User talk:Sumanuil/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Welcome!
|
October 2017
Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Ginkgo gardneri. I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:
|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]
Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:
|image=SomeImage.jpg.
There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I apologize. I've never added images to Wikipedia itself (I have for other wikis with somewhat different interfaces) and I wasn't exactly sure what I was doing. Thank you for the help. Sumanuil (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Sumanuil. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
A word
Hello, and welcome, especially to the biology side of things. I happened just to see your user page message, and would like to say that while there is quite wide freedom afforded to editors about how they organise their user pages, and while we can appreciate that styles and humour may vary, the current text comes across as strikingly unfriendly, and I'd urge you to modify it. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I changed it, but I'd like to ask what you have against ze Frensh peas. Sumanuil (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Edit reversal on Dire Wolf article
I saw your recent edit (with the edit summary 'Both were wrong') regarding the era when this species was around. The article has displayed this as '125,000–10,000 years ago' for quite some time, even with the reference later in the article to fossils dated at 9440ybp being the youngest to have yet been found. Because the article was so heavily reviewed back when it was named a 'Featured Article' in 2017 -- and all of those editors seem to have approved of the rough dates (that is, 125k & 10k), my sense is that the consensus is that this sentence and its date range are intended to provide approximations and not something as precise as '9,440 years ago' which could be read to imply that the Dire Wolf is believed to have gone extinct exactly 9440 years ago, or in 7422BC, a factoid that is not accurate and oughtn't be implied. The edit by Mariomassone immediately prior to your edit was simply reversing the vandalism that had just been made by anonymous user 2600:1:f501:7817:3adc:9ee0:650e:738f -- an anonymous troll that has been vandalizing scores of articles about extinct animals for at least the last month or two. My friendly suggestion here is to reverse your edit, which would return the article to the highly vetted standard quo. What do you think? Kiwikiu (talk) 05:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Your logic is inescapable. However, I had so much on my plate bringing Dire wolf up to WP:GA status, and then WP:FA status, that I simply overlooked this small item. My preference would be for the article to display the more accurate figure of 9,440 YBP, as our new friend has it. The reason is because some experts regard the Pleistocene coming to a close not at 13,000 years ago but at 10,000 years ago. However, with the last Dire wolf dated to 9,440 then ALL parties agree that this is the early Holocene.
- Sumanuil: A better edit summary might have been "As per Kurten 1980, Anderson 1984". Nobody can argue - nor take offence - with that. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 09:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Kiwikiu, William Harris, I apologize. I tend to be rather blunt, and my edit summaries sometimes reflect my own feelings better than they do the changes I made. No offense is intended. Frankly, either '10,000' or '9,440' would be acceptable in my book. Sumanuil (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- No offence taken, Kiwikiu! The advice on the edit summary (above) was for Sumanuil to consider. There are some wolf-like predators on Wikipedia that you do not want to enrage - my collaborator Mr. Massone is one of these. Happy editing! William Harris • (talk) • 22:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
William Harris, I was the one apologizing. Note the signature. This is MY talk page, after all.Sumanuil (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- You are correct, my oversight. This demonstrates how the 10,000 YBP slipped past me! Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 04:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- That would be a good idea, Kiwikiu - please initiate. Then nobody can assume that C. dirus went extinct at the end of the Late Pleistocene. William Harris • (talk) • 07:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I reverted your edit here as the edits by Maczkopeti were actually per the guidelines of Help:IPA/Conventions for English#Stress — oi yeah nah mate amazingJUSSO ... [ɡəˈdæɪ̯]! 05:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- It chopped off a syllable in the second possible pronounciation, as I said in my edit summary. It's 'bonobo' not 'bono'. Sumanuil (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- The chopped-off part is really the same last syllable of the first pronunciation. There was a prefix marker; it's per {{IPAc-en}}: As necessary, use a hyphen
-to indicate omitted syllables. Pinging @Kbb2:. — oi yeah nah mate amazingJUSSO ... [ɡəˈdæɪ̯]! 22:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC) - AmazingJus is right. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- Although on second thought, the choice is arbitrary. We're omitting just one syllable. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- The chopped-off part is really the same last syllable of the first pronunciation. There was a prefix marker; it's per {{IPAc-en}}: As necessary, use a hyphen
It's unnecessarily confusing, and if you lot are going to have a conversation without me, please have it somewhere other than my talk page. Also, there's nothing in Help:IPA/Conventions for English#Stress about removing syllables. Sumanuil (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's not confusing. Replacing omitted syllables with ⟨-⟩ is perfectly standard. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
It may be standard, but why omit them in the first place? And it would be confusing to anyone who's not a linguist or at least familar with IPA, which is most of the people who might read the article. Sumanuil (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- To make transcriptions shorter. Now, in this particular case it might make little sense (we'd omit just one syllable), but it does make sense if there are two or more syllables that are exactly the same in the previous transcription. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I understand. In most cases, it might make sense. Just not here. Here it just seems odd. Sumanuil (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Upper Paleolithic
See my talk page and the comment about incarnations ending badly. And their talk page. Doug Weller talk 07:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I apologize if I got in your way. I was simply trying to clean up after a certain other user, but I assumed they had a reason to remove most of that content. Sumanuil (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
BCE etc.
Sorry for that and thanks for the correction: I meant to leave it at BCE but was editing when tired at 23:44 (and that's the excuse I'm sticking to). Britmax (talk) 09:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
ghost pipe
Hey! You reverted an edit on Monotropa uniflora I made about it's traditional uses. You cited WP:MEDRS as the reason for the revert. I objectively stated the traditional use of the plant. Cultural history of a plant is important information regardless of if the cultures use has been scientifically validated. 70% of our scientifically validated medications come from or are derived from plant sources. These compounds were isolated from and tested due to the traditional knowledge of the peoples who used the plants. There are thousands of compounds in plants that have a historical use that have yet to be explored in a controlled setting. It's important to know how plants were traditionally used when wanting to find compounds that will be useful in treating illness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanw (talk • contribs) 08:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
No, I didn't. I reverted an edit about its modern use in western 'herbal medicine'. I don't think it counts as 'traditional' or 'cultural history' when it only goes back to 1898.Sumanuil (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, well that's just like, your opinion, man. Evanw (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
It's a little more than that. I've known people who were alive then. It's not exactly 'cultural history' if it's barely out of living memory. Sumanuil (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Herb[al]
Please stop changing "an herb" and "an herbal" to use "a". There probably is a dialect somewhere that pronounces the h in these, but it is not mainstream pronunciation in either British or North American English. Your editwarring to push "a herbal" needs to stop. This case is exactly the same as "an hono[u]rable", "an hour", etc. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
WHAT? I'm the one who's been changing it back to 'an'! Sumanuil (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
List of countries by diamond production
I don't think you understand how category sort keys work. Please read WP:SORTKEY. Go and look at Category:Lists of countries by mineral production. You wll see that the items are in alphabetical order by mineral - except for Diamond, which is now, stupidly and alone, listed under 'L' for List. That is what I was correcting. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
My apologies. That's a new one for me. I tend to assume the worst when people change things like that.Sumanuil (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Re:List of geochronological names
Hi Sumanuil -
Please, before accusing people of breaking links, make sure that they did. In this case, I didn't - most of the links have never been there, and the only ones I changed to redlinks are those which pointed to the wrong subject (Alton, for example, is over 1000 kilometres from Alton Burn). And for good reason; as redlinks, they give a clear indication of what work still needs to be done. As such, I have undone your edits. Grutness...wha? 03:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Ridiculous redirects
Please stop making redirects from small creeks and localities to entire regions. What is the point or redirecting Tongaporutu to Taranaki when it's listed as Tongaporutu, Taranaki? Similarly, why link Lill Burn to an entire region rather than to the river which it is a tributary of? I've had to undo more of your edits and redirect others. The best course would have been to do as I said in my last note here - leave them as red links to indicate more work to be done. All you're doing is making work for other people and hiding useful information for future editors. Grutness...wha? 08:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I apologize. I simply thought they may not have been notable enough to merit their own pages, and a redirect would be better than nothing. After all, a redirect page can be re-written into a full page. Sumanuil (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- True enough, but redirecting to an entire region is a bit pointless. No harm done in the end - and thanks for all the redirects to the NZ geologic time scale. Sorry if I sounded angry! Grutness...wha? 03:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Saiga
Thankyou for your pacificatory contribution to SiagaMeatGate! 115.64.142.162 (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
footvolley
we are volunteers in footvolley. we have a professional league and federation in the US which has been around for over 13 years. why do you continuously delete our links? we are not in the business of spam. please STOP REMOVING OUR LINKS! also you eliminated HOURS UPON HOURS of real world references (links from REAL PUBLICATIONS) AS A MEANS OF SOURCING the page. why do that?
Bare external links do not go at random in the page. (They're also not references. References need to be properly formatted and in the right place.) They go in the 'external links' section YOU blanked. And reverting others' edits does not take 'hours upon hours'. You do realize edits are timestamped, right? Sumanuil (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Asiatic lion
here you reverted my edit. I had reasons for my edit. It is wrong to write "The Asiatic lion (P. l. leo)..." because the Asaitic lions is just a soubgroup of the leo subspecies. I also think the term population is problematic, because it is normally confinded to a group of animals which interbreeds. So it would not include all the captive Asaitic lions in this strict sense. I would therefore prefer the term "group" or "subgroup". Please change at least the scientific name behind the common name, so that it becomes clear, that the Asaitic lion is not the subspecies P. l. leo. Best--Altaileopard (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I apologize. I tend not to give new faces (metaphorically speaking) the benefit of the doubt. There's been too many vandals on that page, and i guess I must be getting jaded. Carry on, but I WILL be watching, out of an abundance of caution. Sumanuil (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- alright. So I will just revert your revert. Best,--Altaileopard (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Gouldian finch edit
Please can we discus your edit to this page. It is on the Gouldian finch talk page as-"more than one name!!! ". Thanks. Qwerty number1 (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
September 2018
Your recent editing history at Synapsid shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Anaxial (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
You're a little late. I stopped trying to reason with Falconfly yesterday afternoon. I have better things to do. Sumanuil (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
About your extinction reverts: My edits provoked a similar discussion going on at hominini/talk. I may be losing that discussion, but it's a bit more in depth then your comments accompanying your edits. Please follow and add to that discussion about how to incorporate new phylogeny evidence. Thank you.
What did you mean by "A genus evolving from another genus does not make the first paraphylectic. If it did, EVERY GENUS would be.?" Taxonomy is supposed to be hierarchical?
By the way, Pakicetus can be considered extinct, unless it is a) a group of members and b) the extant species are shown to be more closely related to one of the described members. Jmv2009 (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Sumanuil. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello Sumanuil,
You might interested to know that the same sort of material you recently reverted at King James Only movement is also being added by an IP-hopper into Byzantine text-type.Alephb (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up, but perhaps someone gifted with more patience than me should be dealing with this. Advent preperations plus Windows 10 updates mean I don't have much time or energy. Sumanuil (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Foscarnet (sodium)...
Hi, and thanks for changing that. The iteration before my edit read as "Foscarnet sodium is used as an antiviral medication." I don't remember what prompted my use of parentheses. I was trying to rewrite that paragraph without leaving anything out, I guess. Not a chemist!--Quisqualis (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Reverting edit
What's the reason for reverting my minor edit? I changed [[Theriodontia)] to [[Theriodont)]ia, which is how the hyperlink is created on the rest of the page. What I changed is the anomaly on the page, not the other way around. 84.208.233.134 (talk) 06:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Because the change seemed pointless, as both forms would lead to the same page. Feel free to change it back if it would make you feel better. Sumanuil (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
OK. But in my eyes it is even more pointless to revert edits which feels pointless. 84.208.233.134 (talk) 07:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Your revert of Kinyarwanda “imbwebwe”
Hi, I would presume your source for saying this was honey badger would be from glosbe.com? It is relevant that the 2 examples given there refer not to honey badgers, but to wild dogs. On the Rwanda 1981 stamp featuring the Black-backed Jackal, the name given on the stamp is “imbwebwe”. And while there is no Kinyarwanda wikipedia page for the black-backed jackal, there is for the side-striped jackal - and 2 names are given: nyiramuhari and imbwebwe. I lived in Rwanda for 5 years, and while I cannot say I learned the word imbwebwe there, I do know the related name for “dog” is imbwa. Rwandan animal names are often onomatopoeic. E.g. imbwa is pronounced imbga which sounds like a dog bark. And imbwebwe is pronounced imbgebge (with the g a fricative at the back of the throat) - again, a bit like the short double yap of a jackal. Do you have any other source for the word referring to the honey badger, apart from glosbe.com? I think that glosbe.com is wrong, and your revert is both hasty and premature. Ptilinopus (talk) 08:57, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I offended you. I couldn't find the word in any dictionary other than glosbe. I probably should have left it, as I don't speak the language, but I've gotten rather jaded due to 'joke' edits. Sumanuil (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, but it’s not a question of being offended. Unfortunately, glosbe.com, at least in non-major languages such as Kinyarwanda, does a lot of guesswork, with caveats noted that they are unchecked or not verified, so for these languages, not a reliable source. Of course, I can’t see how one could use a postage stamp as a source! (Stamp designers don’t always get it right either - I’ve found a number of misidentified creatures on stamps!) I could ask some of my Rwandan friends - but that would not be authoritative either lacking a published source. Ideas to solve this? Ptilinopus (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Ask them. I won't get in your way. Sumanuil (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Please be constructive
Why not be constructive rather than destructive? For example on the Lily James page you removed her date of birth which can be seen in her IMDB entry included in the 'External Links' section. But if you really wanted the ref to be added, why didn't you add it? I suggest that you spend more time adding refs rather than removing the good faith edits of others. How long would it have taken you to find a ref for her date of birth? How many of the existing refs mentioned her data of birth? In her info box, how many items had their own ref? Please, in future, be constructive. --Aberdeen01 (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
It isn't my job to find refs for others' edits. If you add it, put in a reference for it yourself. Don't go whining to me.Sumanuil (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Seems to me like if you think the information shouldn't be there, you should say why. If you think it needs a reference, just say that, don't just remove useful (and factual) information in bad faith with no explanation. If you could find a Wikipedia MOS article that states birthdates should always be cited, that's one thing, but it looks to me like commonly available information, that isn't disputed, doesn't need a citation. Also, there's the [citation needed] tag, feel free to use it. DaRkAgE7[Talk] 07:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Please Explain
Hello Sumanuil , sorry but I don't understand why you have reverted my edit of Michael Farris (lawyer), could you explain? thank You Alex-h (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Three main reasons: first, it read like a press release, and second, Michael Farris's definition of 'religious freedom' is rather different from most. Last and most important, it's not in the source you provided. I will freely admit I should have just said 'not in ref' and left it at that, but the subject of the article makes me question the inherent goodness of humanity. I mean, this guy believes that there is no such thing as child abuse. Sumanuil (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, is was simple a mistake as I added the wrong link. Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
It's ok. It's been fixed. Sumanuil (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Non-GMO corn listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Non-GMO corn. Since you had some involvement with the Non-GMO corn redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Plantdrew (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
It was just a stupid joke (because corn as we know it does not and cannot exist in nature), so do what you want with it. Provided it doesn't get turned into an antiscience propaganda page. Sumanuil (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Unexplained reversions
I see by your talk page as well as your reversion of my edit on Eswatini that you are reverting edits without an edit summary. Please know that edits should generally not be reverted without an explanation, except in the case of obvious vandalism. Thanks, PrussianOwl (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Kebabs, socks, and
Hi Sumanuil, thanks for responding at Talk:Kebab#Bhaditraka. For your sake, I wouldn't want rumors going around that you are my sockpuppet! It looks like you've made a lot of great contributions to Wikipedia, and you should have full credit for that... I don't really understand why that other editor is being so unfriendly.
Just one thing, I guess I would echo PrussianOwl's comment above, that it would be good if you could try to include explanations in the edit summary whenever you revert peoples' edits, unless they are blatant and malicious vandalism. I'm not complaining about your reverts, the ones I've seen anyway, I generally agree with, so thanks for that. It's just that when people get reverted, they tend to take it personally, and get upset and unhappy about it, if there's no explanation why. It's like they are being told that they are incompetent or stupid, and it hurts their feelings. Even if they are, in fact, incompetent and stupid, and their edits make no sense, sometimes it's easier to help them accept it if you break it to them gently... Anyway, some other people have done a better of explaining it than I have, at WP:FIES. I hope that's useful in some way, and happy editing! --IamNotU (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Outsourcing reversion
Thankyou for explaining what you say as the problem with the edit you reverted on the Outsourcing article ... namely being suspicious of oddly-formatted edits to a frequently-spammed page. As far as I can Pi314m who has been making a series of constructive edits to the article omitted a single '<' character from a ref markup, which is a fairly straightforward syntax error. And the better option is to fix it that revert it. But if reverting it please leave an explanation so people know what to look for; to help people reduce the amount of time understanding what the problem is. Your 30 seconds reverting an edit without an explanation might cause 5 other page watchers 5 x 2 minutes trying to see what is going on which is pretty disruptive. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Extinction vs. Extirpation
Hi Sumanuil, could you explain what you meant with this edit summary to barn owl? Changing a word (and not just substituting another with the same meaning) to the correct status can hardly be construed as "messing things up". 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Substituting 'extirpated' for 'extinct' doesn't work because one is present-tense and the other is past tense. Also, they do not have the exact same meaning. 'Extirpated' carries an implication of deliberate human action that 'extinct' doesn't, and which may or may not be warranted.Sumanuil (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- That reasoning is not correct though. An organism can have been extirpated at a certain time (past tense), or can be said to be extirpated in a certain locality (present tense). While you are indeed correct in noting that the two words do not have the exact same meaning, it is this difference in meaning that makes extirpated the correct word to use in this context. Unlike the similar word 'extermination', in a biological usage the word 'extirpated' does not necessarily carry any implication of any human interaction as it is used to describe all cases of a given population dying out, whether the proximal cause was anthropogenic or not. The edit made to change to the word 'extirpated' was not only correct, but it also removed the contradictory and incorrect statements that these two subspecies are extinct. Loopy30 (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
A population can go extinct without the whole species or subspecies going extinct. What I reverted for was because the changes made the sentences GRAMMATICALLY incorrect (namely, a change in tense). Just re-write the sentences to match your changes, that's all I care about. Now leave me alone. Sumanuil (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Do not abuse the edit summary
The text box is meant for short explanations ("briefly describe your changes"). If someone makes a typo, simply correct the typo. Write it is a minor edit if you feel required to explain. What you never do is addressing the previous editors directly and make a conscious effort to portray them as stupid or add some other negative characteristics. Like when I made a small typo and a single letter escaped the word. To explain your own edit you wrote: "That's nice, but if you're going to make edits on topics like this, please, learn to spell 'arctic'". Again, that's not what the edit summary is meant for. 84.208.233.134 (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Excuse me for being tired of having to clean up after other editors, most of whom made far worse mistakes than you. I'm sorry if you took offense, but it gets irritating after a while. Sumanuil (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Genie (feral child)
Please explain how merely adding an external link to a professional genealogist's site which uses records as research is me outing anybody. Sunny Clark (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Because her family does not want her in the public eye. That, and the fact that 'Genie' is a pseudonym, so just looking up people who use that name won't necessarily find her, and may just cause a massive headache for someone else with a similar name and birthdate, of which there are thousands. Sumanuil (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- Sumanuil (talk · contribs) Please do not presume to speak for her family. Her brother gave interviews. Look again... actually look at the source you deleted... "just looking up people who use that name" does not come into play, and is a rather cavalier comment. Her family name was originally published by ABCNews, but I did not add that, though I could have, having that link; I merely added a link to proper research, after noticing that footnote #13 already identified her family, naming both of her parents and her brother. Sunny Clark (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Pokémon Go edit
I'm sorry, but I edited Talk:Pokémon Go because a lot of people at my school talk about it. 99721829Max (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- @99721829Max: That's nice, but it has nothing to do with the encyclopedic value of the topic in the eyes of the Wikiproject Video Games. -- ferret (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I HAVE read the article again. My view hasn't changed. Please go to the Talk page. HiLo48 (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Your 'view' (and mine for that matter) is irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum. Sumanuil (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
- If I see another edit summary like this [1] I will block you. Acroterion (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2019
Understood. I just get tired of it sometimes. Perhaps I should take a vacation.Sumanuil (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Why did you delete all the updates to the fia world rallycross championship page?
I just updated the statistics after the recent event Vjansson03 (talk) 09:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I was attempting to fix a broken file. I didn't realize how far back the problem went. Sumanuil 17:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
August 2019
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
All I was trying to do was remove a broken file link. I'll be more careful next time. Sumanuil 04:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Mercia Deane Johns
I loaded up an image of actress Mercia Deane-Johns to the Wikipedia entry that I wrote and you deleted it. This was very disappointing as I had tried very hard to load up an image and had to get help from someone else at Wikipedia to do this.
I loaded up the image as a fair use as there are no images on Wikimedia Commons. Could I ask you to please reload the image which makes the article look much better. Best, Novak123Novak123 (talk) 10:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
By the time I got there, someone else had deleted it as a copyright violation. I was merely removing a link to a deleted file. Take it up with them. Sumanuil 17:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Image removal on the 6 August
Hi @Sumanuil: It been some weeks passed now but I noticed there was an image on Red Orchestra, the File:Château_de_Billeron.jpg that was removed on the 6 August by yourself. I just wonder why it has been deleted. I didn't look at the time, why removed, and forgot about it until now. Obviously the criteria template was junk. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 23:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't know. I only took it off the page after its deletion. Ask the person who deleted it. The file page will tell you who that was.Sumanuil 23:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Flag of Kiev image deletion
Hi, I would like to know, why you have deleted the image of the new design for the Flag of Kiev? This is image is used by the Ukrainian WP page and has not any copyright issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T0mk0us (talk • contribs) 03:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Because it wasn't on English Wikipedia at the time. Sumanuil 04:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Logo twice in the same infobox
About [2]: Hello!
Is it really permitted under fair use to have the same logo (one with text and one without) in the same infobox? I’m no expert but I think ”minimal use” is a requirement for fair use and to use the logo twice in the same infobox can hardly be considered ”minimal use”. What do you think?Jonteemil (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- It's not the exact same file. But if you have a problem with it, just remove it. Don't replace it with something that isn't a file. Sumanuil 01:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Thanks for creating Teutomanis.
User:Originalmess while examining this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:
For all of these taxon pages, it would be very useful to add the name of the redirect to the target page before actually creating the redirect, referring more to the Phataginus redirects (left this comment on the wrong redirect while reviewing).
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Originalmess}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 04:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
My apologies. Sumanuil 05:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- None necessary! Just wanted to let you know for the future. Thanks for creating the redirects for so many pangolins! originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 19:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Edit summaries
Hello! I just saw this edit and it took me some time to realize it was good edit, as you had not left an edit summary. It's good practice to leave them. Just a thought.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
October 2019
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Brexit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 06:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
How is removing a deleted file 'unconstructive'? - Sumanuil 06:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
"Comptine" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Comptine. Since you had some involvement with the Comptine redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 23:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Recent E231 series edits
Hi, I noticed you reverted a few of my picture updates on E231 series. It may not be “fixing”, but I was simply trying to replace the images with more recent ones. Are you able to clarify why you made the revert? Thanks --SlitherioFan2016 (Talk/Contribs) 05:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Because there were no such images. - Sumanuil 05:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)