User talk:UtherSRG

zOMG

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

Snow Leopard

Hi Uther Thanks for all the rvv on this page. I don't understand why this article appears to be such an attractive target. It's been vandalised every day this month bar the 16th, whereas Tiger has hardly been touched. Would you pls semi-protect this, say for a week, and we'll see if that drops it back to normal levels. Thanks. Secret Squïrrel, approx 00:50, 28 November 2008 (Sol III Standard Time)

Merry Christmas

JoJan is wishing you a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Yobai deletion

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

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

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

Your old talk page archives that contain significant history

Would you mind if I history merged this page with your old talk page archives, so your talk page contains the history of *all* the messages that have been posted on it? You deleted all your old talk archives - User talk:UtherSRG/Arch1, User talk:UtherSRG/Arch2, etc.), back in February 2007. The archives that contain significant history are User talk:UtherSRG/Arch7 and User talk:UtherSRG/Arch12. User talk page history isn't generally deleted on Wikipedia. Also, I've added a link to your modern archive, User talk:UtherSRG/Archive 2, to your archive box. Hope you don't mind. Graham87 14:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I've commented out the auto-archiving feature on your talk page, since you haven't been active for a while. Talk pages of inactive users should not be auto-archived. Graham87 01:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Graham. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

help!

Hi UtherSRG!

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

Nope, there's no chance of getting your old account back without a valid email address. I hope you don't mind me replying here, UtherSRG, but you've been inactive for nearly four weeks. Graham87 12:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day NYC

Wikipedia 9th birthday coin

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

CfD nomination of Category:Monkeys

I have nominated Category:Monkeys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ucucha 23:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Editing

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

GA Reassessment of Philippine Tarsier

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

Question maybe

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

Odd edit at Himalayan Wolf

Thank you for all your help with the wolves.

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

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

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

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

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

I've been trying to fix it. It's got a ways to go. You might want to take a look someday. This is all I know: there was this paper written by a bunch of scientists with Central Asian names that listed a bunch of reasons that they believe this one population of about 3-4hundred Tibetan Wolves (Canis lupus chanco) should be reclassified as a separate subspecies or a separate species. And for all I know they may be right about that. The second thing I know is that MSW3's website proves that they have not seen fit to list it, there's nothing there. So I'm trying to re-write the article to be a story about how these fellows wrote this paper saying this, but that it hasn't been accepted yet, whereas before it was written and taxoboxed as a feita cumpli or however you spell that French term for "a done deal" that these guys' proposal reflected current taxonomy. Chrisrus (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, I notice all the work you do on many of the articles on my watchlist; taxoboxes and such; debates you have on talk pages and all, and appreciate it. I'd give you a barnstar or something but I'm don't know how because I'm not into barnstars and whatnot, really; I just write "thank you" sections on people's pages.

Anyway, if you know anyone who might interested in checking out that Himalayan Wolf article, give them a heads up that it's out of line with the rest of the Wikipedia articles on Canids. Chrisrus (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Clean-up at WT:PRIMATES

In case you missed it, I messed up the archive naming and need your mighty broom-wielding skills to help straighten it out. I need "Archives 2004" renamed to "Archive 2004" and the redirects deleted so that the talkheader template can properly locate the archives. If it still doesn't see them, then I might just turn off the archives feature in the talk header and use a separate archives box like we used to have. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Changing it to "Archive_2004" worked. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It fixed the double-redirect, but from what I can see it didn't fix the talkheader archive list. All the links do is point to the redirects for the old archive pages. The new archives still don't show up. Could we try deleting the redirects and see if the talkheader template detects them? If it doesn't work, we may need to move the archive files back to a sequential order (1, 2, 3, ...). At that point, I'll have to look into creating an archives index and using something more complicated in order to keep the archives organized by year. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I removed the first of the redirects. Now there are no links, but it has a search box. Is that what we wanted? - UtherSRG (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't figure out how to get what I want. All the archive templates only work with low archive numbers (1-100). But to create archives separated by year (like we've been doing), I have to follow a different naming scheme. Anyway, I'm leaving the bot to do what I originally set it up to do and removed all the search options. I'm also using the template "Archive box" so that I can (manually) specify where the archives are located. If you want to play with it and fix it up how you want, go for it. As it stands now, someone just has to manually add next the 2010(+) archive links to the archive box around this time every year. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Red Wolves

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

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

Gecko and domains

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

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

You are correct - the discussion is at Template_talk:Taxobox#Domain. I'm reverting your reversion. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks: I thought the discussion was probably going on somewhere else than Talk:Reptile, but I didn't know where. But I don't regard the question as closed and have posted there. --ColinFine (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

tb

You have new messages

Hello, UtherSRG. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template.    File:Ico specie.png

 Chzz  ►  03:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Rhiograde references

Uther,

    May I ask why you deleted the references that I added to the entry on Rhinogrades this morning?  While it was nice to see such a quick response to my editing, it was somewhat distressing to see it deleted in its entirety and I must confess that I am curious as to why you chose to do so.
    The references are real, relevant and accurate and represent pretty much the entire original post-Stuempke literature on rhinogrades.  Steiner's (1988) sequel is an entertaining and entirely relevant follow up to his original book.  The articles by O.M. Ivanova and her friends offer an entertaining marine twist to the story with the added bonus that, as they really were published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, bored graduate students could relatively easily slip them into their theses and papers as a form of therapeutic stress relief (and to see if anyone is actually reading them) if they were aware of them.

66.230.110.187 (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Yours sincerely, The numerical string (who is neither German nor Russian but who does have a passing fondness for rhinogrades)

WildBot summoning

You seem to like WildBot checking articles; is there a particular group you want checked over? Do you want a once over, or to go on WildBot's watchlist? Josh Parris 06:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

All of the primate articles. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 06:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Everything in Category:Primates and below? Should be doable. Watchlisted or not? Josh Parris 07:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hrm. Watchlist I suppose, as that would mean continued reports when things need fixing, right? - UtherSRG (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Right. Gimmie a day. Josh Parris 07:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Aight! :) - UtherSRG (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

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

LOL! Um, yeah. - UtherSRG (talk) 08:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

These categories and below:

• Category:Lemurs
• Category:Lorises and galagos
• Category:Monkeys
• Category:Non-human primates in culture
• Category:Prehistoric primates
• Category:Primate anatomy
• Category:Primate images
• Category:Primatology
• Category:Tarsiers
• Category:Chimpanzees
• Category:Gibbons
• Category:Gorillas
• Category:Great Ape Trust
• Category:Apes in popular culture, sorry, but you miss out on Category:Planet of the Apes films - too bad Josh Parris 09:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Category:Prehistoric apes
• Category:Early species of Homo
• Category:Hominin fossils

Yes? Strike those that aren't appropriate. Josh Parris 08:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Okay, for some inexplicable reason the entries are at

• User_talk:WildBot/primates
• User_talk:WildBot/primates2
• User_talk:WildBot/primates3
• User_talk:WildBot/primates4
• User_talk:WildBot/primates5
• User_talk:WildBot/primates6
• User_talk:WildBot/primates7
• User_talk:WildBot/primates8
• User_talk:WildBot/primates9
• User_talk:WildBot/primates10
• User_talk:WildBot/primates11
• User_talk:WildBot/primates12
• User_talk:WildBot/primates13
• User_talk:WildBot/primates14
• User_talk:WildBot/primates15
• User_talk:WildBot/primates16

Best strike out Curious George and brethren. Holler once you're happy with that list. Josh Parris 09:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Don't strike, delete. Processing primates->7 around now, the link is a little flakey. Josh Parris 12:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

do you need me to o back and delete from 1-7? I've completed 10-16. 8 & 9 are empty still. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I've done that. I'll tackle 10-16 next. 8 & 9 aren't viable. Josh Parris 13:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Okie dokie. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

re:Red Links

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

Cetacean intelligence

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

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Sunday, March 21

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 21st, Columbia University area Last: 11/15/2009

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

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

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

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

Jamiat Ahle Hadith

What was the reason for you reverting my edits to Jamiat Ahle Hadith? I undid two redlinks and ran reflinks what could you find objectionable about these edits?--Supertouch (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Removing redlinks is bad. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Lemur species and taxonomic authorities

I thought we were trying to stick with taxonomic authorities when dealing with new lemur species? (In fact, you were the one who originally made this point.) I have no problem with species articles being created based on an initial journal article declaring their discovery. Heck, we can always convert it to a redirect if a taxonomic authority rules it out as a subspecies of an existing species. However, the List of lemur species page I have reserved for only "recognized" lemur species. In that regard, until the new 3rd edition of "Lemurs of Madagascar" comes out this summer, I've been limiting it to only the "Lemur Diversity in Madagascar" paper by Mittermeier, Groves, Tattersall, et al. I don't mind the updates to the other lemur pages. I plan to ultimately offer both official and unofficial totals there. Would you prefer that I add an additional table to List of lemur species to include all unofficial species? – VisionHolder « talk » 15:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I know. I vacilate a bit. ;) I think the table of unofficial species would be good. Hrm... but maybe call it something else. "Pending"? I dunno. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I prefer "unconfirmed". – VisionHolder « talk » 16:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! - UtherSRG (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Just give me some time and I will add the section (separate from the main lists). Right now I'm trying frantically to finish a little bit more of the new Lemur article before have to go waste my time at work tonight. (If you want to see what I'm talking about, check your email.) – VisionHolder « talk » 16:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

western lowland gorilla

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

Felinae

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

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

Thank you, User:Bruinfan12

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

Hominidae

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

I have broached this on the Hominidae talk page if you'd like to discuss it there. Tapatio (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Cryptonanus

On April 4, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cryptonanus, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Piliocolobus vs Procolobus

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

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

Thanks...

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

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

The Word Alive

Sorry for making the warning seem aggressive or anything; it's just that the band is definitely notable in modern music and as such the article shouldn't be deleted, but for whatever reason it's repeatedly deleted... Raktoner (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Then use {{afd}} to defend the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks x 2

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

Scientific names

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

Please be more careful

In the article proof by contradiction, you incorrectly disambiguated "proof by induction" to "inductive logic" here. it should instead have been "mathematical induction". Paul August ☎ 20:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I was incorrect. The text given above the link doesn't require mathematics, only logic. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Trust me, no one uses the term "proof by induction" in any mathematical context as anything other than a synonym for mathematical induction. Paul August ☎ 21:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Rhesus Macaque

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

Np. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 02:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Need for independant moderation

Dear UtherSRG,

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

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

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

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

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

朝陽區

Look at Adorno's talk page. High time that you learn Chinese before randomly deleting such pages. 华钢琴49 (TALK) 01:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No, this is the English-language Wikipedia. Article titles should be in English when possible. As such, your two articles were duplicates of an existing disambiguation page where the title is in English. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

they were not exact duplicates. did you not read the discussion on his talk page?

Chinese re-directs

I ask that you re-instate the following:

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

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

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