This is an archive of past discussions with User:UtherSRG. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on List of music videos:, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because List of music videos: is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting List of music videos:, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually
there are three diff locations/arts to use for the sw - cygnus uses one i use another and there is another again - one day we shall have to have some consistency of usage worked out :( SatuSuro12:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Uther. This is my latest target. Wondered if you might look at the taxonomy section with the MSW3 in hand. I have seen no subspecies mentioned in papers so far, nor other members of its genus. You'll note it's capitalized—one of the common species names that really makes the argument. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Done. You are correct that it is the only member of the genus, but there are two subspecies. Here's the interesting comment Woozencraft makes: "See lengthy comments by Harris (1968) concerning the correct identity of the type, the confusion in published synonomies, and the type locality." - UtherSRG(talk)20:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Koala
Hi. I was looking at the three consecutive edits by 136.145.174.28 and thinking about reverting them. By the time I got back to the current revision, you had made a change. I don't think the website cited can be taken seriously - perhaps its a case of self-promotion. At any rate, if you look at the first of the edits you'll see why I thought about reverting them all! Regards TINYMARK14:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I looked at the history, too. Looks like they were having some fun, and then got serious. The website looks legit. If we find a more respectable source that contradicts, we can change it. - UtherSRG(talk)15:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Ardipithecus
Made major restructure to Ardipithecus after discovering that I had looped back to the same page by accident, resulting in my first misguided link edit. Please adjust anything that needs further improvement, my work there was likely a one-shot deal, as I sometimes briefly adopt a referenceless kitten. MaxEnt (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I removed a video placed on the orang utan page primarily as it was so large and I was not sure if it was really of value.[1] What do you think? The editor who added it didn't like it's removal - see here. --Merbabu (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've seen your name around a lot and you always seem to make sensible edits. So I want to ask you about the capitalisation of koala. As far a I can see from WP:MoS there is no policy or standard. Both MoS and you redirected to WP:WikiProject Tree of Life (cited section does not exist) and WikiProject Monotremes and Marsupials. Is it really a matter of taste? I'd prefer it without capitals e. g.
My koala's name is Eucalyptus
I don't want to start a big discussion about this, but would be interested to know if there is any policy or guideline for this—MoS and the two links above did not mention it at all. To be honest, I think it is a little unfair to make a change to an article and quote something that can only ever be a non-binding guideline! As MoS states, this is a subject for contention, so perhaps we need consensus on an article-for-article basis! Happy editing TINYMARK05:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
A species' common name is a proper noun, and so it should be capitalized. This is debateable, hence no firm rule. As the Koala article falls under the WP:MaM project, it falls under that project's rules so as to make all articles of that project consistent. - UtherSRG(talk)12:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Sthenurus Browneorum was originally named S. Brownei and was after two people. According to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, article 3.1.2, "A species-group name, if a noun in the genitive case (see Article 11.9.1.3) formed directly from a modern personal name, is to be formed by adding to the stem of that name... -orum if of men or of man (men) and woman (women) together..." T.carnifex (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Table 1 from the Nature Article "An arid-adapted middle Pleistocene vertebrate fauna from south-central Australia" from http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7126/fig_tab/nature05471_T1.html Sthenurus Browneorum is referred to as 'Procoptodon' Browneorum. This is because it is thought that it differs from other Sthenurines significantly, however, it is still officially Sthenurus Browneorum, as it was changed due to the previously mentioned "Code." By the way, I also have a copy of the full article, however, this was only available on the net.T.carnifex (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou. In future if you have an issue with an edit I make, particularly such a small one as this, it would be much appreciated if you contacted me first, rather than just reverting it and giving no explanation what so ever, which was frankly rude. Obviously it was a simple matter of just providing a reference, which could've been easily resolved in a matter of minutes if you had've at the very least provided a reason for reverting, or preferably, contacted me. T.carnifex (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Please don't add references to articles without either adding information from those sources, or attributing existing information to those sources. - UtherSRG(talk)12:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I've never heard of this rule. Of course I wouldn't go willy-nilly adding sources, but I was adding a few Mammalian Species accounts that were current so that myself or other editors could go in and improve the article with that information, or so at least this highly important summary was instantly available to someone attempting research. What's wrong with this? I'm obviously trying to help here. --JayHenry (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The references section is for listing the sources used to create the article. If you want to list potential sources, put them on the talk page. - UtherSRG(talk)15:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia's own citation guidelines, Wikipedia:CITE#HOW, references are for "sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article." If you read the Mammalian Species accounts (one of the authoritative publications of the American Society of Mammalogists) that I added, you will see that they do indeed provide support for articles that contain vast quantities of information that was not supported by the reference section. I have to say that you are the first editor I've ever seen chastise someone for adding sources. I'm genuinely trying to help, and have a good track record. --JayHenry (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure. It is both technically possible and useful. I'd been thinking of doing it for some time. In fact, I'd love it if someone would show me how to make a bot so that I can update all of the articles that have the MSW3 templates so that the new parameter is used. I'll work on it (or you can...). - UtherSRG(talk)18:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Great. I know the drill. Don't expect too much too fast, cause I have a couple of deadlines for work the coming days ;-). Lycaon (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, UtherSRG! I noticed you edited a template I created and was wondering if I can ask for your assistance. In looking at your contributions, it appears you watchlist a lot of animal pages, so I figured you are a subject matter expert in the field (my background is economics!). I have decided to tackle a rather large project that has been in the back of my mind for awhile and try to link together all of the animal articles via templates. I have already done most of the carnivores. Now I would like some feedback to ensure I am not totally screwing up these articles. For your reference, I am keeping track of these templates at User:Old Hoss/Animal templates. I would appreciate any improvements you can make to these, and would value any suggestions. If you would rather not accept my request, no worries! Instead maybe you could reference me to some other experts for assistance. Regards. --Old Hoss (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Sweet! I'll be glad to pitch in with some of this, especially the Primates, since that's where my primary bioloigcal interests lie, at least as far as Wiki articles is concerned. :) - UtherSRG(talk)21:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Great! It just so happened I decided to tackle primates next. Feel free to make any appropriate changes. I noticed the apes already have a template {{Apes}}, but I think maybe that can be split into 2 templates, with a new one being more in-line with the ones I am doing now. But I will leave that one alone for the time being. Regards. --Old Hoss (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe.... I see that that template has more than just species info, although most of the extra links are really dealing with issues surrounding Hominidae, and not Hylobatidae. When I get there I'll look more closely. - UtherSRG(talk)22:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
WHOO-HOO!! Primate templates are DONE! Now to get them all put on the pages.... I had to break up Cercopithecidae into two templates; could you check those to make sure the scientific stuff is correct (with the tribes and groups) - since they sort of deviate from the others I was not sure if breaking them into tribes and groups was proper. Also, I did templates for Hylobatidae and Hominidae but I am not sure what to do with them and {{Apes}}. One thought I had was to convert {{Apes}} into something similar to {{Spider nav}} (basically chopping off the first three sections of the Apes template), and then keeping both the Apes template and the new template on each page. Let me know what you think. Regards.--Old Hoss (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. I'm still undecided about apes.... I'll think of it when I get there. I'm almost done adding templates to the strepsirrhine articles. Your split of the Old World monkeys looks good. - UtherSRG(talk)23:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Heya. I've been looking at doing this but not sure if I'll have time before I go back to full time commitments (study) in a week's time. Sorry! —Pengo02:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm a software engineer... but I'm lazy. I don't want to start from scratch. You have a bot that runs on taxonomic articles. Can I have a copy of it that I'll modify to update the MSW3 templates on taxonomic articles. - UtherSRG(talk)13:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Question
Hi,
I'm curious about this revert - is there a policy? I don't remember seeing capitalization like that on a lot of articles, though it could be an artefact of me not editing a lot of biology pages. WLU (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Possibly because of this section? It's one of those 'can go either way so don't change it if you find it' things like ENGVAR? WLU (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, my apologies. It just looks so weird... is it a biology thing or a country/research culture thing? Also note that the MOS section I linked to has a {{main}} in it which is dead - do you know/could you link it to an appropriate current section? WLU (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
SugarGlider edit
I'm putting this here since your page doesn't provide any other means to contact you, such as email or IM. Why did you make this reversion? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sugar_Glider&oldid=188960263 The content you reverted to was provided by an unregistered user and is not cited. If you're in disagreement with my edit then perhaps the entire paragraph should be removed from the article to avoid dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.1.206 (talk)
If you need a citation, how about two paragraphs below that contains conflicting information? Specifically, "It lives in groups of up to seven adults, plus the current season's young," Seven + young amounts to roughly 10 to 12. If you need further information, try the Field Guide to Australian Mammals page 76 and page 88. Also page 69 from the book entitled Sugar Gliders. Is their a policy that the information from one certain IP address is somehow immune to your criteria? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sugar_Glider&diff=151409355&oldid=151140352 I'm surprised you allowed this paragraph to be added at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.1.206 (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Why did you revert my edit to gorilla? It was both factual and relevant. When reverting something other than obvious vandalism or nonsense, wikiquette calls for an explanation. -JasonAQuest (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The fact that the gorilla had never been seen by most of the world before the 1860s is highly relevant to its perception by society; the novelty of it greatly influenced the portrayal of other "undiscovered" great apes in Tarzan and King Kong. It's as relevant there as Columbus is to the Bahamas. This may not interest you personally, but it's still quite noteworthy. I'll try to address your concern about phrasing (does "legendary" imply something more to you than "people weren't sure they were real"?), and a citation request is easy to meet. -JasonAQuest (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
See the Talk:Gorilla page for my comments on this edit. I think it'd be nice if we could get more history on the discovery of the Gorilla in there, perhaps even in a history of discovery section. Right now it's a bit scattered around. Martijn Faassen (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster's gives the following two definitions for "legendary": "1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of legend or a legend 2 : well-known, famous". I'm sure you don't mean the second, as it is in opposition to the fact of it not having been seen by most of the world at that point. So it must be the first. M-W also lists many meanings to "legend"; some are not appropriate to the context, while the others are split between the meaning you want, and the opposite, to some degree. This is why the language you chose was not NPOV. - UtherSRG(talk)01:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I meant the first definition of "legendary", and I meant it in reference to the primary meaning of "legend": an unverified account which is believed by some to be true. The ability to read other meanings into a term doesn't mean it's promoting a POV. At worst it indicates an unclear choice of words, for which I accept responsbility. But a poor choice of words is a poor justification for reverting. - JasonAQuest (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you felt it necessary to lock the article, there would seem to a number of useful anon edits in the history. I imagine it is the kind of article that would attract new users. Anyway, the bit I restored could do with improving. Do you happen to have the Bagemihl book, the only ref that is cited on this issue, or can you remind me who originally added the info? I'm lazy to ask, sorry for that too. cygnisinsignis05:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Lockmart.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I am awarding this barnstar to user UtherSRG for his nice welcome, and for some of the ideas for my own user page which I cribbed from his. Rlendog (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
How?
Hello...I am new here and I edit pages that are about animals. All my facts are true, and you can read the facts I have added to wikipedia in National Geographic's Encyclopedia of Animals. How you you like me to post my resources? The page? Pleas tell me how. Much appreciated- panda32342
First, please sign all talk edits with four ~'s instead of writing out your name.
If you are adding material from a source book, then you should WP:CITE the reliable source with an appropriate {{cite}} template, such as {{cite book}}. You should put the citation within <ref> and </ref> tags. If you wish to use the same citation more than once in the same article, you can name the tag by modifying the <ref> tag on the first usage to <ref name=blah>; subsequent usage of the citation would simply need a single self-closing <ref name=blah/> tag instead of the fully tagged citation. Pitheciidae#Characteristics has such a reference you can use as a guide. - UtherSRG(talk)19:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering why you deleted Civets. It was a redirect to Civet, which seems to make sense to me. "Civets" is simply the plural form of "Civet", afterall.
Actually, sorry for that bit of shortness above. I imagine you patrol that page a lot and have reason for reverting quite a few edits that get made there. I'd still like to hear your reasons for reverting when you get a chance though. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I try to use them sometimes, but when I use popups, I'm not given the opportunity. But yes, the chimpanzee page is one I patrol regularly for vandalism, and sometimes I revert too quickly. Sorry. - UtherSRG(talk)12:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on the Peer Review. I thought your comment on caps might have been a bit tongue-in-cheek (yes?), but in any case consensus is for lowercase for this particular species.
Cas left a note here about names, naming authority, and the MSW: Talk:Sea_otter#What.27s_left_to_do.3F. I'm not really sure what he's asking for. Could you swing by the article and see if you have anything to add regarding naming?
Several times now, on Red Fox and Mus musculus, you have reverted edits by myself and other without a single word of explanation. That's unacceptable. You, of course, have every right to object to the addition or removal of content, but you owe it to your fellow Wikipedians to provide an reasoning for removal of their contributions. It's in the spirit of harmonious editing. VanTucky04:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi UtherSRG. What is going on with all the reverts did one of the users feel the need to change most of the cat articles? Does this person need to be reported? That's all.Mcelite (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)mcelite
I mean did he honestly think that nobody is watching these pages? He did alot of changes hopefully this doesn't get out of hand.Mcelite (talk) 04:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)mcelite
it's been very plainly stated on the Bobcat talk page what the problem is. some admin besides UtherSRG needs to take a look. i have nothing personal against him, but this is getting ridiculous -- shouldn't it be the admin who shows restraint over minor formatting changes? the (ahem) consensus article at WP:MOS plainly states that articles on fauna other than birds are to lower-cased. if there is to be a change as regards that, it should be so stated. right? shouldn't the consensus view hold in the meantime? (note that i have no preference either way, capitals or lower-case.) - Metanoid (talk, email) 23:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
wow, man, gotta say you're not helping with the edit war on the cat pages. either wikipedia allows for 14-year-old admins, or you just need some time off. what's with all the re-reverts? the guy (Beyazid) has a point about WP:MOS. can't you just let it go a few days? - Metanoid (talk, email) 19:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Please could you explain why you "proposed deletion" (which was not contested) for "Ideaworks3D" ? I am an employee of the company, and wanted to check the reference (which I have previously viewed) and was surprised to find it deleted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerboy07 (talk • contribs)
I didn't make the prod, I only carried out the deletion as part of my duties as an admin. The last two editors who prod'd it are User:Btball and user:Gwernol. Here's the reason listed in the most recent prod: "NN corp, this was a redirect to Ideaworks3d which was deleted via PROD, and before this was a redirect it had been deleted (CSD) as a copyvio. I think this should just be speedy deleted as a repost of a copyvio but others disagree - so I'm trying the PROD route for this variant too" - UtherSRG(talk)11:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The March 2008 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) 18:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Please stop blind-reverting this article without discussion on the article talk page. I know your edit summaries occasionally state that there was discussion regarding the changes you're making elsewhere, but the edit war on this particular article involving several other editors who feel the changes you're making are incorrect suggests there's less consensus than might have been expressed at other locations. Please engage in discussion on the talk page. Do note that you broke 3RR yesterday on that article, as well, and I'll be looking to see if anyone else did and warn them as well. Thanks. Tony Fox(arf!)19:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The discussion is ongoing on the Mammal project talk page. It's more than just a single article that is at issue. I am trying to maintain all of the pages as they were before the controversy, as is appropriate. - UtherSRG(talk)19:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you at least point that out on the talk page, with a link to the discussion? It would appear there are other people who have no idea where the discussion is going on. (And it might be better to leave the articles until after the discussion is complete, if it's still ongoing, wouldn't it?) Tony Fox(arf!)20:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Uther. We seem to disagree about the utility of a photo gallery with the Mantled Howler article. About a month ago, you removed the existing gallery from the article, with the note "rm gallery (use Commons)". Shortly afterwards, I restored it with this comment "restored gallery, increasing convenience and allowing caption information". You've removed it again, today, noting "rem gallery - commons link takes care of that already". I have no interest in a revert war, although I feel fairly strongly on this point.
My view: A gallery is more useful to a reader than is a Commons link for several reasons. 1) It is at hand, visible while reading the article, and requires no delay or effort to use (albiet small though they may be). More important, 2) there are no captions in a Commons link, and significant pertinent information can thus be lost or made difficult to access. Note that the information in a caption can often be different or more extensive than the information presented in the Commons image description, even if one goes that far in search of it. One further point: 3) not all images can be accessed via a Commons link. The current gallery includes seven images (some, admittedly, not so good), while the link leads only to three images. Four of them, I suppose are loaded directly into Wikipedia.
Ah, there's one of the missing images in the provided Wikispecies link, too. I guess it might take three links to get them all. Tim Ross(talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Commons has the same abilities as the 'pedia... you can make a gallery over there with all of the same annotations. Commons is *more* accessible, for it has the input of folks from all of the different language 'pedias. Why limit the article to a gallery consisting of input from only one language? Images should be put on an article only when they offer something that is either unique or demonstrates something laid out in the article's text. A collection of images is simply clutter, no matter what captioning you put on them. As for images being "missing" - such images should be added to Commons and used from there, with the local upload deleted in favor of the Commons image. - UtherSRG(talk)20:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Let me address your points one by one, Uther.
Yes, a gallery can be created in Commons, although I believe you can only do that with images that are in Commons, which, once more, limits possible pictures to be used.
I certainly agree with you that Commons is a better place for pictures, and it is great to put one's images there (as I do) to make them more widely accessible. That is certainly not a requirement, though, for images used in Wikipedia articles, whether in the form of individual images or galleries, and I do not think it is appropriate to remove such images for that reason.
I also agree with you that one should only add useful images to an article, either individually or as a gallery. Conversely, though, if you feel images should be removed, that action should be based on the quality/utility of each image. In this instance, some of the images in the gallery you have removed added significantly, to my mind, to the utility and quality of the article.
Finally, you state that images should be added to Commons and used from there. That would, of course, be desirable. The fact that someone has chosen not to do so, though, is certainly not adequate reason to delete an image from an article.
Some of the points you make, Uther, would have major impacts throughout Wikkipedia if editors in general decided to follow your lead. Perhaps you might wish to bring them up at a higher administrative level to see if there is support for some universal application of your thoughts, or whether such support is lacking. Tim Ross(talk)21:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Iriomote Cat. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Please see also the further guidance at Talk:Iriomote Cat. Sandstein (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bobcat. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Please see also the further guidance at Talk:Bobcat. Bugguyak (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I see you are doing good work in animal-related articles, but I think that reverting others in the way you are doing is not productive, and it is violating 3RR. As WP:BLOCKS are not punitive, but preventative, if you declare that you will not continue with such reverts, I will consider reducing or lifting the block. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)02:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).
Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).
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.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lockmart.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Lockmart.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
Hey Stacey, just about the status of these two gibbons. They aren't formally classified on the IUCN Red List, agreed, but they're just being renamed and therefore Endangered status is still valid for both the Eastern and Western Hoolocks. What do you think? Cheers, Jack (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Uther! I was wondering what kind of preferences there are for taxobox images; specifically, is something preferred over nothing. Case in point. I was going to revert it, but wanted a 2nd opinion. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to avoid an arbitration case. So, if you promise to next time take it easy with the block button and not block someone whom you are in a content dispute with (IAR/IGNORE would work for BLP or emergencies like that, not captions for lemurs, that's not an emergency), then I won't file an arbitration case. I am, however, filing a 3RR report for the articles whom you breached 3RR after you blocked me. Thanks. El_C14:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
If you're cool, then you wouldn't be threatening arbitration and desysoping. By your own admission, I was just faster on the block button. - UtherSRG(talk)14:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
No, no, that distorts what I'm saying. After all that happens, you say that? Pretty brazen. I'm not admitting that, in fact, I keep saying that I would never do that. I do use that analogy, and carefully enough that you should see it wasn't an admission, to illustrate a point about how arbitrary it was for you to block me for feeling my content was "wrong." You, on the other hand, issue a cool down block (against policy — WP:BLOCK#Cool-down_blocks) in a content dispute only the two of us are involved in (against policy, obviously — WP:BLOCK#Disputes), and you continue reverting, also violating 3RR (against policy — WP:3RR). Why would arbitration and desysoping sound un-cool? I didn't "threaten" you with it regardless what, I explicitly said it wouldn't happen "if you promise to next time take it easy with the block button and not block someone whom you are in a content dispute with." After violating policy so blatantly I expected you to instantly jump at that lifeline, and, perhaps even apologize. But not you, obviously. El_C16:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
That caption is meaningless. What in the image is clarified by the caption? Nothing. I don't claim to own the articles. But when I see something wrong, I fix it. Your captions were wrong. - UtherSRG(talk)14:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
It's trivia. It's not relevant information. It's not appropriate. The taxobox is not for that purpose. It's for a quick reference. The "male/female" caption on (I believe) some deer species you added was highly appropriate, as it answers the question "why are these two different?" But "sitting in a tree" or "in X country" doesn't answer a potential question about the image. - UtherSRG(talk)14:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's say I'm persuaded: Why couldn't you explain that, instead of violating 3RR (who needs a cool down, indeed), and blocking me (who needs a cool down to the exponent of ten). El_C14:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but I didn't block you, I could have, but I didn't. That makes me a restraint administrator, which is more than I could say for your act. It didn't seem you were that interested in discussing anything, seeing how you removed the full image of the singing vole (better for perspective, I thought), without an explanation of why you did it. El_C14:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
No interest in answering why you reverted me two days ago (arguably starting the problem) without an explanation. Now that you have no answer about your wrongdoing, you suddenly agree with Theresa. How convenient. El_C15:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
UtherSRG, I think you should apologize to El_C for blocking him. There's no way that block was justified. You may also find Taxman's comment here to be of interest. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 16:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for butting in but it would seem surprising to see a fellow admin blocked in an instance like this. Please do consider a different approach next time if at all possible. ++Lar: t/c21:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
re: mammals
I removed "warm-blooded" from mammals again, and I'll tell you why -- it's a term that's fallen out of favor with scientists because it's too vague. (I'm a biologist by training.) I said naked mole rats were "nearly" warm-blooded because the term warm-blooded is so vague that you could interpret them as either being homeothermic or not -- they're homeothermic within the limits of their habitat, but if you took them anywhere else they'd be ectothermic, or "cold-blooded." Here is a good link discussing this issue -- http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/misc/blood.htm. --Choi9999 (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Please note that an article you previously deleted in 2006 has been re-created without reference to the original. The new version is a bona fide biography of the subject, a Football League referee. Furthermore, it now asserts notability, and for this reason I request that you do not delete it once more without reference to the above. Thanks. Ref(chew)(do)02:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
so i guess that discussion didn't come to consensus. i think if i were a biologist, seeing that would irk me. hell, i'm not a biologist and it still irks me. i agree that the scientific community will eventually come to capitalize/standardize specific common names, though i think there presently remains a lot of wiggle room. but felid/feline and canid/canine? that's a confusing mess just begging for standardization. - Metanoid (talk, email) 02:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
this is completely unrelated to cats; but could you delete Comnmon Snapping Turtle? it's a redirect. i'm trying to move Snapping turtle to its proper name, but the redir happens to have a (2 line) history, so nothing doing. thx - Metanoid (talk, email) 20:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why you reverted my edit and are insisting on formatting the url the way you are doing so. The way you have it, it is not a hyperlink. I don't know what "rules" lurk in the hearts of wikipedia editors, but I am dubious that a non-hyperlinked url is preferred to a hyperlinked url. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem was, in part, due to the way popups shows differences. What I saw was that you were removing the citation template. Sorry. I've fixed that reference and the others so that they are all correct now. - UtherSRG(talk)02:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Pardon my language, but this little prick has fucked up my user page and user talk. I have no clue how to fix it, but I saw you drop a little nasty on his user page. Can someone block the little shit? I try not to speak like this but I'm livid, because of what he did, and because I have no clue how to fix it. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions15:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Correct, but I'm pretty sure only an admin can undo it. Not positive... i've been an admin too long to remember what non-admins can and can't do. ;) - UtherSRG(talk)16:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
As far as I recall, anyone can move a page unless the destination page has significant history (redirects don't count). Guettarda (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah right. The trick to making it require an admin is to do the move, then edit the newly created redirect. Which it doesn't look like Peck had done, so Orange, you could have moved your user page (and talk page) yourself. But you didn't know, and Peck needed banning anyway. - UtherSRG(talk)17:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
That conversation was too complicated. I've asked Guettarda to semi-protect my page from moves, so I don't have to worry about it again. Of course, I might have to employ these techniques if someone vandalizes a real article. Oh what a pain.OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions17:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello again! I was wondering if there is a mammals watchlist? I have been putting all of the template I create on one page (2 pages, actually) and use the "recentrelated changes" link as a watchlist to check, but it is an incomplete watchlist at the moment. But I was wondering if WP:MAM had a formal watchlist and if not, would it be prudent to build one? Also, what do you use to watch all of the mammal articles (I hope not your personal watchlist -- that can get pretty massive I bet!). Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you think it would be beneficial to the Mammals Project to build a watchlist? If we can accumulate all of the articles in one place then others can click the "related changes" link to watch them. (That would take some of the burden off of you!) I think a good start would be here and here but the templates don't include subspecies or extinct species. (Also, they don't seem to track page moves....) I figure articles that aren't on the templates can be cut & pasted onto the collection of links to be included on the "watchlist". Another possibility is utilizing such articles as List of rodents and clicking "related changes" What is your opinion? Do you think I should propose this at WT:MAMMAL? --Tombstone (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I bloody wrotte it myself, I will delete it if I so wish.
It will be back up when I sort some stuff out.
And I will get my signature sorted aswell.
Jeez, why is it so frickin hard to coexist with otehr human beings on wikipedia???!!!
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Geronimo57 (talk • contribs)
Just because you worked on it does not mean you own it. You are not to deleted articles by blanking them. It is against our policies. If you want an article deleted, you must go through the proper channels. Follow the links in the warning I've given you on your talk page. - UtherSRG(talk)18:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
You deleted this article about 6 weeks ago as a copyvio of [2]. It looks to me as though the article on Wikipedia was built up over a number of edits, and the likelihood is that www.perfectpeople.net copied our article rather than the other way around. The article has since been recreated. Could you reassess, please.-gadfium05:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe you may be right, given the age of the article, its history, and the similarity between our articles and other bios on that website. - UtherSRG(talk)12:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article on it says that "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." A website claiming that a condition is caused by "Spleen Qi Deficiency" is hardly a mainstream view and it doesn't provide any proof or sources. What next, a section on faith healing treatment? Peony Muds (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
But Wikipedia isn't saying that ptosis is caused by that. Wikipedia is saying that TCM says that ptosis is caused by that. - UtherSRG(talk)17:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
An editor has nominated Human, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I'm sorry, I hope I'm not violating any more rules by doing this. I created the page on female social dominance in lemurs that you would like to merge with the main lemur page. I would really like to keep it as a separate page please. I have linked it to the lemur page so it can be accessed that way and I plan to add more to it. I'm sorry for the confusion, I'm new at this. Thank you so much!
--BIOEE278WIM2008 (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I actually have to keep it as its own page for my class, what can I do to keep it as its own page? I noticed that there are a lot of pages on individual lemur species that have been kept independent from the main page. Is this really that different?
--BIOEE278WIM2008 (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not responsible for what you need to do for your class. The article is not acceptable as a standalone article. It has been merged. Each species, genus, family, etc. get their own article, and yes, it is very different. We're an encyclopedia, not a classroom. - UtherSRG(talk)15:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The April 2008 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) 01:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
True, but if one doesn't bother to register an account, but is going to warn me about 3RR.... don't you think that's even more ridiculous? At least that's what I assume you are referring to.... - UtherSRG(talk)08:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Input requested
Hello again. Forgive me for pestering you again, but I was wanting add'l input from you. When I started adding the templates, I was mainly copying the species lists from the WP articles and pasting them into a template, utterly unaware of any discrepancies with MSW3. In going through the Rodents, I started fixing some of these, but there are probably quite a few discrepancies. I was thinking the templates could be compared to MSW3 since the templates represent a fairly accurate reflection of the species lists in the WP articles. Just a thought.
The real reason I stopped by was because I was going to place some documentation on the templates, currently at User:Tombstone/Mammal templates/doc. I was hoping you would proof it for me and provide feedback. I'm not married to anything in the documentation, so please edit the page as you see fit, if you want to. I did have one specific concern, I arbitrarily listed the full binomial name (ex. Zaglossus bartoni) instead of using the abbreviated species name (ex. Z. bartoni). Now I am thinking the abbreviated species name is better, but I am not sure it is worth worrying about and wanted to see what you thought. Thanks for your time, rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll check out the docs. Could you check my recent contributions in the last few days for possible changes that will be needed to your templates? I think modifying the templates to use the abbreviated name makes sense. - UtherSRG(talk)22:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll start converting the templates to the abbreviated species name soon. I assume you mean just your moves (and to fix the redirects on the templates), if so that's no problem. Let me know if you meant other edits, too. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I know you have a lot of these articles on your watchlist. I must be making your watchlist virtually unusable with all my categorisation. My apologies for that. If it wasn't bad enough that I am doing so much categorisation, I'm also trying to revert and repair in response to feedback, and occasionally screwing it up. e.g. I added a whole lot of whales to the regional cats, then got feedback that this was stupid, removed the whales, dolphins and seals, then realised that the seals really did belong there, etc. Over the next week or so, I'll finish up the categorisation by state. You may have noticed Category:Extinct mammals of South Australia; I'll probably create extinction categories for the others states too, because it bothers me to see extinct and extant fauna mixed together. The other possibility that is on my mind is to subdivide mammals by taxon e.g.
Mammals of Australia (platypus, echidna)
|-Marsupials of Australia (marsupial mole)
| |-Dasyuromorphs of Australia (about 70 species)
| |-Peramelemorphs of Australia (about 20 species)
| |-Diprotodonts of Australia (about 100 species)
|
|-Placental mammals of Australia (dingo, seals, sea lions)
|-Bats of Australia
|-Rodents of Australia
|-Cetaceans of Australian waters
Yeah, I have over 3500 articles on my watchlist. I just make the viewable portion of my watchlist very large so that when you do that kind of work (or someone else), I can still see if there's anything I need to watch out for. I think you're on the right track with your categorization schemes. You should look for feedback from the Marsupial Project. - UtherSRG(talk)01:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you review Gorilla?
Hi. I was wondering if you could rate the gorilla article and tell me if it is maybe at GA status. You dont have to but I don't know how else to request a review. Sorry for wasting your time in advance. Yojimbo501 (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The May 2008 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) 00:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Respected Sir/Madam, Thanks for your message regarding proposed deletion of article Navneet Singh Khadian. As advised, I have expanded the article with NPOV information available online. I have also added "20 NPOV" references to support the provided information.
I have good interest in the history of Punjab and Sikhism, so if you ever come across any article being deleted, kindly notify me so that I could try to improve those articles.
I have read a lot of information regarding Khalistan Movement, the related personalities and huge number of crimes committed by Indian security forces in some of the north-Indian newspapers, but unfortunately this information is not available online. For example, The Tribune, one of north-Indian newspapers does not have any online editions prior to year 2001 and Ajit, a regional newspaper of India etc did not have any online editions untill very recently. Also, India’s National magazine, Frontline does not have archive records prior to 1997. Any advice on this matter please Singh6 (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)?
UtherSRG, I have recently recovered this article from vandalism from user Mightyunit, Please watch his vandalism in the future. I am concerned because I have done a lot of work to improve it with additional information and NPOV 20 references. Singh6 (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
He has edited [[Kanwar Pal Singh Gill article four times during last few hours already. He has deleted several NPOV references and information so far. Please see
1, 2, 3 and he has deleted information and references from 4 - Amnesty International and HRW as well. His vandalism on this article is going on from last days[1][2]
Regarding Navneet Singh Khadian, he has deleted NPOV references and information several times and I am struggling hard to save this article from his vandalism. Please see 1, 2 and 3. I strongly beleive that he is deleting information to influence wikipedia members views onAfD.
Also, User Mightyunit has just created his account on May 1st 2008 at 6:53 when tense discussion on IHRO is going on with 202.54.176.51 and he has started doing mass changes into human rights related sentences in those articles which became the reason of [IHRO's tense discussion]. This discussion is still in progress. Would you be able to check if these mass changes have suddenly started happening from the same IP address, i.e. 202.54.176.51 . Singh6 (talk) 06:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
You and he are involved in an edit war. I'm an admin, yes, but I don't deal with resolving edit wars. Take it to mediation. - UtherSRG(talk)16:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
It was not well researched. It was non-scientific information. Do better next time. I make too many reverts to put an edit summary in every single one. - UtherSRG(talk)18:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.
If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Although I agree that this article has been improved beyond sight, I wonder whether it's appropriate to rate it an A without having it go through the GA nomination process. Having a successful GA nomination will help the article if/when it comes to FAC. Frickeg (talk) 08:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh! I thought we could self-assess up to A, but not higher without a community assessment. Go ahead and adjust as appropriate. - UtherSRG(talk)08:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - I've re-rated it a B, pending GA nomination. The differentiation between GA and A is horridly imprecise, and some projects have A-class assessment teams while others allow anyone to rate something an A - oddly, seeing as you need a review to rate it GA, one below A. Frickeg (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I see that you reverted my edit without stating the reason why you disagree. Nowhere in the cited reference does it state that the vagina is bifurcated. What it does say is:
Female marsupials have two ovaries, two oviducts and two uteri, like other mammals, as well as a unique vaginal apparatus that opens into a urogenital sinus, which also receives the urethra (Tyndale-Biscoe & Renfree 1987).
And it states further that:
The vaginal apparatus consists of two lateral vaginae, each connecting the uterus of the same side to the urogenital sinus. The anterior end of each lateral vagina, separated only by a common median septum, unite into a vaginal cul-de-sac, into which the uterine cervices open (Tyndale-Biscoe & Renfree 1987).
Please, answer in talk page of article (I found this looking for causes of silence :)). My edition was about Spanish name, because sounds like both Chiloé Zorro and Zorro Chilote [sic] are in Spanish, but only zorro chilote (English and Spanish common names aren't capitalized) is a Spanish name: means "fox from Chiloe"; Chiloé Zorro maybe is an English name, but the sentence is unclear. Bye. Lin linao (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
island fox
ok, i can understand you disagreeing with the change I made to the main article, why did you delete the discussion item?
By the way I have a stuffed California Gray Fox that I shot on a trap line in 1966 before it was illegal. She is a beautiful example of the species.
Article talk pages are for the discussion of the article (such as improving it), not for discussing the subject of the article (like saying how cute it is). - UtherSRG(talk)18:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Sperm Whale
A little birdie told me that MSW uses the taxonomic name Physeter catedon for the Sperm Whale, yet Wikipedia persists with Physeter macrocephalus. Any idea why? Hesperian
~
MSW3 says: "Linnaeus used both catodon and macrocephalus in the 10th edition. P. catodon has line priority and, according to Linnaeus' diagnoses, is the only name applicable." As such, I'm going to change it to catodon. - UtherSRG(talk)01:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I thought I had left that as a stray reference when I copied the taxobox. I restored the references to Louis.Rlendog (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you reverted several of my recent edits. I understand where you are coming from in most instances...but why did you remove the Deinogalerix.JPG from the article Gymnure? If you examine the article on Deinogalerix, you will see it is a gymnure. The reason it doesn't appear in the gymnure taxobox is because it is extinct. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Two photo upload as gray fox is photo of pampas fox. See photo of pampas fox and place make of photo-Argentina, there exist pampas fox. It was bad upload and You bad doing that You delete it from this article. Wikipedia is open encyclopedia.
Your English is fairly difficult to understand. It seems that you are trying to say that the images I removed from the article were correct, but uploaded improperly. If that is so, then you need to upload the images properly and have the incorrect images removed. But since I can't understand you well enough, I'm not certain that that is what you are saying. You should consider NOT editing on the English language Wikipedia without someone who can translate your poor English. - UtherSRG(talk)16:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.
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.
Hello again. The Highly Active Users project has gone through a complete revamping per popular demand. We believe this new format will make it easier for new editors to find assistance. However, with the new format, I must again ask you to verify your information on this page. I attempted to translate the data from the old version to the new, but with the extensive changes, I may have made some errors. Thanks again. Useight (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
"it's covered later under habitat and distribution" - yep, as per Wikipedia:Lead section, I should have known better;
"your choice of dab phrases does not fit" - did you mean the edit summary or the edit itself? I'm guessing it was the edit summary. I've looked all over the MoS and so forth but can't find a dab phrase guideline. I get the impression that it's customary rather than policy... nevertheless, to improve my future edits, I'd be most obliged if you you can point me there;
Hi, not sure if I was supposed to comment on your revision here or on the talk page of the article, so I asked a question about your edit on the article talk page. --Pwayman (talk) 08:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
You have my unreserved apologies on behalf the scientific community . It gets crazier (assuming you have also seen Sonic hedgehog article). Pity us my friends :) Dudewheresmywallet (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a big problem with the article. It is not a different problem than other articles have. Here it is:
Wikipedia DEFINES a term as being X.
The definition is not cited and is contradictory to what can be cited
Despite this lack of citation, the article then goes on to provide details under the concept provided in the definition.
This article is an example of that.
I realize that many religious people will want to argue about this and so that is what is believed to be the concern when people reject such things, but my objection is not religious. It is technical. Human's should not be considered Apes because the term is a non-scientific term that nevertheless has multiple official definitions that exclude men, some explicitly so. Wikipedia should not change the meaning of english words and invent new meanings.
--209.101.50.194 (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. I have had this discussion several times, and I'm not willing to have it again. I'm tired of it. Humans are apes. No ifs, ands, or buts. - UtherSRG(talk)10:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
No. Read the talk page and discuss it before adding a picture. There are already many pictures on that article. - UtherSRG(talk)19:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
At the very least, consistency rules. The rest of the article had it capitalized. the most recent compromise is to keep an article with the capitalization it has, in a consistent fashion. I'm still very pro capitalization, so I capitalize when there is a mix. - UtherSRG(talk)11:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
page move vandal
We have a new page move vandal who likes to mass-move random articles to sensible alternative titles, using edit summaries like "per Manual of Style" or "per recent discussion at the WikiProject". Your imposter account is just one of many accounts doing this. Presumably checkuser isn't telling them anything, or they'd have nailed him already. The fact that your name has been introduced so late in proceedings suggests that this wasn't really targetted specifically at you; you're just a drive-by victim. Hesperian02:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The June 2008 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) 13:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Thx for fixing that typo of mine. I was just going to tidy the article up a bit (order the info more logically and make it a little less sensationalist) but it really needs a little more work than I at first thought. I am part-way through editing it (offline) but it's not in a suitable state to simply drop in. I have to go non-Wiki for a few hours but will return to finish what I started. Happy to incorporate any suggestions. Cheers, Secret Squïrrel, approx 07:30, 23 May 2008 (Earth Standard Time)
Yeh but when I or anyone else type in "marsupial lion" we are talking about the actual "Marsupial Lion" as in Thylacoleo carnifex not the family. The name "Marsupial Lion" refers to the one species. This is why marsupial lion should redirect to the marsupial lion not the family. There is already a redirect marsupial lions which goes to the family and this is based on the same logic as penguins, frogs, etc. So what is the problem? Cazique (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
What previous concensous? It looks like you have been edit warring with every one. In order for their to be a concensous you have to answer me. So again, what is the problem? Cazique (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes a discussion where they both said what I was saying. There in no way was a concensous they just gave up. So you need to discuss before having it your way as clearly more than just I disagree with what you are doing and you have not even given a good reason yet. Cazique (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey UtherSRG. I found this really good article from the Australian Museum website that perfectly backs up this recent edit dispute: [3]. It uses the same capitalization you have been advocating. This sentence perfectly sums it up: "The pinnacle of marsupial 'lion' evolution was the most recent species, Thylacoleo carnifex, a widely distributed and common find in fossil deposits across the length and breadth of Australia." I added it in as a reference in the article. Just thought you'd like to know. Cheers. LonelyMarble (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Could you also note that User:Cazique had already violated the three-edit rule on the Marsupial lion page and I warned him on the talk page not to revert again and he did. I've added a warning on his talk page and I would suggest blocking him if he violates it again because he is being disruptive after I tried in vain to solve it civilly. LonelyMarble (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Having examined the history of Marsupial Lion, you have engaged with User:Cazique in a revert war. I have reported you to WP:3RR and not him solely on the basis that he stopped these actions after he was warned. I have suggested contributors to Talk:Thylacoleonidae vote on the issue of redirect direction to establish a consensus. I'd like it if you took part in this, this situation needs to be resolved.
Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Reply to the following, defend your logic. You think you are right? Then prove it and defend your illogical comments.
"You have not yet offered a valid logic. You said "Look at the articles for penguins, pigs, monkeys, frogs, birds, or any other plural animal. What do they all have in common? They are all redirects to a singular titled article." but according to that logic the plural marsupial lions is also a redirect to the family. But this is not what you are edit warring over, you are edit warring over singular, non-plural marsupial lion. Which refers to the marsupial lion. So what don't you understand? Cazique (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)" Cazique (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Please stop repeating yourself. I have answered you already. You are being a nuisance. Have you heard the definition of insane? Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. I'll say it again. You are hiding the problem by dab'ing the capitalized Marsupial Lion with the uncapitalized marsupial lion. This is what should be:
marsupial lion is a family article (or redirect to a family article), and marsupial lions is a redirect to the family article.
How much more clarification do you need? This is consistent with a great number of other articles. What are you not getting? Plural links redirect to singular articles. This is what is done. Are you refuting that this is what is done? I offered you a laundry list of other articles that work this way. Can you offer a list of other articles that operate in the manner you wish to the marsupial lion redirects to work? The ball is and has been in your court to offer up something concrete to hold up your desired edit. You have yet to offer proof your edit should stand. I have repeatedly shown the logic and the links that uphold my choice of edits. - UtherSRG(talk)17:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I need not repeat myself if you defend your illogical comments. I have made you out to be a fool by pointing out what you said is illogical and you will not defend it. I mean it isn't just about defending your comments, it's about defending yourself too, as these comments came from you and affect people's views on you. As people can easily see where I got my quote from by going to my talkpage and then see how it does not make sense. If you choose to not defend your comments you are only hurting yourself. Cazique (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I have defended my comments and myself. There is nothing wrong with what I said. What are you disagreeing with? Please be specific, and don't just repeat yourself as you have been doing. And don't confuse the issue with dab's that mask capitalized and uncapitalized forms. As for the edit that I desire, what do you think is wrong with it? What do you disagree with?
Do you think this is wrong: marsupial lion is a family article (or redirect to a family article), and marsupial lions is a redirect to the family article.
Okay, if you say so. I have repeated myself 3 times now so third parties can see for themselves as you think "There is nothing wrong with what I said". Don't worry I wont repeat myself, you can just read all that I have already said and answer your own questions. Cazique (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
So tell me what you think is wrong with what I said. Oh wait, you think you have. Try a different way. I've asked clarifying questions. I've given examples of what I think is right. I've asked for you to give examples of what you think is right. All you've done is parrot my words and say I'm not answering you. when in fact, it is you who is not answering me. So let me again try something else. This is what you want, correct?
However, this goes against the Wikipedia standard that plurals should redirect to singulars, and the WP:MaM policy that capitalization indicates a species, and lower case indicates a higher taxa. How to you reconsile what you want with the existing standards and policies? - UtherSRG(talk)18:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
For 55 hours, because of this revert. Seriously, why would you not just stay away from it for the next day or so? If I were you, I'd just ride this block out and go back to the discussion afterwards. AlexMuller17:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh please! It was edited by mistake, as it was clearly said on talk:Thylacoleonidae.
If it was a mistake, then you should have self-reverted. And if it was a mistake, then you wouldn't mind if I reverted you to restore the status quo and help your cause for unblock, correct? The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The editor before me edited by mistake. I was correcting his mistake, pointed it out on the edit summary, and made note of it on the appropriate talk page. the edit I made should stand until consensus is reached on the ongoing discussion, at the least because that's the state the redirect was before the edit war, but also because the current discussion has leaned strongly in that direction. - UtherSRG(talk)18:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
No. The editor before, redirected it to the animal "Marsupial Lion", just as everyone else has been doing that you have been edit warring with. He did this without knowing there was a lengthy discussion about this very point in process on the talkpage of "Thylacoleonidae". There is no reason why it should have been reverted by yourself as we were still in discussion trying to reach a concensous on the issue. So do not influence other editors with false information as you have been doing. You were blocked because you did not follow the conditions which the admin put in place upon blocking us. If someone else has reverted his edit or if he himself reverted it, you would not be blocked. You must learn to abide and not have things your way all the time. Cazique (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
it was edited by mistake, I was fixing the mistake, I directed the editor to the ongoing discussion in the edit summary, and replied to him there that the edit should stay until the discussion has reached a consensus. It was the right thing to do. Please direct folks to my text below (in response to Cazique) if I am not to be unblocked.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
What don't you understand? You keep confusing the issue by dab'ing the capitalized with the capitalized. There are two issues: the difference between a capitalized link and uncapitalized link, and the difference between a singular link and a plural link. As per WP:MaM, which these article fall under, species common names are capitalized (Marsupial Lion, Marsupial Lions), and family common names are not capitalized (marsupial lion, marsupial lions). Do you understand this? You don't seem to. - UtherSRG(talk)17:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to make a point. I'm keeping track of the edits I need to make when my block has expired. Is there some place better for me to keep this list? - UtherSRG(talk)21:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you offer any advice on the Sable/Sable Antelope comment on my talk page? I'm not sure why I was chosen for that message, but if the message is correct then something should be done. Hesperian00:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It looks to me like the Sable Antelope page is correct. I don't know why the comment was made on your talk page and not on the Sable Antelope talk page.Rlendog (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Aloha Uther! I hope you're hanging in there. Remember, sometimes small battles don't need to be fought.
Anyhow, requesting the usual MSW check for the subspecies at Leopard. The list of nine is from the 2001 paper; hoping the MSW agrees. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Meh. All battles should be won eventually. ;) Especially when the prepondernce of evidence and support is on my side. ;) Mahalo.
It includes saxicolor within nimr not the other way around? That's seriourly weird, as the other sources seem to use saxicolor as a catchall. Anyhow, thanks for the check! Marskell (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I didn't know there were weblink summaries. Sorry, last Q: what's the page in the main MSW, so that I can add the ref? (For the moment you have nothing better to do ;). Marskell (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm an idiot; I have looked at those Bucknell pages before. But the print edition has further information (e.g., which latest research paper is considered accurate), correct? Plus the page number. Marskell (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The website has it all but the page number. The entries in the book go down to the species level, with somewhat cryptic info as to what synonyms go with what subspecies. the website splits out the subspecies and synonym information with more clarity. (There are, however, some bugs, and downloaded the CSV for the entry will show them.) - UtherSRG(talk)18:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Huh. Here I thought the print edition (you do have it?) had some general descriptions and comments on abstracts not available elsewhere. That's why I always bug you.
Second weird note. The web entry on Panthera pardus does indeed specify its source: "Synonyms allocated according to Miththapala et al. (1996)." I have been staring at the Miththapala PDF for a couple of hours today and, nope, saxicolor is not included in nimr but the other way around. By Jove, I think they may have made an error. Marskell (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I do have the print edition. The website didn't go up until a good 2 years or so after the book came out. Ah ha! Good catch! Like I said, it has some errors. ;) - UtherSRG(talk)19:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Because it should not be a redirect, it should be a red link until someone creates the article for the family. There are two families of treeshrews, as you can see at treeshrew. One family contains only one species, so it it a redirect to the species article. The remainder of the order are in Tupaiidae. It needs to be created. A redirect is incorrect for this purpose. - UtherSRG(talk)18:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You had concluded that it was merely an edit war between me and a suddenly popped up new wikipedia User:Mightyunit. Eventhough you refused to help in this matter but his real face got exposed afterwards, see User:Mightyunit. But it appears that, by his vandalism, he was able to acheive what he desired and 'was able to influence AfD on Navneet Singh Khadian. This article was deleted because of a margin of "One" vote only.
I sincerely hope you will care to listen to genuine wikipedia users now... !!
that, User:Mightyunit was blocked eventhough you refused to investigate his acts when a genuine wikipedia user requested you to do so?
that, being an administrator, you did not listen to a genuine Wikipedia user ? Singh6 02:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Take your concerns to someone else. The article was rightly deleted. Not every administrator is interested in every aspect of administration. - UtherSRG(talk)02:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not harassing you. Nor am I following you. You need to chill out, man. You also need to bow to the consensus opinion. - UtherSRG(talk)15:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Thylacoleonidae
I know the title probably made you cringe, but I'm contacting you on an unrelated matter. The reason I had the PhD I referred Cazique to was because it describes several new species of marsupial lion. Is it ok if I start adding them to the relevant page, or are there any issues attached to the fact it was released in a recent PhD thesis? This seems like an obvious question, but I'm just wanting to be sure, you know? T.carnifex (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
LOL! A thesis would be a primary source, and so we should use them sparingly. Secondary sources are better. Hrm... is there policy about this somewhere... Check out WP:RS#Scholarship and WP:SOURCE. They don't say what I'm saying, but do give the push towards more review of the material being better. - UtherSRG(talk)12:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I had a nagging doubt about it from something I'd read. I don't think this was it, but more likely what it was referring too WP:PSTS. After reading that, and the WP's you linked, it seems that it can't be used, or at least would be very difficult to. I might have to do some more looking, to see if any papers have been published in journals relating to the new species and genera. T.carnifex (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes! That's the one! :) I knew I'd seen it somewhere. :D Now, it doesn't say never use primary sources; for instance using multiple primary sources is good when trying to show the variety of opinions on something, such as taxonomy. However, we shouldn't be relying mostly on primary sources for our content. - UtherSRG(talk)13:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... It does say that if a primary source is used, the article can only make descriptive claims about the information from the primary source. Does this mean that I'd only really be able to make mention of it in the introduction, perhaps saying that the family is growing with on going research (or something like that), rather than adding them to the lists? T.carnifex (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I think adding to the list is fine, if you cite it properly. Look at how I handled the growing list of species at sportive lemur. Four separate primary sources were published after MSW3, and the new species are each tagged to show they come from new primary sources. - UtherSRG(talk)14:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I see what you mean. Thanks for the help. It's getting quite late here in Aus-land, so I might call it a night and make the changes tomorrow. My bad for getting into it this late, :p Goodnight! T.carnifex (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I added the new genera and species. I reckon it looks good, but it might need a clean up, I'm not sure. I wasn't sure in what order to put them, so I went from oldest specimens to youngest. T.carnifex (talk) 10:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Cool. I think now I'll try building stubs for the new genera. I'll use my user page as a "sand box". Would you be happy to check over them when they're finished? It might take me a day or so, as I have other work outside of wikipedia to complete... T.carnifex (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
What?!? How dare you do something other than Wikipedia!!! ;) Sure, just leave me a note when you're set and I'll take a look. - UtherSRG(talk)12:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Attribution
Re the reversion of my edit adding author credits to photos on to Common Brushtail Possum. I didn't mean to tread on anyone's toes, I am just trying to keep the flickr author of the possum pix happy with us using his photos. The author of the photo (who is not me) requested visible attribution on the Wikipedia page in order to allow us to use his pretty nice pix. I think that's fair enough since we are the ones who benefit and since Commons accepts CC-by (attribution) licences. Anyway if there is a policy against it then that's a different matter I guess I will just have to remove the photos from Wikipedia Commons. Kāhuroa (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Marsupial lion. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Yup... this is what happens when folks don't read the existing discussions or listen to the logic that behind the existing text... - UtherSRG(talk)16:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
First of all, an edit war is unnecessary. Talk this out until everyone is happy. (For the record, I don't care anymore what the consensus is, but I have voiced my opinion, which is apparently not important.) Second of all, no one said anything about whether you are correct about the technical spellings of the animals. What we're concerned about is the functionality of the articles within Wikipedia. In order for the article to be fully functional, a difference in capitalization should not prevent the user from seeing the desired page. Others and myself have tried numerous ways which are all acceptable, each of which has been reverted by none other than yourself, some of them multiple times. Wikipedia's articles must meet certain standards, and this instance of ambiguity certainly does not meet them. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
No one has offered a logic that is consistent with the way that hundreds if not thousands of mammal articles I've editted other than what I have offered. Folks should discuss *then* change. I revert *back* to how it was significantly more often than I move things. - UtherSRG(talk)17:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You have not yet offered a valid logic. You said "Look at the articles for penguins, pigs, monkeys, frogs, birds, or any other plural animal. What do they all have in common? They are all redirects to a singular titled article." but according to that logic the plural marsupial lions is also a redirect to the family. But this is not what you are edit warring over, you are edit warring over singular, non-plural marsupial lion. Which refers to the marsupial lion. So what don't you understand? Cazique (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
No you did not. Reply specifically to this "You have not yet offered a valid logic. You said "Look at the articles for penguins, pigs, monkeys, frogs, birds, or any other plural animal. What do they all have in common? They are all redirects to a singular titled article." but according to that logic the plural marsupial lions is also a redirect to the family. But this is not what you are edit warring over, you are edit warring over singular, non-plural marsupial lion. Which refers to the marsupial lion. So what don't you understand? Cazique (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)" reply here on the talkpage for further clarity for everyone to see. Cazique (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that was also replied to elsewhere. Capitalization is important. You are hiding the capitalization with a dab, confusing the issue. - UtherSRG(talk)17:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
No it was not. You are hiding this highlight of how your logic is wrong with your dab on capitalization, and are and have confused the issue for everyone. If you are not lying and you have replied specifically to this comment showing how your logic is flawed, then provide the specific quote where you answered the following: "You have not yet offered a valid logic. You said "Look at the articles for penguins, pigs, monkeys, frogs, birds, or any other plural animal. What do they all have in common? They are all redirects to a singular titled article." but according to that logic the plural marsupial lions is also a redirect to the family. But this is not what you are edit warring over, you are edit warring over singular, non-plural marsupial lion. Which refers to the marsupial lion. So what don't you understand? Cazique (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)". Cazique (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not the one dab'ing the capitalized Marsupial Lion with the uncapitalzied version when we discuss, you are. I don't know what you have a problem with here. The plural of anything on Wikipedia redirects to the the singular. The plural of a species redirects to the species article. The plural of a higher level taxa redirects to the singular form of the taxa. What is your problem? The only thing I can see is that you want the capitalized to mean the same as the uncapitalized, and the singular to mean something different than the plural. But this is not how it is done for all of the other articles. - UtherSRG(talk)17:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey,
Just making sure things are cool now. I wasn't trying to start an edit war, just noting an inconsistency and discussing it before fixing it. I gotta admit we all got a little disagreeable, even myself. Just know that this wasn't any sort of personal attack. I won't hold any of it against you, because I know we all get defensive when big changes come along (especially to articles we personally contribute to significantly). Thanks for sticking with it until the end, too...that's one thing I hate about arguments-- when people simply give up and let the other person have their own way. It's important to me that either your mind or mine changes, and I think that in this case, both of us were convinced other than our original opinions.
No problem Bob. Like you said, these things happen. It wasn't the first time and it won't be the last. I have no grudges against you. - UtherSRG(talk)19:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Edit warring
Please stop edit-warring with Cazique. I highly recommend dispute resolution at this time to try and stop what is really a rather silly slapfight over the hatnotes. He's been warned against continuing to edit war as well. Tony Fox(arf!)16:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I shall stop. However, consensus has been reached by all parties except Cazique. What more can be done? No dispute resolution will fix this. Cazique firmly believes we're all in the wrong any only he knows what is correct. This is an untenable situation. - UtherSRG(talk)16:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response to my request on ANI. I apologize if it sounded kind of blunt, but it's really better for someone uninvolved to take care of the admin stuff on these articles, considering we've had admins hauled before Arbcom for similar actions before. I'm trying my best to clamp down on things, and hopefully we can cool this down soon. Tony Fox(arf!)18:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
User talk:90.192.59.97 is specifically targetting Sikhism related articles with distorted and totally unacceptable information. I sincerely hope that you will listen to me this time and you will not refuse as you did previously in the case of USER:Mightyunit.
1.Here, User talk:90.192.59.97 has distorted the information about defenders of Sikhism (Sikh religious warriors), i.e. Nihangs. He has tried to make fun of Sikhs by replacing Nihang religious clothing colour, i.e. electric blue with a musical artile, i.e.Grease Lightning
2. Here, User talk:90.192.59.97 has removed {Original research|date=June 2008}{POV|date=June 2008} from the top of the article without even notifying any wikipedia administrator.
His edits/vandalism will encourage/force Sikhs and other non-Hindus to vandalize Hinduism related articles on wikipedia. Also, Keeping the senstivity of religious information, please stop him from distorting/vandalizing senstive religious articles.Singh6 (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Uther, I left a comment on Talk:Thylacoleonidae regarding the categories issue. I'm fine with you changing existing category:Marsupial Lions to category:Marsupial lions tags (and even adding them) but I don't think you should have removed tags for category:Diprotodonts, etc until there's been the opportunity for some more discussion (especially given recent events). I'm also not convinced that there are not instances where it might be helpful to lay-readers to have a category and a wholly-contained sub-category tag on the same article, although they would probably not be the immediate level up or down. You've kind of done that anyway by leaving category:Prehistoric animals of Australia which wholly contains category:Marsupial Lions. What are your thoughts? Regards, Secret Squïrrel03:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
mmm... perhaps I was not strict enough in my definition. You are correct that category:Prehistoric animals of Australia entirely contains the marsupial lions, but this is incidental to the definition of either category so it is fine for an article to contain both. However category:Diprotodonts and category:prehistoric diprotodonts have a very specific hierarchical relationship that is not merely incidental, so an article should only have one of the two and never both. I understand your hesitation to not remove the extraneous categories, but it makes things messier than they need to be. We can always fix things if consensus says the status quo is not acceptable. Now that it has sat for a little, and after looking at the list of potential articles that would be in the category, I'm coming to the opinion that category:marsupial lions is indeed too specific. - UtherSRG(talk)03:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Uther! FYI, the above subfamily Lorinae redirects to the genus Loris, but Lorinae also includes the genus Nycticebus, correct? So, if you wanted to maybe add to your to-do list, Lorinae could use a new article. In the mean time, from reading the above thread, I guess the redirect should be deleted. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, this redirect I think should be deleted, unless I am again missing something, since the family Erethizontidae (New World porcupines) includes both the subfamilies Erethizontinae and Chaetomyinae. What say you? --Tombstone (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support on my RfA. I wasn't successful, but I got some good constructive criticism, so who knows, in a few months time maybe I'll be ready. Cheers, Mark t young (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Plesae., if you feel you have the knowledge and experience to write on these issues, it is better that you get some training first. I dont want to sound nasty, but I cannot keep an eye on each correction I introduce and you revert.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.67.114 (talk • contribs)
"Authority" is more accurate than "researcher". There are many folks that do research. Some of them publish, others work for those that publish. The ones that publish are authorities; they have "authored" the description or theory or hypothesis, etc. In fact, "authority" is used explicitly in taxonomy. - UtherSRG(talk)15:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Ring-tailed Lemur
There were recently some extensive revisions to the ring-tailed lemur article. The editor seems to be very knowledgeable on the subject, but there may be issues with how he inlcuded images and sound clips (I am not sure those went through Commons for example), and I think you know better than me how those are supposed to be handled. I am not sure all the facts are 100% correct either. So you may want to check that article out.Rlendog (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. :) I split the audio table to a new article for now. I think a summary of the table should be re-included back in the main article. - UtherSRG(talk)16:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad to work with you on polishing up this article, as well as verifying everything that I have posted. Despite a few errors, most facts should be referenced properly. If anything is questionable or needs attention, let me know. I will try to work on the audio table in the near future. FYI: I plan to perform similar major edits to all Lemuridae pages in the future. I hope to get this portion of WikiProject Primates as near completion as possible in the foreseeable future. Questions, comments, corrections, and other feedback is always welcome. It will be my pleasure to work with you. Visionholder (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
In case you want a heads-up on what pages I'm eyeing over for major revision (in the very near future), you can check out my newly created user page. Before my next set of edits, I'll have some questions for you, though. No time now, though -- off to do some volunteer work! Visionholder (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Forgive my ignorance, but regarding the infraclasses used on {{Mammals}} (Australosphenida, Metatheria and Eutheria), the article Mammal makes no reference to this classification and the accompanying orders. Why is this? Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Mammal lists Prototheria and Theria as subclasses in the taxobox, and shows Theria's infraclasses Metatheria and Eutheria. Prototheria contains Australosphenida, which contains Monotremata. I don't know why Australosphenida isn't shown. - UtherSRG(talk)15:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Someone should find out. MSW3 doesn't mention Australosphenida at all, but that's because it doesn't mention anything above the rank of Order. - UtherSRG(talk)13:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
It appears that some editors with very little understanding of taxonomy have taken over all the articles about rock iguanas. They are a total mess. I've started trying to clean things up, but I'm getting reverted. Could you stop by Talk:Cyclura cychlura cychlura if you get a chance. Once that is cleaned up, I'm going to try Cyclura nubila nubila, which may be even more difficult. Kaldari (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, I think I've finally convinced them of the error of their ways, since I have sources to back up what I'm saying :) Kaldari (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to bug you again, but I tried to make an edit on Wikispecies only to find that my IP address has been blocked indefinitely with account creation blocked as well. Unfortunately, the IP address I'm using is shared by about 50,000 people (maybe more), so I'm sure someone on the IP must have committed some vandalism at some point. Anyway, I can't complain to anyone on Wikispecies since I'm blocked so I was wondering if you could fix the block on my IP so that account creation is allowed at least. The IP address is 166.77.6.4. Thanks for your help! Kaldari (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I saw that you undid the changes I made to the Darwin's Rhea article, where I added the local names. Can I ask why you think this is inappropriate? Thanks.
My reasoning was: 1) It is a species native to Latin America, known for a long time with local names prior to the arrival of Darwin to Patagonia; 2) The Spanish wikipedia mentions both the English name (Rhea de Darwin), as well as the local name; 3) I believe it is a reasonable contribution for those inquisitive readers who want to know how the species has been called among those who have lived there for ever, as opposed to those who "discovered" it much later. Thanks again!Nordisk varg (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. However, I'm restoring the local names elsewhere in the article, as it is done in the case of many other South American animals.Nordisk varg (talk) 04:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The January 2025 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. --Addbot (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Please explain your reasoning regarding capitalisation in detail, taking into account the MoS and standard non-Wikipedian practice. Do you think I'm new? I created the fanaloka article back on 24 December 2005. Srnec (talk) 02:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
That's it? Well, I guess because you've had discussions... Sorry for wasting your time with arguments, notions like "common noun" and "manual of style". Srnec (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm aware of that discussion. It does not apply to animals mammals, nor am I aware that it suggested using capitals in the main text of an article, which is not typical practice outside of Wikipedia. Nobody talks of Grizzly Bears and Mountain Lions but of grizzly bears and mountain lions. Srnec (talk) 05:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Why would a discussion at WikiProject Birds have any bearing on how we write our mammal articles? And the project page does not mention capitals in the body texts of articles that I can see, can you show me otherwise? And does the MWS3 talk about capitalisation issues? Srnec (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sending this to all the wikiproject:mammals participants. There's a naming guideline up for discussion on the talk page, and the more people get involved the more valid any consensus drawn. Ironholds19:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello! :) I thought you might be interested in this. Check it out and add your name under "Participants" if your interested. Have a nice day and happy editing! --Grrrlriot (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
LOL I reply like that so that it eventually goes into my archie automatically. :) I don't have time to join another Project or Task Force. - UtherSRG(talk)03:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
hey, what's up? you've been editing this entry recently, and i didn't know if you'd caught an apparent inconsistency: under the Species and taxonomy heading, genus Urocyon is categorized within Tribe Vulpini (ie, allied with genus Vulpes), while Nyctereutes and Otocyon are listed as basal Caninae (unless i'm mistaken, the exact relationship of each of these, minus Vulpes, is ambiguous with regard to the rest of the family). however, the adjoining table has Urocyon as an outgroup to the latter three genera, which here seem to be of roughly equal rank. what think? - Metanoid (talk, email) 12:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
i don't have the research for this in front of me, but i'll probably act on it regardless within a couple of days if i continue to hear nothing from you.... - Metanoid (talk, email) 01:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible) system - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by –xenobot22:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Would you consider deleting the Chinese goral redirect, too? Or alternatively someone should start a page for the "true" Chinese Goral, Naemorhedus griseus, already listed with a red link in the genus article Naemorhedus.212.10.91.173 (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I have "re-reverted" this. It is highly relevant that these often are placed in this genus (you can check Groves, 2005, as this is clearly stated even in the online version, though I'm sure you already know), as just about every single field guide dealing with this region continue to use it. If you dislike the placement/the wording of that comment, you should of course feel free to re-add it/a modified version of it elsewhere in the article, but don't just remove it. On a separate issue, thanks for dealing with the incorrect Chinese goral link. 212.10.91.173 (talk) 03:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Uther. Regarding the above redirect, it is a subfamily that redirects UP to its family. Originally, it redirected to its only extant genus, Alligator. I was going to speedy it, since it has several extinct genera, but thought maybe I'd seek your opinion. Should this be speedied or redirected to its only living genus, Alligator? Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I deleted it. Given the number of extinct taxa in the subfamily, it can easily become an article, and rather quickly. - UtherSRG(talk)13:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Homo erectus
I'm glad you watch over the paleoanthropology articles. You catch a lot of vandalism. Earlier today you reverted the insertion of "not" in the paragraph about the use of controlled fire. If one looks at the context, it doesn't really make sense without the word "not." Seems like it should be there. TimidGuy (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello again. Sorry for pestering you, but I wanted to again solicit your opinion. I created an ultra-top-level animal template {{Life on Earth}}. I was unsure of a few things, such as the organization and terms used, and if such a template was even a good idea. I was leery of implementing it without some feedback first. Your input would be appreciated. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
If you are online, I requested this page be deleted to make way for a page move per MSW3 and I was hoping you could check it out. If you are not online, then I am utterly disgusted with the world. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
OK. I tried to change only the scientific name, but the link from genus page was not functioning. However, the scientific name was a mistake, while the link to common name is only a preference... --Vitalfranz (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. You too had used an incorrect scientific name. yagouaroundi is what MSW3 says is correct. You had left off the second "u". - UtherSRG(talk)11:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for helping the Nepal Gray Lampur article, but I take it from your edits that Super family and sub family taxation aren't needed? Or is that incorrect taxation? Yojimbo501 (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
A bit of both. the template entires for those would be superfmailia and subfamilia. However, we skip minor taxa except for between the article's subject taxa, and the major taxa immediately above it. - UtherSRG(talk)19:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, but I'm sorry I couldn't say this earlier, my computer wouldn't let me go to wikipedia for some reason. Yojimbo501 (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The Highland Wildlife Park tags this animal as a Chinese Goral and gives it the name Nemorhaedus caudatus arnouxianus. Would this not make it a sub-species of Nemorhaedus caudatus? --ML5 (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
It would be, if arnouxianus were a subpopulation of caudatus. It is a subpopulation of griseus, though, which has been removed from caudatus and elevated to the rank of species: N. griseus is the Chinese Goral. See goral. - UtherSRG(talk)14:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
OK. So is the tag in the park wrong to call it Nemorhaedus caudatus arnouxianus? If so, the details against the photograph (and, indeed, the file name) will be misleading.--ML5 (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Yup. But that is of only minor importance. It *is* arnouxianus, though, as far as I can tell, and Highland did tag it as Chinese Goral correctly. - UtherSRG(talk)14:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Since you seem to know about these things, have I messed up the same way with my photograph on the markhor article? They say Turkmenian, but the article says Bukharan.--ML5 (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Yup. Fixed. It's a good idea to look at the articles you are oging to put images on before you upload the images. We do our best to keep taxonomy up to date, while zoos and wildlife parks don't. It's not in their interest to change the signage every time taxonomy changes. It's too expensive. - UtherSRG(talk)17:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Cat or Domestic Cat
Hello again. I have been reading through the Cat talk pages and archives, including the scientific name discussions but couldn't find what I was looking for regarding the common name. I saw you had participated in some of the scientific name discussions so I thought you might know if the common name was discussed. I was going to initiate a discussion about moving the article to Domestic Cat, since it is the common name used by MSW3, and some other species use "domestic" in their article name: Domestic sheep, Domestic pig, Domestic buffalo, Domestic Pigeon. Before I started such nonsense, I figured you may have some insight as to whether or not this is a discussion worth starting. Thoughts? --Tombstone (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Prince Bernhard's Titi and Griffith's Silver Langur
We currently have articles for 2 monkeys under the Latin name Callicebus bernhardi, "Prince Bernhard's Titi" and "Bernhardi Monkey". I suspect that Bernhardi Monkey should be converted to a redirect, and any information in that article (albeit a stub) not already included in the Prince Bernhard's Titi should just be incorporated there. But I wanted to get your thoughts. Rlendog (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. One more question. There is a stub article for "Griffith's Silver Langur" (Trachypithecus villosus). But the species is not listed in the Trachypithecus/Lutung genus article. I don't see it in MSW3 either, not even as a subspecies or under a different genus. Do you know if this is a valid (perhaps post-MSW publication) species or subspecies? If so, it should be added to the Trachypithecus/Lutung genus article, but I am not sure which group to put it under. Rlendog (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Damned PolBot... IUCN is not to be used in this manner.... Anyway, I find subspecies germaini and margarita. germaini is now a full species, the Indochinese Lutung, with margarita a synonym. I'm just going to redirect this questionable article to the valid one. - UtherSRG(talk)08:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Colin says: "I think the idea of a species or subspecies called villosus is not destined to last. The name is an old one, which was resurrected in 2003 (I think), but seems to be very poorly based, and recent studies by Roos and others do not use it, and I think they are right. It is probably best listed as a synonym of Trachypithecus cristatus, and duly forgotten. The other names you mention – germaini and margarita -- represent good species on the mainland Southeast Asia, germaini to the west of the Mekong and margarita to the east of it (as far as we know to this date)."
OK, this one's a little iffy. MSW3 calls it a "Wolf" rather than a "Gray Wolf". In reviewing its page history, it appears it was moved in 2005 to reconcile FAC concerns and was never moved back. I don't know how heavily MSW3 was referenced back then, but it seems to have been a "non-scientific" reason to move. I was going to initiate discussion on this, but you seem to have had some involvement back then and wanted your input first. Thoughts? --Tombstone (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, you're right...maybe this one isn't worth the drama. Maybe instead I'll tweak the lede sentence a bit; I'll mull it over. Forgive me for my recent obsession with common names, must be my undiagnosed OCD.... Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The WP article quotes Audubon & Bachman, 1851, having Canis rufus as a species; but MSW3 lists the same source having Canis lupus rufus as a subspecies. Doesn't add up — the WP article makes no mention of new research (maybe in the external links, but that is moot if the article doesn't include the info). So, is this considered its own species based on WP standards, or should it be clarified it "may" be a species? --Tombstone (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Not a prob, the person is blocked for 48 hours now, so hopefully it should stop now. I thought it was a bit random, especially how vitrolic the comments where! Looks like you have yourself a nemesis! :) Mark t young (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Because it was a good quality image showing the full side of the aninmal in question, and if thats not a that's not good enough awnser why bother having pictures on articles at all? --ClimaxVoid☭. 12:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Pardon my slowness on this... I'm feeling plucky and want you to come to the answer yourself. It's not the image. Oh, and please use 4 tildes to sign, not 3. - UtherSRG(talk)16:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Just a question about this. Surely, that's a synonym. True, it is not a junior synonym (or senior, for that matter), but that is not a requirement for it to be a synonym (even if the Synonym (taxonomy) article on wiki could need an update, although the intro get it right). To quite that intro: synonyms are different scientific names used for a single taxon, i.e. no limitation to specific ephipet (in species), and I'm sure we can agree that Nasalis concolor and Simias concolor are two different names, but a single taxon. Cheers, 212.10.95.191 (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, but that's an overly broad definition of synonym, then. MSW3 makes a distinction between synonymity and placement. It doesn't list the genus of the taxa when listing the synonyms, only the epithet. the epithet is attached to a particular description. When the epithet is moved from one genus to another, the description is still the same description. When a new description is used for a species, the epithet attached to that description is now used, and the previous epithet may become a synonym for the current one. MSW3 doesn't list N. concolor as a synonym for S. concolor, because that is only an issue of placement, not a change in description. - UtherSRG(talk)18:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Just wondering what you felt inapproriate about my edits? The 2nd one was particularly confusing given it was a simply making a link work. Adamsim (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
By your own words, you do not know that this is a fact that you editted in: "Thought this better encompassed the 7th Fleet's AOR, which presumably includes north Africa". Please check out how the Navy represents the 7th Fleet's AOR. Perhaps you are right, perhaps you are not. "Perhaps" is not good enough for an encyclopedia. The second edit I didn't see and will fix. - UtherSRG(talk)17:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, thanks for restoring the second edit. Secondly, I got my fleets mixed up! I of course meant the 6th, rather than 7th. My apologies. Thirdly, thanks for the pointer - I should indeed be less (if not completely un-) equivocal in future. The 6th's website (http://www.c6f.navy.mil/) is under construction at the moment, however the page that is operating talks at length about their work in Ghana and Liberia, and the map on the header does show Africa in addition to Europe. And given that aircraft from the USS America (which of course you'll know was part of the 6th Fleet at the time) were used in Operation El Dorado Canyon, I no longer presume but assert that Africa is de facto part of their AOR. In which case I consider my 1st edit appropriate and would appreciate you undoing your reversion.
Almost 24 hours on, I am disappointed there has been no response to the above. I had hoped we could resolve this by my not having to undo your reversion of my edit. However I feel I have provided sufficient justification for doing so, and it is what I shall now do. I have added additional comment on my user page. Adamsim (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Genus Bassaricyon redirects to Olingo; Bassaricyon gabbii, per MSW3, should be Olingo, but the WP article is Bushy-tailed Olingo (which is the IUCN common name). I would prefer to see the genus not be a redirect at all, and the species be at Olingo; or if the genus does redirect to Olingo, then the species should be similar to Olingo (animal). What is your opinion?
Ringtail is a disambiguous page, which is fine, but the species Bassariscus astutus is at Ring-tailed Cat; both MSW3 & IUCN list only the common name "Ringtail". I was thinking the species should be moved to Ringtail (some modifier), but I can't decide on a good modifier. Ringtail (cat) isn't appropriate, and Ringtail ("cat") seems awkward. What is your opinion?
I think the way things are is best, even if it contradicts MSW3. It's confusing enough that all of the genus can be called olingos while one of the species is the Olingo. Since IUCN offers a different name for the species, I'm good with that. I haven't tried contacting any of the other authors of MSW3 like I've done with Groves. Perhaps I should send a note to Wozencraft and see what he thinks. Or you can.
I think for now (meaning "when I get around to it") I will resolve the Olingo differentiation with either a hatnote and/or a sentence in the lede paragraph on the pages, until/unless something else is decided. I would not feel comfortable with contacting one of the MSW3 authors, what with me being just a peon ;). Another thought would be to have Olingo be a disambig. page, linking to both the genus and the animal, but maybe that is too much tinkering for this tiny issue....
MSW3 has 17 matches on "ringtail", however all but Bassariscus astutus has a modifier prior to "ringtail" or uses "ringtail" itself as a modifier. Therefore, I think your suggestion seems quite plausible and I will also add hatnotes to any of the appropriate pages. But this might cause a minor stir, so I think I will look into the other pages listed on ringtail, maybe make a move proposal, and either play it by ear or just be bold. I'll look closer at it first.
The August 2008 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 | Talk01:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Uther's self portrait.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Uther's self portrait.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Greetings! You are invited to attend the second annual New York picnic on August 24! This year, it will be taking place in the Long Meadow of Prospect Park in Brooklyn. If you plan on coming, please sign up and be sure to bring something! Please be sure to come! You have received this automated delivery because your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Primate info net lists "Northern White-cheeked Gibbon" as a common name for Nomascus leucogenys. The subspecies common names is "Northern White-cheeked Crested Gibbon". Note the difference in the names and also the lack of "Southern White-cheeked Gibbon" as a common name for Nomascus leucogenys (despite a subspecies called the "Southern White-cheeked Crested Gibbon"). Unless you know otherwise, I think the redirect is valid. Kaldari (talk) 19:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the confusion arrises from Nomascus leucogenys siki having been elevated to a separate species, which our articles do not reflect. (According to MSW3, which I assume is the ref you prefered for mammal taxonomy). Kaldari (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
This is one of the cases where we don't use MSW3. Geissmann's gibbon website is more uptodate than MSW3. He's nicely resorted the various groupings, subspecies, and species of Hylobatidae. The only change we make is that Hoolock is no longer monotypic. He also has a wonderful identification key that's helped me sort out a picture or two. For now, it's best to use only the best known names, and leave other names as unredirected, unless it is absolutely clear that the less used name is only relevant to where it is being redirected. - UtherSRG(talk)19:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I already updated all the articles in question to be in line with MSW3. Why was there no mention of this issue in the article talk pages or ref citations? Kaldari (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome to update the articles using Geissmann's gibbon website, however, I am unfamiliar with that source. It is important that divergences from MSW3 be well documented in the references and talk pages so that we don't cause unnecessary back and forth changes. Kaldari (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I found the website you're talking about. However, there are papers on that site from 2007 that still list Nomascus siki and Nomascus leucogenys as separate species. Where do you see that they have been remerged? Kaldari (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Yup. Geissmann is referenced at the family and genus level (at least on Nomascus). And it's probably a good idea to check at least the genus level listing to see what it says before moving a species or elevating a subspecies. But you're right, Geissmann should be noted on all the appropriate articles. See Table 2 at the Sysstemics page. - UtherSRG(talk)19:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Wait a minute, the last time Geissmann's taxonomy was peer reviewed was 1995. Groves separated the species in 2001, so how can Geissmann be more up to date? Kaldari (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The page you are citing is a primary source, not a secondary source, i.e. it hasn't been peer reviewed or published. Wikipedia cannot base it's taxonomy on one scientists unpublished web page. Kaldari (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Geissmann's discussion of the siki issue cites nothing more recent than 2000, so I seriously doubt it is more up to date on this particular issue than Groves, who separated the species in 2001. Please note that much of the page you are referencing was originally published in 1995! Here is the section discussing whether or not siki should be a species or subspecies:
A further form, siki, whose distribution area is situated between that of N. gabriellae and N. leucogenys, has previously been identified as a subspecies N. gabriellae by Groves (Groves, 1993; Groves & Wang, 1990), based on a penis bone at the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris. Unfortunately, this particular bone is not suitable to determine the affinities of siki, because it is (1) incomplete and (2) not of siki but of N. leucogenys (Geissmann, unpublished data). On the other hand, the song of siki, although having distinct characteristics, resembles that of N. leucogenys more than that of any other form of crested gibbon including N. gabriellae (Geissmann, unpublished data). Likewise, mitochondrial DNA sequences suggest that siki is more closely related to leucogenys than to gabriellae (Garza & Woodruff, 1992, 1994; Kressirer & Geissmann, in prep.). As a result, siki is recognised here as a subspecies of N. leucogenys. As additional evidence for a close relationship between N. l. leucogenys and N. l. siki, it should also been noted that the females of both forms are so similar in fur colouration that no distinctive features are known, at present, whereas both differ from females of N. gabriellae (Geissmann, 1995a; Geissmann et al., 2000).
Also note that Geissmann uses Groves' newer taxonomy (in which siki is separate) in all of his most recent published papers. The web page you are dogmatically pushing is simply not up to date. Kaldari (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Now that our wheel war is complete (I hope), I just wanted to remark that I find it ironic that I had to defend MSW3 against the very person who convinced me that it should be the de facto taxonomy standard in the first place! This argument serves as a perfect example of why deferring to MSW3 is a good idea, rather than trying to be on the cutting edge and relying on web pages that haven't been peer reviewed. I hope you still believe that is the case. Anyway, let's put this scuffle behind us. There's no reason to have bad blood between two people with the same ultimate goals in mind :) Kaldari (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree iin this case. Geissmann has been working with Groves on a number of papers which have been published post-MSW3 which support the taxonomy on his website. Here's some supporting papers (with one that Groves co-authored), that do not list siki as a species:
Brandon-Jones, D.; Eudey, A.A.; Geissmann, T.; Groves, C.P.; Melnick, D.J.; Morales, J.C.; Shekelle, M., and Stewart, C.-B. (2004). "Asian primate classification"(PDF). International Journal of Primatology. 25: 97–164.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
It isn't until a paper published in 2007 that Geissmann uses Groves 2001 again, but this is a paper for the IUCN status reassessment, where using a greater number of species is advantageous for conservation funding efforts:
I don't have time to look it up right now, but both of the articles I checked had siki as a separate species (I think both were from 2007). The IUCN article is not the only one. Kaldari (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
The other Geissman article from 2007 that mentions siki is "A brief survey for crested gibbons in Bach Ma National Park", which includes siki as a separate species. You may be right in the end, but you need a better source than a web page to make the case that we should overrule MSW3. Kaldari (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Here is an interesting passage published by Geissman in 2006:
Mitochondrial DNA sequences in captive crested gibbons showed that 3 of 5 Nomascus leucogenys siki clustered with N. leucogenys and the other 2 with N. gabriellae (Roos, 2004), indicating that N. l. siki may be a paraphyletic taxon. As a result, Groves (2004) and Roos (2004) proposed that siki may be a hybrid between N. leucogenys and N. gabriellae. As an alternative interpretation of the same finding, and more consistent with our results, we suggest that the different clusters of Nomascus leucogenys siki may be geographically separated taxa, representing speciation in progress. Our results on the vocal diversity of Cambodian crested gibbons do not reliably resolve the identity of the gibbon populations in northeast Cambodia, but provide a first element to the solution of a puzzle.
It sounds like no one currently has any idea what siki is... a species, a subspecies, a hybrid, several different species or subspecies... until the "puzzle" is resolved, it seems like a good idea to stick with MSW3, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Primate evolution
If you have Groves' Primate Taxonomy it'd be great if you could add references to the dates for evolutionary splits etc. on the primate page, I've added citation needed tags to the facts needing sources. That's pretty much the only issue we're facing before getting the article to GA status. Cheers, Jack (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Why Did You Delete My External Link?
I posted an external link to an excellent article on female ejaculation by one of the foremost experts in the field, Susan Block. It is much more informative and interesting than some of the other external links you have on this page, such as one to a blog. Why did you delete it?
Queenesther (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Lockmart.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Toilet-claw article - creation & deletion
Can you help me out? Last night, I created a brief page (a primate stub) similar to the toothcomb stub you created earlier. I stated the basic information about the toilet-claw and even referenced a journal article. It had a references section and listed 3 appropriate categories. I thought it was a sufficient start for a page that I planned to later come back and fill in as I obtained photos and worked on more detailed text. The page content was not redundant nor "gibberish", as claimed by the warning that I got on my talk page from Josh3580. Can I appeal the deletion? I spent an hour on that page, making sure it was worded, cited, and linked properly. Needless to say, I'm not happy. (I've since discovered I still have the text of the article saved on my computer.) Feel free to discuss this on my talk page. Thank you for your time. Visionholder (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey Uther, recent edits on the Red Kangaroo made me wonder, is there a way I can revert to edits older than the immediately previous revision? I've had it a couple of times on other pages where someone has made several small edits that aren't necessary, but to revert them, I seem to have to manually remove what they put in. Cheers. T.carnifex (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
In your opinion, should I nominate Ring-tailed Lemur for a GA review? A couple weeks ago, I requested a peer review from WikiProject Primates, but haven't heard anything back yet. According to the Good article criteria, the article should be ready. Should I wait for the peer review, or should I also request a GA review at this time? This will be my first review (peer or GA), so I'd like your advice. My ultimate goal is to turn this article (and many other lemur articles) into Featured Articles. -Visionholder (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! No, I don't need to shuffle the references around so that the full details appear at first occurrence - but it does look neater that way! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 20:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Thought for a Wiki Admin...
Warning: I've got a little alcohol mixed into the system at the moment... although that sometimes leads to my best inspiration. Below is an idea that can be blown off without a worry, if so merited. I'm just looking for some honest feedback on an idea I had.
While browsing articles that fall under the WikiProject: Tree of Life and noticing that many of them--including high profile articles for encompassing entire phyla or major biological concepts--range from B-class down to Start-class, I began thinking. From my experiences, the researchers I've contacted for content, feedback, and/or clarification have fallen into one of two categories. Either they are keenly interested in assisting Wiki, and excited about having summaries of their research being freely available to the general public, or they simply don't have the time or interest to assist. Additionally, two more thoughts crossed my mind:
Although Wikipedia's potential is great, it is intended to function as an encyclopedia. This includes the limitation that encyclopedias are not sufficient to be textbooks, despite having ever-expansive content potential.
Families sending their students to college (in the U.S. at least) are struggling to cover the costs, and independent college students surviving on financial aid and/or limited employment have been doing so for years. Meanwhile, the rising cost of textbooks aren't helping matters; and many are desperately turning to alternatives to save money, such as buying textbooks through Amazon.com.
All of this coalesced into one thought. What if Wikipedia reached out to researchers and professors around the world and asked for their support in not only turning Wikipedia articles into Featured Articles, but also creating a new WikiTextbook? The effort and challenges would be monumental, but it seems to fall in line with other attempts to branch out, such as Wiktionary. (Or maybe this is more of a step back to the days of NuPedia.)
I realize that there would be many challenges to this. Obviously, there is a lot of money in the textbook market, and the textbook publishers wouldn't go down without a fight. Additionally, I also realize that researchers/professors get paid for writing textbooks, so helping with a "WikiTextbook" project would undermine a potential/existing revenue source. However, the need exists, and, from experience, I know there are quite a few professors out there who are also fed up with bloated text book prices and actively looking for alternatives to help their students. Even if not overwhelmingly successful, maybe a WikiTextbook project could help shake things up a bit, and ultimately help struggling students while also educating the general public (in multiple languages!).
Now please keep in mind that although this is an alcohol-induced post, I'm the type of person who was dreaming of creating global information tools far beyond the scope of Wikipedia while obtaining my Master of Science in Library and Information Science (at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) during the same years that NuPedia was turning into Wikipedia. I've also worked professionally in and around major universities for over 6 years after my graduation. I'm not some random person off the street. This is a semi-serious question, and I'd appreciate a semi-serious reply, either by you or other Wiki Admins.
Sorry to single you out with this post, but you're the one Wiki Admin that I have a working relationship with. Hearing an idea like this from a complete stranger might elicit a very different reaction from anyone. I'm just curious to know what you think.
Looks like I'm really behind the times (and don't explore Wiki enough). Looks like the Wiki community beat me to it back in 2003, when they created Wikibooks. Now I feel dumb. ;-) Looks like it has a long, long way to go, though. - Visionholder (talk) 08:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
the IP 71.239.229.11
I see you've already been tackling the edits of that IP [4]. I put a note on Doug Weller's page about him, so he may help as well... too busy to deal with it today...best, Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Neanderthal
I really appreciate that you keep on eye on Neandertal. But at a quick glance, it looks like your recent revert restored a lot of problematic material that had been diligently cleaned up. I don't have time at the moment and was wondering if you could take a closer look. Thanks! TimidGuy (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Oops. My mistake. Had time to look at it more closely. Trekphiler did a great job of cleaning up the problematic material after you restored the work done by the person with weak English/writing skills. Article looks good. Again, thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Primates and Wikipedia 0.7 articles (automated selection)
Is there a reason why WikiProject Primates was apparently omitted in the automated selection of articles for Version 0.7? I looked through the list, and the project Primates was not present, but Mammals was. If you go to the page for all Mammal articles (not just those selected), there are some primate articles listed, but only those with the {{MaTalk}} box at the top of their discussion page. Should we add {{MaTalk}} to the top of each primate articles' discussion page? Or is there a way we can mention this omission to the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team? I just want to make sure that this is a fully recognized project, and not being overlooked in other ways as well. - Visionholder (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
You got it just right. It's not two species, but two descriptions that were later equated to the same species (or something like that). - UtherSRG(talk)21:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Your edits make no sense. First of off, you aren't even using complete sentences. Second, you don't explain anything with your edit. What do you mean by them? (I know a thing or two about biology, and they make no sense to me, so there's no way someone who knows less than I about biology is going to understand them.) Next, we do not use the IUCN for taxonomy. We follow MSW3. The IUCN's purpose is not to keep track of taxonomy, but to list the current conservation status of species and subspecies. It's MSW3's job to discern taxonomy. And finally, you simply copied the text directly from the IUCN redlist page. that's a no-no. You have to write it in your own words. - UtherSRG(talk)21:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Then I know your view. Had you explained that (briefly) in the edit summary or preferably as above (though possibly in slightly lighter tone) in the discussion pages I would have appreciated it. As for the reason for my infantile edit I was confused by the different genera in the article compared to what ARKive listed. I tried to understand it, found a note, and copied it (possibly against policy, but certainly bona fide) to help improve a stub article. What is your view on how to explain this confusing situation to other readers? 81.229.158.64 (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
And by the way, I have a question about the headers for discussion pages on WikiProject Primates articles, particularly on the lemur pages. Is the setup found on the Ring-tailed Lemur discussion page look good enough to become "standard" for the lemur pages? I've grown very fond of the {{talkheader}}, and {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} seems like a nice way to nest multiple WikiProjects and reduce the footprint. Your thoughts? And what about using {{MaTalk}} to associate with WikiProject Mammals? Is that too redundant? - Visionholder (talk) 08:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
WHATWikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and
StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City. The event is based on last year's Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and has evolved to include StreetsWiki this year as well.
WINNINGS?
Prizes include a dinner for three with Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales at Pure Food & Wine, gift certificates to Bicycle Habitiat and the LimeWire Store, and more!
WHEN
The hunt will take place Saturday, September 27th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.
WHO
All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!
REGISTER
The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.
WHERE
Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's West Village office. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:
Hello Uther. I was perusing some more mammal articles and came across Chacoan Pygmy Opossum. I was not sure if this is formally recognized as a species as of yet and proposed merging it into Agile Gracile Opossum. I was hoping you could take a look at this conversation and advise me if I am on the right track. If I am incorrect in your opinion, let me know here and I can drop the merge proposal. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Conservation status: IUCN vs. Mittermeier
The IUCN lists the Black-and-white Ruffed Lemur (V. variegatta) as Endangered (EN) and the Red Ruffed Lemur (V. rubra) as Critically Endangered (CR). However, in Mittermeier's book, "Lemurs of Madagascar", it says that the IUCN lists V. variegatta as CR (due to a more restricted range and fragmentation) and V. rubra as EN (due to its presence is a large national park). I will mention this on the pages I'm composing under the header "Conservation status". However, which assessment should I use for the taxobox? - Visionholder (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Hrm. Good question. If we use Mittermeier, someone is bound to revert it back to IUCN. While Mittermeier's book is a good source of information, I think we should hold off on changing the conservation status until next year, and see what the IUCN does. - UtherSRG(talk)04:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Please explain your rational for reverting my edit to the Coyote page translating obscure scientific language into plainly understood English. Thank you.Wikiuser100 (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Come on now, this is otherwise a plain language article written for lay readers. It is not astronomy or quantum physics and such notational usage is not found in similar articles on common animals. Let's not get in a revert war over this.Wikiuser100 (talk) 09:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you examiine a large number of animal articles. You'll see that there is a great variety of styles, but that the predominant move in the edits is towards scientific language, and not away from it. - UtherSRG(talk)11:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
What's the point - in an article about coyotes? Wikipedia is not a scientific encyclopedia and its audience is not comprised primarily of scientists. It is a layman's venue authored by laymen, except in the exception. Not the norm.Wikiuser100 (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The point is we shouldn't talk down to the audience, we should talk up to them. "MYA" is a simple concept, and should be acceptable with the explanatory link. - UtherSRG(talk)04:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you have it backwards: we should be talking *to* them, in plain English. It indeed is talking down to them to use the notation employed. I've studied at nine colleges and universities in my life and never encountered the form before this webpage. And would not expect to in a non-scientific article in an orthodox encyclopedia or dictionary of record (like the O.E.D.).Wikiuser100 (talk) 05:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Reversion of Mountain Gorilla page edit to 128.119.210.24
I do no understand why you would remove the link to the National Geographic Adventure article on Mountain Gorillas. The article won the PEN award, the second most prestigious award in all of journalism and was published in one of the leading magazines in the world. It discusses the reason they are nearly extinct and provides detailed information on them. The photos are probably some of the best on the web of the gorillas. What is your issue here? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JakeSturm (talk • contribs) 10:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Please read the external links policy. Try to find some way of incorporating the links into the article in a better manner than "other sources". The article is not using the information in the NGA article, so this is an incorrect way of adding the links. - UtherSRG(talk)04:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
hey there, just wondering what was wrong with my piece on the evolution of the lesser bilby? everyone in my biology class is updating a site with evolutionary information and we were all excited to be a part of a bigger discussion. an explaination would be appreciated. (Iheartthelesserbilby (talk) 05:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC))
Thanks, UtherSRG, for your attention to the article. Vdr826, please see my comment on the Talk page. Ideally you would propose changes there, then let other editors help put it into correct English. And we'll need to negotiate how much emphasis to put on particular points of view. TimidGuy (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah
I just remembered you never said why you removed this image
As the title suggests, a new IUCN Red List (2008) has been released. I am going through all the lemur pages today to update the status in the taxoboxes. How do we go about creating a new IUCN 2006 template for 2008? If it's possible for a non-admin to do this, I'll try to figure it out on my own, but tips would be welcome. - Visionholder (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I've created the new template and started adjusting the links on the Taxobox usage and Conservation status pages. I see you created a 2007 template, but it appears to not be used much. Since there have been changes in the organization of the IUCN Red List site, I feel it's important that people start using this new 2008 template. I've made some posts, but was wondering if there's a way for you, as an admin, to help get the word out. - Visionholder (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Since the 2006 and 2007 IUCN website was very similar in format, there was no big need for changing all the articles to use the new template. I haven't had a chance to look yet, but if what you say is true, then there will be a big need to push the new 2008 template onto all of the articles. - UtherSRG(talk)04:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
A fun mess — lemur renames!
I've never done disambiguation, page moves, and redirects before. Looks like I'm getting a crash course today. The IUCN now recognizes a new species, the Red-fronted Brown Lemur (Eulemur rufifrons). Unfortunately, Red-fronted Brown Lemur is another name of the Red Brown Lemur (Eulemur rufus), so the page name already exists. In fact, Red-fronted Brown Lemur was the main page. Fun! So I'm in the process of moving the existing page to Red Brown Lemur, creating a disambiguation link, then (somehow) changing the auto-created redirect to a new lemur page, also with a disambiguation link. Unfortunately, I'm sure that I'm missing a step here. Is there something special I should say at the top of the new Red-fronted Brown Lemur (when I'm done) instead of (or in addition to) the disambiguation link, since old links will now be pointing to the wrong page?
Yet one more reason why I am strongly opposed to the decision to name animal pages by their common name, instead of the scientific name. >.<
Rlendog and I have been discussing this on his talk page, in case you're interested. I realize what I've done may not have been the best move, but given that a new species is involved in the shuffle, it's hard to say. - Visionholder (talk) 03:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
My apologies for all the trouble. I'll wait for an update from Groves before making changes like that again. On the positive side, I now have experience with disambiguation, page moves, and redirects. - Visionholder (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The reference in the References section was structured and filled out correctly, but was redundant. The reference already existed above in the taxobox and was therefore generated by the {{reflist}} tag. For examples of the different citation methods, go here. The Numbat article appears to use unaligned citations. - Visionholder (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Bigfoot, he's tired of the prejudice, and frankly, so am I.
Yo bro. I added Bigfoot to the great apes page to IMPROVE it, not vandalize it. I feel like it's more complete if we have every ape creature listed. Please do not revert my edits again. I know someone who has seen Bigfoot so I know he's real.
141.157.168.79 (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
We only put scientifically verified species in scientific articles, and we use the valid scientific names for them. What you did was not science based, and so was vandalism. I'll remove it and continue to remove it, and if you persist, your account will get blocked for vandalism. - UtherSRG(talk)05:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I was just wondering why you deleted my information on the Tasmanian Devil.
Last I checked there wasn't anything wrong with it.
Thanks,
ImperfectMassacre. x
Hi UtherSRG,
This is regarding reverting of this edit 243896305.
I am agreeable in principle to your argument that other language names for the animal is not required in the English version of wikipedia. However, when the article is about an endemic animal, exception has to be made, I guess. English version of the wikipedia is the source that most people come to in order to get information. If the article cannot be used to connect the local name of the endemic animal and the English and scientific name, then a vital piece of information is missing. Note that the local people have been referring the animal with those names, before English name is given and scientific categorization is made. Besides we are not going to have names for the animal in ALL other languages in the world but only as much names as the number of languages spoken in the locales it lives.
I am going to revert your edit once more without any prejudice. However, if you are still steadfast in your opinion, then please feel free to undo my edit without prejudice. I will not be reverting it again, but I like to hear a third party opinion on this matter. Ritigala Jayasena (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The October 2008 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) 00:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
This IP, whom you recently blocked, is causing trouble again, adding bull to the HSM2 article. Can you do something, as I have no power to block them. Cheers from Malpass93 (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like your opinion on the use of a gallery in the Ring-tailed Lemur article. I was considering the use of the following gallery at the bottom of the "Anatomy and physiology" section:
Ring-tailed Lemur anatomy
Brachial glands on the upper chest of a male Ring-tailed Lemur
Spur and antebrachial gland on the forearm of a male Ring-tailed Lemur
Hrm... I generally don't like galleries, preferring to refer folks to Commons for collections of images. that said, I think your gallery is valuable, although I wish the image showed both more detail and more context... but I'm on a crappy connection so I get crappy images anyway.... - UtherSRG(talk)20:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I knew you didn't like galleries, and that's why I asked. The images were the best I could do with my camera. I had either the option of a full body shot or a zoomed-in shot of the features (using text to describe the location). I opted for the zoomed-in shots because they would show more details of the features, as well as look more acceptable. The animals were under anesthesia for routine physical exams, so I could see some people being upset by them. - Visionholder (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I've discussed it ad nauseum. the current stalemate is don't change things. You changed things. I'm changing them back. Also, see WP:BIRD for the logic behind using capitalization. - UtherSRG(talk)20:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Beluga Conservation Status
According to IUCN, the Beluga Whale's conservation status is Near Threatened. But some IPs (although they may be one, some of the addresses seem suspiciously similar) keep reverting the taxobox to show "endangered", possibly on the basis of a particular subpopulation. I've already reverted 3 times and don't want to have to keep edit warring, but I am not sure how to handle. Thanks for any advice. Rlendog (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Would you accept the above weasel as a confirmed species based on the sources given in the article? Just going through the Carnivore templates comparing them to MSW3 and this one popped up and had no challenges on the talk page (I usually see your comments on the talk page on species not included in MSW3 and you either accept or reject the new species claim). Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Image:Eye-flash Squid.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [7], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Eye-flash Squid.JPG|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ViperSnake15119:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
){kind=link}
