User talk:UtherSRG

Archives

• Archive1: User talk:UtherSRG/Arch1
• Archive2: User talk:UtherSRG/Arch2
• Archive3: User talk:UtherSRG/Arch3
• Archive4: User talk:UtherSRG/Arch4
• Archive5: User talk:UtherSRG/Arch5
• Archive6: User talk:UtherSRG/Arch6
• Archive7: User talk:UtherSRG/Arch7
• Archive8: User talk:UtherSRG/Arch8
• Archive9: User talk:UtherSRG/Arch9
• Archive10: User talk:UtherSRG/Arch10
• Archive11: User talk:UtherSRG/Arch11
• Archive12: User talk:UtherSRG/Arch12

Thanx for welcoming me

Thanks for the wikilove. Your note brightened my day! :) Tonyfaull 21:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, :) Captain nomes 18:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I will remove the personal references. None of the information reported was solely based on them. I made sure all information was reported in multiple sources, and included the personal references only to bolster the credibility of the information. (Sorry, I forgot to add a signature). Schlegel 15:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, even though you really managed to surprise me, since I registered to Wikipedia some years ago. (At least for the first time...) But thank you anyway :) Shadikka 18:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome UtherSRG. I noted you removed my edits on the Unitarian Universalist article. I made these changes to cross-reference my own article on Unitarian Christianity. Since I am new, not sure what the protocol or etiquette is for such changes. Thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey! Thanks for the welcome note and the tips. Maestro1ca 17:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, glad to be here. Ned Scotland 22:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty hard to make an original thank you note with all the other posts so - thank you for the welcome note :) --A Sunshade Lust 18:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yet another addition to the thanks-for-the-welcome list. Cheers! Hestemand 21:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not new... Ned Scott 06:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome and the tip, very handy thanks... Jheriko 22:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Aloha and mahalo for your welcome and further edit of redundant UUA link on the Unitarian page. Do you have experience with the wikimedia software side as opposed to content? We need some more collaborators at another wiki, FEMAanswers.org, guidance about wikimedia would be a real help. Castellanet 19:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for welcoming me and helping me. Eddie 18:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia. At the moment I'm writing for the Luxembourgish Wikipedia. Greetings --Alexandra lb 21:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, I am the guy who re-wrote the Ruffed lemur article and now I have a user ID. Keep up the good work! Achoo5000 01:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the welcome :) trolleymusic 00:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome. I am a fellow wikipedian in it.wiki, so i assume the rules are almost the same. I'm not going to write a lot here, this account is just for discussions and to fix minor typos while i "steal" your material for translation purposes. I am not skilled enough with english language to write my own articles. C ya --Jollyroger 15:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, UtherSRG. Can you give me a hand? I would like to meet some people who understand the technology that supports volunteer translation into multiple human languages at wikipedia. I am working on a pair of books that were prepared in docbook, which have been published on the web, and for which quite a few people have volunteered to help translate. I would like to see if I can harness their assistance to translate by the sort of incremental, iterative process that happens at wikipedia. The books are at http://www.dsdguidelines.org. Cherylchase 10:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for welcoming me, but I am registered since long time ^^ Thank you :p Nyro Xeo 13:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, fabulous site. How do you deal with the situation where there is a serious subject with actual evidence and documentation, but people swamp it with myths and evolving myths - Yeti for instance. I have pictoral evidence, voice and real documented accounts, but don't ant to mix it in with too much diversion. Anyway this site is a very usefull tool, it and I will be around for ages. - Gowron 09:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I thank you very much for your welcome message but I am French and, if I understand English, I have many difficulties to write it correctly. I restrict my collaboration here to sign links with the articles I translate into French (see Gustave Graetzlin). Gustave G. 10:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the welcome. I was wondering if you've modified a template such that that messages shows up automatically right after someone joins. Or if you pasted that message by hand into my brand-spanking-new talk page? :) Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jqsjqs (talk • contribs) .

Thank you! Igorrr 14:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks For the welcome, I'v alrede got a project i'm working on it's Kidspedia. Anyway thanks for the help! PS. could you help me with Kidspedia. JosephK19 06:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the welcome, I'm new here and don't know how everything works but can I come to you if I have any questions? Cat-five 18:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Most certainly! - UtherSRG (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey man, thanks. Battlekow 20:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks. I'm actually more active on the Dutch Wiki. :-) Floris V 15:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Primates

Primate Classification

Hello UtherSRG. I'm user Bradypus from the German Wikipedia and I just saw you translated the baboon articles. I also somtimes check the English Wikipedia and found out you use a very different kind of primate classification (for instance giving the Aotus-monkeys family status under the name Nyctipithecidae) than we do. We have a rather "traditional" classification. What is your source? Regards,--80.108.59.151 07:23, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) Bradypus (I don't know how to do this Interwiki signatures)

Hello UtherSRG. I really thought you speak a little bit German, because those Babelfish-translations are not very exact. (This is a useful dictionary which I often use, maybe it helps). I looked at the 5 baboon specieses and the Cercopithecinae. Please check my addendums, for I'm not a native speaker and word order, spelling and such things can be wrong. --80.108.59.151 20:04, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)(Bradypus)

Tarsiers

Sorry, my mistake! I misread the hierarchy on the New World Monkeys page, thanks for putting me right (so quickly).--Bwmodular 17:39, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You wrote: "What is your interest in Primates?"

Purely platonic :) Just a fascination with them. I took the Tarsier image (Tarsier.jpg) in Sulawesi years ago, and made some edits to that page, but I'm not an expert on primates. I'm working on a primates image gallery at the moment (to be added to the other animal galleries Wikipedia:List_of_images/Nature/Animals) but I don't think I'm qualified to join the project. If there are any non-technical routine tasks (finding images for taxoboxes, etc) that can be done, I'll gladly help, but I can't contribute in any way that requires technical / scientific knowledge.--Bwmodular 09:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tarsius spectrum

I'll try and find out for sure, but I think it is a Spectral Tarsier (Tarsius spectrum). I saw them in Tangkoko National Park, North Sulawsi - if I can find out for sure, I'll let you know.--Bwmodular 10:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's a Spectral Tarsier now - I've looked at a few studies which took place in Tangkoko and they all refer to Tarsius spectrum. --Bwmodular 11:28, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tarsius pumilus

Sorry for the copying, this is my first submisison to wiki... I have to work on several articles, I was using this one as an opportunity to learn the syntax for wiki. I am working on a revision for this page right now, and I am going to paraphrase and revise the older data. Thanks for the input, I didn't even know the talk feature existed! Salud!

Clathe 22:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Lemur

No, I'm afraid I could not recall the name of the animal itself; and had to put up a request on the Reference Desk to know what animal it is. :( Nichalp 17:59, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Black-and-White Ruffed Lemur

Where did you hear or read that this lemur's call is second only to the howler's in loudness? - User:UtherSRG (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry I've not replied sooner. I've been browsing but not logging on much. I also hope you don't mind me replying on your talk page. I'm a bit new to this.

In reply to your question, I used to work with several species of lemur. The 'black and whites' were my favourite. It was my job to give a talk to the public on the various species and this was one little factoid that was included. I'm afraid I'm not sure where it comes from as I was never given a reference, but the talk had been written by a reputable lemur keeper who had been working with them for many years.

Hope that helps. Thanks for taking the time to contact me. - --EmSmith 13:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah... so nothing that is citable, so it should not yet be a part of the article without a {{fact}} tag. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Amended as advised. EmSmith 08:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Numbers of primate species

I really think 402 is closer to the true than 350. It's from my own lists (Mammal Taxonomy which are probably relatively correct (although the number of species might be affected by the fact that I include many extinct species.. I'll change that). What do you think of "at least 350" or so? Ucucha 14:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Groves (2001) lists 350, but there have been a few new species identified since. This list should be of extant species. If you included extinct species (of which we will never have a nearly complete list) in your edit, you should revert all of your changes to what was there before. - UtherSRG 14:44, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

No I should not, as that has not really contributed in the numbers of species. With or without extinct species, they were too low. In any case, my "extinct" species were only Holocene ones, of which the list may be relatively complete. Ucucha 15:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gibbons

I've reverted your change to the classification list. All of the primate articles, via WP:PRIM, are following Groves' Primates section in Mammal Species of the World, 3rd ed, due to be published in a couple of months. Where did you get your listing from? - UtherSRG (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Hope it's okay to reply here (I'm still figuring out etiquette and such). Thanks for the welcome! I have several sources for the edits I've made. First off, I just finished a Master's on gibbon phylogenetics. Gibbon taxonomy is still very much under debate and changes frequently. My former adviser spoke with Colin Groves personally, who admitted that due to complications from other authors, the section on gibbons will be out of date before it is printed. My reclassification is based on one by Thomas Geissman, another prominent gibbon biologist. His changes have been reviewed by other researchers, such as R.A. Mittermeier, and have been incorporated into the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Estelahe 19:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Note to myself, T. Geissman's work is now at this page. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Why did you remove the picture of the gibbon? Hurkummer 14:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

-re: removal of image so what would you suggest for future pictures? we remove the gibbon from it's natural playfull state and pose it on a rock to get a passport picture? The shot clearly shows a gibbon in it's natural element and demonstrates it's particular playful behaviour, but heck, if you have been declared the god of gibbon pictures, feel free to remove it, great way to encourage new wikipedians to add to the creative commons. Especially when you remove it without stating your reasons prior to removal. Your behaviour is indicative of trend I notice of certain individuals who, without entering into meaningful dialogue simply do what they feel "belongs on their wiki".. Hurkummer 12:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Nomenclature

Just curious, but is there a reason you'd prefer species' common names to be capitalized? I've never seen that anywhere in the scientific literature that I recall, but then again it's not something that I obsessed over. - Estelahe 16:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I hate to be one of those people that harp on a subject, but I've one more point to make about capitalizing species' common names (I promise I'll stop after this!). I'm not certain that using the conventions of ornithologists is such a great idea, as only ornitohologists insist on capitalizing common names. Other taxonomists (botanists, entomologists, herpetologists, primatologists, you name it) don't do so, and even those who work on birds but aren't strict ornithologists (e.g. conservation geneticists, community ecologists) won't capitalize. There's some debate [pdf] even among strict ornithologists about this. As far as clarity goes, linking/bolding the whole common name should be clear enough. If every article in Wikipedia used the ornithology system, I wouldn't buck the trend, but I've found a bunch of articles that don't (For breadth, I viewed species that popped into my head: Rainbow trout, tree frog, dolphin, nematodes, octopus). If you don't agree or would rather not reformat everything, I'll bow to your seniority--though I'd prefer to know which reason! :) - Estelahe 04:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I know there's much debate in the scientific community. There's been much here as well, with topics ranging from article naming consistency to species being viewed as singlular or plural items. I find many of the ornithological arguments very strongly compelling, including the distinction of adjectives about an individual and adjectives as part of the common name. ("Wow, that's a red silver leaf monkey!" "The rare common chimpanzee in Fooistan...") vs ("Wow, that's a red Silver Leaf Monkey!" "The rare Common Chimpanzee in Fooistan...") - UtherSRG (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Species of chimpanzees

Yes, I wondered whether I should put that in. Unfortunately, the source I found only had a mention of Pan troglodytes. I was planning to replace that with something more scholarly when time permitted. Do you know whether Goodman or others have published anything about Pan paniscus being also reclassified? Did he mention P. paniscus in the paper, do you know? Grace Note 01:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if he did, although I suspect he did. However, most news sources won't report on there being two species of chimpanzees, especially on an issue like this. It's too much reader education that would need to be done. The other possibility is that he's one of the holdouts that don't accept that there are two species only one.... - UtherSRG 02:59, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Cheirogaleus

Cheirogaleus should not be linked to Lesser Dwarf Lemur. The Cheirogaleus article should be about the genus, not one of the species in the genus. I've deleted the redirect. - UtherSRG 00:16, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

My original idea was to make a link from the genus if Wikipedia has a single article on a species in that genus. But you're right, it's wrong to do that unless the genus is monotypic. I will remove the other inappropriate redirects I made. Gdr 09:07, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

Doubt on Nilgiri Langur classification

Hi, I saw that you have changed the scientific name of Nilgiri Langur and reclassified it in Old World monkey instead of Surili. I just wanted to know the reasoning since I read in an Indian book that their scientific name is Presbytis johni. If you can throw some light I'd be glad to know about it. --Idleguy 03:21, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

HI, yes I would like to have a copy of Groves' MSW contribution in a Word doc. my email id is idleguy@hotpop.com tx --Idleguy 17:43, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Aye-aye

On WP:PR, I've seen that you're working on primate articles and I consider the Aye-aye quite an extraordinary animal. There's no rush or anything, but it's quite stubby. Could you perhaps consider bringing this one up to par? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:43, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Why revert my change on Simian?

It currently reads, "the 'higher primates' very common to most people: the monkeys and the apes, including humans."

You realize that that makes it sound like humans are included in the category of monkeys or apes. Replacing "including" with "and" shows we are among the higher primates, but we are not apes. It would also make sense to say "the 'higher primates' very common to most people, including humans, as well as monkeys and the apes." When you reverted me without an explanation, that makes me look like a vandal. I don't like that. CanadianCaesar 20:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Addressed on talk:Simian. - UtherSRG 20:50, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Really sorry. Misunderstandings galore. CanadianCaesar 22:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Why revert my change on Neandertal?

I thought there was a missing section on what happened to Neanderthals. From what I had read about the way wikipedia worked, I was supposed to change the article. So, I added in what I had read in other places. I thought others would see what I had written, expand on it or rewrite it, add their own references, and make the article better. I hadn't expected that it would simply be reverted with no explanation. I've now added a section in talk:Neandertal saying that I think there's a missing section on what happened to Neanderthals. In general, is that what I should do, or should I attempt to make the change myself? The welcome documents for wikipedia seem to conflict with the practice. Derekt75 17:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Classification

Alright. As of 2003, "not all anthropologists and biologists have completely accepted the revised terminlogy". But it is now 2005. ---Decius 13:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Hominid as disambig still makes sense for two reasons however. First, to avoid confusion with Hominoid and second because hominid is still treated in everyday discourse (in Webster's for example[1]) as if it applies only to humans and related species. I have no problem if the disambig reads:

the correct meaning is...

you may hear it incorrectly as...

don't confuse it with...

Is this fair? Further, is the taxonomy settled for Orangs settled? as I'd thought not

Also, you're suggestion to "stop editing the primates" section is fair if I or Decius were vandalizing but is inappropriate otherwise. I will edit in good faith as I please. Marskell 13:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

To be clear, I was never suggesting that the great apes shouldn't be included in hominidae only that the term hominid is used in many often contrary ways. As my (now removed) comment at Decius stated, if chimps and humans are more closely related to each other than either is to other species than the old taxonomy really was senseless. It was, as far as I understand, the human-chimp relationship that really shook things up in the 80s. Where goes one, so goes the other. The main problem, of course, is how utterly over burdened the Latin hom- prefix is. At least linguistically, hominid seems a logical derivative of a super-family, a family, a sub-family and a genus. Further complicating it is the tendency for Discovery channel type info to pick morphological and behavioural characteristics as dividing points. "The hominid is the ape that can walk on two feet..." "It was tools that made us human..." etc.

Anyhow, I'll post the suggestion that hominid be left as a disambig on the talk page for the Primate group. Marskell 14:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Pongidae

Now then, you've pointed out not being hasty with changes so why unilaterally make Pongidae a redirect to hominid without discussion? This seems to underscore all of the debated issues. Fine (apparently) it's settled--Hominidae is all there is to it with us and the great apes--but does that mean we systematically eliminate older taxonoms people might still look up? I think Pongidae should be a page--really. Point out why it has become obsolete, but leave it on its own. Marskell 22:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify this slightly--obviously I don't expect a stampede of people of people looking up Pongidae but Great Ape does redirect there and Great Ape requires clarification if only to point out that should be taken as including us. Maybe all of this can be solved by making Hominid the disambig. Marskell 07:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Then make the page first, and then turn the bolding into a link. Don't do it in the reverse order... links that redirect back to the article they link from are not good. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:03, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Ah hominids...

First, thanks for the quick edit on my user page.

Also, I made two notes on WP:PRIM, one regarding the final move to the hominid re-direct page and another about a-p-e-s and genocide. I don't want to privilege it by putting the two words together... It's stuck in my craw since I first noticed it and I was wondering what others thought. Marskell 22:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Hoolock

Hi, Groves has named a new genus for the Hoolock Gibbon, very surprisingly named Hoolock. Hoolock hoolock isn't really related to Bunopithecus sericus, he thinks. He has sent me a PDF, maybe you can try too. By the way, I'm just writing nl:Hoelok. Ucucha (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

(Minor edit above.) Sweet! Please send me the PDF and I'll update the en: and species: articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

OK. Ucucha (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I just saw that H. leuconedys is also considered a separates species now. Ucucha (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Yup! I saw that, too. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

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

I saw it. It was already a good article, though: most of nl:Hoeloks was translated :-). By the way, I've discovered that it will probably be possible to make "real" interwikis from Wikispecies (it's possible on Commons too, at least). I've proposed to ask the developers to do this in the Village Pump. Ucucha (talk) 14:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for the small edit. Real interwiki links on species: will be so nice.... - UtherSRG (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Proconsul (genus)

hi Uther

i saw on a website that Proconsul (genus) is the link between Old World monkey and apes, do you have this information? can you tell me if that is correct? have you heard about it?

Mateus Zica 00:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I've added a link to Proconsul (genus) so you can see where it falls in the phylogeny of primates. It is alternatively treated as a precursor to the split between Old World monkeys and apes, or as just a more primitive ape. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Sumatran Orangutan

Hi Uther, thanks for explaining. You're obviously more knowledgable than most when it comes to monkeys apes, so I bow to your judgement :) I did have a poke around, couldn't really find much that wasn't already in the main article, and figured a redirect was sufficient, but no harm, no foul. Keep up the good work! Proto t c 09:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Allen's swamp monkey

To let you know in advance, I changed the capitalisation of this article from "Allen's Swamp Monkey" to "Allen's swamp monkey" and similarly updated all article links to the page. If I find the time, I plan to do the same for other monkeys' names as there is currently an inconsistent approach across articles (compare say Blue Monkey and Spider monkey).

Let me know if you disagree and I'll revert the changes (or you can do so yourself). I'll hold back on any more monkeying around until I hear from you either way. :-)

Thanks, Stelio 15:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't. See WP:PRIM. Blue Monkey is a single species. Spider monkey is a genus. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That makes it a lot clearer now, thank you, and adds another layer to the experience of reading the articles. Now I can tell whether a term refers to a single species, or a group or genus, just from the capitalisation. Useful. :-) And indeed section] clarified the policy in detail. Thank you again.

Stelio 09:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Mandrill Capitalization

If one does a quick search of Google Scholar, one will find that in an overwhelming majority of academic journal articles mandrill is not capitalized, given that it is not a proper noun. Thus, why does the Wikipedian consensus deviate from these standards? -Merobi 05:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I have responded to your comment on Merobi's page. I would apreciate your feedback. -Elindstr 20:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Potto and related species

Hi,

I've made a start on the Calabar Angwantibo, and I hope to get to the others soon. Thanks for asking! Perodicticus 23:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Homo sapiens

I'd like to ask you why you reverted my change to the Homo sapiens section in Human evolution. The sentence that you reverted to doesn't appear to make any sense:

..there was a migration of H. erectus out of Africa, then a further speciation of H. erectus from H. ergaster in Africa...

First, erectus migrates from Africa, and then the speciation event giving rise to erectus occurs. I thought the text had become scrambled somehow, and a phrase from the erectus section had inadvertently been place in the sapiens section. I therefore changed two words:

..there was a migration of H. erectus out of Africa, then a further speciation of H. sapiens from H. erectus in Africa...

So why did you revert? Anthon.Eff 16:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I messed up. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

ape

Ugg. I'll get around to drafting a proper oppose in a couple of hours. Unfortunately three people have already supported... Marskell 08:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I just came to the ape page for the first time in a while and am noticing that people keep taking humans out of the article, saying we aren't apes. I will be keeping my eye on it, so just wanted you to know you aren't alone regarding that issue. The Ungovernable Force 07:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Support votes on ape

I believe the last three support votes may be sockpuppets on the Ape vote. The three users have similar contribution dates, editing on the 12th and 20th of February before disappearing for a week and a half only to show up on Ape to vote support all at once. Marskell 10:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you please explain to me why you removed my vote for being a "sock puppet"? A cursory view of my editing record should make it obvious that is not the case. I'm not sure what authority you have to remove the voice of any user based on your opinion, but if you do plan to do so in future, could you please at least research more carefully. I'd also like my vote reinstated. Thanks. Rockpocket 19:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your question to me Uth, I did have the thought "where to take this?" in looking at the page today. What to do if a page move goes 12-8 say, but you're pretty certain sockpuppetry was involved? I don't know precisely. The Admin noticeboard (WP:AN) seems the obvious spot but things can go unnoticed there. You're an admin and decided to strike through some votes--if need be we can go to WP:AN and if it gets brought up later, I can say it seemed right looking at the contrib's, because it does look like sockpuppets.

But of course we both voted. It's not that I mind getting voted down, but I'm really not sure about who is voting here. I can't not think that the specific fellow we debated with a couple of months ago is back trying for a back door of proposing "humans are not apes" info. Marskell 23:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reinstating, i see the basis of the misunderstand now. No harm done. I'll keep an eye on the resolution and lend my support where is can. Rockpocket 00:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Cro-Magnon

I realize that "big-hole" sounds spurious, but that really is what the words "cro" (hole) "magnon" (big) mean in Old French. It refers to the hole in the rock where their skeletons were found. Maybe you could find a more elegant way to present this info, but I believe it's relevant & should remain on the page.Funhistory 16:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Your placement of the text made it look like Les Eyzies meant big hole. As such, it would have been appropriate to put on the Les Eyzies artile and not on Cro-Magnon. I've restored and editted. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hominoid taxonomy diagram

Image:Hominoid taxonomy 7.png. I couldn't get the names to fit without either spoiling the parallelism with the other diagrams, or else making the names too small to read. Gdr 18:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Three new Lepilemurs!

Do you already know about the three new Lepilemur species? See nl:Gebruiker:Ucucha/Nieuw/2006 and http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/6/17 . It was published under CC-BY, so I've uploaded some beautiful photos. Ucucha (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Gray mouse lemur

The BBC used the uncapitalized version. So does the Animal Diversity Project at the University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. Neutrality^talk 03:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Birds

Hey there! We seem to have a lot of common interests in animals in general. I just put my name on the WikiBird project and saw your name there. I have done some massive work in categorizing the birds, and I was hoping you could review some of my edits and see if I am conforming to everything ya'll have agreed on. I have been categorizing the parrots recently and I am not sure what should be a parrot or not. Mostly I've just been putting general categories on things that have no cat. at all, trying to get them all corralled in so more precise work can be done on them.

Also, something happened with the columbiformes category (Category:Columbiformes). See the Category:Birds and see that somehow about a dozen of them got saved. I've no idea how that happened or how to fix it without going into each one (a pain with how slow wiki has been running lately.) Till later.--DanielCD 22:43, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, with WP being so slow, I'm having a hard time looking, so I'll give some general advice from what I see. First, I believe categories in general are still a little buggy... moving an article from one category to another will show it in both until something forces the cache to be flushed and reloaded from the database. Second, watch your capitalization. Since broad-tailed parrot is all lowercase, Category:broad-tailed parrots should also be lowercase. Finally, I consider myself a junior member of the bird project. Give a knock on the talk pages of a few of the more bird-active folks and see what kind of category schemas they may have kicking around their heads. - UtherSRG 02:12, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Wired article

Congratulations on your profile in Wired article on Wikipedia, and thanks for all the work you do! Jokestress 16:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They seem to think that you are female though (they evidently didn't notice your middle name) ☺ — PhilHibbs | talk 17:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They need to make Wired a wiki! ;) Jokestress 17:10, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

{sigh} I've been dealing with my gender-neutral first name all my life. I suppose I can suffer it some more for a good article.... even if Daneil didn't include my "hacker manifesto" quote. - UtherSRG 17:15, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Congrats on your Wired mention: you've entered a whole new level of geekiness! :) FYI, they finally corrected that gender "oversight". – ClockworkSoul 01:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikispecies

Wikispecies format

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

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

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

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

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

Wikispecies admin

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

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

Wikispecies vandalism

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

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

Admin chores on Wikispecies

Hi, UtherSRG

Could you now and then have a look at Wikispecies? I won't be active on WS for the coming three weeks as I will be at sea for a monitoring campaign. There seem to be no other admins active on WS at the moment. I have asked Ucucha too. Thanks. — Lycaon 17:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Cephalopods

Giant Squid

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

more on architeuthis

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

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

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

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

Humboldt squid

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

Nautilus

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

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

Ammonite

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

hectocotylus

I put a commented out question about hectocoylus' in cephalopods in the article Southern Dumpling Squid, specifically if they are always on the first left arm. You deleated this question but failed to either move the question to the talk page or edit the previous sentence to make it non-ambiguous on the point. If you know the answer to the question could you please edit the article to reflect the answer, and if you do not know the answer could you please put the question back either commented out or on the talk page so that someone else who does know the answer will be able to answer it. The bellman 12:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"distribution" disambig

What you did in, e.g. Noury's Argonaut, sending it to range (biology), is much better. I'll stick with that for the disambigs of this type. Thanks!--Deville (Talk) 17:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Uther_MOO?

Whoa! I had no idea you were on Wikipedia...and so prolific! I thought I had your e-mail address but when I tried to send something it bounced, so I figured I'd google your real name and this came up first. Anyway, Uther and Uther's_Lackey are about to be reaped on LambdaMOO. Drop me an e-mail (etoile at amanita dot net works) so I can ask you some things about the situation - whether you're coming back, and if not what you want done with the objects you own.

-Etoile 05:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In other news

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

Anti-Vandalism Efforts

I'm sorry, but you, sir, are hilarious, and I want it known that your comment on 192.139.27.18's "talk page," specifically the one at the bottom about "enjoy your time off..." Frikkin'. Awesome. And as such, as is my tradition...

UtherSRG has earned a Cernen's Plusbox for making me laugh at the expense of a vandal.

Cernen 09:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

PDFs!

Hi UtherSRG,
Almost all publications of the AMNH (American Museum Novitates, Bulletin of the AMNH) are now available on http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/ . I've already downloaded lots of papers. Maybe there's something interesting for you, too. Ucucha (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Hello! I know that you don't know me, but I thought that I'd wish you a happy birthday for this Sunday. JaredW 12:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Redirects

Hmmm. Isn't it better to have the redirects so that people looking for the subject get to whatever page currently exists for information on that class/order/whatever? I can see the 'red links mean article needs to be written' benefit, but I'd think it would be better for people trying to use the encyclopedia to send them to a useful page for the item they are searching on. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 12:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious as to the CSD reasoning behind getting rid of the redirects. If you have a reason, it's that's fine, but i'll recreate and place it on WP:RFD to clarify things otherwise. Karmafist 12:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

S'ok. Keeping the red-links seems to be an established standard on that project. Arguably it may not be 'in process', but there is no point in working at cross-purposes. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 12:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that comment you just gave fits into CSD A7, so no worries. I just saw this and wanted to make sure it didn't erupt into a recreate/Wheel War by somebody who disagreed with the deletion. Process is the best defense we have against that and many other things in regards to disputes between users. When process breaks down, well, you remembered what happened then. I hope I can do whatever possible to bring order and peace to Wikipedia to atone for those days. Karmafist 12:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Links

It's as good a reason as any. If you want articles to exist on those issues, you could always create the stubs. Just sticking in the red links does look untidy, and makes the article look neglected. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Erm, you remove a redlink by creating the article linked to :-). If there's a lot of redlinks that make an article look neglected, it probably is. Kim Bruning 19:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Rhinogradentia taxobox

Hi, I see that you have deleted the taxobox of Rhinogradentia with a cryptic comment "we dont treat jokes as science".

It was not me who put that taxobox in the first place. However I do think that is belongs there, as much as a Middle Earth map wpuld belong in a Middle Earth article. I have read the taxobox documentation pages, and I didn't see anything forbidding the use of taxoboxes for fictitious species. The taxobox merely records the classification given in the book: Rhinogradentia is a fictitious taxon, sure, but it is a real fictitious one, not a fake fictitious one 8-). It is not the article editor's private joke, nor "original research".

The Rhinogradentia article is a serious article about a classic science joke — in fact, one of the best jokes that I know of, on a par with The Inventions of Daedalus. In case you haven't read the book, it is very well done, with good quality drawings and anatomical descriptions of 30-50 or so species, a quite plausible discussion of their evolution, etc.. Like any really good science joke, it has substantial scientific and educational value. It deserves to be respected as such, and not to be treated as mere science. 8-)

In fact, if we were to cover that book according to the Wikipedia Standards for things like video games, we should provide a separate article for each of the species listed therein, each with its taxobox of course. But that unfortunately would be spoiling the book's fun (and probably infringing on its copyright too).

So please consider... All the best, Jorge Stolfi 12:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand all of that. The taxobox still doesn't belong. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you at least be so kind as to explain why? As I said, I didn't see any official WP policy on that.

The taxobox is a tool of the Tree of Life Wikiproject, which deals with real species. Yeti doesn't get a taxobox, even though it has a proposed scientific name. Wookiee doesn't get a taxobox even though in the cannon of Star Wars material it has a scientific name. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your vote My request for adminship passed with a final result of 78/2/0. Hopefully I will live up to everyone's expectations. Please ask if I can ever help out with anything in the future. Martyman - 09:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

MSW 3

Please don't follow MSW 3 too strictly. The deadline was somewhere in 2003. There's been a lot of new taxonomic publications since then (two new genera and three new species of didelphimorphs for example). Ucucha (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Moving Silky Shrew Opossum to Dusky Shrew Opossum

Hi UtherSRG, Although I have no reason to doubt your assertion that Caenolestes fuliginosus is now known as the "Dusky Shrew Opossum" rather than the "Silky Shrew Opossum", I have been completely unable to independently verify this. All of the online sources I consulted report Caenolestes fuliginosus's common name as "Silky Shrew Opossum". A Google search for "Dusky Shrew Opossum" shows no matches whatsoever. Since I don't have access to the Mammal Species of the World 3rd Edition, could you please double-check the information and make sure it is correct? Thanks! Kaldari 21:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I must admit that I'm still a bit confused. What exactly is "Dusky Caenolestid"? It's not the binomial name and it certainly doesn't seem to be the common name. Is it some kind of new hybrid naming convention? Kaldari 01:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

So I take it that "Dusky Caenolestid" is its new "official" common name rather than it's actual common name. Regardless, I'm afraid "Dusky Shrew Opossum" doesn't qualify as either. The article should either be titled "Silky Shrew Opossum" (its common name) or "Dusky Caenolestid" (its "official" common name). Personally, I still favor "Silky Shrew Opossum" since that is what it is generally known by. The whole concept of "official" common names is still a bit controversial. I'm not sure it makes sense to defer to them until they are better established (if that actually happens). Of course I see no reason not to mention both names in the article itself. Kaldari 07:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

What prompted you to move Silky Shrew Opossum back to Dusky Shrew Opossum? I am still unable to locate any reference for that name. Can you show me a reference that actually uses the name "Dusky Shrew Opossum"? Kaldari 00:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Mammal Species of the World, 3rd ed. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought you said it uses "Dusky Caenolestid" rather than "Dusky Shrew Opossum". Extrapolating "Dusky Shrew Opossum" from "Dusky Caenolestid" seems like original research to me. BTW, I put in a request for my library to get the 3rd edition, but haven't heard anything yet. Kaldari 15:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

MSW3 templates

Hi UtherSRG, the MSW3 templates you have created require three levels of template transclusion, i.e. when someone calls up Silky Shrew Opossum the server pulls the template {{MSW3 Gardner}} which in turn pulls {{Cite book}} which in turn pulls {{qif}}. Having this many levels of template transclusion puts an unnecessary burden on the servers and may affect load time for the article. I'm not saying you should get rid of the templates since they obviously save a lot of time when adding references. But I do think you should consider using {{subst:MSW3 Gardner}} rather than {{MSW3 Gardner}}. That way once the reference is initially created, the server doesn't have to pull all of those templates every time the article is viewed. Instead, it only pulls them once. Kaldari 20:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

re: Samsara (film)

Hi, thanks for reminding me - I have yet to see it! Nice that your friend is in it - what a small world! :) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

macropod skeleton

Do you happen to know of a DETAILED source for macropod skeletons? I'm assembling a swamp wallaby skeleton. Mccready 17:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No I don't, sorry. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this is helpful? Ucucha (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Or this, when you're interested in fossil kangaroos. Ucucha (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

User:71.111.85.12

Just a warning, this IP has been signing as you. Is that you, just logged out? --Rory096 02:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

No. No it is not me. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Long time no see

As I remember it, you were one of the first admins I encountered when I first joined Wikipedia. I saw your name recently, and it got me reminiscing. A lot changes in two years; it's pretty amazing. I guess this isn't a very conventional use of the talkpage, but seeing your name again this far down the road triggered a rather odd response. Funny how that is.

I still haven't beaten you in the editcount, but I have done more deletions. Ingoolemo ^talk 21:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Nice to see ya! - UtherSRG (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Tamarack Larch

Hi Uther - could you take a look in on its talk page, please; there's 2 or 3 people (who haven't even contributed to the page at all!) are trying to move it to Tamarack, without the indication of genus affiliation. I think this is very unhelpful for indexing and categorisation. - Thanks, MPF 13:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi Uther - many thanks, very much appreciated!

This one was on my local park pond today - MPF 01:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Translation & Redirects

Hello Uther,

I have a question regarding translations from the German Wikipedia. As there are lists for everything here, where do I find a list with articles that exist in German but not in English? Just like the Requested articles, only more specific. — Shantris Te'Amdoraja 02:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hrm. Good question. I don't believe there is such a beast, but it's a worthy topic. Why don't you ask on the Village Pump? - UtherSRG (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll have a try, thanks. :) — Shantris Te'Amdoraja 14:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

So this is the answer :) Another question: I just fixed some links and wondered if there is a bot for this. For example, there are more than 500 links that point to "women", although you are redirected from there to "woman". — Shantris Te'Amdoraja 22:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I've yet to get bot to work. Ask User:Tawker, perhaps. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no problem, Tawkerbot can do that in its sleep. Do you want the Wikilinks to show up as women or woman, either is pretty easy to do. -- Tawker 05:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Fat-tailed Dunnart

Thanks mate, I'm still doing it now, and you can help anytime la. Enlil Ninlil 03:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC) I am definatly going to call u when I do another article on Dunnarts. Is that OK?Enlil Ninlil 04:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

White-footed Dunnart

Hello mate, I am doing this articl,but eont be ready for an hour at the earliest. Thankyou mate Enlil Ninlil 01:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Point of irony

Hi Uther,

You welcomed me several months ago; I’m asking something here because the Village Pump doesn't seem to have specific enough information.

I'm translating point d’ironie from the fr wikipedia into irony mark (not yet posted) and I’m having some trouble with the images. Since they won’t show up in the English version, I've assumed that I have to re-upload the images myself into the English image database. I just wanted to know if you wouldn't mind corroborating whether I've licensed them properly. The fr images all imply that any rights have been forfeited, but the way it is worded varies. When I attempt to indicate that another user has released his rights, the licensing information that appears on the image details implies that it had a copyright that was subsequently released, but the French details indicate that they had no copyright to begin with. The tag that I'm getting in the en details is obsolete, but none of the alternatives given seems to be exactly appropriate (e.g. the template for "uploader releases all rights" is almost it, but I didn’t release them; it was the original uploader from the fr wikipedia who did so).

The images in question are: From fr: [[2]], [[3]], [[4]]), ([[5]]), ([[6]]), ([[7]]), ([[8]]) and ([[9]])

And as I've uploaded them in en:

File:Pointsdironie.jpg, File:11px-Pointdironie-.jpg, ), (), (), (), () and (). Note that the first two images have different wordings in the fr detail pages.

I'd appreciate it if you could let me know what the most appropriate licensing option is. Thanks in advance. Rod ESQ 19:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

All right, thanks for the referral to the legality questions. I'll let you know what they said. Rod ESQ 20:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Why were my changes reverted regarding the Ebony Glider?

I changed multiple pages where the Mahogany Glider is incorrectly referred to as the Ebony Glider, and you reverted them all! Go look up Petaurus gracilis in google or any textbook and it will say "Mahogany Glider." There is no such thing as the Ebony Glider.

I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be a place where people can submit accurate information. How is reverting accurate information back to inaccurate information helping to further Wikipedia's goal?

Even the reference directly listed on the Petaurus page links here, which refers to it as the Mahogany Glider: http://www.animalinfo.org/species/petagrac.htm

We're following the names laid out in Mammal Species of the World, 3rd ed., which names that species the Ebony Glider. I'll add to the article that it is also commonly known as the Mahogany Glider. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree with the original message, technically the Australian government recognises the Mahogany Glider as the common name and not Ebony Glider, where is the refered book published, mistakes happen, like my crap spelling, also like the Common Dunnart, which has never been refered to as the Slender-tailed Dunnart in Australia. Enlil Ninlil 05:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• [10]

Ebony is black. Mahogany Gliders are brown. Why would anybody call a brown coloured glider an Ebony Glider???? Oxford University Press calls the glider a Mahogany Glider. Figaro 14:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Who published Mammal Species of the World? Why should it be regerded as a greater authority than A Field Guide to the Mammals of Australia, which was published by Oxford University Press? Figaro 14:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Because it is. Ucucha (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The glider has always been called the Mahogany Glider (from the 19th Century onwards). Until tonight, I had never even heard of the term 'Ebony Glider'. The Curator for Mammals at the Queensland Museum, who has a Doctorate with regard to Australian wildlife, and who is directly responsible for the Mahogany Glider's rehabilition, has always referred to the glider as a Mahogany Glider. I know the curator on a personal basis, and I am intending to contact him about your comments personally. How do you know that the person who wrote 'Ebony Glider', in what is evidently your favourite wildlife book, is an authority on the matter? I have checked out his page on Wikipedia and he does not list marsupials among his interests. I have checked his website at the ANU, and he expresses an interest primarily centred on primates, and not marsupials.

Finally, you should not state that only one book can ever be used as an authority in these matters. Figaro 15:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

For mammalian taxonomy, at least, MSW has by far the greatest authority. For common names, however, its authority may not be so absolute. You're right Mahogany Glider is used much, much, much, very much more than Ebony Glider in Australia (just do a quick Google search). I think our page should also bear that name, since Mahogany Glider is so overwhelmingly the most commonly used name (see Talk:Black-tufted Marmoset for a somewhat similar case, for which I however advised otherwise). I don't really know why Groves is changing some common names. Ucucha (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Arkive

Thanks for helping fixing the mess I made. Pretty much everything but a few pages (Biodiversity, Spider, List of extinct animals...) has been reverted now (I've been off up to half an hour ago). Circeus 23:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletions of Sloth family redirects

Hello, I notice that a few days ago you deleted redirects at Megalonychidae and Bradypodidae, which redirected to Sloth. Why did you do this? I have undeleted, as it clearly makes sense to have redirects in those locations. john k 22:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No, they should be their own articles. Folivora is the only taxon that should redirect to sloth. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Why won't Phyllophaga? Ucucha (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean besides the fact that there should be both Phyllophaga (June beetle genus) and Phyllophaga (a synonym or container of Folivora), and Phyllophaga would be a disambig page, none. If Phyllophaga is a synonym for Folivora, then it should redirect there. If not, then it should be its own article, describing how it contains Folivora and what else it contains. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In theory they should eventually have their own articles. Until then, they should redirect. At any rate, the basic information that would be found in an individual article about those families is found at Sloth - the genera and species in each family. It doesn't make sense to have them as red links in the meanwhile. john k 16:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, creating redirects makes it appear that there is an article written. Having redlinks shows there are articles that need to be written. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Our primary concern should be for the reader, not for the wikipedia editor. If the redirect is not terribly useful for the reader (as it wasn't, for instance, when we had a bunch of articles on individual Dukes of Norfolk redirecting to the main Duke of Norfolk article), then we shouldn't have it. But this redirect is distinctly useful, and the Sloth article gives as much information about each of the two sloth families as many individual family articles give on their respective subjects. As such, I'm restoring again. If you want to make an article, make an article, but stop deleting useful redirects. john k 18:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

And I'm deleting them again. How many readers are likely to be looking for either of the families? If they are, they'll use the search feature (and find the sloth article) or they will be driling down from some other article that lists the famlies as well as the sloth article. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother with undeleting again, because this is getting stupid, but I myself have twice now tried to enter the Sloth families in directly, and come upon "no article" notices. Instead of wasting time deleting redirects for no reason, why don't you write up the articles? john k 05:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Clearly there are advantages to both ways. Maybe we should have another colour for "a redirect, but only temporarily, honest" ;). Pcb21 Pete 16:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Um... yeah. *grins* - UtherSRG (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Phyllophaga Owen, 1842 was used for sloths by McKenna & Bell (1997), instead of Folivora Delsuc et al. (2001) [11]. I have the whole PDF. They argue that Phyllophaga should not be used because it's also a beetle genus. As far as I know, that's not a common procedure in nomenclature, and I myself would use Phyllophaga, but I think we should follow MSW for that matter until it has been shown that consensus of xenarthran specialists indicates otherwise.

I don't think we should not make "un-equal" redirects. Redirects are intended for pointing people to the correct name - or the name we wish to use - for an article, not for redirecting some vaguely related topic. Ucucha (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect created. I'll also create the disambig page. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Echidna

You reverted my edit in this article and reinserted the phrase that the Echidna is decreasingly referred to as the "spiny anteater". Do you have a source that says people don't really call it that anymore? Every single biology book I have read that talks about the Echidna also mentions that they are sometimes called the "spiny anteater", so I find it hard to believe that people don't call it that anymore.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC) P.S. Can you respond on my talk page? I tend to forget about these posts.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Its like roly poly vs. Pill bug. There are just different names, I don't think you can say that one is decreasingly used.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I had a look on Google scholar, and found the following:

Query	1976–1985	1986–1995	1996–2005
tachyglossus echidna -"spiny anteater"	110	129	281
tachyglossus -echidna "spiny anteater"	0	2	11
tachyglossus echidna "spiny anteater"	3	4	32

So it looks as though "spiny anteater" is becoming more common in scientific publications, not less. Gdr 19:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Groves email

I would appreciate a copy of the email that you sent to Colin Groves. Thank you. Figaro 15:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you please forward the text to my talk page. Thanks. Figaro 16:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for sending me the copy. I appreciate it very much. Figaro 16:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for also sending me Colin Grove's response to your email. I appreciate it very much also. Figaro 13:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I would love a copy. But the name isn't that important, only for clarity for other people.Plus you redirected the Common Dunnart link, so all is cool man. Enlil Ninlil 05:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you help me let Greater NYC Wikipedians know about the next Meetup?

I've been looking around and I noticed that Wikipedians by location has been replaced by a categorization scheme, but I guess people have to know to list themselves in the New categorizations. Do you have any idea how we can tell people about the upcoming Wikipedia Meetup in June? Here is a link to it: http://wikipedia.meetup.com/52/events/4898023/ Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks. Alex756 02:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I am a bit confused because I also found a Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC, but I see you linked to the NYC2 page as well. Alex756 03:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

re: Australopithecus anamensis

Hello, UtherSRG. Australopithecus anamensis, which you've edited recently, was nominated for ITN. Does this qualify ? Please respond on Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Thanks. -- PFHLai 00:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Canis

See Talk:Canis. Ucucha (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Bwindi gorilla makes NO sense

I think Bwindi gorilla does not make any sense, with capital or not. Most articles on the Bwindi forest population indicate the Mountain gorilla as the subspecies, not a new name. What is your idea? KimvdLinde 04:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Killikaike blakei

I was wondering why you edited my post, it was true!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.22.102 (talk • contribs) .

The facts were as irrelevant as if you had said the fossils were bones. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Vandalism

Wow... congratulations in your anti-vandalism efforts in pages like Gorilla, which seem to get vandalized often. Way to stay on top of things :-) --Brazucs (_TALK | ^CONTRIBS) 05:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I added no vandalism

In the article "Cro-magnon man", you seem to think I added some sort of vandalism. The fact is, I FIXED the article. The version before said "oldest barf" (or something to that effect), and I changed that to "oldest modern people". Please take care to send your messages to the right people. ;) 65.41.47.6 19:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You are correct... you fixed a piece of vandalism, but left one behind. The next editor removed it and in the diff, it looked like it was yours. My apologies. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Orangutan

Hello again Uther, I was wondering why you reverted my edit removing the word "rape" in reference to Orangutan, I feel that this word is an improper humanization. I understand that it is forced copulation, and they are very similar to us, but I feel the word rape implies a certain moral wrong, that is innappropriate when it is part of their normal behavior. Can you respind on my page? thanks.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Uther, just wondering why you reverted back my adding link to Orangutan NGOs? 6-27-06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.158.245.254 (talk • contribs) .

Those were links to the NGOs, so they might have been more appropriate on an article about NGOs or about conservation of primate, or some such article. They aren't good sources of additional information about orangutans. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Military aircraft

You'll LOVE Area 51 and similar areas. That is where planes like the SR-71, F-117 were tested, and is where the rumored Aurora is being tested. Martial Law 06:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC) :)

I have a friend who's been to the Skunk Works a few times. I'm so envious! - UtherSRG (talk)

biobarnstar proposal

Hi UtherSRG,

thanks for you comments on the biobarnstar. You didn't like the 1st draft of the biobarnstar. Please make a suggestion what you would like to see & I'll try to incorporate it into the next draft.

Best, Jasu 14:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Human evolution

Thanks for your note on the link to "hominid." If you would like this linked to something besides Hominidae, please choose an appropriate article, not the "Hominid" page, which is a disambiguation page. (I don't see the reason for linking it to something else; "Hominid" means "member of the family Hominidae.") Please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links for information about disambiguation. --Iggle 23:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't revert my legitimate disambiguations. I have spent hours on this. Linking to a disambig page is not wiki policy. Please stop now. Iggle 00:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, many disambig pages have "lots of information" on them. That doesn't mean that a user who clicks on a link should be taken to a general page instead of the specific applicable article. A link to "Hominid" should link to what a hominid is (i.e., one of the Hominidae), not to what it isn't. Iggle 00:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have posted a request for help on this on the Hominid talk page. Perhaps we can continue this discussion there. Iggle 00:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Red-cheeked Dunnart

Can you please check this article please, Thankyou Enlil Ninlil 04:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Taxobox ref

Really it seems like a case of over citing, the taxonomy of the species is not in dispute, and the synonym situation is clearly explained in the taxonomy section of the article. I know there is a push for verification at the moment but this seems like over-doing it.--Peta 10:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It further complicates the taxobox, you placed it in a position where isn't likely to be seen, and there is a large and well referenced taxonomy section. It's a redundant reference.--Peta 11:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

In reference to Bio-barnstar proposal: What is the next move?

There was much talk lately about the bio-barnstar proposal, but these past 5 days there hasn't been more said. What is next? What is there to be done? Can we move this foward...? It is the first time I involve myself in a barnstar proposal and I do not know what is the procedure. I seem to read there is quite a support for a bio-barnstar and a considerable preference for the second proposal... Please, could someone tell me what next? Thanks.--Francisco Valverde 17:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Tasmanian devil

I removed the image because it was disturbing! Those images should not be on,after all,how many kids are on Wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.9.15.116 (talk • contribs) .

taxo name propithicus diadema edwarsi

Are you sure about that? The head reseacher in the field, who does a lot of work on the Milne-Edwards, Dr. Patricia Wright, refers to them as Propithecus diadema edwardsi. [12] The paper listings at the bottom use my version. Sifaka ^talk 16:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Duke University lemur center, which is the biggest research station with regards to lemurs, calls them diadema edwardsi too. I am familiar with a lot of the research and I would call them the authority. That gov list was compiled in 1993 by the way, so it may be out of date... I will try to find a history of the taxo name, maybe they changed it when they found they were a subspecies and not their own species... Sifaka ^talk

I sent an error form to them by the way, telling them to update it. If they respond soon, I will see what they have to say about it. Sifaka ^talk 17:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for bombarding you with messages, but in the meanwhile, should I change it or leave it. I a pretty sure I am correct in this case, but if you feel we should stick with the "official" version, I will do so. Sifaka ^talk 17:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Blank maps for distribution - Palearctic - Oriental

Hi ! I am unable to find suitable blank maps for smaller sub-regions. Do let me know if there is one around. Shyamal 03:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Cane Toad up for peer review

I have just put the Cane Toad article up for peer review. I would really appreciate your input. Thankyou --liquidGhoul 06:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Woops, I forgot to give the link. Here it is. --liquidGhoul 06:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Lemur

i appreciate your work on Lemuridae and related articles. i have a minor question. is there a reason you used upper case "L" for lemur in the more detailed species name. For example, most of the literature ive seen uses Red-bellied lemur" instead of "Red-bellied Lemur". By the way you may want to check out a recent article i created Madagascar dry deciduous forests. best regards Anlace 16:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Gorilla

Hi,

What's wrong with my edits to Gorilla? The proposed third species is not yet accepted. - Richardcavell 02:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Have a look at what I did with Eastern Gorilla. Does this make it clear? - Richardcavell 02:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Uther/Stacey --

Thank you for the welcome. This looks like a great community for writers.... Keith Keithwalsh88 02:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Psittacula.jpg

I had responded onmy own talk page, but I do not know whether you saw it. I realise that it is not italics, but that means I have to dig into the code to make it italics. As to the wikicode version, you can always leave that one commented out, and if there is a change, and the image can not be changed, you can always go back to that version. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 10:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome ... request

Can you have a quick look at Bardia Mural and give me some feedback on my attempt to create a Wikified Page Or tell me how I can get such review/advice? (Jws42 22:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC))

DYK

On November 15, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Red-bellied Lemur, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

moving page Milne-Edward's Sifaka

Hi, I think the page should not be moved. The official name in Milne-Edward's Diademed Sifaka, not Edwards's. Link to Suny page written by researcher is here [13] I have also been having troub;e with the taxo name which is not right on most of the articles. There is a discussion about this on my talk page. Sifaka ^talk 18:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to mention I wanted advice to avoid edit warring. Sifaka ^talk 18:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

News to me! Thanks for pointing that paper out. I haven't heard about it yet. It's very recent too. Sorry for putting up such a fuss. I will read this paper over and email the DULC and see what they think about it because I don't think their information has changed. I might try Dr. Patricia Wright too. I have been out of the research loop recently, so thanks so much for this info. Sifaka ^talk 19:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent reverts

It was not me, it was User:Shall I Make Wikipedia A Boom Town? whom you reverted. I was fixing his cybermans and panarachnids when you arrived :) Alexei Kouprianov 12:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Shame for me! I checked the history and realised that I reverted what had been reverted for ages destroying everything that was done afterwards. :( Thank you for your corrections. Alexei Kouprianov 12:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Ethiopia

Is it necessary for all WikiProject templates to have the same color? I sort of liked having an interesting background color for the template. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 18:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Userbox Public Transit

According to Wikipedia:The German solution, here’s a a tip for you: {{User:Olve/Userboxes/Public transport}} (in lieu of the blanked template:User Public Transit). -- Olve 22:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Giant Squid

Giant squid shall be a featured article this year. Are you with me? Ben-w 06:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Main Page edit requested

I see that you fixed the error reported by 192.54.176.109. There was another request to edit the main page right above it. Could you please attend to it? Thanks. —Michiel Sikma 「Gebruiker/Overleg」 13:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it was already done. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Taxobox revisions

Hello UtherSRG. I noticed you revised most of my adittions to prehistoric mammal taxoboxes. What was wrong with them, if you don't mind my asking? The info was correct. Is it a measure to prevent taxoboxes from getting too big? They have a similar thing going on at WikiProject Dinosaurs- all ranks above order are standardized, without super- and infra ranks. Is there a similar policy on these pages that I'm not aware of? Jerkov 22:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Username change request

Greetings! I just left you a username change request at Wikispecies. Cheers! BD2412 T 06:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Motho responds about birds and standards

I know the book I have is not the de facto standard for bird articles, and I do use the standard North American list (which is accepted) when it comes to species' names, but as for the books I have, those are useful for description if for nothing else. For example, one of my books is The Sibley Field Guide To Birds (of Eastern North America) and I've seen Sibley guides used as sources multiple times. Now whether all data from books outside the standard choices are completely banned from use is ambiguous as detailed on the WP:birds page, but I was under the impression that the Handbook of Birds of the World, the AOU's Check-list of North American Birds, and the ABA checklist, while the law of the land as for taxonomy of birds of North America, were not necessarily inclusive sources for all ornithological information (don't I use big words? Fancy). That although the Handbook of Birds of the World is to take priority over other books detailling information about birds of the Northern hemisphere, it does not rule out the use of other books as sources of information, such as the Smithsonian Handbook of Birds of North America, to contribute knowledge about a particular species, genus, or family to wikipedia.

Perhaps I interpreted the guidelines wrong. If so, explain to me what I was supposed to gain from that page, and what part of the page expresses that meaning. Thank you for watching out for ne'rdowells, but I assure you I only have good intentions and try hard to stay within the rules. If I actually have slipped up here, feel welcomed to correct me. -Monk of the highest order 17:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Monkey

The page was protected by you, but it doesn't have the protected tag. It's sort of confusing to figure out you can't edit it by seeing where it says view source as opposed to edit this page. Could you add the tag as to not confuse people? --69.145.123.171 02:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Marsupial- infraclass vs. subclass

Hello UtherSRG,

In response to your message regarding my change of the Marsupiala rank from subclass to infraclass: based on the way you said it you seemed to want to point me to the fact that incorporating that change to 'all existing marsupial articles' would be a huge, time-consuming job. I realize that, but what's most important is correctness. Just because incorporating the change to other articles would be a huge job doesn't mean it should not be done. Not when it is factually correct to do so. To list Marsupiala as a subclass makes no sense when the Theria page list it as an infraclass. Eutheria is also listed as an infraclass to Theria, so the same should be done with Marsupiala.

EDIT: I've taken care of it. Might have missed some obscure ones though.

Jerkov 14:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert in Capuchin monkey article

According to WP:REF: ==Notes and references== section: Used if there is no separate section with general references, and if all sources of the general content of the article are covered by the footnotes, but see the note about this below. Why did you revert the change? --Fasten 11:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

copied: I reverted because all of the footnotes are not notes; they are all references. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I didn't distinguish sources, notes, footnotes and references sufficiently. I think WP:REF isn't very good at explaining the intended differentiation. Thank you for clearing up the matter. --Fasten 14:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The Rakesh Chandra Adhikari Species of Monkies

I am Simon Scheldt, Son of Dr.Peter Scheldt who has done intensive research into monkies all around the world. He is credited to the discovery of atleast 5 new species of monkies , one of the being the Rakesh Chandra Adhikari Species. I would like the world to know of the contribution of my father,as very little documentation of his work is present. I will provide u valid proof with photographs in a weeks time if u give me your mailing address. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raaka (talk • contribs) .

Publish the information in a reputable journal, and put the information online with references and pictures. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Peter Scheldt

I, Simon Scheldt, son of the late Dr. Peter Scheldt just like to

mention the contribution of my father to the world. This portal

(Wikipedia) is the only way I can do such a thing. The papers are

difficult to get published as I am not a doctor myself and don't have

the expertise for doing the same. But nevertheless, I am trying my

level best. But till then Wikipedia is the only way my late father can

get his contribution to the world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raaka (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for first publication or original research. Find a reputable researcher and work with him or her to get your material published. In the mean time, post it on livejournal or myspace or another blog site so that folks can see what you have. Wikipedia is far from your only way to post the information. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Pliopithecidae

Hello UtherSRG,

Since your source has a bigger backing than mine, I suppose the revert concerning the ranking of Pliopithecidae was correct. I guess the Paleobiology Database isn't infallible; they also still list Dravidosaurus as a stegosaur. Jerkov 20:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

nbsp.

Hi. You added a bunch of nbsp's to the taxobox template for conservation status. [14]. Can you please revert this change? Having all spaces as non-breaking is useless, as the status now breaks arbitrarily as if none were non-breaking, instead of between "Conservation status:" and the text. (at least on Firefox). I don't want to start a "revert war", and I know I've changed these nbsp's before. Cheers.—Pengo 01:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Cebidae revert

Hello UtherSRG,

Why did you remove the extinct genus Dolichocebus from the classification of the family Cebidae? It does belong to that family, and it's not unusual to add extinct genera on genera lists of still-existing families on the Wikipedia. Jerkov 10:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

ThuranX

Okay, so I redid the edit you made to the discussion page of Gorilla, and I get a message from ThuranX accusing me of vandalism. I don't know if he's an administrator or not, but actions like that affect the reputation of all administrators - and, I'm now stuck with that on my talk page. I'm sure if I erased it, I'd get blocked for vandalism, whether the notice was justified or not. If he's not an admin, maybe you could have a little word with him, because that's just not right. Todd Bridges 03:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

So now the guy's putting a warning on my talk page because I put a warning on his talk page - for his (definite) vandalism of the Gorilla talk page! Who can I report him to? Todd Bridges 22:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm being accused of being a sockpuppet of a couple of other users, and have been told off about supposed vandalism of the Gorilla talk page. Now, I reverted ThuranX because he had restored that nonsense from I think an anonymous user. You had reverted the same thing. It'd be nice to be backed up, rather than hung out to dry. It doesn't matter much to me, really; if they block me, they block me, justified or not. I think I might just go back to being a reader of Wikipedia, and leave the editing to others. But it would be nice for my retirement to be by choice. Todd Bridges 01:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for nothing. I guess three guys aren't allowed to edit on the same computer - we've all got to share an account. How stupid is that?! Not that you're probably going to anyway, but don't bother leaving any messages for me - I'm gone. Don't know about the others. Todd Bridges 12:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Why?

[15] ? — Omegatron 15:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The link is already in the article - in the opening paragrph no less! Please do not add "see also" links that are already in the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

So what? Articles that are substantially related should have a link in the See also section, too. Please revert yourself. — Omegatron 15:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No, they should not. There should generally be only *one* link from the text of an article to another, with links from infoboxes being the only general exception to this. "See also" links should be used for topics that are not already mentioned in the article only. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

WP Australia

Thanks for fixing the case issues with {{WP Australia}}. My eyes were cast on the exact same problem at the time you landed ;) -- Longhair 16:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Mikko's Phylogeny Archive Vs. Paleobiology Database

Hallo UtherSRG,

I see you corrected the classification of Smilodectes using Mikko's Phylogeny Archive. I doubt that's a bad site, but is it more reliable than the Paleobiology Database?[16] Mikko's Phylogeny Archive is edited by a single person or perhaps a few more, while Paleo DB edited by hundreds of paleontological researches from various museums and universities across the globe. I realize that it's not 100 % reliable (Dravidosaurus is still listed as a stegosaur), but I do get the feeling it has more credibility than Mikko's Archive. Jerkov 17:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Common name cites again

I still maintain that they are useless where the common name is not in dispute. I have started a discussion on ToL.--Peta 04:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm using that aas the location to indicate the source for all of the data in the taxobox. Where else would it be appropriate to indicate the taxobox's info source? - UtherSRG (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Matrixism

Hi, Can you take a look at List of religions. An IP keeps adding Matrixism with a link to a Geocities site. Matrixism, as an article, has been deleted twice as non-notable, and yet a couple IPs keeps adding the link even after the discussion on the talk pages (See the archive as well). -- Jeff3000 19:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

User:71.139.66.105 has evaded his block by using another IP User:69.226.105.161. Can the page be semi-protected? -- Jeff3000 00:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Wallaby

I can't see a single reason to delete this, since wallabies are rarely pictured in comics, animated series or literature, and Monty Python did include this comic book in some books they have published (I have read this comic in Serbian, for example). I really don't see what seems to be the problem. Vitriden 15:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's hardly a prominent bit of popular culture. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Can't see why it has to be so prominent. And Monty Python is definitely an important part of modern culture. Anyway, it does no harm (it's half of a sentence) and someone might find it interesting.

Vitriden 16:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Spring chicken

I don't know if you will remember this, but way back in 2004, you redirected Spring Chicken to the Cane Toad article (then called Giant Neotropical Toad). I have never heard this term used for Cane Toads, so was wondering why you redirected there? Thanks --liquidGhoul 11:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I though I should point out that the reason I put it in my recent Rana edit summary was because I discovered it is also the name for the Amazon River Frog, (Rana palmipes), however I had also never heard of this term being used for the Cane Toad (or any other frog until today).--Tnarg¹²³⁴⁵ 12:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Flashback to yesteryear, man. ;) Ok, a little investiagation (what did the article look like in April 2004?) shows me this answer. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

New species

Hi, do you already know the new species of lemurs published recently? See nl:Gebruiker:Ucucha/Nieuw/2006. M. mamiratra was published yesterday, so it's not very likely you've already heard of it ;-). Maybe you can use it. The original description is at http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/publications/opapers/ops/OP259.pdf . Ucucha 17:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd known about it (or at least its former incarnation), but since I can't translate Dutch... - UtherSRG (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently there are at least four other new species (this was #5, I thought). It makes you wonder how many described species there will be in this family in five years (40?). Ucucha 11:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Octopuses and Octopi

May I ask why you reverted me here? :-)[17] --HappyCamper 00:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Because you were wrong. Look down further in the article, where the plural is dicussed. Also read the talk page. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ugh...you know, this is the first time I have found something on Wikipedia that contradicts a few dictionary sources? Well, what is written makes sense, but I think I'll dig deeper and find more sources to support this fact. --HappyCamper 02:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

what species are you?

Humans are the only species that use or edit wikipedia, or read for that matter. Why is it so shocking to avoid referring to the human race as 'us' instead of 'them?' Who do you think uses Wikipedia? There is a special case for this all-inclusive disinction. It ain't the 'truth,' it be a fact. If something Humans are, it is ALWAYS a user of Wikipedia, and that is mutually-inclusive. There is never an instance where a user of wikipedia is not a Human, unless there is a verifiable source saying so. It is absurd for a human being to refer to the human race as an alien species, or potentially so. Let's assume good faith, why does this edit shock you? Do you think this is your grandpa's encyclopedia? Why does it have to be? There is no 'proper encyclopaedic form' that stupidly says to refer to Humans, (as a species,) as 'them,' 'they,' or any other pronoun that is exclusive to the condition of any user of reference material. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.12 (talk • contribs) .

You are incorrect. It is improper to use the less formal "us" and "we". It also implies that the article will never be read by anyone other than human, even if only humans are the current readers. Also, please sign you talk edits with four tildes (~). - UtherSRG (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Speculation that anyone other than humans will read this is currently in the dominion of fiction, and constitutes 'original research.' (on the more flakey or fantastic side, at the current time.) The nature of Wikipedia is its adaptibility. When it can be verified that other-than-human conscious readers and writers are using Wikipedia, then and only then will be the appropriate time to refer to humans with third-person pronouns.

Your edit didn't make sense. Using "us" and "we" is far too informal for an encyclopaedia, it makes it look like a joke. Secondly, you didn't make it consistent throughout the article. Within one paragraph you referred to humans as Homo Sapiens (even though we are H. s. sapiens) and "We". If you stuff up the prose like that, of course it is going to be reverted. --liquidGhoul 23:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Promise the Children

Can you explain why you put the hangon template on that page? The explanation was already on the talk page. That template is to be removed as soon as the explanation is made, which was awhile ago.--Crossmr 04:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The Unitarian Universalist belief system

Could you please explain why you have reverted my change from "belief system" to "approach to religion"? I would like to know what "system" of religious beliefs is found in the P&Ps. Also why "belief system" is linked to religion but you don't accept that the text itself says "religion". Thanks. --Jdemarcos 11:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Covenant of Unitarian Universalist Pagans

Heya.

I was wondering if you could explain your revert here. It looks like you just cut out tons of what looks to me to be accurate information, with a reference. HellaNorCal 21:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... it was a copy-and-paste job fro the CUUPS website. That's a no-no. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sir David's Long-beaked Echidna

No, I don't have a citation (yet) -- but will locate the paper describing the species. I work with conservation orgs and museums on biodiversity research in Papua, and this was information I got straight from Flannery himself prior to publishing the paper. That said, I will check to confirm. Arjuna 01:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed. It was described from a single (damaged) specimen collected in 1961. This is in the Flannery/Groves paper. Arjuna 01:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! I made one minor edit to your citation. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of talk edit

Why so quick to remove something from the talk page? Would it not be better to use the talk page to talk? Adeptcook 11:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

An article's talk page is for discussing the article, not for anything else. If you want to create a new article, then be bold and create it, but use verifiable sources and cite them. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. That's why I didn't understand the removal of a suggestion to expand the g-spot article to cover the male g-spot.Adeptcook 13:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be a different article, like male lactation, or just a redirect to prostate. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

quick question

Hi, quick question. I was wondering if it's possible to remove the underlines from links since the underlines are very annoying and distracting, I have checked the preferences and set that option to disable them but occassionally they're still showing up randomly. Thanks. Cat-five 19:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, of that I can't help.... I know how to set the preference (I prefer to have the underlines) but ometimes th pages display without them - just the opposite of your proble! :) - UtherSRG (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks anyway, it's only an off and on issue so it's not really a big deal. Cat-five - talk 08:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Dingman's Bridge

I know that the bridge is still a toll bridge, but there is a toll in both directions which led me to put it in the New Jersey article. I rewrote the section I added to clarify what I meant. Michael Greiner 03:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Claire's Mouse Lemur

On 12 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Claire's Mouse Lemur, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for the contribution! It's on the Main Page now for DYK! Cheers -- Samir धर्म 07:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Why Remove Marsupial Frogs From Marsupial Page?

Why did you remove marsupial frogs from the marsupial page? --SafeLibraries 17:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

British Disambiguation

UtherSRG, I see you were reversing my disamg links, but it seems I've been linking to a link, I guess this is a bad idea. I saw your message on my talk page. All that effort wasted. I'll go back and find the changes, and make them right. (scope_creep 17:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC))

Giant Pacific Octopus

Dear UtherSRG. Hi, this constant reverting is getting silly. Maybe we should get an outside opinion. Nicolharper 11:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Indef Blocks on IPs

Hi,

Everything I've seen about blocking policy says that we never block IPs indefinitely, except if they are open proxies. See for example Wikipedia:Indefinite blocks which says so pretty plainly. I noticed you making at least one such block though. What's up? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I was uner the impression that that went out of the window now that we can block IP and not users from the same IP. Anyway, the IPs I blocked tonight were all used by the same person to vandalize. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it went out the window, except for extraordinaty cases. I'm going to reduce those blocks to something like three months. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Your list IS worthwhile despite some deletionsists' point of view

The list (List_of_Unitarian_Universalist_Independent_Affiliate_organizations) you created is/was up for deletion. I want you to know there is a place for it: http://wikitistics.com . No one will be able to nominate it for deletion because it fits one simple rule: it's a statistic, list, or figure. Good luck with your endeavors!Joe 02:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)