User talk:UtherSRG/Archive Dec 2007

Addition to the Black bear article

Why did you remove my addition to the Black bear article? David Sher 21:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It was unreferenced. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. The Winnie the Pooh article clearly says that the character was based on a black bear cub in the London zoo. David Sher 18:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not what the article says. Milne's teddy bear was named after the bear in the zoo, but none of the character was based off of the zoo bear. Only off of the teddy bear. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thank you. I'll modify the text accordingly. David Sher 19:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Orang utan links...

Nice work on removing all those links. I was going to get around to it, but i don't have to! --Merbabu 21:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Orangutan. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 02:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

The Pumpkin Of Nyefar prod

Hello. Could you tell me why you accepted a prod on The Pumpkin Of Nyefar? I mean, was the content gibberish or something? Else, I can't understand why the last, posthumous cartoon of legend Maurice Noble, collaborator of legend Chuck Jones, wouldn't at the very least get a proper AFD. Also, since I have not seen this article, could a temporary copy of its content be posted in my userspace, or is a DRV required? Thanks. — Komusou ^talk @ 13:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: I see at Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? that "If an article was deleted as a result of a proposed deletion ("prod"), any administrator should normally restore it on your request. In such cases, you can leave a message on this noticeboard." – can you restore it directly, or do I have to go through this channel? Thanks — Komusou ^talk @ 13:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Follow the procedure. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Did that, it said to contact the delete admin first. And now: An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Pumpkin Of Nyefar. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Komusou ^talk @ 07:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sub-mediation please

Thanks for helping me with the Edinburgh Masker article. Right now my blood pressure is elevating over something else, could you do me a favor and look at Talk:Stuttering#Reference_to_.22Stuttering_Treatment_Research_1970-2005.22 and [[1]]? It's not worth escalating to a real mediation, I just want someone else's opinion.--TDKehoe (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

A reference that makes a claim is a primary reference. A reference that using the claim and cites the first source is a secondary sources. You have it backwards. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Health Ranger

What's the deal with the revert? Do you have something against self-referentialism? Control Hazard (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Your edit was disruptive and not helpful. Read WP:POINT. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Watch out for deletion reasons

I found the deletion log for an article you deleted at [2]. While I agree 100% that this article should have been deleted, it should be noted that any content in a deleted page which could potentially be considered attacking should not be included in the deletion summary, because then it shows up in the log. I generally prefer to remove any content which includes personal details (like a birthdate) from the deletion summary. Example: (content was: '{{a7}}Courtney is a ... She was voted ... She is known for ...') --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Point well taken. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

American club of paris

Hi Uther, I thought I'd drop you a note, to let you know that since the article above had a CSD tag for advertisement, and was indeed, a page that provided little more than a plug for the club, I changed the copyright issue you'd placed, to the {{db-copyvio}} tag, so it can be speedily deleted. Hope you don't mind! Ariel♥Gold 13:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hrmm, actually I notice that you added it to the copyvio issues page. I guess that raises a good question for me, (I always love learning new things!) should copyright violations be deleted straightaway, or should they be allowed to remain, to be re-written, in case the article is salvageable? I've always been under the impression that copy-violations should be immediately removed/deleted when in articles, but I use that template you used for images. Am I doing it wrong? lol. Ariel♥Gold 13:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If there is a possibility of salvaging the article, {{copyvio}} should be used and the article should be listed on the copyvio issues page. Otherwise, speedy delete! - UtherSRG (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay yeah, that's what I thought, I guess I have yet to run across a salvageable article that's a copyvio, lol. Even the above article didn't seem to be notable (to me, at least when I read it), and already had the advert tag, so... I'm sorry if I was out of line in replacing your {{copyvio}} tag, my apologies. Ariel♥Gold 13:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No prob. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion (Liz Clay)

Wow, speedy delete means speedy. I posted the article to refer people to the design registration in an attempt to stop the copying that is beginning to happen. Presumably because Liz's work is becoming notable. Is that too commercial/trivial for Wikipedia? I mean that in the nicest, enquiring way. BenClay (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Read the links the speedy notice lists so that you can better understand what is appropriate for a biographical article. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Requesting for a consult

Hi, I'm Gliu from it.wiki. I'd like to ask you a few questions about a problem we are dealing with. We have a user who is blocked for 6 months, due to increasing vandalic behaviour. Recently he has been proposed for ban, and a vote is in course. Many users have raised this problem: the period of the ban will be added to the block, or it will replace it? I'd like to know how you regulate situations like this one. Thank you in advance, --Gliu 14:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the process you have on it.wiki, so I can not comment on whether it would replace or extend the existing block. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I know, but I was asking how you on en.wiki manage this kind of situation. --Gliu 21:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer and for your cordiality. Really helpful. --Gliu 01:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Glitz (software)

You had preiously tagged Glitz for speedy deletion. The article you tagged overlaid a BLP deleted article on a different topic. That caused confusion as to what was being speedy deleted. Per DRV, I recreated the article at Glitz (software), particularly so that the edit history does not cause any further such problems. -- Jreferee t/c 16:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You also might want to review these articles against the speedy delete criterial as well. -- Jreferee t/c 17:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

kangaroos

I am sorry about it. My brother told me about it. He is I think on the anti-vandalism team--76.243.203.159 (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Karl Gannon

Why did you delete this? Do you know how much work goes into this just to see it vanish? How is it any different from the other Rovers players I have created?

Please restore the page {{subst:unsigned Rovers Forever}}

I will restore it, and immediately list it on WP:AFD. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I have voted at the AfD for Karl Gannon, and frankly am amazed that it was sent there. Is there some golden rule I am not aware of which says restored deleted articles must immediately be put to the sword in a different way? The player's notability is assured. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It was recreated and then speedily deleted a 2nd time. Only after that did the author contact me. That's why I put it up for AFD. I'm not going to judge notability. I'll let the community do that. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

G-Spot Revert

Thank you for letting me know that only the first instance of a word should be linked in the article. --Grammar Watchdog 21:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Platypus

Hi. I kept reverting people's well-intentioned changes to the gray reef shark page, until someone pointed out to me that you don't need a color field in the Taxobox template. It knows to use pink for animals. Rather than leaving 'color=pink' field in the taxobox to confuse people and sometimes invite vandalism, it is better to simply remove the field. See these changes. I did the same to platypus page, but you just reverted it :) Fred Hsu (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Unitarian Universalism work group

You may be interested to know that there is now a work group for all things UU. It's at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Unitarian Universalism work group. --Devin Murphy 04:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Very Nice

That's a nice pic u found of the Iberian Lynx. Do you have any suggestions for a good picture for the KodKod article?Mcelite (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)mcelite

Page recreated and awaiting comments

I posted the article on the link you provided me. what is the next step? - GoBigRed1865 (talk) 17:17, 08 December 2007 (UTC)

Please help

Thank you for your help in getting the Sphinx Head Society page launched. I am now encountering some problems with some users wanting to delete it. If you could help defend the side of keeping the article, it would be greatly appreciated as a lot of effort went into making that article legitimate (as I hope you've seen).GoBigRed1865 (talk) 11:49, 09 December 2007 (UTC)

Just looking a little assistance...

Hi, I know you originally helped post the beginning of the Sphinx Head article. We are encountering some resistance by people who seem to just be malicious in intent. I was hoping that you could please offer your support as an experienced editor. Thank you again very much. Cornell1890 (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

They are not being malicious. They are trying to make a good encyclopedia. I have given the amount of support I think is justified. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Red squirrel

Your reversion of my copyediting on Red Squirrel has reintroduced many, many mistakes. I intend to revert. Please explain your thinking. --Milkbreath (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You un-abbreviated terms that should remain abbreviated, such as g from grams. You uncapitalized without any need for uncapitalization. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

From the MoS/Conversions: "In the main text, give the main units as words and use unit symbols or abbreviations for conversions in parentheses; for example, a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in) in diameter and 16 kilometres (10 mi) long or a pipe 4 inches (100 mm) in diameter and 10 miles (16 km) long. The exception is that where there is consensus to do so, the main units may also be abbreviated in the main text after the first occurrence [my italics]." I like to see the first occurrence spelled out in any event, but I'm not a fanatic about it. If you really hate it, I'm fine with leaving them abbreviated,.

I don't know what words you want capitalized. If you mean R(r)ed S(s)quirrel, I made them all the same throughout the article in conformation with the way they had it in the first sentence of the lead (which, incidentally, is Chicago). Your way, it's all over the place; Red squirrel, red squirrel, Red Squirrel. There were many other corrections, including a capitalization that you uncapitalized. Look again and get back to me. I still intend to simply revert tomorrow. --Milkbreath (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have now made them all capitalized. I still don't think grms or millimetres needs to be unabbreviated, even the first instance, especially since it is linked. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Why have you made them all capitalized? --Milkbreath (talk) 13:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BIRD for the logic behind capitalizing species common names. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Right. Thanks. I knew about the protocol for capitalization of common names of birds, and, though I hate it, I follow it. The MoS section on "Animals, plants and other organisms" says: "Where the common name contains a proper noun, such as the name of a person or place, that proper noun should be capitalized; for example, The Amur tiger may have a range of over 500 square kilometers, or The Roosevelt elk is a subspecies of Cervus canadensis." You can see that it's not "Amur Tiger" or ""Roosevelt Elk". The only exception it mentions there is birds:

"For specific groups of organisms, there are specific rules of capitalization based on current and historic usage among those who study the organisms. These should ordinarily be followed:

Official common names of birds are normally capitalized"

So, you are saying one thing, and the MoS is saying another. Are you saying that there is a trend toward applying the bird rules to all fauna? I think that if that's the case, we need a link on the MoS page in the box "Guidance on style", something like "Fauna" or "Animals". Is this capitalization business being discussed anywhere you know about? --Milkbreath (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You seem to have lost interest, unless, of course, you're just not on line. In any event, after reserching the style guidelines at the MoS and at the various concerned WikiProjects, I've decide to put the article back the way I had it. If you would like the very, very long explanation it would take to justify that, please come to my talk page and ask. But I hope you'll just trust my judgement. Copyediting is about all I do here, and I know what I'm doing. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, again. I got your message. I'm glad you're at least somewhat cool with it. Yeah, the capitalization thing is tricky. I do kind of like the rationale for doing it with particular species, but even that runs into problems in the application. The main reason, the many other errors aside, that I went back to lower case is that that's the way I found it. (I'm a Jerseyite, too, by the way. South. The gray squirrels are like a biblical plague around here.) --Milkbreath (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I don't like it. It break logic, and logic should trump a Manual of Style. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't get to make those decisions. What each of us "likes" doesn't count. The MoS says to leave it the way it was.

A stylebook exists to lend consistency across a publication. When everyone follows it, the reader is relieved of the task of trying to figure out why that comma is there and why that word is capitalized and this other one not. Also, it eliminates disagreements like this one, where my logic dictates something different from yours. If you would like to debate the capitalization of species names, I stand ready, but we should do it in a larger forum where it might do some good.

Capitalization aside, you keep reverting all my other corrections. I have to say I'm a little pissed off about that. They were a bit of work to do, twice, and now I have to do them again. Why are you doing that? It seems unfriendly, to say the least. -Milkbreath (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand that. It's still wrong. The MoS was written by folks who don't have understanding of the logic, so I've sstopped arguing it. If you stop uncapitalizing, I'll stop full reverting. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If that is not a threatening ultimatum, I don't know what is. You are in violation of both the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia policy with that, and by reverting my non-capitalization corrections you are essentially vandalizing the article. I've been trying to work this out with you, but it's starting to look impossible. If you are in a bad mood or something, try to relax. I hope you'll take a deep breath and reapply my edits before I do so myself. (Why am I getting so much crap for trying to improve a squirrel page? I like squirrels.) --Milkbreath (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm annoyed that continued good sense is overridden by bad style. The logic on WP:BIRD is sound. No better logic supports the MoS. The folks who wrote the MoS disagree with WP:BIRD, but will let WP:BIRD stand. This does not make sense. Either the MoS should be rewritten as per WP:BIRD, or WP:BIRD should be rewritten. However, WP:BIRD is supported by ornithological organizations. Most other biologists don't care about the style. But even so, the logic of WP:BIRD still is sounder than that behind MoS, and so WP:BIRD should stand and the MoS be rewritten. I consider folks who follow MoS blindly to be vandals. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, got it. You're an admin, so I might as well ask you; what is the accepted first step in a dispute resolution? --Milkbreath (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother. My argument is with the MoS, not with you. I won't revert. Unless you want to open the dispute so that the MoS will get rewritten. :D - UtherSRG (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've got smaller fish to fry. They may be smaller, but there are a lot of them. I'd love to get the MoS straight. What makes birds so damned special? I'm a sometime birder myself (got a snail kite once, note the lower case), but it looks ridiculous when a Tufted Titmouse lands on a white rhinocerous. I think the bird nerds should be brought down a peg or two. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ornithologists have formally adopted the capitalization of common names. Most other biologists prefer not to care about common names. The difference is that there are many more birders (amateur and professional) than there are watchers of any other grouping of animals. The source of the issue is that a vast number of bird names are of the form <adjective-phrase> <noun>. This form also holds true for many other animals. Ornithologists put the end-user of their product (bird watching guide books) above the precedent of common English and adopted the convention of capitalizing the common names, essentially elevating it to a proper noun. The authors of the MoS decided that the end-user is not as important as conformation with common English. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw your message on Fluri's talk page. Jeeze. I thought only us copyeditors gave a damn about such things. Since you feel so strongly about it, I feel it would be churlish of me not to join you in a knock-down, drag-out, ever-so-polite and civil but uncompromisingly ruthless and bitter debate on whatever the talk page is that attempts to change the MoS. I'm apparently 180 out from you on this. Let me know. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Random question

Thanks for your message and tidying up the Bear cuscus article. Just looked at your user page... curious - how do you square support for gender-neutral language with objection to the use of the 'singular' they? :-) Inbetweener (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

By the use of other pronoun systems. My preferred is the Spivak pronoun system. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)