User talk:UtherSRG/Archive Jan 2008

Felidae

Why did you revert all my edition on Felidae? The fact I added was from English Wikipedia itself. I just updated it for integrity. Please trace each article if you see that which one is wrong. (especially some subspecies and the extinct subfamily that actually existed) I must recover them back for keeping information. I also use these data on Thai Wikipedia too: th:วงศ์เสือและแมว --Octra Bond (talk) 10:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect. With the exception of the Domestic Cat, none of your changes are valid. The Pantanal and the Pampas Cat are both full species, and the list of extinct taxa is not needed on that page. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Pampas Cat, it said it was considered a subspecies of the Colocolo and the topic Subspecies contains only Colocolo names. They already has reference. Should I believe in its citation or your quotation? Or is it totally wrong?--Octra Bond (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

'Was' is past tense. 'Is' is current. It was considered a subspecies. It is now considered a species. See Wilson, D. E.; Reeder, D. M., eds. (2005). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-8221-0. OCLC 62265494.. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That means it occurred in the past. That is okay; it causes of my misunderstanding. Thanks for pointing me out. But how will you manage Pampas Cat's subspecies list? --Octra Bond (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already fixed it. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You reverted some of my edits using pop-ups

You recently undid some edits of mine using pop-ups. Specifically, you undid my removal of Category:fossils from Category:Early hominids, and another category or two. Just posting here to request that you please not try to revert those edits again (or similar ones), I'm trying to streamline Category:fossils, by removing its subcategories that were already sub-categories of subcategories. That kind of redundant categorization was keeping the whole category needlessly cluttered. Sorry if I sound like a cry baby. Have fun with future edits. <3 --Abyssal leviathin (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I couldn't find a thread up through the categories that led to Category:fossils, but I see it now. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Tiger Quoll reversion

Uther, I noticed that you had reverted the edits made by Zoidberg7 regarding the association of compound 1080 baits and "changed fire regimens" to the decline of tiger quoll populations. I've read a couple studies that show that 1080 baits effect quoll populations, and that quolls are very susceptible to such baits. I'm not sure about the statement regarding fire regimen. Do you think we should include Zoidberg's statement if properly sourced? TeamZissou (talk) 09:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine. As it stands, they had not only added that information, but had also removed predation information. That looks like vandalism to me. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but there is the chance that they felt that the two factors with which they replaced the existing language were the "primary" factors. I support your revert, and if I decide to take the time will incorporate the other factors that have been shown to contribute to the quolls' decline into the article. TeamZissou (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't revert my edits for no reason

Hi there, I just noticed that you reverted an important edit I made a few weeks ago here. Why did you do that? Did you even check the edit? Would you prefer to allow blatantly untrue information to stay in Wikipedia than to allow anonymous users to make edits? Please be more careful in the future. 201.222.240.131 (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you should be more careful. Wikipedia edits should cite a verifiable and reliable source. You removed information that has such a citation. Can you provide a reference that contradicts the information you wish to remove? - UtherSRG (talk) 15:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to cite verifiable sources to remove ridiculous bullshit. But I assume that a contradiction of the ludicrous assertion that humans are the most populous mammalian species is OK to falsify the statement. This article about the common rat indicates that there are 1.25 billion rats in the United States and 10 rats for every person in India; these two countries' rat populations alone double the world's human population. I can't find any reliable estimates for the mouse population of the world, but it doesn't matter; the statement I am removing is about the world's human population. 201.222.239.139 (talk) 22:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The statement does not say anything about how many mammal species are more populous than humans only that, after humans, the House Mouse is the next most populous. It doesn't matter that there are, perhaps, more rats (which species?) than humans. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Zozja

Do you think that the block was maybe a little extreme? I usually give someone another warning when they repost a deleted article -- especially one that wasn't obviously made by a 12-year-old. Just wondering -- thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Caught me on a bad day. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

My Hero (video game)

You may want to reconsider your speedy tag on this article. Yes, it's a stub and it only has one source, but in theory any widely distributed video game for any widely distributed games console should be notable. You can put it to AfD to see what the community makes of it, as I don't know what the current consensus is on the notability of computer and video games.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanx for doing the conversion with km and mph with the cheetah article I just didn't have time to do it. Thanks again.Mcelite (talk) 06:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)mcelite

Too bad some of it was reverted. Oh well. It'll get vandalized again.... - UtherSRG (talk) 04:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Eurasian Pygmy Shrew

Why did you revert my edits here? All new points were well referenced.--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 00:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You added new points? I couldn't tell with the extreme makeover you gave the article. Leave the structure, restore the points. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Why? What's wrong with the new structure? I was being bold in my editing — It was in a bad state and I added plenty of new info and reorganised.--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 00:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't wish to be impolite or unfair, but I feel that your use of the rollback button there was completely unjustified, UtherSRG. Rollback is exclusively for vandalism and very disruptive edits. Changing the structure of a page is no reason to revert in any circumstance, and certianly not to use rollback. This talk page tells a short story about various complaints regarding some of your reversions, and while I don't care to examine them all, the pattern is disturbing. Rollback should never be used in editing disputes - perhaps a decent rule of thumb is that if you'd give the user a warning for their actions, you can use rollback. Certainly not the case here. Thanks, :) Martinp23 00:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:IGNORE. I typically use popups and the rollback buttons liberally. To do otherwise would be inefficient. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I strongly disagree with that sentiment. As is stated here, using rollback "is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor". Ignore all rules should not be an excuse to save yourself the effort of typing a proper summary, and it certainly isn't "inefficient" to either constructively explain your reasons for a revert of a good faith editor in the summary, or attempt to fix the error rather than rollback the whole thing. I would ask you reconsider your use of the rollback tool in such editing disputes. Will (aka Wimt) 15:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You work your way, I'll work mine. 90% or more of my reverts are not of good faith, and the majority of the good faith ones needed the revert anyway. I'm not going to craft a unique edit summary for each of them. That's too time consuming and that's where I invoke WP:IGNORE - UtherSRG (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that were you not an admin, you would have been blocked by someone by now. This is the standard course of action where a user abuses an editing tool (popups/twinkle/rollback) to gain the upper hand in an editing dispute or, more relevantly in this case, to make rash reverts which are not supported in any policy. IAR does not give you carte blanche to do as you wish - the wording is something like "Ignore rules if they prevent you from improving the enycylopedia". I am of the opinion that by invoking IAR you have in fact broken it, because some of your reverts mentioned above do in no way improve the encyclopedia - who cares about dodgy formatting if there is new content, and believe me the encyclopedia will be far worse off when you scare a new user away. Consider this a final warning - any further abuse of the rollback tool may result in a block or a report to the relevant noticeboard. I am sorry to have to take such a tone with you, but have been left no choice. Thanks, Martinp23 17:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Having to make an edit summary for every reversion does prevent me from improving the encyclopedia. If you want me to stop using the tools available, I'll simply leave *no* edit summary instead of the generic one the tool leaves. That's simply done by going to the version I want to revert to, editing it, and saving. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd still be concerned that you're reverting good faith edits with no good reason, thus prevetning other users from improving the encyclopedia. If a user introduces few errors in addition to some new content, a revert is never the answer. Either fix it yourself, or have a chat with the user in question. The dismissive tone you used with Phoenix-wiki above would be borderline biting, were Phoenix-wiki not an established editor. Martinp23 17:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Being an admin does not make you immune. You are not the all powerful one. I see this a lot of this on Wikipedia and it's terrible. Admins think they have the right to do anything, and be immune from all policies and guideline and other things, and talk however they want. You are not. Stop being rude and threating to use no summary. The behavior of an admin should be much higher than that. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ 17:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a litle concerned with this too, as I feel that you are acting a bit too offhand and uncaring, even if this is not how you truly feel. Every edit should be treated as good faith except in obvious cases, and this was certainly not one of those. As every edit should be treated as good faith, then this revert went against both WP:BOLD and WP:AGF. :-) Stwalkerster talk 17:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to be rude or offhanded. I'm stating my position. Jimbo has said that of all the rules, IAR is the most important. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

And I agree with that, when it is used in the right way, but I personally think that using it in this way is not what it was intended for. Apologies if I have been a bit uncivil, I'm quite tired at the moment. :-) Stwalkerster talk 19:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

He barely changed the structure at all. Learn to read diffs already... – Gurch 20:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's everyone give their opinion.... - UtherSRG (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Kangaroo

I have added a note on talk. Lets discuss. Regards, Mercury 21:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Quokka

I have reverted your unexplained reversion of minor, good faith edits by an anonymous contributor to the Quokka article. Please take more care in future when determining the best way to revert a not-entirely-constructive edit. In this case, the user corrected a glaring gramatical error about islands on which the animal is found, which your reversion reintroduced. - Mark 16:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, could you include reasons in your summaries in future? Thanks ;-)--Phoenix-wiki 18:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I do when I think it is required. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hairy-eared Dwarf Lemur

Hi, we saw your messages and your threats to delete the article. The article was contributed by two undergraduate freshmen students from the University of Wisconsin Stevens Point. I think other than being so critical, you should appreciate that students take the time to contribute to wiki. Frankly, I think you are being very arrogant and instead of helping us or providing suggestions to improve the article, you are putting off people from contributing. I am their Professor and as a class we contributed to over 15 species on wiki. The students spent time in the library gathering resources and thanks to people like you feel that their work actually don't mean anything.66.191.91.170 (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)B. Thiagarajan

I frankly don't care. If you are their professor, then help them follow the needs of the encyclopedia. When material is added with only citation at the bottom, unlinked to the added material, it is very difficult for me and other editors to verify the material that was added. I have only your word that what was added was good and, several times, the edits were not good in that they removed various categorization of interwiki linkages, besides being very difficult to verify. If you want your students to contribute to Wikipedia, I suggest you first learn what it takes to make a Good Article or a Featured Article. Then you can guide them more properly. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EtiquetteBala Thiagarajan (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)B. Thiagarajan

WP:IGNORE. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

As someone without any involvement in this particular article, the removal of the information added by Bio160uwsp does appear unnecessarily heavy-handed, especially considering that most of the mistakes in the article were format issues, which would have been easy to solve for an established editor like yourself. As for actual mistakes in the information given, I have been able to find surprisingly few (no more than I'm able to find on the average wiki pages I come accross that deal with issues within my knowledge base). It should also be mentioned that Bio160uwsp added an additional 8 sources when writing these sections (now gone with your revert); i.e. the comment that it was removed because it was not properly sourced is incorrect. It did not include in text references, but that is not an argument for removing large sections, as general references are a fully valid possibility, as per WP:REF#How_to_cite_sources. If it was, you could delete a large percentage of the content on wiki (e.g. under Tree-kangaroo alone, you can remove the sections Evolution, Anatomy and Diet entirely, under Macropod you can remove most of the main section - Physical description - where only a single in text ref). Checking the talk page as well as history of Hairy-eared Dwarf Lemur, I don't see anyone challenging any of the material addeed, thereby failing for Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor (per intro in WP:REF). I cannot say I am entirely surprised that Bio160uwsp hasn't been active on wiki since this incident, but I do hope it merely is due to Christmas & New Year. Having read What "Ignore all rules" means a few times, I'm not entirely sure how that argument is valid in this case, especially when used against someone referring one to Wikipedia:Etiquette. I hope you will consider using some of the Unsourced material templates in comparable future situations, instead of just removing large portions of text that clearly include a lot of good information (of course, if most of an edit clearly is wrong info, it should be reverted immediately, but that wasn't the case here). Regardless, I am sure you knew most of this, and hope you will just take it as a well intended recommendation from an occasional contributor. Best regards, Rabo3 (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. When large chunks of text are added with lots of significant data, but the references aren't tied to the data, it is not reasonable. There's no easy way to verify the information. The data is still in the history for future editors to restore with proper citations. And, given that this was a college project, they should get it right as they have the material in hand. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Tree-kangaroo

I noticed you removed a number of my earlier edits to this article that I made under an IP, as I simply forgot to log in. While some of it was entirely fair (I was unaware of the MSW3 issue), the additional info for range was, in my opinion at least, useful. I have "semi-reverted" to get this back, but changed the taxonomy to follow MSW3, with additional info in a taxonomic section and specification in the list itself, to make it clear some of these commonly are considered subspecies. I have removed Buergers' Tree-kangaroo from the list, as it fails for MSW3 (similar to the possible species/subspecies I added, but you later removed). Regardless, as it appears this is your interest, you might want to take a look at the new version. Thanks. Rabo3 (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made more adjustments. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Gorilla

Hi, I noticed that you reverted an IP users edit. However in doing so you reverted their removing another IP users vandalism of the article. Just to let you know that I have reverted your last edit to remove the vandalism again. Thanks have fun. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry... looks like I goofed. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Geoffroy's Spider Monkey

This is just to let you know my logic for replacing the photo of wild specimens of Geoffroy's Spider Monkey, which you recently deleted with the note that the photo was extraneous. The taxobox photo, of a captive specimen sitting on a log, shows the characteristics of the species well. It gives no feel whatsoever, though, for the appearance of the wild animals as they move rapidly through the local vegetation. That is the purpose of the added photo. Thanks for understanding. Tim Ross·^talk 15:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, I don't really want to get into an edit war with you over a single photo in the Geoffroy's Spider Monkey article. To avoid that, I hope you will pursue a dialogue with me. Maybe we can work out our differences.
You have, so far, stated that the photo is "extraneous", that it shows the spider monkey's "well obscured by the trees", and that "it doesn't show anything". I am, frankly, puzzled by this level of criticism. The picture is obviously far short of National Geographic caliber, but the two animals are clearly visible in the trees, in a typical habitat of these spider monkeys, and their brachiation (well, semibrachiation) is obvious. Thus, the photo has a reasonable information content.
Conversely, the taxobox image shows a lot about coloration and configuration of A. geoffroyi, but in a decidedly unnatural, captive environment. Even the posture is not a really typical one to my eyes.
Together, the photos cover many of the aspects of this species that might be expected to be depicted in an encyclopedic article. Either, by itself, is inadequate to the task. Given that the article is a stub, I would think this expansion might be welcome.
Perhaps some change in the offending photo, in terms of adjusting the cropping, contrast, etc., would be to your liking. Let me know and I will do my best. Tim Ross·^talk 22:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the photo adds nothing to the article. Nothing you have said has changed my mind. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. And you have failed to convince me of the correctness of your view, and have in fact hardly tried. I think the photo adds a useful counterpart to the monkey-on-a-leash photo; you think it adds nothing. Are you unwilling to accept anything other than the absence of the picture in question? Tim Ross·^talk 11:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much. ow about this... Add a Commons link and upload it to Commons and people can access it there via the Commons link. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Take a look at the current page, please. I just reworked the photo, cropping it closer and changing the contrast, as well as displaying it in a larger format. To my eyes, at least, the monkeys are now clearly visible. Tim Ross·^talk 15:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Good enough, I suppose. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Eastern Pygmy Possum

Hi, I wanted to talk with you about deleting my edits. Your checking of my edits has been welcomed and you have improved some bits of these contributions. One point of contention that we should discuss is the synoymy and sub-specific taxonomy. Unfortauntely, MSW3 cannot be considered the authoritative work. Its very brief and does not provide details of taxonomic decisions. I have had correspondence with Colin Groves about the entry for this species in the past. He has commented on a couple of my papers for me. I am sure he would agree that the Zoological Catalogue of Australia should be cited in this context.

Also, I have attempted a compromise position with the sentence about sub-species. It probably best to cite the original author of this taxonomic decision which was Wakefield (1963). There have been 2 or 3 other sub-specific systems proposed in the past. The alternative is to delete the sub-species sentence altogether?

what do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.86.163 (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, secondary sources, like MSW3, should be used as references and not primary sources. The secondary sources look at all the primary sources and come up with the best fits. Wikipedia should then use the secondary references for its data. As such, MSW3 is the canonical listing of mammalian taxonomy at the species level.

I am not arguing subspecific taxonomy... we both agree there are two subspecies. We are disagreeing on the synonomies. And here, I follow Groves' work in compiling MSW3, listing only specific and subspecific epithets as synonomies for species and subspecies, while listing the demoted genera as synonyms for the genus. unicolor is a subspecies. It was originally assigned to Dromicia. When it became clear that unicolor belongs to Cercartetus nanus (or whichever name was used at the time), then Dromicia became a synonym for Cercartetus, and unicolor became C. n. unicolor. D. unicolor is not a synonym, since unicolor is a valid subspecific epithet. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, Zool Cat of Aust (vol 5. Mammmalia) is not a primary source either, and I strongly believe it should be cited here. I am not happy about the sentence leaving only 2 synonymns, when there are in fact 3. So I would like to deleted reference to MSW3 in this instance. Its misleading the way it reads with only 2 synonyms. The system you prefer is not ideal and it is not explained to the reader in this context. The reader would go away thinking only 2 sub-species. Maybe I could influence you about including Dromicia unicolor by letting you read a quick summary of Krefft 1863 species description. This is on the first few pages of the publication at this URL http://www.users.on.net/~jamieharris/publications/eppnathist.pdf. If you still want to delete this, I think I might have to delete the whole section paragraph on taxonomy I wrote, becuase I what this to be accurate or not appear at all. thanks for your consideration —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.86.163 (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

MSW3 is the canonical listing of mammalian taxonomy. Period. I'm not arguing with you about whether unicolor is a subspecies; we both agree it is. I'm saying the D. unicolor not a synonym because it is a subspecies. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but the entry is about the eastern pygmy-possum not MSW3. The sentence is about species described that are synonymous with C. nanus, and there are in fact 3, regardless of what has gone on at the sub-species level. Can we agree on that? That it is a fact that there are 3 species described that are synonymous with C. nanus? becuase that is what the sentence intends to say, not what MSW3 does and doesnt do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.86.163 (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No. There are two subspecies, each of which has a synonym. There are four epithets: nanus and its synonym gliriformis, and unicolor and its synonym britta. It is my understanding that each was described as a species. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok... please do not edit this article further. You have certainly over used your own published material, which is original research. Let others source your material, don't promote your own work. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You're invited!

...to the next New York City Meetup!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday January 13th, Columbia University area Last: 11/3/2007

In the morning, there are exciting plans for a behind-the-scenes guided tour of the American Museum of Natural History.

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues (see the last meeting's minutes).

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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Hey why did u remove my comment form the Cat talk page? I just mentioned that the caption of the image sounded funny, which was probably the intent. Amit@Talk 15:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing the improvement of the article, not for laughing. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That's awfully rude of you :( After all the main article does have that line, which was what I was discussingAmit@Talk 15:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a chat board or a forum. It is rude of you to use it as such. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If you are not going to help produce encyclopedic content, please don't edit. You were not discussing, you quoted and laughed. That's not a discussion. That's a forum post. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, you win :-[ Amit@Talk 15:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not about winning, it's about an encyclopedia. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright buddy, point taken. I was just trying to be light hearted, just like the guy who added that picture was. Ciao! Amit@Talk 16:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Therein lies your problem. You believe it was light-hearted, when, in fact, the image and its caption are serious and not light-hearted. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. I just read the text alongside. Apparently I don't know much about cats :( Amit@Talk 17:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Noticeboard comment

Hi - regretfully I have recently sen fit to post a message to WP:AN with regards to your use of the "rollback" function. Thanks for any participation you can share there Martinp23 20:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you go back to the noticeboard as soon as you can because given that your explanation was possibly the worst one you could have given, there are serious issues for you to now consider. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Some people just are too wound up. I think they need a wikivacation.... - UtherSRG (talk)

McIlhenny's Four-Eyed Opposum and Link to McIlhenny Family Category

Hi, I see you removed a category link "McIlhenny family" that I just added to the article McIlhenny's Four-eyed Opossum.

Unless you object, I'd like to restore this category link, because, as the article observes, the marsupial in question was named after John S. McIlhenny, a member of the McIlhenny family. Is this OK? Sincerely, --Skb8721 (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No. The opossum is not a part of the McIlhenny family. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Things to do list

Hi can you please give me a things to do list like you did for Msgj. Thanks :) --Firehazrd (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)