User talk:UtherSRG/Archive 1

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


Typo redirect List of music videos:

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on List of music videos:, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because List of music videos: is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting List of music videos:, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


there are three diff locations/arts to use for the sw - cygnus uses one i use another and there is another again - one day we shall have to have some consistency of usage worked out :( SatuSuro 12:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Except when used as part of a proper noun, "southwest" should not be capitalized. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Giant Otter

Hi Uther. This is my latest target. Wondered if you might look at the taxonomy section with the MSW3 in hand. I have seen no subspecies mentioned in papers so far, nor other members of its genus. You'll note it's capitalized—one of the common species names that really makes the argument. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. You are correct that it is the only member of the genus, but there are two subspecies. Here's the interesting comment Woozencraft makes: "See lengthy comments by Harris (1968) concerning the correct identity of the type, the confusion in published synonomies, and the type locality." - UtherSRG (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi. I was looking at the three consecutive edits by and thinking about reverting them. By the time I got back to the current revision, you had made a change. I don't think the website cited can be taken seriously - perhaps its a case of self-promotion. At any rate, if you look at the first of the edits you'll see why I thought about reverting them all! Regards TINYMARK 14:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked at the history, too. Looks like they were having some fun, and then got serious. The website looks legit. If we find a more respectable source that contradicts, we can change it. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


Made major restructure to Ardipithecus after discovering that I had looped back to the same page by accident, resulting in my first misguided link edit. Please adjust anything that needs further improvement, my work there was likely a one-shot deal, as I sometimes briefly adopt a referenceless kitten. MaxEnt (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned it up a little. I had to remove one link as it didn't give any usable information. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


Sorry about that, I didn't know. Any chance you could do the same for Category:Agnotocastors, which is even smaller and grammatically incorrect? --Helioseus (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Will do. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Orang video...

Hi there. I removed a video placed on the orang utan page primarily as it was so large and I was not sure if it was really of value.[1] What do you think? The editor who added it didn't like it's removal - see here. --Merbabu (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your edit. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Koala vs. koala

Hi, I've seen your name around a lot and you always seem to make sensible edits. So I want to ask you about the capitalisation of koala. As far a I can see from WP:MoS there is no policy or standard. Both MoS and you redirected to WP:WikiProject Tree of Life (cited section does not exist) and WikiProject Monotremes and Marsupials. Is it really a matter of taste? I'd prefer it without capitals e. g.

My koala's name is Eucalyptus

I don't want to start a big discussion about this, but would be interested to know if there is any policy or guideline for this—MoS and the two links above did not mention it at all. To be honest, I think it is a little unfair to make a change to an article and quote something that can only ever be a non-binding guideline! As MoS states, this is a subject for contention, so perhaps we need consensus on an article-for-article basis! Happy editing TINYMARK 05:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A species' common name is a proper noun, and so it should be capitalized. This is debateable, hence no firm rule. As the Koala article falls under the WP:MaM project, it falls under that project's rules so as to make all articles of that project consistent. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
OK. I missed the redirect in MaM to the Bird project, where it is explained. Happy editing. TINYMARK 15:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sthenurus Brownei or S. Browneorum

Sthenurus Browneorum was originally named S. Brownei and was after two people. According to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, article 3.1.2, "A species-group name, if a noun in the genitive case (see Article formed directly from a modern personal name, is to be formed by adding to the stem of that name... -orum if of men or of man (men) and woman (women) together..." T.carnifex (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Show me a reference where it is used as S. browneorum. Until then, the current reference stands. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Table 1 from the Nature Article "An arid-adapted middle Pleistocene vertebrate fauna from south-central Australia" from Sthenurus Browneorum is referred to as 'Procoptodon' Browneorum. This is because it is thought that it differs from other Sthenurines significantly, however, it is still officially Sthenurus Browneorum, as it was changed due to the previously mentioned "Code." By the way, I also have a copy of the full article, however, this was only available on the net.T.carnifex (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty then. I've updated the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou. In future if you have an issue with an edit I make, particularly such a small one as this, it would be much appreciated if you contacted me first, rather than just reverting it and giving no explanation what so ever, which was frankly rude. Obviously it was a simple matter of just providing a reference, which could've been easily resolved in a matter of minutes if you had've at the very least provided a reason for reverting, or preferably, contacted me. T.carnifex (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Check the edit history of the article. I said why I was doing what I did. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


Please don't add references to articles without either adding information from those sources, or attributing existing information to those sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of this rule. Of course I wouldn't go willy-nilly adding sources, but I was adding a few Mammalian Species accounts that were current so that myself or other editors could go in and improve the article with that information, or so at least this highly important summary was instantly available to someone attempting research. What's wrong with this? I'm obviously trying to help here. --JayHenry (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The references section is for listing the sources used to create the article. If you want to list potential sources, put them on the talk page. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia's own citation guidelines, Wikipedia:CITE#HOW, references are for "sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article." If you read the Mammalian Species accounts (one of the authoritative publications of the American Society of Mammalogists) that I added, you will see that they do indeed provide support for articles that contain vast quantities of information that was not supported by the reference section. I have to say that you are the first editor I've ever seen chastise someone for adding sources. I'm genuinely trying to help, and have a good track record. --JayHenry (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

MSW template

Hi. Is it technically possible (and useful) to add the mammal id to this template so that when you click on Mammal Species of the World you get instead of just the website, the page for the species as in Daubentonia madagascariensis, by piping the parameter 12100099 (in this case)? We use a less sophisticated form here in Wikispecies. Lycaon (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. It is both technically possible and useful. I'd been thinking of doing it for some time. In fact, I'd love it if someone would show me how to make a bot so that I can update all of the articles that have the MSW3 templates so that the new parameter is used. I'll work on it (or you can...). - UtherSRG (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I could help implement if the template is changed (play bot). Lycaon (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, All the templates (well... the ones I know about which are listed on template:MSW3) have been updated to take an optional parameter 'id'. See Cheirogaleidae for an example. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Great. I know the drill. Don't expect too much too fast, cause I have a couple of deadlines for work the coming days ;-). Lycaon (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
No prob. If I ever learn how to make and run a bot, it'll take a very short time to get it done. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and I found another MSW3 template and modified it as well. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Animal templates

Hello, UtherSRG! I noticed you edited a template I created and was wondering if I can ask for your assistance. In looking at your contributions, it appears you watchlist a lot of animal pages, so I figured you are a subject matter expert in the field (my background is economics!). I have decided to tackle a rather large project that has been in the back of my mind for awhile and try to link together all of the animal articles via templates. I have already done most of the carnivores. Now I would like some feedback to ensure I am not totally screwing up these articles. For your reference, I am keeping track of these templates at User:Old Hoss/Animal templates. I would appreciate any improvements you can make to these, and would value any suggestions. If you would rather not accept my request, no worries! Instead maybe you could reference me to some other experts for assistance. Regards. --Old Hoss (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sweet! I'll be glad to pitch in with some of this, especially the Primates, since that's where my primary bioloigcal interests lie, at least as far as Wiki articles is concerned. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Great! It just so happened I decided to tackle primates next. Feel free to make any appropriate changes. I noticed the apes already have a template {{Apes}}, but I think maybe that can be split into 2 templates, with a new one being more in-line with the ones I am doing now. But I will leave that one alone for the time being. Regards. --Old Hoss (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe.... I see that that template has more than just species info, although most of the extra links are really dealing with issues surrounding Hominidae, and not Hylobatidae. When I get there I'll look more closely. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

WHOO-HOO!! Primate templates are DONE! Now to get them all put on the pages.... I had to break up Cercopithecidae into two templates; could you check those to make sure the scientific stuff is correct (with the tribes and groups) - since they sort of deviate from the others I was not sure if breaking them into tribes and groups was proper. Also, I did templates for Hylobatidae and Hominidae but I am not sure what to do with them and {{Apes}}. One thought I had was to convert {{Apes}} into something similar to {{Spider nav}} (basically chopping off the first three sections of the Apes template), and then keeping both the Apes template and the new template on each page. Let me know what you think. Regards.--Old Hoss (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I'm still undecided about apes.... I'll think of it when I get there. I'm almost done adding templates to the strepsirrhine articles. Your split of the Old World monkeys looks good. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Furry Critters....

OK, I set a mammal collaboration up to see what develops...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Great! - UtherSRG (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

MSW3 bot

Heya. I've been looking at doing this but not sure if I'll have time before I go back to full time commitments (study) in a week's time. Sorry! —Pengo 02:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I can help, sure. Are you familiar with any programming languages already? Wikipedia:Creating a bot would be the place to start. —Pengo 07:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm a software engineer... but I'm lazy. I don't want to start from scratch. You have a bot that runs on taxonomic articles. Can I have a copy of it that I'll modify to update the MSW3 templates on taxonomic articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)



I'm curious about this revert - is there a policy? I don't remember seeing capitalization like that on a lot of articles, though it could be an artefact of me not editing a lot of biology pages. WLU (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly because of this section? It's one of those 'can go either way so don't change it if you find it' things like ENGVAR? WLU (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Yup. Don't change it just to change it. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, my apologies. It just looks so weird... is it a biology thing or a country/research culture thing? Also note that the MOS section I linked to has a {{main}} in it which is dead - do you know/could you link it to an appropriate current section? WLU (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

SugarGlider edit

I'm putting this here since your page doesn't provide any other means to contact you, such as email or IM. Why did you make this reversion? The content you reverted to was provided by an unregistered user and is not cited. If you're in disagreement with my edit then perhaps the entire paragraph should be removed from the article to avoid dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

I reverted an unsourced numberic change. If you can cite a verifiable and reliable source for your change, it can stay. Otherwise, my revert was fully justified. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
If you need a citation, how about two paragraphs below that contains conflicting information? Specifically, "It lives in groups of up to seven adults, plus the current season's young," Seven + young amounts to roughly 10 to 12. If you need further information, try the Field Guide to Australian Mammals page 76 and page 88. Also page 69 from the book entitled Sugar Gliders. Is their a policy that the information from one certain IP address is somehow immune to your criteria? I'm surprised you allowed this paragraph to be added at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Policy is, if you can cite a verifiable and reliable source for your change, it can stay.

Gorilla revert

Why did you revert my edit to gorilla? It was both factual and relevant. When reverting something other than obvious vandalism or nonsense, wikiquette calls for an explanation. -JasonAQuest (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Not very relevant, not NPOV language, and unsourced. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The fact that the gorilla had never been seen by most of the world before the 1860s is highly relevant to its perception by society; the novelty of it greatly influenced the portrayal of other "undiscovered" great apes in Tarzan and King Kong. It's as relevant there as Columbus is to the Bahamas. This may not interest you personally, but it's still quite noteworthy. I'll try to address your concern about phrasing (does "legendary" imply something more to you than "people weren't sure they were real"?), and a citation request is easy to meet. -JasonAQuest (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
See the Talk:Gorilla page for my comments on this edit. I think it'd be nice if we could get more history on the discovery of the Gorilla in there, perhaps even in a history of discovery section. Right now it's a bit scattered around. Martijn Faassen (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster's gives the following two definitions for "legendary": "1  : of, relating to, or characteristic of legend or a legend 2  : well-known, famous". I'm sure you don't mean the second, as it is in opposition to the fact of it not having been seen by most of the world at that point. So it must be the first. M-W also lists many meanings to "legend"; some are not appropriate to the context, while the others are split between the meaning you want, and the opposite, to some degree. This is why the language you chose was not NPOV. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I meant the first definition of "legendary", and I meant it in reference to the primary meaning of "legend": an unverified account which is believed by some to be true. The ability to read other meanings into a term doesn't mean it's promoting a POV. At worst it indicates an unclear choice of words, for which I accept responsbility. But a poor choice of words is a poor justification for reverting. - JasonAQuest (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

exuberant American Bison

I'm sorry that you felt it necessary to lock the article, there would seem to a number of useful anon edits in the history. I imagine it is the kind of article that would attract new users. Anyway, the bit I restored could do with improving. Do you happen to have the Bagemihl book, the only ref that is cited on this issue, or can you remind me who originally added the info? I'm lazy to ask, sorry for that too. cygnis insignis 05:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't have this book. I used to have Bagemihl's other well known book, but I gifted it to a friend. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lockmart.jpg

Nuvola apps important.svg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Lockmart.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Rationale added. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank You Barnstar

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
I am awarding this barnstar to user UtherSRG for his nice welcome, and for some of the ideas for my own user page which I cribbed from his. Rlendog (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


Hello...I am new here and I edit pages that are about animals. All my facts are true, and you can read the facts I have added to wikipedia in National Geographic's Encyclopedia of Animals. How you you like me to post my resources? The page? Pleas tell me how. Much appreciated- panda32342

First, please sign all talk edits with four ~'s instead of writing out your name.
If you are adding material from a source book, then you should WP:CITE the reliable source with an appropriate {{cite}} template, such as {{cite book}}. You should put the citation within <ref> and </ref> tags. If you wish to use the same citation more than once in the same article, you can name the tag by modifying the <ref> tag on the first usage to <ref name=blah>; subsequent usage of the citation would simply need a single self-closing <ref name=blah/> tag instead of the fully tagged citation. Pitheciidae#Characteristics has such a reference you can use as a guide. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for your explanation at Category talk:Unitarian_Universalists. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


Hi Stacey,

I was wondering why you deleted Civets. It was a redirect to Civet, which seems to make sense to me. "Civets" is simply the plural form of "Civet", afterall.

Neelix (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Meh. It was a year ago. I've restored it. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

edit summaries

Could you maybe use them, especially when reverting as you did on chimpanzee? Thanks. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, sorry for that bit of shortness above. I imagine you patrol that page a lot and have reason for reverting quite a few edits that get made there. I'd still like to hear your reasons for reverting when you get a chance though. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I try to use them sometimes, but when I use popups, I'm not given the opportunity. But yes, the chimpanzee page is one I patrol regularly for vandalism, and sometimes I revert too quickly. Sorry. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Cool--sorry again about the incivility. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

New mailing list

There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 21:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Image dispute.

Hi again. Mr Fink has asked for my assistance in the image dispute on Procoptodon. I have opened a discussion here and invited WikiProject Mammals to get involved. Regards SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 22:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Oy. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sea otter

Hi Uther,

Thanks for your comments on the Peer Review. I thought your comment on caps might have been a bit tongue-in-cheek (yes?), but in any case consensus is for lowercase for this particular species.

Cas left a note here about names, naming authority, and the MSW: Talk:Sea_otter#What.27s_left_to_do.3F. I'm not really sure what he's asking for. Could you swing by the article and see if you have anything to add regarding naming?

Cheers and best wishes, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 09:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 18:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
No prob. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained reversions

Several times now, on Red Fox and Mus musculus, you have reverted edits by myself and other without a single word of explanation. That's unacceptable. You, of course, have every right to object to the addition or removal of content, but you owe it to your fellow Wikipedians to provide an reasoning for removal of their contributions. It's in the spirit of harmonious editing. VanTucky 04:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

For your orientation, VanTucky has posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Admin using rollback in content disputes. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

So Many Reverts

Hi UtherSRG. What is going on with all the reverts did one of the users feel the need to change most of the cat articles? Does this person need to be reported? That's all.Mcelite (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)mcelite

They certainly need to be straightened out on making multiple changes without consensus..... - UtherSRG (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I mean did he honestly think that nobody is watching these pages? He did alot of changes hopefully this doesn't get out of hand.Mcelite (talk) 04:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)mcelite

it's been very plainly stated on the Bobcat talk page what the problem is. some admin besides UtherSRG needs to take a look. i have nothing personal against him, but this is getting ridiculous -- shouldn't it be the admin who shows restraint over minor formatting changes? the (ahem) consensus article at WP:MOS plainly states that articles on fauna other than birds are to lower-cased. if there is to be a change as regards that, it should be so stated. right? shouldn't the consensus view hold in the meantime? (note that i have no preference either way, capitals or lower-case.) - Metanoid (talk, email) 23:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

wow, man, gotta say you're not helping with the edit war on the cat pages. either wikipedia allows for 14-year-old admins, or you just need some time off. what's with all the re-reverts? the guy (Beyazid) has a point about WP:MOS. can't you just let it go a few days? - Metanoid (talk, email) 19:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

When there's a controversy, the original state should be preserved until the controversy is settled. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The original state appears to me to be lowercase, and I went as far back as the January 2003 versions. Bugguyak (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi. Please could you explain why you "proposed deletion" (which was not contested) for "Ideaworks3D" ? I am an employee of the company, and wanted to check the reference (which I have previously viewed) and was surprised to find it deleted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerboy07 (talkcontribs)

I didn't make the prod, I only carried out the deletion as part of my duties as an admin. The last two editors who prod'd it are User:Btball and user:Gwernol. Here's the reason listed in the most recent prod: "NN corp, this was a redirect to Ideaworks3d which was deleted via PROD, and before this was a redirect it had been deleted (CSD) as a copyvio. I think this should just be speedy deleted as a repost of a copyvio but others disagree - so I'm trying the PROD route for this variant too" - UtherSRG (talk) 11:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Homo erectus

Why did you revert my edit to the article on Homo erectus?--Fang 23 (talk) 23:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's an unsourced edit to an already sourced statement, which makes it look like a sourced edit. Very bad form! - UtherSRG (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds March 2008 Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Iriomote Cat

Please stop blind-reverting this article without discussion on the article talk page. I know your edit summaries occasionally state that there was discussion regarding the changes you're making elsewhere, but the edit war on this particular article involving several other editors who feel the changes you're making are incorrect suggests there's less consensus than might have been expressed at other locations. Please engage in discussion on the talk page. Do note that you broke 3RR yesterday on that article, as well, and I'll be looking to see if anyone else did and warn them as well. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is ongoing on the Mammal project talk page. It's more than just a single article that is at issue. I am trying to maintain all of the pages as they were before the controversy, as is appropriate. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you at least point that out on the talk page, with a link to the discussion? It would appear there are other people who have no idea where the discussion is going on. (And it might be better to leave the articles until after the discussion is complete, if it's still ongoing, wouldn't it?) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals - UtherSRG (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Mantled Howler gallery

Hello, Uther. We seem to disagree about the utility of a photo gallery with the Mantled Howler article. About a month ago, you removed the existing gallery from the article, with the note "rm gallery (use Commons)". Shortly afterwards, I restored it with this comment "restored gallery, increasing convenience and allowing caption information". You've removed it again, today, noting "rem gallery - commons link takes care of that already". I have no interest in a revert war, although I feel fairly strongly on this point.

My view: A gallery is more useful to a reader than is a Commons link for several reasons. 1) It is at hand, visible while reading the article, and requires no delay or effort to use (albiet small though they may be). More important, 2) there are no captions in a Commons link, and significant pertinent information can thus be lost or made difficult to access. Note that the information in a caption can often be different or more extensive than the information presented in the Commons image description, even if one goes that far in search of it. One further point: 3) not all images can be accessed via a Commons link. The current gallery includes seven images (some, admittedly, not so good), while the link leads only to three images. Four of them, I suppose are loaded directly into Wikipedia.

I will hold off taking any action, hoping to hear more about your views on this issue. Tim Ross (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, there's one of the missing images in the provided Wikispecies link, too. I guess it might take three links to get them all. Tim Ross (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Commons has the same abilities as the 'pedia... you can make a gallery over there with all of the same annotations. Commons is *more* accessible, for it has the input of folks from all of the different language 'pedias. Why limit the article to a gallery consisting of input from only one language? Images should be put on an article only when they offer something that is either unique or demonstrates something laid out in the article's text. A collection of images is simply clutter, no matter what captioning you put on them. As for images being "missing" - such images should be added to Commons and used from there, with the local upload deleted in favor of the Commons image. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me address your points one by one, Uther.

Yes, a gallery can be created in Commons, although I believe you can only do that with images that are in Commons, which, once more, limits possible pictures to be used.

I certainly agree with you that Commons is a better place for pictures, and it is great to put one's images there (as I do) to make them more widely accessible. That is certainly not a requirement, though, for images used in Wikipedia articles, whether in the form of individual images or galleries, and I do not think it is appropriate to remove such images for that reason.

I also agree with you that one should only add useful images to an article, either individually or as a gallery. Conversely, though, if you feel images should be removed, that action should be based on the quality/utility of each image. In this instance, some of the images in the gallery you have removed added significantly, to my mind, to the utility and quality of the article.

Finally, you state that images should be added to Commons and used from there. That would, of course, be desirable. The fact that someone has chosen not to do so, though, is certainly not adequate reason to delete an image from an article.

Some of the points you make, Uther, would have major impacts throughout Wikkipedia if editors in general decided to follow your lead. Perhaps you might wish to bring them up at a higher administrative level to see if there is support for some universal application of your thoughts, or whether such support is lacking. Tim Ross (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#misapplication of WP:BIRD

Please see the above link because I have filed a request for arbitration against you. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Iriomote Cat. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Please see also the further guidance at Talk:Iriomote Cat. Sandstein (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bobcat. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Please see also the further guidance at Talk:Bobcat. Bugguyak (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I see you are doing good work in animal-related articles, but I think that reverting others in the way you are doing is not productive, and it is violating 3RR. As WP:BLOCKS are not punitive, but preventative, if you declare that you will not continue with such reverts, I will consider reducing or lifting the block. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You are invited!

NYFreiheitsstatue2.jpg New York City Meetup

Next: Sunday March 16th, Columbia University area
Last: 1/13/2008
This box: view  talk  edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

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

You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lockmart.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Lockmart.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Western/Eastern Hoolocks

Hey Stacey, just about the status of these two gibbons. They aren't formally classified on the IUCN Red List, agreed, but they're just being renamed and therefore Endangered status is still valid for both the Eastern and Western Hoolocks. What do you think? Cheers, Jack (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah yeah. You're right. I'll fix them with the proper status codings. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


Hello, Uther! I was wondering what kind of preferences there are for taxobox images; specifically, is something preferred over nothing. Case in point. I was going to revert it, but wanted a 2nd opinion. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I prefer nothing over unprofessional and misleading images. This one is certainly unprofessional. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


Thank you! Completely agree. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Dinsdale! - UtherSRG (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
"Well Bruce, I heard the Prime Minister use it. '热的温度煮沸猴子的二赖子在这个地方, 陛下' he said, and she smiled quietly to herself."
'She's a good Sheila, Bruce, and not at all stuck up.'
 :-) --Shirt58 (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC) - UtherSRG (talk) 12:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Potential and actual consequences of your block

I would like to avoid an arbitration case. So, if you promise to next time take it easy with the block button and not block someone whom you are in a content dispute with (IAR/IGNORE would work for BLP or emergencies like that, not captions for lemurs, that's not an emergency), then I won't file an arbitration case. I am, however, filing a 3RR report for the articles whom you breached 3RR after you blocked me. Thanks. El_C 14:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. I stand by my actions. You were in the wrong first. I was attempting to stop your wrong. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Arbitration it is, then. El_C 14:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh please. You have got to be kidding. Cool down, man. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course I'm cool. If I wasn't cool, I would have blocked you, then and now. Right? El_C 14:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
If you're cool, then you wouldn't be threatening arbitration and desysoping. By your own admission, I was just faster on the block button. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
No, no, that distorts what I'm saying. After all that happens, you say that? Pretty brazen. I'm not admitting that, in fact, I keep saying that I would never do that. I do use that analogy, and carefully enough that you should see it wasn't an admission, to illustrate a point about how arbitrary it was for you to block me for feeling my content was "wrong." You, on the other hand, issue a cool down block (against policy — WP:BLOCK#Cool-down_blocks) in a content dispute only the two of us are involved in (against policy, obviously — WP:BLOCK#Disputes), and you continue reverting, also violating 3RR (against policy — WP:3RR). Why would arbitration and desysoping sound un-cool? I didn't "threaten" you with it regardless what, I explicitly said it wouldn't happen "if you promise to next time take it easy with the block button and not block someone whom you are in a content dispute with." After violating policy so blatantly I expected you to instantly jump at that lifeline, and, perhaps even apologize. But not you, obviously. El_C 16:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
That caption was fine, it was telling the reader that this Senegal Bushbaby is in Chipata. I hope you're being careful, now that you, abusively, own these articles. El_C 14:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
That caption is meaningless. What in the image is clarified by the caption? Nothing. I don't claim to own the articles. But when I see something wrong, I fix it. Your captions were wrong. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
It tells the reader the country and city it's in, how is it meaningless? El_C 14:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
It's trivia. It's not relevant information. It's not appropriate. The taxobox is not for that purpose. It's for a quick reference. The "male/female" caption on (I believe) some deer species you added was highly appropriate, as it answers the question "why are these two different?" But "sitting in a tree" or "in X country" doesn't answer a potential question about the image. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's say I'm persuaded: Why couldn't you explain that, instead of violating 3RR (who needs a cool down, indeed), and blocking me (who needs a cool down to the exponent of ten). El_C 14:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I can ask the same of you: Why couldn't you ask for clarification, instead of ignoring me and reverting? :) - UtherSRG (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but I didn't block you, I could have, but I didn't. That makes me a restraint administrator, which is more than I could say for your act. It didn't seem you were that interested in discussing anything, seeing how you removed the full image of the singing vole (better for perspective, I thought), without an explanation of why you did it. El_C 14:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Could I make a suggestion. As feelings are still running high could you two stop talking to each other intil tomorrow. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we're getting some where now, Theresa, otherwise I'd agree. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
On second thought, you were right. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
No interest in answering why you reverted me two days ago (arguably starting the problem) without an explanation. Now that you have no answer about your wrongdoing, you suddenly agree with Theresa. How convenient. El_C 15:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

UtherSRG, I think you should apologize to El_C for blocking him. There's no way that block was justified. You may also find Taxman's comment here to be of interest. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 16:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in but it would seem surprising to see a fellow admin blocked in an instance like this. Please do consider a different approach next time if at all possible. ++Lar: t/c 21:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

re: mammals

I removed "warm-blooded" from mammals again, and I'll tell you why -- it's a term that's fallen out of favor with scientists because it's too vague. (I'm a biologist by training.) I said naked mole rats were "nearly" warm-blooded because the term warm-blooded is so vague that you could interpret them as either being homeothermic or not -- they're homeothermic within the limits of their habitat, but if you took them anywhere else they'd be ectothermic, or "cold-blooded." Here is a good link discussing this issue -- --Choi9999 (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

ok. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


read my talk page ::Manors:: talk to me 15:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Read. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, and again please. ::Manors:: talk to me 18:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
You don't need to reply here. I have you on my watchlist. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Jarnail Singh

Hi. Please note that an article you previously deleted in 2006 has been re-created without reference to the original. The new version is a bona fide biography of the subject, a Football League referee. Furthermore, it now asserts notability, and for this reason I request that you do not delete it once more without reference to the above. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 02:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


so i guess that discussion didn't come to consensus. i think if i were a biologist, seeing that would irk me. hell, i'm not a biologist and it still irks me. i agree that the scientific community will eventually come to capitalize/standardize specific common names, though i think there presently remains a lot of wiggle room. but felid/feline and canid/canine? that's a confusing mess just begging for standardization. - Metanoid (talk, email) 02:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Silly non-scientists... ;) - UtherSRG (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

this is completely unrelated to cats; but could you delete Comnmon Snapping Turtle? it's a redirect. i'm trying to move Snapping turtle to its proper name, but the redir happens to have a (2 line) history, so nothing doing. thx - Metanoid (talk, email) 20:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL! I've done the delete and move. Your job is to clean it up. :D - UtherSRG (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Peking Man edits

I don't understand why you reverted my edit and are insisting on formatting the url the way you are doing so. The way you have it, it is not a hyperlink. I don't know what "rules" lurk in the hearts of wikipedia editors, but I am dubious that a non-hyperlinked url is preferred to a hyperlinked url. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem was, in part, due to the way popups shows differences. What I saw was that you were removing the citation template. Sorry. I've fixed that reference and the others so that they are all correct now. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


Pardon my language, but this little prick has fucked up my user page and user talk. I have no clue how to fix it, but I saw you drop a little nasty on his user page. Can someone block the little shit? I try not to speak like this but I'm livid, because of what he did, and because I have no clue how to fix it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Now to see if User:Elfish existed before.... but I think not. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. And now I know to fix this, which is you moved ElFish back to Orangemarlin? Am I correct? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Correct, but I'm pretty sure only an admin can undo it. Not positive... i've been an admin too long to remember what non-admins can and can't do. ;) - UtherSRG (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
As far as I recall, anyone can move a page unless the destination page has significant history (redirects don't count). Guettarda (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah right. The trick to making it require an admin is to do the move, then edit the newly created redirect. Which it doesn't look like Peck had done, so Orange, you could have moved your user page (and talk page) yourself. But you didn't know, and Peck needed banning anyway. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Good call on the block. Guettarda (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, too bad the vandal wasn't more creative. ;) - UtherSRG (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
That conversation was too complicated. I've asked Guettarda to semi-protect my page from moves, so I don't have to worry about it again. Of course, I might have to employ these techniques if someone vandalizes a real article. Oh what a pain.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


Hello again! I was wondering if there is a mammals watchlist? I have been putting all of the template I create on one page (2 pages, actually) and use the "recentrelated changes" link as a watchlist to check, but it is an incomplete watchlist at the moment. But I was wondering if WP:MAM had a formal watchlist and if not, would it be prudent to build one? Also, what do you use to watch all of the mammal articles (I hope not your personal watchlist -- that can get pretty massive I bet!). Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I just use my personal watchlist. I have about 3500 entries on it. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you think it would be beneficial to the Mammals Project to build a watchlist? If we can accumulate all of the articles in one place then others can click the "related changes" link to watch them. (That would take some of the burden off of you!) I think a good start would be here and here but the templates don't include subspecies or extinct species. (Also, they don't seem to track page moves....) I figure articles that aren't on the templates can be cut & pasted onto the collection of links to be included on the "watchlist". Another possibility is utilizing such articles as List of rodents and clicking "related changes" What is your opinion? Do you think I should propose this at WT:MAMMAL? --Tombstone (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it would hurt to propose it. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Mammal caps

Hey there. Saw you mentioned a recent scientific proposal for caps on mammal names. Where's that at? — Laura Scudder 15:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It is here. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Pons Aelius

I bloody wrotte it myself, I will delete it if I so wish.

It will be back up when I sort some stuff out.

And I will get my signature sorted aswell.

Jeez, why is it so frickin hard to coexist with otehr human beings on wikipedia???!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geronimo57 (talkcontribs)

Just because you worked on it does not mean you own it. You are not to deleted articles by blanking them. It is against our policies. If you want an article deleted, you must go through the proper channels. Follow the links in the warning I've given you on your talk page. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Angela Dotchin

You deleted this article about 6 weeks ago as a copyvio of [2]. It looks to me as though the article on Wikipedia was built up over a number of edits, and the likelihood is that copied our article rather than the other way around. The article has since been recreated. Could you reassess, please.-gadfium 05:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine now. Tiny stub, but fine. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of undeleting the history if you agree that the original is not a copyvio.-gadfium 05:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe you may be right, given the age of the article, its history, and the similarity between our articles and other bios on that website. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ptosis (eyelid)

Hi I didn't replace the Wikipedia page on Ptosis (eyelid) with blank content, I only removed the part about traditional chinese medicine treatment. The source used for the info on TCM ( is questionable Peony Muds (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

What makes it questionable? - UtherSRG (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article on it says that "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." A website claiming that a condition is caused by "Spleen Qi Deficiency" is hardly a mainstream view and it doesn't provide any proof or sources. What next, a section on faith healing treatment? Peony Muds (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
But Wikipedia isn't saying that ptosis is caused by that. Wikipedia is saying that TCM says that ptosis is caused by that. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia also says that "Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves." Peony Muds (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
That still doesn't say that this was a questionable source. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this discussion should be moved to the talk page of the article, are you ok with that? Peony Muds (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Human

Nuvola apps important.svg

An editor has nominated Human, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL! - UtherSRG (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


Hey, I'm sorry, I hope I'm not violating any more rules by doing this. I created the page on female social dominance in lemurs that you would like to merge with the main lemur page. I would really like to keep it as a separate page please. I have linked it to the lemur page so it can be accessed that way and I plan to add more to it. I'm sorry for the confusion, I'm new at this. Thank you so much! --BIOEE278WIM2008 (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No. It is merged. Leave it be. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually have to keep it as its own page for my class, what can I do to keep it as its own page? I noticed that there are a lot of pages on individual lemur species that have been kept independent from the main page. Is this really that different? --BIOEE278WIM2008 (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not responsible for what you need to do for your class. The article is not acceptable as a standalone article. It has been merged. Each species, genus, family, etc. get their own article, and yes, it is very different. We're an encyclopedia, not a classroom. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your help. --BIOEE278WIM2008 (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds April 2008 Newsletter

The April 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Mountain Brushtail Possum

It looks much better; I added a couple of Australian geography-related links (i.e. Great Dividing Range and have upgraded it to B. Frickeg (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Great! - UtherSRG (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Status on WP:NYCPT

Hello. I've noticed that you have registered as a member of WP:NYCPT. Please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Participants and add or correct you status as an active or semi-active member, as well as if you are an admin, whay projects you work on, and a sample of the work you do in the NYCPT scope. Thank you. —Imdanumber1 (talk contribs  email) 15:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


I humbly remind your greatness that being granted the title of administrator is WP:NOBIGDEAL Bugguyak (talk) 08:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

True, but if one doesn't bother to register an account, but is going to warn me about 3RR.... don't you think that's even more ridiculous? At least that's what I assume you are referring to.... - UtherSRG (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Input requested

Hello again. Forgive me for pestering you again, but I was wanting add'l input from you. When I started adding the templates, I was mainly copying the species lists from the WP articles and pasting them into a template, utterly unaware of any discrepancies with MSW3. In going through the Rodents, I started fixing some of these, but there are probably quite a few discrepancies. I was thinking the templates could be compared to MSW3 since the templates represent a fairly accurate reflection of the species lists in the WP articles. Just a thought.

The real reason I stopped by was because I was going to place some documentation on the templates, currently at User:Tombstone/Mammal templates/doc. I was hoping you would proof it for me and provide feedback. I'm not married to anything in the documentation, so please edit the page as you see fit, if you want to. I did have one specific concern, I arbitrarily listed the full binomial name (ex. Zaglossus bartoni) instead of using the abbreviated species name (ex. Z. bartoni). Now I am thinking the abbreviated species name is better, but I am not sure it is worth worrying about and wanted to see what you thought. Thanks for your time, rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll check out the docs. Could you check my recent contributions in the last few days for possible changes that will be needed to your templates? I think modifying the templates to use the abbreviated name makes sense. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll start converting the templates to the abbreviated species name soon. I assume you mean just your moves (and to fix the redirects on the templates), if so that's no problem. Let me know if you meant other edits, too. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
In amongst the moves and redirect fixes, there are some actual edits as well. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The documentation looks good, other than changing full species name to the abbreviated version. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Taxobox correction

I've reverted a lot of pages, can you tell me which one you are referring to? J.delanoygabsadds 22:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, sorry. I wasn't paying attention when I did that, and I did not realize that the article was about a genus. J.delanoygabsadds 23:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


You do not work for ITT. Please correct your page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. Updated. Thanks. Who are you? - UtherSRG (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


Hi there! I see you noticed that this anon IP is vandalising: Well, I just found out that he vandalised the Battle of Baltimore, putting the British with 2,000 casualties and the Americans with 20. As I saw this was his last warning, I took it you were an admin, so I thought best to warn you first. Good day to you sir! (Trip Johnson (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC))

Thanks. I've blocked them for 3 days. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Help Desk Comments

I will answer what I know and will not answer what I don't. Adam (Manors) 17:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Mammals of Australia

Hey, I know you have a lot of these articles on your watchlist. I must be making your watchlist virtually unusable with all my categorisation. My apologies for that. If it wasn't bad enough that I am doing so much categorisation, I'm also trying to revert and repair in response to feedback, and occasionally screwing it up. e.g. I added a whole lot of whales to the regional cats, then got feedback that this was stupid, removed the whales, dolphins and seals, then realised that the seals really did belong there, etc. Over the next week or so, I'll finish up the categorisation by state. You may have noticed Category:Extinct mammals of South Australia; I'll probably create extinction categories for the others states too, because it bothers me to see extinct and extant fauna mixed together. The other possibility that is on my mind is to subdivide mammals by taxon e.g.

Mammals of Australia (platypus, echidna)
|-Marsupials of Australia (marsupial mole)
| |-Dasyuromorphs of Australia (about 70 species)
| |-Peramelemorphs of Australia (about 20 species)
| |-Diprotodonts of Australia (about 100 species)
|-Placental mammals of Australia (dingo, seals, sea lions)
  |-Bats of Australia
  |-Rodents of Australia
  |-Cetaceans of Australian waters

What do you think? Hesperian 01:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have over 3500 articles on my watchlist. I just make the viewable portion of my watchlist very large so that when you do that kind of work (or someone else), I can still see if there's anything I need to watch out for. I think you're on the right track with your categorization schemes. You should look for feedback from the Marsupial Project. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you review Gorilla?

Hi. I was wondering if you could rate the gorilla article and tell me if it is maybe at GA status. You dont have to but I don't know how else to request a review. Sorry for wasting your time in advance. Yojimbo501 (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProjet Birds May 2008 Newsletter

The May 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Navneet Singh Khadian

Respected Sir/Madam, Thanks for your message regarding proposed deletion of article Navneet Singh Khadian. As advised, I have expanded the article with NPOV information available online. I have also added "20 NPOV" references to support the provided information.

I have good interest in the history of Punjab and Sikhism, so if you ever come across any article being deleted, kindly notify me so that I could try to improve those articles.

I have read a lot of information regarding Khalistan Movement, the related personalities and huge number of crimes committed by Indian security forces in some of the north-Indian newspapers, but unfortunately this information is not available online. For example, The Tribune, one of north-Indian newspapers does not have any online editions prior to year 2001 and Ajit, a regional newspaper of India etc did not have any online editions untill very recently. Also, India’s National magazine, Frontline does not have archive records prior to 1997. Any advice on this matter please Singh6 (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)?

Noted. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please watch vandalism on Navneet Singh Khadian

UtherSRG, I have recently recovered this article from vandalism from user Mightyunit, Please watch his vandalism in the future. I am concerned because I have done a lot of work to improve it with additional information and NPOV 20 references. Singh6 (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Elevated to AFD. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Mass scale vandalism by user Mightyunit

Respected Sir, since you are an administrator, hence I would like to bring to your kind notice that user Mightyunit is doing mass scale vandalism in Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and Navneet Singh Khadian articles.

He has edited [[Kanwar Pal Singh Gill article four times during last few hours already. He has deleted several NPOV references and information so far. Please see 1, 2, 3 and he has deleted information and references from 4 - Amnesty International and HRW as well. His vandalism on this article is going on from last days[1][2]

Regarding Navneet Singh Khadian, he has deleted NPOV references and information several times and I am struggling hard to save this article from his vandalism. Please see 1, 2 and 3. I strongly beleive that he is deleting information to influence wikipedia members views onAfD.

On top of it, user Mightyunit has also deleted vandalism warnings from his own talk page today. This is gross violation of his editing rights.

Kindly Help.Singh6 (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, User Mightyunit has just created his account on May 1st 2008 at 6:53 when tense discussion on IHRO is going on with and he has started doing mass changes into human rights related sentences in those articles which became the reason of [IHRO's tense discussion]. This discussion is still in progress. Would you be able to check if these mass changes have suddenly started happening from the same IP address, i.e. . Singh6 (talk) 06:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You and he are involved in an edit war. I'm an admin, yes, but I don't deal with resolving edit wars. Take it to mediation. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Why did you revert my addition to Neanderthal?

HI! It was well researched and I ref'ed it. If you're going to delete something, give a reason. Saintrain (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It was not well researched. It was non-scientific information. Do better next time. I make too many reverts to put an edit summary in every single one. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Plus, see Homo ergaster and Homo erectus. If you are going to make assertions, make sure it doesn't contradict our other articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"I wish I had said that, Whistler."

"His Majesty is like a bizarre four-headed penis... Um ..... It was one of Wilde's."--Shirt58 (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL! - UtherSRG (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Rock-haunting Ringtail Possum

Although I agree that this article has been improved beyond sight, I wonder whether it's appropriate to rate it an A without having it go through the GA nomination process. Having a successful GA nomination will help the article if/when it comes to FAC. Frickeg (talk) 08:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh! I thought we could self-assess up to A, but not higher without a community assessment. Go ahead and adjust as appropriate. - UtherSRG (talk) 08:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - I've re-rated it a B, pending GA nomination. The differentiation between GA and A is horridly imprecise, and some projects have A-class assessment teams while others allow anyone to rate something an A - oddly, seeing as you need a review to rate it GA, one below A. Frickeg (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It was a part of my project for a class. ahtsisab (talk) 10:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Koala's bifurcated uterus

I see that you reverted my edit without stating the reason why you disagree. Nowhere in the cited reference does it state that the vagina is bifurcated. What it does say is:

Female marsupials have two ovaries, two oviducts and two uteri, like other mammals, as well as a unique vaginal apparatus that opens into a urogenital sinus, which also receives the urethra (Tyndale-Biscoe & Renfree 1987).

And it states further that:

The vaginal apparatus consists of two lateral vaginae, each connecting the uterus of the same side to the urogenital sinus. The anterior end of each lateral vagina, separated only by a common median septum, unite into a vaginal cul-de-sac, into which the uterine cervices open (Tyndale-Biscoe & Renfree 1987).

I have therefore amended the text to bring it into line with the above. Regards LittleOldMe (talk) 10:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Zorro chilote

Hi. I explained my reverted edition here. Bye. Lin linao (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Consistency of capitalizing species common names. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Please, answer in talk page of article (I found this looking for causes of silence :)). My edition was about Spanish name, because sounds like both Chiloé Zorro and Zorro Chilote [sic] are in Spanish, but only zorro chilote (English and Spanish common names aren't capitalized) is a Spanish name: means "fox from Chiloe"; Chiloé Zorro maybe is an English name, but the sentence is unclear. Bye. Lin linao (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

island fox

ok, i can understand you disagreeing with the change I made to the main article, why did you delete the discussion item? By the way I have a stuffed California Gray Fox that I shot on a trap line in 1966 before it was illegal. She is a beautiful example of the species.

Saltysailor (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for the discussion of the article (such as improving it), not for discussing the subject of the article (like saying how cute it is). - UtherSRG (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sperm Whale

A little birdie told me that MSW uses the taxonomic name Physeter catedon for the Sperm Whale, yet Wikipedia persists with Physeter macrocephalus. Any idea why? Hesperian ~

MSW3 says: "Linnaeus used both catodon and macrocephalus in the 10th edition. P. catodon has line priority and, according to Linnaeus' diagnoses, is the only name applicable." As such, I'm going to change it to catodon. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"new" sportive lemurs

Why not Louis, Jr, 2006 for the authority? Look at sportive lemur's ** note. He's the primary author. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I thought I had left that as a stray reference when I copied the taxobox. I restored the references to Louis.Rlendog (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Also, they should be in Category:Prosimians. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of Maned Wolf

Why did you revert my changes to Maned Wolf?

Please explain yourself in detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I explained enough in the edit summary... - UtherSRG (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


I noticed you reverted several of my recent edits. I understand where you are coming from in most instances...but why did you remove the Deinogalerix.JPG from the article Gymnure? If you examine the article on Deinogalerix, you will see it is a gymnure. The reason it doesn't appear in the gymnure taxobox is because it is extinct. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

So find an extant gymnure for the article on extant gymnures.... - UtherSRG (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Then the article must remain imageless, as I cannot find any. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Pampas fox

Two photo upload as gray fox is photo of pampas fox. See photo of pampas fox and place make of photo-Argentina, there exist pampas fox. It was bad upload and You bad doing that You delete it from this article. Wikipedia is open encyclopedia.

Caniche, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caniche (talkcontribs) 15:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Your English is fairly difficult to understand. It seems that you are trying to say that the images I removed from the article were correct, but uploaded improperly. If that is so, then you need to upload the images properly and have the incorrect images removed. But since I can't understand you well enough, I'm not certain that that is what you are saying. You should consider NOT editing on the English language Wikipedia without someone who can translate your poor English. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008

NYFreiheitsstatue2.jpg New York City Meetup

Next: Sunday June 1st, Columbia University area
Last: 3/16/2008
This box: view  talk  edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

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

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


Hello again. The Highly Active Users project has gone through a complete revamping per popular demand. We believe this new format will make it easier for new editors to find assistance. However, with the new format, I must again ask you to verify your information on this page. I attempted to translate the data from the old version to the new, but with the extensive changes, I may have made some errors. Thanks again. Useight (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

A tiger, in Africa?

Hi again,

  • "it's covered later under habitat and distribution" - yep, as per Wikipedia:Lead section, I should have known better;
  • "your choice of dab phrases does not fit" - did you mean the edit summary or the edit itself? I'm guessing it was the edit summary. I've looked all over the MoS and so forth but can't find a dab phrase guideline. I get the impression that it's customary rather than policy... nevertheless, to improve my future edits, I'd be most obliged if you you can point me there;
  • And now for something completely different

--Shirt58 (talk) 11:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL! - UtherSRG (talk) 07:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Raccoon dog

Hi, not sure if I was supposed to comment on your revision here or on the talk page of the article, so I asked a question about your edit on the article talk page. --Pwayman (talk) 08:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Wherever. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Indian Hedgehog

Try searching for the papers in google, or better still in [] which is an online record of citations by the National Institute of Health. This should clarify your doubts.Dudewheresmywallet (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC) PS: The article has a link to the Hedgehog family of Proteins, this should also calm your fears of hoax. IHH is pretty well known in development and chondrogenesis. I was surprised and article didn't exist already.Dudewheresmywallet (talk) 12:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You have my unreserved apologies on behalf the scientific community . It gets crazier (assuming you have also seen Sonic hedgehog article). Pity us my friends :) Dudewheresmywallet (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


There is a big problem with the article. It is not a different problem than other articles have. Here it is:

Wikipedia DEFINES a term as being X. The definition is not cited and is contradictory to what can be cited Despite this lack of citation, the article then goes on to provide details under the concept provided in the definition.

This article is an example of that.

I realize that many religious people will want to argue about this and so that is what is believed to be the concern when people reject such things, but my objection is not religious. It is technical. Human's should not be considered Apes because the term is a non-scientific term that nevertheless has multiple official definitions that exclude men, some explicitly so. Wikipedia should not change the meaning of english words and invent new meanings. -- (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. I have had this discussion several times, and I'm not willing to have it again. I'm tired of it. Humans are apes. No ifs, ands, or buts. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


Hi, did you not like my cat picture I added? ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(Ταλκ) 19:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Read the talk page and discuss it before adding a picture. There are already many pictures on that article. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Chinese Mountain Cat

Hi UtherSRG. Here you changed Chinese Mountain cat into Chinese Mountain Cat. Is this now consense in en wiki? --Altaileopard (talk) 11:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, consistency rules. The rest of the article had it capitalized. the most recent compromise is to keep an article with the capitalization it has, in a consistent fashion. I'm still very pro capitalization, so I capitalize when there is a mix. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

page move vandal

We have a new page move vandal who likes to mass-move random articles to sensible alternative titles, using edit summaries like "per Manual of Style" or "per recent discussion at the WikiProject". Your imposter account is just one of many accounts doing this. Presumably checkuser isn't telling them anything, or they'd have nailed him already. The fact that your name has been introduced so late in proceedings suggests that this wasn't really targetted specifically at you; you're just a drive-by victim. Hesperian 02:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thrilling. :( - UtherSRG (talk) 02:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds June 2008 Newsletter

The June 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


Was that one real or fictitious? at thylacine SatuSuro 01:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It was a red link. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
aah thanks SatuSuro 02:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Np. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Marsupial Lion

Thx for fixing that typo of mine. I was just going to tidy the article up a bit (order the info more logically and make it a little less sensationalist) but it really needs a little more work than I at first thought. I am part-way through editing it (offline) but it's not in a suitable state to simply drop in. I have to go non-Wiki for a few hours but will return to finish what I started. Happy to incorporate any suggestions. Cheers, Secret Squïrrel, approx 07:30, 23 May 2008 (Earth Standard Time)

No problem. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeh but when I or anyone else type in "marsupial lion" we are talking about the actual "Marsupial Lion" as in Thylacoleo carnifex not the family. The name "Marsupial Lion" refers to the one species. This is why marsupial lion should redirect to the marsupial lion not the family. There is already a redirect marsupial lions which goes to the family and this is based on the same logic as penguins, frogs, etc. So what is the problem? Cazique (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that the way it was before your edit was agreed to by concensus. Please leave it. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
What previous concensous? It looks like you have been edit warring with every one. In order for their to be a concensous you have to answer me. So again, what is the problem? Cazique (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Thylacoleonidae. Please discuss *before* changing, not after, when a discussion has already been had on the topic. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes a discussion where they both said what I was saying. There in no way was a concensous they just gave up. So you need to discuss before having it your way as clearly more than just I disagree with what you are doing and you have not even given a good reason yet. Cazique (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey UtherSRG. I found this really good article from the Australian Museum website that perfectly backs up this recent edit dispute: [3]. It uses the same capitalization you have been advocating. This sentence perfectly sums it up: "The pinnacle of marsupial 'lion' evolution was the most recent species, Thylacoleo carnifex, a widely distributed and common find in fossil deposits across the length and breadth of Australia." I added it in as a reference in the article. Just thought you'd like to know. Cheers. LonelyMarble (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you also note that User:Cazique had already violated the three-edit rule on the Marsupial lion page and I warned him on the talk page not to revert again and he did. I've added a warning on his talk page and I would suggest blocking him if he violates it again because he is being disruptive after I tried in vain to solve it civilly. LonelyMarble (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the research! But I won't be saying anything about 3RR... as I'm also guilty of it. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Revert warring

Dear UtherSRG,

Having examined the history of Marsupial Lion, you have engaged with User:Cazique in a revert war. I have reported you to WP:3RR and not him solely on the basis that he stopped these actions after he was warned. I have suggested contributors to Talk:Thylacoleonidae vote on the issue of redirect direction to establish a consensus. I'd like it if you took part in this, this situation needs to be resolved.

The best, Mark t young (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Revert warring on Marsupial lion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a damned redirect we're fighting over. I'm going to get blocked for this? Ridiculous. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
And indeed, Cazique was equally aware of the 3RR violation on his part, and continued. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|I'll refrain from editting that redirect for the duration of the block. Please allow me to resume other edits.}}

I've contacted the administrator who blocked you - let's hang on for a bit and see what happens... thanks, Alex Muller 16:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Okie dokie. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Unblocked with the consent of the blocking admin. Please don't go anywhere near edit warring, 3RR or that article for the next two days or so

Request handled by: Alex Muller 16:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll wait it out. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Marsupial Lion

A recent edit war concerning a page you recently edited (but may not have been involved with the war) is being resolved via a poll. If you have an opinion, please voice it now by voting at Talk:Thylacoleonidae. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Noted and voted. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply to the following, defend your logic. You think you are right? Then prove it and defend your illogical comments.

"You have not yet offered a valid logic. You said "Look at the articles for penguins, pigs, monkeys, frogs, birds, or any other plural animal. What do they all have in common? They are all redirects to a singular titled article." but according to that logic the plural marsupial lions is also a redirect to the family. But this is not what you are edit warring over, you are edit warring over singular, non-plural marsupial lion. Which refers to the marsupial lion. So what don't you understand? Cazique (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)" Cazique (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop repeating yourself. I have answered you already. You are being a nuisance. Have you heard the definition of insane? Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. I'll say it again. You are hiding the problem by dab'ing the capitalized Marsupial Lion with the uncapitalized marsupial lion. This is what should be:
How much more clarification do you need? This is consistent with a great number of other articles. What are you not getting? Plural links redirect to singular articles. This is what is done. Are you refuting that this is what is done? I offered you a laundry list of other articles that work this way. Can you offer a list of other articles that operate in the manner you wish to the marsupial lion redirects to work? The ball is and has been in your court to offer up something concrete to hold up your desired edit. You have yet to offer proof your edit should stand. I have repeatedly shown the logic and the links that uphold my choice of edits. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I need not repeat myself if you defend your illogical comments. I have made you out to be a fool by pointing out what you said is illogical and you will not defend it. I mean it isn't just about defending your comments, it's about defending yourself too, as these comments came from you and affect people's views on you. As people can easily see where I got my quote from by going to my talkpage and then see how it does not make sense. If you choose to not defend your comments you are only hurting yourself. Cazique (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I have defended my comments and myself. There is nothing wrong with what I said. What are you disagreeing with? Please be specific, and don't just repeat yourself as you have been doing. And don't confuse the issue with dab's that mask capitalized and uncapitalized forms. As for the edit that I desire, what do you think is wrong with it? What do you disagree with?
Do you think this is wrong: Marsupial Lion is a species article, with a redirect from Marsupial Lions.
Do you think this is wrong: marsupial lion is a family article (or redirect to a family article), and marsupial lions is a redirect to the family article.
- UtherSRG (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, if you say so. I have repeated myself 3 times now so third parties can see for themselves as you think "There is nothing wrong with what I said". Don't worry I wont repeat myself, you can just read all that I have already said and answer your own questions. Cazique (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
So tell me what you think is wrong with what I said. Oh wait, you think you have. Try a different way. I've asked clarifying questions. I've given examples of what I think is right. I've asked for you to give examples of what you think is right. All you've done is parrot my words and say I'm not answering you. when in fact, it is you who is not answering me. So let me again try something else. This is what you want, correct?
Marsupial Lion and marsupial lion mean the same thing, the species T. carnifex.
Marsupial Lions and marsupial lions mean the same thing, the family Thylacoleonidae.
However, this goes against the Wikipedia standard that plurals should redirect to singulars, and the WP:MaM policy that capitalization indicates a species, and lower case indicates a higher taxa. How to you reconsile what you want with the existing standards and policies? - UtherSRG (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Say what you want, you're entitled to your opinion. Just don't put words in my mouth. Cazique (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

So tell me what you want, instead of making me guess. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't answer that comment without repeating myself, ironic really. Cazique (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't be a jerk. What would you like? - UtherSRG (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


For 55 hours, because of this revert. Seriously, why would you not just stay away from it for the next day or so? If I were you, I'd just ride this block out and go back to the discussion afterwards. Alex Muller 17:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh please! It was edited by mistake, as it was clearly said on talk:Thylacoleonidae.
If it was a mistake, then you should have self-reverted. And if it was a mistake, then you wouldn't mind if I reverted you to restore the status quo and help your cause for unblock, correct? The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The editor before me edited by mistake. I was correcting his mistake, pointed it out on the edit summary, and made note of it on the appropriate talk page. the edit I made should stand until consensus is reached on the ongoing discussion, at the least because that's the state the redirect was before the edit war, but also because the current discussion has leaned strongly in that direction. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
No. The editor before, redirected it to the animal "Marsupial Lion", just as everyone else has been doing that you have been edit warring with. He did this without knowing there was a lengthy discussion about this very point in process on the talkpage of "Thylacoleonidae". There is no reason why it should have been reverted by yourself as we were still in discussion trying to reach a concensous on the issue. So do not influence other editors with false information as you have been doing. You were blocked because you did not follow the conditions which the admin put in place upon blocking us. If someone else has reverted his edit or if he himself reverted it, you would not be blocked. You must learn to abide and not have things your way all the time. Cazique (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
So i'm blocked for doing something that someone else should have done, but hadn't. Silly. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, you are not blocked for fixing a mistake, for a failure of administrators to understand the situation, or any other such thing. Please read User:The Evil Spartan/Unblock. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Fine. I'll wait out the block. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

UtherSRG (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

it was edited by mistake, I was fixing the mistake, I directed the editor to the ongoing discussion in the edit summary, and replied to him there that the edit should stay until the discussion has reached a consensus. It was the right thing to do. Please direct folks to my text below (in response to Cazique) if I am not to be unblocked.

Decline reason:

Endorsed for extensive editwarring on Marsupial lion. Your request is not understandable. —  Sandstein  19:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

My most recent (blocked) edit to talk:Thylacoleonidae:

What don't you understand? You keep confusing the issue by dab'ing the capitalized with the capitalized. There are two issues: the difference between a capitalized link and uncapitalized link, and the difference between a singular link and a plural link. As per WP:MaM, which these article fall under, species common names are capitalized (Marsupial Lion, Marsupial Lions), and family common names are not capitalized (marsupial lion, marsupial lions). Do you understand this? You don't seem to. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

while I wait....

work to be done:

Please stop trying to make a point. I know at least one other user who did this mindless until it got him blocked: User:Light current. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to make a point. I'm keeping track of the edits I need to make when my block has expired. Is there some place better for me to keep this list? - UtherSRG (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


What is going on here? Drop me an email. Guettarda (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


Can you offer any advice on the Sable/Sable Antelope comment on my talk page? I'm not sure why I was chosen for that message, but if the message is correct then something should be done. Hesperian 00:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like the Sable Antelope page is correct. I don't know why the comment was made on your talk page and not on the Sable Antelope talk page.Rlendog (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I concur. MSW3 says H. niger is the Sable Antelope. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The usual request

Aloha Uther! I hope you're hanging in there. Remember, sometimes small battles don't need to be fought.

Anyhow, requesting the usual MSW check for the subspecies at Leopard. The list of nine is from the 2001 paper; hoping the MSW agrees. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Meh. All battles should be won eventually. ;) Especially when the prepondernce of evidence and support is on my side. ;) Mahalo.
Ok, it looks like MSW3 has only 8:
  • P. p. pardus
  • P. p. delacouri
  • P. p. fusca
  • P. p. japonensis
  • P. p. kotiya
  • P. p. melas
  • P. p. nimr - this includes saxicolor
  • P. p. orientalis
Good luck! - UtherSRG (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It includes saxicolor within nimr not the other way around? That's seriourly weird, as the other sources seem to use saxicolor as a catchall. Anyhow, thanks for the check! Marskell (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yup. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I didn't know there were weblink summaries. Sorry, last Q: what's the page in the main MSW, so that I can add the ref? (For the moment you have nothing better to do ;). Marskell (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Lol! It's in the {{tl:MSW3}} templates. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm an idiot; I have looked at those Bucknell pages before. But the print edition has further information (e.g., which latest research paper is considered accurate), correct? Plus the page number. Marskell (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The website has it all but the page number. The entries in the book go down to the species level, with somewhat cryptic info as to what synonyms go with what subspecies. the website splits out the subspecies and synonym information with more clarity. (There are, however, some bugs, and downloaded the CSV for the entry will show them.) - UtherSRG (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Huh. Here I thought the print edition (you do have it?) had some general descriptions and comments on abstracts not available elsewhere. That's why I always bug you.
Second weird note. The web entry on Panthera pardus does indeed specify its source: "Synonyms allocated according to Miththapala et al. (1996)." I have been staring at the Miththapala PDF for a couple of hours today and, nope, saxicolor is not included in nimr but the other way around. By Jove, I think they may have made an error. Marskell (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I do have the print edition. The website didn't go up until a good 2 years or so after the book came out. Ah ha! Good catch! Like I said, it has some errors. ;) - UtherSRG (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you...

...keep deleting Tupaiidae? It's supposed to be a redirect to treeshrew because treeshrews make up the family tupaiidae.
π₰Å₯ ĬLʡ$Φǚɭђµπt₴ŗ ₯Å₰π 10:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Because it should not be a redirect, it should be a red link until someone creates the article for the family. There are two families of treeshrews, as you can see at treeshrew. One family contains only one species, so it it a redirect to the species article. The remainder of the order are in Tupaiidae. It needs to be created. A redirect is incorrect for this purpose. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Closing your eyes on User:Mightyunit during AfD on Navneet Singh Khadian

Respected Mr. Administrator, this is in reference to my screams/requests on your Talk Page

You had concluded that it was merely an edit war between me and a suddenly popped up new wikipedia User:Mightyunit. Eventhough you refused to help in this matter but his real face got exposed afterwards, see User:Mightyunit. But it appears that, by his vandalism, he was able to acheive what he desired and 'was able to influence AfD on Navneet Singh Khadian. This article was deleted because of a margin of "One" vote only.

I sincerely hope you will care to listen to genuine wikipedia users now... !!

Singh6 00:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm fine with the outcome. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Respected Sir/Madam, Thanks for your kind reply. Which outcome you are fine with -->
  • that, the Article Navneet Singh Khadian was deleted eventhough its references were being deleted to influence the Afd decision during its Afd?
  • that, User:Mightyunit was a sockpuppet ?
  • that, User:Mightyunit was blocked eventhough you refused to investigate his acts when a genuine wikipedia user requested you to do so?
  • that, being an administrator, you did not listen to a genuine Wikipedia user ? Singh6 02:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Take your concerns to someone else. The article was rightly deleted. Not every administrator is interested in every aspect of administration. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


Don't you dare harrass me now you have been unlocked, stop following me around and harrassing me. Cazique (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not harassing you. Nor am I following you. You need to chill out, man. You also need to bow to the consensus opinion. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


I know the title probably made you cringe, but I'm contacting you on an unrelated matter. The reason I had the PhD I referred Cazique to was because it describes several new species of marsupial lion. Is it ok if I start adding them to the relevant page, or are there any issues attached to the fact it was released in a recent PhD thesis? This seems like an obvious question, but I'm just wanting to be sure, you know? T.carnifex (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL! A thesis would be a primary source, and so we should use them sparingly. Secondary sources are better. Hrm... is there policy about this somewhere... Check out WP:RS#Scholarship and WP:SOURCE. They don't say what I'm saying, but do give the push towards more review of the material being better. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I had a nagging doubt about it from something I'd read. I don't think this was it, but more likely what it was referring too WP:PSTS. After reading that, and the WP's you linked, it seems that it can't be used, or at least would be very difficult to. I might have to do some more looking, to see if any papers have been published in journals relating to the new species and genera. T.carnifex (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes! That's the one! :) I knew I'd seen it somewhere. :D Now, it doesn't say never use primary sources; for instance using multiple primary sources is good when trying to show the variety of opinions on something, such as taxonomy. However, we shouldn't be relying mostly on primary sources for our content. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... It does say that if a primary source is used, the article can only make descriptive claims about the information from the primary source. Does this mean that I'd only really be able to make mention of it in the introduction, perhaps saying that the family is growing with on going research (or something like that), rather than adding them to the lists? T.carnifex (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think adding to the list is fine, if you cite it properly. Look at how I handled the growing list of species at sportive lemur. Four separate primary sources were published after MSW3, and the new species are each tagged to show they come from new primary sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean. Thanks for the help. It's getting quite late here in Aus-land, so I might call it a night and make the changes tomorrow. My bad for getting into it this late, :p Goodnight! T.carnifex (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Sleep well! :) - UtherSRG (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I added the new genera and species. I reckon it looks good, but it might need a clean up, I'm not sure. I wasn't sure in what order to put them, so I went from oldest specimens to youngest. T.carnifex (talk) 10:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good enough to me. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I think now I'll try building stubs for the new genera. I'll use my user page as a "sand box". Would you be happy to check over them when they're finished? It might take me a day or so, as I have other work outside of wikipedia to complete... T.carnifex (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What?!? How dare you do something other than Wikipedia!!! ;) Sure, just leave me a note when you're set and I'll take a look. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


Re the reversion of my edit adding author credits to photos on to Common Brushtail Possum. I didn't mean to tread on anyone's toes, I am just trying to keep the flickr author of the possum pix happy with us using his photos. The author of the photo (who is not me) requested visible attribution on the Wikipedia page in order to allow us to use his pretty nice pix. I think that's fair enough since we are the ones who benefit and since Commons accepts CC-by (attribution) licences. Anyway if there is a policy against it then that's a different matter I guess I will just have to remove the photos from Wikipedia Commons. Kāhuroa (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Having the attribution on the image's page is good enough. Having the attribution in the article is incorrect. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Marsupial lion. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup... this is what happens when folks don't read the existing discussions or listen to the logic that behind the existing text... - UtherSRG (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
First of all, an edit war is unnecessary. Talk this out until everyone is happy. (For the record, I don't care anymore what the consensus is, but I have voiced my opinion, which is apparently not important.) Second of all, no one said anything about whether you are correct about the technical spellings of the animals. What we're concerned about is the functionality of the articles within Wikipedia. In order for the article to be fully functional, a difference in capitalization should not prevent the user from seeing the desired page. Others and myself have tried numerous ways which are all acceptable, each of which has been reverted by none other than yourself, some of them multiple times. Wikipedia's articles must meet certain standards, and this instance of ambiguity certainly does not meet them. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
No one has offered a logic that is consistent with the way that hundreds if not thousands of mammal articles I've editted other than what I have offered. Folks should discuss *then* change. I revert *back* to how it was significantly more often than I move things. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You have not yet offered a valid logic. You said "Look at the articles for penguins, pigs, monkeys, frogs, birds, or any other plural animal. What do they all have in common? They are all redirects to a singular titled article." but according to that logic the plural marsupial lions is also a redirect to the family. But this is not what you are edit warring over, you are edit warring over singular, non-plural marsupial lion. Which refers to the marsupial lion. So what don't you understand? Cazique (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied elsewhere. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No you did not. Reply specifically to this "You have not yet offered a valid logic. You said "Look at the articles for penguins, pigs, monkeys, frogs, birds, or any other plural animal. What do they all have in common? They are all redirects to a singular titled article." but according to that logic the plural marsupial lions is also a redirect to the family. But this is not what you are edit warring over, you are edit warring over singular, non-plural marsupial lion. Which refers to the marsupial lion. So what don't you understand? Cazique (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)" reply here on the talkpage for further clarity for everyone to see. Cazique (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that was also replied to elsewhere. Capitalization is important. You are hiding the capitalization with a dab, confusing the issue. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
No it was not. You are hiding this highlight of how your logic is wrong with your dab on capitalization, and are and have confused the issue for everyone. If you are not lying and you have replied specifically to this comment showing how your logic is flawed, then provide the specific quote where you answered the following: "You have not yet offered a valid logic. You said "Look at the articles for penguins, pigs, monkeys, frogs, birds, or any other plural animal. What do they all have in common? They are all redirects to a singular titled article." but according to that logic the plural marsupial lions is also a redirect to the family. But this is not what you are edit warring over, you are edit warring over singular, non-plural marsupial lion. Which refers to the marsupial lion. So what don't you understand? Cazique (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)". Cazique (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not the one dab'ing the capitalized Marsupial Lion with the uncapitalzied version when we discuss, you are. I don't know what you have a problem with here. The plural of anything on Wikipedia redirects to the the singular. The plural of a species redirects to the species article. The plural of a higher level taxa redirects to the singular form of the taxa. What is your problem? The only thing I can see is that you want the capitalized to mean the same as the uncapitalized, and the singular to mean something different than the plural. But this is not how it is done for all of the other articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Just making sure things are cool now. I wasn't trying to start an edit war, just noting an inconsistency and discussing it before fixing it. I gotta admit we all got a little disagreeable, even myself. Just know that this wasn't any sort of personal attack. I won't hold any of it against you, because I know we all get defensive when big changes come along (especially to articles we personally contribute to significantly). Thanks for sticking with it until the end, too...that's one thing I hate about arguments-- when people simply give up and let the other person have their own way. It's important to me that either your mind or mine changes, and I think that in this case, both of us were convinced other than our original opinions.
No hard feelings, and I hope we meet again, Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 19:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem Bob. Like you said, these things happen. It wasn't the first time and it won't be the last. I have no grudges against you. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please stop edit-warring with Cazique. I highly recommend dispute resolution at this time to try and stop what is really a rather silly slapfight over the hatnotes. He's been warned against continuing to edit war as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I shall stop. However, consensus has been reached by all parties except Cazique. What more can be done? No dispute resolution will fix this. Cazique firmly believes we're all in the wrong any only he knows what is correct. This is an untenable situation. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response to my request on ANI. I apologize if it sounded kind of blunt, but it's really better for someone uninvolved to take care of the admin stuff on these articles, considering we've had admins hauled before Arbcom for similar actions before. I'm trying my best to clamp down on things, and hopefully we can cool this down soon. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Yup. I don't follow any of the arbcom proceedings or anything, so I do not know what's been done and what hasn't. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism of very senstive religious articles by User talk:

Respected Administrator,

User talk: is specifically targetting Sikhism related articles with distorted and totally unacceptable information. I sincerely hope that you will listen to me this time and you will not refuse as you did previously in the case of USER:Mightyunit.

His edits/vandalism will encourage/force Sikhs and other non-Hindus to vandalize Hinduism related articles on wikipedia. Also, Keeping the senstivity of religious information, please stop him from distorting/vandalizing senstive religious articles.Singh6 (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I really have no interest in this. You would do better going to the administrator noticeboard for incidents to report this. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


Hi Uther, I left a comment on Talk:Thylacoleonidae regarding the categories issue. I'm fine with you changing existing category:Marsupial Lions to category:Marsupial lions tags (and even adding them) but I don't think you should have removed tags for category:Diprotodonts, etc until there's been the opportunity for some more discussion (especially given recent events). I'm also not convinced that there are not instances where it might be helpful to lay-readers to have a category and a wholly-contained sub-category tag on the same article, although they would probably not be the immediate level up or down. You've kind of done that anyway by leaving category:Prehistoric animals of Australia which wholly contains category:Marsupial Lions. What are your thoughts? Regards, Secret Squïrrel 03:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

mmm... perhaps I was not strict enough in my definition. You are correct that category:Prehistoric animals of Australia entirely contains the marsupial lions, but this is incidental to the definition of either category so it is fine for an article to contain both. However category:Diprotodonts and category:prehistoric diprotodonts have a very specific hierarchical relationship that is not merely incidental, so an article should only have one of the two and never both. I understand your hesitation to not remove the extraneous categories, but it makes things messier than they need to be. We can always fix things if consensus says the status quo is not acceptable. Now that it has sat for a little, and after looking at the list of potential articles that would be in the category, I'm coming to the opinion that category:marsupial lions is indeed too specific. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


Hello, Uther! FYI, the above subfamily Lorinae redirects to the genus Loris, but Lorinae also includes the genus Nycticebus, correct? So, if you wanted to maybe add to your to-do list, Lorinae could use a new article. In the mean time, from reading the above thread, I guess the redirect should be deleted. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

In this case, no, the redirect should not be removed; Loris (the common name) is the same as Lorinae. The redirect is not to the genus. Lorinae includes two genera, Nycticebus (as you mentioned) and Loris (genus). - UtherSRG (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, Loris (genus) was what I was looking for and somehow overlooked. I screwed that one up on the template — %&@*#! Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


OK, this redirect I think should be deleted, unless I am again missing something, since the family Erethizontidae (New World porcupines) includes both the subfamilies Erethizontinae and Chaetomyinae. What say you? --Tombstone (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, and done. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


It's alright to also include Synapsid, birds has that too.--4444hhhh (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Then I'll remove it from there, too. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for your support, very kind of you!

Feels like the marsupial lion articles are moving forward quite nicely now. Cheers, Mark t young (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well go and accept your RFA nomination already. ;) - UtherSRG (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support on my RfA. I wasn't successful, but I got some good constructive criticism, so who knows, in a few months time maybe I'll be ready. Cheers, Mark t young (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah well... win some lose some... - UtherSRG (talk) 05:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved from your userpage

Plesae., if you feel you have the knowledge and experience to write on these issues, it is better that you get some training first. I dont want to sound nasty, but I cannot keep an eye on each correction I introduce and you revert.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

"Authority" is more accurate than "researcher". There are many folks that do research. Some of them publish, others work for those that publish. The ones that publish are authorities; they have "authored" the description or theory or hypothesis, etc. In fact, "authority" is used explicitly in taxonomy. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ring-tailed Lemur

There were recently some extensive revisions to the ring-tailed lemur article. The editor seems to be very knowledgeable on the subject, but there may be issues with how he inlcuded images and sound clips (I am not sure those went through Commons for example), and I think you know better than me how those are supposed to be handled. I am not sure all the facts are 100% correct either. So you may want to check that article out.Rlendog (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I see you got there as I was writing this.  :)Rlendog (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. :) I split the audio table to a new article for now. I think a summary of the table should be re-included back in the main article. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad to work with you on polishing up this article, as well as verifying everything that I have posted. Despite a few errors, most facts should be referenced properly. If anything is questionable or needs attention, let me know. I will try to work on the audio table in the near future. FYI: I plan to perform similar major edits to all Lemuridae pages in the future. I hope to get this portion of WikiProject Primates as near completion as possible in the foreseeable future. Questions, comments, corrections, and other feedback is always welcome. It will be my pleasure to work with you. Visionholder (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Excellent and fantastic! :) - UtherSRG (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
In case you want a heads-up on what pages I'm eyeing over for major revision (in the very near future), you can check out my newly created user page. Before my next set of edits, I'll have some questions for you, though. No time now, though -- off to do some volunteer work! Visionholder (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll put you on my watchlist. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Dumb question

Forgive my ignorance, but regarding the infraclasses used on {{Mammals}} (Australosphenida, Metatheria and Eutheria), the article Mammal makes no reference to this classification and the accompanying orders. Why is this? Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Mammal lists Prototheria and Theria as subclasses in the taxobox, and shows Theria's infraclasses Metatheria and Eutheria. Prototheria contains Australosphenida, which contains Monotremata. I don't know why Australosphenida isn't shown. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The Australosphenida article states it is a clade and lists it as unranked. Is it commonplace, then, to casually refer to Australosphenida as an infraclass? If not, I would think the template should be tweaked to correspond to Standardized textbook classification. What do you think? Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Someone should find out. MSW3 doesn't mention Australosphenida at all, but that's because it doesn't mention anything above the rank of Order. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Instead of breaking it up my infraclass, what if it was divided up by subclass? See Template:Mammals/Test for the example. What is your opinion? --Tombstone (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Good enough. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and updated the template by subclass. Could you please delete the Template:Mammals/Test, I blanked it. Thanks, Tombstone (talk) 11:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Snow Leopard

Hi Uther - awesome you undid my mistake on snow leopard page - thanks so much sibyllenoras 10:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Rock Iguana articles

It appears that some editors with very little understanding of taxonomy have taken over all the articles about rock iguanas. They are a total mess. I've started trying to clean things up, but I'm getting reverted. Could you stop by Talk:Cyclura cychlura cychlura if you get a chance. Once that is cleaned up, I'm going to try Cyclura nubila nubila, which may be even more difficult. Kaldari (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I think I've finally convinced them of the error of their ways, since I have sources to back up what I'm saying :) Kaldari (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Carry on. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Problematic block on Wikispecies

Sorry to bug you again, but I tried to make an edit on Wikispecies only to find that my IP address has been blocked indefinitely with account creation blocked as well. Unfortunately, the IP address I'm using is shared by about 50,000 people (maybe more), so I'm sure someone on the IP must have committed some vandalism at some point. Anyway, I can't complain to anyone on Wikispecies since I'm blocked so I was wondering if you could fix the block on my IP so that account creation is allowed at least. The IP address is Thanks for your help! Kaldari (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to interfere, I allowed account creation on named ip. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

About the rhea

Hi! I saw that you undid the changes I made to the Darwin's Rhea article, where I added the local names. Can I ask why you think this is inappropriate? Thanks.

My reasoning was: 1) It is a species native to Latin America, known for a long time with local names prior to the arrival of Darwin to Patagonia; 2) The Spanish wikipedia mentions both the English name (Rhea de Darwin), as well as the local name; 3) I believe it is a reasonable contribution for those inquisitive readers who want to know how the species has been called among those who have lived there for ever, as opposed to those who "discovered" it much later. Thanks again!Nordisk varg (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly inappropriate in the taxobox. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. However, I'm restoring the local names elsewhere in the article, as it is done in the case of many other South American animals.Nordisk varg (talk) 04:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
That's fine. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

July 2008 Birds Project Newsletter Link

The September 2017 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. --Addbot (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Malagasy Civet

Please explain your reasoning regarding capitalisation in detail, taking into account the MoS and standard non-Wikipedian practice. Do you think I'm new? I created the fanaloka article back on 24 December 2005. Srnec (talk) 02:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The dozens of discussions and surveys and arguments I've had on the subject. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
That's it? Well, I guess because you've had discussions... Sorry for wasting your time with arguments, notions like "common noun" and "manual of style". Srnec (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Read the logic and rationale at WP:BIRD. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm aware of that discussion. It does not apply to animals mammals, nor am I aware that it suggested using capitals in the main text of an article, which is not typical practice outside of Wikipedia. Nobody talks of Grizzly Bears and Mountain Lions but of grizzly bears and mountain lions. Srnec (talk) 05:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
You are incorrect across the board. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Why would a discussion at WikiProject Birds have any bearing on how we write our mammal articles? And the project page does not mention capitals in the body texts of articles that I can see, can you show me otherwise? And does the MWS3 talk about capitalisation issues? Srnec (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The logic is still valid. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


I'm sending this to all the wikiproject:mammals participants. There's a naming guideline up for discussion on the talk page, and the more people get involved the more valid any consensus drawn. Ironholds 19:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


Hello! :) I thought you might be interested in this. Check it out and add your name under "Participants" if your interested. Have a nice day and happy editing! --Grrrlriot (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - UtherSRG (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Your welcome --Grrrlriot (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
LOL I reply like that so that it eventually goes into my archie automatically. :) I don't have time to join another Project or Task Force. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
lol Okay, thanks for your response. --Grrrlriot (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. (No reply needed.) - UtherSRG (talk) 05:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


hey, what's up? you've been editing this entry recently, and i didn't know if you'd caught an apparent inconsistency: under the Species and taxonomy heading, genus Urocyon is categorized within Tribe Vulpini (ie, allied with genus Vulpes), while Nyctereutes and Otocyon are listed as basal Caninae (unless i'm mistaken, the exact relationship of each of these, minus Vulpes, is ambiguous with regard to the rest of the family). however, the adjoining table has Urocyon as an outgroup to the latter three genera, which here seem to be of roughly equal rank. what think? - Metanoid (talk, email) 12:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

i don't have the research for this in front of me, but i'll probably act on it regardless within a couple of days if i continue to hear nothing from you.... - Metanoid (talk, email) 01:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Palaeontology

Hi Uther,

I was wondering if you'd be interested in joining the Palaeo WikiProject? I think you could make an excellent contribution. Best, Mark t young (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

My time is somewhat limited right now, but I'll keep it in mind. - UtherSRG (talk) 08:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU, Status, and you!

As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible) system - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by –xenobot 22:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Chinese Goral

Can you explain why you deleted Chinese Goral? --- RockMFR 17:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It was a redirect to the wrong article. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Would you consider deleting the Chinese goral redirect, too? Or alternatively someone should start a page for the "true" Chinese Goral, Naemorhedus griseus, already listed with a red link in the genus article Naemorhedus. (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll delete the link. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Cercopithecus revert

I have "re-reverted" this. It is highly relevant that these often are placed in this genus (you can check Groves, 2005, as this is clearly stated even in the online version, though I'm sure you already know), as just about every single field guide dealing with this region continue to use it. If you dislike the placement/the wording of that comment, you should of course feel free to re-add it/a modified version of it elsewhere in the article, but don't just remove it. On a separate issue, thanks for dealing with the incorrect Chinese goral link. (talk) 03:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I didn't have time to craft a better wording. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


Hello Uther. Regarding the above redirect, it is a subfamily that redirects UP to its family. Originally, it redirected to its only extant genus, Alligator. I was going to speedy it, since it has several extinct genera, but thought maybe I'd seek your opinion. Should this be speedied or redirected to its only living genus, Alligator? Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it. Given the number of extinct taxa in the subfamily, it can easily become an article, and rather quickly. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Homo erectus

I'm glad you watch over the paleoanthropology articles. You catch a lot of vandalism. Earlier today you reverted the insertion of "not" in the paragraph about the use of controlled fire. If one looks at the context, it doesn't really make sense without the word "not." Seems like it should be there. TimidGuy (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Ok. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Input requested

Hello again. Sorry for pestering you, but I wanted to again solicit your opinion. I created an ultra-top-level animal template {{Life on Earth}}. I was unsure of a few things, such as the organization and terms used, and if such a template was even a good idea. I was leery of implementing it without some feedback first. Your input would be appreciated. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, but I know little outside of zoology. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Viscacha Rat

If you are online, I requested this page be deleted to make way for a page move per MSW3 and I was hoping you could check it out. If you are not online, then I am utterly disgusted with the world. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, taken care of. ;) --Tombstone (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
*LOL* I'm online often, but not 24/7. ;) I'm glad you got it taken care of. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


You're doing it wrong, too. See MSW3: - UtherSRG (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. I tried to change only the scientific name, but the link from genus page was not functioning. However, the scientific name was a mistake, while the link to common name is only a preference... --Vitalfranz (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. You too had used an incorrect scientific name. yagouaroundi is what MSW3 says is correct. You had left off the second "u". - UtherSRG (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for helping the Nepal Gray Lampur article, but I take it from your edits that Super family and sub family taxation aren't needed? Or is that incorrect taxation? Yojimbo501 (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

A bit of both. the template entires for those would be superfmailia and subfamilia. However, we skip minor taxa except for between the article's subject taxa, and the major taxa immediately above it. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, but I'm sorry I couldn't say this earlier, my computer wouldn't let me go to wikipedia for some reason. Yojimbo501 (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
No problem. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 11:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Long-tailed Goral


The Highland Wildlife Park tags this animal as a Chinese Goral and gives it the name Nemorhaedus caudatus arnouxianus. Would this not make it a sub-species of Nemorhaedus caudatus? --ML5 (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be, if arnouxianus were a subpopulation of caudatus. It is a subpopulation of griseus, though, which has been removed from caudatus and elevated to the rank of species: N. griseus is the Chinese Goral. See goral. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
OK. So is the tag in the park wrong to call it Nemorhaedus caudatus arnouxianus? If so, the details against the photograph (and, indeed, the file name) will be misleading.--ML5 (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Yup. But that is of only minor importance. It *is* arnouxianus, though, as far as I can tell, and Highland did tag it as Chinese Goral correctly. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Since you seem to know about these things, have I messed up the same way with my photograph on the markhor article? They say Turkmenian, but the article says Bukharan.--ML5 (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Yup. Fixed. It's a good idea to look at the articles you are oging to put images on before you upload the images. We do our best to keep taxonomy up to date, while zoos and wildlife parks don't. It's not in their interest to change the signage every time taxonomy changes. It's too expensive. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Cat or Domestic Cat

Hello again. I have been reading through the Cat talk pages and archives, including the scientific name discussions but couldn't find what I was looking for regarding the common name. I saw you had participated in some of the scientific name discussions so I thought you might know if the common name was discussed. I was going to initiate a discussion about moving the article to Domestic Cat, since it is the common name used by MSW3, and some other species use "domestic" in their article name: Domestic sheep, Domestic pig, Domestic buffalo, Domestic Pigeon. Before I started such nonsense, I figured you may have some insight as to whether or not this is a discussion worth starting. Thoughts? --Tombstone (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh! Looks like I missed that! Yes, it should be moved to Domestic Cat. - UtherSRG (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I initiated discussion at Talk:Cat#Proper common name per MSW3. FYI. --Tombstone (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
So I saw. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Prince Bernhard's Titi and Griffith's Silver Langur

We currently have articles for 2 monkeys under the Latin name Callicebus bernhardi, "Prince Bernhard's Titi" and "Bernhardi Monkey‎". I suspect that Bernhardi Monkey should be converted to a redirect, and any information in that article (albeit a stub) not already included in the Prince Bernhard's Titi should just be incorporated there. But I wanted to get your thoughts. Rlendog (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100%. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. One more question. There is a stub article for "Griffith's Silver Langur" (Trachypithecus villosus). But the species is not listed in the Trachypithecus/Lutung genus article. I don't see it in MSW3 either, not even as a subspecies or under a different genus. Do you know if this is a valid (perhaps post-MSW publication) species or subspecies? If so, it should be added to the Trachypithecus/Lutung genus article, but I am not sure which group to put it under. Rlendog (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Damned PolBot... IUCN is not to be used in this manner.... Anyway, I find subspecies germaini and margarita. germaini is now a full species, the Indochinese Lutung, with margarita a synonym. I'm just going to redirect this questionable article to the valid one. - UtherSRG (talk) 08:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
On second thought, I'm going to ask Colin Groves what he makes of this... - UtherSRG (talk) 08:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Colin says: "I think the idea of a species or subspecies called villosus is not destined to last. The name is an old one, which was resurrected in 2003 (I think), but seems to be very poorly based, and recent studies by Roos and others do not use it, and I think they are right. It is probably best listed as a synonym of Trachypithecus cristatus, and duly forgotten. The other names you mention – germaini and margarita -- represent good species on the mainland Southeast Asia, germaini to the west of the Mekong and margarita to the east of it (as far as we know to this date)."
So it looks like my instincts to just make it a redirect were correct, just not to the right speceis. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Gray Wolf / Wolf

OK, this one's a little iffy. MSW3 calls it a "Wolf" rather than a "Gray Wolf". In reviewing its page history, it appears it was moved in 2005 to reconcile FAC concerns and was never moved back. I don't know how heavily MSW3 was referenced back then, but it seems to have been a "non-scientific" reason to move. I was going to initiate discussion on this, but you seem to have had some involvement back then and wanted your input first. Thoughts? --Tombstone (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I don't care. "Wolf" is too common a word. "Gray Wolf" is unambiguous. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, you're right...maybe this one isn't worth the drama. Maybe instead I'll tweak the lede sentence a bit; I'll mull it over. Forgive me for my recent obsession with common names, must be my undiagnosed OCD.... Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sidenote: Red Wolf

The WP article quotes Audubon & Bachman, 1851, having Canis rufus as a species; but MSW3 lists the same source having Canis lupus rufus as a subspecies. Doesn't add up — the WP article makes no mention of new research (maybe in the external links, but that is moot if the article doesn't include the info). So, is this considered its own species based on WP standards, or should it be clarified it "may" be a species? --Tombstone (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be regarded as a subspecies, as per MSW3, with a note regarding the comments at the MSW3 listing for Canis lupus. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


Not a prob, the person is blocked for 48 hours now, so hopefully it should stop now. I thought it was a bit random, especially how vitrolic the comments where! Looks like you have yourself a nemesis! :) Mark t young (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm overjoyed. ;) - UtherSRG (talk) 12:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


Hi, why did you revert my edit to Squirrel monkey‎? --Climax Void .

Why do you think we need that image on that page? - UtherSRG (talk) 12:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Because it was a good quality image showing the full side of the aninmal in question, and if thats not a that's not good enough awnser why bother having pictures on articles at all? --Climax Void . 12:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Compare your edit adding the image with other article's images. Tell me what you see is different. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Im stuck, is it the way I added it, where I added it or the image itself? --Climax Void . 14:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Pardon my slowness on this... I'm feeling plucky and want you to come to the answer yourself. It's not the image. Oh, and please use 4 tildes to sign, not 3. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


Hi there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Can I help you in some way? - UtherSRG (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I got it too. Mayhap its from your Nemesis? Both were from Pakistan. Mark t young (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I have no doubt. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


Just a question about this. Surely, that's a synonym. True, it is not a junior synonym (or senior, for that matter), but that is not a requirement for it to be a synonym (even if the Synonym (taxonomy) article on wiki could need an update, although the intro get it right). To quite that intro: synonyms are different scientific names used for a single taxon, i.e. no limitation to specific ephipet (in species), and I'm sure we can agree that Nasalis concolor and Simias concolor are two different names, but a single taxon. Cheers, (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that's an overly broad definition of synonym, then. MSW3 makes a distinction between synonymity and placement. It doesn't list the genus of the taxa when listing the synonyms, only the epithet. the epithet is attached to a particular description. When the epithet is moved from one genus to another, the description is still the same description. When a new description is used for a species, the epithet attached to that description is now used, and the previous epithet may become a synonym for the current one. MSW3 doesn't list N. concolor as a synonym for S. concolor, because that is only an issue of placement, not a change in description. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. Even if I disagree with this narrower definition, thanks for explaining why this is used in mammals on wiki. (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Check it out

Check out this bot request I made. Seems like a cool way down the road to make sure we are consistent with MSW3. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sweet! Unfortunately my request for a bot that will add MSW3's id= to any MSW3 templates fell on deaf ears.... - UtherSRG (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
When was that? Maybe you should revisit that idea. --Tombstone (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In IPA, the stress mark goes before the syllable.

I changed your transcription of the audio at MW, English pronunciation: /bənoʊ'boʊ/, back to English pronunciation: /bəˈnoʊboʊ/ in Bonobo, because the accent is on the second syllable, not the third as your transcription indicates. Cheers, Archimerged (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

US Navy

Hi, Just wondering what you felt inapproriate about my edits? The 2nd one was particularly confusing given it was a simply making a link work. Adamsim (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

By your own words, you do not know that this is a fact that you editted in: "Thought this better encompassed the 7th Fleet's AOR, which presumably includes north Africa". Please check out how the Navy represents the 7th Fleet's AOR. Perhaps you are right, perhaps you are not. "Perhaps" is not good enough for an encyclopedia. The second edit I didn't see and will fix. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, thanks for restoring the second edit. Secondly, I got my fleets mixed up! I of course meant the 6th, rather than 7th. My apologies. Thirdly, thanks for the pointer - I should indeed be less (if not completely un-) equivocal in future. The 6th's website ( is under construction at the moment, however the page that is operating talks at length about their work in Ghana and Liberia, and the map on the header does show Africa in addition to Europe. And given that aircraft from the USS America (which of course you'll know was part of the 6th Fleet at the time) were used in Operation El Dorado Canyon, I no longer presume but assert that Africa is de facto part of their AOR. In which case I consider my 1st edit appropriate and would appreciate you undoing your reversion.
May I also recommend using the Edit summary in future. Adamsim (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Almost 24 hours on, I am disappointed there has been no response to the above. I had hoped we could resolve this by my not having to undo your reversion of my edit. However I feel I have provided sufficient justification for doing so, and it is what I shall now do. I have added additional comment on my user page. Adamsim (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, you are correct. My apologies for the tardiness. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

More Q's

  1. Genus Bassaricyon redirects to Olingo; Bassaricyon gabbii, per MSW3, should be Olingo, but the WP article is Bushy-tailed Olingo (which is the IUCN common name). I would prefer to see the genus not be a redirect at all, and the species be at Olingo; or if the genus does redirect to Olingo, then the species should be similar to Olingo (animal). What is your opinion?
  2. Ringtail is a disambiguous page, which is fine, but the species Bassariscus astutus is at Ring-tailed Cat; both MSW3 & IUCN list only the common name "Ringtail". I was thinking the species should be moved to Ringtail (some modifier), but I can't decide on a good modifier. Ringtail (cat) isn't appropriate, and Ringtail ("cat") seems awkward. What is your opinion?

Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

  1. I think the way things are is best, even if it contradicts MSW3. It's confusing enough that all of the genus can be called olingos while one of the species is the Olingo. Since IUCN offers a different name for the species, I'm good with that. I haven't tried contacting any of the other authors of MSW3 like I've done with Groves. Perhaps I should send a note to Wozencraft and see what he thinks. Or you can.
  2. Check MSW3 for the various species listed at ringtail. If none of the others is listed as Ringtail, then I'd say move the disambigation page to ringtail (disambiguation), then move Ring-tailed Cat to Ringtail.
- UtherSRG (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. I think for now (meaning "when I get around to it") I will resolve the Olingo differentiation with either a hatnote and/or a sentence in the lede paragraph on the pages, until/unless something else is decided. I would not feel comfortable with contacting one of the MSW3 authors, what with me being just a peon ;). Another thought would be to have Olingo be a disambig. page, linking to both the genus and the animal, but maybe that is too much tinkering for this tiny issue....
  2. MSW3 has 17 matches on "ringtail", however all but Bassariscus astutus has a modifier prior to "ringtail" or uses "ringtail" itself as a modifier. Therefore, I think your suggestion seems quite plausible and I will also add hatnotes to any of the appropriate pages. But this might cause a minor stir, so I think I will look into the other pages listed on ringtail, maybe make a move proposal, and either play it by ear or just be bold. I'll look closer at it first.
Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds August newsletter

The August 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. MeegsC | Talk 01:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Uther's self portrait.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Uther's self portrait.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


Groves reference template

What do you think about changing Template:MSW3 Groves from Groves, Colin to Groves, C.? This would move the reference in line with the rest of the Primate article. Cheers, Jack (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hrm... I suppose so, but what does the WP:MOS say? Hrm... looks like we get to pick and choose. Ok, let's make the change. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Annual WikiNYC Picnic

Greetings! You are invited to attend the second annual New York picnic on August 24! This year, it will be taking place in the Long Meadow of Prospect Park in Brooklyn. If you plan on coming, please sign up and be sure to bring something! Please be sure to come!
You have received this automated delivery because your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Your deletion of Northern White-cheeked Gibbon redirect

Primate info net lists "Northern White-cheeked Gibbon" as a common name for Nomascus leucogenys. The subspecies common names is "Northern White-cheeked Crested Gibbon". Note the difference in the names and also the lack of "Southern White-cheeked Gibbon" as a common name for Nomascus leucogenys (despite a subspecies called the "Southern White-cheeked Crested Gibbon"). Unless you know otherwise, I think the redirect is valid. Kaldari (talk) 19:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

MSW3 also lists "Northern White-cheeked Gibbon" as the common name for Nomascus leucogenys. (Nomascus siki is the "Southern White-cheeked Gibbon".) Kaldari (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the confusion arrises from Nomascus leucogenys siki having been elevated to a separate species, which our articles do not reflect. (According to MSW3, which I assume is the ref you prefered for mammal taxonomy). Kaldari (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
This is one of the cases where we don't use MSW3. Geissmann's gibbon website is more uptodate than MSW3. He's nicely resorted the various groupings, subspecies, and species of Hylobatidae. The only change we make is that Hoolock is no longer monotypic. He also has a wonderful identification key that's helped me sort out a picture or two. For now, it's best to use only the best known names, and leave other names as unredirected, unless it is absolutely clear that the less used name is only relevant to where it is being redirected. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I already updated all the articles in question to be in line with MSW3. Why was there no mention of this issue in the article talk pages or ref citations? Kaldari (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome to update the articles using Geissmann's gibbon website, however, I am unfamiliar with that source. It is important that divergences from MSW3 be well documented in the references and talk pages so that we don't cause unnecessary back and forth changes. Kaldari (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I found the website you're talking about. However, there are papers on that site from 2007 that still list Nomascus siki and Nomascus leucogenys as separate species. Where do you see that they have been remerged? Kaldari (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Yup. Geissmann is referenced at the family and genus level (at least on Nomascus). And it's probably a good idea to check at least the genus level listing to see what it says before moving a species or elevating a subspecies. But you're right, Geissmann should be noted on all the appropriate articles. See Table 2 at the Sysstemics page. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute, the last time Geissmann's taxonomy was peer reviewed was 1995. Groves separated the species in 2001, so how can Geissmann be more up to date? Kaldari (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The page you are citing is a primary source, not a secondary source, i.e. it hasn't been peer reviewed or published. Wikipedia cannot base it's taxonomy on one scientists unpublished web page. Kaldari (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Geissmann's discussion of the siki issue cites nothing more recent than 2000, so I seriously doubt it is more up to date on this particular issue than Groves, who separated the species in 2001. Please note that much of the page you are referencing was originally published in 1995! Here is the section discussing whether or not siki should be a species or subspecies:

A further form, siki, whose distribution area is situated between that of N. gabriellae and N. leucogenys, has previously been identified as a subspecies N. gabriellae by Groves (Groves, 1993; Groves & Wang, 1990), based on a penis bone at the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris. Unfortunately, this particular bone is not suitable to determine the affinities of siki, because it is (1) incomplete and (2) not of siki but of N. leucogenys (Geissmann, unpublished data). On the other hand, the song of siki, although having distinct characteristics, resembles that of N. leucogenys more than that of any other form of crested gibbon including N. gabriellae (Geissmann, unpublished data). Likewise, mitochondrial DNA sequences suggest that siki is more closely related to leucogenys than to gabriellae (Garza & Woodruff, 1992, 1994; Kressirer & Geissmann, in prep.). As a result, siki is recognised here as a subspecies of N. leucogenys. As additional evidence for a close relationship between N. l. leucogenys and N. l. siki, it should also been noted that the females of both forms are so similar in fur colouration that no distinctive features are known, at present, whereas both differ from females of N. gabriellae (Geissmann, 1995a; Geissmann et al., 2000).

Kaldari (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Also note that Geissmann uses Groves' newer taxonomy (in which siki is separate) in all of his most recent published papers. The web page you are dogmatically pushing is simply not up to date. Kaldari (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Now that our wheel war is complete (I hope), I just wanted to remark that I find it ironic that I had to defend MSW3 against the very person who convinced me that it should be the de facto taxonomy standard in the first place! This argument serves as a perfect example of why deferring to MSW3 is a good idea, rather than trying to be on the cutting edge and relying on web pages that haven't been peer reviewed. I hope you still believe that is the case. Anyway, let's put this scuffle behind us. There's no reason to have bad blood between two people with the same ultimate goals in mind :) Kaldari (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree iin this case. Geissmann has been working with Groves on a number of papers which have been published post-MSW3 which support the taxonomy on his website. Here's some supporting papers (with one that Groves co-authored), that do not list siki as a species:

It isn't until a paper published in 2007 that Geissmann uses Groves 2001 again, but this is a paper for the IUCN status reassessment, where using a greater number of species is advantageous for conservation funding efforts:

I'll send an email off to Groves on this, but he's away from the office until September 1st. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to look it up right now, but both of the articles I checked had siki as a separate species (I think both were from 2007). The IUCN article is not the only one. Kaldari (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
The other Geissman article from 2007 that mentions siki is "A brief survey for crested gibbons in Bach Ma National Park", which includes siki as a separate species. You may be right in the end, but you need a better source than a web page to make the case that we should overrule MSW3. Kaldari (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is an interesting passage published by Geissman in 2006:

Mitochondrial DNA sequences in captive crested gibbons showed that 3 of 5 Nomascus leucogenys siki clustered with N. leucogenys and the other 2 with N. gabriellae (Roos, 2004), indicating that N. l. siki may be a paraphyletic taxon. As a result, Groves (2004) and Roos (2004) proposed that siki may be a hybrid between N. leucogenys and N. gabriellae. As an alternative interpretation of the same finding, and more consistent with our results, we suggest that the different clusters of Nomascus leucogenys siki may be geographically separated taxa, representing speciation in progress. Our results on the vocal diversity of Cambodian crested gibbons do not reliably resolve the identity of the gibbon populations in northeast Cambodia, but provide a first element to the solution of a puzzle.

It sounds like no one currently has any idea what siki is... a species, a subspecies, a hybrid, several different species or subspecies... until the "puzzle" is resolved, it seems like a good idea to stick with MSW3, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Primate evolution

If you have Groves' Primate Taxonomy it'd be great if you could add references to the dates for evolutionary splits etc. on the primate page, I've added citation needed tags to the facts needing sources. That's pretty much the only issue we're facing before getting the article to GA status. Cheers, Jack (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Why Did You Delete My External Link?

I posted an external link to an excellent article on female ejaculation by one of the foremost experts in the field, Susan Block. It is much more informative and interesting than some of the other external links you have on this page, such as one to a blog. Why did you delete it? Queenesther (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That link has been posted and removed a number of times by several different people. It does not meet WP:EL. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Want to talka about Macaca?

Hi. I didn't realize you were online, or I would have asked you first. What's up with this?. I thought we had worked out a compromise whereby Macaca would be a disambiguation page? Sorry I insulted you in this edit summary. That was just a joke, but it was in bad taste.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I goofed. I forgot about that. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
So I'm going to have an admin delete the page you made and move Macaca (dab) back to Macaca, if that's okay.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

why was my edit reverted?

on the page Watchung Avenue (NJT station), a perfectly fine edit I did based on a news article was reverted. why? was something wrong?

You didn't cite a verifiable and reliable source. Also, the language you used was more conversational than encyclopedic. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
It'll be redone thenTlantanu (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Lockmart.jpg)

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:Lockmart.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Toilet-claw article - creation & deletion

Can you help me out? Last night, I created a brief page (a primate stub) similar to the toothcomb stub you created earlier. I stated the basic information about the toilet-claw and even referenced a journal article. It had a references section and listed 3 appropriate categories. I thought it was a sufficient start for a page that I planned to later come back and fill in as I obtained photos and worked on more detailed text. The page content was not redundant nor "gibberish", as claimed by the warning that I got on my talk page from Josh3580. Can I appeal the deletion? I spent an hour on that page, making sure it was worded, cited, and linked properly. Needless to say, I'm not happy. (I've since discovered I still have the text of the article saved on my computer.) Feel free to discuss this on my talk page. Thank you for your time. Visionholder (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, Rlendog helped me resolve the issue. (He wasn't sure he could at first.) Sorry for the trouble. Visionholder (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


What does {{species}} do? I ask because it seems to contain only the word species. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It is part of the older taxobox template system. Look at where it is used. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:PeerNavbox

Template:PeerNavbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Bazj (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

prod of Bloc Québécois candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election

You deleted the prodded Bloc Québécois candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. Can you undelete this please? There are similiar articles for the other 4 main parties (Conservative Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election,Liberal Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election,NDP candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election, and Green Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election and in previous elections even for minor parties Canadian Action Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election,Christian Heritage Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election, Communist Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election, Conservative Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election, Green Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election, Independent candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election, Marijuana Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election,Marxist-Leninist candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election, New Democratic Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election, and Progressive Canadian Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election). I have no idea why this article would have been prodded, or why no one caught it at the time. It has long been standard practice to put minor candidates on one page, rather than create a page for each one. Nfitz (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - certainly not the most stellar example ... Nfitz (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
True. ;) - UtherSRG (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverting edits

Hey Uther, recent edits on the Red Kangaroo made me wonder, is there a way I can revert to edits older than the immediately previous revision? I've had it a couple of times on other pages where someone has made several small edits that aren't necessary, but to revert them, I seem to have to manually remove what they put in. Cheers. T.carnifex (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you display the edit history, you can select any point to revert to. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah ha, I see now. Thanks. T.carnifex (talk) 10:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


I guess you accidentally reverted my message while reverting the previous vandalism here. DockuHi 15:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, quite. Fixed. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominating Ring-tailed Lemur for GA review

In your opinion, should I nominate Ring-tailed Lemur for a GA review? A couple weeks ago, I requested a peer review from WikiProject Primates, but haven't heard anything back yet. According to the Good article criteria, the article should be ready. Should I wait for the peer review, or should I also request a GA review at this time? This will be my first review (peer or GA), so I'd like your advice. My ultimate goal is to turn this article (and many other lemur articles) into Featured Articles. -Visionholder (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Silence = assent. ;) Go for it. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your support, as well as all the assistance you have provided since I joined Wiki. -Visionholder (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

gorillas and references

Thanks! No, I don't need to shuffle the references around so that the full details appear at first occurrence - but it does look neater that way! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 20:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thought for a Wiki Admin...

Warning: I've got a little alcohol mixed into the system at the moment... although that sometimes leads to my best inspiration. Below is an idea that can be blown off without a worry, if so merited. I'm just looking for some honest feedback on an idea I had.

While browsing articles that fall under the WikiProject: Tree of Life and noticing that many of them--including high profile articles for encompassing entire phyla or major biological concepts--range from B-class down to Start-class, I began thinking. From my experiences, the researchers I've contacted for content, feedback, and/or clarification have fallen into one of two categories. Either they are keenly interested in assisting Wiki, and excited about having summaries of their research being freely available to the general public, or they simply don't have the time or interest to assist. Additionally, two more thoughts crossed my mind:

  1. Although Wikipedia's potential is great, it is intended to function as an encyclopedia. This includes the limitation that encyclopedias are not sufficient to be textbooks, despite having ever-expansive content potential.
  2. Families sending their students to college (in the U.S. at least) are struggling to cover the costs, and independent college students surviving on financial aid and/or limited employment have been doing so for years. Meanwhile, the rising cost of textbooks aren't helping matters; and many are desperately turning to alternatives to save money, such as buying textbooks through

All of this coalesced into one thought. What if Wikipedia reached out to researchers and professors around the world and asked for their support in not only turning Wikipedia articles into Featured Articles, but also creating a new WikiTextbook? The effort and challenges would be monumental, but it seems to fall in line with other attempts to branch out, such as Wiktionary. (Or maybe this is more of a step back to the days of NuPedia.)

I realize that there would be many challenges to this. Obviously, there is a lot of money in the textbook market, and the textbook publishers wouldn't go down without a fight. Additionally, I also realize that researchers/professors get paid for writing textbooks, so helping with a "WikiTextbook" project would undermine a potential/existing revenue source. However, the need exists, and, from experience, I know there are quite a few professors out there who are also fed up with bloated text book prices and actively looking for alternatives to help their students. Even if not overwhelmingly successful, maybe a WikiTextbook project could help shake things up a bit, and ultimately help struggling students while also educating the general public (in multiple languages!).

Now please keep in mind that although this is an alcohol-induced post, I'm the type of person who was dreaming of creating global information tools far beyond the scope of Wikipedia while obtaining my Master of Science in Library and Information Science (at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) during the same years that NuPedia was turning into Wikipedia. I've also worked professionally in and around major universities for over 6 years after my graduation. I'm not some random person off the street. This is a semi-serious question, and I'd appreciate a semi-serious reply, either by you or other Wiki Admins.

Sorry to single you out with this post, but you're the one Wiki Admin that I have a working relationship with. Hearing an idea like this from a complete stranger might elicit a very different reaction from anyone. I'm just curious to know what you think.

- Visionholder (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I'm really behind the times (and don't explore Wiki enough). Looks like the Wiki community beat me to it back in 2003, when they created Wikibooks. Now I feel dumb.  ;-) Looks like it has a long, long way to go, though. - Visionholder (talk) 08:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

the IP

I see you've already been tackling the edits of that IP [4]. I put a note on Doug Weller's page about him, so he may help as well... too busy to deal with it, Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


I really appreciate that you keep on eye on Neandertal. But at a quick glance, it looks like your recent revert restored a lot of problematic material that had been diligently cleaned up. I don't have time at the moment and was wondering if you could take a closer look. Thanks! TimidGuy (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops. My mistake. Had time to look at it more closely. Trekphiler did a great job of cleaning up the problematic material after you restored the work done by the person with weak English/writing skills. Article looks good. Again, thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tromsoe i norge.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Tromsoe i norge.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. - AWeenieMan (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Primates and Wikipedia 0.7 articles (automated selection)

Is there a reason why WikiProject Primates was apparently omitted in the automated selection of articles for Version 0.7? I looked through the list, and the project Primates was not present, but Mammals was. If you go to the page for all Mammal articles (not just those selected), there are some primate articles listed, but only those with the {{MaTalk}} box at the top of their discussion page. Should we add {{MaTalk}} to the top of each primate articles' discussion page? Or is there a way we can mention this omission to the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team? I just want to make sure that this is a fully recognized project, and not being overlooked in other ways as well. - Visionholder (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hrm... I have no idea... I haven't looked at the Version release process..... - UtherSRG (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Although it's dated, this may explain it: [5]
I'm not sure who they would have contacted or where it would have been posted. Either way, we may need to get in touch with them. - Visionholder (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Looks like they did try to contact us here. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Type species on Ruffed lemur

I'm trying to figure out how to properly display the type species on the Ruffed lemur page, but I'm drawing a complete blank since there appear to be 2 of them, per Groves: [6]. Are you happy with the current presentation? - Visionholder (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You got it just right. It's not two species, but two descriptions that were later equated to the same species (or something like that). - UtherSRG (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

On reversions

When reverting an edit made in good faith (Nilgiri Langur and Purple-faced Langur) including reference to the source, please also clarify why you revert it - now I'm left absolutely clueless. (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Your edits make no sense. First of off, you aren't even using complete sentences. Second, you don't explain anything with your edit. What do you mean by them? (I know a thing or two about biology, and they make no sense to me, so there's no way someone who knows less than I about biology is going to understand them.) Next, we do not use the IUCN for taxonomy. We follow MSW3. The IUCN's purpose is not to keep track of taxonomy, but to list the current conservation status of species and subspecies. It's MSW3's job to discern taxonomy. And finally, you simply copied the text directly from the IUCN redlist page. that's a no-no. You have to write it in your own words. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Then I know your view. Had you explained that (briefly) in the edit summary or preferably as above (though possibly in slightly lighter tone) in the discussion pages I would have appreciated it. As for the reason for my infantile edit I was confused by the different genera in the article compared to what ARKive listed. I tried to understand it, found a note, and copied it (possibly against policy, but certainly bona fide) to help improve a stub article. What is your view on how to explain this confusing situation to other readers? (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Leave it as is. There's no need to explain.

More lemur stuff

I have a couple more questions for you on the Ring-tailed Lemur talk page under the headers Moving refs out of templates and Notes for FA. Thanks!

And by the way, I have a question about the headers for discussion pages on WikiProject Primates articles, particularly on the lemur pages. Is the setup found on the Ring-tailed Lemur discussion page look good enough to become "standard" for the lemur pages? I've grown very fond of the {{talkheader}}, and {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} seems like a nice way to nest multiple WikiProjects and reduce the footprint. Your thoughts? And what about using {{MaTalk}} to associate with WikiProject Mammals? Is that too redundant? - Visionholder (talk) 08:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan

Wikis Take Manhattan.png Wikis Take Manhattan

Next: Saturday September 27
This box: view  talk  edit

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City. The event is based on last year's Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and has evolved to include StreetsWiki this year as well.


WINNINGS? Prizes include a dinner for three with Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales at Pure Food & Wine, gift certificates to Bicycle Habitiat and the LimeWire Store, and more!

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, September 27th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's West Village office. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

349 W. 12th St. #3
Between Greenwich & Washington Streets
By the 14th St./8th Ave. ACE/L stop


Check out:

This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.



You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Input requested

Hello Uther. I was perusing some more mammal articles and came across Chacoan Pygmy Opossum. I was not sure if this is formally recognized as a species as of yet and proposed merging it into Agile Gracile Opossum. I was hoping you could take a look at this conversation and advise me if I am on the right track. If I am incorrect in your opinion, let me know here and I can drop the merge proposal. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Conservation status: IUCN vs. Mittermeier

The IUCN lists the Black-and-white Ruffed Lemur (V. variegatta) as Endangered (EN) and the Red Ruffed Lemur (V. rubra) as Critically Endangered (CR). However, in Mittermeier's book, "Lemurs of Madagascar", it says that the IUCN lists V. variegatta as CR (due to a more restricted range and fragmentation) and V. rubra as EN (due to its presence is a large national park). I will mention this on the pages I'm composing under the header "Conservation status". However, which assessment should I use for the taxobox? - Visionholder (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hrm. Good question. If we use Mittermeier, someone is bound to revert it back to IUCN. While Mittermeier's book is a good source of information, I think we should hold off on changing the conservation status until next year, and see what the IUCN does. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyviol in Tonkin Snub-nosed Langur

The copyviol you reverted is still in the cronology (see here). I think it would be deleted! Are you an admin ? --Esculapio (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hrm.... yeah, I suppose it does need to be removed from the history. Ok, I'm on it. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of Coyote page edit to 241331645

Please explain your rational for reverting my edit to the Coyote page translating obscure scientific language into plainly understood English. Thank you.Wikiuser100 (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked, biology is a part of science, and so scientific language is appropriate for a biology article. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Come on now, this is otherwise a plain language article written for lay readers. It is not astronomy or quantum physics and such notational usage is not found in similar articles on common animals. Let's not get in a revert war over this.Wikiuser100 (talk) 09:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you examiine a large number of animal articles. You'll see that there is a great variety of styles, but that the predominant move in the edits is towards scientific language, and not away from it. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
What's the point - in an article about coyotes? Wikipedia is not a scientific encyclopedia and its audience is not comprised primarily of scientists. It is a layman's venue authored by laymen, except in the exception. Not the norm.Wikiuser100 (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The point is we shouldn't talk down to the audience, we should talk up to them. "MYA" is a simple concept, and should be acceptable with the explanatory link. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you have it backwards: we should be talking *to* them, in plain English. It indeed is talking down to them to use the notation employed. I've studied at nine colleges and universities in my life and never encountered the form before this webpage. And would not expect to in a non-scientific article in an orthodox encyclopedia or dictionary of record (like the O.E.D.).Wikiuser100 (talk) 05:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

So take it to talk:Coyote and see what other people say. Oh, and check out what links to MYA.... - UtherSRG (talk) 05:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of Mountain Gorilla page edit to

I do no understand why you would remove the link to the National Geographic Adventure article on Mountain Gorillas. The article won the PEN award, the second most prestigious award in all of journalism and was published in one of the leading magazines in the world. It discusses the reason they are nearly extinct and provides detailed information on them. The photos are probably some of the best on the web of the gorillas. What is your issue here? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JakeSturm (talkcontribs) 10:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Please read the external links policy. Try to find some way of incorporating the links into the article in a better manner than "other sources". The article is not using the information in the NGA article, so this is an incorrect way of adding the links. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Lesser Bilby

hey there, just wondering what was wrong with my piece on the evolution of the lesser bilby? everyone in my biology class is updating a site with evolutionary information and we were all excited to be a part of a bigger discussion. an explaination would be appreciated. (Iheartthelesserbilby (talk) 05:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC))

Your edit was in an unencyclopedic tone, and did not cite any verifiable or reliable sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

re: your proposal in neanderthal

You wrote: Discuss the changes first

Where with who to discuss ? Vdr826 (talk) 07:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, UtherSRG, for your attention to the article. Vdr826, please see my comment on the Talk page. Ideally you would propose changes there, then let other editors help put it into correct English. And we'll need to negotiate how much emphasis to put on particular points of view. TimidGuy (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah

I just remembered you never said why you removed this image

Squirrel monkey- fuji.jpg

from this article; Squirrel monkey --Climax Void .

I'm disinclined to have conversations with people who use excessive exclamation points in their edit summaries. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Well in that case if you refuse to give a reason for it ill just put it back --Climax Void . —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC).

New IUCN Red List (2008) released

As the title suggests, a new IUCN Red List (2008) has been released. I am going through all the lemur pages today to update the status in the taxoboxes. How do we go about creating a new IUCN 2006 template for 2008? If it's possible for a non-admin to do this, I'll try to figure it out on my own, but tips would be welcome. - Visionholder (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've created the new template and started adjusting the links on the Taxobox usage and Conservation status pages. I see you created a 2007 template, but it appears to not be used much. Since there have been changes in the organization of the IUCN Red List site, I feel it's important that people start using this new 2008 template. I've made some posts, but was wondering if there's a way for you, as an admin, to help get the word out. - Visionholder (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Since the 2006 and 2007 IUCN website was very similar in format, there was no big need for changing all the articles to use the new template. I haven't had a chance to look yet, but if what you say is true, then there will be a big need to push the new 2008 template onto all of the articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

A fun mess — lemur renames!

I've never done disambiguation, page moves, and redirects before. Looks like I'm getting a crash course today. The IUCN now recognizes a new species, the Red-fronted Brown Lemur (Eulemur rufifrons). Unfortunately, Red-fronted Brown Lemur is another name of the Red Brown Lemur (Eulemur rufus), so the page name already exists. In fact, Red-fronted Brown Lemur was the main page. Fun! So I'm in the process of moving the existing page to Red Brown Lemur, creating a disambiguation link, then (somehow) changing the auto-created redirect to a new lemur page, also with a disambiguation link. Unfortunately, I'm sure that I'm missing a step here. Is there something special I should say at the top of the new Red-fronted Brown Lemur (when I'm done) instead of (or in addition to) the disambiguation link, since old links will now be pointing to the wrong page?

Yet one more reason why I am strongly opposed to the decision to name animal pages by their common name, instead of the scientific name. >.<

- Visionholder (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Rlendog and I have been discussing this on his talk page, in case you're interested. I realize what I've done may not have been the best move, but given that a new species is involved in the shuffle, it's hard to say. - Visionholder (talk) 03:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Replied there. Oy. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
My apologies for all the trouble. I'll wait for an update from Groves before making changes like that again. On the positive side, I now have experience with disambiguation, page moves, and redirects. - Visionholder (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this how? (IUCN 2008)

Thanks for your help, and I was wondering, is this (in the 'reference' section), on Numbat, the correct way. Thanks The Pharmacist (talk) 08:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The reference in the References section was structured and filled out correctly, but was redundant. The reference already existed above in the taxobox and was therefore generated by the {{reflist}} tag. For examples of the different citation methods, go here. The Numbat article appears to use unaligned citations. - Visionholder (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, got it now. Thanks a heap both of you for your help. The Pharmacist (talk) 09:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Bigfoot, he's tired of the prejudice, and frankly, so am I.

Yo bro. I added Bigfoot to the great apes page to IMPROVE it, not vandalize it. I feel like it's more complete if we have every ape creature listed. Please do not revert my edits again. I know someone who has seen Bigfoot so I know he's real. (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We only put scientifically verified species in scientific articles, and we use the valid scientific names for them. What you did was not science based, and so was vandalism. I'll remove it and continue to remove it, and if you persist, your account will get blocked for vandalism. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Tasmanian Devil

Hi, I was just wondering why you deleted my information on the Tasmanian Devil. Last I checked there wasn't anything wrong with it. Thanks, ImperfectMassacre. x

Replied on the user's talk page. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Fishing Cat

Hi UtherSRG, This is regarding reverting of this edit 243896305. I am agreeable in principle to your argument that other language names for the animal is not required in the English version of wikipedia. However, when the article is about an endemic animal, exception has to be made, I guess. English version of the wikipedia is the source that most people come to in order to get information. If the article cannot be used to connect the local name of the endemic animal and the English and scientific name, then a vital piece of information is missing. Note that the local people have been referring the animal with those names, before English name is given and scientific categorization is made. Besides we are not going to have names for the animal in ALL other languages in the world but only as much names as the number of languages spoken in the locales it lives.

I am going to revert your edit once more without any prejudice. However, if you are still steadfast in your opinion, then please feel free to undo my edit without prejudice. I will not be reverting it again, but I like to hear a third party opinion on this matter. Ritigala Jayasena (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Replies on the article's talk. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits and cleanup in Fishing Cat and Rusty-spotted cat. Looks like these articles are in good hands. Cheers Ritigala Jayasena (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds October newsletter

The October 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


This IP, whom you recently blocked, is causing trouble again, adding bull to the HSM2 article. Can you do something, as I have no power to block them. Cheers from Malpass93 (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Will do. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Cheers. Quick reactions! Malpass93 (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Gallery use in article

I would like your opinion on the use of a gallery in the Ring-tailed Lemur article. I was considering the use of the following gallery at the bottom of the "Anatomy and physiology" section:

I'd really like to use these images in the article, but can't think of any other way. Your thoughts? - Visionholder (talk) 09:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hrm... I generally don't like galleries, preferring to refer folks to Commons for collections of images. that said, I think your gallery is valuable, although I wish the image showed both more detail and more context... but I'm on a crappy connection so I get crappy images anyway.... - UtherSRG (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I knew you didn't like galleries, and that's why I asked. The images were the best I could do with my camera. I had either the option of a full body shot or a zoomed-in shot of the features (using text to describe the location). I opted for the zoomed-in shots because they would show more details of the features, as well as look more acceptable. The animals were under anesthesia for routine physical exams, so I could see some people being upset by them. - Visionholder (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh sweet! :) - UtherSRG (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Naming bats

I invite you to discuss this at -- Timberframe (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've discussed it ad nauseum. the current stalemate is don't change things. You changed things. I'm changing them back. Also, see WP:BIRD for the logic behind using capitalization. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Beluga Conservation Status

According to IUCN, the Beluga Whale's conservation status is Near Threatened. But some IPs (although they may be one, some of the addresses seem suspiciously similar) keep reverting the taxobox to show "endangered", possibly on the basis of a particular subpopulation. I've already reverted 3 times and don't want to have to keep edit warring, but I am not sure how to handle. Thanks for any advice. Rlendog (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably a semi-protect is in order. I'll take a look. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Rlendog (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Seems to be quiet for now. I've added it to my watch list. (Now over 4300.) - UtherSRG (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Mustela formosana

  1. Would you accept the above weasel as a confirmed species based on the sources given in the article? Just going through the Carnivore templates comparing them to MSW3 and this one popped up and had no challenges on the talk page (I usually see your comments on the talk page on species not included in MSW3 and you either accept or reject the new species claim). Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. Same with Western Hog-nosed Skunk, the only hit on MSW3 is "mesoleucus" as a synonym for Conepatus leuconotus. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 13:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
    I am very skeptical of the sources on Western Hog-nosed. --Tombstone (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. Same with Cozumel Island Coati, MSW3 treats it as a subspecies, see talk. --Tombstone (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Eye-flash_Squid.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Eye-flash_Squid.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jordan 1972 (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Eye-flash Squid.JPG

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Image:Eye-flash Squid.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [7], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

  • state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
  • add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Eye-flash Squid.JPG|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ViperSnake151 19:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)