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.

Crab stubs

Hey, Uther! Thanks a million for finishing emptying out 'crab stubs'. I was kind of shocked to come back and see it empty. I'm thinking about nominating it and Template:crab-stub for deletion, since practically, I think crab stub shouldn't be used due to being too vague (same reason I made 'dendrobranchiata-stub' instead of 'prawn-stub'). But I'm wondering what your thoughts are, since practically, it might be easier for an editor unfamiliar with the jargon to just call something a crab stub and then for that to be recategorized later by someone else. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey thanks! Actually, it's probably good to keep it. First, like you said, it's a very likely stub category. Second, and the whole reason for my attacking this category, is that if the taxo-tree has Brachyura as the lowest ranked stub taxon, the Species Helper tool will choose the crab stub instead of the Brachyura stub, because of the way the Brachyura taxonomy template is set up. Best to leave it as is to catch problems. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@TheTechnician27: And now, Category:Brachyura_stubs is all sorted into the next level. :D Whew! Had I looked ahead in time, I would have seen how many would enf up in Category:Eubrachyura_stubs and stub sorted down another level there.... - UtherSRG (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, dang, nice! Meanwhile, I'm going to have to figure out a way out of the corner I painted myself into when I created 'Squat lobster stubs', meaning Galatheidae, Munididae, and Munidopsidae, and even the separate superfamily Chirostyloidea, but not Porcellanidae. I don't think I'll ever create a taxonomy stub template again without using the actual name of the taxon. 😅 TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Review

Hello Please review my edit in baloch people and correct me if I did something wrong. Also I replayed in the talk section and explained of my edit on the article. Thank for taking time. Balash-Vologases (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not interested in this topic. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Carcinology Barnstar
		For helping maintain so many stub articles on crabs. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.

Dear UtherSRG,

Kindly help me how to remove the tag "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." I'm new in Wikipedia. This tag is discouraging for me. This is my first article. Kindly guide me how to solve this problem . This tag is suggesting a clean up but not clarifying what to be cleaned up. Kindly guide me in this connection. I'll welcome your suggestion and guidance in this connection.

Thanks in advance.

Regards Rohit1976 (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Replied on the draft's talk page. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roman Hrabec, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ITM.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Umberkhind

Hi @UtherSRG, you just added an template to battle of umberkhind. I think it was a mistake, can we please discuss it here? PerspicazHistorian (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It was previously G5'd and looks to be another recreation of the same. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

yes, I am editing to page again. It is a notable battle but was poorly written by previous author. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Please remove the template. Once I edit the page, other editors can review it again.

I saw the discussion, not many participated in it. It is a notable article, can be proved if needed. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The G5 is unrelated to the discussion. They happened coincidentally. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@UtherSRG You are an experienced editor, can you please help me. I don't know what G5 means, can you please attach the link of that discussion or please explain it to me. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WhiteReaperPM

Hi @UtherSRG, Please do not block me. I am not a sockpuppet, I just took the article from the draftspace and started editing it. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a mistake, please check it again. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

i was not aware that the ai chatbot was used by previous author. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)