User talk:UtherSRG/Archive 8

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)

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 (

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)

The redirect 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 13 § 285 (Number) until a consensus is reached. Dhrm77 (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

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 | tålk 19:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC).

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

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)

@Immanuelle: 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)

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

No. Since the original article was deleted via Wikipedia: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)

Good discussion, but please don't forget to notify the article's creator. Hint: use

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

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#Updates needed for multiple protected taxonomy templates. 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)

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)

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)

@MtBotany: 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk

) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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. PamD 12:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

These were eligible for

WP:CSD#G14 deletion. - UtherSRG (talk)

12:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I also nominated

talk

) 12:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Got it. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

These do not qualify for

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: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)

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)

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)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia: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)

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)

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)

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!

@

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)

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)

I think you responded to an old revision of the page as I made a few changes per

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)

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)

@

WP:BRD. - UtherSRG (talk)

17:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I see your name so often, thanks for all you do! Theroadislong (talk) 14:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

@Star Mississippi: 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)

2409:40F2:1015:AC4A:8007:6823:462F:DF84 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 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)

... 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#G5? No. But here are the references used so that you can start fresh: [1] [2] [3] - UtherSRG (talk)

12:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Merry Christmas, UtherSRG! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 14:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

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! ~ ~ ~

Hello UtherSRG: Enjoy the holiday season 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)

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)

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,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
 — Amakuru (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

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

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magnito. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

@Girth Summit: 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 Bbb23 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)

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)

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)

On January 17, you deleted several articles by TheElvisBelievingBumbleBee 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 Tavix 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 this rollback and this rollback. You did not provide an explanatory edit summary or a talk page message. The Wikipedia: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)

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)

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!)_{[citation unneeded]} 15:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

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  Done - 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)

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)

Dear UtherSRG , Hi, I've identified

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)

@Aviram7: 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)

 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,

aroace, 🐾

) 16:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tails Wx: 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. ~

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,@Tails Wx: 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! ~

aroace, 🐾

) 20:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I had already declined the

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)

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)

I see that you recently deleted my

Yes. Before you begin, please read and understand

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)

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)

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! Hi UtherSRG! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy birthday! Enjoy this special day! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Hi UtherSRG, 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)

@Aa77zz: 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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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. — CactusWriter ^(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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 Simuliid talk 18:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@

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. Simuliid 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)

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: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: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)

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)

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

{{subst:utrs|84778}}

. Best, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

And, BTW, thanks for closing that. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

XD Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

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. 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)

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)

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)

A tag has been placed on

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 ^{Read! Talk!} 20:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Hello, I wanted to follow up with

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)

Are you joking with this AfD's? Because there is no question that they are notable. Have you done any

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)

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)

Hello UtherSRG,

Thank you for your work. Would you please explain why you added a tag "More footnotes needed|date=March 2024" to the

Tufted_capuchin#Taxonomy_and_phylogeny 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)

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)

Hi, about this, the article was created by this sockpuppet, and edited by this sockpuppet and this account that violated

Yeah, but Longhornsg 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 ^{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)

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? HJ Mitchell | 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. HJ Mitchell | 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)

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)

Hallo dearest editor,

I saw you took Justin Jin to AFD here at Wikipedia: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^{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^{Edits! Talk!}

00:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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:ANYBIO. - UtherSRG (talk)

14:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

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. Wikipedia:Short description#Examples 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)

Why did you revert? —Trilletrollet [ Talk | 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 ([4]), so it shouldn't be placed in that category. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | 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)

Happy adminship anniversary! Hi UtherSRG! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

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)