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.

Padshah UtherSRG 2024

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)

Cyrtophloeba

Please, could you explain your reasoning on reverting the move from Cyrtophleba to Cyrtophloeba? Both names are used in Rondani 1856 Dipterologiae Italicae Prodromus. Vol: I. Genera italica ordinis Dipterorum ordinatim disposita et distincta et in familias et stirpes aggregata. Cyrtophloeba on page 207, Cyrtophleba on page 68. There are no page precedences in ICZN. See O'Hara, James & Cerretti, Pierfilippo & Pape, Thomas & Evenhuis, Neal. (2011). Nomenclatural Studies Toward a World List of Diptera Genus-Group Names. Part II: Camillo Rondani. Zootaxa. It is accepted usage in many pulocation since such as O’Hara, James E.; Henderson, Shannon J.; Wood, D. Monty (5 March 2020). "Preliminary Checklist of the Tachinidae (Diptera) of the World" (PDF). Tachinidae Resources. The UK species checklist, Systema Dipterorum etc etc Simuliid talk 18:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Simuliid: First, copy-paste moves are not the correct method to move an article. Second, look at the article's history. Your move was previously reverted with the edit summary indicating the no "O" spelling is more common. WP:COMMONNAME says we should therefore use the no "O" spelling. You should immediately revert yourself. If you wish to proceed with the article renaming, you should open a discussion via WP:RM. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not a common name. So WP:COMMONNAME does not apply. I have WP:RM. They are pretty much universally ignored. Cyrtophloeba is the correct name and will stand, please read O'Hara, James & Cerretti, Pierfilippo & Pape, Thomas & Evenhuis, Neal. Simuliid talk 18:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

COMMONNAME applies regardless if the name is a scientific name or a vernacular name. We work on community decisions here. If you have previously RM'd and been denied, you must abide by that community decision. I am reverting your changes now. Do not undo these changes; open another WP:RM. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Palestinian cultural genocide MFD

Hi. I moved that page to draftspace and closed the MFD. I wanted to drop you a note about this. This is what I see as the consequences of your MFDing that page:

1. We almost lost an objectively good start to a new article. I say "objectively" because it is an article on a notable topic, sourced to high-quality RS (recent scholarship). It isn't ready for mainspace, but objectively a good start.
2. We may lost the editor who started this page
3. Other editors are arguing with each other about the MFD on the MFD page

In my view, these are three harms that could have been avoided by not MFDing the page. I'm a big proponent of ECR and I get why we don't allow non-EC editors to start pages. Still, the reason the rule says that admins may but are not required to delete the content is because sometimes a non-EC-created article is still a good start worth saving. This was one of those times.

One of the things that made be frown is that I noticed you discussed this with another admin before launching the MFD, but you've made zero attempt to discuss it with the editor who started the page, prior to nominating it for deletion. I don't think that's cool -- you should have talked to them, explained what you were doing and why, and maybe explored WP:ATD (like draftification) prior to nominating the page.

I hope you'll reconsider how to handle these situations in the future. We have very few people who are editing this topic area using scholarship sources. I would estimate less than 20 people in the whole world are doing this right now on enwiki (many more are doing it without using scholarship). Please, if you see a 21st person doing this, do what you can to welcome and encourage them, even if they're breaking rules. Levivich (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Noted. However, it's not that I had no contact with the user; there was WP:RFU and the interaction above. sigh Sometimes I think we make it too easy to just jump in and make a mess, instead of more intelligently ramping things up. For instance, I think we make WP:XC way too easy to get, and make gaming for it easy to do. While catching the gaming is easy (if looked for), we should do all we can to prevent it in the first place instead of making it the obvious path. The user in question, when told they needed to have XC to edit on their desired topic immediately gamed to get the right. That put them in the "they aren't here to be productive, they are here to push POV" category. Also, getting XC rights should come with a mandatory notice that the user has to acknowledge to say they understand the additional responsibilities that come with the rights. We fail new users in so many ways like this and make harder to integrate into the community and easier for them to end up in the a "bad guy" bucket. Anyway, thanks for the long-winded trouting, and thanks for reading this, if you did. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Gaming ECP has become a somewhat controversial topic since the war started, and I've seen different editors give very different views about what "gaming" is and how it should be handled.

In your view, when you tell someone with 400 edits that they need 500 edits to keep working on the draft they're working in, what would you expect them to do next? Because I think "making 100 edits" is what anyone would do in that situation. What is in your view the "proper" thing for a 400-edit editor to do? Levivich (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

As things stand, tell them to go on to working in other areas of the encyclopedia and not worry about that topic at this time. Things like WP:deadline and WP:gaming could be pointed to in that discussion. But like I said, "as things stand" isn't a good system. We will always have portions of the encyclopedia that can only be edited with higher than newbie privileges. We need a better way to educate users in more than an "oh, I see you stumbled into a problem, let me now tell you how to proceed" manner. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with that, and I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this with me. I don't mean to argue the case of this particular editor, or to even criticize your view of it, but I do really want to understand your view about "gaming", because I don't understand this view (your view is shared by others, you're not the first person I've seen describe edits like this as gaming).

From what I can see, go on to working in other areas of the encyclopedia and not worry about that topic at this time is exactly what this editor did. I looked through the ~100 "gaming" edits, and what I see is, over the course of a few hours, they added see also links, categories, wiki links, fixed typos, made some article talk pages, removed some content, did some copyedits, and basically gnomed a bunch of different articles in different ways. Why is that "gaming"? Or to ask it another way, what kind of edits should they have done that are different than the edit they did?

Because I agree abuot "let me now tell you how to proceed," but I don't know what say, how to tell them to proceed. I would have told this editor to do more or less what they did: go make a variety of edits to a variety of articles that aren't I-P. Levivich (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Conversations are good. I saw it as gaming because if you compare the rate of their edits before the "you need 100 more" discussion vice after, the after was much faster. Whether they understood it was gaming or not is open to debate, but the data shows a difference in rate and scale. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

This is how I see it:

Admin: "You need 100 more edits"

Editor: *makes 100 edits*

Admin: "You made those edits too fast"

Putting myself in editor's shoes, I really wouldn't know what to do. Make 100 edits ... slowly? I'm thinking, OK maybe we should say if you've had your EC pulled, you can't request it again for a week, or some period of time. But then it seems like, well, bureaucracy. Levivich (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I keep meaning to start a discussion on this at vpp or a similar venue to see where consensus on gaming is, but everyone I think I'm going to I end up spending 45 minutes blocking and revdelling because of an LTA or responding to a request for eyes/intervention. From what I've seen there's a rough consensus that a quick rush of minor (small and gnoming, not marked minor) edits is generally seen as gaming, or at least sub-optimal when they happen after being informed or warned about ECR. I agree with what you're saying about the confusion about making those edits too quick, and the likelihood that it will be looked on as gaming should be communicated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Rhynchoconger smithi

No big deal but I noticed you also revdeleted the revision where I had already removed the copyvio, was it an accident or is there a reason for this I didn't realize? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 03:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

An accident. I'll fix. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #84778

Ya gotta click the "reply to user" button first. 😋. Fear not, you can copy your intended reply to the user's talk page, with the heading

{{subst:utrs|84778}}

. Best, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

And, BTW, thanks for closing that. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

XD Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Redirects from Wikipedia to Wikispecies

Redirects from Wikipedia to Wikispecies without creating a Wikipedia article is bullshit. So please leave lemma pages empty. --Melly42 (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)