User talk:UtherSRG/Archive 8

Possible odd stuff
I recently came across User:FloridaArmy. Not only does he have any extraordinary number of ongoing articles, many which seem almost trivial are being accepted. One I and someone else previously rejected [William Cicero Allen] suddenly was put up for AfC & then accepted by the same editor, without improvements. Something is going on. Maybe there is somewhere else to mention this, but I think an admin should look. It seems that User has previously had edit restrictions. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Request for the change of Wikipedia Title for Manoj Sharma (actor) to Manoj Sharma (voice actor)
Hello UtherSRG, Thank you for your edit on Manoj Sharma (actor) 's page, I have been working on that page for some time and i believe that you wanted to make title short that is according to the guidelines of (WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE). I believe it will be better if we can change his page title Manoj sharma (actor) to Manoj sharma (voice actor) since he is a prominent voice over and dubbing artist in the Kannada industry... just the name as actor can be confusing to people since people will think that he is a person who act in film which is not the case ... and to be precise and concise i think changing the name from actor to voice actor will be a better option.

Looking forward to hear from you soon, Thanks! Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 07:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * You can request a title change via WP:RM but I do not believe you will succeed. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

"285 (Number)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=285_(Number)&redirect=no 285 (Number)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Dhrm77 (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Fahlo
Hi, UtherSRG. I see you and I collaborated quite smoothly at User talk:Fahlo, without tripping over each other's feet (unless I got in your way without noticing). Unusual! :-) Bishonen &#124; tålk 19:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC).


 * Hooray for a successful dance! XD - UtherSRG (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

RefRenamer
I saw you renamed references on this page with refrenamer. How do I use it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yashimajinumi&curid=73659805&diff=1184992756&oldid=1184992648 Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 22:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Click on the link in the edit summary and follow the instructions to install it. I'm using an older skin, so I don't know where its activation link shows up in the current skin. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Faria Abdullah/unprotection request
Hello, I opened an unprotection request for Faria Abdullah. I only saw after opening it that I should have contacted the administrator responsible of the current protection level before posting, my apologies. I see the page was Afded and deleted, but the article must obviously have changed substantially since May 2021  so that (re)creation should be considered perfectly acceptable in my view (notability status has changed since she played significant roles in at least 3/4 films since then, as the draft improvements now show ). Not sure how different the version you G4 speedy-deleted in April was, but it is an fact that she played significant roles since May 2021 and that new sources exist that obviously couldn't exist at the moment of the original deletion, some having been presented. Could you please unprotect the page or move it from Draft:Faria Abdullah when you have time, then? Thank you very much for your help. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply] - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  17:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Since the original article was deleted via Articles for deletion/Faria Abdullah, please submit the draft to review. Once it is accepted at review it can be moved into place. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello again, and thank you for your reply.
 * I had seen the page was Afded in 2021.
 * But will you not agree with me that the page was vastly improved and that her notability status has evidently completely changed?. There is no need, I think, to maintain it as as draft as it is now. Various experienced users have edited the page, some very recently, and obviously share my view.
 * Is there any guideline that states that draft review process is mandatory when an article seems to meet all concerned guidelines?
 * I am afraid I must insist and ask you again to consider the arguments above and kindly unprotect the page? Thank you very much.
 * Also, to be honest, I find this edit a bit unfriendly...Would you care amending it by restoring the sources added that it deleted, please? - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  18:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You can find the refs in the history. Removing the AFC tags is an action that can cause your account to be blocked. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello again and thank you for you reply,
 * A final note, If I may.
 * I can find the refs in the history? Thank you for this information.
 * For your complete information, it was the user who had submitted the draft who had asked me to help and I obviously did try too improve the page in good faith and moving it to the Main in full knowledge of guidelines, for which he thanked me. I perceive your mentioning that my account can be blocked in this context as a rather inappropriate warning but you probably meant it for my own sake.
 * What about this explanation on the WP:Drafts page, that states: "Other editors, including the author of the page, but excluding editors with a conflict of interest, have a right to object to draftifying the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and, if necessary, list it at AfD."?
 * I assume your answer is you won't unprotect the page but again, is there any guideline that states that draft review process is mandatory when an article seems to meet all concerned guidelines, as this is obviously the main question here? Is there any page that you could direct me to? Thank you in advance.
 * In the present case, and given the time and efforts it takes for other users to review a page that 3 users have deemed perfectly acceptable, I think moving the page as I wanted to and then asked you to, would have been the most constructive, collaborative and correct option.
 * Thank you for your time, though.
 * I will leave a tiny note on the Undeletion request forum, so that other editors know what to expect. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  18:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Good luck. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Diane Washburn
Good discussion, but please don't forget to notify the article's creator. Hint: use WP:TWINKLE to automate all of this in the future. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I did, and it did. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Taxonomy templates
Thank you for fixing Template:Taxonomy/Holometabola for me! While you're around, could you update the parent of Template:Taxonomy/Hymenopterida from Endopterygota to Holometabola as well? It happens to be another protected template so I can't do anything there myself. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * And same for Template:Taxonomy/Coleoptera too (sorry), though I think the parent for that should be reverted to Coleopterida. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry once more, it turns out there are some other protected taxonomy templates that need to be updated all at once..., I'll list them on WikiProject Insects instead maybe. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ((ping|Monster Iestyn}} I've updated Hymenopterida, but Coleoptera is already there. But yeah, it helps to list them somewhere and then get me or someone else to look and move/update all at once. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects. I might have confused you with Coleoptera/Coleopterida, sorry, Coleopterida is a superorder that the orders Coleoptera and Strepsiptera are in, in recent articles that is. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm sorry, turns out I may have been wrong to ask you to update Hymenopterida's template (judging by Plantdrew's comments in the discussion I linked), I was too hasty! Thanks for your help anyway though. Monster Iestyn (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

" SPI related to the OP"
Who woulda thunk it!? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * IKR? Everyone is always above board here.... - UtherSRG (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Pinus ponderosa
You might want to check the accuracy of the information added by Liderrally to Pinus ponderosa. The account has already been blocked as abusive and I'm about to dive into the other edits because they are suspiciously similar to a brief flood of edits that have been badly or wrongly sourced on other plant pages frex Asclepias syriaca. I'm not yet sure the account that did the Asclepias syriaca edit is or is not abusive, but it seems suspicious that it would also do five very closely spaced edits to very different pages just like was done by Liderrally before the block. Correction, the account in not suspended. It was previously suspended. I did find problems though. Edits were badly placed, replaced other cited material, and in the case of Dicksonia antarctica were word for word plagiarism. I reverted two and rewrote the content added to D. antarctica to get rid of the plagiarism problem. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I simply reformatted. If you want to go ahead and verify, please do. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Found the article on JSTOR, the information was in the article so all is good now. Actually a fairly good source, so maybe it was just weird editing with some problems? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Could be. Glad it worked out. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Gilbert Affleck (disambiguation)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gilbert Affleck (disambiguation). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Acknowledged. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Thomas Ainsworth (disambiguation)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Thomas Ainsworth (disambiguation). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Acknowledged. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Longwan (disambiguation)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Longwan (disambiguation). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Acknowledged. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Insta (disambiguation)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Insta (disambiguation). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Acknowledged. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Machan Taylor Draft Page
Hello @UtherSRG; I'm writing to ask that you please, kindly reconsider "refunding" (restoring) the Machan Taylor draft page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Machan_Taylor). Is there any way I can please appeal this? I've looked at the website biography cited for a copyright violation: I don't understand what could be so similar to the page I had worked on for some time other than some of the chronology of her life events (which is inevitable - it's a biography). If I ever used any content from her biography I would only post it in quotations. That said, I avoid using any subject's self-published biographies unless, for some reason (in the case of some minor detail), a small quotation or reference from it served a legitimate purpose. It seems to me that the decision to not "refund" the article implies the article is practically copied and pasted from the biography: unless another editor did that and I wasn't aware of that edit, I haven't and wasn't aware of this. I've scanned the biography you cited and it doesn't even read like a Wikipedia article. Can you please reconsider reposting the draft so I can add the resources I've collected over the last few months and to continue editing and if necessary, reverse edits that caused these copyright concerns? I'd appreciate your help or some feedback on how I can further appeal this if you disagree that this is a misunderstanding. Thank you. 1987atomheartbrother (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC) 1987atomheartbrother (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * You didn't request restoration of the draft. You requested restoration of the article. Looking now, I see the draft is fine. I'll update your request to be for the draft and not the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, @UtherSRG. I will work diligently to improve the draft and submitted ASAP. I will invest time in this between tonight and the weekend. I truly appreciate the help. 1987atomheartbrother (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Please undelete
AfD discussions are supposed to last a week: please undelete Gilbert Affleck (disambiguation) and Thomas Ainsworth (disambiguation) which you have deleted within 8 hours of their nomination at AfD, to allow other editors to contribute. Thanks. Pam D  12:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * These were eligible for WP:CSD deletion. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I also nominated Longwan (disambiguation) for G14, which had been deproded before. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Got it. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * These do not qualify for WP:G14, they disambiguate more than one extant page. For Gilbert Affleck, the pages at the time of deletion were Gilbert Affleck, Affleck baronets, and Suffolk Militia. For Thomas Ainsworth, they are Thomas Ainsworth, Ainsworth baronets, Gentleman Jack (TV series), Ron Silver, and The Raiders (1952 film). For Longwan (disambiguation), they are Longwan District, Qianjiang, Hubei, and Xiong County. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, only one extant page is disambiguated. The other entries are non-extant, with an explanatory note that has an extant link. That is not the same. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Extant means "still in existence", that is "not deleted". The pages that I list are extant. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Those pages are not being disambiguated; they are further information pages. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes they are. Per WP:DABRL, it is okay to include red links on disambiguation pages. WP:DABMENTION is also relevant guidance here: so long as there is discussion of the subject on a page, it is okay to include that page as a disambiguation entry. -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Both of those are fine... for a dab page that dabs more than one extant article. These did not do that. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are understanding me. The following needs to be disambiguated for people with the name "Gilbert Affleck": (1) Gilbert Affleck, (2) the baronets which listed at Affleck baronets, and (3) the "Lt-Col of the Risbridge Battalion", which is discussed at Suffolk Militia. That means there are three extant pages that contain information on various people named "Gilbert Affleck", and are valid entries per WP:DABRL and/or WP:DABMENTION. -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I'm understanding you just fine. I disagree. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

UtherSRG, completely uninvolved editor here. I came here because you were very blunt over at User_talk:BrownHairedGirl, and now I see you disregarding the opinions of others - and your speedy deletion was overwhelmingly overturned. The way you dismissed BHG and now Tevix is sufficiently blunt that a complete rando like me is asking you to give pause - please reconsider your current approach to Wikipedia participation. Do what you will with this. No reply necessary. Anyway, have a good day. CapnZapp (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Eudonia lycopodiae
Thanks for deleting the copyvios on my Lepidoptera articles. It appears that the offending text still remains in the first edit of Eudonia lycopodiae. Scorpions1325 (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for double checking. I've fixed it now. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Revert?
Hi, you reverted my change of the redirect here citing a RfD discussion that closed as "soft delete" but didn't discuss the redirect target. The deletion has been undone because of my request for undeletion here and I'd appreciate if you'd let me know why my edit has been reverted. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 16:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't see your RFU request. That makes sense now. I'll revert. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 16:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

BHG
I see you have had to explain to editors that BHG is banned. Is it any wonder they aren’t aware of that because her talk page says she is “semi-retired”?

I note no other banned editor is allowed to hide their status in this way. - 49.180.153.187 (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * She was banned via ArbCom decision, after she placed the semi-retired banner. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Then why doesn’t she have a banned template like every other banned editor? - 49.180.153.187 (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Sibtain Raza Khan
Hi. I see you deleted Khan's article as G5. As myself and other editors improved it (other than the blocked sock), I was wondering if it could be undeleted as G5 may no longer apply there. Maliner (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * That's fair. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @UtherSRG Thank you. Maliner (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello! requests unblocking. Yamla saw no recent block evasion. What say ye? Unblock? Decline? Restore TPA? WP:AN? What's your pleasure? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Their appeal would need to be made to the community, per 's last on the user's talk page, eh? So WP:AN would be the right next stop. Have they done their community service of 500 constructive edits on another Wiki? I have mixed feelings on this. One the one hand, they have properly described why they were blocked and banned. In fact, it's probably the most accurate description of their poor actions as I've ever seen from an unblock appeal. On the other hand, there still seems to be that incessant itch to edit here that helped them to do wrong. Yeah, send it to WP:AN and let's see what the community has to say. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

ugh
wanted to talk page notify you, but my mind drifted. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * No worries friendo. I knew it was coming so was watching for it. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Re: Articles for deletion/Varthur Santhosh
I think you responded to an old revision of the page as I made a few changes per WP:REDACT since no one had yet responded. You are correct regarding draftification and user objection, however I think the point is moot since the draft already exists and should be un-redirected upon page deletion rather than G8'd. Uhai (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The draft's existence makes little issue on this. It's an obvious copy-paste or a recreation. Move the article to draft space, undelete all the history. Restore the best version. Instruct the user on how to proceed. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Notability tag on Michael Habeck
Hello, just letting you know I removed the tag again from that page. Notability being discussed at the Afd, it is not necessary and the documentation of that template indicates it may be removed when sources are added. Which I did. And "not to re-add it". I would have rather thought you might read the sources and withdraw that nomination. But hey. Best. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  04:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * It is standard practice (though not mandatory) to leave the tag in place while the AFD is ongoing as the discussion resolves it - either the AFD deletes the article, or the AFD decides the subject has notability and at that point the tag can be removed. Removing the tag indicates that notability has been established, which is why the instructions say not the re-add it. However, while the AFD is ongoing, notability has not been established. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And as for your re-removal of it.... You were bold, I reverted. You should not have removed it again it per WP:BRD. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Well ok. :) Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 11:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

HUGE THANKS
For your help yesterday with blocking of the SOCKS and reverting the edits related to User:Sreenu S (a.k.a., Helloo 68)!!!!!! CNMall41 (talk) 05:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Aw shucks! Just dealing with a cleanup on aisle 5... ;) - UtherSRG (talk) 11:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Tumari Kanuri is different from Kanembu
hi idk why you blocked my ip address it wasn't even a minute. Anyways I had to create a new account now just to reply here but Tumari Kanuri is referred to as Kanembu in Niger but is different from the Kanembu language of Chad. Test name please ignore24 (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Your IP isn't blocked as far as I can see. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You redirected the page to Kanembu the minute i wrote that Tumari is refered to as Kanembu in chad i was going to add that it is different from the Kanembu language spoken in Chad and add the language box than you redirected it and blocked my IP address that i edit with. I than i had to create this account to reply to you. Test name please ignore24 (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have not blocked that IP address, and I do not see the address as blocked. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Manvith
Whoops, feel free to. I was going to p-block them from mainspace but didn't want to encourage socking. Star  Mississippi  15:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Nah, I reverted 'cos I thought you were warning them about a new action they'd done, not just reiterating the warning when doing the draftify. Proceed as you were. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 15:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * would you like to do the honors, or shall I? Star   Mississippi  17:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks @CNMall41 for the rejection. I didn't even see the latest re-submit. I blocked the IP but resisted the account so far.  Star   Mississippi  17:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been stalking both of you trying to catch any scraps that may fall from the table. lol. This is obviously related to the group(s) I have been chasing. Compiling some lists now as Big Boss is full of PAID and SOCKS from what I see.--CNMall41 (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated, especially as my on wiki time will be limited over the holidays. Will go have a look at your contribs but please flag if there's anything I can help with right now with the groups you're working on. Star   Mississippi  17:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Enjoy your holiday. I am trying to get back to working on company pages again, but keep getting pulled back in because of this (paid company), related to the SPIs [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bikrookanpurgangster/Archive here, here, and here to name a few. Whack a duck!--CNMall41 (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yay! I'm being stalked! :) Sorry, been off-wiki for a nice day of last minute shopping and watching videos with my girlfriend. Will also likely be not regularly around through the next week or so... - UtherSRG (talk) 01:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello...
... UtherSRG, can you do me a huge favour of restoring The Last Days at Forcados High School at draftspace? I'll love to work on that content. Best regards! Reading Beans (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:CSD? No. But here are the references used so that you can start fresh:   - UtherSRG (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

on G. R. Gray vs Gray, GR
I don't really object to 'G. R. Gray', I too think it looks pretty. But consider the following variation-counts in our 11000 bird articles: Shades of Gray: All       | 11160 G. R. Gray | 14 G.R. Gray | 30 Gray, G.R. | 2 GR Gray   | 20 Gray, GR  | 60 Surely there is something to be said for minimizing that variation somewhat, and the IOC spelling ('Gray, GR') is as good as any. - Kweetal nl (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
 ~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

'' Hello UtherSRG: Enjoy the  holiday season &#32;and  winter solstice  if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 11:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC) ''

Sri Lankan elephant
My edits at Sri Lankan elephant were not vandalism. Happy New Year, anyway. 65.88.88.56 (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Without the reference you have now provided, it surely was. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

American kestrel
Hi! Is there some restriction for the common names? I mean kitty hawk? I found at least two sources for that name. I am not frequent contributor in English Wikipedia. What was wrong with my edit? Thanks for explanation. Also, I doubt the picture of the reddish falcon (removed and reverted lately) is in fact American kestrel, single face bar, and color too. I'd remove it. Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 09:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The English language Wikipedia has very strict rules on what can be included. Information from WP:blogs is almost always unacceptable. As for the image you question; I can't find another bird it is likely to be. The American Kestral has a large number of subspecies, some of which have some significant color and marking differences. My handy guidebook app lists a few birds that are similar to the American Kestral as possibilities, but none are a better match for that picture. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I see somebody (thanks God!) removed that false picture from the article. But the picture itself remains with false attribution. The bird is definitely captive, so what is the reason of pointing the South Ontario. What do you think? Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year, UtherSRG!


Happy New Year! UtherSRG, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of Magnito (Musician)
I created and submitted a Wikipedia page for Magnito (Musician) and it was nominated for deletion by you. I read your reasons but I am a little bit confused because I tried to ensure the notability concerns were met. However, you said something about the references. Can you please shed light on kinds of references to be used. And, I will be glad if I can get your assistance with my next contribution. I am new here and I believe I can learn from you. Prodigious Writer (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You can read the whole deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/Magnito. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Restoring DJ Many Due To Notability For RIAA Gold Record Certification
Heya Uther, This Is DJ Many I Think I'm Notable Now LOL I Was Certified Gold By The RIAA Source: https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=default-award&se=DJ+Many#search_section Last Month For My Song With https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toby_Turner Here Is A Article About It In Broadway World https://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwmusic/article/DJ-Many-YouTuber-Tobuscus-Reach-RIAA-Gold-For-Minecraft-Collab-20231214

Some Articles In The Media About Me.

https://www.inc.com/john-boitnott/how-to-use-your-talent-to-attract-the-attention-of-major-brands.html

https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2016/03/14/dj-many-twitter-personality-emanuel-thomas.html

https://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwmusic/article/DJ-Many-YouTuber-Tobuscus-Reach-RIAA-Gold-For-Minecraft-Collab-20231214

https://www.flavourmag.co.uk/dj-many-releases-single-know-with-pop-legend-donny-osmond/

Gold Record Database Link:

https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=default-award&se=DJ+Many#search_section

I Have Read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music) Please Check Section 3 2601:2C1:4080:7170:64AF:5D08:8478:AAB4 (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I really don't care who you are, or that you think you are notable. When someone who cares about music sees your notability, they will write about you. Please stop self-promoting. If you want to write about other topics, I encourage you to do so. Otherwise, you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Continued harassment of me and others will result in your loss of editing privileges. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How Can They Even Write About Me If A Admin Like You Doesn't Even Care To Open The Page Up? I Haven't Been Editing Anything About Me On Wiki... Just Came Here Asking For Help And Now I'm Getting Hostility For Requesting For Assistance. 2601:2C1:4080:7170:64AF:5D08:8478:AAB4 (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Someone can write a draft and, if its review shows it is article-ready, and admin can then move it into main article space. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, Thanks For The Help. Will This Be A Issue Given The Pages Past? Or Will It Work Out Since I Meet The Notability Criteria? 2601:2C1:4080:7170:64AF:5D08:8478:AAB4 (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Blocked for disruptive editing. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

David Hellard
Hi - I saw that you were involved in the undeletion of, and subsequent moving from draft space, of David Hellard. I have strong reason to believe that the account that requested undeletion is the sock of a globally locked spammer. I don't want to G5 an article that you undeleted without consulting you however - do you want to reconsider the decision, or are you satisfied that the article is in good shape? Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  18:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Never hesitate to G5. I'm 1000% in favor of G5'ing and squashing socks. Looking at the history, I don't see any significant changes made by anyone other than the sock. That's all that matters with a G5: it has no significant improvements other than the sock, so it can go. I'll G5 it myself. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think has already blocked some of the accounts involved, I'm going to do a bit more digging tomorrow, I expect there are more threads to pull at. Cheers  Girth Summit  (blether)  19:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Roger that. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Bro what the heck are you doing with telling me Osman Nevres a dönmeh? He isnt Jewish.
Please see this, no sources say that. Furkanberk52 (talk) 06:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You must provide sources for any changes to information. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Diane Washburn
Hi, just FYI, as you moved the recent AfD on this, someone seems to be attempting to revive Draft:Diane Washburn. This time it's a new user (or at least new user account) as opposed to 'all the Nates'.

This version started out completely unreferenced, but now some sources have appeared; who knows, maybe it'll turn into a legit draft. (Those photos don't look very legit, though – all have been uploaded as 'own work', which I rather doubt!) Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I think they keep losing their password and making a new account each time. This one looks like "first-initial last-name". I've indef blocked as a puppet for now, since they don't appear communicative and are only here to push their favorite topic. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Mass G5 deletions
On January 17, you deleted several articles by as G5. You had already been warned before that none of these actually qualified for G5, and I therefore request that they be undeleted. Thanks. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The You had already been warned before discussion ended with me actually being right. What has changed? - UtherSRG (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Welp, turns out you were right comment in that discussion refers to the (irrelevant) assertion that They knew they were doing wrong, not the suitability of pages for deletion under G5, which convinced that it wasn't worth raising a further stink about. I, on the other hand, am not and will not be convinced by such post-hoc justifications, and should have stepped forward to reassert the challenge to those deletions then, but didn't.  The fact remains that the first block of any of The Micronesian-Corsican Revolution's accounts was September 11, 2023 and thus it is improper to delete any page created before then as G5 because there was no ban or block that it was in violation of. * Pppery * it has begun...  16:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * G5 is a useful tool to deter sockpuppetry. When this sock created another account to essentially taunt the process, I dropped the appeal because I thought it more important to deter further abuse over being technically correct. That said, I don't understand why the pages would be deleted months later though, those pages still don't meet G5 and I'm not aware of recent sockpuppetry. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Y'all are both correct. I shall revert shortly. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, I believe the restorations are complete. Please let me know if you think I've missed something. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Please explain these rollbacks
Please explain this rollback and this rollback. You did not provide an explanatory edit summary or a talk page message. The Rollback user right is for cases of obviously invalid edits, including vandalism. From that page: Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool. When in doubt, use another method of reversion and supply an edit summary to explain your reasoning. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you're right, I should have explained. The templates you added were being G5 deleted. I used rollback to remove those additions, as Twinkle can't remove the added templates directly. At first I thought you were another sock. Once I realized you weren't, I should have sent you a quick note about what I'd done. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Reverting Macropus lead image
Hi - Please can you explain your thinking that justifies this revert. The lead image of an animal should show all the main features. The image you like does not show two important features of Macropus: the tail and the foot. As Macropus means long foot, that's almost as important as the tail - the '5th leg' that allows it to hop. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The image of a kangaroo in the foreground is better than and image of two that are significantly further away. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Note about block
Hello, I noticed you blocked this user with uw-spamublock, but I think you should downgrade to uw-ublock since the edits weren't promotional. — MATRIX! (a good person!)&#91;citation unneeded&#93; 15:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * That's fair. Done. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Your block of Srabanta Deb
Hey, just letting you know that we have a duck. I just reverted content virtually identical to what they added in 2021.  –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've blocked the IP/30 as it seems they've been doing this for a bit... - UtherSRG (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Message
Indeed - I agree - the big problem with the very large descriptions in the wikidata area, are not always reduced well when translated to the short descriptions in what I would consider reasonable shortings - reductions. The problem with the scottish monastic heritage, I find in most cases the over-wordy descriptions are quite a problem to reduce. I am about to go off line, but point taken - will check later. JarrahTree 13:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The long ones ✅ - point taken, but I do have quite a few arguments with both wikidata descriptions and shorts - but now is neither the time and place. cheers JarrahTree 13:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I was referring to Orange-headed Pilbara planigale. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * my very sincerest apology, what a mixup - I see the edit history and marvel at my misunderstanding - I understand your point at the pilbara item. Very sorry about that.

The message had made me very self concious about the scottish monasteries and related items with stupidly long descriptions. I am not sure how the revert at the pilbara item happened. JarrahTree 23:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The de facto standard for these kinds of articles is "taxon of general group".... so in this case, "Species of marsupials". This holds true for nearly every article about a taxonomic group. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

You forgot to add the extended confirmed lock to the reindeer article
Tried to add it myself, just resulted in a big box instead of a tiny lock in the top right corner. No idea if non-admins can add the lock but can you? Toketaa talk 15:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I usually just let the friendly little bot come around and do that. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO
Dear UtherSRG, Hi, I've identified this draft 51.6 percent of COPYVIO, so, I've back this draft after accepting, sorry for about that... during accepted this draft I've checked this draft copyvio, so, I've back on draft. 😊  αvírαm  | (tαlk) 15:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Good catch. Please make the appropriate copyvio tags and decline it for cv. Someone (possibly me) will be around shortly to perform the RD1 that is needed.... - UtherSRG (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Dear UtherSRG, I've declined this draft but not tagged for speedy deletion, I think It's really need for deletion as G12?😊  αvírαm  | (tαlk) 15:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ha! Edit conflict. I was just asking. :) So yeah, if it's total trash, please tag it for G12. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, is there anything salvagable? If so, then please edit it down to what is allowed, removing all of the copyvio material. If it is not possible to tease out the bad from the good, then tag it with G12. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Dear UtherSRG, I've tagged for speedy deletion as G12, I think you're going ahead to be for speedy deletion of this draft.😊 αvírαm  | (tαlk) 15:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - UtherSRG (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It's really seem to deleted.. That's great... Thank you. 😊 αvírαm  | (tαlk) 15:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The bits are still there, they are just all 0s. 😊 - UtherSRG (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hiya, and UtherSRG. Before the deletion, I noticed Kanche (soundtrack), a redlink at the time, on Articles for creation/recent and checked the draft after it was draftified. I also noticed it was G12-tagged, but actually, after running a Earwig Copyvio check, it seems like it's more of a WP:BACKWARDSCOPY case, or most likely a mirror of the Wikipedia article. Most of the flagged copyright-violating content was from Kanche, and not from the website flagged as copying from (which doesn't work on my end). I note that the IP who created the article provided attribution that the article's content was copied from Kanche#Music in an edit summary after I looked through the draft's history before the deletion. I also checked the page history and found a substantial amount of content that would be salvageable; thus I would've used RD1 and not G12, if there's any copyright violations in the page. I'd restore it and use RD1 for any copyright-violating content in the page; I'll be happy to take a look if there's any. ~  Tails   Wx  (he/him, aroace, 🐾) 16:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Be my guest! - UtherSRG (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please restore the page, then! :) I'm not an administrator and my RfA did not succeed last month. ~ Tails   Wx  (he/him, aroace, 🐾) 16:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh! Whoops! I thought you had a mop in your hand. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Dear UtherSRG, Hello, Oh no, I think you're saying true the author of this draft are gives attribution of this work; I've accepted more draft article like this during Afc reviewing, and always see they given copyright attribution on the draft's talkpage, but I don't understand why when I checked copyvio report of his draft, they so, possible 51.6 of percentage of Copyvio, then I've reverted to our edits mainspace to draft again.Afc reviewers are instructed by the Wikipedia community, if you going to accept any draft before accepted any draft , please check all issue like (copyvio, notability... Other things, etc) sorry for about that, I make this fault by misunderstanding,@UtherSRG, thank you for restored this draft. 😊  αvírαm  | (tαlk) 17:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Alright, I've taken care of my only copyright concern here, but I don't think RD1 redaction is needed. I've subsequently moved the draft to mainspace as I have no other copyright concerns other than that. Earwig's Copyright Detector only flags quotes and that BACKWARDSCOPY source. The soundtrack passes notability guidelines per the references and I have no other issues to speak of. Should be good now; thanks for cooperating! ~ Tails   Wx  (he/him, aroace, 🐾) 20:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Arata Sato
I had already declined the WP:G5 because the article is not eligible to be deleted on that basis. I think you should restore it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * What's your basis for denying G5? It was recently created by a sock, and not significantly edited by others. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The timing is wrong. I blocked all the socks today at the same time. An article is eligible for G5 only if the article was created after an account was previously blocked. It is typically used when a new sock is blocked in an existing farm.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The master was blocked back in November. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh wait.. they last edited in November, but you are correct, they weren't blocked until today along with their socks. Ugh. Block 'em sooner next time. ;) - UtherSRG (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Heh, I'll try harder.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Giant otter
Hi. Fair enough on most of the reversion. However, I'd question the use of the 'name' parameter in the taxobox. It isn't needed for the taxobox name; that is taken from the article title by default. Also, what is the referencing referencing do you think?

Thanks. YorkshireExpat (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Meh. It used to be standard to put a reference up on the name, but that's fallen away as a standard. I was mostly just reverting back to before the IP's edits. I'm not opposed to moving forward, and MSW3 is no longer our gold standard. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Murder of Gordon Semple
I see that you recently deleted my draft on the Murder of Gordon Semple. I apologise for the copyright infringements in the original article, I had tried to avoid them but couldn't. Could I recreate the article provided it didn't include any copyright infringement?? GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes. Before you begin, please read and understand WP:COPYVIO, WP:BACKWARDS, and WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have recreated the draft, and removed much of the copyright infringement. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Possible sock user Templelatee
Since you rolled back my edits related to similar templates, I thought you might want to take a look at Special:Contributions/Templelatee. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Already reported. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thumbs-up emoji. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Removing incidental mentions of authors?
Regarding the "multiple issues template" on the "Crotalus scutulatus salvini" page, I am having trouble finding an explanation for the instruction to "remove incidental mentions of authors." Does this mean that I cannot or should not name an author in a narrative paragraph of, for example, the story about how the identity of the type specimen was resolved and documented? For example, I shouldn't say, "In 1936, Laurence Klauber quoted Gloyd, as well as describing his own examination of the material, before listing salvini as the subspecies"[Klauber ref added]? But, rather, do I need to amend and shorten to simply say, "Salvini was named as a subspecies in 1936"[Klauber ref added]? It seems difficult to explain an otherwise confusing story without using the authors' names in the narrative chronology. I've searched multiple places for more info on "remove incidental mentions of authors" without success. Just need some clarification, please. Thanks! Scutdude (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You are getting the point, but take it further: the article is about the species, not about the decisions various researchers have made about the species. Our job is to summarize what is in the sources, not give a play by play of each of the sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay; thanks! Scutdude (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!
Thanks! I was wondering if anyone would notice. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Missing Taxonbar
Hi, you added a Taxonbar template to the ornate sunbird article with this edit but it doesn't appear when I view the page. How can I fix this? thanks - Aa77zz (talk) 09:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Taxonbars only appear when there are ID entries on the Wikidata item the taxonbar points to. You can make it appear by finding an ID item and adding it to Q124216752 on Wikidata. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Ariana Grande image
Hello, UtherSRG. I see you removed the G4 tag from File:Ariana Grande - Eternal Sunshine.png. Did you know that the identical file File:Ariana Grande - Yes, And.png was being used on the same article and had a correctly written fair-use rationale for it? The original uploader did almost nothing wrong, and you can see that they had appropriately added it to the album article too (diff). I was wondering if it was possible for that to be refunded because this frankly sets a precedent we do not want to set. A lot of music fans want to become the uploaders of their favorite singer's latest album's artwork, but this is not the right way to do it. The deletion review is already logged here. Greetings, NØ 19:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw that. No, I don't think it is right to restore the previous file. I suggest taking this to an appropriate board. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would probably end up indefinitely blocked if I tried to pull the same stunt. But oh well, every day you learn something new ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Hope your day is going well!--NØ 20:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Ethope
Many thanks.Can't find E.spec Moore either Error for Ethope species Robert N Notafly (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I've made an errata report to GBIF. Hopefully that will clear up the matter. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks.R Notafly (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Bletagona
Will you be very kind and fix Bletagona. Haven't properly understood the automated system which looks excellent.I will read over the help pages in the next few days.Many thanks Notafly (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I was already working it. :) You were || this close! - UtherSRG (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

make the decision
(sniggers insanely) I was gonna decline, but had to flip my chicken, (this is not a metaphor).😛 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * LOL! Ah well. We shall see if my impulsiveness pays off or bites us in the chicken. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

AFC tag
Hi UtherSRG! The AFC was removed because it was showing up in CSD as a G13 speedy. I guess the original refunder should have made an edit to the article when they restored it to cancel out the speedy tag. And I, of course, only multiplied the mistake by not re-adding it -- unless there is a better way? Anyway, thanks for picking it up. — Cactus Writer (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * When doing a refund, standard practice is to leave the AFC tags, and remove any CSD tags. This draft didn't have any CSD tags, so only a simple minor edit was required. However, the tool we typically use failed to make the minor edit. It does that from time to time, and we don't always catch it when it does. Next time you see this (and I expect you will...) is just to make a minor edit (add a space after a template or something) or ping me. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay... I see what happened now. You forgot to make your usual dummy edit when you refunded that draft. I should have seen that. No problem, and I'll remember to do so as well in the future. Cheers. — Cactus Writer (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect addition of stub tags
Hi. I saw that you reverted multiple edits I made in which I wrongfully added stub tags. I apologize for that, I'll try to be more careful. Thank you. Mazewaxie ( talk  •  contribs ) 21:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

'rm dup request'
Hello.

I would like to ask what does this means. I have asked one time for the userfication of the archive, but I didnt knew the correct technical term for the request. Now i have asked again and you just removed my request. I just want the data of the page. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * rm = remove
 * dup = duplicate
 * request = request
 * You don't get multiple dips into the pond. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * But the previous request was rejected in which seems to be a careless reading by the admin, as they supposed I was asking for the restoration of the page, when, in fact, i was clearly asking for the access to the code as a draft. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am that admin. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Cyrtophloeba
Please, could you explain your reasoning on reverting the move from Cyrtophleba to Cyrtophloeba? Both names are used in Rondani 1856 Dipterologiae Italicae Prodromus. Vol: I. Genera italica ordinis Dipterorum ordinatim disposita et distincta et in familias et stirpes aggregata. Cyrtophloeba on page 207, Cyrtophleba on page 68. There are no page precedences in ICZN. See O'Hara, James & Cerretti, Pierfilippo & Pape, Thomas & Evenhuis, Neal. (2011). Nomenclatural Studies Toward a World List of Diptera Genus-Group Names. Part II: Camillo Rondani. Zootaxa. It is accepted usage in many pulocation since such as O’Hara, James E.; Henderson, Shannon J.; Wood, D. Monty (5 March 2020). "Preliminary Checklist of the Tachinidae (Diptera) of the World" (PDF). Tachinidae Resources. The UK species checklist, Systema Dipterorum etc etc <font color="#21610B" style="text-shadow: #5FB404 0 3px 3px;">Simuliid <font color="#013ADF">talk  18:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * First, copy-paste moves are not the correct method to move an article. Second, look at the article's history. Your move was previously reverted with the edit summary indicating the no "O" spelling is more common. WP:COMMONNAME says we should therefore use the no "O" spelling. You should immediately revert yourself. If you wish to proceed with the article renaming, you should open a discussion via WP:RM. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not a common name. So WP:COMMONNAME does not apply. I have WP:RM. They are pretty much universally ignored. Cyrtophloeba is the correct name and will stand, please read O'Hara, James & Cerretti, Pierfilippo & Pape, Thomas & Evenhuis, Neal. <font color="#21610B" style="text-shadow: #5FB404 0 3px 3px;">Simuliid <font color="#013ADF">talk  18:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * COMMONNAME applies regardless if the name is a scientific name or a vernacular name. We work on community decisions here. If you have previously RM'd and been denied, you must abide by that community decision. I am reverting your changes now. Do not undo these changes; open another WP:RM. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Palestinian cultural genocide MFD
Hi. I moved that page to draftspace and closed the MFD. I wanted to drop you a note about this. This is what I see as the consequences of your MFDing that page: In my view, these are three harms that could have been avoided by not MFDing the page. I'm a big proponent of ECR and I get why we don't allow non-EC editors to start pages. Still, the reason the rule says that admins may but are not required to delete the content is because sometimes a non-EC-created article is still a good start worth saving. This was one of those times.
 * 1) We almost lost an objectively good start to a new article. I say "objectively" because it is an article on a notable topic, sourced to high-quality RS (recent scholarship). It isn't ready for mainspace, but objectively a good start.
 * 2) We may lost the editor who started this page
 * 3) Other editors are arguing with each other about the MFD on the MFD page

One of the things that made be frown is that I noticed you discussed this with another admin before launching the MFD, but you've made zero attempt to discuss it with the editor who started the page, prior to nominating it for deletion. I don't think that's cool -- you should have talked to them, explained what you were doing and why, and maybe explored WP:ATD (like draftification) prior to nominating the page.

I hope you'll reconsider how to handle these situations in the future. We have very few people who are editing this topic area using scholarship sources. I would estimate less than 20 people in the whole world are doing this right now on enwiki (many more are doing it without using scholarship). Please, if you see a 21st person doing this, do what you can to welcome and encourage them, even if they're breaking rules. Levivich (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Noted. However, it's not that I had no contact with the user; there was WP:RFU and the interaction above. sigh Sometimes I think we make it too easy to just jump in and make a mess, instead of more intelligently ramping things up. For instance, I think we make WP:XC way too easy to get, and make gaming for it easy to do. While catching the gaming is easy (if looked for), we should do all we can to prevent it in the first place instead of making it the obvious path. The user in question, when told they needed to have XC to edit on their desired topic immediately gamed to get the right. That put them in the "they aren't here to be productive, they are here to push POV" category. Also, getting XC rights should come with a mandatory notice that the user has to acknowledge to say they understand the additional responsibilities that come with the rights. We fail new users in so many ways like this and make harder to integrate into the community and easier for them to end up in the a "bad guy" bucket. Anyway, thanks for the long-winded trouting, and thanks for reading this, if you did. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Gaming ECP has become a somewhat controversial topic since the war started, and I've seen different editors give very different views about what "gaming" is and how it should be handled.
 * In your view, when you tell someone with 400 edits that they need 500 edits to keep working on the draft they're working in, what would you expect them to do next? Because I think "making 100 edits" is what anyone would do in that situation. What is in your view the "proper" thing for a 400-edit editor to do? Levivich (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As things stand, tell them to go on to working in other areas of the encyclopedia and not worry about that topic at this time. Things like WP:deadline and WP:gaming could be pointed to in that discussion. But like I said, "as things stand" isn't a good system. We will always have portions of the encyclopedia that can only be edited with higher than newbie privileges. We need a better way to educate users in more than an "oh, I see you stumbled into a problem, let me now tell you how to proceed" manner. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, and I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this with me. I don't mean to argue the case of this particular editor, or to even criticize your view of it, but I do really want to understand your view about "gaming", because I don't understand this view (your view is shared by others, you're not the first person I've seen describe edits like this as gaming).
 * From what I can see, go on to working in other areas of the encyclopedia and not worry about that topic at this time is exactly what this editor did. I looked through the ~100 "gaming" edits, and what I see is, over the course of a few hours, they added see also links, categories, wiki links, fixed typos, made some article talk pages, removed some content, did some copyedits, and basically gnomed a bunch of different articles in different ways. Why is that "gaming"? Or to ask it another way, what kind of edits should they have done that are different than the edit they did?
 * Because I agree abuot "let me now tell you how to proceed," but I don't know what say, how to tell them to proceed. I would have told this editor to do more or less what they did: go make a variety of edits to a variety of articles that aren't I-P. Levivich (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Conversations are good. I saw it as gaming because if you compare the rate of their edits before the "you need 100 more" discussion vice after, the after was much faster. Whether they understood it was gaming or not is open to debate, but the data shows a difference in rate and scale. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is how I see it:
 * Admin: "You need 100 more edits"
 * Editor: *makes 100 edits*
 * Admin: "You made those edits too fast"
 * Putting myself in editor's shoes, I really wouldn't know what to do. Make 100 edits ... slowly? I'm thinking, OK maybe we should say if you've had your EC pulled, you can't request it again for a week, or some period of time. But then it seems like, well, bureaucracy. Levivich (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I keep meaning to start a discussion on this at vpp or a similar venue to see where consensus on gaming is, but everyone I think I'm going to I end up spending 45 minutes blocking and revdelling because of an LTA or responding to a request for eyes/intervention. From what I've seen there's a rough consensus that a quick rush of minor (small and gnoming, not marked minor) edits is generally seen as gaming, or at least sub-optimal when they happen after being informed or warned about ECR. I agree with what you're saying about the confusion about making those edits too quick, and the likelihood that it will be looked on as gaming should be communicated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Rhynchoconger smithi
No big deal but I noticed you also revdeleted the revision where I had already removed the copyvio, was it an accident or is there a reason for this I didn't realize? Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 03:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * An accident. I'll fix. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #84778
Ya gotta click the "reply to user" button first. 😋. Fear not, you can copy your intended reply to the user's talk page, with the heading 84778. Best, &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * And, BTW, thanks for closing that. &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * XD Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Redirects from Wikipedia to Wikispecies
Redirects from Wikipedia to Wikispecies without creating a Wikipedia article are bullshit. So please leave lemma pages empty. --Melly42 (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * There is no need to swear. Can you provide a pointer for what you are referring to? - UtherSRG (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If you mean the biography redirects, there was a deletion discussion about them 2 years ago, and the consensus was to keep them and that they are legitimate. UtherSRG (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Parasironidae
Parasironidae. Hey. I appreciate view of more references on pages, always useful of course. My question now is about the "Short description|Family of harvestmen/daddy longlegs", as that's a general piece which is already written that same way on a ton of other pages for the Order Opiliones. I just copied it across. I dislike the "daddy longlegs" part but as a whole i feel it's better than the broader 'arachnid' which is less specific - applying to a far wider selection of lineages than just Opiliones. Sjl197 (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * We tend to keep the short descriptions very generic. Both "harvestmen" and "daddy longlegs" are convoluted terms with multiple identities depending on locale; "arachnids" fits the bill for unambiguous and generic. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Candidatus bacteria
Hello. Here, for example, it's hard to follow your intentions as you haven't provided anything in the 'refs' field to let us know from where you're deriving the taxonomy. If you could fill it in that would be great.

Thanks. YorkshireExpat (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I know. I kept getting interrupted with real life. I ran into the family article first, then found this Methylomirabilis oxyfera which has the "full" taxonomy. Note that I didn't create, I was just transforming to use the automated system. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding re-creation of a deleted article
Hi,

I would like to create an article on Kuppusamy Annamalai, who is a prominent politician from Tamilnadu, India. Few years ago, an article about him got deleted. By following the media coverage on his political life any one can understand that he gained enough popularity to have an article in Wikipedia. I would seek your guidance regarding how to re-create an article on him as it was deleted before. Thank you very much. Take care. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 06:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in this. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Taxa named by Henri Étienne Sainte-Claire Deville


A tag has been placed on Category:Taxa named by Henri Étienne Sainte-Claire Deville indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 20:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed protection on Skunk
Hi! I'm just curious why you added extended-confirmed protection to Skunk. Semi-protected was added to it because of repeated vandalism by IP editors, but in the 2 days since the only vandalism has come from a single autoconfirmed user who has already been blocked as a sockpuppet of another disruptive editor.

I feel like it would be better to give it some more time on semi-protection to see if that's enough to keep the vandals at bay before raising the protection level. Let me know what you think :) 9yz (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Often, vandalism comes in waves. But, I'll reduce the time of the EC-level protection and see what happens. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Galbulimima monotypic genus
Hi UtherSRG. Re. your contention that Galbulimima has several species and so is not a monotypic genus: I refer you to Kew’s Plants of the World Online website, which reduces all other G. spp. to synonymy with G. belgraveana. Surely Kew rates as the ultimate authority in matters of taxonomy ? Flobbadob (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * We have an article for Galbulimima baccata. Please work to either make that a synonym, or the edits on the genus should stand. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Sandhill dunnart
Hi,

Can you please not delete my peer reviewed and published research from the sandhill dunnart page. This species is rarely studied. It is of critical importance that scientific data on the sandhill dunnart is available.

I don’t have much spare time to get into an altercation with you as I have a three year old and I also work. I will now have to review my sections and republish them to Wikipedia.

As I have said, the data is peer reviewed and one of the only scientific studies on the sandhill dunnart. So please don't delete it. This is how science works.

If you don't like the way I have worded the sections, please contact me.

Dr Joanna Riley Dr Joanna Riley (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * We do not accept self-promotion, and pushing your own research onto Wikipedia is self-promotion. If your publications are sound, someone else will find them and add the information to the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi there,
 * This isn't self promotion. There is very little peer reviewed research on this species.
 * As there hasn't been an update with any of my research, which was published between 2020 and 2022, it was clearly needed.
 * I'm now trying to edit the article again. Please don't delete science.
 * Many thanks,
 * Jo Dr Joanna Riley (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I recommend continuing discussion at Talk:Sandhill dunnart where I have initiated a discussion. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Stub rating
Hello, I wanted to follow up with Fimbristylis dura because I noticed that you changed the rating of an AfC draft a few hours after editing, from start-class to a stub. That's fine and good and I won't revert, but I was wondering conceptually what you viewed the difference to be? According to WP:STUBDEF, common thresholds that are utilized are "being less than 250 words of prose", or more generously "1500 characters of prose", which this article surpasses both. Also at STUBDEF is the line that "While very short articles are very likely to be stubs, there are some subjects about which very little can be written". This individual plant species seems to be one of those cases where all the major points were covered, and text-wise one of the most fleshed from my checks. It's also longer than Fimbristylis acicularis, Fimbristylis castanea, and almost all the rest of the start-class articles in the genus. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Granted, this may be a bit on the edge... 232 words (including headers) and 1548 characters. I prefer to keep the assessment at stub level when the article is right out of the gate so that it's categorized in a stub category in case there is someone watching the category to see the new article's arrival. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also Vipera graeca as well, which I wasn't responsible for. By my count, that's 521 words of prose across 6 sections! (including headers). Allegedly at STUBDEF, AWB is set to automatically revert the stub tag (for being over 500 words) if it ever hits that page, although I haven't actually confirmed that. While the Fimbristylis was possibly an edge case, the Vipera article was a C-class previously. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

AfDs of handball players
Are you joking with this AfD's? Because there is no question that they are notable. Have you done any WP:BEFORE? 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Then why did you create this AfD's? With 5 min search you would found enough materials for this two handball players. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think UtherSRG meant he/she was not joking with this AfD. Hym3242 (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Correct. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Global deletion
Since this user created the same page as a blocked sock in MULTIPLE languages, is there a central location to report this or would it need to be done on individual language Wikipedias? At this point I am going to do the notification. CNMall41 (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I think the only thing to do is request a global lock on Meta? - UtherSRG (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Tag on Swainsona laxa
Hello UtherSRG,

Thank you for your work. Would you please explain why you added a tag "More footnotes needed|date=March 2024" to the Swainsona laxa article. The article has 7 inline citations to WP:RS reliable sources. (Alternatively, revert your add.) Gderrin (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * There are a half dozen or so assertions in the Description section. Each assertion should have a citation. Having a citation (or three) at the end of the paragraph is not sufficient. The rationale behind this requirement is to prevent making the task of verifying the assertions an onerous one. When each assertion has a citation, then it is easy to jump right to that reference and verify the assertion. In this case, I ask the questions "Did all three of those references make all of the assertions in this paragraph, or did that set of assertions get pulled from that list of sources?" If I have to ask myself this question, then there has not been enough work done by the author to make it clear which assertion comes from which source. I see you've been here for 14 years with over 50k edits. This shouldn't need an explanation. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In my opinion - nonense. Quoting WP:IC "Inline citations are often placed at the end of a sentence or paragraph." Gderrin (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Often" is not "only". When there are too many (which is a judgment call...) then more are needed. That paragraph is dense with assertions. It needs something better. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Nayab Singh ministry
Being a reviewer of AFC, I can't accept my own draft, so can you review it at the earliest. It is about the current topic of Haryana government shuffle happened today. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 14:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in the topic, and don't want to delve into it. I suggest moving on. It'll get reviewed eventually. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 15:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Draft:MAC service data unit
I requested undeletion. You instead put a copy in draft space. I have since added citations and accepted the draft. This was the long way around and I'm concerned the talk page associated with the article may have been lost in the process. Is it possible for you to see if this talk page was indeed empty when the article was deleted. ~Kvng (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I usually restore the talk page when I draftify. I don't know how I missed it here. I've restored it and merged it with what you put there. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * However, I do not see that you've addressed the notability issue. Since you've moved this back to article space, I'm going to have to put it up for AFD shortly. Please move it back to draft spce or address the notability issue that was raised in the PROD in the next few hours. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please look at WP:ATDs before going to WP:AFD. This is an important piece of networking jargon that is linked to several other technical articles so don't assume you will get consensus to delete. I will not be moving it or making further improvements today. ~Kvng (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As it has been prod'd once and you've already moved it out of draftspace, I don't see any further alternatives. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge or redirect are alternatives. You can do AfD if you like and we'll all sort it out together. ~Kvng (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like you did WP:BEFORE. (I didn't either.) The topic is covered in dozens of technical books. ~Kvng (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Heliotropium macrodon
Sorry to have wasted your time. It took me quite a time to sort out Heliotropium macrodon after the move – it required extensive re-working, so we had an edit clash. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * No worries. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Line-crowned woodcreeper
Thank you for fixing a lot of the errors on the newly translated article for this subspecies of woodcreeper. It doesn't help that some sources treat it as a species and some as a subspecies. Using the content translation tool always leads to a lot of template and reference errors. If you have any experience with it and have advice on how to avoid some of those issues that need cleanup afterwards it would be appreciated. Recon rabbit  15:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't have experience with it. I just fix things I see wrong or broken. XD - UtherSRG (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, you have done a good job at that. Thank you! Recon  rabbit  15:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Margarita Island capuchin
Is Margarita Island capuchin still a valid subspecies? I noticed the Tufted capuchin article only lists the nominate subspecies and Sapajus apella macrocephalus. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Tufted_capuchin has some explanation, but not enough. The latest paper I see says only the nominate and ''macrocephalus' as well. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

SPI investigation notification
Hello, I am notifying you of an SPI investigation request, requesting it to be looked at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Otu%E1%BB%8Dcha 172.56.161.101 (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not an SPI investigator. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Undeletion
Hi, about this, the article was created by this sockpuppet, and edited by this sockpuppet and this account that violated WP:ARBECR restrictions and was blocked. Almost all of the content was added by the Jellyfish042 sockpuppet. So, I'm wondering who 108.30.16.224 might be given that no IPs have edited the draft and they said "Also, I was under the impression that my account was suspended." Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but effectively took responsibility for the draft by removing the G5 tag from the draft. The draft then sat idle for 6 months, after which it was G13'd. Fair game for anyone to request it's restoration. *shrugs* - UtherSRG (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, perhaps it can serve as a useful camera trap for socks. Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Notifying
Just fyi that the socks of R2dra is spawning like anything. A nee IP user "2409:4071:4db4:970:e797:e602:63fb:c2f5" spotted developing Draft:List of wars involving the Kingdom Of Mewar. Might look at it. Imperial [AFCND]  09:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Blocked. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation
Hi UtherSRG :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Request for undeletion dump at Sandbox
This is about Draft:Exodus Privacy I was unable to find time to make a proper article but collected vast amount of sources. It would be great if you could save the sources/article to my sandbox as to not getting deleted in six months.(PS: The other two I deletion request I raised resulted in Main space articles, which I hope to do to this as well) Greatder (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * When you are ready to work on the draft, request undeletion. There's no reason to have it loitering around, even in your userspace, until you are ready to work on it. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @UtherSRG could provide the list of sources then? Greatder (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please make a request at WP:RFU. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

REFUND stuff
Hello, UtherSRG,

I hope you are having a good week. I was just noticing that we are deleting a lot of drafts created by Crafterstar which you restored upon their request back in September 2023. There have also been a lot of drafts deleted that were created by their sockpuppet, Ebbedlila. I hope if another editor comes by and asks for these CSD G13s to be restored that you would consider reporting this to SPI. I know you have reported sockpuppets to SPI in the past but this looks like it would be a big red flag so I thought I'd mention it. Thanks for all of your help! Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 04:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. I'll be sure to see if these get requested. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Skunk
Hi! I'm not sure why that article is on my watchlist but I happened to notice the back and forth today. I can see your argument that the weapon is better placed on the disambiguation page but you seem to be treating the issue as vandalism. I'm not sure there was any need to protect the article, much less at extended confirmed level. Have I missed something? <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 14:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Not just "is better place", but is already placed there. anon editor used two different IPs, making conversation difficult. EC was probably too high, but the protection is to force the IP to login or create an account so that a discussion can more easily happen. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * anon editor is here and communicating (FYI, you can just use Talk:Skunk). Fwiw, I believe "the protection is to force the IP to login or create an account..." is inappropriate, and appears to wish to discourage appropriate anonymous IP editing - a significant component of constructive editing on Wikipedia. 86.180.70.36 (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Trust me, I know of talk pages. Good luck. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC):::_:
 * Not sure what Good luck is supposed to mean. I've tried to communicate openly, and I would be grateful if you could be respectful too. It seems you've tried to inhibit appropriate anonymous IP editing by inappropriate page protection. Have I missed something? 86.180.70.36 (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It would be a better use of all our time to keep the conversation in one place and focused on the usefulness or otherwise of the link. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 16:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just a bad day. Your edit to skunk was not appropriate. Adding that link would mean all of the other links at skunk (disambiguation) should be put there, which makes having a disambiguation page meaningless. UtherSRG (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Check out WP:See also, specifically the "contents" section. Your link doesn't fit the bill. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In fact, I *was* intendinding to add appropriately sourced content to the page. End of... (Except that I find your statement "the protection is to force the IP to login or create an account..." inappropriate and disturbing. I believe it might be helpful to retract that.) Cheers. 86.180.70.36 (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Protection level of Mallard
Hi UtherSRG, was it really necessary to go straight to indef ECP on Mallard for vandalism? I looked at the history, and it seemed that most, if not all, of the vandalism came from IPs and non-autoconfirmed editors (at the time they made the vandalism). Do you think lowering protection to semi would work? Liu1126 (talk) 10:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I've dropped it entirely now. Let's see if it is safe again.... - UtherSRG (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Notice of AFD
Hallo dearest editor,

I saw you took Justin Jin to AFD here at Articles for deletion/Justin Jin (2nd nomination). Reviewing the parts for voting, I saw it wasn't the same Justin Jin (entrepreneur) that was previously deleted via AFD. Do check back the nomination and review that article again. For now, I consider it as a mistake! Safari Scribe <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Edits! Talk! 00:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Note that there were two other articles, not just one. Note also the sock puppetry of some of the editors on the current article. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Then I don't think it should be a case of G4. Judging per GNG, the article is well sourced and verifiable by the sources. I am afraid the AFD will be tagged as not checking WP:BEFORE and the current writing in the article. They are totally different; the deleted one were on "entrepreneur" and this one on "a photographer". Somewhat a friendly suggestion! Regards. Safari Scribe <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Edits! Talk! 00:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

SPI discussion
On my watchlist I saw this revert of an IP. Was hoping you could weigh in on an SPI discussion here. It seems like an uptick of IPs believing they can avoid their block as long as it isn't from a newly created account. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Aidan White (Journalist)
Can you help me? I want to identify the issues that led to this page being deleted so that I can make appropriate amendments for resubmission. Aidanpwhite (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


 * First, please read WP:AUTOB and know that writing about yourself is strongly discouraged. Second, read the deletion discussion. Third, read WP:BACKWARDS and WP:ANYBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Species of [plural] short description
Referring to Gloveria arizonensis, are you sure this is correct? All the articles I've looked at use a singular. YorkshireExpat (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


 * A lot of them do, that doesn't mean that is correct. How many moths are in a species? One, or multitudes? Hint: It's not one. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Another way to look at it: "Group of insect" is incorrect. "Group of insects" is correct. Swap out "Group" and put in "Species". - UtherSRG (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The majority of species articles (including ones where you've edited the short description: e.g. Pyrops sultana Hadropenaeus spinicaudatus) have leads that follow "species of" with a singular term. Higher taxa have leads that follow "genus of" with a plural term. Short description gives two examples of "species of" followed by a singular term (and one example of a higher taxon with a plural term). All of the discussions at WikiProject Short Descriptions that mention "species" have it followed with a singular term.
 * While "fish" is usually both singular and plural, "fishes" is an acceptable plural form in English, but in only contexts referring to multiple species. "Species of fishes" would not be correct. Plantdrew (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to argue this grammatically but failing in my head. As a technical argument, I might offer that a species is described based on a holotype, a "single physical example", and therefore that one example is the species, therefore use the singular. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Kudnu
Why did you revert? —  Trilletrollet  [ Talk &#124; Contribs ] 15:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * You replaced a category with a less specific one. We don't do that. We place articles in the most specific categories as possible. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I know. But Kudnu is not an unambiguous member of Lepidosauromorpha, so it shouldn't be placed in that category. —  Trilletrollet  [ Talk &#124; Contribs ] 19:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't the category reflect what we have in the taxobox? If you want to move it out of the category, then you should probably open a discussion on the talk page about adjusting that *and* the taxobox. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata wrangling
Hi. I see that you helped get Wikidata links to some new articles I created, and that's much appreciated. In the spirit of "teach a man to fish...", I have a question about the protocols for certain functions that are very easily handled in Wikipedia and Wikispecies, but not in Wikidata, and hopefully it's something you can teach me - assuming it's something Wikidata allows. Case in point, I just created an article for Scaralina marmorata, a species which previously had no Wikipedia article, but did appear in Wikidata under the previous combination, "Calyptoproctus marmoratus". I linked the article to that Wikidata item, but most (not all) of the links in Wikidata also point to the old combination, only a few point to the new name (e.g., iNat, BugGuide). Is there a process to migrate an existing Wikidata item to a new title, or do you really need to create an entirely new Wikidata record, and then delete all the links in the old Wikidata record that are pointing to the new name? Link deletion seems to be necessary, because Wikidata appears to choke when different records contain identical links ("There can be only one"). If Wikidata retains all previous combinations of a name, is there a way for the old combinations to point to the new one? Thanks for any tips. Dyanega (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * For the most part, while we modify Wikipedia articles to have the current taxonomic name of a taxon, we keep adding new Wikidata records for each new combination of a taxon. So both Calyptoproctus marmoratus and Scaralina marmorata should each have a unique Wikidata item, each with pointers to the various DBs that have entries for that exact name. But it's a bit of Wild Wild West territory there, as WD supports all the different language Wikis. When I find IDs on the wrong Wikidata item, I move them to the correct one. And yes, there are some fields you can add to an item to point to an older name (such as "basionym" or "original combination") and you can point forward from such using the field "subject has role". - UtherSRG (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you deal with this please
See here. Polygnotus (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I've blocked them. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Recreating a previously deleted page
Hello UtherSRG,

I noticed that you were working on the film page Obara'M, which was deleted. I want to work on that same film page but I would also like to be aware of any issues this topic had in the past to avoid repeating the same thing.

I would really appreciate your help in understanding why this topic was previously deleted.

Thanks. Aivrie (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I deleted it as WP:CSD. You may start it fresh. I suggest Draft:Obara'M. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Reliance Global Corporate Security recreated
Hello, you just deleted the Draft:Reliance Global Corporate Security

It has been recreated by the same editor. Could you delete and protect.

Greetings from Los Angeles,  // Timothy :: talk  17:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Can and will. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi UtherSRG, might find my SPI complaint at Sockpuppet investigations/Nittin Das relevant. Cheers, microbiology Marcus [petri dish·growths] 19:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/CharlesBNB
Hi, just wondering what clerk action are you requesting there? I couldn't understand from just reading the case. Any clarification would be appreciated. <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 15:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Looking for a CU between the two possible puppets. If neither are CBNB, perhaps they are themselves the same. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That would be a CU request. As far as I know, clerk actions are usually for moving, merging, and splitting cases. From what I can see, Trace010 appears to be closer in connection to CBNB. definitely appears fishy, but does not overlap with Trace010 and behaviorally aren't the same. (my bet is what Girth Summit said, another UPE editor picking up the same ticket for Akuma Saningong)
 * I'm going to close the case for SEd, then as I don't see further actions necessary. <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 02:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Humanos!
Hello,

Thank you for the info on the reversion on human. I feel a bit too lazy to start a new debate on this on the talk page as it is outside the scope of my usual, more intensively focused topics. I can't help but be curious though: what was the compelling reason that its exclusion was deemed beneficial to the article, as there is nothing in the talk page about it (I checked beforehand). Kehkou (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I think the jist of the decision is that humans are essentially domesticated, and we don't list the status of for domesticated species; we are no longer "in the wild". - UtherSRG (talk) 10:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The discussion has been archived. Near the top of the talk page is a set of archival links, as well as an archive search box. I believe found the relevant discussion. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. Thank you for the explanation! Kehkou (talk) 04:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Afc declined
Hello, I appreciate your activity. But I created draft:Shwapnopuron which were brought under Afd. It was saying that WP:NORG failed. But from my point of view it does not violate the criteria of being notable in any way. An organization needs to be significant,

1) Reliable multiple sources

2) Independent

3) Secondery, In-depth and others

The article was created by maintaining all these criteria. This is evident by looking at the sources added to the references. Your last comment was to upgrade the issue of deletion discussion, where WP:NORG was lacking but this article meets all the criteria. All the sources are from prominent, reliable and national newspaper like Ittefaq, Jagonews24, Manab Zamin.... Please review the sources. Sulupa (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The deletion discussion disagrees with you. Please find a way to address the issue. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This article may be moved from draft to the main article and brought under a new Afd with previous issues. However there was no discussion in the previous Afd and it was soft deleted. Coming up, there may be discussion in Afd this time. Where the editors will judge the article. Sulupa (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note my statement at WP:RFU when I restored it. It would immediately be eligible for deletion in main article space. If restored to article space, you run the risk of it being hard deleted. I'm giving you the opportunity to improve the article to prevent that. If you do not wish to improve the article, you can either let it sit in draft for someone else to improve, or you can move it into main article space. If you move it, I will nominate it for deletion. I urge you to seek assistance from the Teahouse in figuring out how to improve it. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The article has been updated and resubmitted. Mafmes (talk) 09:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter Issue 27



 * March and April 2024&mdash;Issue 027


 * Tree of Life


 * Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!

<div style="height: 170px; overflow:auto; border: thin solid black; background: transparent; padding: 4px; text-align: left;">

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Caleb Francis
I boldly moved Caleb Francis to mainspace, since I think the revamped page is a pretty undisputed GNG meet. Would you be inclined to restore Talk:Caleb Francis too, in order to continue the history of that talk page including its old prod notice as well as a DYK notice? Geschichte (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Thanks for your work. I've restored the talk page. (I usually do that when I do a draftify restore. I must have missed it. Thanks for the poke. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Undeletions
Hi UtherSRG :) Thanks for the recent undeletions.

I don't know if this is even worth doing anything about (ie., if it's me getting worried about something that doesn't matter), or if it is worth fixing, so I thought I'd bring it to you as the un-deleting admin. A few of those redirects had deleted revisions that - judging by the deletion log timestamps - weren't viewable before they were originally G8ed; however, since being deleted and then undeleted, those previously-deleted revisions are now viewable again in the pages' history. (e.g., was  in January 2011, but the pre-G7 revisions are now visible in the history.)

All the best (and apologies if I'm getting in a twist over nothing!) &zwj;—&zwj; a smart kitten <sub style="color:#595959">[  meow ] 16:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Since it was only G7, I'm not going to worry about it. If it were G12, that would be significant and I'd RD1 the versions. Other deletion reasons mainly fall somewhere between those reactions. No worries, but thanks for the thought. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

minor FYI re: certain cetoniine articles
Hi. Just so you're aware: the reason I inserted so much verbiage into the Pedinorrhina article and associated articles, is because there is a single very prominent and popular source that is based in part on unpublished original research by the website owner - namely, BioLib. For most taxa under its vast, vast umbrella, BioLib matches the consensus classification. For some idiosyncratic reason, several of the links to cetoniines in BioLib are in direct conflict with all of the published literature; I spent four days trying to find any published sources that corresponded, and came up empty. In this particular set of genera, BioLib is the only source I can find after 1984 (examining a fair number of published sources) that does not accept the homonymy of Plaesiorrhina Burmeister (December, 1842) and precedence of Plaesiorrhina Westwood (July, 1842). That throws all of the species in the affected genera, including Pedinorrhina, into genera that no other existing sources (post-1994) place them in. This one bad source has had a "ripple effect" in Wikispecies (mostly resolved now), Wikidata, and Wikimedia Commons, and it's a minor nightmare. In this case, BioLib is definitively acting as a primary source of original research rather than as an aggregator, and it is not peer-reviewed or published. Yes, I know this borders on the pot insulting the kettle in my case, but - as I said - I spent a great deal of effort to make certain that I was not missing any crucial references. The point is that I expect that many editors who are strong adherents of BioLib are going to try eventually to edit these articles to match the BioLib classification, and it seems to me the best way to stave that off is to explain, in the article itself using the relevant sources, what the taxonomic history is, and the actual demonstrated consensus, so it is visible to any would-be editors how significantly the BioLib scheme deviates from it. A question: do you think it would be appropriate to place, on the talk pages of these articles, a brief summary such as this to explain why BioLib should not be used as a source for these taxa? Thanks. Dyanega (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * You do like to be long winded... :) I think a brief discussion of taxonomic disagreement is relevant on the article, but a discussion of sourcing should go on the talk page.
 * In addition, we should never use references within a sentence like you did with ... as a subgenus of Chondrorrhina (e.g.[5][6]), ...; make assertions, and then follow those assertions with references: ... as a subgenus of Chondrorrhina,[5][6] ... The references used need not be an exhaustive list; the references need only provide verification for the assertion. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Hyphenation
In the Platypus article, you restored a hyphen that I'd deleted. The hyphen doesn't belong there. Adding a hyphen after an -ly adverb is a very common mistake, but it is a mistake. At Manual of Style, we find: "Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb (a newly available home, a wholly owned subsidiary) unless part of a larger compound (a slowly-but-surely strategy)."

The reason is that, in a phrase like "universally agreed" in the Platypus article, there's no ambiguity. The MoS article goes on to note some instances in which the hyphen should be used because it affects the meaning.

I'm restoring the hyphen, but please let me know if you disagree with my reasoning. JamesMLane t c 03:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * You didn't add a hyphen. This is what you had: universally ±agreed - UtherSRG (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I deleted a hyphen, and that's all I intended to do, but I guess I somehow managed to insert that other symbol into the text. Your edit deleted the improper symbol but re-inserted the improper hyphen.  I re-deleted the hyphen but gave an erroneous edit summary saying that I was restoring the hyphen.  The net result is that two experienced editors, collaborating, have finally come to the correct resolution of one whole punctuation mark.  :)  Thanks for your help! JamesMLane t c 20:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks - UtherSRG (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)