zOMG edit

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

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 (talkcontribs)

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and associated articles, is because there is a single very prominent and popular source that is based in part on unpublished original research by the website owner - namely, BioLib.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

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

About User talkpages edit

UtherSRG, Hello,Nice to meet you again, can you protect my Usertalk page from Ip editors or new users because sometimes they request for review her draft on my usertalkpage after, I receive notification from Wikipedia, I don't like to more afc draft on request if they are not more valuable or notable and I'm medical students, so, I have not enough time to reply other users as soon as possible, I happy if you semi-protect as indef my usertalkpage.  Thanks ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 15:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done You got it. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
(talk page watcher) I don't think this is a good idea. Aviram7 is enrolled in the mentorship program, which necessarily means that they will get questions from new users. In addition, they are a reviewer and should really expect to get messages from non-auto-confirmed accounts about their reviews. It's almost like inviting new users to post and then technically preventing them from doing so.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is indeed a bad idea, Aviram7. – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Undone. Yes, as a mentor and reviewer, you can't do that. Either resign as mentor and reviewer, or give up on restricting access to your talk page. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am currently having a lot of mental or health issues in my personal life, I really enjoy helping new users and other users , however I can't help other users when I can't give advice myself because I myself need someone's help, I just want to edit Wikipedia in peace for as long as I can, maybe I need a rest...~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 16:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Problems in your real life should always take precedence over editing Wikipedia. By all means, take a break.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I guess I don't need to protect my usertalkpage anymore since I'm also a mentorship and NPP reviewer, hmm... I'll try to go Wikibreak after I've finished the may drive of NPP backlog because I'm participated on them, thank you all for giving me good advice, I'll always try to help new and old editors on Wikipedia.. 😎~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 16:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hey UtherSRG! can you protect my alternate's Userpage and it's Usertalkpage as both protect extended confirmed protection indef because they are redirect to my current usertalkpage, avoid to prevent editing from others editors, I think any other users have not objections for this, please can you do for me, if you feel comfortable?   Thanks~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 03:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Done That seems reasonable. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
UtherSRG, Thanks a lot for protecting them.😎~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 13:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply