Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by UtherSRG (talk | contribs) at 21:31, 31 December 2007 (→Quokka). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

zOMG

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

Hairy-eared Dwarf Lemur

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

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

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

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

User:Zozja

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

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

My Hero (video game)

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

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

Felidae

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank You

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

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

You reverted some of my edits using pop-ups

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

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

Re:Tiger Quoll reversion

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

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

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

Don't revert my edits for no reason

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

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

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

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

Eurasian Pygmy Shrew

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kangaroo

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

Quokka

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

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

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