User talk:UtherSRG

This is UtherSRG's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8: 7 days

It is 7:27 AM where this user lives.

zOMG[edit]

		zOMG
		I, Hojimachong, hereby award UtherSRG A completely gratuitous zOMG barnstar, for being 110% awesome. Plus 1. --Hojimachong^talk

WikiProject Mammals Notice Board[edit]

In line with the recent upgrades to WikiProject Mammals a bulletin board has been created to keep all members up to date with the Project, consider it similar to the Wikipedia Signpost however focused on WikiProject Mammals. I would ask that you add this page to your watchlist in order to get the latest information about WikiProject Mammals. Kind Regards - Zoo Pro and The Arbiter^★_★^★

Happy holidays![edit]

— mw (talk) (contribs) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Padshah UtherSRG 2024[edit]

You wrote "Since you can't explain in your own words, I see no reason to unblock you"

What own words? What do mean?

What questions should I answer You just decline the unblock request.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Homo sapiens History (talk • contribs)

Undeletions[edit]

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., Tm 103 was G7ed 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!) ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 16:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

minor FYI re: certain cetoniine articles[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hyphenation[edit]

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 Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Hyphens, 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Thanks - UtherSRG (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996 Abakan Ilyushin Il-76 crash (2nd nomination) Afd closure[edit]

Hello user UtherSRG, a non-admin user closed the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996 Abakan Ilyushin Il-76 crash (2nd nomination) without initially providing a rationale. Upon asking as to why they had closed the discussion, [1], they stated that they had closed the discussion stating that "The noms contention that this was a "run of the mill event" is not accepted" adding that they would not pursue a re-open and that I could ask for an admin to do so if I wished and later replying that they had nothing else to add. I'm not here to ask whether the article should be kept or deleted but I would like to request for the re-opening of the discussion as I feel like User:Destarun didn't adequately analyse the discussion. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - UtherSRG (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]