User talk:UtherSRG/Archive Sep 2007

Reverts at Goodman's Mouse Lemur

The article on Madagascar mentions that the character Mort has the characteristics of a Goodman's Mouse Lemur. However, when I and at least two other people [1] [2] inserted a mention of that into this article, we were reverted without explanation, as if our comments were vandalism. (Wikipedia:Revert warns against using automated reversion tools in this manner.) Could you explain why you are reverting these edits? --Idont Havaname (Talk) 03:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a notable point abut the film, not about the species. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It's also very unlikely to be true. Mort is a mouse lemur of some kind, indeed, but all mouse lemurs look very similar. If he looks like a GOODMAN'S mouse lemur then that is accidental; this is a very recent species that had not even been described by scientists when the Madagascar movie was released. Zebedeezbd (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Monkey Day

Why is the Monkey Day article I started deleted? SamanthaMM 05:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It was previously deleted via WP:AFD. The only correct was to create an article deleted via AFD is to use the process at WP:DRV. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not very helpful in answering my question. Maybe we are miscomminucating -- I asked again at Talk:Monkey_Day. SamanthaMM 19:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, *I* deleted it because it was incorrect to recreate it without going through WP:DRV. It was deleted before as being non-notable. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

WTF

What about this reversion to the Talpa? I fixed a species link and wikified the word genus. Was that such a big sin? Apparently your "reversion" kept the fixed link. So what the heck is going on here? Stepp-Wulf 03:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC).

Because how it was was correct. And I moved the species article to the name it should be at. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverts at Thylacoleo

Just wondering why pertinent edits at Thylacoleo were reverted as if vandalism with no explanation. I understand you keeping the species articles well kempt, and that is to be applauded, but the points added in the latest edit are crucial markers for the species (specifically the semi-opposable thumbs and large retractable thumb-claws; a huge factor in how the creature feeds and locamotes, and an integral part of its unique anatomy). Take a look at any viable publication on the species to see for yourself that these features were, and after your reversal, still are missing in the wikipedia article, while unimportant and frivolous information remains...such as that dreamtime reference, which I tried to add specific references relating to the thylacoleo species.

Here are various fact sheets reiterating the removed information for quick reference: [3] [4] [5] [6]

If the information was presented in a stylistically unacceptable way, feel free to edit and reinstate it, as I am not a frequent wiki user, but removing crucial identifying physical characteristics of a species without checking them is in very bad form. Also the page Marsupial_Lion addresses the exact same creature (or one subspecies), mirrors the same information, and needs to be merged with Thylacoleo. -Thanks Marflact —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 11:01, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Try again, without the extra junk, and with proper capitalization. It is "Thylacoleo", not "thylacoleo". And drop the "drop bear" and "drop cat" garbage. And most of what you did put in the was relevant was generally a restatement of what was there already. Further, we have separate articles for species (such as Marsupial Lion vs. genera (Thylacoleo) all the time. It is appropriate to have multiple articles like this. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Understood on italics and capitalization. Though there is not one mention of the opposable thumb and matching claw in the article, as that was the point of my disagreement in the first place. It is not restating anything, but providing an important fact not presented (it is clearly shown in each article linked above, yet missing on the wiki page). Also many scholars suspect the myth of the Drop_bear originated from a Dreamtime account of "Thylacoleo", I don't see how this addition was garbage at all, but I should have linked it properly. Apologies for that . --Marflact 07:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Taxobox begin

Template:Taxobox begin 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. — Verisimilus T 13:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Phylogenetic trees

Hello Uther, why are you removing my phylogenetic trees? You are not giving any explanation for the revisions. Ed Sanville 14:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The tables you made were not very readable. There's a template that you may find useful: {{clade}}. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Using Popups

What? Who or what uses popups? None of the picture sites as far as I can see use popups. The Hamlyn's Monkey picture is horrendous. Sancassania 13:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Popups is a Wikipedia navigation and editing tool. Try clicking the link instead of assuming I said the links had popups. The edit note was automatically generated by the popups tool. As for your links, one is to a German site, which would be appropriate for the German language article to have, and the other is simply a link to an image. See WP:EL. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I clicked the popup links which explained something about Javascript ... Given the quality of the picture in the article, language seems irrelevant ... If you look at the existing picture in large format, it's more a blur than a picture of the actual species.

I am still at odds about what this:

"Navigation popups is a script, written in JavaScript (source), that offers easy access to article previews and several Wikipedia functions in popup windows which appear when you hover the mouse over links."

has to do with linking to images of acceptable quality. Also the FAQ does not seem to have an acceptable answer why the bot reverted.

The correct question should be if the article needs a better picture, or in lack of any free one, at least a link to something useful. Additionally, pictures that do not contain signs are pretty much language independent. Given that the German WP is full of links to english pages, making this nationalistic/languagistic approach is at best questionable.

I tried to find the most useful pictures ..

You might link at least to this, although I don't think the picture is great. http://www.edinburghzoo.org.uk/SnippetAccess.aspx?id=79&pid=67&lessonDetail=P1%20-%20P3%20%7C%20Level%20A%20%7C%201%20hr&ageIndex=0

Sancassania 15:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say delete...

I hate this rubbish. I like your note, but I've been wanting to go one step further and delete it. It's not about the Binturong, it's about the schools. Worse than "In Popular Culture" sections. --Merbabu 14:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

hedgehogs

I have read EL and COI sections and am aware of their requirements. Hedgehog World has an extensive article section devoted to hedgehogs and all articles are credited to a specific author. This means it is verifiable. There is a lot of educational information there for the general public to use. Is that not what an encyclopedia is all about? Whether I submit the site or someone else does is beside the point to me when there is such a wealth of information there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CThedgehogs (talk • contribs) 13:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Cat

Hey, I guess the southwestern>south-western thing I understand but I also removed a gap, which seems to be un-needed? The south-western was just a difference of language ;) → jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 18:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Great apes

What's this about? — Jack · talk · 04:55, Wednesday, 5 September 2007

Your edit was not needed. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I created the damn templates! You've done nothing for them but revert me. Could I have a bit more of an explanation? — Jack · talk · 22:50, Wednesday, 5 September 2007

Blue Whale edits

Hello UtherSRG. You reverted some editing I did yesterday on the blue whale article, without explaining the reason. As a result of your changes there are now two different spellings of the word "vocalisation" and at least one meaningless sentence. Could you please explain why you did this? Thunderbird2 13:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I fixed it. Thunderbird2 08:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Carnivora

Hello, could you tell me if carnivorae is used for indicating members of the order Carnivora? I edited it to "Carnivora" in the article, but I guess this is only used as a collective noun and not for referring to individuals. Just "carnivorans", then, or is carnivorae a form that escaped my attention? Iblardi 12:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen "carnivorae", only "carnivorans". - UtherSRG (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "carnivorae" is quite ungrammatical, since "Carnivora" is already a plural. Ucucha 19:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I know, but just in case... It has a few Google hits and I was wondering whether it might be some odd tradition in which a feminine substantive noun was lost at one point. But it looks like it is just spurious. Iblardi 21:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Grotto Geyser

I see from the logs that you deleted the article on Grotto Geyser last year. Why? It was a perfectly valid topic, and in fact Grotto Geyser is quite important for its relationship to Giant Geyser, one of the world's most powerful geysers. If it was a formatting problem, there's an easy way to deal with that: fix the thing. I've re-created the article. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 02:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted as original research. If you wish it to be undeleted, you will have to go to deletion review. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't give a rat's *ss about whether the original article was deleted, but the replacement most certainly should not have been. It was meticulously documented and referenced. Deleting the first one may have been in line with WP policy, although I rather suspect it was not. Deleting the second one is completely idiotic. Did you even read the thing before deleting it? You're way out of line here. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 04:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, go to deletion review to have the article undeleted. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

How do you install popups? I tried but it didn't work. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you've done wrong. Please follow the installation instructions. I'm only a user of popups, I'm not well versed in what might go wrong in installation. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

reverts and edit summaries...

I saw you reverted this edit and another in the Borneo equivalent. I was also unsure of these additions. Your fauna edits are always popping up in my watch list, and I trust your work (it's nice to know that these fauna articles will be referred by you, unlike some of the more esoteric history articles i watch) - thus I have no question that your reverts were fine. But, it would be nice if you just left a quick explanatory note in the edit summaries for the rest of us who might have less of a clue than you. kind regards and keep up the good work! --Merbabu 10:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just wanted to make those really quick before I jetted off to work. Each article doesn't need an announcement saying the status has changed. I've now updated the taxoboxes for these few that I just quickly reverted, and left an edit note. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Original Research Images

I read the original research section, and it says that photomanipulations are not allowed. I did research, yes, but that was to find references to help with reconstructing those animals. If I'm not allowed to post reconstructions of extinct animals to help improve the articles here, then, isn't it hypocritical to single me out while letting other people post their own reconstructions of extinct animals? Really, I do not understand at all why you would consider my posting reconstructions of animals, especially since other users have specifically asked me to do so, as being "original research." Furthermore, why is posting self-made images considered to be "original research," when, it says:

"Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles."

--Mr Fink 14:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Given as how Wikipedia rules state that self-made pictures based on research are permitted, please stop reverting my reconstructions.--Mr Fink 12:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I can not tell if they are based upon verifiable sources, or created from your own imagination. No sources, no verifiability, no inclusion. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Since when is it Wikipedia policy to site sources for self-made images? Unless you intend to force all of the artists in Wikipedia to kowtow to this new rule you made up, or if you intend to delete all of the pictures I have contributed, stop reverting my reconstructions. I will not allow you to prevent me from attempting to upload images in order to improve Wikipedia simply because you find my art questionable.--Mr Fink 14:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is exactly when images should be questioned: when the information they convey can not be verified. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So do you plan to make all of the illustrators in Wikipedia obey this new rule, or are you just making an example out of me?--Mr Fink 16:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't go out of my way to find trouble, if that's what you're asking. I have a set of articles that I have on my watchlist that I work to maintain. You stepped on one of those articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok you two, you need to get a third, fourth and fifth party, preferably admin's and all people who post reconstructions of animals should be notified. UtherSRG you have that job as you are so enthusiastic about this topic. Thankyou Enlil Ninlil 04:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Platypus

I am not impressed by the fact that you have made me appear to be a vandal in your reversal of my edit (by not stating that it was not vandalism). I heard an American personally call the Platypus by the incorrect pronunciation of 'platy-pus' ('pus' as in yellow matter discharged from a wound). I was attempting to correct this mispronunciation by my adding the information I did about the correct pronunciation of the name of a native animal of my own country (Australia). I was not vandalising the page — nor was I simply writing a POV comment. Figaro 14:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's see... I didn't state anything about the edit. All I did was revert it. So since I didn't say it was plagiarism, do you think I think it was plagiarism? I didn't say it was obscene, do you think I think it was obscene? I didn't say it was vandalism, why do you think I think it was vandalism? It was simply a revert. Nothing more, nothing less. How you think you appear has more to do with you than with me. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)