User talk:UtherSRG/Archive 2

Ziphiidae taxonomic information
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/95/6/459. Please check it out and if there is no copyright issues try to use the information to enrich the ziphiidae article. There are also some very interesting phylogenetic cladograms there based on both mDNA and nDNA sequences(different ones). --92.118.191.48 (talk) 08:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Uakaris
Hi Stacey, you just created a page for Cacajao hosomi, and you used the common name Neblina Black Uacari. The suggested common name is Neblina Uacari as I put it on the Uacari page. Check out the publication on http://www.evoamazon.net/ under the publications tab. I am going to rename the Neblina Black Uacari webpage to Neblina Uacari, and make appropriate changes elsewhere. Killidude (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems their abstractcontradicts the text, or at least is written poorly. C. ayresii is the Araca Uakari, not the Ayres Uarkari. I was going off of the abstract. Several articles will need to be fixed. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

disputed taxon
Please remove Homo floresiensis, and any other disputed taxa, from Human Evolution? cygnis insignis 19:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No. I disagree with that. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) I see you disagree, I will politely withdraw my request. Cheers, cygnis insignis 19:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I just noticed my watchlist. What is your reason for including it? cygnis insignis 19:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Being disputed doesn't do anything to its status. Confirmation that the taxoon is not valid changes the status. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That was what I had trouble finding, a citation that it was valid. Could I ask for a link to that? cygnis insignis 19:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC) 16:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You are invited!
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wikipedia Loves Art! bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds November newsletter
The July 2024 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by TinucherianBot (talk) 07:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Lemur species and authoritative sources
Remember the issue we had when the IUCN released its new Red List and I used them as an authoritative source for the naming of new (and renaming of old) lemur species? I was wondering what your take is on the discrepency within Sportive lemur. On Wiki, people have used various sources to identify 25 species, yet Groves only lists 8. Do we need to scale back Wiki and create redirects to the species Groves identifies, mentioning potential upcoming revisions in the articles, or just leave it as it is? –Visionholder (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Not an issue. MSW3 is definitive as of its publication. We shouldn't go backwards to older lists, but we can move forward as new lists develop. The IUCN isn't an authoritative source for taxonomy, but the various papers describing new species are. I had an electronic conversation with Groves recently, and he stated that a number of people are disappointed with the IUCN's 2008 list, with regard to its divergence from accepted taxonomy. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Carnivora
Why did you revert me? --Nikai (talk) 00:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You removed too much, and even though the links are dead, there are people and bots out there that will find the new link that replaces the broken one. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're referring to. I fixed a link and removed a duplication. --Nikai (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Rollback question
How can I go about getting rollback rights? Someone made multiple edits (vandalism) to the Ring-tailed Lemur page, and if I undo, it only goes back to the previous vandalized page. I can fix things manually, but in the future, I'd like to have the rights to simply roll back multiple edits to fix vandalism like this. –Visionholder (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I figured out how to roll back the edits, however, I would still like rollback rights, if possible. –Visionholder (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm curious. How do rollback rights differ from going to the history and undoing the string of edits? I assume there must be some advantage or else rollback wouldn't be necessary, but I'm not sure what the advantage is. Rlendog (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The only real advantage is in having a single click to revert one users multiple edits, without having to pause and enter an edit summary. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sminthopsis (Dunnart) Type Species
I changed the type species from Phascogale crassicaudata, to Sminthopsis crassicaudata. I thought this was a mistake with 'Phascogale' as the genus, obviously puts the species as a phascogale, and not a dunnart. I have never seen any references to 'dunnarts' originally being named as 'phascogales', and even if so, I have not been able to find any of that information. And if 'Phascogale crassicaudata' is correct then a note within the type species box should explain that the binomial name has since changed, as seen in Quoll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Pharmacist (talk • contribs) 08:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * See the entry at the MSW3. The type species entry is not expected to be the current taxonomic name, but the name at the time (or the original name) when the genus was created. The notation at quoll is because of synonymy, not because the name changed after time. In this case, crassicaudata (described in 1844) was indeed in Phascogale when it was elevated out to create Sminthopsis (in 1887). (Actually, first it was Podabrus, but for some reason that is a junior synonym for Sminthopsis.) It helps to understand what you are editing, or at least looking at a current citable source, instead of just blindly assuming what you are seeing is wrong. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Civit / Civet
Out of curiosity, could you explain why civit was deleted? It seemed useful to me, as it seems like an easy misspelling error to make when looking for civet. (Although I do notice that now Mediawiki is offering a spelling correction to Civet. Was that why?) Thanks. — Epastore (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

number
Crikey, thanks. Hesperian 02:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL! No prob. :) Isn't spell checking fun? ;) - UtherSRG (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Primate at FAC
Hi Stacey! Just wondering if you would be willing to review Primate at FAC. I know you have an interest in it, and any comments would be greatly appreciated! Cheers, Jack (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Page
I was wondering if you could get me the text from the deleted pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Masters_%28Group%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Plan. I made them as a joke to my friend a while back and we were talking about them and wondering what I had written. Thanks.-SaigonTheDon (talk) 05:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Black panther
Please be more careful when reverting "vandalism". This wiped out all of my good faith edits. Again, avoid undoing helpful edits (it's a good thing the page was added to my watchlist). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Presbytis
Please be careful when reverting fully referenced edits, as you did to several Presbytis sp. None of them suggested we should follow a different taxonomy than MSW3, and indeed the quoted ranges and subspecies fully match those for MSW3 taxonomy (the only exception is in the case where MSW3 forgot about Brunei for P. chrysomelas, but that is simply a mistake and nothing related to the taxonomy). Likewise, as you will see if checking MSW3, it also fully supports that they have been considered subspecies of the mentioned species. The only place where the taxonomy doesn't rely 100% on MSW3 is in the cases where it is stated that the taxonomy is disputed, which - as I suspect you know - is pretty well known. If you dislike the IUCN ref. for that, I will change it to e.g. "Asian primate classification" by Bradon-Jones et al., 2004, which involved the majorty of people working with Asian primates (incl. Groves himself), and commented rather extensively on the taxonomy proposed by Groves in 2001 (and followed almost without exception in Groves, 2005). Regards, • Rabo³  • 23:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Edits to 'Kinda Baboon'
Hi UtherSRG,

Could you reinstate the edits I made to the Kinda baboon page on 16 Dec? I know they were minor, but they did have a purpose and do help improve the article. Replacing "semi-terrestrial subspecies of baboon" with "type of baboon" helps because 1) all baboons are semi-terrestrial, so saying Kindas are in the first sentence is unnecessary, and 2) there is some disagreement about whether Kindas are full species or subspecies, so replacing 'subspecies' with 'type' is more accurate. I also go into the whole species/subspecies thing in the next sentence, so having subspecies in the first sentence is, again, redundant.

Thanks for watching out for vandalism on these pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asburrell (talk • contribs) 15:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Echidna train
Do you have any particular justification for your delete of my edit? Please post in the Echidna talk page in response to my request. Please note also that I claim no particular academic or experiential knowledge about this. Thank you, and best wishes, - Leonard G. (talk) 05:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Poiana
Do you think having two distinct articles titled so similar — African Linsang & African linsang — is going to be unnecessarily confusing? From the viewpoint of a drive-by reader, I fear they might suffer negatively from this. I'm not sure...... Sorry to bother you, but I just wanted to see what the logic was. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain we've done this before. And the info at African linsang reasonably points to African Linsang. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a hatnote to each, hopefully it will keep me content - at least for now..... Feel free to alter. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 13:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Need help
Found you on WP:HAU. Can you please block this irritant? Thanks.  Enigma  message 06:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Gallery badger in field.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, File:Gallery badger in field.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Another for you to block
 Enigma  message 05:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone else got him first. The reason I keep coming to you is because you're permanently listed as online. :D  Enigma  message 15:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Your listing on WP:HAU/NA
Hello! On Highly Active Users/North America, you're listed under both Eastern Time and Hawaiian Time. Which of those two are correct? I presume that it's Eastern because your userpage has a UBX telling that you're in New Jersey. SchfiftyThree (talk!) 00:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Both are correct. My home is in NJ, but I work in Hawaii and in the Pacific Ocean. I have a complicated life. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, look at our approval by the Chapters Committee, develop ideas for chapter projects at museums and libraries throughout our region, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the November meeting's minutes and the December mini-meetup's minutes).

We'll make preparations for our exciting museum photography Wikipedia Loves Art! February bonanza (on Flickr, on Facebook) with Shelley from the Brooklyn Museum and Alex from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

We'll also be collecting folks to join our little Wikipedia Takes the Subway adventure which will be held the day after the meeting.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 07:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Categorization of images at Commons
Hello, I was just wondering why you categorized certain primate images like when the file was apparently at Commons the whole time. Did you think that the image was here, or did you know it was at Commons? If the latter is the case, I'm not sure I agree there is any utility in categorizing images both at Commons and again here. Richard001 (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what I did or why, at this point. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

MSW3 print edition
Hello, good to see you back for 2009! (I was starting to worry....) In the print edition of MSW3, can you tell me if it lists Balaena mysticetus as "Bowhead Whale" or "Bowhead". The online edition uses "Bowhead" but the ref in the article uses the print edition and uses "Bowhead Whale". Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have my books with me. For cases like this, I assume that it was sloppiness on the author and should be "Bowhead Whale". - UtherSRG (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

revert on Rhea
I was wondering why you reverted the line breaks on Darwin's Rhea, I did it because the formatting causes the numbers on the footnote section to be hidden by the graphic. If there is another way to do this, great, but I believe something needs to be done speednat (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem you're talking about. The proper way to do what you want, is to use the clear template. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I am still learning Wikipedia, and especially the templates. clearleft is the correct one, but again thanks for pointing me in the right direction. speednat (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Dibbler and Wiki's incorrect nomenclature.
I notice with interest that you have removed the comments I posted on the incorrect nomenclature of the dibbler. The only usage of Southern Dibbler you will find anywhere is in "The Mammals of Australia" by Strahan (2003).

Having worked last year with Dr Tony Friend, the scientist directly involved with the Dibbler Recovery plan and in charge of DEC's dibbler research, I can assure you that no one ever calls the dibbler by the name you have listed it on Wiki (i.e. Southern Dibbler). I have read several PhD projects completed recently, along with substantial scientific literature and ALL of these refer to Parantechinus apicalis as the Dibbler. The researchers from the University of Western Australia also refer to the this marsupial as the dibbler.

I look forward to your reasons for removing my comments. Cheers Michael (Wakefield). 130.95.88.187 (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We follow MSW3 for the common and scientific naming of species. The section the Southern Dibbler is in was written by australian zoologist Colin Groves. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello UtherSRG, thanks for the response.

Its very nice that you have standards to follow, however as stated they are incorrect. Please look at the references I quoted for confirmation of my point instead of rigidly following standards.

The Mammal Species of the World is an American publication, and not an Australian publication. The dibbler is an Australian animal and not an American animal, specifically a Western Australian mammal. Unfortunately the compilers of this book have got it wrong. As previously stated the scientists that work for DEC (Department of Environment and Conservation) in Western Australia all refer to this marsupial mammal as the "dibbler". I have worked with many of them and can assure you if you send an email to any of them, or to the Perth Zoo you will find what I say is correct.

I'm sure you are not stupid enough to stick with incorrect information simply because it is in a book. Because it is published does not mean it is correct and the true measure of being educated is to not believe everything you read and question things do you not agree?

The reality is if you insist on calling it a "Southern Dibbler" you are diseminating incorrect information...

130.95.88.187 (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Michael Wakefield


 * While it is true that MSW3 is an American publication, its authors are far from exclusively so. As I've said, the pertinent marsupial section was written by Australian zoologist Colin Groves. As well, note the existing external links and references of the article and note that they, too, use "Southern Dibbler" as the name for this species. Note also that there is another dibbler species in a different genus, the Sandstone Dibbler, Pseudantechinus bilarni. "Dibbler" by itself can refer to either of these species colloquially. Many scientists will correctly use a colloquial name in their text as it is sufficient given the scientific name, especially when comparing against another species which is unrelated in common name. This does not make it the best choice of common names. In addition, MSW3 has the following to say about common names:


 * "Unlike previous editions, we have provided a common name for each recognized species. The starting point for these names is Wilson and Cole (2000), but each author was encouraged to examine those names and to provide a different one if there was good reason to do so. Thus, this list can be viewed as a second edition of Wilson and Cole (2000).  There are no rules governing vernacular names, but Wilson and Cole (2000) outlined several reasons for adopting a single such name for each species of mammal."


 * As Wilson and Cole (2000) was the first attempt at selecting a formal common name for each mammal species, and given the quote above, MSW3 can be viewed as the next iteration building towards a formal common name checklist. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You're invited!
Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Homo floresiensis
nominated Homo floresiensis for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Thank you. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Western
Category:Western, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Black Falcon (Talk) 08:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Killer Whale vs Orca
A couple of weeks ago, there was a discussion on the talk page about moving the Orca page to Killer Whale in order to be consistent with MSW3, among other things. The consensus was to move. Now a user decided to unilaterally move back, and recreated Killer Whale as a disambiguation page to Orca. Can you restore the consensus naming convention? Rlendog (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds February newsletter
The February 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. MeegsC | Talk 22:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
Hi, just a courtesy message to tell you that I mentioned you here. By the way, thanks for the welcome :) Martin 20:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Lemur Taxonomy Activity
There has recently been editing activity around the genus Eulemur, in particular attempting to split Eulemur rufifrons from Eulemur rufus, and assign E. rufifrons to the Red-fronted Lemur article and create a new "Red Lemur" article for E. rufus. This seems to be based on a comment in the E. rufus 2008 IUCN entry speculating on a possible split. But there is a paper that was published in December 2008 by Mitterneier, et al, that may create a basis for this split. But I cannot access the paper. What do you think? Rlendog (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds March newsletter
The March 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem with Possum file title on Wikimedia
Would it be possible, please, for you to rename the file title, for a photo of a Brushtail Possum, from the incorrect name of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rodent1.JPG to something more suitable for the Possum. Thank you.

I would very much appreciate your help with the renaming of the file as I am unfortunately not able to correct the title myself. I have already corrected the category for the file, at Wikimedia, from the incorrect category of 'Rodentia' to the correct category of 'Marsupialia'. Figaro (talk) 09:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds April newsletter
The April 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. MeegsC | Talk 16:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, establish a membership process for the chapter, review the upcoming Wiki-Conference New York 2009 (planned for ~100 people at NYU this summer) and future projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Changes to brown rat
I noticed your reversion of several edits made by an an anon. I understand there is a lot of vandalism out there, and appreciate all the hard work you do in that regard. However, looking closely at the anon's edits, they appeared to be constructive, and while I recognize the editing behavior as usually indiciative of vandalism, that was not the case this time and you may want to be more careful in the future when using tools to perform reversions as that kind of behavior can chase newbies away. -- ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 22:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds May newsletter
The May 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  06:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Please Stop
Please refrain from editing the changes I have made to the Bonobo section of Wikipedia. They are more than fair. I have modified the details to put them the same as what the sources says. Again, please stop. It's really obvious you have read no books on the subject of Bonobos and don't know what you're talking about. The whole idea that Bonobos copulate about the same frequency as Chimpanzees is surprising and new, however what is INCONTESTABLE is that bonobos maintain sexual intimacy at many times the rate.

If you have a source that says otherwise or even IMPLIES otherwise, by all means enter it. If you do not stop you are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Anonywiki (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds June newsletter
The June 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  13:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Serenity (Firefly episode)
I have nominated Serenity (Firefly episode), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Serenity (Firefly episode). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Tyrenon (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Human
Hi there, restoring this probably wasn't a good idea. I think the IP was quite right to delete this. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Callitrichidae vs Cebidae split
Now that we have updated the renewed Callitrichidae vs Cebidae split, I think the Template:Cebidae nav template needs to be edited and a Template:Callitrichidae nav template needs to be created. I tried, but I seem to be messing up the lists and groups. Do you know how to fix the templates? Rlendog (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ocelot
What are you doing beating me to revert? Aren't you supposed to be taking quizzes on FB? :) Guettarda (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL! - UtherSRG (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Shrew-moles
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1644/1545-1542%282000%29081%3C0578%3ATBAMOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2 http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Neurotrichus_gibbsii.html Cut it out Chrisrus (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No. MSW3 trumps all. It is the closest there is to an official listing of mammal common names. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Cite Chrisrus (talk) 08:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen this: [] Do you see the problem? Do you see why this needs to be done?

You must be wrong. How could that be the official name, when there are so many unrelated Talpids called Shrew-moles? You might want to go check that again before continuing. Chrisrus (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Late Survival for T. carnifex...
...or so this persistent editor thinks. Could we perhaps put light restrictions on editing the two pages? Isn't there a level of restricted editing where only logged in editors can edit? I was also thinking of citing the Roberts et al. paper published in 2001 (Science, vol. 292, pp. 1888-1892) as a more reputable reference for dating the extinction of the megafauna, and by proxy Thylacoleo (I looked at the article, and the youngest date recorded in their data for Thylacoleo was between 47 +/- 6 to 46 +/- 6 kyr BP). I also had a look at some work done on Kangaroo Island, where they (Wells et al.) thought they had a really young site, but there turned out to be some unexpected anomalies in the soil chemistry that lead to inaccurate dates. Once they knew the full story in regards to the soil chemistry, the revised dates were within the extinction range proposed by Roberts et al. (51,200 to 39,800). T.carnifex (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The protection is now in place. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I thought it would be a quick and easy way to combat what was looking like persistent vandalism. Catch you later. T.carnifex (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

American Beaver
Hi Uther,

When you get a chance, would you care to weigh in at Talk:American Beaver. The common name discussion has reopened, which is not unreasonable, but then things have taken a turn for the odd (in my opinion). --Aranae (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Help!
Hi Uther,

I became a member of Wikipedia a long time back.. but never had time to contibute much. I was recently on a trip to a hill station Yercaud and took some photos. Can you please help me upload a photo of the Bonnet Macaque. Can you please tell me how?

You can see the picture at http://www.flickr.com/photos/36008503@N03/3676751993/

Thanks

M Ajith (Talk to me)  15:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi!
I just wondered if you are coming to the first WikiConference New York on July 26th and 26th at NYU in the Village? I am giving a presentation on the progress of WikiProject Gastropods over the last 5 years, as part of a panel, and User:JoJan mentioned to me you were the one who suggested that he start the project, back in May of 2004. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

CephBase
The link from Template:CephBase Species is dead, apparently it has been offline for a while. I could not find it anywhere, do you know if it is still around? cygnis insignis 22:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope... I haven't looked at Cephs in a while. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Solenodon
This sentence struck me as very strange - in fact I thought it was a case of vandalism until I saw that it had remained unchanged for over 2 years. Since you were its author, can you please explain what it means?

"Only one genus, Solenodon, is known, although a few other genera were erected at one time and are now regarded as junior synonyms"

Is this some kind of taxonomic jargon?

Cheers/Godingo (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds August newsletter
The August 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
 * Newsletter delivery by –xeno talk 02:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Aye-aye taxonomy
Hi Uther, I hope you are well. There is a discussion at the WP:PRIMATE talk page on aye-aye taxonomy that might interest you. Basically, the question is whether we should continue to acknowledge infraorder Chiromyiformes, per Groves (2005) even though later sources (including Lemur Diversity in Madagascar 2008 coauthored by Groves) don't seem to recognize it. Rlendog (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Dentition templates
When you get a moment, would you please explain why there is a dentition and a dentition2 template? You seem to have been the creator of both, so I figure you're the best person to ask. Should one be turned into a redirect to the other, or are there functional differences between the two? –Visionholder (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Originally, one had the "Dentition" header and the other didn't. This distinction was important at one time.... Without the header it could be used in text, while with the header it stood alone. then someone made them essentially the same. Oy... - UtherSRG (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate it if you reverted those changes, as I would like to use the template within a line of text in my upcoming re-write of Lemur. Maybe put a note about the difference on the template pages so it doesn't happen again? –Visionholder (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Question Re: Indef block of IP
Hey there - I was looking at Database reports/Indefinitely blocked IPs and I noticed you had blocked on this list. I was curious about this block as 1) There was no reason given for the block 2) Per Blocking IP addresses, IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked, 3) The user had only been warned twice, neither of which was a final warning, and 4) Their contributions didn't appear to be obvious vandalism. Was an indefinite block an accident in this case? Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Since it's been a few days and you haven't edited in over a month, I'm going to go ahead an unblock. VegaDark (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Taxobox 8fields status noimage authority norange
Template:Taxobox 8fields status noimage authority norange has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Taxobox alliance entry
Template:Taxobox alliance entry has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Regnum
Template:Regnum has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yobai deletion
I see you deleted this article some time ago. I'm not sure about what it was like then, but it DEFINITELY merits an article. It already has ones on Japanese and Korean Wikipedias, as it is an important Japanese tradition, not just a foreign word that needs a dictionary entry.

If you have no complaints, can I go ahead and put together a stub for this?

elvenscout742 (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Your old talk page archives that contain significant history
Would you mind if I history merged this page with your old talk page archives, so your talk page contains the history of *all* the messages that have been posted on it? You deleted all your old talk archives - User talk:UtherSRG/Arch1, User talk:UtherSRG/Arch2, etc.), back in February 2007. The archives that contain significant history are User talk:UtherSRG/Arch7 and User talk:UtherSRG/Arch12. User talk page history isn't generally deleted on Wikipedia. Also, I've added a link to your modern archive, User talk:UtherSRG/Archive 2, to your archive box. Hope you don't mind. Graham 87 14:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've commented out the auto-archiving feature on your talk page, since you haven't been active for a while. Talk pages of inactive users should not be auto-archived. Graham 87 01:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Graham. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

help!
Hi UtherSRG!

As you welcomed me three years ago I ask you for help: I forgot my password. well that happens sometimes. Unfortunately I changed my email-adress, so the alias that I used for webstuff is no longer valid. Most probably I also might not remember the alias. Yes. Is there any chance to revive my account? thx a lot in advance --85.127.116.45 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC).


 * Nope, there's no chance of getting your old account back without a valid email address. I hope you don't mind me replying here, UtherSRG, but you've been inactive for nearly four weeks. Graham 87 12:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day NYC
You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Monkeys
I have nominated monkeys for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ucucha 23:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Editing
Nice to see you around again! Ucucha 16:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Philippine Tarsier
As you are a significant contributor to this article I wanted to be sure you were aware that Philippine Tarsier has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Question maybe
Hey UTHER. I was checking stuff out on the Australopithecus afarensis discussion page, and I noticed a couple of comments that you made. You seem to know a lot about the evolution of species. You must be aware of all the gaps and spaces then, right? You see, we've been studying it in school and I was just wondering if you could explain a couple things to me. Some of it just doesn't make sense!! Help, --Watchout4snakes! (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Odd edit at Himalayan Wolf
Thank you for all your help with the wolves.

Second, what do you make of this edit? Seems a little fishy to me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Himalayan_Wolf&curid=10028836&diff=347373440&oldid=347021429


 * You're welcome. Which part of that edit do you not like? (I've been gone for awhile, any my knowledge of wolf populations outside of those listed in MSW3 is very limited...) - UtherSRG (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's Canis lupus chanco. Chrisrus (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I don't know much about the new stuff. Sorry. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been trying to fix it. It's got a ways to go.  You might want to take a look someday.  This is all I know: there was this paper written by a bunch of scientists with Central Asian names that listed a bunch of reasons that they believe this one population of about 3-4hundred Tibetan Wolves (Canis lupus chanco) should be reclassified as a separate subspecies or a separate species.  And for all I know they may be right about that.  The second thing I know is that MSW3's website proves that they have not seen fit to list it, there's nothing there.  So I'm trying to re-write the article to be a story about how these fellows wrote this paper saying this, but that it hasn't been accepted yet, whereas before it was written and taxoboxed as a feita cumpli or however you spell that French term for "a done deal" that these guys' proposal reflected current taxonomy. Chrisrus (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I notice all the work you do on many of the articles on my watchlist; taxoboxes and such; debates you have on talk pages and all, and appreciate it. I'd give you a barnstar or something but I'm don't know how because I'm not into barnstars and whatnot, really; I just write "thank you" sections on people's pages.
 * Anyway, if you know anyone who might interested in checking out that Himalayan Wolf article, give them a heads up that it's out of line with the rest of the Wikipedia articles on Canids. Chrisrus (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Clean-up at WT:PRIMATES
In case you missed it, I messed up the archive naming and need your mighty broom-wielding skills to help straighten it out. I need "Archives 2004" renamed to "Archive 2004" and the redirects deleted so that the talkheader template can properly locate the archives. If it still doesn't see them, then I might just turn off the archives feature in the talk header and use a separate archives box like we used to have. –  VisionHolder  « talk »  17:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Changing it to "Archive_2004" worked. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It fixed the double-redirect, but from what I can see it didn't fix the talkheader archive list. All the links do is point to the redirects for the old archive pages.  The new archives still don't show up.  Could we try deleting the redirects and see if the talkheader template detects them?  If it doesn't work, we may need to move the archive files back to a sequential order (1, 2, 3, ...).  At that point, I'll have to look into creating an archives index and using something more complicated in order to keep the archives organized by year. –   VisionHolder  « talk »  20:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. I removed the first of the redirects. Now there are no links, but it has a search box. Is that what we wanted? - UtherSRG (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't figure out how to get what I want. All the archive templates only work with low archive numbers (1-100).  But to create archives separated by year (like we've been doing), I have to follow a different naming scheme.  Anyway, I'm leaving the bot to do what I originally set it up to do and removed all the search options.  I'm also using the template "Archive box" so that I can (manually) specify where the archives are located.  If you want to play with it and fix it up how you want, go for it.  As it stands now, someone just has to manually add next the 2010(+) archive links to the archive box around this time every year. –   VisionHolder  « talk »  21:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Red Wolves
Hi Uther, Just wanted to write a note about the wolf page and halt any irritation over editing the synonym back and forth. I didn't know you were editing as I was. You are much more active in Wikipedia than I am (I can't even figure out the help that says, "Click the new section button beside "edit this page" at the top." I see nothing like it and just use "===" manually). I couldn't see how to send a persona email, so am using this. I do understand biology, but I'm a population biologist, not a taxonimist. They are concerned with much more fine detail that doesn't really affect how I work with them (I don't do policy either). I work on bears, which are much more distinct at the species level, at least until loss of polar ice put brown bears and polar bears together more often, creating more hybrids so that they are reviewed! It'll be the same, lose polar bear funding if they are reclassified as a subspp?

I also haven't taken the time to read up on all of the wolf stuff, I saw it go past in the last 15 years and there was just too much to keep up with. I might catch up now that it's piqued my interest again. I have been thinking about your example of the synonym and it might answer my other question re what to do with the 3 subspp of red wolves. When grizzlies were dropped to just a subspecies of brown bears, they went from U. horribilus to U. arctos horribilus. It was decided that the common name 'grizzly' really only fit the silvertips of the central northwest, so the rest of the north american 'grizzlies' just became subspecis of brown bears. Again, red wolves are messy. If we had good samples of the 3 original subspp of red wolves, would they be lumped into one under C. lupus, or all become distinct subspp of C. lupus? We'll never know. I guess we don't need to worry about that now. --Paddling bear (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Gecko and domains
Hi, I have reverted your edit. I am one of those who believes that Domain is no different from any other taxon and should therefore appear in the taxobox. I know there are others who disagree, and there has been a debate going on about this at Talk:Reptile, but while it continues I don't think it is appropriate to remove (or add) the entry to pages.

I have not found anything at WP:TOL that even mentions domains, let alone discusses the matter. --ColinFine (talk) 10:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You are correct - the discussion is at Template_talk:Taxobox. I'm reverting your reversion. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks: I thought the discussion was probably going on somewhere else than Talk:Reptile, but I didn't know where. But I don't regard the question as closed and have posted there. --ColinFine (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

tb
 Chzz  ►  03:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Rhiograde references
Uther, May I ask why you deleted the references that I added to the entry on Rhinogrades this morning? While it was nice to see such a quick response to my editing, it was somewhat distressing to see it deleted in its entirety and I must confess that I am curious as to why you chose to do so. The references are real, relevant and accurate and represent pretty much the entire original post-Stuempke literature on rhinogrades. Steiner's (1988) sequel is an entertaining and entirely relevant follow up to his original book. The articles by O.M. Ivanova and her friends offer an entertaining marine twist to the story with the added bonus that, as they really were published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, bored graduate students could relatively easily slip them into their theses and papers as a form of therapeutic stress relief (and to see if anyone is actually reading them) if they were aware of them. 66.230.110.187 (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Yours sincerely, The numerical string (who is neither German nor Russian but who does have a passing fondness for rhinogrades)

WildBot summoning
You seem to like WildBot checking articles; is there a particular group you want checked over? Do you want a once over, or to go on WildBot's watchlist? Josh Parris 06:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All of the primate articles. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 06:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything in Category:Primates and below? Should be doable. Watchlisted or not? Josh Parris 07:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hrm. Watchlist I suppose, as that would mean continued reports when things need fixing, right? - UtherSRG (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. Gimmie a day. Josh Parris 07:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Aight! :) - UtherSRG (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

When it got to Category:Miss Hong Kong Pageants, I suspected those weren't the primates you were after. Having another go. Josh Parris 08:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL! Um, yeah. - UtherSRG (talk) 08:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

These categories and below: Yes? Strike those that aren't appropriate. Josh Parris 08:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Category:Lemurs
 * Category:Lorises and galagos
 * Category:Monkeys
 * Category:Non-human primates in culture
 * Category:Prehistoric primates
 * Category:Primate anatomy
 * Category:Primate images
 * Category:Primatology
 * Category:Tarsiers
 * Category:Chimpanzees
 * Category:Gibbons
 * Category:Gorillas
 * Category:Great Ape Trust
 * Category:Apes in popular culture, sorry, but you miss out on Category:Planet of the Apes films - too bad Josh Parris 09:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Category:Prehistoric apes
 * Category:Early species of Homo
 * Category:Hominin fossils


 * Looks good. I think the problem before was the Human category buried in there somewhere. - UtherSRG (talk) 08:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Everyone knows that humans aren't primates! And winners of beauty pageants aren't humans...  Josh Parris 09:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * chuckle, snort guffaw* - UtherSRG (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, for some inexplicable reason the entries are at Best strike out Curious George and brethren. Holler once you're happy with that list. Josh Parris 09:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * User_talk:WildBot/primates
 * User_talk:WildBot/primates2
 * User_talk:WildBot/primates3
 * User_talk:WildBot/primates4
 * User_talk:WildBot/primates5
 * User_talk:WildBot/primates6
 * User_talk:WildBot/primates7
 * User_talk:WildBot/primates8
 * User_talk:WildBot/primates9
 * User_talk:WildBot/primates10
 * User_talk:WildBot/primates11
 * User_talk:WildBot/primates12
 * User_talk:WildBot/primates13
 * User_talk:WildBot/primates14
 * User_talk:WildBot/primates15
 * User_talk:WildBot/primates16


 * Ok. Lists 1-7 done. 8-16 are empty. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Category:Primate_anatomy includes such things as Category:Ethanol. Scrubbing. Josh Parris 12:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't strike, delete. Processing primates->7 around now, the link is a little flakey. Josh Parris 12:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * do you need me to o back and delete from 1-7? I've completed 10-16. 8 & 9 are empty still. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, I've done that. I'll tackle 10-16 next.  8 & 9 aren't viable. Josh Parris 13:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okie dokie. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

So, did this work out as you expected? Josh Parris 01:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if it worked or not. If there are no errors to detect, I won't see anything. *shrugs* - UtherSRG (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

re:Red Links
Sorry. My mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NicolasJz (talk • contribs) 16:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Cetacean intelligence
How are does this order "as a group" exhibit high intelligence when only a small minority have been studied in any detail? And some of those species (e.g. all baleen whales) are not by any means highly intelligent. How could a species such as the North Atlantic right whale be considered highly intelligent? Or blue whales? Or fin whales? I could go on? Jonas Poole (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Sunday, March 21
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Day NYC, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Lights Camera Wiki, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example User:ScienceApologist will present on "climate change, alternative medicine, UFOs and Transcendental Meditation" (see the November meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. And if the weather is good, we'll have a star party with the telescopes on the roof of Pupin Hall!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Jamiat Ahle Hadith
What was the reason for you reverting my edits to Jamiat Ahle Hadith? I undid two redlinks and ran reflinks what could you find objectionable about these edits?--Supertouch (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Removing redlinks is bad. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously you are trying to prove point, however, a close reading of WP:REDLINK shows that in general redlinks are positive and contribute to article growth, they should not be created for articles that will most likely not be created in the near future. The redlinks on the page in question have been there for sometime (I don't have time to say exactly when right now). I thank you for clarifying this issue even if I disagree with its application in this particular instance as I previously assumed all redlinks were "bad". A second issue is that in the course of your revert on the aforementioned page you have reverted other constructive edits unrelated to the redlinks, could you not have just manually restored those redlinks so as to preserve the unrelated edits?--Supertouch (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Lemur species and taxonomic authorities
I thought we were trying to stick with taxonomic authorities when dealing with new lemur species? (In fact, you were the one who originally made this point.) I have no problem with species articles being created based on an initial journal article declaring their discovery. Heck, we can always convert it to a redirect if a taxonomic authority rules it out as a subspecies of an existing species. However, the List of lemur species page I have reserved for only "recognized" lemur species. In that regard, until the new 3rd edition of "Lemurs of Madagascar" comes out this summer, I've been limiting it to only the "Lemur Diversity in Madagascar" paper by Mittermeier, Groves, Tattersall, et al. I don't mind the updates to the other lemur pages. I plan to ultimately offer both official and unofficial totals there. Would you prefer that I add an additional table to List of lemur species to include all unofficial species? –  VisionHolder  « talk »  15:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I know. I vacilate a bit. ;) I think the table of unofficial species would be good. Hrm... but maybe call it something else. "Pending"? I dunno. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer "unconfirmed". –  VisionHolder  « talk »  16:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent! - UtherSRG (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just give me some time and I will add the section (separate from the main lists). Right now I'm trying frantically to finish a little bit more of the new Lemur article before have to go waste my time at work tonight.  (If you want to see what I'm talking about, check your email.) –   VisionHolder  « talk »  16:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

western lowland gorilla
I see. I was unaware of the policy. Is there a reason for it? I have never seen such a rule anywhere else. I was simply changing it because it is ungrammatical. -- Jieagles (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Felinae
Sir, Please let me know if there is some protocal agreed on for the classification of felines.

I was trying to make some of the links more informative as some university students wanted to know which species were in which subfamily. The French wikipedia is ironically mich more informative (with more star articles) and gives subfamilies for felines.

Thank you, User:Bruinfan12
 * Our standards are to put only minimal info into the taxobox. the information you seek is available in other articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hominidae
I noticed that you reverted edits to the Hominidae page, which had changed "great ape" to "hominid." I understand that there has been some contention about the use of common vs. scientific classification - and in general I am in favor of the use of common names - but I thought that the change from "great ape" to "hominid" was a good one. I would argue that "great ape" is rather imprecise a synonym for Hominidae because it is often understood to exclude humans, and that "hominid" is both a precise synonym and commonly understood. It may be less commonly used than "great ape" but it is also less subject to misunderstanding, and in any case its meaning is made clear at the beginning of the article. Tapatio (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have broached this on the Hominidae talk page if you'd like to discuss it there. Tapatio (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Piliocolobus vs Procolobus
Thanks for your feedback! I understand, however in the taxonomy box on the page, Piliocolobus kirkii was sited by saying that "Gray, 1868" was the source. Gray actually classifies it as Procolobus which is also indicated on the IUCN. I too have been in contact with a researcher in Tanzania from Oxford who completed her PhD thesis on the monkey and I had asked her what it should be classified as, given the confusion, and she said it is in fact Procolobus. This explains why so many peer reviewed articles on ISI Web of Knowledge classify the monkey as in the Procolobus genus.

The ISIT updates its information and has Procolobus as the valid classification. It was last updated in 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CJjensen01 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for your help with canid-related articles. Chrisrus (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! :) - UtherSRG (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Word Alive
Sorry for making the warning seem aggressive or anything; it's just that the band is definitely notable in modern music and as such the article shouldn't be deleted, but for whatever reason it's repeatedly deleted... Raktoner (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then use afd to defend the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks x 2
Good catch on my bad URL in the Benjamin Harrison (sculpture) start--thank you for the fix! Jgmikulay (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Scientific names
In both cases of Neblina Uakari and Aracá Uakari names of all the describers should be listed. Citing describers is not the same as a journal citation, and does not follow the same rules. Descriptions can have a different author list than the article/chapter author list, and that is another reason why the complete describer list should be given. If you have comments, let me know. (Killidude (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

Rhesus Macaque
Ah. I stand corrected on that, and my apologies, then. - The Bushranger (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Np. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 02:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Need for independant moderation
Dear UtherSRG,

As my wikispecies mention it, I recently came to wikispecies to provide information on the order Zoantharia (I am a taxonomist of this order). However, I seem to have gotten into an argument which seems getting out of control (I am slowly loosing my nerves) with another administrator who keeps deleting my work and inserting invalid/non existing species names to the species list of the genus Parazoanthus (and without providing any justification in the discussion page). Therefore, as I am doing this aside of my research on this order, I am requesting a "neutral" intervention to set things straight as else it is useless for me as a reearcher to spend considerable time trying to contribute to provide accurate and actual information on Wikispecies. I am beginning in Wikispecies, so I am not familiar with the cross linking and editing tools, but you can follow the chaotic situation on the page "Parazoanthus".

Sorry to disturb you with this but this is my last attempt before abandoning the idea to contribute to wikispecies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsinniger (talk • contribs) 17:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll see what I can see... haven't done much with Wikispecies in years... - UtherSRG (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * thank you for your intervention (although I am anyway blocked now). I am a specialist of this order and while I am not paid to update wikispecies I wanted to contribute with my knowledge. Basically it will take a enormous time to get even the Parazoanthus species list ready as numerous species have been described multiple times or moved to other genera. Therefore I started, step by step with a few species, adding recently the references for each of them present here. I had put a note after the list, to mention that this list was far from being complete so it would not be considered exhaustive by non specialist, however this note disappeared. I acknowledged the editing work from the other administrator on one reference mistake and on some formatting issues. The only point I do not stand is changing existing, valid and used species names for "adapted" or accorded ones based that have never ever been written in the literature, and the recurrent deletion of my work on this page without any explanation or justification. Like I said, I do have research to do on the taxonomy of this group for which I am paid for and I do not have extra time to spend redoing and reexplaining my modifications (which are not based on personal views, but on published work). I will now enjoy my ban to work on my research and enjoy free time, and I will see how things cooled down next week. Sorry to have involved you in this, but when things get personal an external neutral point of view is very welcome. Thanks again and I hope things will get smooth in the future. After calming down a bit on both sides the discussion will certainly be more constructive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsinniger (talk • contribs) 21:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't care about any of that. You have been unbanned. Please just comply with my request: Provide me with a list of species you think are valid for this genus, on the genus' talk page. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Funeral Games
Hi Uther, I'm still in the middle of 'Funeral Games'. Give me a few minutes, as I'm just trying to polish my first draft. We keep conflicting with our edits. I'll try to sort obvious things like disambig. Thanks. Centrepull (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No prob. Some advice: Don't save the first draft until you are ready for other folks to view it. Use "Show Preview" as you edit that first draft to see what it looks like. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ivan Titenkov
good, your reward will be''
 * ''please help me in correcting mistakes

for humanity and assistance to the participants all will awarded on my behalf''
 * ''I do not know the English all who can help

-Grinpin (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Um... no. If you do not know English, you should not be creating articles on the English Wikipedia. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Please be more careful
In the article proof by contradiction, you incorrectly disambiguated "proof by induction" to "inductive logic" here. it should instead have been "mathematical induction". Paul August &#9742; 20:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I was incorrect. The text given above the link doesn't require mathematics, only logic. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Trust me, no one uses the term "proof by induction" in any mathematical context as anything other than a synonym for mathematical induction. Paul August &#9742; 21:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

朝陽區
Look at Adorno's talk page. High time that you learn Chinese before randomly deleting such pages. 华钢琴49 (TALK) 01:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, this is the English-language Wikipedia. Article titles should be in English when possible. As such, your two articles were duplicates of an existing disambiguation page where the title is in English. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * they were not exact duplicates. did you not read the discussion on his talk page?
 * Blah. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Chinese re-directs
I ask that you re-instate the following:
 * Lhasa:
 * 拉萨市 (simplified official name)
 * 拉薩市 (traditional)
 * 拉薩 (traditional)
 * Chaoyang County
 * 朝阳县 (simplified)
 * 朝陽縣 (traditional)
 * Hui people
 * 回族
 * Chaoyang District, Shantou
 * 潮阳 (simplified, abbreviated name; there are no other places in China with this character representation)
 * 潮陽 (traditional)
 * 潮阳区 (simplified, full name)
 * 潮陽區 (traditional)
 * Chaoyang (a disambiguation that can point to all of the places listed under Chaoyang, except for the one in Shantou)
 * 朝陽
 * 朝阳

By the CSD-A2 standard, if you delete all of these, then all of the Chinese re-directs ought to be deleted. Yet many of them still exist without administrator complaint; type in 北京市，北京，上海市，上海，and the list goes on and on. It seems that all you did was go down my list of contributions and delete everything that is most recent. Great skill. 华钢琴49 (TALK) 01:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Denied, and yes, exactly. English-language wiki article titles should be in Roman characters. I'm not going to discuss this. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * good luck deleting all of the other re-directs, because that is a very heavy task and will create some outrage amongst users. it's only a few admins that complain about such re-directs. enough with your snobbishness; your opinion does not trump that of all other admins. 华钢琴49 (TALK) 01:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * read . foreign language is NOT under there. go ahead and keep on fighting with me and all the other users that create similar re-directs, especially User:Joseph Solis in Australia. 华钢琴49 (TALK) 02:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * According to, you were not complying with policies on re-directs from foreign languages. what you think is right is evidently not supported by the page above. 华钢琴49 (TALK) 02:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. And I'm not debating this with you. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * if you delete all of my re-directs, time to delete Joseph Solis's re-directs too. do not target individual users' contributions in such a manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathpianist93 (talk • contribs)
 * In that, I agree. Can only do so much at once. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Examples of appropriate use of foreign-language redirects include original or official names of people, places, institutions, publications, products, or manifestations of culture with special significance in areas where that language is spoken.' taken from the re-directs from foreign language guideline page. Now let's watch you fail to keep up on your purposeless promise. there are too many re-directs right now for you to even consider manually deleting them all. 华钢琴49 (TALK) 02:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ignore. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Siyaram's
Hello UtherSRG, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created, Siyaram's, has been marked for speedy deletion by User:Wifione. This has been done because the page is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add " " to the page text, and edit the to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:Wifione. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of 20:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Np. Wasn't mine. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for 吉林市
An editor has asked for a deletion review of 吉林市. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Just letting you know discussion was moved from RfD. Frazzydee|&#9997; 05:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Your improper deletions have been brought to DRV at Deletion review/Log/2010 April 18. Cunard (talk) 05:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean "disputed", not "improper", don't you? Innocent until proven guilty, please. :D - UtherSRG (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Uther, this is not a trial; we're not trying to decide if you're guilty or not, we're trying to build an encyclopedia. It would save everybody's time if you could end this tragedy by speedy closing the DR and undeleting the redirects, as I proposed. &mdash; Sebastian 01:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * They were disputed, not improper, until decided otherwise. Check out how long I've been a Wikipedian.... I know what we're trying to do here. Please don't patronize me. Am I required to undo the deletions, or is that something the closing DRV'er will do? - UtherSRG (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I know you've been around a while, but I also know that each of us can forget our goal sometimes, when we feel that we have to defend our selves in what feels like trials. I have been thinking of closing this, since it obviously falls under the Snowball clause. But then I thought that you must be aware of that, too. I considered that you might just be caught in this "self-defense" mode. So I wanted to propose a way that would allow you to show magnanimity, and help the overall project. Of course you're not required to do anything here - we're all volunteers. But it would be a win-win situation if you did. &mdash; Sebastian 02:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That would mean that I think the decision is correct, and that I think I am wrong. I still think my actions were correct, but I will not fight the decision of the majority. (A group can be unanimous and still be wrong.) So no, I won't be undeleting that garbage, but I won't delete any more of them. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it would not mean that. It would only mean that you respect the majority, and allow everybody to focus on our goal of creating an encyclopedia, instead of trying to find out if you're right or wrong. &mdash; Sebastian 02:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it's what it would mean for me. Cheers! - UtherSRG (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of James Baker swimmer
Hi UtherSRG,

I would like to contest this speedy deletion. The article is about a swimmer who a few years ago who was extremely highly regarded and looked to be an Olympic hopeful. As I'm sure lots of Manxies would agree James is a notable resident. The criteria it was raised under suggests i have a connection with the swimmer, however this is not the case. I have seen him swim before a few years ago, and I interviewed him after one of his swims but that's it. I wrote the article as I noticed he wasn't listed as a notable resident on the Isle of Man page when I was reading it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnzyuk (talk • contribs) 00:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You have 10 days. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Heads up
I'm sure this will show up on your watchlist, so just letting you know that I accidentally clicked the rollback button and vandalized your user page.

Sorry about that. I reverted myself a few seconds later :$ -Frazzydee|&#9997; 01:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL! np. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Gentiana villosa
How can I upload an image onto my Gentiana villosa article? I wrote more about the origin as well so hopefully you don't find it contradictory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnit (talk • contribs) 01:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Find the link on the left scroll bar titled "Upload file". Make sure there are no copyright issues with the file being uploaded. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Snow Leopard
Hi Uther Thanks for all the rvv on this page. I don't understand why this article appears to be such an attractive target. It's been vandalised every day this month bar the 16th, whereas Tiger has hardly been touched. Would you pls semi-protect this, say for a week, and we'll see if that drops it back to normal levels. Thanks.  Secret Squïrrel , approx 00:50, 28 November 2008 (Sol III Standard Time)
 * No prob. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Inserts into first sentence of lead
In our discussion above, I wanted to say that I sometimes respect the decision of the majority here, even though I disagree with it, but I couldn't think of an suitable example. Now it occurred to me that there is a similar situation, where we even both might see eye to eye. Some six years ago, there was a discussion about the inserts for alternative spellings and names into the lead section of articles, as e.g. the text "(Chinese: 沈括; pinyin: Shěn Kuò; Wade-Giles: Shen K'uo) (1031–1095), style name Cunzhong (存中) and pseudonym Mengqi (now usually given as Mengxi) Weng (夢溪翁),[1]" in Shen Kuo. I can't find the discussion now, but I seem to remember that there was a simple majority for keeping those. I was among the people who find these very disruptive and argued for generally moving this information to the infobox. That would still be possible, but it requires some work, since not all infoboxes are set up for that. (See also WT:China.) What do you think? Should we start a campaign to change these? &mdash; Sebastian 03:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hrm. I certainly agree with you that it's annoying. (There's an Old World monkey that's got a bunch of Chinese scribbles in it that I don't think should be there...) So here's the thing... if the redirects are good, why would the lead be bad? Let's reverse that... if the redirects are bad, why would the Chinese in the leads be good? If someone is searching the Wiki, they'll find either, so we only need one or the other. We either need the leads, or we need the redirects. We don't need both... Your thoughts? - UtherSRG (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I see no Chinese on Old World monkey, did you mean an older version, or a different article?
 * The insert in the leads is bad because it distracts readers, and in the most prominent place, at that. There's no such problem with the redirects. &mdash; Sebastian 03:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a particular species that has the Chinese in it.. I just can't remember which one off the top of my head.
 * I agree, though, the Chinese in the articles (or Japanese, or Cherokee, or Russian, or Greek) is very distracting and makes that first sentence very difficult to read. Certainly worse than the junk redirects. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * By "junk", I presume you mean 船. Now that's a red link; let me make that a redirect. :-P &mdash; Sebastian 07:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * On my work computer, which I use 2 months out of 3, that comes out as a box with 4 digits in it, which I call 82 over 39. I don't have permission to add other character sets to my work computers, but I'm guessing that was Chinese. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear that. That's the opposite of any software company I ever worked for. &mdash; Sebastian 18:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah... it is Golden_Snub-nosed_Monkey. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. That contains indeed many Chinese characters which should be deleted according to WP:Manual of Style (use of Chinese language). I thought of deleting those that already have articles and of searching articles for those that don't. But then I realized that this whole list of place names is not very helpful to begin with. Who would look up each link to get an idea of the habitat? Ideally, we would have a range map. I could create one; I don't have experience with that yet, but I've been thinking of creating such maps anyway. For doing that, it would be most helpful for me to keep the Chinese characters for now, so I can find the locations on the map. One thing that made me hesitate creating such maps is that when someone asks for them at Graphic Lab/Map workshop, they never provide sources. The article Golden Snub-nosed Monkey is no better; in fact, someone already called out the lack of sources two years ago. But why should we hold that article to a higher standard than all other range maps? In short, I'm not sure what to do about it now; I'll have to sleep over it. &mdash; Sebastian 07:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Feh. Either of us could take them out with a good edit summary that says "removing Chinese characters", and then you could always go back to that version to use to make the range map. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, I could work with two versions concurrently. But I'd rather keep it simple. It's only a temporary extension of the status quo; discussing such a petty little matter is probably not the best use of our time. &mdash; Sebastian 18:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers! - UtherSRG (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment directed towards you
Not sure if you are keeping track of the discussion regarding Chinese-language redirects over at WP:DRV. There was a comment directed towards you made by User:SebastianHelm: Deletion review/Log/2010 April 18.

I'm not sure I would follow that comment, since it would probably be against process for you to speedy-close the discussion, as suggested. Of course it is your call, I'm just delivering the message in case you haven't already seen it. -Frazzydee|&#9997; 03:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not following it, but he brought it to my attention a few sections up here. Thanks, though. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Frazzydee; it's hard to see on this busy page! I just want to clarify for the record that (aside from WP:SNOW, as I mentioned above), it's at least a clear case of WP:IAR if the one person who disagreed closed it to respect the majority. But I don't want to beat a dead horse, we don't need to discuss this any further. &mdash; Sebastian 03:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've always wanted to give a very long lecture on sadonecrobestiality, but that's just beating a dead horse... ;) - UtherSRG (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

non-English characters
Hello,

I see that you prefer English characters on article titles, do you mean ASCII only, or do you include &AElig;, &OElig; as English characters?

I've noticed that alot of European articles do not use English titles, but use some weird Germanic or Eastern European characters that are not used in English. How would these get corrected, since many of these have prominent English names, but seem to fail at WP:RM whenever anyone suggests it.

70.29.208.247 (talk) 06:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If it is based on the Roman character set, I like it. So yes, ligatures like &AElig; would be good, as are accented characters like é are good. Hebrew, Cyrillic, Greek, Chinese, Japanese, etc., would all be out. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What of the cases where the dominant form in English doesn't have the weird German betas, or D-bars, or accents on consonants? (such as tennis players from the Balkans... "Lech Walesa" (should be without accents) etc)
 * I see that the weird forms that are not English characters are not English, myself, and thus do not conform to using English titles.
 * 70.29.208.247 (talk) 07:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Non-English is fine. Non-Roman is not, in my opinion. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * They're just weird chickenscratches though (or chickenscratches laid atop letters), as you said on your (this) talk page, weird chickenscratches shouldn't be used... Well atleast not on article titles. Atleast my opinion is that they are also not very good for what is ostensibly a general English audience (instead of the audience being Central European multilingual English speaker), and if one were in India, I doubt they'd know an eszett from a beta, or in Canada, a thorn from a deformed P, or in the USA, why all these weird accents are lying around.
 * That's just my personal opinion. I see we don't quite see titles in the same way. Oh well... 70.29.208.247 (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We're all allowed our opinions... - UtherSRG (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

revert
I thought that editors can remove their own comments nearly at will; I haven't read the talk page guidelines because it takes mostly common sense and prudent judgment to follow them. 华钢琴49 (TALK) 12:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) since no one has quoted anything from my first section, I would like it to be removed
 * 2) same thing for my remark in the section below the aforementioned.


 * Talk pages for users are handled differently than talk pages for users. Your comments will stay until the archiving kicks in. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * ok, but you unintentionally repeated yourself: "talk pages for users are handled differently than talk pages for users". well, in that sentence, they are the same. -华钢琴49 (TALK) 17:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL! You got me! ;) I meant "talk pages for user are handled differently than talk pages for articles. But I think you figured that out. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * so that means it is more acceptable to delete your own comments on talk pages for articles than on user pages? I won't do the latter again. I haven't done the former yet, but I may when I feel the need to. and sorry for getting that ticked off at you; it's just that I was shocked that 100+ of my edits could be deleted within an hour. 华钢琴49 (TALK) 18:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Correct. No offense taken. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Lina Marulanda
Er...I'm not the creator - I just pepped it up a little. Otherwise I don't have a horse in the race. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd like to say I did that 'cos I put the speedy on all of the author's talks (which I usually do), but I goofed and put it on yours only. thanks for the heads-up! - UtherSRG (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Any time. As I say, I don't have a horse in the race, and as I don't know a thing about Colombian models, I'm not qualified to contest the speedy - or not, as the case may be. :-) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers! - UtherSRG (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Cavanaugh, Something (Pre-Sides and Varieties)
I contested this deletion on the article's talk page, but you did not respond. You proceeded with Speedy Deletion anyway. Can you please tell me why this article was deleted? The album the page was about is an EP from an artist that Wikipedia has deemed notable several times. There are articles for every album this artist has released thusfar. See: The Frequency E.P., Texas, Ancient Electrons, and Besides, Nothing (B-Sides and Rarities, 2003–2009). See the artists' page here: Analog Rebellion. I'd like to get this page restored. Thank you. ~*LiSaSuArEz*~ 22:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC) (talk)
 * Actually, I didn't delete it, another admin did. Go to WP:DRV to contest the deletion. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking again, it was never deleted, just turned into a redirect. If you can show notability *of this album* (not every album of a notable band is notable), I'm sure you can get the redirect turned back. (You can do it yourself, in fact.) - UtherSRG (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

313 D'Ghetto
The article, which you speedied, has been re-created by the author, fyi. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Question: is G4 appropriate for re-creation of articles that have been speedied? It specifically refers to "per discussion," so I've usually just notified the administrator did the deleting rather than using that template. Just curious, ScottyBerg (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right... it should be for the same reason as the previous speedy... which I think is silly. Either way, if someone were to look to undelete it, they'd see the delete history. But I'll be more careful in my selections in the future. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Rafting event
Was using "Category:Rafts" for "Nonanthropogenic rafts," as in Raft article. Evidently too ambiguous/confusing? Djembayz (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Bird Taxa Classifications
Hey, I understand my edits were wrong and was just about to revert them myself but how does bird classification work? How can they be part of the subclass Diapsid under the class Reptilia and yet also be classed as Aves? According to the link Aves is an Infraclass reference from article. Is this info box for Aves incomplete? Genjix (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. You'd be better off asking on talk:Bird or WT:BIRD - UtherSRG (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Monogenes
Hi. Are you following Monogenēs? Do you think (a) page kept (b) the macron should be removed/redirected? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I stopped following the AFD after you significantly improved the article. Good job. It should be kept, and the macron should stay. I'll say so on the AFD. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Marvel vs dc characters
I noticed you deleted the article in which the AfD points too. If you are going to delete an article, close the AfD. I have had to close AfDs when articles have been deleted. So please do that from now on. It will it save another editor time in closing a discussion on an already deleted article. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 17:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, I should have done that. Sorry. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Capuchin monkey
My restortation of your edit conflicted with your restoration of your own edit - noticed too late that you explained your reason. Sheeana <font style="color:57697f">Talk 18:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Zettai_ryouiki
Whoa, whoa. Hold on. Why did you close this? You're a heavily involved admin- you nominated the bloody thing! Second of all, how was that a speedy delete? I counted three keeps and four deletes including yours as a nominator. I have a pretty big problem with this. You should not have closed that AFD. ALI nom nom 23:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at the previous (2nd) nomination. It was deleted under that. WP:CSD then comes into play, as the article should not have been recreated in the first place. If you think my actions were wrong, then take it to WP:DRV. If you think the actions were wrong but that it shouldn't have been me doing it, and you think it's worth making a stink over, see Requests_for_comment/User_conduct. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have less of an issue with the grounds on which the article was deleted than I do with the fact that you nominated it, participated in the discussion, and closed the discussion and deleted the article yourself. I've no wish to blow the issue up, I just thought you should recognize that level of involvement by an admin is not well received. Meh, I suppose I'm just being picky. ALI nom nom 01:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Trent Mill
Did you mean to move just the talk page of Trent Mill, Shaw? ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 16:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh... no, I meant to move them both. Fixed now. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Alexander Mauskop Wikipedia Entry
Hi Stacey,

I am writing in regards to the Alexander Mauskop, MD Wikipedia page. After submitting the entry, I received many warnings. I edited the page as requested, however, the warning tags remain on the page. I've read many instructions to improve this entry, but trying to figure out what to do next.

Can you please take a look at the page again and give me suggestions for improvement? Also, do you know why the picture is not appearing on the page? I will make all changes as necessary. Thank you so much in advance, I greatly appreciate the help and feedback!

Best,

Lauren WildFrogStudio (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like most of the issues are still there. The article reads like an advert for the guy, not a neutral article about him. The listing of books and publications is way too large, and incorrectly formatted, his medical title should only be mentioned once, and, because it needs so much work, it is difficult to tell if the sources are sufficient to support the notability. Try reading a few other well written biographical articles, and WP:BIO. See, for instance Benjamin Spock. Did you upload your file? - UtherSRG (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for this edit (and I obviously don't mean the vote). Sgaran has posted this note on several pages and being the subject of the attack, I hesitated to remove them (I did remove it -very exceptionally- from my own talk page). I did indeed come to this walled garden via the Phenomics article, which basically was just a stub stating that the term had been coined by Steven Garan. This led me to the article on Paola Timiras, who certainly is notable, but again that bio was mainly used to highlight Garan (and minimizing Timiras, who apparently got most things done "in collaboration with Steven Garan"). I cleaned up that bio and added her most important references, which is the "malicious attack" referred to by Sgaran. For reasons completely unrelated to this all, I have decided to leave WP, but anyway wanted to say thanks for removing one of those personal attacks. --Crusio (talk) 08:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Some people just can't figure out how to work within a system to express the points they want to make, nor on how to be civil. This Garan fellow seems to be one of them. I hope you'll only go on a wikivacation and come back soon. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 08:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Credit Derivatives Product Company
thank you Decora (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Shiny Red Tuning
This page was deleted. SRT is a world renowned scooter tuner who sends engines and parts worldwide. If you Google Shiny Red Tuning there's a couple of pages dedicated to him. I was linking from the SRT page as people often ask what SRT is and the company wasn't listed on that page. If you prefer a more robust article I can create one, but I was planning on editting it and adding pictures? Why delete it so quickly? Pickle_i_po Pickle i po (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's called "speedy deletion" for a reason. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't find that comment very helpful. What was so offensive about the article? I read the guidelines and still don't understand. Does that mean I can re-submit a more robust article or am I just wasting my time? Pickle i po (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Edit....Can I create an article here Special:MyPage/Shiny Red Tuning, without it being deleted and receive some constructive tips on what is wrong with it? Your help would be much appreciated Pickle i po (talk) 05:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It is always your prerogative to resubmit a better article. Submitting a short article about a company that doesn't show notability is going to be deleted one way or another. Note that there are several reasons an article will be deleted very quickly. There are also some slower routes as well (WP:PROD & WP:AFD). If you intend your article to stick around, you should become familiar with what it takes to keep an article from failing a speedy, prod, or afd deletion. And yes, User:Pickle i po/Shiny Red Tuning is a very good place to initially create your article. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

WaveSecure
I am trying to understand on what grounds the page WaveSecure was deleted. Neither does the article act as an advertisement nor a promotion of the company/product. It merely lists down the features of WaveSecure and a brief history about it, along with adequate references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindamilton (talk • contribs) 08:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It should have been deleted under WP:CSD A7. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Castle Cove Public School
You tagged Castle Cove Public School for speedy deletion. Please note that db-a7 does not apply to schools. <font face="Times">Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So what category are schools eligible under? If there isn't one, there should be, for certainly not all schools need an article. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason that school articles are not eligible for speedy deletion under db-a7 is that schools can be notable even without references. High schools are considered automatically notable. Elementary and middle schools need to demonstrate notability through references. If this cannot be done, then the article should be merged into the corresponding school district article or article about the locality. 08:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Should or must? I don't see anything in this particular article worth saving. Do you? - UtherSRG (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The name of the school, the grades it offers, the name of the principal, and its URL are all worth saving. I have added that information to Castle Cove, New South Wales and changed the school article to a redirect to the education section of that article. <font face="Times">Eastmain (talk • contribs)  08:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine. - UtherSRG (talk) 08:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You guys make it hard for people to be enthusiastic about contributing to wikipedia. I'm a new user and this was my first page. I hadnt completed it yet and I was going to add some more things like an info box when I got the time. It had taken quite a while to do what I had done (despite how minimalistic you believe it was). I'm not having a go at you but I am in serious doubt that it was necessary to remove the page. Bonjour! Je m'appelle lcb1994  talk  09:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No matter how large you could have made the article, could you have shown that the school was notable? notability is the main key to whether an article stays or goes. If the subject of the article is not notable, it is highly likely that it will be deleted in some fashion, no matter how large the article is. Can you say that your school is notable, according to our guidelines?  I find it highly doubtful. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, this wikipedia article [] states that "...a user's contributions that consist solely of a lone edit to their user page should not normally be speedy deleted unless it consists solely of spam or other speedy deletable material. They may have simply created their page as their first edit, and could return at any time. Such pages should be sent to Miscellany for deletion and the user notified as normal." It seems to me that you HAVE NOT followed the criteria for a speedy deletion. Bonjour! Je m'appelle lcb1994  talk  11:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You weren't creating a user page, you were creating an article. Your user page is user:lcb1994. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that you don't have a decent reason for its deletion if thats all you have to say. Bonjour! Je m'appelle lcb1994   talk  04:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you are trying to say, but I think you don't either. I think you are confusing a user page with an article page. In that context, your statements make no sense. I marked an article for deletion, not a user page. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Castle Cove Public School
You should read this better, as you nominated the article for speedy deletion but A7 writes: an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools) --Extra 999 (Contact me +  contribs) 10:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, see above. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's probably not my place, and since I'm not an admin, my input has little bearing on the matter. However, I have worked with UtherSRG at WP:PRIMATE, and respect his judgment.  My thoughts on the matter are as follows:
 * db-a7 does state that schools are exempt. However, Uther has a point.  Under what category do schools fall under?  This sounds like an issue that should be taken up Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, not on someone's talk page.  Admittedly, my obscure high school is represented on Wiki, but should it be?  What about all the community schools that function as high schools in remote villages in lesser developed countries (such as Madagascar—a place to which I've been)?  Do they deserve Wiki pages?  I feel the history of this speedy deletion section needs to be reviewed and the issue of schools need to be addressed... but not here.
 * Uther is right about the user page issue he discussed with Lcb1994. An article is not the same as a user page.
 * My sympathies to Lcb1994. I, too, was once a new editor to Wiki and had |my fair share of speedy deletions that I did not agree with.  (The link shows the second attempt to speedy delete.  The first attempt went through seconds after the article's creation.)  Don't lose heart.  Article creation is not something that I feel a new editor should jump into.  Start with looking over existing articles and make some contributions there.  (Spend an hour on Wiki looking around, and I'm sure you'll find at least 20 things to fix, even as simple as basic grammar.)  Learn your way around, build a name for yourself, and after a few dozen or hundred constructive edits, be bold.  I know Wiki encourages you to "be bold" from the the start, but from experience, it's safer if you spend a few days or weeks getting broken in on existing articles.  Even after nearly 3,000 edits, I got my butt chewed over attempts at renaming, deleting, and creating categories.  There's a learning curve, and as the Wikipedia community grows and develops, the curve gets steeper.  Please stay with Wiki and keep contributing.  Use this experience in a constructive manner and learn from it.  Both I and Uther value your presence here.  Good faith is fundamental assumption here, but the creation of a new article (or category, in my case) is one of those places where experience is important, otherwise Wiki would be a land of chaos and disinformation, not information.
 * I hope this helps. –  VisionHolder  «  talk  »  06:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks - UtherSRG (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Drakshasava
Hello UtherSRG. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Drakshasava, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article is a stub, but provides sufficient context, including a wikilink to Ayurveda. Thank you. <font face="Times">Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Bujutsu kodosokukai
We were totally stunned today experiencing that our article "Bujutsu kodosokukai" has been deleted, and that very fast after the notification. During the last month we have worked intensely to correct it according to the wiki credentials and common guidelines stated amongst others by you. It felt as if the message we wrote under the discussion have not even been read, and we sincerely hope that this is not the case. But we have started a discussion page User:Freezydk/Bujutsu_kodosokukai where we have repeated the message.

The Bujutsu kodosokukai page has been published on Wikipedia for almost 1½ years ago and at that time not much was done to correct the errors and mistakes other than another upload. The author of the article would like to apologize for this but he has been through an unpleasant personal tragedy of a longer duration and could not cope with the situation at that time.

We appreciate that you and other people spend so much time and effort and doing a marvelous job in controlling and investigating, that the knowledge published on Wikipedia is correct and objective. And we believe ourselves that the latest upload was in that category. We have tried to make corrective actions towards all the issues that were raised. It was not meant as an unfriendly gesture that we deleted the message boxes after the upload, because that was what the content said, that you can delete it when you have made the corrections.

But we also know that we lack in experience and this is our first article, and English is not or native tongue, so there will be mistakes and errors, for that we apologize. That is why we need help and support from guys like you and tell us what exactly is wrong in our article so we can correct it. To us Wikipedia is a good and comprehensive media which we use a lot and we want our knowledge and experience to be represented here as well.

We hope that we can have a serious and respectful dialogue and come to a mutual understanding and we can finally upload our article without it being deleted again.

Best regards,

{Freezydk (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)}


 * Deleted because it was a recreation of a previously deleted article, multiple times. Find some other admin to approve it.You seem to be attached to this article and the subject it is about, likely someone who works for the organization. Please read WP:COI, our policies on conflict of interest. Also, you have failed, again, to cite verifiable and reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your organization. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Broken (sam clark single)
Hello UtherSRG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Broken (sam clark single), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''A9 only applies where the artist has no article, but Sam Clark has. A7 doesn't apply, either. This may well fail WP:NSONGS, but it's not speediable.''' Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Roger that. Off to AFD... - UtherSRG (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Unwarranted revert
hello. I'm a bit puzzled. That was a good-faith edit and addition, and it was valid and relevant, so I'm not sure what the problem was. You just threw it out, with no reason or explanation. I know the policy of Wikipedia reverting, and what you did simply was not following that. And I don't understand why you disrespected it that way, treating it as if it was vandalism or something, when careful viewing would show it really wasn't.

I realize that you're admin, and I appreciate that, and the work you've done, keeping things clean, fixed, and proper, on various articles. But that doesn't mean you're infallible every instance. And, frankly, it really seems you violated or ignored policy, plain and simple, in this regard. Explanations are generally supposed to be given for reverts. Especially for non-vandalism and good-faith edits.

Is there a reason why "Wildcat", which IS an article on Wikipedia, is not suited on the "See also" section, on the Bobcat article, when the "See also" section is practically empty? I mean, it is related, and has some relevance. So what's the issue?

Did you think it was "vandalism"? If so, why? It clearly wasn't.     "Wildcat" is related to the article, and is a valid referral, and it is a wiki link article. So what exactly is the problem?

Only actual vandalism and/or provably inaccurate things should be "reverted", per Wikipedia policy, NOT good-faith edits that are relevant or accurate. That "See also" link was appropriate, yet you abruptly summarily undid it with NO explanation. Which is against Wikipedia policy. The edit was fine (and even arguably needed), but your revert was not.

To be blunt. There was NO good reason for your unexplained revert and throwing out that good-faith edit. Except that you may have mistakenly or hastily thought it was either vandalism or unneeded. If so, you're simply incorrect on both counts. It was not vandalism at all, and it is relevant and needed.

And even if you personally thought it was unneeded, Wikipedia policy is that THAT DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE. Because it's not supposed to go by personal tastes. As long as the edit was somewhat related, and not vandalism. Articles belong to the entire Wikipedia community, not to any one editor or even to any one Admin. Things like that are not to be reverted, simply cuz you don't like it. Or hastily assumed to be vandalism, because other people have inserted real vandalism into the article. And the policy doesn't give exemptions (from what I've seen) to Admins. The "See also" section is basically empty, and the link that was added there in good faith is related and has some point to it.

So I'm just wondering what happened. Did you maybe assume it was vandalism? Or that it was unnecessary? Also, as I said, from what I understand, no one person "owns" any Wikipedia article, admins included. And from what I understand, only outright vandalism, or truly inaccurate or truly irrelevant things (it's not like the link was about "railroad trains," but was about "cats"), are to be "reverted". NOT good faith additions that are valid or related. And from what I understand (and know) an explanation is to always be given for a revert. As I said, the edit and addition was fine (and isn't "boldness" encouraged by Wikipedia too?). I saw no reason given for the revert. And Wikipedia says there should really always be given one. And the edit was not vandalism, but was valid. So I'm curious...what's the issue here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.230.199 (talk • contribs)


 * Chill dude. It wasn't a great edit. why list that species, and not all the other species in the family? Why that species, which isn't in the same genus, and none of the other species which *are* in the same genus as the article? It was random and meaningless, so I removed it. I have a button that allows me to revert, but doesn't allow me to add an edit summary. I felt it was random and meaningless, and as such, it was vandalism. Hence the single button revert. Get over it. I'll keep doing that to similar edits that are random and meaningless. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * they're both NOT house cats, so it's not totally random or unrelated.   It was a well-meaning sincere addition.


 * it's hard for me to "chill" when being wrongly called a "vandal", sir.  And when there's an Admin who seems to be "revert" trigger happy.     To be frank.


 * It's not that big of an edit, obviously, I know. But it's the PRINCIPLE.   You feel me?


 * ok, please listen carefully, Stacey....


 * Wikipedia policy is that "See also" links are NOT GENERALLY supposed to always be directly stuff that was mentioned in the article, but at least somehow related.


 * that's one:...


 * number two: you're going off about "why not list other species in the family" when why couldn't YOU have done that yourself too?  the Policy is NOT to "revert" with a convenient button or whatever, but to MAYBE MODIFY OR ADD OR HELP AN EDIT, whatever it is.


 * and frankly, I don't see how the "not add more cats to the family" is somehow an excuse to "revert" and call something "vandalism" when it really isn't.


 * Again, sir, Wikipedia policy (NOT my own opinion), is for someone (and it didn't say that Administrators were above the rule) to MODIFY an edit that might need elaboration, or help it or add to it, but NOT to summarily revert it.


 * number three: what is so "random" about "Wildcat" to the article "Bobcat"???  It's RELATED in that both Bobcats and "Wildcats" are NOT house cats, and are of interest.     It's not like putting "Wall Street" as a link to "Bobcat"?     Hello?  It's not random or unrelated like that.    It was related, and it's encouraged to put stuff in the See also sections that are related, but not necessarily what's in the article already.   So, with respect, I think you're really uptight and incorrect...on your analysis, that it was irrelevant, random, or vandalous.  Not sure why you're this uptight.   I see how many people you've prematurely and uptightly done this stuff to.


 * ONLY REAL VANDALISM AND REALLY TRULY IRRELEVANT THINGS OR INACCURATE THINGS SHOULD BE REVERTED.......


 * NOT good faith additions. That ARE related.


 * and again, to your "why not add other species" line, that's not my job solely, though I do understand your point to SOME extent, but the question could be turned to you...why couldn't YOU add to the See also section, and so forth?  


 * Did you notice, Stacey, that the "See also" section on this particular article is like LACKING and empty?


 * Really, though, why the uptightness with something like this?   I mean, you seem to be KNEE-JERK and think just about everything is worthless or "vandalism" or "random".     I noticed that some were that, but not everything.


 * I've edited literally HUNDREDS of articles with 99% of my edits being respected and understood, big and small.


 * even if that particular edit was not necessarily all that "great", it was not necessarily "vandalism."    That's a STRONG WORD.  And should not be thrown around or bandied about so hastily or loosely.  But really.  How am I supposed to "chill" with you basically saying I vandalized an article?   


 * It was in NO WAY "vandalism" or "random"?   It's NOT like it was a willy nilly addition from left field that had zero to do with anything.   I meant well, and it had some relation.   More stuff should be added to the "See also" section, but that doesn't mean that my little added wiki link was wrong or useless or "vandalism".    thank you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.230.199 (talk • contribs)


 * Ignored. Take your rant elsewhere buddy. I'm not interested in an anon's rantings, particularly one who can't figure out how to sign their rantings after having "edited literally hundreds of articles...". You don't know me. You only think you do. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * ok, I'll make it way shorter, since you seem not to want to deal with things like long "rants".


 * As I said, you may have a little point about the "family" or species listing issue.


 * My only point though was that it was not like the link was "Wall Street" or "Race cars" which have nothing to do with "Cats".  It was not totally irrelevant, or "random", and definitely not "vandalism". There was some relevance or relation.  It was NOT totally out of left field, like you're saying.


 * and also, my point was why couldn't YOU maybe add to the "See also" list with some extra species?  Instead of just reverting the thing completely?    68.237.216.108 (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * My point in those rhetorical questions is that Wildcat is less deserving to be there than various other Lynx species. However, none of those has any reason to be there, either. A reader can easily navigate to various related species articles via the genus link, or to other cats via the family link. "See also" should be used only as a last resort when you don't know how to figure out how to word a link into the text of an article, not as a laundry list of somewhat related articles. It was "random" in the sense that it appeared from no where, was of less relation to the article compared to other links that could have been there, and had no rationale given. I am done with this conversation. If you want something done about this, writing on my talk page will not be effective. If you reply here, I will consider it harassment. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy notice on Mana Bar
I removed the speedy notice you added, because it seemed that you did it a bit prematurely. I had added Underconstruction to prevent a notability speedy deletion, which you seemed to overlook. The article is less than a day old. If you still want it gone, check back in a few days. - Zero1328 Talk? 22:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I dislike that tag for new articles. You can make your own sandbox and get the article into good shape in your own user space before having it moved into the main encyclopedia. That tag should only be used on existing articles undergoing a rewrite. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it also felt a bit odd for me to add that tag. Even so, I would still argue that it may have been acceptable as a stub, but either way, it should be checked again in a few days to see how it goes. - Zero1328 Talk? 05:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if it passes WP:AFD. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Neanderthal
I noticed Neanderthal has been protected for nearly a year and a half; it seems about time to give anon editors another go. -- Kendrick7talk 02:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Larry Hansen
Feel free to delete the article in a speedy fashion, and similarly with the kid's own article and the albums. But "why wasn't this speedied"--is that a rhetorical question? The article says "he is a veteran on the Alaska scene": of course he's not, but it's a claim to notability. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I only added my own article to go along with my band's article. I figured that doing this would be a good idea seeing as how I'm the frontman and manager of the band. We are not simply a 'local' band. We have done a lot in the short time the band has existed for one. And two, I don't like how you're addressing me as kid. It's rather disrespectful and I am not vandalizing wikipedia. You are misinterpreting my submissions completely. I am simply expanding what is suppose to be a community-operated encyclopedia. I've done nothing even close to vandalize this website. If you want vandalism, try encyclopedia-dramatica. Another thing is, even though I'm 15, I've been a proud part of the music scene in Alaska for years, and am highly-respected for not just my own music, but for promoting other notable bands in my homestate. Don't criticize my age. I just tried to expand your encyclopedia. If you delete any of my work please send it to darkiris@live.com that is all I ask --Larry52333 (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I intended no insult here--but I got almost 30 years on you, so you're a kid to me, and I never said you were vandalizing Wikipedia. But at age 15 you cannot be a veteran on any music scene, that's obvious. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The vandalism comment was actually directed towards UtherSRG, who posted on my talk accusing me of vandalizing. Sorry for getting the two of you confused. For one thing, Alaska has a fairly small music scene, and I've been a part of it for about five years, and as so, I've been titled as a veteran of the music scene by fellow musicians, venues and promotors, so it's kinda hard to contest that claim regardless of my age. As for my Dark Iris article, we are a notable act because we have been covered in newspapers and local magazines and partially on the radio, but even more so this summer after our debut album official releases. And it clearly states in Wikipedia's Notability (Music) page that newspaper, magazine and radio coverage are good enough reasons to consider a band notable, as stated below:

"This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries"

If the statement above is true, then there is no reason why we can be considered otherwise a notable band. I reference all of our news articles, reviews, magazine articles, etc. as links on the reference section of the article. I'm not sure how many I have posted as of now, but I can think of a few more sources to post to the references section which I will do right now and will continue to do every time I find new press releases and other related objects. If this does not explain well enough why I think Dark Iris is a notable band, please tell me how this does not apply. Thank you. --Larry52333 (talk) 05:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, UtherSRG if none of the information I've specified is enough to keep my work on Wikipedia then can you at least 'userfy' it so it won't be completely lost? Thank you. --Larry52333 (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There are many types of vandalism. You may not have intended it as so, but that doesn't change the outcome. I will indeed "userfy" the articles so you can grab them. I'll post inks to them on your talk page when I have done the task. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Unprotecting
Could you unprotect Neanderthal extinction hypotheses as well? Abductive (reasoning) 04:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello from Britain
Hi, I just got your message about notifying you if I ever create another primate article. Do you want me to notify you on your talk page or somewhere else? I was fearful that an admin would delete my entries for not being informative enough so I'm glad that I'm doing something right (Elspooky (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC))
 * Here is fine. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Victims of Circumstance (album) speedy declined
Hey, I declined your speedy deletion request on the grounds that A9 only applies if there is no article on the band. There (for now) is one. If Dark Iris is deleted after the AfD concludes (as seems likely), then the album article will need to go as well (or you could go ahead and nominate it at AfD as well). Lady of  Shalott  02:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thee are 2 album articles. One you declined the speedy for, the other was converted into a redirect to the band. Which is the more appropriate action? - UtherSRG (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm... well, there is arguably more justification for the one remaining as an article to exist as such since it is the first (not yet released) album, and the other is a second not yet released album. I'm not sure there's any conflict between the two different actions. Lady  of  Shalott  17:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The second album isn't even recorded yet. It shouldn't even be a redirect to the artist, because WP:CRYSTAL. The first should be a redirect to the artist and then deleted when the artist is later deleted, which I'm sure it will be. - UtherSRG (talk)
 * We are in agreement that the artist article will almost certainly be deleted, and then anything related to it. I'm not sure it really matters all that much in the meantime whether the other articles are allowed to stay as articles or be redirects, or whatever - after about 7 days, they will all vanish. Lady  of  Shalott  04:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * True enough. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)