User talk:UtherSRG

zOMG

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

Cats

sorry for that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevor1881cochran (talk • contribs)

Whetever. Replying to archive this. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Felidae

If Catopuma is separate, then how can its two species also be under Pardofelis? Kitty 56 (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like there are conflicting sources as to which is the valid genus. Rlendog (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to see here. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Munjanes

Hi, you put this user's block request on hold about four days ago, but based only on your contribution history, I don't see that you've done anything related to the hold. Could you please elaborate a bit? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You were the blocking admin. I wanted you to look at the case before I denied the unblock request. I don't think the user has reformed. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah. Next time, please leave a message on my Talk page to let me know. I have the user's page on my watchlist, but every once in a while I miss things (with over 6,000 pages on my watchlist), whereas a post to my talk page alerts me more directly. I don't think the user has reformed either, but my tolerance of confirmed puppets is very small. Arguably, the user knew he was supposed to appeal through WP:UTRS, not through his talk page (or by sending me an e-mail, which he did and has done before). All that said, feel free to deny the request. Thanks for clarifying.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Done a while ago. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Suborders in primate taxoboxes

I noticed your recent revert of the addition of the suborder to the Slow loris article. I've been tempted to bring this point up at WP:Primates. Personally, I'm of the opinion that in *most* cases, the rule you're applying is very appropriate. However, with the academic attention on primates (as the order containing ourselves), I'm personally in favor of making an exception for Primates. As you know, the order Primates is divided two (or sometimes three) ways. The divide is quite distinct, and the emphasis on that divide is ubiquitous in the literature. Believe it or not, most ordinary people do not know that a lemur or loris is not a monkey. For this reason, I feel that *all* primate taxa articles should note the suborder. Again, this is reflected in the literature by the persistent emphasis on the prosimian/simian or strepsirrhine/haplorhine divide.

Your thoughts? If needed, maybe we can bring it up at WP:Primates or one of the higher-level projects to get consensus on a potential exception. – Maky ^« talk » 18:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

You make some good points, @Maky:. There is precedent for the exception. All marsupials have the marsupialia link in the taxobox (though I've noticed that koala has vombatiformes as well, which it doesn't need). I think going to one of the higher-level projects would be better than just on WP:PRIM. We can discuss the decision more broadly, both for a stronger concensus on the standard, and the reasons for when there should be exceptions to the standard. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I've posted it here. Thanks! – Maky ^« talk » 06:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Right on. Good discussion. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Iamsmeofindia Delted

I notice that you deleted page. I am going to ad relevant info.. Please dont delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msbeena (talk • contribs) 05:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Good luck with that. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Scott Ambrose

Hi UtherSRG. I'm not sure I agree with your close of this AfD. It was brought up at AN/I for sockpuppet concerns, but that aside I feel the consensus is quite clearly for keeping the article. One of the four delete votes is the AfD starter, another is an IP who provided essentially no rationale, leave two delete votes against five keep votes. The keep voters provided some sources and mostly valid rationales for keeping the article, meaning that I would have closed this as a keep. What are your thoughts on this? Sam Walton (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The number of !votes in a particular direction don't matter, it's the substance of them that matters. Nor does the AN/I listing matter in this case as the sockpuppet's (if that is indeed the case) !vote was not substantive. I was more swayed by the lack of coverage outside of the subject area, and the minimal coverage it did get within the subject area. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I of course agree that the number of votes doesn't necessarily matter, but your closing feels like a Supervote because a number of keep voters pointed to available sources, either by linking them directly, noting their existence on the French article, or by saying they are available online. Sam Walton (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Why didn't you close it for keep then? It was in the backlog for over a day. :) But seriously, the sources indicated (including on the French article) didn't create notability; to wit, a lack of coverage outside of the subject area. And now I'm repeating myself, so I know we're being unproductive. I don't know what else to say, man. Is there some compelling need to list every athelete who has won a competition? That doesn't seem like it's in keeping with our notability guidelines. This deletion seemed clear cut to me: the delete reasons were clear , the keep reasons failed to carry the article past the notability threshold. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Ha, I may well have done if I had been closing AfDs, I only noticed this one from the ANI thread. I understand your point though, and am happy to leave it as is. Sam Walton (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course you failed to read the comment "Passes WP:GNG - "...has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." And you're not going to admit a mistake either. Nevermind. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I read those. I read all the comments. Those comments assert a perspective. Other comments asserted other perspectives. The comments on the delete side asserted a more accurate assessment of reality. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• We allow articles on people who haven't ever done anything but got their name in the news. The guy won a stage in Le Tour de Filipinas, which is on the UCI calendar. That there be coverage "outside of the subject area", I don't know what that means. Lugnuts, you could consider just rewriting the article and doing it properly, by which I mean with the inclusion of the guy's palmares; there is no law against recreation. I took the liberty of userfying it at User:Lugnuts/Scott Ambrose. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies. I already put it in my sandbox, but I'll blank that. I believed WP:GNG beats any local guidelines, but I guess not. This guy will meet whatever guides the nominator thought it didn't pass anytime now, and then I'll move it straight back. Wasting everyone's time and effort. Power to him and his sock account. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Military history of Buddhist Americans#Requested move 2 April 2015

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Military history of Buddhist Americans#Requested move 2 April 2015. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48