User talk:UtherSRG: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:10, 11 June 2007

This is UtherSRG's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Felines

why you destroy my edit in colocolo, pantanal cat and pampas cat ? Name the colocolo is synonims leopardus pejeros ? Answer me quickly... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caniche (talk • contribs).

sorry, this is my mistake.... see you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caniche (talk • contribs).

bounced email

Trying to find person with your same name who is decendant of Ryshpan clan and member of JewGen.org - I tried to email you when I found your tree on that site- but it bounced -I'm a Ryshpan decendant too - can you update your email on JewGen so I can contact you? Great-Great-Great granddaughter of Batsheva Perel

Wombat Page

I'm sure you've noticed the recurring vandalism to the wombat page. Locking the page might be a bit excessive, but at the very least the user should be warned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.171.41.223 (talk • contribs).

zOMG

		zOMG
		I, Hojimachong, hereby award UtherSRG A completely gratuitous zOMG barnstar, for being 110% awesome. Plus 1. --Hojimachong^talk

CopyVio at Antelope Jackrabbit.

Source as on 2005-08-22 (more than 2 months before the 1st WP edit for the article):
"Reproduction
The litter size varies from 1 to 5."

Article version you put back:
"Reproduction
The litter size of the Antelope Jackrabbit varies from 1 to 5."

Source: "The age of maturity is uncertain, but females probably breed within a year of birth."

Article: "The age of maturity is uncertain, but females probably breed within a year of birth."

Source: "Breeding continues year round. Several litters are born each year, each of which contain 2-4 individuals."

Article: "Breeding continues year round. Several litters are born each year, each of which contain 2-4 individuals."

Source: "Mating is promiscuous; males chase females, and box to repel rivals."

Article: "Mating is promiscuous; males chase females, and box to repel rivals."

etc., etc.. -- Jeandré, 2007-04-16t19:16z

female ejaculation

Hi there... I am new to this thing and I am not sure why you keep rejecting my changes. You mention that it's nonsense, but I don't think so - the article that I linked to helped me out quite a lot and I thought that it might help others too. Please let me know what I should be doing differently. Thanks.

Bobcat + CAPs

First off, I have turned to the dark side. I was editing Bobcat and not reverting upper case, so I thought I might as well be self-consistent. (No comment on the Cougar FAC?)

Also, can you check that the sub-species list on Bobcat accords with MSW3. I think you've already gone over it, but it's sourced to something else. Marskell 09:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had the time to read it through, especially since it was in a state of flux. I'll take a look later today or tomorrow. Does this mean I can caps-up the other big cat articles now? It looks like I gave Bobcat my MSW3 workover in early April. I'll double check tonight when I'm at home with MSW3 to be sure. Since we're on the subject, could you weigh on on the merge or no merge of Florida Panther into North American Cougar debate? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I won't revert you but somebody else still might. You might want to try it on Lion or Tiger first, and see what happens.

I have actually registered a disagreement on the merge (though not for the sames reasons as the anon). Marskell 11:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't expecting agreement. I was expecting something between total merge and no change. Your response is nearly exactly what I was hoping for. Granted, I didn't start out hoping for a middle ground, I was hoping to just merge, but as the evidence for inertia mounted, I realized that trying to move the mountain entirely was not going to be successful. I'll let it sit a little more and see what happens.... - UtherSRG (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bobcat subspecies list is correct as listed. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok good, I'll remove the cite in place now and shift to MSW3. Also "There has been some debate over whether to classify this species as Lynx rufus or Felis rufus. Although the former is the preferred scientific name, the debate is part of a wider issue as to whether the four species of Lynx should be given its own genus, or simply placed as a subgenus in genus Felis.[3]" Is this still widely debated? Marskell 11:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, but not blocked...

Hi there. A few days ago, you blocked 69.74.113.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 1 week, however there is no record of an early unblock, and they have been editing today. See for yourself... Quite strange...

Chrisch^Talk 13:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look again. I blocked them at the end of March, two months ago. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for deleting this useless Panthera-list.... and for integrating it into the panthera article. If I can help you with cleaning up in the felids in engl. wikipedia I would like to to this.... Greetings --Altaileopard 11:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got to that part of Carnivora. I'm about to move on to Viverridae. Anything else you want me to look at in Felidae before I move on? - UtherSRG (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another fauna FAC

From User:MONGO: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elk (Cervus canadensis) Marskell 10:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sorely needs to be moved to another title.... - UtherSRG (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Why did you undo my spelling edit of Talk:Scientific classification? Iph 16:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)iph[reply]

It is incorrect and impolite to correct other's talk edits. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Near Threatened species

Thanks. Will this only work for new articles? Also, can you do some similar with DD? Smallweed 11:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It will work for all articles, but only a few will show up immediately. There are too many articles for the update to be immediate. If you visit an article that is NT, it will get forced into its categories. There's another way it will work, too, but I'm not sure what it is. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting my edits. Smallweed 13:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup

Hello, UtherSRG

You have either attended or expressed interested in the previous NYC Meetup. I would like to invite you to the First Annual New York Wikipedian Central Park Picnic. R.S.V.P. @ Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC -- Y not? 14:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Deer

South Andean Deer. Perhaps you want to MSW3-ify this. I'll probably create more. When I do, I'll pass a list along. Marskell 08:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gotten up to the deer yet..... I'm still working (slowly) on Carnivora. I'll hit the even- and odd-toed ungulates next. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naming convention

Greetings, UtherSRG. I was wondering if I could impose upon you to do me a service? You see, I noticed that, earlier today, you changed the title of an article from American black bear to American Black Bear. Could you direct me to the document that favours the use of capitals in the article title, like that? It appears I've been doing it incorrectly based on my reading and my understanding of WP:MoS and WP:NC (CN). (You see, it was I who, most recently, changed the title of that very same article in the reverse direction.) I'm sorry if the change I made to the title was in error and it's my hope that you could point out to me what I missed and where the direction for the naming covention, as you employ it, has come from. Thanks muchly. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 18:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's some disagreement over how things should be done, but the logic behind using capitals is on WP:BIRD. Some mammal wikiprojects have also adopted this naming style, and since I am systematically editing every mammal article to be in accordance with Mammal Species of the World (3rd ed 2005) or later published works, and since I prefer that naming style, that's where I move articles to. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that was quite helpful.I did look at WP:BIRD and there is no question that you are correct that bird articles should be named that way. However, both WP:MoS and WP:NC (CN) state clearly that, where such direction has not been established for a faunal group, that we should use the standard convention of first word only capitalised. In fact, at WP:NC (CN)#Examples, the instruction is the edxact opposite of what you suggest. See, down the list, there, where they say that Guinea pig and Sea cucumber are correct? So, I was not trying to be disruptive when I changed that article some weeks ago. It's just that, after a careful reading of all the direction and having failed in finding any definitive direction for Mammalia, generally, or Carnivora or Ursidae, more specifically... Well, I think you can guess how I came to a conclusion that differs from yours. Anyway, thanks for your contribution to my understanding. I'm not sure I'm any closer to seeing my way through this other than to interpret that you do it that way because that's the way you prefer it. If that assessment is in error, please correct me. Thanks again. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 19:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Slender loris

I'm curious to know why you decided to delete that redirect instead of fixing it by either redirecting it to Red Slender Loris or by writing an article about the genus Loris. As you can see, I've gone ahead and written a barely-stub there for now. Tomer ^talk 20:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect possibilities were incorrect. Given the adequacies of the search facility of Wikipedia, the redirect was not needed. The stub is good, and I've improved it. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources

sorry. I'll get on to it. doozy88.

Re Cougar

Hi Stacey,

(restoring caps and formatting...)

Please don't restore these capitals; they're ungrammatical ("cougar", "panther" etc aren't proper names) and not something to display in a featured article. Please also don't undo formatting made consistent throughout the article. Thanks.

I've taken the time and effort to contribute some copyediting to this article not only as it's become a featured article (despite the above) but also because it seems a good article content-wise. If some/most of that is due to your work, thanks!

Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 01:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David, I understand you dislike, but regardless, using all caps for species common names is as correct as not. See WP:BIRD for the logic. ?Thanks for your contributions, but I will continue restoring the capitalization. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a dislike, simply standard grammar. I note none of the quotes included in the article capitalize the animals' names. Also, this kind of capitalization may be used in some biology/taxonomy textbooks, but please remember that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a textbook, read by many folk whose first language isn't English. I hope that you aren't simply reverting my edits, as sorting out this capitalization was not the only copyediting I contributed.

I fear those enthusiasts behind WP:BIRD may also have lost sight of Wikipedia's status as a general encyclopedia; surely if/when any specific distinctions need to be made, they can be made in the prose, not by non-standard grammar...? Yours, David (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and, from further above, I begin to wonder whether there's a consensus for your approach. Something to consider now that Cougar has been made a featured article... David (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 140: / Line 140: @@
 :: Not a dislike, simply standard grammar. I note none of the quotes included in the article capitalize the animals' names. Also, this kind of capitalization may be used in some biology/taxonomy textbooks, but please remember that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a textbook, read by many folk whose first language isn't English. I hope that you aren't simply reverting my edits, as sorting out this capitalization was not the only copyediting I contributed.
 :: I fear those enthusiasts behind [[WP:BIRD]] may also have lost sight of Wikipedia's status as a general encyclopedia; surely if/when any specific distinctions need to be made, they can be made in the prose, not by non-standard grammar...? &nbsp;Yours, [[User:David Kernow|David]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:90%;">([[User talk:David Kernow|talk]])</span> 02:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
-:: ...and, from [[#Naming convention|further above]], I begin to wonder whether there's a consensus for your approach. Something to consider now that [[Cougar]] has been made a featured article...
+:: ...and, from [[#Naming convention|further above]], I begin to wonder whether there's a consensus for your approach. Something to consider now that [[Cougar]] has been made a featured article... [[User:David Kernow|David]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:90%;">([[User talk:David Kernow|talk]])</span> 02:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)