User talk:UtherSRG

zOMG

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

Please undelete

AfD discussions are supposed to last a week: please undelete Gilbert Affleck (disambiguation) and Thomas Ainsworth (disambiguation) which you have deleted within 8 hours of their nomination at AfD, to allow other editors to contribute. Thanks. PamD 12:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

These were eligible for WP:CSD#G14 deletion. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I also nominated Longwan (disambiguation) for G14, which had been deproded before. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Got it. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

These do not qualify for WP:G14, they disambiguate more than one extant page. For Gilbert Affleck, the pages at the time of deletion were Gilbert Affleck, Affleck baronets, and Suffolk Militia. For Thomas Ainsworth, they are Thomas Ainsworth, Ainsworth baronets, Gentleman Jack (TV series), Ron Silver, and The Raiders (1952 film). For Longwan (disambiguation), they are Longwan District, Qianjiang, Hubei, and Xiong County. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

No, only one extant page is disambiguated. The other entries are non-extant, with an explanatory note that has an extant link. That is not the same. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Extant means "still in existence", that is "not deleted". The pages that I list are extant. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Those pages are not being disambiguated; they are further information pages. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes they are. Per WP:DABRL, it is okay to include red links on disambiguation pages. WP:DABMENTION is also relevant guidance here: so long as there is discussion of the subject on a page, it is okay to include that page as a disambiguation entry. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Both of those are fine... for a dab page that dabs more than one extant article. These did not do that. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you are understanding me. The following needs to be disambiguated for people with the name "Gilbert Affleck": (1) Gilbert Affleck, (2) the baronets which listed at Affleck baronets, and (3) the "Lt-Col of the Risbridge Battalion", which is discussed at Suffolk Militia. That means there are three extant pages that contain information on various people named "Gilbert Affleck", and are valid entries per WP:DABRL and/or WP:DABMENTION. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm understanding you just fine. I disagree. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Gilbert Affleck (disambiguation)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gilbert Affleck (disambiguation). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Acknowledged. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Thomas Ainsworth (disambiguation)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Thomas Ainsworth (disambiguation). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Acknowledged. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Longwan (disambiguation)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Longwan (disambiguation). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Acknowledged. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Insta (disambiguation)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Insta (disambiguation). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Acknowledged. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Machan Taylor Draft Page

Hello @UtherSRG; I'm writing to ask that you please, kindly reconsider "refunding" (restoring) the Machan Taylor draft page (https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Draft:Machan_Taylor). Is there any way I can please appeal this? I've looked at the website biography cited for a copyright violation: I don't understand what could be so similar to the page I had worked on for some time other than some of the chronology of her life events (which is inevitable - it's a biography). If I ever used any content from her biography I would only post it in quotations. That said, I avoid using any subject's self-published biographies unless, for some reason (in the case of some minor detail), a small quotation or reference from it served a legitimate purpose. It seems to me that the decision to not "refund" the article implies the article is practically copied and pasted from the biography: unless another editor did that and I wasn't aware of that edit, I haven't and wasn't aware of this. I've scanned the biography you cited and it doesn't even read like a Wikipedia article. Can you please reconsider reposting the draft so I can add the resources I've collected over the last few months and to continue editing and if necessary, reverse edits that caused these copyright concerns? I'd appreciate your help or some feedback on how I can further appeal this if you disagree that this is a misunderstanding. Thank you. 1987atomheartbrother (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC) 1987atomheartbrother (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

You didn't request restoration of the draft. You requested restoration of the article. Looking now, I see the draft is fine. I'll update your request to be for the draft and not the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, @UtherSRG. I will work diligently to improve the draft and submitted ASAP. I will invest time in this between tonight and the weekend. I truly appreciate the help. 1987atomheartbrother (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)