User talk:UtherSRG/Archive 5

Your talk page archives
Hi. In February 2007 you deleted the archives of your talk page. WP:DELTALK and, specifically, WP:CVUT prohibit such deletions except in the case of severe policy violations. As I can't see that in evidence, you need to restore them. I'm notifying you as a courtesy; if you don't, I shall. Thank you. —  Scott  •  talk  02:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC) sorry

Deleted page 'Iceberg Interactive'
Hi UtherSRG,

On 28 May 2010 you deleted the Wiki page 'Iceberg Interactive' based on A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject.

I've come across an article about Iceberg that should adequately evidence the company's notability: http://gamingshogun.com/2014/05/21/iceberg-interactive-celebrates-5th-anniversary/

Other sources that give significant coverage: http://www.game4me.be/in-the-spotlight-iceberg-interactive/ (in Dutch though) http://shoost.co/2014/04/10/gdc-2014-iceberg-interactives-indie-lineup/

Your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiNiels13 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * According to the history of Iceberg Interactive, the page was created on 17 Sep 2010. The two deletions were on the 18th and 20th of that month, neither of which were performed by me. Above the list of deletions, are some suggestions on what you can do. The first suggestion is what you want. I also suggest the second link on the third line to create the article via our Article Wizard. It will guide you through some of the process of creating the article.
 * However, none of this guarantees that the article will not be deleted again. You should read our notability policies, so that you better understand why and what kind of documentation is required.
 * Thanks for your interest. I hope you succeed. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Mammals
I reverted your reversion and started a discussion on the talk page. Whether you think it reasonable or not, leaving unsourced information that misinforms a reader is not valid for an encyclopedia. MicroPaLeo (talk) 08:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Unitarian Universalist Association
Hello UtherSRG, I have reverted your revert for now - unfortunately you left no reason for it in the edit summary. Just wanted to explain the reasoning in a bit more detail: the statement should have an independent source to verify the UUPCC's status as IA (especially after the 2012 re-organization of the UUA's affiliate program); another problem beyond that is mentioning only this specific affiliate, when the UUA recognizes many organizations according to the article. External links not connected to the article's main topic should not be added per WP:EL. Regards. GermanJoe (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The link lead me to http://www.uupcc.org/who-we-are/about-uupcc which indicates they are still an IA. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am just wondering, does the UUA have an actual list somewhere with current IAs? That would solve the problem, a self-published source is always problematic per our WP:RS guidelines. It's not completely clear, which IAs kept or renewed their status, after the UUA decided to re-organize that program in 2012 (see this link for the UUA statement: ). GermanJoe (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A quick PS: the "ping" only works, if you sign the post with the same edit, which includes the ping. But I was watchlisting the page anyway :). GermanJoe (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed there is! http://uua.org/directory/organizations/search.php?category=all&pg_pager=3 (I've been out of UU and Wiki circles for awhile....) - UtherSRG (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe, there is a misunderstanding: that list is a list of "Related Organizations". Per UUA declaration all former IAs had become "Related Organizations" in 2012 and had to re-apply to IA status (see ). Former IAs had the choice to stay as "Related Organization" without renewing their IA status - the list of IAs is likely to be shorter than the list of related organizations. Considering that confusing situation it really would be better, if we wouldn't mention specific IAs (or not IAs) without more clarification. The UUPCC page is from 2013, it's not clear, if it really shows the actual status - IA status has to be renewed every year. GermanJoe (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah... so many changes. LOL! Ok then. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Iamsmeofindia Delted
I notice that you deleted page. I am going to ad relevant info.. Please dont delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msbeena (talk • contribs) 05:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Cats
sorry for that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevor1881cochran (talk • contribs)
 * Whetever. Replying to archive this. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Felidae
If Catopuma is separate, then how can its two species also be under Pardofelis? Kitty 56 (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like there are conflicting sources as to which is the valid genus. Rlendog (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing to see here. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Munjanes
Hi, you put this user's block request on hold about four days ago, but based only on your contribution history, I don't see that you've done anything related to the hold. Could you please elaborate a bit? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You were the blocking admin. I wanted you to look at the case before I denied the unblock request. I don't think the user has reformed. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah. Next time, please leave a message on my Talk page to let me know. I have the user's page on my watchlist, but every once in a while I miss things (with over 6,000 pages on my watchlist), whereas a post to my talk page alerts me more directly. I don't think the user has reformed either, but my tolerance of confirmed puppets is very small. Arguably, the user knew he was supposed to appeal through WP:UTRS, not through his talk page (or by sending me an e-mail, which he did and has done before). All that said, feel free to deny the request. Thanks for clarifying.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Done a while ago. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Suborders in primate taxoboxes
I noticed your recent revert of the addition of the suborder to the Slow loris article. I've been tempted to bring this point up at WP:Primates. Personally, I'm of the opinion that in *most* cases, the rule you're applying is very appropriate. However, with the academic attention on primates (as the order containing ourselves), I'm personally in favor of making an exception for Primates. As you know, the order Primates is divided two (or sometimes three) ways. The divide is quite distinct, and the emphasis on that divide is ubiquitous in the literature. Believe it or not, most ordinary people do not know that a lemur or loris is not a monkey. For this reason, I feel that *all* primate taxa articles should note the suborder. Again, this is reflected in the literature by the persistent emphasis on the prosimian/simian or strepsirrhine/haplorhine divide.

Your thoughts? If needed, maybe we can bring it up at WP:Primates or one of the higher-level projects to get consensus on a potential exception. – Maky  « talk » 18:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You make some good points, . There is precedent for the exception. All marsupials have the marsupialia link in the taxobox (though I've noticed that koala has vombatiformes as well, which it doesn't need). I think going to one of the higher-level projects would be better than just on WP:PRIM. We can discuss the decision more broadly, both for a stronger concensus on the standard, and the reasons for when there should be exceptions to the standard. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Good point. I've posted it here. Thanks! –  Maky  « talk » 06:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Right on. Good discussion. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Scott Ambrose
Hi UtherSRG. I'm not sure I agree with your close of this AfD. It was brought up at AN/I for sockpuppet concerns, but that aside I feel the consensus is quite clearly for keeping the article. One of the four delete votes is the AfD starter, another is an IP who provided essentially no rationale, leave two delete votes against five keep votes. The keep voters provided some sources and mostly valid rationales for keeping the article, meaning that I would have closed this as a keep. What are your thoughts on this? Sam Walton (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The number of !votes in a particular direction don't matter, it's the substance of them that matters. Nor does the AN/I listing matter in this case as the sockpuppet's (if that is indeed the case) !vote was not substantive. I was more swayed by the lack of coverage outside of the subject area, and the minimal coverage it did get within the subject area. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I of course agree that the number of votes doesn't necessarily matter, but your closing feels like a Supervote because a number of keep voters pointed to available sources, either by linking them directly, noting their existence on the French article, or by saying they are available online. Sam Walton (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why didn't you close it for keep then? It was in the backlog for over a day. :) But seriously, the sources indicated (including on the French article) didn't create notability; to wit, a lack of coverage outside of the subject area. And now I'm repeating myself, so I know we're being unproductive. I don't know what else to say, man. Is there some compelling need to list every athelete who has won a competition? That doesn't seem like it's in keeping with our notability guidelines. This deletion seemed clear cut to me: the delete reasons were clear, the keep reasons failed to carry the article past the notability threshold. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha, I may well have done if I had been closing AfDs, I only noticed this one from the ANI thread. I understand your point though, and am happy to leave it as is. Sam Walton (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course you failed to read the comment "Passes WP:GNG - "...has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." And you're not going to admit a mistake either. Nevermind.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I read those. I read all the comments. Those comments assert a perspective. Other comments asserted other perspectives. The comments on the delete side asserted a more accurate assessment of reality. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We allow articles on people who haven't ever done anything but got their name in the news. The guy won a stage in Le Tour de Filipinas, which is on the UCI calendar. That there be coverage "outside of the subject area", I don't know what that means., you could consider just rewriting the article and doing it properly, by which I mean with the inclusion of the guy's palmares; there is no law against recreation. I took the liberty of userfying it at User:Lugnuts/Scott Ambrose. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Drmies. I already put it in my sandbox, but I'll blank that. I believed WP:GNG beats any local guidelines, but I guess not. This guy will meet whatever guides the nominator thought it didn't pass anytime now, and then I'll move it straight back. Wasting everyone's time and effort. Power to him and his sock account.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

UtherSRG, I agree with, , and have taken this to Deletion review/Log/2015 April 2. Cunard (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Appreicate your efforts, Cunard.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, folks. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Military history of Buddhist Americans#Requested move 2 April 2015
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Military history of Buddhist Americans. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society
Dear ,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

You have a similair invitation on your Wikispecies talk page.

Best regards, Dan Koehl (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh cool! :) - UtherSRG (talk) 02:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/East Carolina–Marshall football rivalry
Would you relist Articles for deletion/East Carolina–Marshall football rivalry for further discussion? I do not see a consensus to delete in the discussion and would have voted keep if I had seen it. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not take it to WP:DRV? - UtherSRG (talk) 02:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have taken this to Deletion review/Log/2015 April 4. Cunard (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Phoenix Film Critics Society
Based on the results for this AfD, shouldn't all the articles under Category:Phoenix Film Critics Society Awards also be deleted? Edward321 (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, though they weren't listed on the AfD, so they should be listed. I'm going to be bold and nuke 'em. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. Done. Except for the one still there... which is Nevada, not Phoenix, and has its own AfD anyway. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eva Simone Hayward, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marine. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, bot, but the link to the dab is correct, as it is the only page that gives a definition of "marine". - UtherSRG (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Whale Article
Thanks for the tip! I edited it in my sandbox, and have recently re-added it to the Whales article. Let me know what you think! Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The Amazing Phylogeny Tree at Carnivora
I'm fascinated with the phylogenetic tree on the Carnivora page with the links & thumbnails, wondering who created it, it is awesome!! I have a dream of a giant, mural-sized interactive phylogenetic family tree of all creatures showing the time scale of their development. This would be so worth a huge NEA grant to develop for maybe the Smithsonian... Or even a non-interactive billboard-size chart with photos of everyone and articles/descriptions of each(separated into Mammals, Birds, Fish, Reptiles) - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.166.249 (talk • contribs)


 * You can see the history of the page by clicking on the "view history" link at the top. From that, you can figure out who created the tree. Likely, it was multiple people working over time. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The Lee R. Berger whose content you had early interest in
…received a thorough going over today, because—thought the subject is clearly notable, and worthy of an article—the content remains self-promotional, largely unsourced, and when sourced, apparently is drawn from the professor's self-published CV at his personal web page.

I did what I could today, to bring existing references to an acceptable style, and to note unsourced sections, but I would appreciate you visiting and commenting in Talk (give me 30 mins to create a Talk section for today)—in case the Professor or others close to him object to the new direction (toward encyclopedic content) being taken with the article.

Note, I too dislike tags, but I dislike more articles that are made to look encyclopedic, while in fact being mostly self-published material, and articles on science subjects drawn mostly from newspaper articles (rather than scholarly reviews/good secondary sources). Cheers, Le Prof [Leprof_7272] 71.201.62.200 (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Restoration of Mark Mastrov article
Hi can I get Mark Mastrov restored to Draft:Mark Mastrov, thanks. I believe you deleted the article way back in 2006.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done! - UtherSRG (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Look good, thanks a bunch.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers! - UtherSRG (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Redirects, Adoption and plagiarism
Hello, About 3 years ago you said that you would be willing to adopt me. At that time, I was so new at working with Wikis that I didn't even know what to ask for. I am of mixed feelings when I say that situation has changed.

I have discovered a situation with Hawaii Five-0 and a link to the word mustang, [|Joe White], the page is almost a 100% copy from a document created by a 3rd party. I have read the policies regarding copy and paste/plagiarism, and I would like to talk to someone who knows more than I do.

The 2nd issue has to do with redirects. I am beating my head against a wall trying to figure it out on my own and I have not been able to do so.

Are you able to help me or point me in the proper direction? Thank you BobDog54 (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I rarely edit Wikipedia any more. You should find someone else to assist you. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Re-creation of page 'Rowley Habib'
UtherSRC, I note that on 15 November 2006 you deleted page 'Rowley Habib'. This prominent Maori author has just died [] and I intend to re-create the page. I believe that he was sufficiently notable (for example, he is listed on WP as a Katherine Mansfield Menton Fellow in 1984) and that there are now sufficient RSs to create an acceptable article. I look forward to your response. -- Jmc (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Go for it. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Prohibition in Tennessee on January 26, 1838?
You edited January 26 at, adding the line Nothing about this appears in 1838, Tennessee, prohibition, or Prohibition in the United States. Do you have a source for it? If so, I would like to edit Prohibition in the United States to discuss this and use your reference. —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1838 - Tennessee enacts the first prohibition law in the United States
 * I don't recall what source I was using at the time. A quick Google search gets many hits, including this one: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/tennessee-passes-nations-first-prohibition-law. -- UtherSRG (talk) 07:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Billy Possum listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Billy Possum. Since you had some involvement with the Billy Possum redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah... I don't care. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Cotton-top tamarin for FA
Hi - as you are the author of Cotton-top tamarin I would like to let you know that I believe it meets the FA criteria, and have thus nominated it for consideration -- samtar talk or stalk 09:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Awesome. :) UtherSRG (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins) .MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Link my blog on Wikipedia
Dear Sir I want to link my blog [ http://topcoconutoilsecrets.com/ The Coconut Oil Secrets] to this Wikipedia page. Is this possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallsportfolio (talk • contribs) 18:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that is not allowed. I see on your talk page that you tried to put it on last month and that you were given pointers to information on what's allowable and not, and why. Please try to find some other avenue of being constructive on Wikipedia instead of promoting your own work. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news
 * A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
 * Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
 * Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news
 * When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
 * Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
 * The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries
 * JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikispecies
WS is now slowly developing with less conflicts. I guess you have moved away to other things, but would kindly like to ask you to support with vote here, so we can reach the 25 votes minimum rule in order to be able to get local Checkusers, and get a local policy for CU, which will be the first step of developing more local solutions on WS. Dan Koehl (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Will do.... if you figure out how to properly close the formatting on your previous message. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Tadaaa! Thanks a lot. Dan Koehl (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It looks like you have the needed 25. I'll add a support anyway, and for a few others. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Great thanks, appreciate, we need at least two, so your votes make a change. Dan Koehl (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity
Articles that you have been involved in editing&mdash; Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity&mdash;have been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Nessie (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of List of postal codes in Canada for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of postal codes in Canada is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of postal codes in Canada& until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ToThAc (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Bandicoots and allies
Hi -- I just came across the term "allies" in the taxonomical sense in the article on marsupials, and found that you introduced it in this edit -- I didn't know that term before -- it appears on the disambiguation page for ally, which links to Family (biology), but that article doesn't define the term. Is the definition on the disambiguation page ("Another species belonging to the same biological family") correct? Then we should perhaps add it to the Family (biology) article? Joriki (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the disambiguation page defines it well enough. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Genealogy - newsletter No.6
{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color:Cornsilk; border: 2px solid #bddff2; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"
 * Newsletter Nr 6, 2018-12-25, for  WikiProject Genealogy (and Wikimedia genealogy project on Meta)

  Participation:

This is the sixth newsletter sent by mass mail to members in WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise.

(To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please see below)

Now 100 supporters
At 3 December 2018, the list of users who support the potential Wikimedia genealogy project, reached 100!

A demo wiki is up and running!
You can already now try out the demo for a genealogy wiki at https://tools.wmflabs.org/genealogy/wiki/Main_Page and try out the functions. You will find parts of the 18th Pharao dynasty and other records submitted by the 7 first users, and it would be great if you would add some records.

And with those great news we want to wish you a creative New Year 2019!

'''Don't want newsletters? If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.'''

Cheers from your WikiProject Genealogy coordinator. To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery
 * }

Primate taxonomy
Hi UtherSRG. I see you have been less active recently than you used to be. I left a long note on the primate talk page about our primate taxonomy, on which I would like your feedback. We have long used Groves (2005) as our basic source for primate taxonomy, and I know you have been a strong proponent of this, but I think that developments over the past 10-15 years have left this reference far behind, which even Groves acknowledges. We have slowly and somewhat haphazardly updated our primate taxonomy as new research has been published, but I think it is time to acknowledge that we need a new primary source. My preference would be to use Mittermeier, et al (2013) Handbook of the Mammals of the World, volume 3, but I could see using Rowe, et al (2016) All the World's Primates if there is a consensus for that, or there may be another possible source I am not aware of. In any case I would like to get your feedback on this, and the resulting changes that could be necessary (e.g., revising common names). Rlendog (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Replied there. You just might get me back to an active status with this. LOL! ;) - UtherSRG (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I replied back - I largely agree with you although I don't think we are ready to go to binomial titles for popular mammals like primates. It would be great to have you active again. Rlendog (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought we were settled but someone made another suggestion - the Mammal Diversity Database. Do you have any thoughts on that relative to ITIS? Rlendog (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I hadn't heard of it before, but it looks like they've done all the work for us. ;) - UtherSRG (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox Arrowverse crossover episode
Template:Infobox Arrowverse crossover episode has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox television episode. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox Inhumans IMAX
Template:Infobox Inhumans IMAX has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox television episode. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox Rocky and Bullwinkle story arc
Template:Infobox Rocky and Bullwinkle story arc has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox television episode. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox Simpsons episode
Template:Infobox Simpsons episode has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox television episode. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular
   

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society
Dear ,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Urhixidur (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

"Template:MaMTalk" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:MaMTalk. Since you had some involvement with the Template:MaMTalk redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Magioladitis (talk) 07:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox Paris by Night
Template:Infobox Paris by Night has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox television episode. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

misspelling on Argonaut_(animal) talk page presents racial slur
hi Stacey, I see that a reply from you on the Argonaut talk page under 'Article Names' about using common names left out two 'm's in the word 'common' which yielded a racial slur which I suspect you did not mean. Just a head's up. UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 07:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

 * Thanks UtherSRG (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Requests for page protection
You are invited to join the discussion at Requests for page protection.  Bobherry  Talk   Edits  21:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Uther's self portrait.JPG


The file File:Uther's self portrait.JPG has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "orphaned image, no encyclopedic use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jordan 1972 (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Declined. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:WikiProjects has been nominated for renaming
Category:WikiProjects has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —⁠andrybak (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks - UtherSRG (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Heh! :) It's been a wild ride! - UtherSRG (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Requests for Primates peer review


A tag has been placed on Category:Requests for Primates peer review requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 16:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Specific power (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Specific power (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
 * disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
 * is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

GA reviews of Chimpanzee
Hey UtherSRG, haven't seen you round the primates pages much recently, hope you haven't forgotten about them :) I was wondering if you could help me out with moving the GA review page locations for chimpanzee and Pan (genus)? Talk:Chimpanzee/GA1 should move to Talk:Chimpanzee/GA2 and Talk:Pan (genus)/GA1 should be moved to Talk:Chimpanzee/GA1 as far as I can tell? Bit confusing as I think the scope of the chimpanzee page changed over time from chimpanzee referring to both members of Pan to now talking about the common chimpanzee. Seem like the talk page history is a bit of a mess as well, but that can probably be ignored. Cheers, Jack (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Protection of GNAA (disambiguation)
I saw that you moved protection settings from some other redirect or page (I can't tell, some of these protection logs are a nightmare) in 2012. Is it possible to unprotect, as I see no reason for the protection to stay as there is no current disruption? Thanks in advance,  Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 01:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In 2012 I moved the page from GNAA to GNAA (disambiguation). The protection settings moved with the page. You'd have to check the page's history to see when the protection was added, by whom, and why. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Gracile (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Gracile (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
 * disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
 * is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

"Civil Court" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Civil Court and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 30 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ev iolite  (talk)  17:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

"Nancy Wilson(guitarist)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Nancy Wilson(guitarist) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 22 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Corvides


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Corvides. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Corvida. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Corvida. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I see it's already been rejected, which is correct. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Old World monkey species, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aimi. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, my little robot friend. I'd fixed the links in the species article, but missed fixing them in the list article. Cheers! - UtherSRG (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oceanites, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bonaparte.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you bot. You have served me well. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Your revert
Hi, UtherSRG. I appreciate you weighing in here. When reverting block evading socks, I'm always hopeful that someone smarter than me is watching (not a difficult bar to achieve). That way useful information can be retained for our readers. I'm gonna be wholesale reverting this individual as they have been executing these edits for years and are making no attempt to communicate. I would appreciate any help you can offer in retaining that content that is useful.  Tide  rolls  12:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I've been keeping my eye on them for a week or so. See the chat on User talk:Anaxial. When there are too many edits, wholesale reversion is fine, but when the number of edits are manageable, I try to put some thought into things. Try... not always succeed. But I'm glad I did this time. ;) - UtherSRG (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Asiatic wildcat
Hi. I admit that I was lazy today when I changed the distribution map but didn't update the list of sources. Is it okay now, or do you want the sources also locally in the article? --Paranaja (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * So basically, everything should trace back to a reliable source, eh? And especially if it contradicts another given source. The IUCN Cat Group PDF is from 2017, so it's certainly possible the range has been updated. So if you have a reference that you can use, then yes, add the map and the reference. But if the ref isn't reliable or can't otherwise be used, then no, don't add the map. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The map is compiled from two IUCN assessments, one from 2015 and one from 2022. The reason why I've mixed two maps is that the 2022 assessment is very unclear on where the border between the Asiatic and the African wildcat is (the topic is simply not well-studied enough). The 2015 assessment also doesn't state the border between these subspecies, but it's shown (though speculatively) for example in the 2017 PDF you mentioned. Therefore, I decided to show non-controversial elements from the 2022 IUCN map (e.g. the northern range expansion in Russia), but to keep the 2015/2017 distribution in Turkey and Caucasus to be on the safer side. In my view, the map is as up-to-date as it can be while still being well-sourced. --Paranaja (talk) 09:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks good! - UtherSRG (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Queens Plate
A contested technical move request on which you commented is now at Talk:Queens Plate. - Station1 (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Roger that! - UtherSRG (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of a material
The article that I have created was deleted I would like to Incubate the article. If there any chance to retrieve the articled please help. 25Abhi7234 (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * No. You've been told multiple times by multiple people. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Silvery woolly monkey
Hello, I noticed that you reverted my edit on the silvery woolly monkey article. I'd like to know why the edit was reverted because the edit summary didn't seem to make it clear.

As it stands, the article currently says

The silvery woolly monkey [...] is a subspecies of the common woolly monkey from South America. [...]

It was initially thought to be a subspecies of the common woolly monkey (L. lagothricha), but was later reclassified as its own species. [...]

At first, it seems like the second paragraph immediately contradicts the first, though later in the paragraph, this gets clarified. I wanted to try to reword the paragraph to avoid the initial confusion, but perhaps I was too brash in my edit. I wonder if you have any ideas on how the phrasing could be clarified.

SheepTester (talk) 05:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't know. ut, better to ask on the article's chat as we may get more of an audience there. As for your edit.\, I just didn't see it as being any clearer. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ecuadorian capuchin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anthropogenic. (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks friendly little bot, but it is an appropriate link in this case. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

"Thunderbird (disambiguation)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Thunderbird (disambiguation) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 18 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll check it out... - UtherSRG (talk)

Christianization of the Roman Empire
Why did you move the page to this name? Have you even read the long debates about this article's name. Please revert this undiscussed move immediately. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This was done per a request at Requested moves/Technical requests, where the requestor indicated the page was being restructured and the new name was fitting. I have no interest in move warring. Please make another request at RM to resolve this. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You made the request. Please address this. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

2023 Nigerian general election
Could you please reopen the move discussion? A side has continuously stalled discussion in the hopes of a close to save them from having to justify their points, I went to one of their talk pages yesterday to get a response and am awaiting it. Could the discussion reopen until then? Both sides agree that the status quo is incorrect as the title does not fit the page's content. Some sort of change has to happen and it can't happen if closers continue to end discussion before anything gets resolved. Watercheetah99 (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, is there a different recourse? Watercheetah99 (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:RM. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Moustached guenon
We have an article for Moustached guenon. Was that what you are referring to on your to do list as Mustached guenon? Rlendog (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a mess and needs some work. So I put it on my todo list for when I can devote some energy to it. Looks like it was "fixed" by one of the Wiki Uni students. Now we need to fix their fix.... - UtherSRG (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see.... I typo'd the name in my list and that caused your confusion. Now I understand. :) I've updated my list and have worked on the article some. Also, I've pointed User:An anonymous username, not my real name at the article and they said theymight work on it after they are done with their current project, little blue heron. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Rfc on 1948 Palestinian exodus
Hi. I think you made a mistake by deciding the RFC solely based on what the regular editors of the article want, which edit that article on a daily basis precisely because they have a specific POV, not because they "know what they talk about" any more than less involved editors. If you weren't sure on the decision because both sides had good arguments, the result should be 'no consensus' like the previous RFC. Maybe you should reconsider. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:73C0:505:ADD4:0:0:26FC:E831 (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Further, while I wouldn't do the same for all RMs (not an RFC, mind you, this was an RM...) this article explicitly prevents a certain group of editors from editing. Why would I allow folks who are excluded form editing have a say in how the article is titled? - UtherSRG (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, how is your decision grounded in the policies of Wikipedia? The strength of arguments does not depend on whether editors do or do not edit a given article. Alaexis¿question? 20:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please go read the header on the talk page. The article is under a strict Arbitration enforcement that prevents some people from editing the article. Given that, how could I put much weight on the opposition to the move, when none of the opposition have made edits to the article? I wouldn't do this for all articles, but in this specific instance, I feel justified in de-weighting the opinion of folks who have not made edits to the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Maybe the users who opposed the change have not edited the article (I haven't checked it myself) but why do you think that they are ineligible for editing it? I think that the purpose of such discussions is to attract a wide range of views, not just from the editors who edit a particular article but also (and maybe especially) from others. Alaexis¿question? 05:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's because they've been around the block and seen all of the different varieties of puppetry, bad faith, off-wiki coordination and other funny business at work in conflict areas. In the context, that this thread was coincidentally started by an anonymous IP speaks volumes. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Clean Wehrmacht myth
Consensus was clearly not to move... Please change your close to match or I will be requesting a review. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Now, please Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Dude, are you completely ignoring your obligation to either explain or correct your close? You are currently active and editing. You have until 7:30 at which point a review will be opened if you have failed to explain or reverse your close. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Chill. Let me process one thought at a time, ok? Have a little patience.
 * So, no, consensus is not the be all and end all of move requests. Move closers are expected to investigate. Folks who comment on the move request can state what they want, but they aren't necessarily correct. Further, I'd rather err on the side of matching other existing articles. As I stated in my closing comments, there are many more articles titled "X myth" than there are "Myth of [the] X". If we should move this article back to "Myth of [the] X" format, we should then move a large number of "X myth" formed articles to the "Myth of [the] X" format, and I can't justify that. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Is that all? I am not satisfied at all by this explanation, it just makes me worried that you've made poor closes on other articles. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to your opinion. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Move review for 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight
An editor has asked for a Move review of 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Alaexis¿question? 12:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the courtesy of this notification. Of the 3 move reviews I'm involved in, this is the only one I was notified about. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Move of Zayü County to Zayul County
Hi UtherSRG, about the recent move discussion close – why did you move this page to Zayul County instead of Zayu County? As I pointed out in the discussion, "Zayu County" seems to be the most common spelling in modern English-language sources, and no one else contested this point. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 01:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok. Thanks for letting me know. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you please revert the move then, or move the page to Zayu County instead? Or should I take it to WP:Move review? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

State funerals
Hi UtherSRG

Please can you explain how you assessed the consensus at Talk:Death and state funeral of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani? Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Both sides have good arguments for their case, but there is certainly no consensus for the move. Given that, my choices are then either "no move" or "no consensus". While effectively these produce the same results (the article(s) in question don't get moved, there is a different taste to the result. In this case, there is significantly more opposition to the move than there is support for the move, so I declared "no move". - UtherSRG (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks.
 * "significantly more opposition" sounds like a headcount. Did you evaluate the extent to which arguments were solidly founded in policy?  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 15:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * To some degree. However, I don't consider policy to be unmutable nor inflexible. If it were, we wouldn't need RM discussions; the closer would simply read the request, read policy, and make a decision without looking at any arguments. Further, these discussions, and results that don't fit 100% within policy (or rather results which align with arguments for/against moving) can be used as the basis of updating policy, either to clarify and refine policy as stated, or to reverse policy. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That was kindof what I feared. A pile-on of votes which either ignore policy, or which make palpably absurd assertions, and the closer pays minimal attention to policy.
 * So the WP:LOCALCON of a largely irrational pile-on by inexperienced editors carries the day, contrary to WP:NOTAVOTE, and stable, long-standing policy is trampled on.
 * I couldn't be bothered with the drama of move review, but I am sad to see yet another example of Wikipedia's decision-making being dumbed down by a mob, and yet another admin who won't stand up to mob folly.  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 19:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, there were many who opposed who simply read and interpret the policy differently than you and some supporters do. That will always be the case for some policy. You felt "state funeral" was too precise, while others felt that "funeral" was not precise enough. From one perspective, a change would be against policy, from another perspective the status quo is against policy. From my outside view, both arguments have merit. At that point do I ignore all talk of precision, or do I let the majority have its way? There will always be such cases, as long as there isn't an explicit MOS policy to cover the specifics. Can you point to an MOS we have that covers this? The same argument goes for other policies that were cited in the discussion. As I said, policies are not unmutable, nor are the inflexible. I suggest that you work on a MOS that would cover this case explicitly, so that there isn't the wiggle room that policy allows. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is encapsulated in this part of your reply: You felt "state funeral" was too precise, while others felt that "funeral" was not precise enough (bolding added by BHG)
 * This is absolutely not about feeling. The scope of the titles can be assessed objectively, by examining what aspects of the topic would be in scope within one title but not the other.  Almost none of the opposers were willing to do that.
 * So what we got was a refusal to apply reasoned assessment of evidence, and a closer who endorsed that refusal.
 * A change in the MOS won't fix this. The problem here is not the policy or the MOS; the problem is the deep cultural resistance among many Wikipedia editors and admins to applying intellectual rigour.  In fact, "resistance" is probably an inadequate word, given the deep hostility and anger expressed by some editors whose unreasoned or perverse commentary was challenged.
 * We already have policy to cover this: WP:DETCON: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy". Arguments which ignore or reject policy should be ignored.
 * But instead of applying that policy, we have a culture in which rational debate is deprecated. Hordes of editors yell "Waaah!! Bludgeoned!" if their falsehoods are challenged.  Discussions are closed by admins who don't even write one single word of explanation of how they weighed the consensus, and show absolutely zero sign of having systematically evaluated the votes.
 * This makes for cosy community cohesion, because users making unevidenced assertions which ignore policy and are demonstrably false face no reproach or sanction. That minimises drama, but this indulgence of irrationality and hostility to intellectual rigour is not a credible way to build an encyclopedia.   Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Good luck on the next move attempt. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I have reopened the RM and notified appropriate WikiProjects. Good luck. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for re-opening it. But your comment on the expected outcome was ill-judged.  At best it's self-justification; at worst it's prejudicing the discussion.   Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 13:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right. That was wrong of me. Should I removed that portion of my comment? UtherSRG (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes.  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You got it. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 19:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

An advice
Hello! It seems that, until a couple of months ago, you had last been highly active in the community in 2012; when I saw a couple of your closures turn up at WP:MRV, I suspected something like that was the case. Let me start by saying: welcome back! We are glad to have you around and active again! We always have a need for more editors with lots of experience and passion for Wikipedia. That said, I regret to be the one to inform you that Wikipedia has changed a great deal over the past decade, especially when it comes to process; much about how we reach consensus is more formalized and bureaucratic than it used to be. In fact, expectations have changed so much that your experience from the 2000s is more likely to mislead you than help.

All of this is preface to saying: I want to encourage you to consider stepping back from administrative roles like closing discussions while you become acclimated to the community's new norms, as many actions and statements that may seem uncontroversial, even obvious to the point that you don't really even think about them, are likely to… rub people the wrong way. In 2018, was essentially lynched for not understanding behavioral expectations after his own decade-long absence. Since then, the community has only become more and more prone to punishing administrators who it feels are too brusque or dismissive of other editors' concerns; among the recent victims, it's possible you recognize some names like, , , and. Nowadays, it is normative to escalate behavioral complaints directly from administrators' talk pages to the Arbitration Committee, and the current Committee will accept pretty much any case pertaining to the behavior of an administrator, so please don't be dismissive of the concerns people bring about what you have done. I would guess from the number of people who quit permanently afterward that having an ArbCom case about your behavior is a deeply unpleasant experience.

I want to be clear that I do not mean that as a threat. Everyone will be happy to give you time to adjust to today's expectations, and plenty of people are willing to give you further pointers, myself included. But editors will also be watching for signs that you are indeed acclimating, and are likely to react very poorly if it seems that you are unwilling to hear, consider, and accommodate others' concerns. Note that nowadays, administrators in particular are expected to respond to questions about their actions immediately and to be courteous while doing so (even if the person questioning you isn't courteous in turn); this, combined with the fact that your closure was, um… extremely odd from a modern editor's perspective, is why was so agitated in the section above. I mention it because I imagine you didn't realize that either your closure, your delay in responding, or the tone of your response was inappropriate by today's standards, and there will probably be many more things like that. You will probably need to do a lot of watching and ordinary discussion participation to get used to how things have changed.

…anyway, I hope you can take all of that in the spirit I intended it. To be honest, I found writing all this quite awkward, but it would have felt wrong to see a potential problem and not say anything about it. Like I said, if you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them, although I wasn't around back when you were and can only help so much; I hope somebody who was, like Andrevan, can explain the differences better. And I want to conclude by reiterating that we are glad to see you return: while things today may look a lot different, everybody is here for the same reasons, and we are always delighted to cooperate with everyone who shares our passion for this encyclopedia. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I didn't review UtherSRG's close though I recognize their name and believe they are a clueful user, but I mean, let's be very clear, I said and did some pretty stupid and wrong stuff in 2018, which I feel bad about, and I am confident I wouldn't make that same series of mistakes again in that same way at this point. However, it is good advice for any returning users who have been on a hiatus to tread lightly because there is definitely both a tighter standard for admin behavior as well as a more complex and formalized system of managing disputes and certain processes. Andre🚐 22:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I have since reviewed 2 of UtherSRG's closes and I believe they should both be overturned. I suggest they review present-day community standards on consensus and how admins and other users can close discussions. Andre🚐 22:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I had only reviewed the last 2,000 of UtherSRG's edits so I was unaware that they had recently returned, that does change the context immensely. I must note that within their last 2,000 edits I was able to put together a clear noticeboard case for a ban from closing discussions with a slightly less strong case for a lack of competence. Obviously I won't be moving forward with that. I would advise that most of your recent closes have major issues, you should consider perhaps taking time off from closing and reverting your closes. I wasn't around for the old wikipedia, it seems in many ways to have been a different beast where admins who behaved as Wild West sheriffs were needed. These days we expect admins to behave almost as elected officials/public servants in that they are completely accountable to the community. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Ugh. It's sad that this is the state of the Wiki. But if this is the way things are, there's not much I can do about it. I'll step away from most of the admin-type work and stick to more ground-level efforts. No wonder every type of work requiring an admin has backlogs. Shame. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand, its your behavior that is shameful not the state of the Wiki. The Wiki has never been better. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not what I meant. My actions were certainly not the best, I admit. However, it's also not good to have such backlogs of admin work that linger because of the need to tread so lightly. UtherSRG (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think if you look into it you'l find that the backlog is a result of us raising the standards for being an admin leading to fewer and fewer new admins each year. Some argue they've been raised too far but nearly everyone is in agreement that they were at one point way too low (not a personal attack but it is a fact that you were made an admin during that period) so there is resistance to lowering them again. If you look at a chart admin numbers increase until 2011 when they actually start a net decline which continues to the present Desysoppings by month. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm actually surprised my inactivity didn't cause me to be demoted, frankly. I see that that was started in July 2011. Fascinating chart. Not just fewer new admins each year, but fewer admins overall each year, too. Anyway, I've agreed to step away from the eggshell activities for now. Would be nice if there were an admin mentor program of some sort, both for new admins, and for remedial lessons. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Heh, true, and you are not the first person to raise that point. In general, however, the community has shifted from prioritizing doing lots of things quickly to doing somewhat fewer things well. Sometimes, this is attributed to how the large size of Wikipedia today means that expansion is less of a priority than maintaining and refining what it exists. This is no doubt simplistic, but I think there's a bit of truth there. I was going to point you to the essay "There is no deadline", but apparently the essay doesn't actually talk about the underlying philosophy (why there is no deadline), just applications, so I'm not sure how helpful it would be to you. (Maybe I should think about adding some of that.) Nevertheless, you will find that the sentiment is brought up fairly frequently, particularly when people are perceived to be too anxious to get something done.
 * One thing to note about backlogs is that things probably aren't as bad as they look. Although there are a lot of backlogs for relatively unimportant things (e.g., Category:Wikipedia non-free files for NFUR review) or things that are not easily dealt with (e.g., Category:All articles lacking sources), critical maintenance queues like AIV and RFPP stay relatively empty and even complex tasks that are important generally don't have to wait too long (e.g., Closure requests). Part of this is because lots of traditionally administrative roles have partially devolved onto highly experienced non-admins. There's lots of talk about how concerned or unconcerned we should be about the decreasing size of the administrator pool, but at the end of the day, it has not substantially impacted the work—at least not yet.
 * Regarding admin mentorship: while the potential benefits are obvious, the fact of the matter is that administrators don't return from long periods of inactivity very often and nowadays people aren't promoted without frankly excessive amounts of experience, so there isn't really enough need for a formal program. That said, if you want a bit of mentorship from another administrator, you can probably find someone willing to help by just asking around. (I don't know about their availabilities, but, and  jump to mind as very senior and especially approachable.) Heck, you might try dropping a note at WP:AN. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's a helpful essay.
 * Pinging the suggested mentors to see if they have any desire..., ,.
 * So, I think I've learned this: Editors should be bold, admins should not. (Except for - j/k... you did that while I was writing this so...)
 * So, I probably closed about 50 RMs, and had 4 questioned. (Only three went to MRV.) I think my !Bold statement applies to at least 2 of those 4. The other two I have questions about. Two I closed as "move", the other two I did not. This is an open question to all, but particularly to for leading the "nudge Uther back on track" brigade, and  who seems to have delved deeper into my closures.
 * The first is 's RM to move a large handful of "Death and state funeral of X" articles to "Death and funeral of X". (See discussion above, which includes pointer to the RM.) Both sides of the discussion called out policies. Both sides argued that they were in keeping within policy, and that the other side was not. I saw that both sides had merit. In the follow on discussion I suggested working to come up with an MOS that would cover this specifically. Was there anything more I could have done? Anything I didn't do well here?
 * The other is the Nigerian election RM. I think this one was inevitable to go to MRV given the personalities involved. Yes? Could I have done anything differently here, other than providing some explanation?
 * Finally, I want to thank all of you who have chimed in with helpfulness. It was hard to read at first. Even the second or third readings took me some time and deep breaths. But I want to say thank you, and I hear you. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @UtherSRG: I can tell you fairly simply what you did wrong in the "state funerals" RM: you simply made a vague statement that "both sides cited policy". There is no evidence at all that you actually took the time to make any assessment beyond that vague shrug.
 * What a skilled closer does in that situation is to actually tabulate the responses:
 * No foundation in policy -- so ignore
 * Claims to be founded in policy, so assess that claim, and decide whether the claim is:
 * plausibly founded
 * weak or spurious
 * That gives you some numbers with which to weigh consensus. But after several rounds of discussion here on your talk, you have given no indication whatsoever of having done that detailed scrutiny. I am pretty sure that if you had done it, you would have posted your workings here to explain your conclusion.
 * So it seems to me to be reasonable to conclude that you did not do the work. I don't know whether that is because you do not understand the job of a closer, or whether you lack the analytical skills, or whether you just didn't want to put that much work in to it.  But either way, such a long and heated RM involving nearly 50 high-profile articles merited a much more detailed assessment than your glib two-word not moved ... and you did not do what is required.
 * So I agree with you are not up to the job.  You should desist from closing RMs, and you should self-revert your closure of the state funerals RM, so that it can properly closed by some admin who is willing and able to make a proper asessment.   Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As I've already said, I've stepped back. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * For clarity's sake: I disagreed with that Wehrmacht close, but I do not wish to state that UtherSRG is not up to the job. I cannot possibly judge that, having only looked at the one close, and I'm not likely to make such a categorical statement so quickly. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank goodness for that, @UtherSRG.
 * Now will you please self-revert your closure of the state funerals RM? Or do we have to take it to WP:Move review for a week of high-profile focus on your lack of competence?   Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 19:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hear someone else weigh in on my question before I do. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @UtherSRG: It is sad to see you dragging this out. I had hoped that the robustly critical feedback you have received already from multiple editors would have been more than sufficient for you to demonstrate good faith by self-reverting.  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The other folks in this discussion are impartial wrt your move request. You are an involved party. I'd like to hear from them. Please have a little more patience on this. UtherSRG (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think it would be a mistake for to hold out hope that another closer would give an assessment any more favorable than no consensus, so I would regard a self-revert in this case as offering an olive branch. As to whether or not you should do that, I don't really have an opinion. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Compassionate727: my concern is not so much about the outcome, as about the fact that such a lengthy and unusual discussion of high-profile topics was closed with no sign of any proper analysis, by an admin who seems to have no comprehension whatsoever of how to analyse a discussion.  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 22:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Editors should be bold, admins should not. Huh, I wouldn't have thought to express it that way, but that's a pretty good gloss. You're catching on quicker than I would have expected.
 * Regarding the two RMs you are asking about: for the "Death and state funeral" titles, my quick headcount is 10 supporters (including nominator) and 23 opposers. That is a rather large margin against, and because no consensus results in retaining the status quo (save during exceptional circumstances where an onus is in play), it would IMO take some unusually strong arguments from the supporters and weak ones from the opposers to overcome that burden. I've not scrutinized the arguments particularly closely yet (I slept poorly last night and don't trust myself to do so well right now), but my first reaction is that it seems unlikely, although not impossible. BHG ably argued her position, but I'm not convinced it fully negates what many editors maintained: that a state funeral is a very different kind of thing from other funerals and retaining the specificity is helpful. I've not really looked at the Nigerian general election one, but it seems obvious enough there's an underlying behavioral problem (whose, I can't confidently say yet) mucking things up. So neither was anywhere near as bad as the clean Wehrmacht myth and Palestinian exodus ones were.
 * I should share some thoughts on explaining closes, but… when I'm not exhausted, I might be able to articulate some principles for when explanations are and are not necessary (though nothing can replace experience there). For now, I'll just observe that because assessing consensus involves weighing arguments, explaining how much weight you gave to various arguments and why helps anyone wanting to build further upon the consensus determine how to proceed and gives helpful clues to participants (especially newer ones unfamiliar with the process) concerning what kinds of arguments do and do not carry water around here. More cynically, if you show that you put careful thought into a closure, disgruntled participants are less likely to make trouble about it.
 * And I'm happy to help explain things, especially when you have been listening so open-mindedly. I want to say I'm very grateful for that; I recognize that when you boil it down, I may as well have said: "Hey, your comportment is all wrong! Stop thinking like yourself!" That's not an easy thing to hear, as many of us recognize (and know from personal experience). You've handled it all very admirably. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I hope you had better sleep last night. :) And you're right, if you'd only briefly said "Hey, your comportment is all wrong! Stop thinking like yourself!" I probably would have either blown it off or, worse, blown up. But you did much better than that and set the stage for how to adjust my thinking. More cynically, if you show that you put careful thought into a closure, disgruntled participants are less likely to make trouble about it. Heh... Yeah, but not always even then if I'm too far off the mark. *cough*!bold*cough* But yes, I'm more than willing to learn. So... lesson 1 was !bold for admins. A corollary to that... if I want to be bold (clear Wehrmacht), do it as a regular participant and not at a higher level. (Might be a good exercise to start an essay on !bold_admins that can be linked from WP:BOLD... I'll think on that... but it's too soon. Maybe entitle it "Lessons from a Wild West Sheriff...") - UtherSRG (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good idea. I do want to say that there are still situations where you can be bold as an admin or IAR as an admin, but be prepared for a bit of a firestorm and you will need a very good reason why, or extraordinary circumstance. These move closures aren't so much bold as they are just lacking in an understanding of the tone. The job of closing discussions isn't to tally the votes, but if your close rationale is a WP:SUPERVOTE that isn't it either. Andre🚐 16:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Heard and understood. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That being said, I know that your reasoned response to all this backseat adminning will speak well of you. Andre🚐 21:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Frankly, if I *don't* come out of this a better admin, I'll be sorely disappointed in myself. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

UtherSRG, you'll have seen by now that I closed that discussion and moved the article back: there's no point in leaving that open, and I think you've been told off enough, so I just want to put a stop to that. No hard feelings on my end--shit happens, the times are changing, and as admins we sometimes need to step back more than maybe ten years ago. What's funny is that I say that right after I perhaps prematurely closed a discussion and reverted a fellow admin--but I hope and trust you understand what I did and why. Feel free to drop me a line if you want to discuss this or other things. Take care, Drmies (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * LOL! No hard feelings indeed. WP:SNOW, eh? - UtherSRG (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Related to this discussion, I believe, I'm wondering why you closed the Maize RM? You said to discuss it elsewhere, but isn't that the correct place to discuss it? Kstern (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't say elsewhere. I suggest trying a different form of discussion to reach a consensus to move or not move, though I don't have a particular method that might work better. After 4, now 5, times failing to reach consensus, there's got to be some other way. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Welcome back
Hi Uther. It's good to have you back to active editing. I am sorry you got into that kerfuffle over some of your RM closures. I was going to send you a note similar to Compassionate's, but I think he said everything necessary. And I do agree with your closure on the state funeral one (basically, even though the other side may have been closer to the literal wording of WP:Precise, when such a substantial majority of experienced editors are making arguments to the contrary there is a consensus that this should be an exception to the general practice, IAR if you like). Anyway, although you agreed to step back from admin work there are non-controversial tasks you can do to help with the backlogs (which I admittedly have been lax on working on) as you get used to the shiny, new, more bureaucratic Wikipedia - deleting expired prods, restoring prods on request, closing discussions with obvious (e.g., snow) consensus...Rlendog (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Well hey! Thanks for the re-welcome! Good to see you again, too. I'm also back in NJ... been a long trip... I'll consider what level of admin work I'm comfortable with, and backlogs of less controversial tasks is appealing. Cheers! - UtherSRG (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * If you want an admin activity to ease into, try helping out at WP:REFUND. I think it's one of the more satisfying admin tasks to restore articles for editors who want to improve them. Just be sure if it's a CSD G13 that has been already restored once, to ask the editor if they REALLY plan on working on it. Some folks just keep having drafts restored over and over without making any changes to them. But there are templates to use to respond to contested PRODs, G11s, A7s, AFDs in case they come up which makes things pretty straight-forward. Liz Read! Talk! 02:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Cool! I'll check it out. Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Skunk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mephitis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks you friendly little bot! - UtherSRG (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

deleted page Dreamify Records
Hi can you help me Improve this article and can I get any pointers on why it is promoting? We really need help on this one. Also can we return it to our sandbox to improve it. Thank you Zyrillezuno (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:PROMO (on how Wikipedia is not to be used for promoting an entity such as a record label), WP:CCS (on how an article must make a credible claim of significance to avoid a speedy deletion). The article was deleted this time because it was promoting the label, and previously because there was no credible claim of significance. Further, even it it was acceptable under both of those conditions, it would likely still have been deleted as not being notable, a requirement under WP:N. We are here to make an encyclopedia. You should also read up on what Wikipedia is not. So no, at this time I'm not inclined to undelete it. Once you've read those pages and can express to me in your own words how the article was in violation, then we can discuss how you'd like to improve it. Cheers! - UtherSRG (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

u:Fostera12
- I see you have a new friend. Do look at your talk page's edit history before you reply. They tried to soften their bite. didn't do a good job of it.... - UtherSRG (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Yupp saw that one in the RC feed! Apparently didn’t do good job on that article as well! You must now read what they posted on Xplicit’s talk page if not already.. sigh.. I’m like.. 🤦‍♂️ — DaxServer (mobile) (t · m · c) 17:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I cant... it's just word soup. ;) - UtherSRG (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Add some Indian masala to the soup 😋 Oh wait.. all of us involved with this one, except Xplicit(?) and you, are Indians - probably the joke and/or the soup might not turn out as good 😵‍💫 — DaxServer (t · m · c) 21:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Does it count that I had coconut chicken curry for dinner last night? XD - UtherSRG (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Indeed it does if you liked the dish 😋 But if you don’t… talk to the hand 🧤 — DaxServer (mobile) (t · m · c) 08:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh I have curry a few times a month at least, so.. yeah. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the party 🍾 — DaxServer (mobile) (t · m · c) 16:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yum! UtherSRG (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks to your inspiration I made a curry this afternoon. I believe I've put too much curry paste and it is, despite tasty nom nom, spicy 🥵 Can't bear the spiciness (is that the word?) anymore after moving to Germany 🙉 — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it your mouth that can't handle it, or another part of your body? If the latter... try drinking a lot of milk with the spiciness. If it's your mouth... then you have to retrain! XD - UtherSRG (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My mouth and stomach as well. I'd try the spicy milk and see how that goes 🥛 — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Spicy milk?? Oh no! UtherSRG (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I mixed up all the things, didn't I? 🙈 — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Goofball! :) - UtherSRG (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)