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.

Feedback

Hi @UtherSRG,

Thanks for the feedback. Would love to improve the page Anand Reddi.

What is the best way to make it not "promotional" and consistent with other pages. I have been workshopping for 8 months till it was finally approved.

Always welcome great feedback and thank your editorial support Trex32 (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

My best advise is to step back and stop thinking "What do I want to say about the subject?" and change your thinking to "What would others want to know? What have others said?" - UtherSRG (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Thats a really helpful framing. Thank you so much. Very grateful Trex32 (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Not intentionally!

I just try to be even handed. It happens that sometimes I get a good line to feed from, though. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

They have taken what they perceive as a negotiation to my talk page. Ah well. On Commons I have reported them as suspected sock puppetry. All their uploads there so far have been deleted as copyvios. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Yup. And I've reported as SPI. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense. I'll see if I can add anything. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Where have you filed it? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Davi Santiago de Souza - DSdS is a user here.... - UtherSRG (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Or someone pretending to be him is... - UtherSRG (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Added additional material. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

All socks blocked and globally locked. "Oh dear, what a pity; never mind!" I smelled and heard it as fishy and ducky and CU and detective work did the rest. Loads f cross wiki abuse. I imagine they will be back.

I also suspect a hoax. One of the pictures alleged to be Davi is used as two other people, one on Facebook and the other on LinkedIn. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Yup. And I expect our user pages and talks will get vandalized.... - UtherSRG (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I am looking forward to it. I take a perverse glee annoying spammers. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:59, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I do, too, but I also feels like it pulls me away from having more time to work on other improvements. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Jungle cat revert

You have reverted my edits to Jungle cat, and I do not understand that Not helpful:

• Having the link "Amu Darya River" twice in the same table cell is a case of overlinking.
• Linking the word "Turkestan" to Turkmenistan is redundant.

--Paloi Sciurala (talk｜contribs) 23:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I have pulled back some of the revert and made an additional change. - UtherSRG (talk) 06:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

He's back...

I think we can look forward to delighting in Kekepalmer2001's particular style of editing again. It's clear that this IP is them - rewriting zoological articles in a wordy, waffly manner, while mixing in made-up or overstated stuff. They are not currently blocked - block expired in mid-January - and thus this isn't block evasion, but if they carry on like they have at Strigoi and Cryptoprocta spelea, they may be due the next one soon. Just thought I'd flag it; I'll be keeping an eye out :/ Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm done with them. IP/64 blocked as disruptive for 1 year. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Request at User talk:Gill110951

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Just dropping you a note to flag up my comments on the above user talk page. I think Wikipedia has treated Richard Gill poorly. He is a good faith an knowledgeable editor who tripped over unfamiliarity with the rules and his acknowledged error in straying into advocacy. Could I ask you to look at this again please. Also Yamla. I believe this is someone we should be helping back into editing, with some support and guidance, not someone we should be permanently barring. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

He's had a year and still can't see the COI. We have no place for someone who will run over those kind of rules. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I do not see why his talk page access is revoked, rather than having a discussion with him as to what is expected regarding COI. At the time all this blew up, people were clearly editing his BLP in a very hostile manner. The context there is clearly relevant, as is the context that he was only banned through the intervention of a sock puppet who left a very nasty personal attack on him. Again, I'm asking that we can see that this is a user who needs a better understanding of the rules, yes, but is also very much in good faith. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrative action review regarding an action which you performed. Thank you.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

As you wish. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you contributed to the discussion, UtherSRG, and let us know how you currently view the action by yourself that is being discussed (i. e. your revocation of talkpage access). Bishonen | tålk 19:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC).

Thanks

Dear UtherSRG, I'm very happy things are sorted out, I see that I can be a very bad communicator. BTW we do have some things in common: I love bird watching and mathematics and wikipedia. I'm going to keep my passion for wikipedia and my passion for truth and justice well separate in future. Richard Gill (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question from MarieAnneLee (06:16, 13 February 2025)

Hi Mentor, I feel bullied and I believe I am being threatened from removal from Wikipedia by User:Anupam for my contributions to "Oblates." I am citing Roman Catholic Canon Law and Statutes which which he personally disagrees with and is removing it. He wants to have consensus or his approval on Roman Catholic Law and practices. Canon Law and Statutes are transparent and he cannot change them through consensus or his approval. This is akin to citing the US Constitution and then having someone erase it because they disagree with the existing Constitution.

What should I do? Thanks! --MarieAnneLee (talk) 06:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

You are in the wrong. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Block of User:43.249.196.179 in Jan 2025

Hello UtherSRG,

First off, I don't know how to put this lightly, it is definitely meant to be just feedback on an action you took towards an IP editor last month and not harsh criticism. I apologise if this post ever offends you, I don't mean it to be that way.

While I think the block of User:43.249.196.179 was a good one (they had it incoming from their persistent battleground-style behaviour in the previous weeks), I have one concern: that it seems the actions taken by you against that IP editor (page protections and the block) had been quite WP:INVOLVED ones - as they had been in a bit of a content dispute in articles like Canada goose in New Zealand and Daucus decipiens. WP:INVOLVED says that "in general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved." If anything, these involved admin actions may have only provoked further nasty responses from the IP editor, with more attacks unfolding because of that.

I especially don't agree with the removal of this post from the IP on AN/NAP by you. I think this level of involvement (several page protections + AN post removal + the block) may have went a bit too far, IMO. The poor IP guy just never got a chance to discuss the content dispute when the post they made at AN got reverted so shortly after. I know AN isn't the place to discuss content disputes, but from my 1.5 years experience of lurking around ANI every now and then, it is a common mistake for many newer editors to open a discussion at ANI when they get into a content dispute, so that's what my AGF tells right there. (They could've simply been directed to the right place to discuss it instead of the entire post being removed.)

I'm not asking for the block to be removed or anything like that, but that's just my two cents. Thanks :) — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

You should read the IP's talk page. I got involved well over a month after they started being disruptive. And they weren't a new user - they were a previously registered user who had gotten fed up with WP annd left their account behind and decided to still edit as an IP. They came here with disruptive intent. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)