User talk:UtherSRG

❧

Wikipedia

It is 2:03 PM where this user lives.

zOMG

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

WikiProject Mammals Notice Board

Happy holidays!

Admin discussion

I've started a discussion at WP:ANI#UtherSRG explaining why I think you no longer can be trusted with advanced permissions. Your input there is welcome. Fram (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Roger that. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
@UtherSRG, I'm really heartened by your response to Hammersoft's comment in that thread. I do, however, agree with Extraordinary Writ: this is too many missteps, too close to one another, for us to let this thread close without action. I ask that you consider handing in the tools, or running a voluntary WP:RRFA. -- asilvering (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
@Asilvering: I don't suppose this could be allowed to wait until the next election, eh? - UtherSRG (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Provided no one certifies a recall petition against you in the next 12 days, it certainly could. My advice would be to avoid making any blocks in the next two weeks, lest someone get itchy fingers. -- asilvering (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Understood. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
@Asilvering: Can you take a look at African pygmy mouse and the IP I reverted. They have a history on this article and I've previously blocked them for similar edits. Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
I lifted that one, it's just the one IP and we could handle that with blocks if necessary. If they come back I can pblock them from main and see if we can drive them to a talk page. It's possible they have no idea why their edits keep disappearing. -- asilvering (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Ok, makes sense. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Actually, I hadn't checked before, but I'd previously blocked them twice, and they have several warnings. I don't know that they can be driven to a talk page. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Part of avoiding bad blocks is doing one's best to avoid that kind of assumption. -- asilvering (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
So, other than having others do the successive blocks, how does one bring IPs like this into the fold of the community? - UtherSRG (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
I mean, sometimes we can't. But in the case of a really stable IP who keeps trying to make the same changes that aren't obviously vandalism, I want to try to get them into a conversation with them and see if we can't convert them to at least middling-helpful editors. -- asilvering (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Will you engage them on their talk page or on the article's? You can see that others have given warnings on their talk page. How do you otherwise get them into a conversation? - UtherSRG (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
p-blocks from main are your friend. And I feel less bad about setting them for a longer time, since affected editors can still use edit requests if they get caught in one after the IP has cycled. -- asilvering (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
I feel that, but I won't do it since I'm not doing any blocks these days, eh? Given the current state of the IP, will you put the p-block in? - UtherSRG (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
If they come back again soon, let me know and I can handle it. But really, someone who only needs to be reverted once every few months is doing pretty well, all things considered. -- asilvering (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
@Asilvering: They are back at African pygmy mouse. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Assuming that Ndndmsks is the IP, this makes 3 reverts in 2 weeks on this one article. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
This is really quite a strange obsession. Blocked for 6 months. -- asilvering (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Today's protection of Pygmy rabbit

Okay, super quick question - I trust that Recon Rabbit is ultimately in the right as far as the taxonomy goes, but the USFWS (as an Alaskan, I trust the FWS over my own flesh and blood) still has these listed as a member of Brachylagus , as does stuff like GBIF, so the IP's edits aren't vandal like in the slightest & I'm happy to describe this as a ROTM content dispute. Similarly, WP:MAMMALS currently says that we typically only override the MWS automatically when the MDD and IUCN agree - and the IUCN uses the old name (though of course that practice could have been changed, not documented, and I love overriding even Wikiproject guidelines via the consensus of modern, quality, secondary sources!).

With that in mind, I'm curious as to why you thought protecting the page is OK under WP:INVOLVED , given that you have reverted the IP editor several times - and cited those reverts as the basis for your protection? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 17:23, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I protected as 1) this is an IP hopper who has 2) ignored all edit summaries and 3) has had plenty of info provided such as at User_talk:2605:59C0:20C0:3E08:3D50:E0ED:6688:5BD0 and 4) no user has stepped forward to support the IP's edits and 5) other edits by this IP hopper have been reverted by more than just Recon Rabbit. The IP hopper's non-taxonomy edits seem sound, so I didn't think having another admin needed to step in to do something like a p-block. My hope with the protection is to get the IP to the talk page in some manner, whether that's because they go there directly, or by going to a help desk or some form, or by requesting removal of protection. I find it very difficult to consider what people think about my admin actions vice providing stability to an article. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Okay, I understand that - but you say you want to drive somebody to the talkpage. Why cannot you not do that yourself? And then, if they don't respond, go to WP:RFPP or WP:AN3 to ask for either page protection or a partial block? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 20:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
If an IP hopper isn't going to pay attention to the warnings on their talk page (because they hop and won't see notifications), nor to the edit summaries, I have no expectation that they will go look at the talk page without something forcing them to do something other than continue editing the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi Uther. It brings me no pleasure to do this, but please see WP:AN § Proposed temporary adminning restriction on UtherSRG. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 17:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
But you've just been recalled for making WP:INVOLVED actions. What are you doing?! -- asilvering (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
This is some next level Be bold stuff right here. fanfanboy (blocktalk) 16:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
I was considering requesting page protection for pygmy rabbit around the time of the third Brachylagus reversion. The genus change was recommended in 2022, and IUCN doesn't update taxonomy (as far as I have seen) without creating an entirely new evaluation. GBIF provides a species treatment that comes directly from Handbook of the Mammals of the World vol.6, which was published in 2016. I believe FWS gets their taxonomic information from ITIS, which doesn't refer to anything newer than 2018. NatureServe published a 2024 evaluation that used Sylvilagus. I understand that these good-faith changes probably would not warrant semi-protection (maybe for a week?), but 3 days ago it felt like something was due if IP editors were not using talk pages. Stated simply: the pygmy rabbit is undergoing some taxonomic confusion, and because it is a more visible species, there is back-and-forth. I tend to favor more recent sources but will not touch the "List of" articles that reflect a solid point in time (where IUCN and MDD definitively agree). Cape hare is in a similar taxonomically annoying place for completely different reasons. -- Reconrabbit 18:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
@Reconrabbit Full sympathies on the fact that the sources haven't come to a solid consensus yet on the matter! That definately doesn't make article writing any fun. Quick question, though - you'd have put a summary of the dispute and your reasoning for updating the taxonomy on the talkpage before asking for page protection, right? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 19:23, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
I would create a new section on the talk page to try and address the IP editors' concerns, similar to what Uther did at Talk:European mole, right? Though I thought for sure I did that, it was actually an unrelated concern. -- Reconrabbit 19:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Well, UtherSRG created no talkpage discussions on that article, so no, I would not advise acting as he did.
Though thank you for the link to that article - I note that UtherSRG got into a content dispute with a different IP who was trying to add sources to an article on an article on which he is a top editor and reverting them several times, because they copy-pasted the wrong URL into their citation. (It's painfully obvious that this citation points to this article by Mammal Research and this citation points to this article by Mammalia )
The IP editor eventually figured this out by themselves, but then made the mistake of assuming that fixing the CN tags in an article meant that they were allowed to remove the main citation needed tag - so UtherSRG rolled back their edit and blocked them for an entire year.
Uther SRG, I did not start the recall petition against you. I did not sign it. I have tried to give you every chance to course correct, even so far as advocating for you to be given extra time - but enough is enough, and no-warning blocking somebody for a year because they removed a citation needed tag after they fixed the identified citation-needed tag sentences is beyond the pale.
Please undo your block and resign.
GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 19:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Okay, it's been three days, and there was only one part of my message you were actually required to respond to - any update on that block? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 16:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Sorry yes, I started looking at it and got called back to real life for a bit. I've unblocked the range. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 17:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Question from Wikieditorial12 (12:56, 23 October 2025)

Note: Wikieditorial12's mentor Như Gây Mê is away.

Is there any way a different photo could be uploaded to the wikipedia page "Wyatt Omsberg"? I will link it here - it is an extremely unflattering photo and would be greatly appreciative if it is replaced and removed entirely. --Wikieditorial12 (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Wyatt Omsberg Wikieditorial12 (talk) 12:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I have restored the image, as have several other editors. Please stop removing it. Do you have a personal connection to the subject? - UtherSRG (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes I do - the subject would like the photo to be removed or replaced with a number of other photos on the internet. Wikieditorial12 (talk) 12:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Question from Discountatime (11:34, 25 October 2025)

Why can't peoples communicate well in pubic websites? --Discountatime (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

That's an age old question. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Guide to temporary accounts

Hello, UtherSRG. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

Editing from a temporary account
  • When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
  • All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
  • A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
  • As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
    • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
    • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

How to enable IP Reveal

Impact for administrators

  • It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
  • It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
  • Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

  • Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
  • Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
  • See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

  • It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Tick Enable the user info card
    • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
  • Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
  • Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
  • The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

Further information and discussion

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Freedom House bombing

Many thanks for your editing of Freedom House bombing. One of the things you did was to remove the titles of most of the participants, which I know to be covered by MOS. However MOS did give some exceptions. When you made those changes, were you aware of the note on the Talk page? If you were then that's fine, but it would be good if you could add something there about why this was changed, otherwise the Talk page item. I guess I could do the same, but obviously I would disagree with the actions taken. ChrysGalley (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I hadn't been aware. I have replied. I maintain my edits. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Many thanks. I would have preferred this be done by consensus but I do understand your perspective. I won't revert anything as such, however there were actually four Jagans in politics/trade unionism at the time and so some of the plain "Jagan" now are ambiguous. I will add "Cheddi" instead. ChrysGalley (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Were those other Jagans mentioned in the article? If not, there is no ambiguity. UtherSRG (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Janet Jagan was mentioned as being at the bombing, so in the news reel issue there was an ambiguity. She left just after her husband arrived. ChrysGalley (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
So those other Jagans are not mentioned, so there is no ambiguity: Cheddi Jagan is named once then referred to as "Jagan" throughout. "Janet Jagan" should be used only when it would be ambiguous to use "Jagan". - UtherSRG (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Furthermore, uses of "he" and "she" can be use as well, when such usage is not ambiguous. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the replies, but I disagree. I put a lot of thought into this issue, since I took a different approach with the Thorne, the trade unionist that I was working on at that same time. I would have preferred this to be a matter for consensus. I shall leave the matter at that.ChrysGalley (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

List of mammals of Pakistan + chital

Hey. Would you please have a look at the recent history of these two pages. In the list, a newcomer keeps on deleting the reference to the iucn red list of the chital and adding bare urls instead. And in the 2nd page, the same and a different newcomer keeps on adding the same bare url in the section on distribution. Cheers, BhagyaMani (talk) 13:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Please file a report at WP:ANI. Thanks. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

November 2025

icon Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Draft:Emily Barkann, you may be blocked from editing. Fram (talk) 10:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Stop icon You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Fram (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain why you would revert this, where the IP was simply bypassing 4 redirects, as "unsourced"? Fram (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Ah no, sorry, you are right on this one. This was based on the discussion on the talk of Pouteria. As you can see on sapote, one of the changes involved this genus. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Luckily it seems that the IP isn't discouraged. But why do these issues with your editing just keep on happening again and again? I mean, I didn't revert this one because the monkey wasn't a "Guianan" squirrel monkey, but while you state "Able was not a squirrel monkey", the source used by the editor talks about TWO monkeys in the same flight, "with Baker, a female squirrel monkey on May 28, 1959,". You don't do that many reverts, but the percentage of dubious or just plain wrong ones is still really excessive. Fram (talk) 08:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Yup, I should have said as well "... and Baker's species is not directly identified in the ref." Do you know which species of squirrel monkey Baker was? At best, it belongs on the squirrel monkey article, and not likely in the lead of that article. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
No idea, but she was from Peru, Miss Baker. Fram (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Gee, already on the squirrel monkey page, with an image. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
And based on the range map there, Guinian isn't near Peru. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Sam Vaknin Nominate Deletion

I suggest to nominate the Sam Vaknin article for deletion:notability? Vaknin is just a small time influencer. Even in the narcissism sphere, there are people like Richard Grannon who are far more impactful and have a far bigger following and have no Wikipedia article! Vaknin's claims to fame and other accomplishments are 100% delusional self-promotion (or outright lies). Good luck finding any citations or evidence to any of his fantasies. Wikipedia should not have this article because it misleads people into believing that this con artist and convicted felon should be taken seriously. It is a disservice to the community. Just my 2 MKD. Plus Vaknin has been attacking Wikipedia since 2006, targeting Jimbo himself and getting banned indefinitely (as user samvak).

Vaknin is a pathological liar and you can be sure that 90% of the article is fake. Why take such a risk and mislead people so badly? There are very few secondary sources, dozens of citation needed, this article is a bad joke. His appearances in the media are not as many as he makes all of us believe. There are thousands of people who have appeared much more in the media and they don't have an article. Example: Richard Grannon whose work on narcissism is far more influential than Vaknin's. Many mental health professionals say that Vaknin's work is harmful and exploitative. Wikipedia is giving him a platform. He even links to his article everywhere. I don't know what else to say to convince all of you that dedicating an article to him is a grave mistake. The article is protected WP:BLPCT, pp extended. Nothing I can do. ~2025-31758-20 (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

So why are you telling me? See the instructions for deletion starting at WP:BEFORE. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Also, see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_November_8#Sam_Vaknin. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Question from AudleyC (22:12, 10 November 2025)

Hello:

I would like to add a dissertation to the article on Frederic Hymen Cowen --AudleyC (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@AudleyC: Who wrote the thesis? - UtherSRG (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Revision Deletion

Hey Ulther,

I need your help deleting my revisions in the following articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_YF120 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_F118 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_F101 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprotor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey as soon as possible.

There are several legitimate reasons why I request to have my revisions deleted

For Pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_YF120 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_F118 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_F101

My edits meet the criteria of: copyright concerns, unreliable sources, & failure to find verifiable sources

For pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprotor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey

My edits were either very minor, poorly informed, or they used obsolete files

Ultimately, I do not wish to be attributed to any of the edits that I made a long time ago. So I do have privacy concerns as well.

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#Changing_visibility_settings, there are be either three or four options to choose from: Delete revision text, Delete edit comment, Delete editor's username or IP, Suppress data from administrators as well as others.

Therefore, I request for all of these options executed, and all of my edits completely expunged from revision history logs. If you can't help me with my request, will you please forward my request to another administrator willing to handle RevisionDelete requests? Overlordchaos1000000 (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I think you would be better off making the request at WP:AN. You should indicate each edit you want revdel'd, and the specific revdel rationale for each edit. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eastern milk snake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Bridges.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Aroma360 page for deletion

Hello UtherSRG,

I appreciate your diligence and editorial integrity when it comes to maintaining Wikipedia’s standards. I genuinely aspire to reach that level of clarity and neutrality in my own contributions someday.

I would welcome any guidance you can offer on how to further strengthen the objectivity of the Aroma360 article. I truly believe the company is notable within the scent marketing space, which is a niche area of sensory branding that many people are not familiar with. My intention is simply to document the topic responsibly.

Since your nomination, I have added several independent citations to support the basic facts in the article. If there are additional steps I can take to make the entry more compliant with Wikipedia’s content policies, sourcing requirements, or tone guidelines, I am open to all suggestions.

Thank you for your time and for helping maintain the integrity of the platform. Pingbruise (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Start by finding at least WP:THREE valid references that each pass WP:SIRS and summarize what those sources say. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi UtherSRG,

I see you reverted my edit where I was trying to add "meaning individuals tend to return to their birthplace to breed" to explain the term "Philopadric", saying it's not needed given that there is a blue link to the Pilopadric page.

However, WP:TECHNICAL states that articles "should also minimise (unexplained) jargon and not take prior knowledge for granted. Articles should be self-contained as much as possible, rather than relying on excessive links to explain unfamiliar concepts". Later, the policy also states "Use jargon and acronyms judiciously. Explain technical terms and expand acronyms when they are first used".

--> This is what I was trying to do with this edit. Could you share your thinking on why you feel this wasn't an instance where the editing guidelines would recommend an explanation? 7804j (talk) 08:03, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

In the first sentence you quoted, it gives an example by linking the word "jargon" and not explaining it, even when saying to minimise unexplained jargon. The prime way to explain jargon is to provide a link. When no link is possible, then all the other option must be examined. While articles should be readable, they should also not attempt to define every aspect of every term. That's the job of a scientific paper or journal or textbook. As an interlinked encyclopedia, it's enough that we provide links where we can, and explain directly when we can't. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
And note the same sentence says we should not rely on excessive links. We want to avoid a WP:SEAOFBLUE. This use of linking the jargon is not excessive; the section you edited is two small paragraphs with a total of two links, including the linked term in question. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Question from Thefreakingsun (21:40, 16 November 2025)

Hello, I see the suggested edits in here. I made this account right now because I am studying a lot of artists in a college class and I noticed there are some articles without a translated version for my native language. Wikipedia has helped me a lot throughout my life and since I am a native european portuguese speaker, I decided I wanted to contribute by making the ocasional article I read more acessible to people who also speak my language.

Is that something I can do? Or do I need to keep to the easy edits? --Thefreakingsun (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

If you are looking to write in Portuguese, then you need to do that at pt-wiki, not en-wiki. Each language wiki has its own particular rules, so you will need to ask over there. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
@Thefreakingsun: Whoops... forgot to ping you. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Questions

Hey! Thanks for being my mentor for Wikipedia. I mainly made an account because the Characters page for The Nightmare Before Christmas has a lot of misinformation, mainly when it comes to canon. I tried to change info that was from a book called Long Live the Pumpkin Queen, which was written roughly 30 years after the film. Someone had replaced official information from the movie with information from the book, even though the book is not canon to the film. Specifically, in the section for characters Sally and Dr. Finkelstein; Sally is officially Finkelstein's creation in the film, whereas in the Pumpkin Queen book, the author, Shea Ernshaw, changes her origins to be of the daughter of two rag doll governors and wrote that Finkelstein kidnapped her. While the book was made by Disney and given the okay by Tim Burton, the book is not canon to the film and is in fact an alternate universe. It's strange and frustrating that my adjustments to replace the book's canon back to the film's canon weren't accepted, because I don't believe that false information was ever given a proper source either. The whole page is in dire need of a overhaul, in my opinion. I'm just sick of official information that was from the film being changed to something that was never made by the original film makers. At the very least, I would want both the film's canon and book's canon to be included in separate paragraphs. There is also a very strange inclusion in the character actors section regarding a stage musical, something that isn't official either, and is in fact fan-made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientistservant (talk • contribs)

@Scientistservant: Firstly, always, please, sign your talk page posts with four tildes (~).
This looks like a content dispute. And it looks like you took your questions to the article's talk page. This is correct. It looks like I was one of the editors who reverted your edits once, as did the ClueBot. You tried a {{Help me}} tag on your talk page, but since you hadn't filled it in correctly, someone else tagged it as "-nq" (no question). I understand your frustration. I left information on how you can better attempt to make the change you want on your talk page when I reverted you (that you made changes that didn't have any or had improper referencing). I don't know whether we care about canon or not in that realm; I deal primarily in the taxonomy realm where we have a different sense of what is acceptable and what isn't. If you are not getting any traction on the article's talk page, look at the top of the talk page. There is a list of WikiProjects the article falls in. You could go to one of those projects that seem active and ask on a talk page there. You can also go to one of the more general help boards like the Teahouse and ask for advise there as well. Good luck. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Common Moorhen Edit

hey! I wanted to know why you removed the edits I made in the common moorhen page. is it because i didn't mention reference links of articles and such? I actually forgot to add them and was planning to. I wanted to say that they aren't known to fly with their chicks. jacanas do it. Shwuxen (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Shwuxen: Yeah sorry, I started to provide info on your talk page, then my laptop decided to reboot, and when it came back I had real world stuff to attend to. You removed sourced content, and added unsourced content. Neither of which are acceptable. When removing sourced content, you should say what the reference says that doesn't support the given assertion. Per WP:BRD, please start a discussion on the article's talk page to gain consensus to remove the content you think is wrong. When adding new content, you should supply the reference at the same time. And your edit summary said something along the lines of "personal observation"; this is not allowed per WP:OR. I hope this helps. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
oh yes! thank you for removing that I appreciate it very much! this was my first time editing and I did read the rules however I think I mistakenly added the personal observation part. I'll make sure to cross check several times before I make any edits or at least discuss about it before editing anything else. thank you! Shwuxen (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Question from ScotsActor (22:03, 21 November 2025)

Hiya

Can you tell me how to correctly add citations or references to an article? I’ve been updating details on my father wiki page and might want to add information as it occurs to me. Many thanks David --ScotsActor (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@ScotsActor: I have added several helpful links to your talk page, including about references and about conflict of interest. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Hiya. Thank you so much, I’ll have a look and will bear the advice in mind. 😊 ScotsActor (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

please i just published an article help me review it, thank you.

review Ojiambo Josephine (talk) 08:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

It is already reviewed. There is no need to post here to ask for a review. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Question from TheGreatestBigC (14:56, 22 November 2025)

Hello! I had a question on college football game summaries. For a home game, should I do the section as "vs [team]" or just "Team" to reflect the CFB schedule template. --TheGreatestBigC (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@TheGreatestBigC: I don't work on sports articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Question from TheGreatestBigC (15:13, 22 November 2025)

Hi again, also, for the stats for players, should I do for example "Player | 15/32, 169 yards, 1 TD" or "Player | 15/32, 169 yards, TD" removing the number one from before the TD. --TheGreatestBigC (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@TheGreatestBigC: Look on the talk page of the articles for a sports-related wikiproject link and ask there what the preferred formatting is. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Question from BoWin23 (11:39, 24 November 2025)

Thank you for the warm welcome! I'm new here and still learning how to edit. --BoWin23 (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@BoWin23: Yes, it seems you have much to learn. Please read the notices others have placed on your user talk page and understand that notability has a very particular meaning on Wikipedia. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Why it is that one monotreme is called a "Platypus" here in English but an "Ornithorhynchus" in the romance languages?

Shouldn't they, for example, be called "Platipo" in Spanish? ~2025-36254-75 (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Ornithorhynchus is the genus, a part of its scientific name. This has nothing to do with Romance languages. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Platypus is called "ornitorrinco" in Spanish, "ornitorinco" in Italian and "ornithorhynque" in French. ~2025-36254-75 (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Oh, ok. I don't know why. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Blanket octopus

May I ask why you reverted my edits to Blanket octopus. I added a source for the number of eggs produced by the female, and tagged the existing citation to the TOLweb, as the archived TOLweb page does not mention anything about the number of eggs, and does not really support the description of the rod or stalk to which the eggs are attached. Donald Albury 19:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

No sorry, I meant to revert the IP and hadn't seen that you'd already fixed it. I've reverted myself now. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. That's what I figured. I know I've done it a time or two. Donald Albury 23:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Another name of Jaguar

In some sources, jaguar is refer as American leopard during early colonization of america. I

May I ask why did you revert my edit Firagin (talk) 08:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

It's not a name that is used, in English, currently. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Redirect listed at Redirects for discussion

Redirects you have created have been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 30 § Template:Infobox name module/attribution until a consensus is reached. BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt • talk • he/they) 03:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check it out. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Pyrocoelia pectoralis has been draftified

Another editor has draftified Pyrocoelia pectoralis, a page that you edited, saying that it was machine-generated. You can see the draft at Draft:Pyrocoelia pectoralis. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Yup. I'm fine with that. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Administrator Elections - Candidate Instructions

Thank you for choosing to run in the December 2025 administrator elections. This bulletin contains some important information about the next stages of the election process.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

  • December 2–3: Housekeeping phase (we are here)
  • December 4–8: Discussion phase
  • December 9–15: SecurePoll voting phase
  • Scrutineering phase

All times are in UTC. The first date in the range starts at 0:00, and the last date in the range ends at 23:59. So for example, the Discussion phase opens on December 4 at 0:00 UTC, and ends on December 8 at 23:59 UTC.

We are currently in the Housekeeping phase. Your candidate subpage will remain closed to questions and discussion. However, this is an excellent opportunity for you to recruit nominators (if you want them) and have them place their nomination statements, and a good time for you to answer the standard three questions, if you have not done so already. We recommend you spend this phase getting your candidate page polished and ready for the next phase.

The discussion phase will take place from December 4–8. Your candidate subpage will open to the public and they will be permitted to discuss you and ask you formal questions, in the same style as a request for adminship (RfA). You are strongly encouraged to be around on those dates to answer the formal questions in a timely manner.

On December 9, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. Anyone can see who has voted, but not who they voted for. You are permitted and encouraged to vote in the election, including voting for yourself. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see your vote total during the election.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which does not have an exact end date, but typically takes a few days to a week. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to the main election page. For candidates that have not been recalled, in order to be granted adminship, you must receive at least 70% support, calculated as support ÷ (support + oppose), and must also have received a minimum of 20 support votes. For candidates that have been recalled, you must receive at least 55% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("'crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation as a candidate, and best of luck.

You're receiving this message because you are a candidate in the December 2025 administrator elections.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Question from Anoymusk (11:41, 3 December 2025)

Hello, so ive used Wikipedia for creating a page first time ever. I am not technically very sound, so with whatever i understood ive tried creating a page for Indian Actor Shahab Ali. --Anoymusk (talk) 11:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Anoymusk: You created a blank draft and submitted that, and then you also put all of the intended contents in your user page. I have moved your user page to the draft location. However, you did not cite any references so I have declined accepting it as an article at this time. Please read the notices on your talk page, including the information they link to to understand what you need to do. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Question from Dave Hoekstra (19:57, 3 December 2025)

Hi, We did a couple of edits yesterday--for example my birthplace is wrong. It is Berwyn, Ill. not Chicago. When will these changes appear? Is my site live? Thanks --Dave Hoekstra (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Dave Hoekstra: It looks like you tried to make a draft article as a subpage to your sandbox. I'll move it to the draft namespace as Draft:Dave Hoekstra and submit it for review. Note, though, that articles must meet the notability policies and that notability has a particular definition in Wikipedia parlance. As such, it may be declined for not meeting those requirements. Also, please read WP:AUTOB and note that writing about yourself is strongly discouraged, though not prohibited. Once the draft is accepted as an article, you will need to follow the restrictions described at WP:COI. Until then, you are free to update the draft. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

New Dave Hoekstra Wikipedia page

Hi, this should be so simple. I added another book I wrote, Disco Demolition with a footnote. I don't understand the message of why it reads like a resume and therefore you may not post it . Wikipedia put all this together through AI. I just want a simple Wiki page for when I die. Thank you! Dave Hoekstra (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk page watcher with a question: How did "Wikipedia put all this together through AI"? Wikipedia not only has no process for generating articles through AI, but actively discourages the practice of using AI for content generation, and routinely deletes content that appears to be AI-generated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Thanks AndyTheGrump! good to know,
I'm a long-time writer in Chicago just want a small page up. Hopefully, we can accomplish this. As stated, I added another book with another footnote. There are at least eight footnotes now, so this is legit. I don't even care about adding a picture.
Thanks! Dave Hoekstra (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
@Dave Hoekstra: The number of references is relatively immaterial. It's the quality of references that matter. (And I note that two of the references are the same as two others, so really you have 6... but again, numbers don't matter much here.) Also, at least one of the references is to your own website. Wikipedia doesn't care about what you have to say about yourself; we care only about what others have said about you. Take a look at WP:NAUTHOR to see what we are looking for for journalists/authors to establish notability. Take a read of WP:GNG for what we require in general for establishing notability. If you can't show references that indicate what is required for either of those, then there isn't any grounds to accept your autobiography as an article. Also, you didn't quite answer Andy's question about your claim of AI. What do you mean here? - UtherSRG (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
I said the AI thing is good to know. Gee. I'm just learning about all this. I was going to donate some $$ but this seems to be going off the rails. 6 references are more than many I see on Wiki. Thanks Dave Hoekstra (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
So you were just confused that the article change formatting and thought that was AI? No, that was me cleaning it up for submission. Like I said, the number of references doesn't matter if they do not establish notability per WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Yes, plenty of articles have fewer than 6 references, because either those few references meet either GNG, or they meet some topic-specific notability criteria laid out, like NAUTHOR. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
There is no possibility of accomplishing anything with the existing draft, or anything resembling it. Wikipedia is not social media, and your wish for a "simple Wiki page for when I die" is of no relevance to the question as to whether we have an article. Start by reading Wikipedia:Autobiography, and if you are still insistent on having an article (which may not necessarily be in your best interest), read the relevant notability criteria and the type of sources you will need to cite to demonstrate such notability. And take note that we need significant coverage in independent sources - passing mentions are not enough, and we don't base content (with very minor exceptions) on the subjects own website etc.
As for "I was going to donate some $$" I seriously hope you aren't suggesting that Wikipedia content can be influenced through donations? We don't work that way. We are unpaid volunteers, and Wikipedia doesn't collect donations anyway. The WikiMedia Foundation does, in a manner that a good few Wikipedia contributors (myself included) consider entirely inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Brochis arcuata

Why did you revert my edit? Quetzal1964 (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

It was a mis-click. I re-reverted. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. Quetzal1964 (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, UtherSRG, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Anniversary UtherSRG 🎉

Hey @UtherSRG. Your wiki edit anniversary was 1 day ago, marking 22 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 08:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)