Jump to content

User talk:UtherSRG

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Email this user
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:Utherbot)


zOMG

[edit]
zOMG
I, Hojimachong, hereby award UtherSRG A completely gratuitous zOMG barnstar, for being 110% awesome. Plus 1. --Hojimachongtalk

WikiProject Mammals Notice Board

[edit]

Happy holidays!

[edit]
[edit]

I think we've both dealt with the person behind 98.97.61.117 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) before. They seem to be the same person as 2605:59C8:D0:AA10:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who you previously rangeblocked for a year a week ago. (See their reversion of your edit to this range [1]. If they keep finding ways to avoid their rangeblock, then I think we need to long-term semi-protect their major targets, which include Camelini, Lamini, and Camelinae, where they keep persistently making shit up about cameline taxonomy. I've gone and checked this, and the sources consistently state that Camelini and Lamini first appeared during the Miocene and that the taxa the IP cites as early representatives of these tribes are very obscure and the little recent literature on them places them outside of these tribes. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. On the next action, I'll protect the targets. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding the categories for reasons behind an animal or plants extinction or decline

[edit]

Do these categories only apply to nominate species such as ivory-billed woodpecker or African bush elephant, and not subspecies or distinct populations such as northern white rhinoceros or Barbary lion? I noticed that all of my edits for putting animals such as North African elephant, Barbary lion, and Cuban ivory-billed woodpecker under the categories for being threatened with extinction by warfare, deliberate extirpation efforts, and logging for timber were reverted despite these being true. North African elephants were employed as combat mounts during the Punic Wars, the Rif War further lead to the decline of the Barbary lion, and the Cuban Revolution prevented a recovery plan for the Cuban ivory-billed woodpecker at the time. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What category do the subspecies and distinct populations fit under then? It is true that warfare, political conflicts, logging, and deliberate extirpation efforts lead to the extinctions or declines of these animals such as the ones I mentioned. I swear that I have seen animals such as Mexican grizzly bear and Zanzibar leopard under categories such as species made extinct by deliberate extirpation efforts. Can the North African elephant categorisation be restored at least? It was possibly a separate species of African elephant as opposed to a subspecies or population. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They don't. And no. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you further explain why North African elephant is inappropriate for the category despite it being considered a separate species? Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not currently considered a species. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why subspecies and distinct populations cannot be in the categories for endangerment or extinction outside of not being nominate species? Was this discussed somewhere, or is it an unspoken and understood rule? Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that it is written down anywhere. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bucerotiformes stubs

[edit]

Hi there! I changed the category for {{Bucerotiformes-stub}} because the template was proposed and accepted as an upmerged template here. Normally, stub templates should be used on 60 or more articles before getting a category, but I think 49 is close enough, so I have no further objection to the creation of the category. Her Pegship (?) 01:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Oreocarya cana

[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Oreocarya cana, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed... - UtherSRG (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please double check AfC declinations

[edit]

There have been two recent declinations by the same user, the one that caught my attention was Draft:Hussam Jouhara and checking there is also Draft:Alexandra Wake. Hussan was declined quoting NPROF, but that was very inappropriate. I have already commented on that one at the talk page and will handle it if needed.

The Alexandra page was declined as not having reliable sources, which seems odd to me.

In both cases no explanation was given. I guess we don't require that, but perhaps we should encourage it.

Comments? Ldm1954 (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And this has what to do with me? - UtherSRG (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for a second opinion, particularly on the declination of Draft:Alexandra Wake. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Roger that. And you have it below. :D I'm one who tends to be lean harder on the decline side anyway... I would prefer drafts stay as drafts even longer tha are current policies and practices allow... - UtherSRG (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah on this one, I think a second review is necessary. I will review it again and provide you details on the draft talk page. @Ldm1954 ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️✉️📔) 14:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @Ldm1954, @UtherSRG - I have an explanation. I was checking the redirects and drafts at the same time. While correcting the drafts, I went to Hussam draft. I thought C2/C3 might failed so I declined, but I should have dug more into this. As per Ldm, I later noticed RAE award which passes NPROF. And both the topics I'm re-reviewing. My bad again. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️✉️📔) 14:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

why did you revert my reply?

[edit]

why did you delete the reply i made on the SPI for someone? Qxvaa (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your participation seems to be purely intended to be disruptive. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it wasn't intended to be. Qxvaa (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Qxvaa, you do not have enough experience to be helpful at SPI at this time. Please find another area of the project to contribute to. And please stop trying to log in to other users' accounts. Best, Spicy (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thank-you

[edit]
The Mammal Barnstar
For your unwavering efforts within WikiProject Mammals (with particular note for your vigilance in the subject of lagomorphs)! Reconrabbit 17:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aw thanks! :) - UtherSRG (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Engel

[edit]

I know the page survived an AFD. Is the only reason the article is removed now is that it was made by a sock of a banned user? The article was well-referenced and had good information. Most four-time bracelets winners have an article and those who do not other than Engel just have not been made yet. If I decide to attempt to rewrite the article someday, would it get sent to AFD? Not trying to be a problem here, just curious. I understand most of the other deletions of that user as they were very minor poker players in terms of what they had done. Red Director (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't send it to AFD. I actually anticipated you'd ping me at some point in this process. Some admins will even do a full restore of G5 at WP:RFU, though I won't. I won't sand in your way, though I would prefer if you do want it restored, that you rewrite it from scratch, though having the references returned to you via RFU would be good. Give the vast quanitities this user created, it's easier to throw out the baby with the bath water, destroy the bath tub, the go rescue the bay later. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the response and information. Red Director (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great cleanup by the way. Red Director (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aw thanks! :) - UtherSRG (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Red Director: BTW - Please be on the look out for their possible return with another sock, and let me know when you have any suspicions, or file a WP:SPI and let me know you've done so. Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. I saw below you approved a regeneration of Anson Tsang. Could you do the same for Ari Engel just to save the time and energy of having to rewrite it and reference it from scratch? If not, I understand. Red Director (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UtherSRG. You deleted Anson Tsang under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G5. Creations by banned or blocked users, or in violation of general sanctions. The policy says pages are eligible for G5 deletion only when there are "no substantial edits by others". I made substantial edits to expand, source, and clean up the article. Would you restore the article and its talk page, Talk:Anson Tsang? Would you also review the other articles you deleted that were written by PsychoticIncall (talk · contribs) to determine whether they have "substantial edits by others"? Thank you. Cunard (talk) 10:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you delete my draft article for no good reason.

[edit]

User:UtherSRG So you just delete my draft article simply because you can. Edward Myer (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not deleted. It is back in Draft:Bruse Wane, and I've submitted it for review for you. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UtherSRG, hope you're well! I've been working on various Aquilegia species and noticed we have an article for A. truncata, where most of the recent edits are yours.

As A. truncata is currently treated as a variety of A. formosa by most authorities (Kew, WFO, Tropicos), I propose moving this to a new page Aquilegia formosa var. truncata, and changing the existing page to a redirect. What do you think?

NB. Generally all the Aquilegia articles (including for the genus itself) have followed Kew's opinion, so this would be the treatment most consistent with previous work. There's already the occasional page for individual varieties e.g. Aquilegia micrantha var. grahamii. But I'm not a botanist, and happy to hear counterarguments.

Jacketpocket (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I may have the most edits on it, but if you look they are all just cleanup-type edits, not content edits. Yes, if the move is in alignment with the rest of the the articles for that genus, then yes, I would support the move. @Plantdrew: is whom I usually defer botany decisions to, so you may want to check with them as well. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]