Talk:Orang Pendek

message: I'm removing the image because:
*Encyclopedia articles generally don't include "artist's rendering" of any topic if there are photographs available, unless it is in the form of a diagram. 
*Our job as an encyclopedia is to summarize the views of those who are considered knowledgeable in various subject areas. Therefore, images of Orang Pendek should only be used if they illustrate some encyclopedic interpretation of Orang Pendek's appearance. 
*As a freely editable encyclopedia, we must be careful not to set a precedent whereby there is a link on an article which takes the user to a page where somebody has placed a sketch of the subject. That is the purpose of other web pages where amateur artists display their work; it is not the purpose of Wikipedia. 
*Since there is no agreed-upon description of exactly what Orang Pendek looks like beyond some vague generalities, the sketch illustrates the view of a single Wikipedian about what Orang Pendek looks like. This constitutes original research.
I'm not being vindictive. I'm being consistent. The above rationale isn't limited to the discussion it came from, or it wouldn't be a legitimate rationale. Please read and understand Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. - UtherSRG 03:30, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: The Mammals Wikiproject doesn't appear to state a clear convention on capitalizing common names of species.  The only thing I see is "mostly capitalized".  In light of this, I am keeping consistent with the capitalization of the Wikipedia entries for "Sumatran tiger" and "sun bear" in my choice not to capitalize these names.
UtherSRG, there are more productive ways to deal with disagreements like these than to just silently change and revert my edits.  If you refuse to explain yourself, I see no reason to respect these reverts.
Please see Wikipedia's policy on explaining reverts.
Schlegel 04:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BIRD and others have already explained the use of capitalization quite well. Reverting again. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Note that those two articles used a mix of upper and lower throughout the article, but that the title was capitalized. I've fixed those articles to use capitals, and restore the capitals in this article, making everything consistent. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitals

message: Doctor3uk, you appear to be Richard Freeman and are adding original research about yourself and your own work related to Orang Pendek.  Original research is prohibited by Wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:No_original_research), and writing about yourself is discouraged (see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest).  At the very least, citing reliable sources by people other than yourself is even more important than usual when editing entries in which you may have a conflict of interest.
I am reverting your entry in light of the dubious nature of the edit and its claims and in keeping with the following statement by Jimmy Wales from Wikipedia:Verifiability:
I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced...
If you can provide reliable third-party citations for the information you are adding, feel free to do so.  After that the passage needs significant grammatical and spelling cleanup.
Please note that I am a member of a research project mentioned in the article.  There were similar problems in earlier edits I made and UtherSRG kindly corrected me.
Schlegel 20:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've blocked the account for a week. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctor3uk 

message: I have submitted a request to block Doctor3uk from editing the article here.
-Schlegel 03:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've blocked the account for a week. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block request 

message: from the descriptions, there is photographic evidence of foot prints from two sources. can any one provide images of the foot print casts mentioned. or is there any artistic rendering that is available?99.140.205.202 (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: image request

message: I removed a section which contained self-promoting language and presented unsubstantiated first-party original research.  The removed content appears to be direct copy and paste from this press release, written by Adam Davies:
http://www.theparanomalist.com/2684/scientists-extract-dna-from-mystery-ape-hair/
Wikipedia is not the place to present and advance one's own work.  The tone of the writing makes it clear that the authors are trying to persuade people rather than present established fact.  Furthermore, the information they added may only be presented on Wikipedia if and when it is first written about by a reputable, third party source, and even then, it should not contain a self-promotional tone.  Research should be presented by someone not involved with the project.
Wikipedia is not a place to make news.
Tim Mowrer (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing "Latest News", a press release from Adam Davies 

message: Look, parts of this article are treating the subject like it really exists, just hasn't been fully documented yet.  PLEASE.  It's almost certain this is just another Bigfoot/Loch Ness Monster legend and nothing more.   Why not just shorten it to a lead paragraph, delete the rest, and restore some very small amount of Wikipedia's honor - it's in short enough supply as it is. 98.67.180.135 (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to shorten this article to a brief paragraph 

message: This statement:
Dr. Hans Brunner, a hair analysis expert from Australia famous for his involvement in the Lindy Chamberlain case in 1980...
Is attributed to "Extreme Expeditions" by Adam Davies.  In the book, Davies refers to Brunner simply as "Hans Brunner of Deakin University".  While Brunner has coauthored at least one book on hair analysis, I can not otherwise find reference to him outside of articles about orang pendek.  He does not appear to hold a doctorate degree, and the claim that he is "famous for his involvement in the Lindy Chamberlain case" seems to be an invention of Davies's.
I suggest an additional attribution to this claim or that it be removed.
Tim Mowrer (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (The preceeding comment is incorrect, whilst Hans Brunner is not a Dr. he is a qualified biologist that was involved as a key witness Lindy Chamberlain's exoneration as a forensic scientist tasked with identifying dingo hairs on Azaria's jumpsuit. He inspected the clothing and hairs in the basement of the High Court in September 1984. This fact was confirmed by Brunner and many other people and included in Norman Young's 1989 book 'Innocence regained: The fight to free Lindy Chamberlain'. (Eve Kelly) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:d008:b400:9584:6e:5397:9fa (talk • contribs) 09:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove reference to "Dr. Hans Brunner" 

message: 94.169.196.96 appears to be someone at the Centre for Fortean Zoology.  Based on this user's past edits, is most likely Richard Freeman.
I'm reverting the change because
# Wikipedia is not the place to present original research (see Wikipedia:No_original_research)
# The claims made in the content are not attributed to any source
# Self-authored content about yourself (Wikipedia:Autobiography) or your institution (Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest) are discouraged and generally do not belong on Wikipedia.
See also above discussion with Doctor3uk
Tim Mowrer (talk) 06:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undid revision 417798598 by 94.169.196.96 (Original Research) 

message: Shouldn't this be classed as a legendary creature, since it's been seen for centuries by locals? 65.93.15.213 (talk) 07:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. When I think of "legendary creature", first one that comes to my mind is dragon. I doubt "it's been seen for centuries by locals" applies to a legendary creature. 85.217.34.67 (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cryptid?