I, Hojimachong, hereby award UtherSRG A completely gratuitous zOMG barnstar, for being 110% awesome. Plus 1. --Hojimachongtalk
WikiProject Mammals Notice Board
In line with the recent upgrades to WikiProject Mammals a bulletin board has been created to keep all members up to date with the Project, consider it similar to the Wikipedia Signpost however focused on WikiProject Mammals. I would ask that you add this page to your watchlist in order to get the latest information about WikiProject Mammals. Kind Regards
— 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.
So you delete my draft article for no good reason.
Hi UtherSRG, hope you're well! I've been working on various Aquilegia species and noticed we have an article for A. truncata, where most of the recent edits are yours.
As A. truncata is currently treated as a variety of A. formosa by most authorities (Kew, WFO, Tropicos), I propose moving this to a new page Aquilegia formosa var. truncata, and changing the existing page to a redirect. What do you think?
NB. Generally all the Aquilegia articles (including for the genus itself) have followed Kew's opinion, so this would be the treatment most consistent with previous work. There's already the occasional page for individual varieties e.g. Aquilegia micrantha var. grahamii. But I'm not a botanist, and happy to hear counterarguments.
I may have the most edits on it, but if you look they are all just cleanup-type edits, not content edits. Yes, if the move is in alignment with the rest of the the articles for that genus, then yes, I would support the move. @Plantdrew: is whom I usually defer botany decisions to, so you may want to check with them as well. - UtherSRG(talk)14:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I've made the move (my first!). @Plantdrew:, happy to be overruled by you if you see fit.
@Jacketpocket:, good catch. In general, we're not assuming that varieties and subspecies should have stand-alone articles; they can usually be covered in articles for the species (and we have lots of species stubs that need expansion). Since this article was in decent shape before you worked on it, and you improved it further it's fine to keep it as a stand-alone article. But in the future if you come across a "species" article that isn't accepted as a species, but is accepted as a variety or subspecies, consider just redirecting/merging it to the accepted species (especially consider doing this if it a stub with just a couple sentences). Plantdrew (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Plantdrew, that makes sense, and is what I'd usually do - as you say, it's just because this one was quite fleshed out already that I figured it should stay as a standalone article. Cheers for your help! Jacketpocket (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You supplied no references in your edit. Your formatting was also not in alignment to the rest of the article, nor to other similar articles. - UtherSRG(talk)11:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I previously edited under the usernames Scorpions13256 and Scorpions1325, but I left because my mental health was making me say and believe things incompatible with being a Wikipedia editor. I returned earlier this month (with permission) after I realized that I was no longer at risk of saying anything dumb or bigoted. Thankfully, I am now back to reality.
If you look at my advanced permissions on my previous accounts, you can see that I was an AFC reviewer, a page mover, a pending changes reviewer, a rollbacker, and an autowikibrowser user. I gave them up when I scrambled the passwords to my account. You can restore them if you'd like, or you can notify WP:AN if you feel uncomfortable. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Also, can we add Cynognathus to the fray? I mean, it is technically the largest member of its clade, the Cynognathia. And also, can Tusoteuthis and Enchoteuthis of the Enchoteuthinae subfamily be added, too? Lucasblakeman0 (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. I do not take review requests. Please wait your turn. There are 1900+ drafts needing review. Why do you think yours should jump to the front of the list? - UtherSRG(talk)15:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You requested restoration. I declined it. You recreated it anyway. I deleted it. Twice. I've now salted the space. Please move on to another subject. - UtherSRG(talk)23:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't why you are frustrating all my efforts and contributions on Wikipedia after the draft have been improved on. Please restore my draft and guide me on how to improve more on the draft which is reaching a year now. Just for this year, I have added additional verifiable, reliable and third-party independent sources to support notability and work on the perspective to avoid being referred to as a promotion content — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwachinazo1 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nwachinazo1: Nothing prevents you from creating a new draft as a subpage of your userspace. If the subject is capable of being improved upon, as you say, then you should be able to create a new draft from scratch from newer and better sources. BD2412T00:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
