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)

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Your recent reversion of a deletion in the article Muskox

Hello. Recently I deleted this line from the article Muskox, which you restored by deleting my edit:

Muskoxen were introduced to Svalbard in 1925–26 and 1929, but this population died out in the 1970s.

The reason I did delete it for, is because the exact same information is conveyed in an earlier text just a few sentences above it:

An attempt to introduce the muskox to Svalbard also failed. Seventeen animals were released in 1929 by Adventfjorden on West Spitsbergen. In 1940, the herd numbered 50, but in the 1970s, the whole herd disappeared.

By the way, the sentence I deleted was actually added by me, with the same source (Aulagnier et al, 2008), when I created the subsection "Reintroductions in Eurasia". The other text was added by a different user at a later time, expanding the information about Norway but without caring if some of that was already present and became repeated as a result.

I now realize that the other user didn't add any sources however, even if what they say is compatible with what I've read on the subject. I'm not sure how to proceed, so I won't edit it, but I think the current text should be left as is, with the repetition.--Menah the Great (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah! Sorry, by your edit summary I thought you were deleting it because you thought Svalbad == Iceland, because where you deleted it from also mentioned Iceland. You could check the existing sources and see if they support the other editor's addition, and not that with the appropriate ref tag. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

"Talk:Lost (2004 TV series)/Archive 1" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Talk:Lost (2004 TV series)/Archive 1 has 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/2024 November 15 § Talk:Lost (2004 TV series)/Archive 1 until a consensus is reached. ASUKITE 01:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Question from Mtaibbi on Talk:Nationwide opinion polling for the 2024 United States presidential election (11:06, 15 November 2024)

Hello - my name is Matt Taibbi. I'm a reporter and writing about the decision to remove RCP. I'm trying to understand why it happened. I started covering campaigns in 2004, when it was the only polling aggregator in existence. It has a very strong track record and clearly outperformed the others in this cycle. It lists the error histories of all the polls it uses. Why would this service be removed? --Mtaibbi (talk) 11:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

You should probably ask on that page. I can assist with general questions or with questions about taxonomic articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Kamchatka Brown Bear

There was an extra space between the starting letters so I had removed it but by removing it the apostrophe got switched so I had to change it again Eiehel (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Also I had removed extra space around "It" Eiehel (talk) 13:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, you messed up worse than you fixed, so I'd reverted. I've now done a round of cleanup on it. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Eiehel (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Specifying a type species in a taxobox

You reverted by edits to Clanga (bird) and Haliaeetus with the comment "This is clearly in alignment with Template:Taxobox#Type_species".

We seem to disagree on how to interpret the rules for specifying the type species in the taxobox.

As an example I'll consider the genus Haliaeetus which Marie Jules César Savigny erected in 1809 to accomodate a single species, L'aigle de mer (Haliaeetus nisus). see here and here.

The entry for the genus in Howard and Moore 4th ed Vol 1 page 249 (link requires registration) is:

HALIAEETUS Savigny, 1809 M – Haliaeetus nisis Savigny, 1809; type by monotypy = Falco albicilla Linnaeus, 1758

This indicates the Haliaeetus nisus is now regarded as a junior synonym of Falco albicilla Linnaeus, 1758 (the white-tailed eagle)

We disagree as to whether the "type species" specified in the Taxobox should be Haliaeetus nisus Savigny, 1809 or Falco albicilla Linnaeus, 1758

In the past I would use the senior synonym - ie Falco albicilla but having been alerted to a possible problem by the page history of the Haliaeetus article, I've read the taxobox guide and the ICZN rules and think my previous interpretation was incorrect.

The relevant ICZN rules are Art. 67.1 67A, 67B

Both the taxobox guide and the ICZN give this example:

Astacus marinus Fabricius, 1775, one of the nominal species originally included in the decapod crustacean genus Homarus Weber, 1795, was subsequently designated by Fowler (1912) as the type species of Homarus. The type species is, and should be cited as, Astacus marinus Fabricius, 1775. Astacus marinus Fabricius is currently synonymized with Cancer gammarus Linnaeus, 1758, but the latter is not the type species of Homarus and should not be cited as such. If mention of the type species is required it should be made in some such manner as "Type species Astacus marinus Fabricius, 1775, a junior synonym of Cancer gammarus Linnaeus, 1758"; or "Type species Astacus marinus Fabricius, 1775, now regarded as a synonym of Homarus gammarus (Linnaeus, 1758)".

which seems to clearly indicate that Astacus marinus Fabricius, 1775 and not Cancer gammarus Linnaeus, 1758 should be considered as the type species.

The Taxobox guide contains:

| type_species           = the original name of the species that was initially used to describe the genus, without regard to its present-day nomenclature

which suggest to me that Wikipedia is following the convention used by the ICZN.

Am I missing something? Thanks - Aa77zz (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Aa77zz: Yes. You are putting lots of data into the field. The field should only be the original name of the species that was initially used to describe the genus, without regard to its present-day nomenclature. Nothing more, nothing less. What, in the guidance, do you think permits or expects something different than just a species name, linked to the current article that name is synonymized to? No explanations in the field. Explanations are for the body of the article. So, for the Haliaeetus specific, which is the name of the species that was used at the time? It can't be H. nisus as Savigny created that term, and Falco albicilla was the original name of that taxon. H. nisus isn't even listed as a synonym for H. albicilla at white-tailed eagle! - UtherSRG (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

If we are going to put more in that field, then we should return to what we'd done way back in the early days of taxoboxen. We should list the type species in this format:

Haliaeetus nisis Savigny, 1809 (= Falco albicilla Linnaeus, 1758)

This is what we originally did to show what was used. At some point, the latter portion was used. Now we want to swap to only the former portion? That's double wrong. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

unconstructive Edits

Hi Hope you don't mind me asking this here, kindly can you check the edits that Storm infantry's user are doing. He/She constantly change the content of articles like Talpur dynasty without adequately explaining why. Balash-Vologases (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked you both for 3 days for edit warring. Next time, please remember WP:BRD. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)