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]

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)

WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter Issue 27[edit]

March and April 2024—Issue 027


Tree of Life


Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

Horned sungem by Jens Lallensack
Tufted jay by grungaloo
Pseudastacus by Olmagon
List of erinaceids by PresN
Primates by PresN
Hypericum sect. Androsaemum by Fritzmann2002
Thalattoarchon by Amirani1746, reviewed by Esculenta
Lentinus brumalis by Зэгс ус, reviewed by Chiswick Chap
Hypericum sect. Androsaemum by Fritzmann2002, reviewed by Maxim Masiutin
Hypericum × inodorum by Fritzmann2002, reviewed by AryKun
Barnacle by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Lightburst
Maize by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by AryKun
Pig by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Wolverine XI
Orange (fruit) by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by 750h+
Fish by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Reconrabbit
Organism by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Esculenta
Hydropunctaria amphibia by Esculenta, reviewed by AryKun
Melanohalea by Esculenta, reviewed by AryKun
Lecideaceae by Esculenta, reviewed by Wolverine XI
Xylopsora canopeorum by Esculenta, reviewed by AryKun
Spot test (lichen) by Esculenta, reviewed by AryKun
Gustaf Einar Du Rietz by Esculenta, reviewed by Chiswick Chap
Allocalicium by Esculenta, reviewed by Simongraham
Multiclavula mucida by Esculenta, reviewed by Chiswick Chap
Aphaena submaculata by Etriusus, reviewed by Wolverine XI
White-tailed jay by Grungaloo, reviewed by Chiswick Chap
Fork-tailed drongo by The Blue Rider, reviewed by Chiswick Chap
Northern green anaconda by Chaotic Enby, reviewed by Geardona
Heptamegacanthus by Mattximus, reviewed by Esculenta
Mixtotherium by PrimalMustelid, reviewed by FunkMonk
Diplobune by PrimalMustelid, reviewed by Wolverine XI
Ochrophyte by Snoteleks, reviewed by Ealdgyth
Parvilucifera by Snoteleks, reviewed by Fritzmann2002
Urceolus by Snoteleks, reviewed by Fritzmann2002
Plexippoides regius by Simongraham, reviewed by Grungaloo
Olga Hartman by Viriditas, reviewed by Lightburst
Giant panda by Wolverine XI, reviewed by Thebiguglyalien
Enchylium conglomeratum by Xkalponik, reviewed by Wolverine XI

Newly nominated content

Great cuckoo-dove by AryKun
Heptamegacanthus by Mattximus
List of talpids by PresN
List of birds of New Brunswick by B3251
List of forest-inventory conifers in Canada by Dank
Dissoderma odoratum by NotAGenious
Xiphodon by PrimalMustelid
Banana by Chiswick Chap
Phintella parva by Simongraham
Evarcha maculata by Simongraham
Asian elephant by Wolverine XI
Megafauna by Wolverine XI
Fishing cat by Wolverine XI
Thistle tortoise beetle by Justinxuje
Enchylium limosum by Xkalponik
Enchylium polycarpon by Xkalponik
Skeleton panda sea squirt by Chaotic Enby
Hypericum aciferum by Fritzmann2002
Hypericum russeggeri by Fritzmann2002
Hypericum minutum by Fritzmann2002
Chrompodellid by Snoteleks
Aquilegia sibirica by Pbritti
Carabus japonicus by NHanselman
Charles De Geer by Yakikaki
Cheetah reintroduction in India by Magentic Manifestations

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly moved Caleb Francis to mainspace, since I think the revamped page is a pretty undisputed GNG meet. Would you be inclined to restore Talk:Caleb Francis too, in order to continue the history of that talk page including its old prod notice as well as a DYK notice? Geschichte (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Thanks for your work. I've restored the talk page. (I usually do that when I do a draftify restore. I must have missed it. Thanks for the poke. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]