User talk:UtherSRG

zOMG

		zOMG
		I, Hojimachong, hereby award UtherSRG A completely gratuitous zOMG barnstar, for being 110% awesome. Plus 1. --Hojimachongtalk

Caps again

Do you have any comment on the last thread on Talk:Cougar? This is becoming tiresome. Marskell 11:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization on common names is not commonly accepted in scientific writing. Biologists do not write that way, only laymen. Bugguyak 14:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

And Wikipeida is a general encyclopedia, not scientific literature. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Right you are. I stand corrected. And as Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia it should make use of accepted correct capitalization.Bugguyak 01:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Just the opposite. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify. Wikipedia should NOT use generally accepted capitalization? Bugguyak 22:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you do me a favor and please take a look at WP:NOR. It's quite a good read. Lots of cool stuff is in it about how reliable outside sources (such as, I dunno, widely published dictionaries, which all happen to list "cougar" as a common noun which is not to be capitalized) are what we should be going on. In the meantime, lay off on reverts, will you? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 19:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The version I revert to is what was agreed upon. You should stop reverting until a different agreement is reached. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Original Research Images

I read the original research section, and it says that photomanipulations are not allowed. I did research, yes, but that was to find references to help with reconstructing those animals. If I'm not allowed to post reconstructions of extinct animals to help improve the articles here, then, isn't it hypocritical to single me out while letting other people post their own reconstructions of extinct animals? Really, I do not understand at all why you would consider my posting reconstructions of animals, especially since other users have specifically asked me to do so, as being "original research." Furthermore, why is posting self-made images considered to be "original research," when, it says:

"Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles."

--Mr Fink 14:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Given as how Wikipedia rules state that self-made pictures based on research are permitted, please stop reverting my reconstructions.--Mr Fink 12:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I can not tell if they are based upon verifiable sources, or created from your own imagination. No sources, no verifiability, no inclusion. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Since when is it Wikipedia policy to site sources for self-made images? Unless you intend to force all of the artists in Wikipedia to kowtow to this new rule you made up, or if you intend to delete all of the pictures I have contributed, stop reverting my reconstructions. I will not allow you to prevent me from attempting to upload images in order to improve Wikipedia simply because you find my art questionable.--Mr Fink 14:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is exactly when images should be questioned: when the information they convey can not be verified. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So do you plan to make all of the illustrators in Wikipedia obey this new rule, or are you just making an example out of me?--Mr Fink 16:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't go out of my way to find trouble, if that's what you're asking. I have a set of articles that I have on my watchlist that I work to maintain. You stepped on one of those articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok you two, you need to get a third, fourth and fifth party, preferably admin's and all people who post reconstructions of animals should be notified. UtherSRG you have that job as you are so enthusiastic about this topic. Thankyou Enlil Ninlil 04:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Platypus

I am not impressed by the fact that you have made me appear to be a vandal in your reversal of my edit (by not stating that it was not vandalism). I heard an American personally call the Platypus by the incorrect pronunciation of 'platy-pus' ('pus' as in yellow matter discharged from a wound). I was attempting to correct this mispronunciation by my adding the information I did about the correct pronunciation of the name of a native animal of my own country (Australia). I was not vandalising the page — nor was I simply writing a POV comment. Figaro 14:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's see... I didn't state anything about the edit. All I did was revert it. So since I didn't say it was plagiarism, do you think I think it was plagiarism? I didn't say it was obscene, do you think I think it was obscene? I didn't say it was vandalism, why do you think I think it was vandalism? It was simply a revert. Nothing more, nothing less. How you think you appear has more to do with you than with me. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheetah

Maybe you shouldn't use pop-ups (whatever they are), but you reverted my edits to Cheetah and they improved the captions of those pictures. I don't know why you would revert a positive change. Maybe look before you leap next time. 66.189.137.113 04:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Your corrections made the captions' case usage not match the article's case usage. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

PUMA

Hi there. I'm just wondering why you moved Puma AG to PUMA and PUMA to PUMA AG, seemingly without discussion. There are several issues here: the article had been housed at Puma AG after an admin redirect per MOS:TM in February. A determined anonymous user (89.242.54.176) spent much of yesterday trying to blank this page and move the contents to PUMA, before being blocked. A similar IP address started the same again several hours ago, after which you made these moves. At present, the article is at PUMA AG, but the talk page redirects to Talk:PUMA. Could you explain why the moves were made, and fix the talk page problem? Thanks. Gr1st 09:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's all right, I see another admin has sorted the problem. Gr1st 09:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw that there was some copy-and-paste moves going on, so I put it back where I thought it belonged, with the histories all being swept together instead of spread over the three article locations. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

MSW3 and caps

The MSW3 uses caps? Why don't you list some examples. Even better would be to reproduce a page. Marskell 10:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)