesting experiment in whether a wiki-style decision making process is posible. Insofar I would like to encourage you to reconsider your vote. Please remember that this is only for a 30 day trial period, and we can always return to the existing (in my opinion ill defined) process.&mdash;Eloquence 02:48, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

Marking births and deaths
Thanks UtherSRG! Every time I settle down to do another batch of January anniversary pages wikipedia goes down. I think I'm cursed... will I ever reach February?! I'm also checking all the people in the births section not marked as dead to see if they are (quite often find this is the case), and checking all the people listed in the deaths section for their year of birth. I'm finding a few unmarked stubs that way too. Thrilling work... but it's something to do when I need to cool off from a heated discussion on a disputed wikipedia page. ;) Which of us will reach the middle of the year first?  :)  Fabiform 00:27, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanx for welcoming me
Hi! Thanks for leaving me aa little welcome message!Frogprincess1312 06:20, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well that's all I had to say :-D Laudaka 14:29, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice welcome - Drago9034 05:04, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for the welcome! Mark Richards

Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia my goal is to do the best that I can to help improve wikipedia in all of the areas that I can. Daniel.

Thanks for the welcome note. Helped me understand the User talk thing, and was encouraging. I've been editing modestly for a while now. You set a nice tone for friendly welcoming which invites new users to feel at home. Kd4ttc 03:00, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for welcoming me. However I guess I stay on the German Wikipedia project and just add the inter wiki links here. -- MichaelHaeckel 19:18, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Happy birthday
Happy Birthday, Uther! RickK 04:19, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Gtrmp's edits on list of Marvel Comics characters
I find some of his edits are questionable. For example, "J. Jonah Jameson" appearing three times under the letter J; adding "Lord Shingen" under L; what he did with "Weapon X"; the addition of Lilith (Daughter of Dracula) (even if this character mattered, and I personally have no idea who this is, is that really the disambiguation phrase we want?), and so forth (there are more, but I'm tired of listing). I understand that he or she is probably a newbie (unless it's someone who decided to pick up a new username), and it does look like Gtrmp is genuinely trying to be helpful, so I'm not trying to remove his useful edits, but could you clean up the ones that aren't very useful? I would do it myself, but I'm really too busy, though I did leave a message on his talk page. I'm also CCing this message to Michael Rawdon. --Lowellian 08:15, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm on it! - UtherSRG 23:19, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Taxa et al.
Hi there. I just wanted to say thank you for tidying up after me and for all your tireless work on taxa and the like. I know it can be a thankless job, but you've certainly got mine! :) Hadal 05:57, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Fishes
Hee hee, forced by circumstances; went to the library to get 2nd volume of American Beetles (which seems to be a best source of current taxa), but it was checked out! So checked out Nelson again instead, restarted my previous piscean efforts. There are about 400 families left to describe, and good online info at FishBase, just have to turn it into English. :-) Just got my copy of Colledge for RN ships too, almost regretting having to leave for a week's vacation in the Caribbean... :-) Stan 06:37, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * BTW, in taxoboxes, editors generally don't favor trying to indent with ":", because it makes the boxes too wide and squishes the text for people with smaller screens; sometimes shallow indents are done with multiple nbsp bits. I generally don't call much attention to superfamilies/suborders myself, just include them "for the record", for nonscientists they're kind of a distraction on the way to the interesting critters. :-) Stan 07:15, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Birds
Hi Uther. I know you are putting a great deal of work into those long genera listings in taxoboxes, but I think we need to discuss it. The current convention is that we simply say "many: see text" where there are a lot of genera to list. This is something that evolved over a period of time when we tried lots of different ideas out, and I think most of the people working on vertebrates are comfortable with this. It would be wise, I think, to talk it over with the main contributors to the bird (and related) articles. WikiProject Birds would be a good place, or pop a note on Jim's and Big Iron's talk pages. Best Tannin 14:44, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Croc pic
Do with the croc pic as you will - I've found one for Cobra too. Jim

Whales articles
Thanks for all the cpediting on the various new dolphin articles. It is appreciated. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:03, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Selaginella
Hi Uther - As far as I'm aware, there is only the one currently recognised genus Selaginella in the order, with 700+ species. But I strongly suspect that's because no-one has done a critical revision of the genus for about a hundred years. Can't see one getting done, either, given their lack of economic importance. - MPF 16:34, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Turtur
Pease could you clarify why you have listed turtur at Deleted_test. Thanks. Angela. 00:42, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

Binomial nomenclature vs. Binomial name
You said at Clymene Dolphin that you have been changing binomial name to binomial nomenclature "all other the place". I am not sure that is true for the whales and dolphins - I have all of them on my watchlist and haven't noticed you make that change on them. More importantly, is it definitely right? What we are filling in at that point is the binomial or scientific name.. not the nomenclature which tells how to create the binomial name. So its better to write binomial name right? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:43, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that the "two part name" used is "binomial nomenclature". It's a fancy way of saying the same thing, with the understanding that it comes from a certain process and isn't just arbitrary. Not just any "two part name" is "binomial nomenclature". My name is Stacey Greenstein, but that's not binomial nomenclature. There was no systemic approach to calling me that. The Genus-Species paired names come from a systemic naming system, and so "nomenclature" is appropriate. - UtherSRG


 * Oh, and I just haven't gotten to the whales since I've started this. *grins* - UtherSRG 16:52, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I think you are getting confused between the process of constructing a binomial name. That process is called binomial nomenclature. A particular name, once constructed according to that method, is the binomial name of the species. Thus the appropiate title at that point in the taxobox is binomial name, not binomial nomenclature. I am not making this up - see e.g. dictionary.com's definition of nomenclature here - http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nomenclature - in particular definition 2. Thanks! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 19:16, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Ah, but if you scroll down you will see Webster's definition, which indicates that "nomenclature" is both the name and the system that generates the name. I give. I don't care that much either way. I'm more interested in making sure all the data in the taxoboxes and all taxa pages are formatted correctly and give proper notation (italics, bolding, links). - UtherSRG 19:37, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * It looks like WikiProject Tree of Life and WikiProject Birds have different recommendations. I'll try to solicit some more opinions about what is most appropiate in this case. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 19:52, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

taxo comments
Two brief comments. Firstly, I'm with Tannin on keeping taxoboxes lean and mean. Secondly, in my view Marsh Harrier should stay as one article for the time being. The splits are not universally accepted, and the three articles would be very similar. I have adopted a similar approach with other species that are possible splits, and even occasionally for unarguable, but very similar species, such as Kittiwake. Jim.

Drongo
Re Drongo endings: don't know, Tannin is the taxoexpert for this group. I'll take that line out since it's not inmost species taxoboxes anyway, and I've got to edit to add a picture. Jim.

WikiProject Primates
I get a smile on my face every time I see your name. *grins* Perhaps you'd like to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Primates?


 * You made my day :)), thank you! The funniest part was when I belatedly discovered that Humus is very different from the intended Hummus. My original idea was homo sapiens with a Mediterranean flavor... Sorry I'll have to refuse this offer for now: afraid I won't be a constructive contributor there. Humus sapiens 21:39, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Lemur has been moved to Lemuridae as per your request on Deleted test. Angela. 07:10, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

I'm in now; I'd been meaning to, actually.. but hadn't yet committed. :) I'll probably focus on writeups of salient species or genera we don't yet have covered. Primate taxa, however, makes me cringe. By the way, nice work on the status msg tags; it's a great feature! Cheers, -- Hadal 19:08, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Rock painting
I was working on Cave painting after seeing a BBC article on some rock paintings that are on a wall in South Africa - I couldn't find another page on rock painting - I want to change the name to Rock painting - do I just move it, or is there some process? Thanks! Mark Richards 17:38, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I think in this case you want to make a redirect. A redirect is a page that automatically takes you to another page. In Rock painting put just the following text (no quotes): ' #redirect Cave painting '. - UtherSRG 17:41, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Cheers!Mark Richards

Poll notification
Jack (now known as Sam Spade) created a poll at Talk:Atheism/Godvrs.god poll on the capital G issue in atheism, so I figured I should drop a note about it to all the major participants in the editing on that article since Jan 11. I just went through the edit history clicking names that looked prominent, so if you aren't interested in the issue feel free to ignore it. Bryan 05:30, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

SSM
I didn't know it was a series, but the was a new one, and I thought it might be, so... Looks good. Cheers! jengod 21:07, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

Major Major Change
Need your advice. In the page on Perspective the originator seems to take the word in the abstract and commence to apply all the ideas of mankind to it one by one. I suggest rather, on the page, to simply define the word Perspective and add links as applications might occur to anyone. In the Talk Page of Perspective I have alerted what I was thinking but getting no response. I would now like to cut the originator's 'individual approach' out of the original article and paste it into one new page with a link to the original and, of course, give the new page a new name. But I would not like to offend the original poster. There is the further problem: by so doing, the new page would bare my authorship which the originator might object to - as actually so do I. Might you direct me out of this? Pat 22:54, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Hrm. I dunno. I would suggest asking everal people ou respect to weigh in on the issue directly. - UtherSRG 23:02, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

AM Notice
I'm sad to see you remove the AM notices. Perhaps creating a WikiProject to encompass those articles as appropriate would encourage others to step up to the plate? - UtherSRG 18:06, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi! i am very sad, too. I hope other people will make the articles better. However I don't have time to start, organise and support a project. But it is a good idea! Can you start one? Optim 18:15, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Number pages
Hi,

I would like you to reconsider your vote on the inclusion of articles about numbers on Wikipedia. I am not opposed to number articles per se, but I am opposed to the trivial cultural properties which have been heaped upon many of these articles.

My rationale is that numbers are such a fundamental part of human culture, an article that lists all these associations would have proportions probably larger than all of Wikipedia taken together. To give you an example, Google returns 209,000,000 hits for the number 100 alone.

Please take a look at 1 (number). This is the type of lists I am referring to. Right now the article arbitrarily lists a few things where the number one has some significance: a DVD region, a personality test, a slang term (Wikipedia is not a dictionary), American currency, a single dial code, several roads ...

If you think this information is valuable I am probably wasting my time. But I hope that after looking at several of these pages you will agree that these kind of lists make a joke of Wikipedia. They will always be arbitrary, they will always be in violation of the rules of What Wikipedia is not (list repository, dictionary), and they will seriously damage our reputation.

If you see a compromise option which is not currently included in the poll, please add it. But please do not give these triva lists your rubber stamp of approval.&mdash;Eloquence 11:15, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Zwingli
Hello sport,

having been so encouraged I have now started working on merging the Zwingli material. Cheers, Rudolf 1922 17:51, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi - are you sure msg:dtest is having the desired effect on those pages? It doesn't seem to be what it used to be... it's now just the vfd notice, for some reason... Evercat 03:09, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Hi, I don't think Defender (character class), Black Belt (character class) and Dragoner are candidates for speedy deletion as they contain real information that is not patent nonsense. If you feel they should be deleted, please list them on VfD instead. Thanks. Angela. 05:17, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

taxoboxes
Hi Uther, Thanks for the note - anything I should be noting in particular? Generally when I put in a new taxobox, I just copy across from a related species, so as to minimise the munber of items to change. There's a bewildering variety of different constructions, even though they all look more-or-less the same in general appearance! Thanks - MPF 23:48, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

True. We're no longer linking the taxon rank titles. That's the biggest one. Check out the few samples on the page, and the talk page. - UtherSRG 23:52, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi. About Liriodendron. Didn't we decide to bold only the taxon in question? The species list in that case would not be bolded if the article is for a genus. Or am I missing something? -- WormRunner 17:48, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes. However, take a look at What links there. The page is the species page as well! - UtherSRG 17:50, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What links here
In the future, when changing a page from a redirect to a disambig, or renaming a page, please look at the "What links here" page to fix all the links you broke. Thank you. --Pascal666 07:54, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Pascal, I usually do use "What links here" to fix breaks caused by moves, but thanks for the reminder. Can you clue me in to which move I did that I didn't fix? Thanks! - UtherSRG 14:20, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * You changed CVS from a redirect to a disambig. I've already fixed all the links.  --Pascal666 14:53, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Z Powerlevels
Just thought you might be interested to know that there is now a Dragon Ball Z Powerlevels page that has been listed on Votes for Deletion. --Lowellian 22:14, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Aconitum
Hi Uther, just done a bit edit on Aconitum which ended up with a time conflict with yours on saving; as it had quite a lot of typo corrections etc in, I didn't want to just abandon it so put it on top of yours - can you check to see if there's anything of yours lost in the process? Thanks MPF 14:59, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Looks like we had the same things in mind. *grins* - UtherSRG 15:02, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Neon Tetra
I see you've handled this already, thanks! - Hephaestos|&#167; 02:26, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Iguanas
Hi, I did the move you requested. I wasn't sure whether iguanas should be delinked in the lizard article, or whether something was going to go at that title. Angela. 13:18, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

Is there any special reason to set image width in taxonomy tables to 200px? Especially when an article is a stub, and the image is more or less all its contents? Iorsh 15:17, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

the deed is done -incidentally, this page is 46k long now jimfbleak