User talk:UtherSRG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

Old archives Archive 1

[edit] zOMG

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

[edit] collaboration -to start the ball rolling

[edit] 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: [1]. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] May 2008

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Template

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] WP:HAU

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:

• Marsupial Lion is a species article, with a redirect from Marsupial Lions.
• marsupial lion is a family article (or redirect to a family article), and marsupial lions is a redirect to the family article.

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)

[edit] Blocked

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)

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)

[edit] while I wait....

work to be done:

• Recent edit to gibbon needs to be massaged.
• Cleanup Arctic Ground Squirrel.
• Revert Cougar.
• Partial revert Grewcock's Sportive Lemur to fix name to not have Wright's info.
• Add refs to Bishop's Slender Opossum.
• Reply to talk:Arctic Fox.
• Review and adjust 69.231.173.7 (talk · contribs)'s cat adds.
• Fix recent edits to Dire Wolf.
• Revert Canidae.
• Revert caps on Walrus.
• Revert anti-evolutionist vandalism on mammal.
• Edit image addition to Crested Mona Monkey.
• Revert political changes on Snow Leopard. This guy needs to be blocked....
• Fix Nimiokoala and related links.
• Revert Cottontail rabbit.
• Restore/revert Bonobo.
• Revert and fix Brown Rat. All 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)

[edit] So...

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)

[edit] Sable

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)

[edit] 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. http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3 - 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Stop

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)