User talk:UtherSRG

zOMG

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

Happy holidays!

— 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.

Standardised disambiguation

You reverted my edit at the dab page Kanada: from ~ (treehopper) back to ~ (insect) ... and also at Gargarini. @Dyanega: has gone to a lot of trouble to standardise these insect dabs: with justification at User talk:Kahidan#disambiguation titles and consistency across Wikipedia taxonomic articles. Personally, I am in favour of "~ (insect)" (after all, the botanists keep it simple with "~ (plant)") - can we decide which is preferred please? Roy Bateman (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

If you had made the Kanada article I wouldn't have done anything, but to make the change and not make the article felt wrong. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

What is wrong surely, is to "pipe" the links before the article is created, especially if the dabs are not standardised: but you reverted my edits ... I respectfully suggest you have better things to do. Roy Bateman (talk) 11:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The standardized dab title suffixes I've been using are more specific (most range from family to order) because they are not intended to disambiguate between kingdoms. Moreover, the genus-rank diversity of insects is an order of magnitude greater than the kingdom Plantae, as I recall, so finer division of the group is easily justified (there are something like 150,000 insect genera). A disambiguation page with a name like "XXXX (bee)", "XXXX (butterfly)", "XXXX (fly)", "XXXX (moth)", or "XXXX (wasp)" is far more informative and helpful than "XXXX (insect)". It's also more common for two homonymous genera to be two different kinds of insects, so the odds that the more refined disambiguation is necessary are also higher. I'd be grateful if these could be restored as "(treehopper)" - there are, BTW, over 500 genera of treehoppers. In that respect, I might suggest that if there is a desire to establish an objective (if arbitrary) criterion for what merits its own classification in disambiguation, I'd say a group with 500 or more constituent genera would be a fair cutoff, and one that all the titles I've used to date would comply with. Thanks. Dyanega (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Dyanega: - I will 'go with the flow' on this, but whereas these may be helpful for entomologists, I am not sure how many other readers will know "XXXX (phasmid)", "XXXX (katydid)" or even the subtleties of "XXXX (treehopper/froghopper/planthopper)": when "XXXX (insect)" is more than sufficient for the purposes of disambiguation - UtherSRG seems to agree. I'm sure that we can all agree that "XXXX (genus)" is not good: should we move these pages whenever found? Roy Bateman (talk) 11:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a minute?

I need some help with Special:UserRights/54rt678. I caught the editor PGAME using their sandbox (over 250 edits) and I'd like to reverse the ec status they got today on edit 500. BusterD (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@BusterD: Done! - UtherSRG (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Do I just follow this little guy around with a plastic bag until he hits 750? BusterD (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

XD Well, you blocked them, so that should slow them down... - UtherSRG (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

So I just uncheck the box, leave a reason and save groups. BusterD (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Yup! It's one of the easier tools we have. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

In July I'll be 20 years old here. And there are like 20,000 things I haven't yet done. BusterD (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm only a smidge older. ;) So yeah... UtherSRG (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Re: plastic bag, now does the user have to apply for the userright when they get the edits? BusterD (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Now that, I do not know. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Extended confirmed. BusterD (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll find out and let you know when I do. I like my answer; this means the user has to explain (in front of someone with that permission) why they had to apply. BusterD (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Have a great 2025, UtherSRG! I expect a wild ride. BusterD (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Cheers! - UtherSRG (talk) 11:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Question

I wanted to ask, does wikipedia adds common names for animals if they are used by major sources? Firekong1 (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:COMMON NAME is what you want to read. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks. Firekong1 (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Overlapping

You and I are of one mind on the timing of our edits today ([1], [2]).... :) Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

XD - UtherSRG (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

american shrew mole

Hi and thanks for your feedback on my edit to the American shrew mole article. I understand the lead should be concise, but I believe the current wording may give a misleading impression. It suggests that the term "shrew mole" arises solely from its mixed morphology (shrew-like fur and mole-like head/dentition), which is an oversimplication.

I also looked into the cited source, and it doesn't actually state that this is the specific reason for the name "shrew mole." Instead, it mentions that the name is "apt" due to these traits. Do you see any problem with changing that part of the article to something like "Its shrew-like fur and typical mole head make the common name "shrew mole" fitting." instead?

Cheers! Ernst.T.A. (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a citation to say that's why it has that name? - UtherSRG (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

No, I looked for information on how the common name for Neurotrichus gibbsii originated but could not find it. So I think it would be best if that there were no reference to how the common name originated in the article at all.

What I know is that the term "shrew mole" has a messy background.

The earliest reference to "shrew mole" I can find is in Godmans American Natural History of 1823. However, it is then used for what is today known as the Eastern Mole, Scalopus aquaticus (a species that does not look much like a shrew). This same species was later called "common American shrew mole" by Audubon and Bachman in 1846. Also if I got it right, according to this post this mole used to simply be called a shrew futher back in time (due to a mixup by Linnaeus).

Merrian Webster says shrew moles are "any of numerous relatively slender moles that somewhat resemble shrews", but that is not really of help either.

Also checked the original description of Neurotrichus gibbsii (Baird 1857 [1858], as Urotrichus gibbsii) as well as the move to its current genus (Günter 1880) but there is no mentions of common names there. But already Dalquest and Orcut (1942) makes the claim that it is "well named", and also several examples of later litterature says the name is "apt", so this seems like a well spread statement.

(However, there are some webpages that clearly copied the text from Wikipedia and therefore now says it is the reason for its name). Ernst.T.A. (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

RFC Notice

Hello, this notice is for everyone who took part in the March 2024 AfD on lists of airline destinations. I have started a new RfC on the subject. If you would like to participate please follow this link: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not § RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! And I'm in agreement with option 3. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello again

Thank you for your message earlier, and for your understanding. I might make mistakes on here sometimes but I do want to help Wikipedia grow and imrpove where it seems fit. Firekong1 (talk) 02:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for repeating, but I just wanted to know if you got my message. Firekong1 (talk) 13:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I did. I have nothing left to say on the topic at this time. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope I was able to explain everything to you.

Anyway, I may need a bit of help from time to time on Wikipedia, so I may ask you for advice from time to time.Firekong1 (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Request

UtherSRG, Nice to meet you again, can you please fully protect my alternative user account for creation, this humble request to you and I not needed to create them, my userpage is reflected from my userpage at metawiki . Happy editing --- Bhairava7 • (@píng mє-tαlk mє) 14:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

please reply here, I've wating for you're reply after I made this request. Happy editing! --- Bhairava7 • (@píng mє-tαlk mє) 12:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I have no desire to do so. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

fine, thanks for you're response. Happy editing --- Bhairava7 • (@píng mє-tαlk mє) 12:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

NPP Awards for 2024

		The New Page Reviewer's NPP Barnstar Award
		This award is given in recognition to UtherSRG for conducting 193 article reviews in 2024. Thank you so much for all your excellent work. Keep it up! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Question from Berentis.Wayfarer (05:40, 11 January 2025)

Hi and thanks for being a mentor. I am also a software engineer. Just a quick question. I was reading an article and had to at least comment on it. At what point is it ok to make edits vice commenting? Does anyone review comments? BTW Uther Locksley sounds like an SCA name. Is that true? --Berentis.Wayfarer (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Berentis.Wayfarer: In reverse: Uther Rhys Locksley was indeed my SCA name back in the 90s. :) There are no dedicated comment reviewers, but anyone who has the article on their watchlist will see that a comment has been made. Looking at your contributions, I don't see any comments you've made. Did you do so before creating your account? - UtherSRG (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Apparently, when I went back to the page, the comment was still in the composer in my browser. Added it just now. Talk:Franklin bells

Aside: I was an unofficial member of the (then) Barony of Tir Ysgithr back in the late 70's. I remember a couple of members with the surname Locksley. Berentis.Wayfarer (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Unrelated to me. I was in the Barony of Thescorre. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Orpaul

Hi UtherSRG. I am a CU on w:fr. I have just noticed this temporary block : User_talk:Orpaul#January_2025. Just to let you know that Orpaul = Lapin du Morvan (cf here) = w:fr:Wikipédia:Faux-nez/Alain843, who was banned from w:fr. Lewisiscrazy (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Lewisiscrazy: Thanks. What were they blocked for? - UtherSRG (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

He was banned, not just blocked. Here is the final decision w:fr:Wikipédia:Bulletin des administrateurs/2013/Semaine 38#Vendredi 20 septembre where the French admins discuss LTA, edit wars and other negative contributions (just as many as sock-puppets apparently). --Lewisiscrazy (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Lewisiscrazy: Ok. I'll block as LTA for now. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

How to swing a baseball bat

Hello, UtherSRG,

I hope you can explain to me what happened here. This article is being discussed at an open AFD. For some reason, you userfied this article, even though the editor had never worked on this article, much less created it and the AFD was still ongoing. Once the article was in their User space, they tagged the page for CSD U1 speedy deletion when they had no right to invoke U1.

Please do not userfy an article being discussed at an open AFD unless that is the consensus decision of the participants. It looks like this was just a way to bypass a discussion among editors and get an article deleted that is completely out of process. And I've seen this editor do exactly this before, they ask for an article to be userfied and then request a speedy delete and, I guess, because the article is now in their User space, the admin review the situation doesn't realize that they are not the article creator and they just delete it on command. There are legitimate ways to delete pages but this one is very sneaky. We should all play by the rules.

Thank you for all of the help you provide, especially at REFUND. It's appreciated! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I've pinged you at RFU as to why I userified. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Ynez Reservoir

If you want, I can withdraw you AFD for you. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe it is eligible for withdraw as there is a delete !vote on it. I admit, though, that it's a SNOW. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I missed that one! Sorry. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

No worries! :) - UtherSRG (talk) 14:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)