User talk:Sumanuil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hello, Sumanuil! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do

October 2017[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Ginkgo gardneri. I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:


There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I apologize. I've never added images to Wikipedia itself (I have for other wikis with somewhat different interfaces) and I wasn't exactly sure what I was doing. Thank you for the help. Sumanuil (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Sumanuil. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

A word[edit]

Hello, and welcome, especially to the biology side of things. I happened just to see your user page message, and would like to say that while there is quite wide freedom afforded to editors about how they organise their user pages, and while we can appreciate that styles and humour may vary, the current text comes across as strikingly unfriendly, and I'd urge you to modify it. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I changed it, but I'd like to ask what you have against ze Frensh peas. Sumanuil (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit reversal on Dire Wolf article[edit]

I saw your recent edit (with the edit summary 'Both were wrong') regarding the era when this species was around. The article has displayed this as '125,000–10,000 years ago' for quite some time, even with the reference later in the article to fossils dated at 9440ybp being the youngest to have yet been found. Because the article was so heavily reviewed back when it was named a 'Featured Article' in 2017 -- and all of those editors seem to have approved of the rough dates (that is, 125k & 10k), my sense is that the consensus is that this sentence and its date range are intended to provide approximations and not something as precise as '9,440 years ago' which could be read to imply that the Dire Wolf is believed to have gone extinct exactly 9440 years ago, or in 7422BC, a factoid that is not accurate and oughtn't be implied. The edit by Mariomassone immediately prior to your edit was simply reversing the vandalism that had just been made by anonymous user 2600:1:f501:7817:3adc:9ee0:650e:738f -- an anonymous troll that has been vandalizing scores of articles about extinct animals for at least the last month or two. My friendly suggestion here is to reverse your edit, which would return the article to the highly vetted standard quo. What do you think? Kiwikiu (talk) 05:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Your logic is inescapable. However, I had so much on my plate bringing Dire wolf up to WP:GA status, and then WP:FA status, that I simply overlooked this small item. My preference would be for the article to display the more accurate figure of 9,440 YBP, as our new friend has it. The reason is because some experts regard the Pleistocene coming to a close not at 13,000 years ago but at 10,000 years ago. However, with the last Dire wolf dated to 9,440 then ALL parties agree that this is the early Holocene.
Sumanuil: A better edit summary might have been "As per Kurten 1980, Anderson 1984". Nobody can argue - nor take offence - with that. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 09:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Kiwikiu, William Harris, I apologize. I tend to be rather blunt, and my edit summaries sometimes reflect my own feelings better than they do the changes I made. No offense is intended. Frankly, either '10,000' or '9,440' would be acceptable in my book. Sumanuil (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

No offence taken, Kiwikiu! The advice on the edit summary (above) was for Sumanuil to consider. There are some wolf-like predators on Wikipedia that you do not want to enrage - my collaborator Mr. Massone is one of these. Happy editing! William Harris • (talk) • 22:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

William Harris, I was the one apologizing. Note the signature. This is MY talk page, after all.Sumanuil (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You are correct, my oversight. This demonstrates how the 10,000 YBP slipped past me! Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 04:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
In that case, I imagine it would make sense to change the date range in the taxonomy box on the right so that it also says "125,000 - 9,440 years ago" -- yes? Kiwikiu (talk) 04:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
That would be a good idea, Kiwikiu - please initiate. Then nobody can assume that C. dirus went extinct at the end of the Late Pleistocene. William Harris • (talk) • 07:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


Hi, I reverted your edit here as the edits by Maczkopeti were actually per the guidelines of Help:IPA/Conventions for English#Stressoi yeah nah mate amazingJUSSO ... [ɡəˈdæɪ̯]! 05:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

It chopped off a syllable in the second possible pronounciation, as I said in my edit summary. It's 'bonobo' not 'bono'. Sumanuil (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
The chopped-off part is really the same last syllable of the first pronunciation. There was a prefix marker; it's per {{IPAc-en}}: As necessary, use a hyphen - to indicate omitted syllables. Pinging @Kbb2:. — oi yeah nah mate amazingJUSSO ... [ɡəˈdæɪ̯]! 22:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
AmazingJus is right. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Although on second thought, the choice is arbitrary. We're omitting just one syllable. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
However you can agree on removing syllable breaks? — oi yeah nah mate amazingJUSSO ... [ɡəˈdæɪ̯]! 22:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
@AmazingJus: Sure, they're superfluous. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

It's unnecessarily confusing, and if you lot are going to have a conversation without me, please have it somewhere other than my talk page. Also, there's nothing in Help:IPA/Conventions for English#Stress about removing syllables. Sumanuil (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not confusing. Replacing omitted syllables with ⟨-⟩ is perfectly standard. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

It may be standard, but why omit them in the first place? And it would be confusing to anyone who's not a linguist or at least familar with IPA, which is most of the people who might read the article. Sumanuil (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

To make transcriptions shorter. Now, in this particular case it might make little sense (we'd omit just one syllable), but it does make sense if there are two or more syllables that are exactly the same in the previous transcription. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I understand. In most cases, it might make sense. Just not here. Here it just seems odd. Sumanuil (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Upper Paleolithic[edit]

See my talk page and the comment about incarnations ending badly. And their talk page. Doug Weller talk 07:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I apologize if I got in your way. I was simply trying to clean up after a certain other user, but I assumed they had a reason to remove most of that content. Sumanuil (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

BCE etc.[edit]

Sorry for that and thanks for the correction: I meant to leave it at BCE but was editing when tired at 23:44 (and that's the excuse I'm sticking to). Britmax (talk) 09:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

ghost pipe[edit]

Hey! You reverted an edit on Monotropa uniflora I made about it's traditional uses. You cited WP:MEDRS as the reason for the revert. I objectively stated the traditional use of the plant. Cultural history of a plant is important information regardless of if the cultures use has been scientifically validated. 70% of our scientifically validated medications come from or are derived from plant sources. These compounds were isolated from and tested due to the traditional knowledge of the peoples who used the plants. There are thousands of compounds in plants that have a historical use that have yet to be explored in a controlled setting. It's important to know how plants were traditionally used when wanting to find compounds that will be useful in treating illness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanw (talkcontribs) 08:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I reverted an edit about its modern use in western 'herbal medicine'. I don't think it counts as 'traditional' or 'cultural history' when it only goes back to 1898.Sumanuil (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, well that's just like, your opinion, man. Evanw (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a little more than that. I've known people who were alive then. It's not exactly 'cultural history' if it's barely out of living memory. Sumanuil (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


Please stop changing "an herb" and "an herbal" to use "a". There probably is a dialect somewhere that pronounces the h in these, but it is not mainstream pronunciation in either British or North American English. Your editwarring to push "a herbal" needs to stop. This case is exactly the same as "an hono[u]rable", "an hour", etc.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  10:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

WHAT? I'm the one who's been changing it back to 'an'! Sumanuil (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

List of countries by diamond production[edit]

I don't think you understand how category sort keys work. Please read WP:SORTKEY. Go and look at Category:Lists of countries by mineral production. You wll see that the items are in alphabetical order by mineral - except for Diamond, which is now, stupidly and alone, listed under 'L' for List. That is what I was correcting. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

My apologies. That's a new one for me. I tend to assume the worst when people change things like that.Sumanuil (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Re:List of geochronological names[edit]

Hi Sumanuil -

Please, before accusing people of breaking links, make sure that they did. In this case, I didn't - most of the links have never been there, and the only ones I changed to redlinks are those which pointed to the wrong subject (Alton, for example, is over 1000 kilometres from Alton Burn). And for good reason; as redlinks, they give a clear indication of what work still needs to be done. As such, I have undone your edits. Grutness...wha? 03:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Ridiculous redirects[edit]

Please stop making redirects from small creeks and localities to entire regions. What is the point or redirecting Tongaporutu to Taranaki when it's listed as Tongaporutu, Taranaki? Similarly, why link Lill Burn to an entire region rather than to the river which it is a tributary of? I've had to undo more of your edits and redirect others. The best course would have been to do as I said in my last note here - leave them as red links to indicate more work to be done. All you're doing is making work for other people and hiding useful information for future editors. Grutness...wha? 08:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I apologize. I simply thought they may not have been notable enough to merit their own pages, and a redirect would be better than nothing. After all, a redirect page can be re-written into a full page. Sumanuil (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

True enough, but redirecting to an entire region is a bit pointless. No harm done in the end - and thanks for all the redirects to the NZ geologic time scale. Sorry if I sounded angry! Grutness...wha? 03:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


Thankyou for your pacificatory contribution to SiagaMeatGate! (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


we are volunteers in footvolley. we have a professional league and federation in the US which has been around for over 13 years. why do you continuously delete our links? we are not in the business of spam. please STOP REMOVING OUR LINKS! also you eliminated HOURS UPON HOURS of real world references (links from REAL PUBLICATIONS) AS A MEANS OF SOURCING the page. why do that?

Bare external links do not go at random in the page. (They're also not references. References need to be properly formatted and in the right place.) They go in the 'external links' section YOU blanked. And reverting others' edits does not take 'hours upon hours'. You do realize edits are timestamped, right? Sumanuil (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Asiatic lion[edit]

here you reverted my edit. I had reasons for my edit. It is wrong to write "The Asiatic lion (P. l. leo)..." because the Asaitic lions is just a soubgroup of the leo subspecies. I also think the term population is problematic, because it is normally confinded to a group of animals which interbreeds. So it would not include all the captive Asaitic lions in this strict sense. I would therefore prefer the term "group" or "subgroup". Please change at least the scientific name behind the common name, so that it becomes clear, that the Asaitic lion is not the subspecies P. l. leo. Best--Altaileopard (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I apologize. I tend not to give new faces (metaphorically speaking) the benefit of the doubt. There's been too many vandals on that page, and i guess I must be getting jaded. Carry on, but I WILL be watching, out of an abundance of caution. Sumanuil (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

alright. So I will just revert your revert. Best,--Altaileopard (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Gouldian finch edit[edit]

Please can we discus your edit to this page. It is on the Gouldian finch talk page as-"more than one name!!! ". Thanks. Qwerty number1 (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

September 2018[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Synapsid shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Anaxial (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

You're a little late. I stopped trying to reason with Falconfly yesterday afternoon. I have better things to do. Sumanuil (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

About your extinction reverts: My edits provoked a similar discussion going on at hominini/talk. I may be losing that discussion, but it's a bit more in depth then your comments accompanying your edits. Please follow and add to that discussion about how to incorporate new phylogeny evidence. Thank you.

What did you mean by "A genus evolving from another genus does not make the first paraphylectic. If it did, EVERY GENUS would be.?" Taxonomy is supposed to be hierarchical?

By the way, Pakicetus can be considered extinct, unless it is a) a group of members and b) the extant species are shown to be more closely related to one of the described members. Jmv2009 (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)