Jump to content

User talk:UtherSRG

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Email this user
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:Utherbot)


zOMG

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

WikiProject Mammals Notice Board

[edit]

Happy holidays!

[edit]

Padshah UtherSRG 2024

[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

Question from Lyubomira95 (07:42, 23 August 2024)

[edit]

Can you tell me if everything is ok in the one I created Article --Lyubomira95 (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For biographies of living people, every asserted fact needs to have a reference that passes WP:SIRS. If the fact isn't supported by such a reference, it must be removed. Your draft has many such facts. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOUTSOCK block of Atlas Þə Biologist

[edit]

I am now curious, why was the account blocked for only one month, but the IP blocked for 3 years? I'm interested in learning about how block lengths are decided, is there a specific reason why the IP (well, technically the /64) was blocked for that long? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's really now set-in-stone rules or even set-in-mud guidance. I've looked at many IP and non-IP blocks over the years, and I haven't made heads or tails of it, other than generally escalating. In this case, I suspect the user would continue loutsocking when they can, so gave the most indef equivalent for the IP. I also expect the non-IP will soon escalate to indef. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the explanation! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-willing editor

[edit]

What can be done if an editor claims that something is not a good source, and when you ask him what can be done to make sure that the source is WP:RS he claims that no matter the result of RfC, no matter the result of RS noticeboard, nothing will make the source good enough to change his POV. He also was invited to dispute resolution once, but he ignored it and showed no will for discussion. I am doing my best, asking him what can i do to make sure sources are ok, but he doesn't care and says even if i have 10 sources, his 1 is better because it's "consensus in scholarship" even though i provided him with academic sources that clearly disagree. Don't know what can i do Setxkbmap (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can bring this up on an admin noticeboard. The general one is WP:AN. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! Setxkbmap (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of a deleted article

[edit]

I see that you restored the article Legal career of Keir Starmer after I had deleted it, not only without following the accepted practice of consulting an administrator before reverting their action, but without even informing me that you had done so. Why was that? JBW (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]