User talk:UtherSRG#Question

{{Tmbox

| type = notice

| image = File:Ambox notice.png

| text =

Hey dude how you doing? By the way I am using Wikipedia on mobile and I am not able to use the visual editor on the mobile app ( however I can use it on the website in chrome).

Is there a way to use the visual editor on the mobile app? Thank you !!! --The Mentor 777 (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think so. I don't know though since I never use the mobile app. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Good day! PurpleSerpent from the DDO Wiki here - you might already have seen this, but User:191.95.48.8 (currently blocked for repeatedly posting unsubstantiated Greek and Latin etymology on pages about insects and soforth) recently saw fit to try and bother you on your talk page over there.

I've since deleted this edit, but I feel I should just let you know that I've done my best on their talk page on the DDO Wiki to explain why they are now blocked on both sites, and it might be worth directing them to read that explanation if the issue continues, as the problem seems to have been ongoing for a couple of weeks.

(I am incidentally assuming here that the UtherSRG on the DDO Wiki is in fact the same person as the one on Wikipedia - apologies that you've been dragged into this if this isn't the case.) 131.111.5.201 (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:They were previously told, as another IP, what to do. They have resumed their bad behavior, got blocked again, and are now jumping on multiple Wikis to get attention in an incorrect manner. Thanks for letting me know they jumped there, too. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Reversal of Newbie edits Frederickena and Percnostola. Thank you for flagging problems with my students’ edits to these stubs. We have asked them not to do anymore on the platform. In the meantime can you tell me what degree of confidence you have that generative AI has been used so we can pursue the issue.

Gab Mittagong Gab Mittagong (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:If you are running a class involving Wikipedia, you should contact {{ping|Ian (Wiki Ed)}} to help you set things up in a more formal manner. As for the two articles in question, both were well over 50% AI content according to GPT Zero. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for the reply. My specialisation is in humanity, not science. Therefore, both cases involving biology are hard for me to detect. I will raise this matter with my colleagues. Gab Mittagong (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I reverted another of your student's articles today. While it was not AI written, it was not salvageable. Having your students write in their sandboxes with no one who understands how Wikipedia works, what our standards and acceptable practices are, what the tone of our articles are, or what content fits or doesn't fit into an article guiding them, and then having them slap their creations into the article whole cloth is a recipe for more of their work being reverted very quickly. While what they've written might have been fine as a standalone piece, it was not an article that fits into an encyclopedia. Be that as it may, I don't know how to help you change things for the better. Your focus being on humanities and not science isn't even as much of an issue as your lack of knowledge of Wikipedia itself, judging by your 24 total edits. Again, I urge you to contact Ian to help you. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

What's the reason for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hafferia&diff=1292818158&oldid=1292806402 this revert]? ~Kvng (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:It needs so much work to conform with how our species articles are written and formatted. It has plenty of good material, but it needs to be teased out. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::But the new version has so much more information and seems to be well cited. I don't work on these subjects but the new version looks like a much better place to continue from. ~Kvng (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::I strongly agree with Kvng's opinion. I think the writing style of the new version is fine. If you say you want to refine the content, then why not let everyone see the better version? If you don't understand this species, please don't delete the excellent content at will, okay? Gary Haisfield (talk) 08:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The article was written about the three species in the genus. The article needs to be about the genus itself. Please read a dozen bird genus articles to see how they are put together before. This wasn't a correctly constructed article. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Of course, I have read the articles about the bird genus. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here. If the relevant species of this genus aren't mentioned, how could we understand the genus itself? So, can you tell from just this one reply that you don't know I haven't read a dozen article about the bird genus? Gary Haisfield (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Isn't Wikipedia a platform where everyone can participate in editing? If there are any issues, why not contact the editor to make corrections together instead of deleting directly? If all entries were handled this way, then what would people rely on in the future to learn about this species? Since someone has organized the research related to this species, why not offer the useful suggestions for revision you think of instead of deleting all the content directly? May I ask if you did this really because there was a problem with the article or was there some other reason? Gary Haisfield (talk) 09:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:This is the fourth article he/she deleted. I can see it is right to delete the articles if the writer is suspiciously using AI. What I don't understand and disagree with is deleting the article as you claimed has "plenty of good material“. How other editors tease out the article if you delete it all? Gab Mittagong (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::Do understand the difference between "deleted" and "reverted" When an article is deleted, only admins can see it or its history. When an article is reverted to a previous version, the history of the edits are visible via the article's History tab. Nothing is lost. Users can go to the history and find good information with which to add to the article in an appropriate manner. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I think there is no difference between "Reverted" and "Deleted". The operation you performed did not extract any valuable content from this entry, nor did it provide any useful suggestions. Moreover, I don't believe this is the correct way to handle good content. In the edit history, I saw others' optimizations and modifications to this version, but I only saw that you simply "Reverted" it. How is this different from "Deleting" and negating the efforts of others? Gary Haisfield (talk) 10:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I just said: If I deleted the article, you wouldn't be able to see that at all. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

As a new editor on Wikipedia, especially for the bird section, I know my work still needs a lot of revision to do. And there are some other editors who did that after I posted my work. Thanks to them.

But for the Hafferia Genus, I almost viewed all the academic resources I could find online. There are NO specific resources about the Genus, except the Taxonomy revision. Almost all the academic research points to a specific species before the reclassification, which is the Sooty bird. So, what I can do is to try to summarize the characteristics of the entire genus using some academic resources related to specific species. Since I am not an expert in this field, I cannot use the characteristics of the Sooty bird to cover the entire genus. Therefore, the description of the three specific species may be more than the entire genus.

We do have a word count for this assignment. Since there are only a few academic articles, as for the structure, I don't think it's a big problem for readers to see some information on three specific species on the Genus page. This article is roughly equivalent to a literature review. If you suspect that I have any content involving AI or misscite, please show me a report from a professional detection organization, such as Turnitin. I will revise it carefully. MintyLatté (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:What you wrote was wonderful - for a stand alone article. It's not in keeping with how our encyclopedia articles are written. I will try to get back to this subject this weekend, when I have time, to tease it into shape, putting only genus info in the genus article, and updating the species articles with the relevant information you provided for them. Wikipedia doesn't care about your academic assignment. You can get graded on what is in your sandbox. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'm looking forward to the updated content you have revised. Gary Haisfield (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::I understand your contribution to Wiki and your high standards for encyclopedic writing. If you think my content is not up to par, perhaps you should re-find and review the literature and summarize them again.

::If you want to use the relevant information I provided for them, I think re-edit based on my edits would be more reasonable to do so, as some other editors have already done. It is not appropriate to just undo my content and use my academic work again.

::Thank you! MintyLatté (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Your efforts are noted in the article's history. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Is it only noted in the article's history section? Is this fair? Gary Haisfield (talk) 11:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Again, I don't work in this subject area but we have unsolicited comments from three others that do (the comments from inexperienced editors that are here to improve the encyclopedia do get full weight IMO). We seem to have a tentative consensus to retain the new material so I have reversed your revert. If you think this is not right, please provide us more detail about your assertion that this doesn't {{tq|conform with how our species articles are written and formatted}} and why exactly improving it from here is more difficult than reverting and improving from there. ~Kvng (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

My athlete page Barry Nobles was deleted and I can’t seem to find out why. I was not the creator of this page, and I am hoping to have it restored. When I search this page, it keeps getting redirected to a different athletes page. I am having a difficult time resolving this issue. --Bikeman2000 (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)