User talk:UtherSRG/Arch6

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them;

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Tip: you can sign your name with ~~~~

snoyes 20:07, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanx for welcoming me

Hi! Thanks for leaving me aa little welcome message!Frogprincess1312 06:20, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well that's all I had to say :-D Laudaka 14:29, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice welcome - Drago9034 05:04, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for the welcome! Mark Richards

Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia my goal is to do the best that I can to help improve wikipedia in all of the areas that I can. Daniel.

Thanks for the welcome note. Helped me understand the User talk thing, and was encouraging. I've been editing modestly for a while now. You set a nice tone for friendly welcoming which invites new users to feel at home. Kd4ttc 03:00, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for welcoming me. However I guess I stay on the German Wikipedia project and just add the inter wiki links here. -- MichaelHaeckel 19:18, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. I really don't know anyone around here yet, and it was nice to know that somebody cared! Jeru 11:07, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Um, I'm not sure how to leave messages on this just yet, but you can always delete this, right? Thanks for the welcome message. Sorry about the inappropriate link. 「Jeshii 12:57, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)」

Thanks for your welcome. (I'm sure you welcome my thanks or do you want to say thanks for the thanks. Then I should say thanks for your thanks....ad infinitum.....) :) I still need to understand the copyright thing. I'd like to upload a rewrite or summary of the 'Waking the Tiger book' under a wikipedia article 'How to Heal Traumas' . Sorry to all wikipedians for the copyright infringements.(they were deleted) Best regards, Jondel 04:38, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This just one more thank you for one more kind welcome written by you. Hgfernan 08:45, 13 May 2004

Oh yes, it's taking me a while to find my way around talk pages and stuff, but I was very pleased with the welcome you gave me, too. Thanks, and keep up the good work. Tonusperegrinus 20:28, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what they said :o] porge 02:45, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! Sir Trollsalot 07:00, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Me too! Palnu 03:32, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

And thanks! David Sneek 06:36, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Adminship

Hello Uther, I've nominated you for adminship, as I think you've done a fine job here. Please visit the nomination page to accept or decline your nomination. Chris Roy 20:00, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Uther: Congratulations on your nomination! Thanks for the note; deal with it as you see fit. - MPF 12:35, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You made it, with the most overwhelming consensus I've seen in my 2.5 years here! --Uncle Ed 20:08, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Primates

I'm just trying to bring things in line with the 2000 interdisciplinary meeting of primatologists, taxonomists, conservationists, geneticists, etc. in Orlando. There they recognised five families of Neotropical primates, 40 species of galago, five gorilla subspecies, two orang-utan species, and a fourth chimp subspecies. At that time, there were something like 310 primate species and 608 subspecies. This has increased since then with discoveries in Brazil, Madagascar, etc.

It's going to be such a gargantuan project trying to fix all of this. The trees are going to be a pain, and I'm still debating whether or not I should do them all the way down to the subspecific level, as that's going to double or triple the work for me. Also, there's so much disagreement regarding the placement of the higher taxa. Wish me luck, I guess. Pajamacore 17:36, 2004 May 11 (UTC)

Excellent stuff! This is the kind of influx of data I've been hoping for. If you can, post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Primates with a link to all the new info so that I and others interested can help tackle it. - UtherSRG 17:41, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the APL math notation

Thanks for your work on APL programming language. Is there any possibility that you can make a second version of the operator table? Most of it doesn't even display in my browser; maybe it'd be better to have "APL operators in Unicode" and "APL operators in math-mode" tables... Grendelkhan 15:43, 2004 May 12 (UTC)

I'm working on it. *grins* I'm about to upload an APL keyboard image. No permission yet, so I'll only put it in the talk page for now. - UtherSRG 15:48, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Chris 73 on TV (not)

You can now increase your wikipedia score by 5 ;-)

(see here) -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:24, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Crap. I'm up to 145 now. *grins* - UtherSRG 00:58, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

msg boxes

Hi Uther - do you know how to make these? I'd like to make a {{msg:Pinophyta}} to put at the bottom of each family page to replace my existing links line. Thanks - MPF 12:43, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. The messages are created on th MediaWiki namespace. Any page there is accessible as a message. You want Template:Pinophyta. You'll then want to add it to Wikipedia:MediaWiki_custom_elements#Biology. - UtherSRG 15:39, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! - let me know what you think of it - MPF 21:06, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Having done it, I'm not so sure I like it after all . . . changes in a linked family no longer show up in 'Related changes' (which was very useful) - maybe I'll get rid of it and go back to the old style. Any thoughts yourself? - MPF 22:30, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. I'm still deciding if I like those kind of navboxxes for taxoarticles. - UtherSRG 05:12, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Gray v Grey

I've moved the langur article to grey langur. Since it's written by a Brit about an Asian species (where British English is the norm, especially in India and Sri Lanka), it's quite unacceptable to unilaterally Americanise the spelling. I don't change Gray-cheeked Thrush to the UK spelling, and I don't expect Americanisation of non-American topics. (incidentally, this page is 44k now) jimfbleak 04:52, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that publishers end to use US spellings to maximise their markets. Handbook of Birds of the World uses gray even for Eurasian species like Grey Wagtail, but I change the spelling to grey for Old World species. The Wikipedia policy on US/UK spelling is clear, and I think that where appropriate the "world list" spelling should be adjusted to the expected form. Sorry if I over-reacted, but you know what a touchy topic this is with Europeans. Jim

Moving Triglav (god) to ... (mythology)

You moved Triglav (god) to Triglav (mythology). I think it's a mistake. The majority of pagan gods are listed as (god). For example Jupiter_(god). What is your reasoning for moving the article to an inconsistent place? Gene s 12:00, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My understanding is that the majority are not (god) but (mythology). - UtherSRG 12:03, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand. Do you propose to move all pagan gods to (mythology)? If not, what's the difference between, say Slavic Triglav and Roman Jupiter? What's the criteria? Gene s 12:39, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Triglav is the one that caught my eye. Nothing more. Yes, they should all be moved. - UtherSRG 12:42, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OK. So, will you move all the Roman & Greek gods as well - Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Saturn, Neptune, Eros etc.? Seems like a lot of work for no gain. And inconsistency too. And possible objections from neo-paganists. Gene s 12:50, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is being debated at [[1]] Rmhermen 15:35, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer! - UtherSRG 16:45, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Platypus

A non-registered user has changed the taxobox of Platypus into a non-standard format. Can you look into it and revert it ? JoJan 11:56, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Done! - UtherSRG 12:33, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

ToL

You said "no categories on ToL pages yet, please. see Talk:ToL", but this page doesn't exists. What is a ToL?

The edit summary line is too short. That was shorthand for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. - UtherSRG 14:27, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dead people

You deleted Category:Dead people from Categories for deletion after 1 day of open discussion, and, with a edit summary of delisting deleted categories ([2]). Its not a life or death issue, i just hope you are not doing more of these funny things. Muriel G 14:20, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Policy as I understand it: Categories that are listed and empty may be speedily deleted. - UtherSRG 14:27, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Thing is that i actually wanted this category deleted. And since you removed the category from the page, before what i consider a reasonable time for discussion, the thing is still out there, making wikipedia look quite ridiculous. Muriel G 14:36, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

About those blank category pages...

I've been tracking RC for the past hour or so, and have been noticing that you're deleting a few blank category pages. I feel that I should warn you that there are (probably) over a hundred of those pages by now, most created by Fuelbottle, and I would suggest you talk with him to figure out the rationale behind his creation of said pages as there's probably a reason they're there. -- Grunt 03:02, 2004 Jun 13 (UTC)

Heh. I just now left a message on his Talk page while you were leaving me this note. See my comments there if you are interested. - UtherSRG 03:04, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

*watches with interest* -- Grunt 03:05, 2004 Jun 13 (UTC)

More category deletion

Could you please stop hammering categories through Wikipedia:Categories for deletion? Currently there is really no way for people to know if categories are going to be deleted, until they suddenly disappear along with their work. Category:Fungi had at least one article and several subcategories and was obviously appropriate for a very large number of articles. silsor 14:54, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

restored pages

I restored Jack of All Trades Season 1 and Jack of All Trades Season 2. While I don't know if a list of episodes constitutes a copyrightable piece of work that thus requires attribution, preserving the authorship credit properly does no harm. —No-One Jones 05:43, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's fine... but the lists have been merged up to the show's main page. There's no need for those pages since they were just a short table per page. - UtherSRG 05:46, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I know there's no reason for these pages to exist, and they never should have been created in the first place. I only undeleted them to preserve the authorship credits; see Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Commenting_on_a_deletion_request (the last sentence) for policy on this sort of thing. —No-One Jones 05:58, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks re deletion

Thanks for deleting my unfortunately-named picture! :) --Nevilley 07:32, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Category:Cetaceans

Actually that cetacean category either pre-dates or happened about at the same time as the very first ToL discussions (i.e. they had been stable for a week or so before the ToL discussion got serious) I figured that whatever is eventually agreed, it would pretty much fit with what had been done with that category so thought removing them and then adding them back again would be too much work for little gain. Hope that's ok. Pcb21| Pete 22:57, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words in your reply. A few things: I've dropped down my contribution for a week or two whilst I am busy with other things, thus I didn't get involved with the ToL categories debate and concentrated on a few pet projects like that new whale species. However I've read the debate and I think you are doing a great job there. If having the cetacean category around makes your life difficult in trying to get a general agreement and policy off the ground, then don't let me hold you back from deleting it. However I am finding the categories somewhat useful - there are a plenty of articles that fit into the category but are not taxa themselves - and because of this the category is a neat way of creating an automatic List of X-related topics article. I think we can further make the categories useful by subverting the sorting mechanism. I am envisioning using categories like [[Category:Cetaceans|Species:Blue Whale]], [[Category:Cetaceans|Species:Gray Whale]], [[Category:Cetaceans|Pressure group:Whale and Dolphin Conservation Trust]] . Thus the alphabetical ordering effectively gives us a topical ordering without having to resort to myriad sub-categories (my main gripe about categories in general is that people are making categories too small to be really useful) and wait for a software update that does special display for members of subcategories. That all said, I will likely be very happy to go along with any policy on categories that you and Tannin can bring yourself to accept. Pcb21| Pete 18:03, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

And thank you for your kind words. Sometimes I feel like I'm a tyrant, sometimes like a pussycat. I hope that I strke a good balance somewhere between the two. - UtherSRG 04:42, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism

Can you restore the text of Jacob's ladder. There has been a vandal at work. JoJan 19:18, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Looks lke the vandalism has already been restored. Also, it doesn't take an admin to restore vandalism. Anyone can go to the article history (using the "Page history" link) and select prior version to edit. Just make an appropriate entry in the "Edit summary" line indicating a revert, and (re)save the article. - UtherSRG 01:58, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Chimps

Uther: you reverted the edits I made to Chimpanzee and Common Chimpanzee, suggesting that we discuss the articles in a talk. I have outlined my case at Talk:Chimpanzee. I hope to see you there.

- Didactohedron 21:07, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

tibetan macaque

i learned all about the semen of the tibetan macaque in the book "The Ape and the Sushi Master" by Franz DeWaal.

tibetan macaque, part 2

I should have explained more. Franz De Waal is a pretty famous primatologist. I think he is at the Yerkes Primate Center, and specializes in chimpanzee research, although his area of expertise is larger. Most of his books are academic, but the The Ape and The Sushi Master is aimed at a lay audience, which is how I ended up reading it. I believe that his information in the book is largely from personal observation, based on time he spent observing these animals in the wild and in zoos.

I realize that the semen story may not be the most important thing about the Tibetan Macaque, but it is the one thing that makes the Tibetan stand out among other macaques, and made the article more interesting. If I knew something interesting about all the different macaque species, I would have added those too. Actually, finding out (at least) one interesting thing about all the different macaque species is on my list of things to do. I don't know how this kind of conflict resolution happens in wikipedia (do i need to cite a page number or something?) but I hope that in the end, something more interesting can be said about each different species of macaque than what my article was replaced with.

Format problem

Hi Uther - I'm having formatting problems with the status codes on Cupressus (near the bottom of the page) - several of them (but far from all) are showing up as 'Template:StatusVulnerable' etc., instead of 'Status: Vulnerable' as they should. I can't work out what's wrong, they appear to be all correctly typed in the edit box. Can you do anything about them? - Thanks, Michael - MPF 10:45, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It looks like you've been hit by a security restriction. In order to prevent various nefarious vandalism possibilities, you can't use the same template more than N times in the same article (N used to be 5, but may have been increased a bit). If we want the status information for each species, we'll need to add the data directly, not through a template. Sorry I can't offer more than that. Pcb21| Pete 10:54, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Um... I'd have to go with what Pete said. I've never seen it before, but it makes sense. My suggestion would be to put some symbol next to each species, then have a key below linking a symbol to a Status. - UtherSRG 21:20, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ended up copying & pasting in the text from the template pages . . it works, even if it is very cumbersome on the edit page - MPF 19:42, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Houston Press

Please undelete Houston Press, an article you apparently speedily deleted today. It appears to be a valid stub. If you don't want to wikify and correct the typo please let me know and I'll take care of it. Jamesday 16:17, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Done. Have at! :) - UtherSRG 16:28, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Saw this while looking in here, I've dealt with the obvious typo and put a link in, but no more - MPF 17:11, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I've wikified it but doing more may have to wait on the locals, I expect. Jamesday 19:07, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've cleaned it a little more. - UtherSRG 19:43, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

maintance of Wikipedia:Categories for deletion

Is there a particular reason why empty categories on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion are sticking around so long? Is this policy (fine with me), or would it help to have another admin around to spread the work? This is the first admin thing I've seen that I felt like doing. ;) --ssd 07:12, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

AFAIK, there aren't many admins interested in CfD mainttenance. Help yourself! :) - UtherSRG 08:26, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Point being, I'm not an admin yet... :) --ssd 12:33, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Asparagus beetle

Was wondering if you would mind looking at Asparagus Beetle to I need to move it to Asparagus beetle (I screwed upn capitalization) but I can't seem to Williamb 07:01, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

grins* I was already working on it! *grins* - UtherSRG 07:09, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Categories in Penguin articles

Thank you for your note - I have been doing work on our penguin articles this evening. I have read the page you recommended and can see your very strong disagreement with categories. For what it is worth I merely followed the practice of German Wikipedia. However I have no desire to start an edit war over it - it matters so little to me. Would you rather people who are not participating in that Wikproject didn't edit articles in that area at all? It does seem very unwiki - but I was amazed at your passion against something which seems so trivial. Secretlondon 22:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Handling copyvio

I happened on the article : Louis Slotkin. This is a literal transcription of the webpage Nuclear Files.

This is obviously a copyvio. Since I'm not quite familiar with copyvio procedure, could you handle this one for me ? JoJan 08:27, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can do. The procedure is located at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. - UtherSRG 11:53, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cephalopod link

I noticed that you are working on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cephalopods. I'm no expert, but I recently ran across The Octopus News Magazine Online. Their Physiology and Biology forum is moderated by Dr. Steve O'Shea of New Zealand, one of the world experts on the giant squid, colossal squid, etc. You might want to troll around there looking for info; maybe you could get some of those folks to pitch in on Wikipedia! Gwimpey 01:00, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

User:Arevich

I just reverted his deletion of comments I had written on Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion: "The degree to which you are taking this personally and resorting to ad hominem attacks illustrates one of the main reasons why we frown upon an author writing about himself or his personal achievements." Considering how I was responding to his slurs that we were "power-obsessed" and "self-important" for deleting "Aldeism", I did not think this was uncalled for. Regardless, as I'm sure you'll agree, deleting another user's comments on a discussion page is a highly inappropriate response. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look and maybe drop him a comment, as an admin. Thanks! Postdlf 20:01, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I (regretfully) admit to being torn between the impulse to tone this Aldeism conversation down and the impulse to indulge my bruised ego -- Also, despite my current state of mind about the way the system seems (to me) to have been hijacked, I still fundamentally believe in the value of the system. Thanks for correcting the comments. Arevich 22:19, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Aldeism

UtherSRG, Could you please leave a comment on my user talk page Arevich:Talk with a rules-based explanation for the deleting of the Aldeism entry. I am quite genuinely baffled by why Wikipedia would not see such information as an asset.

I do understand that it would be much more appropriate for somebody other than myself to make the entry. I certainly could not object to somebody doing so.
The entry that was originally voted to be deleted was indeed placed by me and most of the modifications to it were made by me. However, many of those modifications were made as a direct result of the input of others who pointed out internal inconsistencies which I corrected within the evolution of Aldeism itself so sometimes there would be something written which was no longer factual. Also, besides certain facts of which I would be most cognizant, some people had indeed made substantial changes to the Aldeism entry regarding issues around adherent numbers and other fact-based opinions to which changes made by me would be inappropriate. These were left untouched by me in the interests of fair and honest discourse.
Lastly, the question which I have most need answered is this: Why would you (sysops/editors) NOT want information about a new but relatively stable spiritual practice to be available on the Wikipedia?

Partial Quote:

As a rule of thumb, there are two significant, and somewhat related, reasons why pages primarily written by an individual about their own creation or accomplishment are often voted off the island:

The ownership of the page the individual feels. Individuals will usually have their own POV (point of view) on the topic and not want the article to stray from that POV. Wikipedia, like many encyclopedias, encourages articles to be written from a neutral POV (NPOV). Efforts to move the article to a NPOV can cause hard feelings on the part of the original author, as well as the other editors.
What might seem significant to the author as an accomplishment worth noting in an encyclopedia is insignificant to the overwhelming majority.

Apparantly, your article on Aldeism was not deemed worthy to be kept on Wikipedia. As you've learned, you have the right for a "recount" by using WP:VFU, but as you can see, you are the only one who thinks the article has merit. Perhaps if a more neutral party wrote an article about your creation, the articlewould be judged to have merit.

Please understand that I believe no one is saying that Aldeism has no merit. Only that the article about Aldeism, as written primarily by you, the creator and primary proponent of Aldeism, has no merit.

-- UtherSRG

Allan's Response: UtherSRG, Thank you for your detailed response. While I understand the process and especially the attempt to maintain impartiality, I see a couple of fundamental problems with the way it is sometimes used.

Because of the way that items are first selected for VFD, a bias is built in which needs to be compensated for by responsible sysops. The bias exists because in order to be selected for the VFD process somebody needs to locate it, think it inappropriate it, and then formally follow the process to technically nominate it. In effect, only the keenest of Wikipedia enthusiasts have the combination of will and ability to follow the process. Since this is a very small number (seems to be no more than 12 with only 3 or 4 really enthusiastic members) the personal biases of these individuals will always be implicit in their selections. On the opposite side of the equation, there is really nobody to question what these same folks decide to leave in or put in.
In the event that nobody besides the author bothers to include an article, it does not necesarily follow that nobody besides the author will be interested in it.
The voting system can very easily degenerate into a ruling by means of "mob rule" in cases where the subject is likely to be of interest to a relatively small subset of the entire Wikipedia community, thus making it highly unlikely that it will be of ANY interest to the small group of enthusiasts doing the voting and editing.
Finally the Wikipedia guidelines are not without elements of both ambiguity and flexibility. For example:

Don't list biased articles, even heavily biased articles, but add a NPOV dispute header/disclaimer. However, list articles if rewriting the facts in an NPOV way and removing unattributed opinions would leave no useful information.
From Deciding whether to delete

Whether a "rough consensus" has been achieved (see below)
Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants.
As a general rule, don't delete pages you nominate for deletion. Let someone else do it.
When in doubt, don't delete.

Allan Revich: Arevich 23:42, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

temp space moves

Hi, UtherSRG! Can you, please, move contents of Altai Republic/Temp to the main article namespace (the same way you did with Bashkortostan/Temp), and delete the Temp page after that? Thank you.--Ëzhiki 16:44, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Done. - UtherSRG 17:40, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you.--Ëzhiki 17:56, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Please also move Buryat Republic/Temp. Thank you.--Ëzhiki 18:23, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Done. - UtherSRG 18:27, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please move Dagestan/Temp. This article is ready. Thanks.--Ëzhiki 17:07, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Done. - UtherSRG 17:20, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

deletion of article "ish"

Can you tell me what about this article screamed out "delete me speedily" to you? I guess if it's a pseudonym for a vulgarism, you gott be careful but it's a word in very widespread use. What would a more acceptable version look like to you? thanks, Kenn

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Yakovsh marked it for speedy deletion. I saw it on the speedy list, agreed with his notion that it was simply a dictdef, and deleted it. Try Wiktionary instead. Alternatively, put the information on shit and make your article a redirect. - UtherSRG 17:03, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Stargate Atlantis

Oh, I'm afraid I only taped the last 30 minutes (but then, in Canuckistan it only ran for 90 minutes - did I miss anything?) for someone who couldn't stay to watch the whole thing. But the other 60 minutes are still fairly fresh in my memory, so after dinner I could take a crack at a flesh-out if you'd like. :) -- Hadal 20:40, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Many things

I've been meaning to leave a message on your talk page for a short while now.

I want to start by thanking you for two things. First, you supported some of the things I said in the poll Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, even when I was the only one saying them. I appreciate that, and I think it made a difference. Second, I think you've done some very good work at Stargate Atlantis. The article has really improved because of it.

I do have one request. I noticed that the text is the same in Rising, Part 1 and Rising, Part 2. On Talk:List of Star Trek TNG episodes, a decision was made to combine information on two-part episodes into one article. I think that the same principle should be applied to "Rising". Right now, the article Rising (somewhat unfathomably) redirects to another page about an album with the word in its title. If you could move the text of Rising, Part 1 there and redirect Rising, Part 2, I think it would simplify many things.

Sincerely,

Acegikmo1 20:44, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

*grins*You're welcome! Probably about 30 minutes ago I moved Rising, Part 1 from Rising (Stargate Atlantis)! Then copied the text to create Rising, Part 2. I'll merge 'em back together, but I'd like a better article title. (The Rising link is because the album Rainbow Rising is known by that title as well, since the group is Rainbow. Not so unfathomable.) You wouldn't happen to have it recorded, would ya? I'd love to see the synopsis and the whole article expanded more a la Midnight on the Firing Line. - UtherSRG 20:55, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ack ack attack! Well, I suppose Rising (Stargate Atlantis) is a fair compromise. If you really don't like the title, "Rising (television show)" might be a good substitute. But "Rising (Stargate Atlantis)" is better than twin pages with the same body.

In fact I did tape "Rising"...but I fear I may have taped over it in an effort to catch "Two Fathers"/"One Son". I'll check when I get home. Either way, I'll attempt to expand the article on the episode over the next few days.

Acegikmo1 21:54, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was going to leave a message here about the pipes, but apparently you got to me first. Do you have any idea how to fix it or who to go to about making them work?

Acegikmo1 01:46, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've already reported it on MetaWiki and on Sourceforge. Until a developer takes an interest in fixing the mess they made with version 1.3, we're up the creek. - UtherSRG 01:50, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Storm/The Eye

Any chance you could actually put some text into this article? Otherwise I'll have to list it on VfD. Rick K 22:58, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Gimme some time! This 2-part episode won't air until September. Note the dates on the previous episodes. The one before this (Underground) also doesn't have one, but the rest of the episodes do. I'm trying to figure out how much of the spoiler information I want to read this far in advance. - UtherSRG 23:14, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Template:Television episodes

I played with your Television box - added a splash of colour, hope you do not mind. I think I will use the template for some Frasier episodes. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 01:12, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good! *grins* I'm hoping folks will use it widely and broadly, instead of inventing new ones for each Tv series. I like your choice of color. It adds some spice without being bold. - UtherSRG 01:19, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ish

After asking in IRC and getting four replies who couldn't think of which speedy deletion category it qualified under, with two saying it should be undeleted, I undeleted this. Policy calls for a listing on VfD after an undelete of an out of process deletion. Would you like to do that or shall I? Jamesday 00:18, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Go for it. - UtherSRG 00:20, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Stargate Atlantis

Maybe it is a bad idea to write full episode transcript with every details, even subdivided into "acts", on Wikipedia.

I intend to edit it down after I write it all in. I want it to evenully look like Midnight_on_the_Firing_Line. BTW - you should sign talk messages by typing ~~~~ after your comment. - UtherSRG 05:08, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why reverted?

I don't know why you reverted my edit. is it not okay to add links to anti-same-sex marriage? i was trying to be neutral and let the opponent's voice to be heard. can u explain to me why u did that? thx! --Yacht (talk) 09:22, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

maintance(2) of Wikipedia:Categories for deletion

Ok, I'm an admin now. 8-> I've already joined you with category delletion. I'm kinda annoyed with the number of stale discussions there, though. In case you have not noticed, I've started a policy discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion. Feel free to modify the rules I've suggested there and/or add to the discusiosn.

I'm real tempted to start moving the stale unresolved discussions one by one to Vfd for a wider airing. --ssd 04:02, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

blue crab vs. Blue Crab

I reverted all the changes you made to the capitalization of/in that article. Generally speaking, in English, common names of species are only capitalized if they contain a proper name. Neither "blue" nor "crab" is a proper name. I'd be happy to scan and email you the page from the Chicago Manual of Style regarding this. Webster's, the OED and Barron's Food Lover's Companion all write "blue crab" lowercase. -- tooki 21:02, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was taking your approach when I first started editing on wikipedia. Apparently, it is in common usage in academic articles to capitalize animal species names, and it is something that appears to be a consensus about on here. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). One benefit is that it aids clarity when the species name involves common words or adjectives, as in the case of "blue". Take a look at my talk page to see the dialogue that I went through on this earlier. I decided it was just easier to conform rather than wage a de-capitalization rampage, and that there were some decent reasons for doing it this way. Postdlf 21:39, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It certainly is unacceptable to have mixed usage on a page. Others' edits may have left it with mixed usage. I, at one point in the past, had cleaned it up and standardized to lowercase. (Obviously, I am not including sentence capitalization as "mixed usage".) If there really is a de-facto standard here on Wiki, then all the articles should be migrated to one or the other. In the case of crab species, all the pages are lowercase. -- tooki 23:38, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Deleting categories

You seem to be going on a binge of deleting categories. Aren't these actions supposed to be discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_deletion first? See also my comments there. Jgm 18:26, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See my reply there. - UtherSRG 18:34, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Related question, re: Category:Traitors. Could you please write a (concise) reply here? I just wondered about the reason for deleting the cat. Did you find it POV? I'm not strictly opposed to such a conclusion. However, I thought the cat was meant to include people that 'history' has found to be traitors (as opposed to contemporarily disputed issues re the same)? --Wernher 19:46, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ok. See [3]. - UtherSRG 23:33, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think I agree. Indeed it is inherently POV. OK, then. --Wernher 00:50, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Vate

The vate item was deleted back in 2003 and I was never warned about it in order to defense it. The backup information was deleted on june 8th 2004, thats why I reposted it (with even more info)

Regardless, you were out of process as I have pointed out to you. - UtherSRG 17:22, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, and categories

Thanks for the praise left on my talk page, and for being so responsible and responsive in dealing with the...colorful characters that parade through these open content corridors. I have been trying to advocate everywhere I can for the responsible use of categories because of the function I see them performing. Take a look at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes and see if there's anything you want to contribute there—hopefully we can form a rational and restrained policy on this. Postdlf 18:48, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cephalopods, etc.

Hello,

Thanks you for your feedback on my cephalopod contributions. I'd certainly like to become involved in adding further to the articles. I'm not sure where the taxonomy information in the ammonite article came from....

Dlloyd 00:03, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Farthen Dûr

Not sure if I should write this on your talk page or mine, but I fixed up Farthen Dûr enough so that I think it shouldn't be deleted. -- pie4all88 01:19, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I saw, and was just about to leave you a messge. Great job! - UtherSRG 01:23, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So, how does one go about taking it off of the deletion list? pie4all88 01:48, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You don't. It's up to the votes. However, as the voting stands, if no other votes come in, then at the end of the voting term (5 days of being listed on VfD), the vote will just go away: there needs to be a strong concensus to delete an article. I've asked Mike H, Ianb and Geogre to take a look at the changes, hoping they will change their vote (or at least word it in a more neutral manner), just in case. - UtherSRG 02:56, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Do you think you could set up a redirect page from "Farthen Dur" (without the û)? I don't know how to do it, so I would appriciate the help. -- pie4all88 03:37, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Better to teach a man to fish..... It's simple really: Create a new page Farthen Dur that only has the content #REDIRECT [[Farthen Dûr]] and then save it. - UtherSRG 04:17, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

All right, thanks a lot, man. It's up and running :) -- pie4all88 04:40, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Taxoboxes

Uther, thanks for fixing the format on Eriogonum - I was putting it in in a hurry and didn't have time to check the new formats (having been away when they first started). I'll get the hang of it in a day or two, when I have time to do something at more leisurely pace. seglea 17:08, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No problem. Just happened to catch it on "New pages". I've started trolling there instead of "Recent changes". - UtherSRG 17:17, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Journal/periodical/feed summaries, academics

Hi SRG, are there journals you read regularly? You might be interested in this project: m:Wikisummaries. I think I will begin somewhere on en:, perhaps in my user space... +sj + 00:00, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

True or false??

Check out the true/false quiz at Wile's talk page. Can you answer it?? 66.245.10.239 15:46, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

I have made the stub Crustaceans a candidate for speedy deletion, because the page Crustacean already exists. But now I think I do not have the authority to do so. Can you handle this one for me ? JoJan 18:25, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Guanaco turned it into a redirect, which is even better than a delete. There are plenty of other <plural> => <singular> (and vice versa as appropriate) redirects. - UtherSRG 19:36, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Known Space

Hi, what was wrong with my adding Known Space to the Fictional universes category? Seems to me, this is one of the most well known SF universes. Were you waiting for Jrp edits to complete? Dyl 14:19, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Known Space is already in Category:Known Space, which is in Category:Fictional universes. There's no need to list Known Space in the less specific category. - UtherSRG 15:49, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Binomial name

If Binomial name is the preferred one then why is it redirected to 'Binomial nomenclature' over 5000 times? It was on the most redirects as fourth highest with 5600 or so. I dunno maybe it needs to have the name moved, but it states in tree of life that Binomial Nomenclature is the scientific designation. Williamb 18:52, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The most recent discussion on this subject on ToL is Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive4#Binomial_name_v._Binomial_nomenclature.7CBinomial_name_v._Binomial_nomenclature. Although no strict usage rule was gotten out of it, "binomial name" seemed to be the strongest favorite (or least distasteful as the case may be) of all the alternatives. - UtherSRG 02:01, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well it seems I can't win this one. though it seems pointless to have so many redirects to the CORRECT scientific term. Even the Tree of Life article says that nomenclature is right. I hate dummying down things. what's the point? If one has to dummy down things that much then the whole article is wasted anyhow.

I'm just telling you how it is. Either of us alone can't change ToL policy. That can only be done by discussion on the ToL talk page. So if you have a concern about something that someone has told you was decided on ToL, then go there and raise the issue and see if you can rally folks to your way of seeing things. This is Wikipedia, man. nothing is set in stone. Only in mud. *grins* - UtherSRG 16:31, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Chiroteuthidae

I'm not sure why you reversed my change to Chiroteuthidae taxobox and list of species:

avoiding a redirect by replacing a genus name by the unique species name in it is imho short-sighted sinced at some point the genus may be extended. What's the point in avoiding such redirects??
having the genera in the list make it clearer. Also the species names are simply binomial without parenthesis (see for eg this site [4]).

-- (user:Azhyd)

The pipe-trick redirect is because the species article would be the article for the genus at this point, which would require a real redirect. Since the article doesn't exist, it's improper to create the redirect, so the pipe-trick is used.
ToLWeb is out of date. CephBase has a more recent classification. The parenthesis show the subgenera.

- UtherSRG 02:21, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

hum ok. It would be more explicit to have the extra levels in the species list. Is it standard to have parenthesis in the species name in such case? btw I put online my taxobox helper page (work still in progress): [5] Azhyd 04:11, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I flip flop around on what I want in the species lists. I'm sure you've seen that by looking through the other cephalopod pages I made. It was easier for me to remove that portion of your edit than to leave it because all I did was go back to my previous version and add in the changes of yours that I did like. Yeah, i'm sneaky tat way. *grins* The parens are the standard way to denote subgenera in the "binomial" format. - UtherSRG 16:34, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Duplication on this page

Eh -- the discussions on this page from ==Archives== through ==Cephalopods etc== seem to be duplicated (no doubt an edit mishap), i.e. #47 to #92 are copies of #1 to #46. I'll leave it to you to fix it, to avoid any misunderstandings. Also, FYI, I just posted a comment in one of the discussions, and placed it in the second part (within #47 to #92), so please take care when deleting... --Wernher 19:40, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! - UtherSRG 23:29, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ceqli language

Why undelete Ceqli language? While the vote were 19 to 14, at least five of those voting to keep were anons or making their first edit ever to Wikipedia and by common practice should be ignored as sockpuppets. - SimonP 15:20, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't. I only delisted it. It had already been undeleted. - UtherSRG 15:37, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)