User talk:VegaDark

Thank you for visiting my talk page. I will use my best judgment as to if I should reply to comments here, on your talk page, or somewhere else. Occasionally I may dual reply both here and on your talk page. Please place new sections at the bottom of the page and sign all your comments by placing 4 tildes (~~~~) in a row. I will archive my talk page every 100 topics.

Archived Discussions
Archive 1 - December 13, 2005 - November 28, 2006
Archive 2 - November 28, 2006 - May 20, 2007
Archive 3 - May 20, 2007 - March 20, 2008
Archive 4 - March 20, 2008 - September 7, 2008
Archive 5 - September 7, 2008 - October 26, 2009
Archive 6 - October 26, 2009 - November 8, 2016
Archive 7 - November 8, 2016 - December 3, 2021

Category:Wikipedians of Canadian descent

Is there any reason you deleted the newly created Category:Wikipedians of Canadian descent. Is there any reason that you did not notify me of this deletion? Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• I sometimes delete upwards of 50-100 empty categories in a given day, all manually. I don't notify the creators of empty categories I delete, or for any categories I speedy delete for that matter, except occasionally G4 deletions. I don't know of any other user that notifies after a C1 deletion either. VegaDark (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Welcome back

I just decided to take a look at your contribs on the off-chance that you had returned, and lo and behold you have. I saw your contribs about wanting to be caught up about what you missed. If you still care about user categories, I would take a look at all of my Wikipedia space (and Wikipedia talk space) edits since you have been gone (I haven't been extremely active, so that won't be as burdensome as it might have originally sounded). Black Falcon has been gone as well, and with the absence of you two it seems like the climate of user categories has been changing somewhat. It would have be nice to see your .02 on some of the nominations I have made in the past couple months. VegaDark (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome back : )

As for the rest, the more things change, the more they stay the same : )

Sorry to hear that BF isn't around.

I'm still slooowly getting involved here. There is a lot to catch up on. (And it all happens in real time. What fun : )

Anyway, thanks again, and you'll assuredly see me around : )

Oh, and just a reminder, I have long ago requested that you and several others please keep me updated with friendly notices for anything you think I might be interested in. That especially includes things related to policy/process/guidelines/etc., anything related to categories, any subject topic I have a userbox for, or am in a WikiProject of, and of course, most anything else within reason, just please use your best discernment : )

I consider such "friendly notices", and not inappropriate canvassing. Particularly since I have clearly asked. And I truly appreciate it. (Wikipedia is a big place : )

Anyway, just a reminder : )

Thanks again : ) - jc37 16:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Pease

Hi there, you blocked the creation of Jonathan Pease back in June 2008 after it was CSD:A7'd quite a few times. It's been recreated at Jonathan pease, and whilst it's still an awfully formatted article and needs a lot of work, I think he now passes the notability requirements. Could you compare the current article to the old ones, and if you think it's appropriate, unblock the correct capitalisation and move the article. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Done. VegaDark (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Tax revolt in critical care at a hospital near you

Hello fellow WikiProject Oregon member, once again time for the Collaboration of the Week in the land of Oregon. As always, thank you to those who helped out the last few weeks improving List of films shot in Oregon and Jim Paxson. This week we have by request Oregon tax revolt and not by request, the annual Hospital creation drive. For the later, I have laid out some sources here, and the remaining red links are all over the state, so you can find one near you! As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. May the wind always be beneath your wings. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Minnesota Vikings starting quarterbacks/archive1

Hello, VegaDark. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Minnesota Vikings starting quarterbacks/archive1.
Message added 00:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

– PeeJay 00:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding deleted article titled, "Father Michael Manning"

Hi, I am contacting you regarding the article titled "Father Michael Manning" that was deleted back in 2008. I would like to make the necessary changes and add reliable resources that are needed and re-create this article. I realize that I am supposed to contact you since you were the deleting editor. Feedback?

Thank you, Mirandaemde (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey,

Thank you for your quick response and for your comments. I will work on creating a page titled "Michael Manning (priest/or religious figure). Is there any way I could have you review the article before I post it to receive your feedback? I know there are alot of guidelines for Wikipedia articles and I just want to be sure this article remains in good standing.

Thanks again. Mirandaemde (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok sounds great! I will do that and post the article to my userpage first. It may be more than a few days, so I will let you know when it is up and maybe you can check it out when you return. Thanks! Mirandaemde (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I posted an article for Father Michael Manning (priest) under my username Miranda Emde. Can you view it? And, if so, would you mind giving me your feedback. I realize it is probably a bit short... thank you for your assistance!Mirandaemde (talk) 05:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Miranda Emde

Ok, it's under Mirandaemde/Father Michael Manning (priest) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirandaemde (talk • contribs) 05:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, The above mentioned article is in progress as I have been working on it with the help of some other feedback I received. When you have some time I would greatly appreciate your additional comments and feedback. Thanks again. Mirandaemde (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Miranda Emde

Thanks!

Cooooooooooooool! It might survive deletion discussion, this is very promising and positive news!! haha. Thanks VD. So, are you suggesting to move it to main space? And then, I can continue to edit and improve it? Thanks again. Mirandaemde (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Miranda Emde

Hello, VegaDark. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_19#Categories_for_discussion.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

It's sunny out, quick take a picture!

Greetings to WikiProject Oregon folks. It is time again for another installment of as the Collaboration Of The Week Turns. A big thank you to last time’s guest stars who worked on Oregon tax revolt‎ and creating hospital articles, we had 3 DYKs off the hospital articles createdd. This week is the star-studded affair of the Semi-annual Great Oregon Picture Drive, starring VegaDark. You can go out and take a picture, browse through Commons for an existing one, or search for a free one on the Internet, and in some cases remove an old request (or even add a request to an article that has no images). See the bottom of this page for some links to a variety of free sources. Again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Minnesota Vikings head coaches

Hey man, thanks for reviewing List of Minnesota Vikings starting quarterbacks. Without your help, we wouldn't have yet another featured list here! As a follow-up to that list, you may have noticed that I have now nominated List of Minnesota Vikings head coaches for featured list status. I would therefore like to ask you to make a couple of comments about that list, provided that you have enough spare time on your hands. Many thanks. – PeeJay 10:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Moving Page

Hi, What is the easiest way to move the page you have helped me with? It is under my user name but I want to move it to the mainspace now. And, how do the editor comments get removed? I don't think the article is created like an advertisement anymore. Do editors just remove the comments on the page as they see the changes being made? Thank you! Mirandaemde (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Miranda Emde

• I moved it for you. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I've been extremely busy (law school finals) and haven't had much time on Wikipedia lately. VegaDark (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you both, Orangemike and VD for your help. How do the editor comments get removed? See my question above por favor. Thank you so kindly. Mirandaemde (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Miranda Emde

PayLess at Sprouse-Reitz for your G.I. Joe's, brought to you by Troutman's Emporium and Frederick & Nelson

Hello WikiProject Oregon member, and seasons greetings. Here at Collaboration Of The Week we thank you for your efforts making Oregon better, at least on Wikipedia, and hope you are doing better than Joe's. Or, in the eloquent words of some marketing manager for another now defunct Oregon chain, Merry Christmas from PayLess... Merry Chriiiistmaaaasssss!!!

Now that pleasantries have been exchanged, thank you to those who worked on the last two collaborations, the Semi-annual Great Oregon Picture Drive, and Oregon Country Fair and Geoff Petrie. For this edition of the COTW we have Gambling in Oregon and NRHP in Washington County. The hope for the later is to fill in the last few images (5) and then see if we can make it the first NRHP list in Oregon with an article for every entry (need 27). As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

One last time for 2009

Happy New Year to you, you WikiProject Oregon member! Tis the season for one last Collaboration Of The Week to get started this year. Thank you to those who worked on Gambling in Oregon and NRHP in Washington County the last few weeks. For the final COTW of 2009, we have Archiving Article Talk Pages and Mr. Standard TV & Appliance, Bill Schonely. For the archiving, we have a lot of old, stale comments on article talk pages from before 2009 that should be archived away, so that new comments are not added to things that either were addressed or not worth addressing. Personally, I archive anything older than a year. Anyway, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Adios. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Oregon COTW v 3.0.2010ish

Greetings WikiProject Oregon team member. Time for the first new Collaboration Of The Week in 2010. Thank you to those who worked on Bill Schonely and archiving talk pages. For this week, we have Concordia University and the Berry Botanic Garden. Hopefully we can mine the garden’s website before it closes down. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Cheers and stuff. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just Out, COTW does well in new decade

Howdy WikiProject Oregon folks, time again for the latest installment of As the Collaboration Of The Week Turns. Last week was one of the more successful COTWs in recent memory as we really worked hard as a community to improve Concordia University and Berry Botanic Garden. Both are now at least C class articles and nicely illustrated (thanks to Tedder, Finetooth, and Ipoellet). Plus it really was a group effort as we had five different WPORE editors work on the garden and ditto with the school, with some overlap between the two.

Anyway, this week, we have by request the completely unrelated Just Out and Terrell Brandon. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. This message paid for by Fooians against COTW killing taxes. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Oregon COTW and randomness

Greetings fellow WikiProject Oregon member, it is once again time for the Collaboration of the Week (yes, I know they are not actually every week anymore). Thank you to those who helped out the last few weeks improving Terrell Brandon, Just Out, 75th Oregon Legislative Assembly, and all the unreferenced BLPs. This week we have by request Oregon Coast Aquarium and Arvydas Sabonis (maybe the Blazers can sign him as I think he's healthy). Both need more sourcing. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. And remember folks, the only thing we have to fear is death and taxes, unless of course the dingo ate your baby, at which point you may feel the need, the for speed to get away from said dingos, which in turn can lead to a failure to communicate due to the dynamics of sound waves, though at some point hopefully we can all just get along. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Visual edition of the Oregon COTW featuring the Glass Palace

Hello WikiProject Oregon member, time for a new edition of the Collaboration of the Week. Thank you to those who helped out the last few weeks improving Oregon Coast Aquarium and Arvydas Sabonis. Also thank you to those few of you helped with the attempt to celebrate Women's History Month with Barbara Roberts and Ursula K. Le Guin.

This week we have by request the Memorial Coliseum that has been in the news a lot lately, and then one of the more important political figures in our state's history, Douglas McKay. The MC needs some ref work and EL work, and McKay really needs a lot more sourcing. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Former municipalities in Alberta

Hello. Could you please revert your deletion of Category:Former municipalities in Alberta, Category:Former municipalities of Alberta has been moved to that name, it is waiting to be filled with a bot that will move the articles in it. Also, could you please do your research before doing future such deletions by reading the edit history, or the what links here? Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hmm, I did look at the edit history but must have missed the bot part. People like to revert C1 tagging for categories recently created by them to "give it a chance" to fill, which doesn't exempt it from C1, and I thought this was such a case. Restored now. I guess my question now is why a bot is taking more than 4 days to move articles? VegaDark (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't know. The bot log says its in a cooldown period, my guess is that it won't work on categories that have been edited in the past couple of days. 117Avenue (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_27#Wikipedia_books

Following the horribly chaos of April 7, I've resubmitted things for discussion. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It Takes a Rim Village - Oregon COTW

Greetings WikiProject Oregon member, time for the next edition of the Collaboration of the Week. Thanks to those who assisted in improving a few articles over the last month. For May Day edition of the COTW (in Wikipedia time its May already), we have by request Rim Village Historic District and the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry (AKA OMSI). Rim Village just needs some refinement to get to GA, while OMSI needs a lot of work in general. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Adios (on May 5th that is). Aboutmovies (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Dating adoption offers

The purpose of dating adoption offers is quite simple: several Wikipedians, including myself, expressed a desire at WT:ADOPT to be able to counter-offer adoption to users who had recently received offers, particularly if they felt they were better suited to that user's needs. However, the majority of pages in Category:Wikipedians having been offered adoption are inactive users who simply have not logged on since their adoption offer was made, sometimes for a period of several years. This made effective use of the category almost impossible.

I volunteered to modify the template slightly to introduce a date parameter, and to create the new categories, into which I have now sorted the entire backlog of adoption offers. These categories show adoption offers by month, so that Wikipedians can select the newest offers to investigate further. While I have placed notices encouraging editors to date their offers, I have also requested that SmackBot automatically dates offers for those who forget. I hope this answers your question. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 15:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Benny Beaver and AgntOrange

Would you have a look at the Benny Beaver article? AgntOrange is back, and has made a lot of changes and additions that really detract from the topic. Specifically, his Historical Connection section goes into minute detail about the fur trade in Oregon, which is unecessary in an article about a university mascot. He has even added a picture of Abraham Lincoln, presumably because he wore a beaver hat.

I have reverted his changes twice, but he has decided edit warring is the way to go, so I would appreciate your input before I revert again. If you think I am off-base on this, I will let it drop, but I think his changes are not germain to the topic, and really damage what was an informative article.--Edgewise (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Indian-politician-photo

Can you please restore the Category:Indian-politician-photo since now this category is not empty. --Sreejith K (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• The name of that category is extremely suspect. I'd recommend not restoring, and just create a new, properly named category. Something like Category: Photographs of Indian politicians. If you insist on using this name, however, feel free to just re-create the category. VegaDark (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. That category was part of {{Non-free Indian-politician-photo}} and not which was used by itself. I have modified the template accordingly. I hope now it looks fine. --Sreejith K (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Portland Parks Photo Blitz!

	<font=3> Want something to do this weekend? I propose a WikiProject Oregon weekend photo blitz! Let's try to fill up the List of parks in Portland, Oregon as much as possible by getting out and taking our own pictures or finding ones online that can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The pictures uploaded will not only benefit the aforementioned list, but they will be used for future articles about specific parks and will fill up the Parks in Portland category over at Commons. Get your cameras ready! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Very awesome

• This

Congratulations and all that.

(Right now I'm thinking of that moment that Sam Seaborn met with his friend who just passed the bar and all that followed. May you never encounter such comedy drama lol)

Oh, and here's your briefcase (or at least an image of one : )

Enjoy : ) - jc37 07:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks! Except my briefcase isn't showing up. Probably because I don't have a job yet. LOL! (Ok, I fixed it...) VegaDark (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• And here I was trying to figure out how I got the interwiki wrong. lol - jc37 07:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to say for the record I'm innocent (nod) I truly am, officer. I never was anywhere near that part of town, and I don't even own a van : ) - jc37 07:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, congratulations! :) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Congrats from me as well. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks guys! VegaDark (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Congrats!! --Kbdank71 16:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:User C-N

I beg my pardon :) I didn't know, that such Categories had been deleted before. Grain (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• It's no problem, you created it under a name variation that hadn't been CfD'd before so you didn't have a way of knowing. It's the people who recreate categories under the same exact name, ignoring the deletion history, that get to me (which happens a lot more often than you might think!). VegaDark (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian WikiElves

You are aware you deleted a category of which 78 users belong? I am not sure about a previous discussion, since it was not linked, but I request this category page be recreated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• I deleted the category per G4 as recreation of previously deleted content. If you look at the page's deletion history, you will in fact find a link to the deletion discussion when it was first deleted. To make it easier, I'll also link it here. The page should not be recreated without first undergoing a deletion review resulting in overturn. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • It was recreated because it's previous location, Category:Wikipedian WikiElfs, was a misspell. So, I created it and an admin with a bot, moved all the people over. Took 24 hours to move. Neither the admin nor myself seen the pink box saying it had previously been deleted and I really don't think that should be held against us since it currently holds 78 names. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
    • The WikiElfs category should never have been created in the first place, since that is substantially similar recreation of previously deleted content. It could have 1000 users in the category and it wouldn't change my mind. Like I said, if you want this category to exist, you are going to have to bring it up at deletion review. The userbox is fine, but a category for Wikielves isn't helpful to the encyclopedia, which is why it was deleted in the first place. VegaDark (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
      • So, essentially you are wheel-warring over an admin? That is what this feels like to me. You want it taken to DRV, you can take it. Otherwise, it is easy to recreate as you should have taken it to DRV in the first place before redeleting. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm doing no such thing. Clearly the administrator who performed the move hadn't seen that the category had been deleted through a deletion discussion before, or they would not have approved the move. I'm being 100% within policy here, and will re-delete the category if recreated. The onus is not on me to bring an already deleted category to deletion review, it is on the person who wants to reverse a closure. If you feel I've acted improperly at all, you are free to bring up a discussion at WP:AN/I, where I'm confident there will be unanimous support for my actions by anyone familiar with the G4 deletion criterion. VegaDark (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Now you are just being cocky. Take it to DRV or I take your cocky little self to ANI for not following policy and deleting a category with 78 persons in it and wheel-warring. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
            • I just said, you are welcome to create a thread at ANI if you feel the need to do so. I won't be taking my own deletion of the category to DRV, which I'm sure would be speedy closed if I did. I suggest you become more familiar with Wikipedia policies before accusing me of improperly deleting anything, and demanding I take a matter to DRV before deleting it under the G4 deletion criteria, as you will find you are wrong on both counts. VegaDark (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Since being cocky, I see. OK, I got more pressing matters at the moment, but I will do your work for you and go to DRV and I will consider taking you to ANI for, if anything, just being a WP:DICK. You need to come out of the courtroom, lower the ego, and chill. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, I was trying to be nice, but let me be straight with you. You have no clue what you are talking about. I was 100% in the right, you have a 0% chance of succeeding at DRV, and a less than 0% chance of anything happening other than your humiliation for creating such a ridiculous thread at ANI. I wasn't being cocky or a dick, but you are coming dangerously close to violating the no personal attacks policy. You are by no means "doing my work for me" by taking it to DRV. As I already mentioned, the person who disputes a deletion or deletion debate outcome is the one whose job it is to bring it to DRV, certainly not the deleting admin. Perhaps you should think about the fact I've been on Wikipedia much longer than you have, and might in fact know what I am talking about when it comes to Wikipedia policy. I would literally love to read the rationale you come up with for how my deletion somehow wasn't valid under WP:CSD#G4, which it seems to me you still haven't read based on your persistence of this. Let me suggest you drop this, as an ANI thread or DRV listing is only going to make you look worse. VegaDark (talk) 03:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • *Ahem* Look worse? Dude, have you checked out my block log? I could be Mother Teresa and I would look bad. But spouting off about how you are right and I am wrong and you know better, how you have been here longer....dude, that makes me look golden. This isn't about who has been here longer or who has the most toys, it is you are wrong. You should have taken this to DRV since there was an active (and still active) category with over 50 persons in it, and you deleted it because of discussion almost 3 years ago. Remember, consensus changes. You wheel-warred against an admin, you deleted without discussion and threw caution to the wind because you think only you are right and everyone else is wrong. Since you are a lawyer, you should have went the extra mile to make sure you convinced a "jury of your peers" that you are right. You did not...and to use the lawyer analogy once more, you decided to be judge, jury and executioner and take matters into your own hands. Now....WP:DICK has been used so many times, it isn't even considered by admins to be a personal attack, so if you want to block me, go ahead, you will just be blocking while WP:INVOLVED and blocking for a really minor PA and for something that was meant as a PA. Chill out, because your "nice", ain't nice. It comes off as very cocky and very egotistic. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, go ahead and take this to DRV and/or ANI if that's what it takes to convince you that I'm right, after everyone adds their .02 about how the deletion was proper, I didn't wheel war, or rebutting whatever else you are accusing me of (I'm confident everyone but you will feel that way). The very definition of a speedy deletion is not needing a deletion discussion, and the category I deleted couldn't have been more clear of falling within that criteria. Just because a deletion discussion is old doesn't invalidate it. Just because the category is populated doesn't invalidate it. Consensus can change, but if you want to recreate a previously deleted category using this rationale, it has to be done through the official process of deletion review. As for wheel warring, I think you don't fully understand how that works or you certainly wouldn't be accusing me of doing so based on the facts. As for blocking, I didn't mention blocking you, and I certainly wouldn't do it myself if it came to that. I was merely pointing out that, for all the things you accused me of being, you were being rather hypocritical. VegaDark (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Yeah, yeah, yeah....I am a complete idiot who hasn't the slightest clue what I am doing. Dude, you need to get out of the courtroom, it is messing with your head. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutralhomer: Cut it out, please. There are venues for disputing deletions (like Deletion review). Quit making an unholy mess on this page. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

MZM, if I was "making an unholy mess" there would be other admins involved. Move along. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If I am the "admin" that Neutralhomer is referring to, then I have one thing to say: I am not an admin. I believe that the original discussion between Neutralhomer and me was here. An admin with a bot did not move over the users; as far as I am concerned, I thought that Neutralhomer had just changed the category name in the userbox and waited for servers to catch up. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

@MC10: Actually I was meaning Anomie (she did null edits on all the pages to get the servers moving) and Xeno also helped somewhat also...just didn't want either involved in this mess.

@VegaDark: But MC10 is right, all that was done was a move for grammar reasons. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I am fairly sure that Anomie is not an admin. Just saying... —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 05:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedians by Service Awards

Would you mind sharing your opinion on Category:Lists of Wikipedians by Service Awards and subcats (at minimum, the parent needs a rename to drop the "Lists of")? Specifically, is the category tree sufficiently identical to Category:Wikipedians by number of edits and Category:Editors with service awards to fall under CSD G4 or would it be better to renominate with (essentially) the same rationale? (By the way, I'm also pinging jc37 at User talk:Jc37#Proposed deletion for userspace.) Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I was aware of the category tree and it was definitely on my radar for deletion. I hadn't remembered the second discussion you link, however, and now that you brought that to my attention I would say that it does fall under G4 for speedy deletion. I think some people might not be happy about it, but there isn't a happiness clause in the G4 speedy deletion criteria. If such people want the categories to exist, it should go through deletion review first. I might suggest IAR if I thought the categories helped the encyclopedia, but I still agree that maintaining groups of users by service award doesn't help, and since we've had consensus to delete the categories before I don't see a problem with speedy deleting them. That being said, all speedy deletion criteria is implemented at the discretion of the reviewing admin, so if you feel a CfD is the better approach, that's your prerogative. I will say that it's a lot easier to keep something deleted at DRV than to try and get a new consensus to delete at CfD, so if you believe these categories don't benefit the encyclopedia, and your ultimate goal is improvement of the encyclopedia, then I'd lean towards speedy deletion and requiring a DRV to overturn. For all I know they might be able to be speedy deleted with little to no fuss, however, so I might be making a mountain out of a molehill. VegaDark (talk) 06:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

After re-reading the 2007 discussion and checking the deleted page histories, I think the most appropriate choice is to empty and speedily delete the categories (they are all userbox-populated). I have added a note at Category talk:Lists of Wikipedians by Service Awards to explain what is taking place. Thanks for providing your perspective, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the current/recent situation at Wikicup (and DYK, for that matter), even if there were a new cfd, I would doubt that these would be kept.

That aside, this appears G4 to me as well. I suggest starting by editing the templates to depopulate. - jc37 16:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Block of 194.83.173.62

Thanks for the note - have re-blocked it for a year - kind regards Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 12:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedians categories

As I have pointed out, categories of the ilk Category:WikiProject Puerto Rico members, Category:Wikipedians interested in Puerto Rico, Category:Wikipedians in Puerto Rico, Puerto Rican Wikipedians, and Category:Wikipedians of Puerto Rican descent cannot be populated by the creator of the category, but only by those Wikipedians who fit the category. As such, the category must (usually) be created before users will enroll in the category. Since the rules for speedy deletion do not allow for empty categories, this creates an unfortunate conflict. I have ceased creating categories in which members do not pre-exist to avoid creating extra work for you. I hope we can come up with a solution for this problem. Please let me know your ideas. Yours aye,  Buaidh  22:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• I would say we can keep the category as a redlink without actually creating the category, and then when someone actually adds a userbox or whatever to their user page placing them in the category, they can either create it themselves, or someone can go through Special:WantedCategories to see if any need to be created. VegaDark (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • While your proposal saves you work, it does create extra work for others. As you can see, a category such as Category:Wikipedians in Puerto Rico has rather extensive documentation. I personally would never enroll in a redlined category, and I would caution any Wikipedian from doing so. I think that not having regional categories, especially for small and poor countries, discourages participation by natives and other interested users. This in turn reinforces the notion that Wikipedia is a toy of the wealthy nations. Your turn,  Buaidh  15:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I highly doubt that not having a user category for people from small nations discourages anyone from those nations from participating. Anyone that concerned with self-identification on their userpage needs to rethink their goal of participating on Wikipedia. It's bad practice to keep any categories around sitting empty, as it causes clutter for users actually trying to seek out collaboration, and itself can discourage collaboration by making it harder for users to find collaboration categories. Also, there are numerous users in redlinked categories right now. I agree that quite a few of them would be improper categories if they were actually created, but there would be quite a few legitimate ones as well. If people use their judgment as to which are proper vs. improper in turning the redlink blue, it shouldn't be much of an issue. In any case, it isn't just me you have to convince - It's the whole Wikipedia community (or at least a consensus on the WT:CSD talk page) as to actually make a change to the speedy deletion criterion (which, incidentally, I came up with the wording for way back when, and still stand by the way it is currently written). VegaDark (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Counsellor, I think your rigidity is most counterproductive. I do think we can come up with some sort of compromise that works well for everyone. Yours aye,  Buaidh  17:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Like I said, it has nothing to do with my "rigidity". Even if I 100% agreed with you, we couldn't just turn this into the standard policy of Wikipedia, it must have consensus at WT:CSD where I suggest you bring this up if you want any changes made. I'm not the only one who does C1 deletions, you know. VegaDark (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian underwater divers

• Category:Wikipedian underwater divers

Subcats' names? - jc37 23:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Definitely need a rename, but I wonder if getting this detailed is worth categorizing, or if it becomes too narrow to support collaboration. I wonder if merging all to the parent is preferable, or to some other name. VegaDark (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

  Upmerge is easiest. Though I dunno if I'm strongly opposed to the subcats if renamed. But to what? - jc37 02:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

  Probably "Wikipedian x divers", where x is the un-abbreviated version of the certification in question (to match the article). Although I agree upmerge would be a better option. VegaDark (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

User category topical index

Could you take a look at User talk:Jc37#User category topical index, please? Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

75.83.171.237

Re 75.83.171.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Although I am "involved", this IP might be an exception to Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses. Although I have no objection to the block being reduced to the 3 years served, I would expect you to monitor the IP, and block for a longer period if it continues the same edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• I made a posting here regarding when I think policy means for the exceptions to apply, and it translates to almost never, including sockpuppet abuse. That being said, since you've asked I'll put a watch on this one for any contributions, and will re-block if necessary (not more than a year, however. There is almost no case where an IP should be blocked for more than a year other than an open proxy, which should be 2-3). VegaDark (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Jclemens/CSD-RFC

Per my discussion with Flatscan, I've moved the draft RFC from WT:CSD to this page. While it's in my userspace, that's just a convenient place to put it. Let's continue collaborating, including using the associated talk page, before we take it live. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked on Wiki

Hi, I have accounts named Disney14ph12, Vadler3 (but never again using it), and Velociraptor145 and you blocked me because I was doing vandalism but please unblock, I promise not to never vadal again, please unblock my IP address on wiki, please I really missing being on wikis like dino wiki, disney wiki, and Pixar Wiki, please please unblock my IP address, I promise never to vandal again. Please, VegaDark, please please. I will lose all my good memory's on all the wikis I've been on, please help me. --24.160.148.166 (talk) 01:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think you are confusing me with the Wikia user VegaDark. We are not the same person. VegaDark (talk) 02:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Well at least can you unblock my IP address on wikia, if you are a user and admin on there too, I really should have never vadaled in the first place. Please reply back. --24.160.148.166 (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• No, I am not an admin or even a user on Wikia, you should contact someone there if you want to be unblocked. VegaDark (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Well can you ask the other VegaDark on there to unblock me?, because I cant edit anything. --24.160.148.166 (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Like I said, I don't have an account there, and I'm not going to go create an account to a place I have no interest in so I can ask for some random IP to be unblocked, particularly without knowing all the details of if you even deserve to be unblocked. I assume Wikia, like Wikipedia, has some sort of unblock request you can place on your user talk page. If not, you can also look here to find a user with a Wikia account who may help you. VegaDark (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

thanks I'll look there --24.160.148.166 (talk) 12:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Category:Wikipedians by ethnic or national descent

Hello, VegaDark. You have new messages at Black Falcon's talk page.
Message added 20:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Category:Wikipedians in Hokkaidō

Hi there, I was wondering if it would be possible for you to undelete Category:Wikipedians in Hokkaidō for me. It was deleted because the category was empty, but now I want to join it. I've left the userbox that tries to add the category on my userpage, and it's accidentally added me to Category:Wikipedians in Iran instead. Not the intended consequence! If one person isn't enough for a category, just let me know and I'll have a go at editing the userbox instead. Thank you! — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 11:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Done, I fixed the userbox as well. VegaDark (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, VegaDark! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well

It is a common misconception.Alex Klotz (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Then find a reliable source. VegaDark (talk) 05:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

More noindex,nofollow

I have written Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#More noindex,nofollow. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 19:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#HTTP 404 and Bugzilla 26729. MZMcBride (talk · contribs) (have you seen his astronomical deletion count?) commented very promptly on my bug report. He might be a useful person to pester about changing the software. (I speak PHP but not quite up to the standard required to negotiate the jungle which is the MediaWiki software.) — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 18:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You're Invited! Come Celebrate Wikipedia's 10th Anniversary!

<font=3> You're invited to help celebrate Wikipedia's 10th anniversary! Visit this link for details. An informal celebration will take place at the AboutUs office located at 107 SE Washington Street, Suite 520 in Portland on Saturday, January 15, 2011. An Open Space Technology meeting is scheduled from 5pm to 7pm, with a party to follow. Admission is free! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm going to the Oregon State basketball game tomorrow, otherwise I'd definitely consider it. VegaDark (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians interested in Poland

Please restore this category, it is part of a recently created userbox for WP:POLAND. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 09:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• I will gladly restore it if it becomes populated. It's been empty for more than 4 days and thus meets the C1 speedy deletion criteria. I don't restore categories I delete based on this criteria until they are actually populated, else it would undermine the speedy criteria in my view. Feel free to add yourself or suggest to others to add the category and I will restore. VegaDark (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I have added myself to the category. Is this sufficient? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, and I have restored it. VegaDark (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

DR:Jewish inventors

"I defer to this closing admin's judgment in this particular closure."

If you say that, and you recognize the undeniable weakness of the !keep arguments and the "appeasing" factor here, I really can't understand why you're endorsing the close. What's the point of having yet another CfD in a year or two? It's inevitably going to be put up for deletion again because its an utterly unmaintainable category. Can you please reconsider your !vote here? Maybe just make it a "comment"... I feel like we're letting wiki-politics leak into this way too much and totally ignoring the content of the original CfD discussion. Bulldog123 13:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of List of common misconceptions for deletion

The article List of common misconceptions is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Timneu22

I came across this recently as we just more or less concluded an RFC that had uncanny similarities, but appears to have resulting in Tim really meaning it when he says he's quitting.

I don't feel so isolated now, seeing how you were taking the brunt of that abuse, and that Tim has been suspected of sockpuppetry before (the SPI I started this time was closed because of the privacy concern over Tim's claim (false, as it turns out) that I outed him.

I wish we had known about this. We should have done something even then. Daniel Case (talk) 05:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• That was so long ago I hardly remember the circumstances, but I'm glad to see it's apparently been resolved, although it's unfortunate it has resulted in an editor leaving. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Block on Wikia

Why the hell did you block me on wikia?!?!?!?!? I was helping on that wiki and adding reasonable content cross-wiki. Why and plz unblock me and I have an ip address where many contributors of wikia go on so you actually blocked many contributors >_< I hate you get lost and get out from wikia. Comment from Slipknot Darkrai —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.10.253.210 (talk) 11:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• I am not the same user as the Wikia user VegaDark. I have no Wikia account. VegaDark (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Whoops sorry about that. I picked the wrong person to complain to. Sorry :( 96.10.253.210 (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality

I have been thinking about a reorganization of Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality and I wanted to ask for your perspective on the idea before I start editing c. 200 categories. I envision the following steps:

1. Split Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality into Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and Category:Wikipedians by nationality, and nominate for deletion all ethnicity user categories. Or, nominate all ethnicity user categories for deletion and rename Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality to Category:Wikipedians by nationality.
2. Propose renaming of all nationality user categories, from Fooian Wikipedians to Wikipedians from Foo.
3. Create category disambiguation pages at Fooian Wikipedians pointing to the corresponding categories for Wikipedians from Foo and Wikipedians in Foo.

Through these steps, I hope to achieve three goals:

1. End categorization of users by ethnicity, which seems to serve any collaborative purpose, while it is still relatively few-and-far-between.
2. Reduce confusion about the scope of Fooian Wikipedians categories—i.e., whether they refer to nationality (yes), descent (no, per the recent deletion of all descent user categories) or location (no, per Category:Wikipedians by location).
3. Discourage categorization by nationality based on applications of the one-drop rule—e.g., categorizing someone as an "Albanian Wikipedian" based on having a single great-great-great-grandfather who was 1/16-th Albanian. (I realize that users tend not to do this on their own, but it does happen occasionally due to transcluded userboxes being miscategorized or repurposed.)

Although I am doubtful whether nationality user categories fill a useful "niche"—considering that we have separate, and more focused, category trees for editors by location, language and interest in a country—I am not proposing to nominate them for deletion because I do not think that such a nomination would succeed. Still, deletion could be considered during the nomination to rename the categories.

I would love to know what your thoughts are. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• That category tree is a mess and I have been meaning to take a look at solutions for dealing with it. I agree that categorizing by both ethnicity and nationality are not very helpful for purposes of collaboration, and it really doesn't make sense to group them together as it is now. I agree that trying to get the nationality categories deleted would be somewhat harder (you can't choose your ethnicity but you can, to a point, choose your nationality). You may, however, face opposition if you didn't split them up first. I can see people arguing that nationality and ethnicity for purposes of collaboration aren't very different and that we should either keep both or delete both, so I would agree with going the first route of trying to split them all up into Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and Category:Wikipedians by nationality and after that is completed nominate all the ethnicity categories (and perhaps the nationality categories afterward depending on how the first nom is received by the community). I'll note the discussion that initially created this category; it seems like it was created as a way to reduce the total number of categories. Since they don't necessarily mean the same thing, however, I think that was a poor decision (that's quite possibly resulted in more categories due to confusion of how to name categories). I think the "by ethnicity" categories can have a similar argument for deletion for the "by descent" categories in that it isn't really reasonable to expect users to be able to collaborate based on a characteristic they have no control over, and may not have any interest or knowledge on the subject of their ethnicity. VegaDark (talk) 06:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Hmm, you may be right about the split. I too can, now that you mention the possibility, imagine a nomination to delete the ethnicity categories being opposed due to the "ethnicity and nationality" title. I had not thought to check for a UCfD discussion about the category, but reading it now it does seem as if the category was renamed to try (with limited success, in the end) to get a handle on an already-messy situation.
    The parallel between the ethnicity and descent categories had not occurred to me, but you make a good point there. A person's nationality, or where he or she is from, at least is something that is specific to and describes that person. A person's ethnicity, like descent, largely is inherited from and describes his or her ancestors. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 08:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

WPORE COTW 2.0 - the picture edition

Greetings one and all. For some of you, this will be your first time receiving one of these messages, as it has been a year since the WikiProject Oregon Collaboration of the Week (COTW) was a regular thing. My hope is it gets back to being a regular thing.

Usually I would go over the past COTW, but we are basically starting out anew. So, without further adieu, this edition is our semi-annual picture drive. We usually try to do it when there is decent weather in the state, and today seems to fit the bill. Now although you are encouraged to go out and take pictures, you can also just search the internet for images that have the proper licensing and upload those. Flickr is one site that has a fair amount of content with the proper licensing (most images on Flickr are not compatible). See WP:COPYRIGHT in general. For some “free” sources, check out the our dormant subproject that has some links to sources.

Lastly, if you need to know what images we need, here are the requests. Please remove the request from the talk page if you add an image.

Finally (this is not image related), as the years have passed, we have lost many good editors, and others, like myself, are no longer in school or are working full-time or both, and thus are less active in the project. The project lives on, but it has created a bit of a power vacuum without a de facto cabal still around all the time. With that in mind, I encourage newer project members to step-up and fill some leadership type roles. Granted, we have no formal ruling junta or anything and no real defined roles, but there are many maintenance type tasks that some of us just took on to keep the project going. For instance, I ran the COTW, was pretty much the only one doing assessments, updating the portal, and even handing out the awards. I am sure others in the project can name what things they have done. The point being, that while I enjoyed those and still do some of those, I simply no longer have the free time to do all of it at a level that the project deserves. That said, I hope to start a discussion at WT:ORE where we can see if some newer editors would like to step-up and take on some of these tasks, which will hopefully make for a more inclusive project, and maybe get us back to the heyday of say 2008 when things were really rocking for WikiProject Oregon.

As always, please click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

False report

Vega, I want to say about "Information from Tolololpedia" in VSTF Wiki. Report from Jonathan Ryousuke not true plus he has no evidence about the common ownership of the account IndoManiak, Si Gam Aceh, and MukaMulez. And report that I gave about the abuse by Jonathan itself, Bukan Pembantai, and Ninja sawit I have the proof to prove that I am not giving false report:

• This is evidence of abuse by Jonathan Ryousuke (he did not use his account but only use anonymous accounts) ==> http://tolololpedia.wikia.com/index.php?title=Pembicaraan_Pengguna:MukaMulez&diff=prev&oldid=38287
• This is evidence of abuse by Ninja sawit ==> http://tolololpedia.wikia.com/index.php?title=Pembicaraan_Pengguna:MukaMulez&diff=prev&oldid=38184
• This is evidence of abuse by Bukan Pembantai ==> http://tolololpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Erik_Krakatau (already deleted)

For the realization of the victory over the truth, soon dislodged the status of your account blocked IndoManiak, Si Opm Papua, and MukaMulez as well as block accounts Jonathan Ryousuke, Ninja sawit, and Bukan Pembantai. Thanks --Erik Evrest (talk) 05:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have no clue what you are talking about/what this is regarding. You may be mistaking me for the Wikia user VegaDark, who is a different person. VegaDark (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

• Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Is CSD G4 applicable or inapplicable to a previously kept page whose most recent discussion ended in deletion?

Hi VegaDark. Because you contributed to User:Jclemens/CSD-RFC, you may be interested in the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Is CSD G4 applicable or inapplicable to a previously kept page whose most recent discussion ended in deletion?. Both Jclemens (talk · contribs) and Flatscan (talk · contribs), who also contributed to User:Jclemens/CSD-RFC, are aware of the RfC, which was discussed at User talk:Fuhghettaboutit#Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4 and subsequent XfDs. Cunard (talk) 06:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Time in Malaysia

Could you restore, it was emptied by anon [1]. TZ master (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• I will gladly restore it if and when it becomes re-populated with at least 1 page. I don't restore categories I delete for being empty before they actually become re-populated, because before that happens the speedy deletion criteria is still applicable. VegaDark (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Aehm, you could include Time in Malaysia? I will then add more if I find more. I will also try to include Time in Malaysia, but it would be adding a non-existing category. TZ master (talk) 10:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Restored. VegaDark (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks a lot. Best regards. TZ master (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Nominating multiple pages at CFD

I see that you made 4 practicly identical nominations at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 25. Please note that you can ominate multiple categories in a single nomination, in the following way:

1. Create a level 4 header with a descriptive name for the nomination. (In this case, the header could have been "User languagecode-0"); undert it, comes the line "'''Propose deleting''':"; then the list of all the nominated categories, one per line, in the format "* [[:Category:Foo]]" (replacing the word "Foo" with the category name); then, a line starting with the word "'''Rationalle''':", followed by your reason fr deleting the categories, and then by your signature.
2. On each of the nominated categoies, add the CfD tag as normal, with an extra parameter for the section name.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• To be honest, I would have done this, but I kept noticing a new -0 category after submitting the last one for CfD. I was not expecting to find more than one that hasn't been CfD'd before (and thus not speedyable) let alone 4. Additionally, one of them was not identical- it actually had a userpage in it so I thought there was a chance that user may argue for it being kept, although I agree the other 3 probably should have been grouped together. I decided it wasn't worth changing it around, and changing the tag for each category, at that point though. VegaDark (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4: Moving forward

• Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4: Moving forward

As a participant at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4 and subsequent XfDs, would you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4: Moving forward? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel good about this

Looks like you global blocked my IP address for about 4 months in Wikia for vandalizing and spamming. Yes, I do use external links in Wikia, but have I really vandalized anything in Wikia? I undo revisions in that wiki farm often. Anyway, I've never thought about you having a Wikipedia account. 99.162.48.136 (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Please see all the above Wikia-related topics. The user VegaDark on Wikia is a completely different person. I've never had a Wikia account nor do I have any interest in it. I suggest you do some sort of unblock request there. VegaDark (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I've never knew that, but I can't do a unblock request.99.162.48.136 (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
    • If you are looking for someone who may be able to post on your behalf, I suggest looking on this list for people with a Wikia account. VegaDark (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Monostroke category, request for assistance

Thanks for deleting that category, i created it without realising that it was a synonym (historical name) for "two stroke". btw - can i possibly ask you for some help and guidance in dealing with a troublesome user? User:Greglocock i am sorry to have to report is being insulting, derisory, dismissive, disrespectful and is persistently vandalising the article without discussion. he's now - very slowly - begun to add "dubious" citations which is actually very helpful, but work on the article would move forward much quicker if he was warned by a senior wikipedia person that his behaviour is in clear violation of wikipedia policy. yes i've raised a help request, nobody's got to it yet. thanks for listening. Lkcl (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• I suggest you create a topic at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to get an administrator who has the time to look in to this matter, as it looks like a lot of reading required to make an informed decision. VegaDark (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

category redirects

Hello, VegaDark. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Category_redirects.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

76.65.128.132 (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Paterno

CBS' report was wrong. Please read talk pages before editing fully-protected articles. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Very first paragraph of the source you cited: "A Paterno family spokesman says the former Penn State football coach has not passed away despite multiple reports indicating that Joe Paterno died from lung cancer Saturday night." Those multiple reports all track back to a student-operated twitter account. Please don't do that. Mackensen (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• (Edit Conflict) The talk page said the family denied it over a half hour ago. The "Breaking news" banner just a few minutes ago appeared on the source I added (although it appears to be gone now- perhaps they retracted it) which to me implied he had died since the announcement. VegaDark (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, they're just late to the party. The sequence went like this:

1. Onward State reports it on Twitter.
2. CBS Sports runs with it.
3. Everyone quotes CBS Sports.
4. Family denies it.
5. Onward State walks back.

Looks like the affiliate didn't fact-check. Mackensen (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Well, mea culpa then. I did see the talk page but figured the source wouldn't have made that mistake over a half hour after the family denied it. VegaDark (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You also edited a fully protected page without talk page consensus. This is unacceptable behavior per WP:FULL. The policies and guidelines for page --page protections are explicitly set up to prevent this type of incorrect information to be added to articles. The fact that this was done by an editor with admin tools makes it even more of a problem, as admins should know better than this. --JOJ ^Hutton 13:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• I added sourced information to a page, and didn't realize it was fully protected for that reason but thought it was due to the Penn State scandal. I really didn't think adding a death date would be an issue since, like I said, the source had just put up a breaking news banner over a half hour after the family announced he was still alive but in serious condition. He could have easily died in that time frame so I don't think that was an unreasonable belief given the circumstances. It's quite rare a reliable source gets their facts wrong such as this so I mistakenly bypassed the talk page before adding this, once again assuming the protection was more due to the scandal that the death, and was reverted before I could revert myself after noticing the source had retracted their statement that he died. Overall, I don't think there was a whole lot harm done on the page - our job, after all, is to relay what reliable sources report, which is what was done, even if it turned out incorrect. In any case, I'll be more mindful in the future of adding what I view to be uncontroversial addition of information to a fully protected page and propose it on the talk page. VegaDark (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear VegaDark,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and

Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's

Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we

teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community,

and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what

you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community

[[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_82#Learn_to_be_a_Wikipedia_Administrator_-

_New_class_at_MSU|HERE]], where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my

students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training,

motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one

of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of

communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)

• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will

never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.

• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an

interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.

• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics

review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have

been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak

with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I

will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your

name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be

more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Some things...

• User_talk:Black_Falcon#Some_things_to_consider

Your thoughts would be welcome. - jc37 16:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

TS

For future reference, if you nominate a category for deletion it would be of taste and courtesy to notify the creator. Cheers NYSMtalk page 08:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• What would be of taste and courteous is if you didn't recreate a previously deleted category that previously went through CFD, then midway through the CFD you request deletion, process. I see now that once again you requested deletion by author. Please don't keep recreating this category only to request deletion if brought to CFD. VegaDark (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright

Where do I start the discussion about this category? Category:Gay Wikipedians. I see no reason it shouldn't exist so please point me in the right direction. (Also I hadn't realized it was ever deleted; I saw it created as a redirect so, yeah). Thanks. Ncboy2010 (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• WP:DRV is the appropriate venue. It and related categories had their deletion endorsed here. VegaDark (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian engineers

Per this CFD, shouldn't the category be deleted? It looks like it's alive and kicking. I would have G4'd it but for the fact that it appears a bot created it, so I'm not quite sure what's going on. Thought I'd mention it so you could look into it. Category:Wikipedian engineers. VegaDark (talk) 06:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

After looking into it a little more closely, it appears as if this discussion's closure didn't take into account that the engineer category had been deleted. Not sure how you want to handle that - renominate, G4 delete, something else? VegaDark (talk) 07:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It was done editorially by adding to two useboxes - now reverted. I have no problem with it remaining as a parent cat, per the second cfd (And per my comments in the first one). - jc37 20:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:user female

G'day, I noticed that you've deleted this category as G4, which is acceptable, however I think that the discussion in 2007 is no longer valid. The WMF has put reducing "the gendergap" as one of its goals, and I think the community has a greater appreciation now that there is a real issue. This category helps us find female editors, without requiring that they use a userbox. Some community members want to be categorised by gender but dont like to use a specific userbox in order for special:whatlinkshere to work. As an example of how I use it, I keep track of the self-disclosed women in Category:Wikipedians in Australia & Category:Australian Wikipedians by using the two WP:category intersection tools. This includes keeping stats, welcoming them, helping them connect with other women with similar interests, etc. Given that this category has been stable for four months, and there are a lot of userpages that now have a red category on their userpage, would you be inclined to restore this category, and maybe send it through a category deletion discussion. If not, I'll initiate a DRV. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Reducing a gender gap is a laudable goal. But I don't think that having gender-based categories is the way to do it.

I appreciate that you want to use the intersection tools for this, but this will be a huge category, just so you can parse out a few for intersection - and this presuming that all female Wikipedians self-identify in this way.

Not to mention that this starts that slippery slope of splitting all the Wikipedian categories by gender. And this doesn't even get into LGBT concerns.

YMMV, of course. If you decide to DRV, please drop me a note. - jc37 08:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The entire problem is that it isnt a huge category. The category has only 566 members right now. It doesnt matter if all females self-identify this way or not; we don't delete other user categories because they arnt systematically used. Those that do use this category should be allowed to do so. And categories are a lot more user-friendly than special:whatlinkshere. (starting at a user page, the former is one step, while the latter requires the user clicks edit, that navigate to userbox page, and then goes to what links here in the sidebar.)

Also, even if the number of category members grows large, the ability to do category intersections means it is possible to quickly reduce the large set to a small group of people with several similarities.

I dont want to get into sexuality issues, but I will point out that it is a red herring because Category:LGBT Wikipedians and redirect Category:Gay Wikipedians exist. That category was also deleted later in 2007 (Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/October_2007#Category:LGBT_Wikipedians) however the LGBT category was recreated by user:nathan a few months later, and LGBT members rallied around it to protect the category. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm going to have to request you bring this to DRV for a couple different reasons: 1) The original decision to delete is still sound, 2) G4 has no time limit, 3) Even if I agreed with your stance, me restoring it would be overriding community consensus achieved at a previous CFD. 4) Me having missed it for months (primarily because it was named inappropriately) should not be a reason to keep or delete a category. As for the LBGT category, I 100% wholeheartedly agree that it needs to go, both following the deletion discussion precedent and for the benefit of maintaining categories that actually maintain a collaborative use for the project. The problem is doing so would create a massive discussion and headache for me or whomever else does do, which is why I assume it's been left around. I guess we've kind of come to an unspoken mutual understanding that if all the subcategories are kept deleted then we won't touch the LBGT category (the Gay Wikipedians category is a redirect, FYI). At extreme minimum this category was grossly misnamed - the "User" designation should only be used for babel categories, not categories like this. I look forward to reviewing the DRV discussion, it's been almost 2 years since the last user category discussion was brought up there. VegaDark (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries at all. I do appreciate your position re your action of deleting the "user female" category, and agree with most of your reasons, except that I dont think deleting a category after four months of it being in use is OK 100% of the time, and wouldn't have asked you to consider reversing it excepting that the category was in use. I have started Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 August 27#Category:Female Wikipedians. Let the headache begin. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Categorization with templates and deletion

I started discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization § Categorization with templates and deletion based on previous discussion at User talk:czarkoff § Empty category template, where you participating. Notifying you just in case you would like to repeat your position there. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hello VegaDark, Growing up in Canada, I've been raised to spell "favourite", rather then "favorite". I wonder which one is suitable for a Wikipedia article. If you could help me that'd be great! Flying Lambs (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)