User talk:VegaDark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 UCFDs of Wikipedians by media/genre interest 2 John Leovich 3 Wikipedians interested in history 4 German-style gamer user box confusion 5 Vera Katz and History 6 My UserBoxes 7 Colbert vandal 8 Fitna (film) 9 Semi Protection 10 Redirected categories 11 Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chicago Bears head coaches 12 Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion 13 WikiProject College football April 2008 Newsletter 14 User categories relating to media and genres 15 Elected Oregon 16 Emily Buchanan 17 I changed my mind on a deletion request 18 Adminship 19 Apparently, we have a fan 20 Thanks for blocking Skateboard 21 Neon 22 Nom of Atlanta Braves fans category 23 Thirty-Thousand.org 24 Sorry 'bout that. 25 A bit of well-earned reciprocation : ) 25.1 Barnstar! 26 Category:Wikipedians who are forgetful 27 Lil' Kim 28 Tom Poleman 29 Graham Spanier 30 Request for protection? 31 Eavesdropping 32 Checking Cuban Missile Crisis block -- shows in my watchpage but not on the article. 33 Thanks 34 Category:User gsw-M 35 DYK 36 Amber Nectar 37 Juxtaposition COTW 38 WikiDragon cat 39 Talk:Chad Johnson 40 List of University of Oregon people 41 Blanking of your talk page 42 Lady Aleena's RfA 43 Thank you from Horologium 44 Category:Former Wikipedians 45 User:Toddst1 46 WikiProject College football May 2008 Newsletter 47 GAR 48 Spam #1 49 Cinco de COTW 50 Zzzz Oregon COTW 51 Wikipedians by musical instruments 52 My RfA 53 Vote stacking assertion 54 Category:List of fish on stamps of Afghanistan (CFD) 55 QWERTY: Oregon COTW 56 Wikipedians Who Support Change Congress 57 Redirects for Deletion 58 GFDL through deleted edits 59 X marks the WPOR COTW spot 60 Hi! 60.1 Thanks! 61 WikiProject College football June 2008 Newsletter 62 Request 63 A is for Apple at COTW 64 User:203.152.103.28 65 Albert P. Brewer High School 66 Help? 67 Delisting RFD Subpages

[edit] UCFDs of Wikipedians by media/genre interest

VegaDark...I have requested in several of the UCFDs a suspension of all UCFDs on Wikipedians by media/genre interest until they can be reorganized. Since you seem interested in these categories, I would like to know your opinion, in any of the discussions with my request. Please take a look. Thank you. - LA @ 08:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I Think Black Falcon's idea of discussing the changes on Wikipedia talk:User categories for discussion is a good idea. VegaDark (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Leovich

I finished it up and posted it at T:TDYK (article's just over 1500 characters). If you want to tweak the hook then go ahead, I tried not to make it too long. Wizardman 16:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedians interested in history

Hi VegaDark, the above category has apparently been depopulated, and I noticed that you were the one who nominated it back in February. It took me about 25 minutes to figure out what was going on here after BetacommandBot removed the category from my user page. I've never had anything to do with user page category discussion, but I find it very bizarre that three editors can have a category as relevant as "interested in history" depopulated. Yes, "history" is a bit broad, but most folks interested in history (including real historians, I'm a history grad student) are interested in many aspects of history - not just the history of one region, time, etc. I'm sure a lot of folks who are interested in history would much rather keep themselves in the general category, and now that they have been removed from that category they will in all likelihood not take the time to go back and add themselves to a more refined cat. So the end result of the deletion will probably be that it is more difficult to find other users interested in history since being in a more general category is better than being in no category all. I think a lot of editors who were removed might not even notice that it happened, will assume the category was deleted, and might not know how to find the discussion since it was over a month ago.

I find it problematic that three of you (who apparently comment regularly on user CFD's) were able to get this deleted without any input from people in the category. I don't watchlist user category pages (I doubt many do) so I had no idea this discussion was even taking place. In your nom you suggested that "this seems far too general and broad to facilitate any sort of collaboration by individual users in the category." Might it not have been good to ask individual users if they felt that way, since it is entirely up to them whether the category facilitates collaboration? Perhaps many would have felt, like I do, that it is useful to have a bunch of users in a very broad category and a number of users in more refined categories as well. And here's an interesting point along those lines. Now that the larger category has been depopulated, I see exactly one user who is in the category "Wikipedians interested in American history" (which is my main geographic interest). So how exactly does that help me collaborate better with other users? Now there are simply fewer people that I can contact.

I'm not trying to attack you personally because I know you felt this was the best thing, I just thing it strange that this decision was taken without consulting of the users whom it affected. History is not just everything in the past - it is also an academic discipline. I would assume that some of the people in that broad category have training in the discipline, and if I was working on a history article and wanted help I would take it from anyone who knew how to write history regardless of their specific interests.

Is it possible to call for a deletion review of a user category, particularly for a discussion that took place a month ago? I'm not sure of the protocol there but if so I will probably open it. First though I'd be interested to hear more about why you think re-populating this larger category would have such a negative affect on collaboration between historically inclined editors. I'll check back here to keep the conversation in one place.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• It is not common practice to notify users within categories up for deletion, primarily because some categories have hundreds (or in some cases thousands) of users within them, which would discourage nominations from being made if the nominator were required to notify all those users. Additionally, those within the category naturally would be more likely to support keeping, so a canvassing issue needs to be considered as well (vs. only disinterested paries who see it at UCFD). I agree with you that it would have been nice for more than 3 users to decide the fate of this category, but UCFD is not very active, and there isn't much we can do about that (relisting rarely generates many more comments, as well). I would suggest you join Category:Wikipedian historians, which looks like the type of category people like you might be well-fitted for. Additionally, you can use the "what links here" function on the userbox template to see those using it, functioning much like a category (IIRC, the category being attached to the userbox contributed to the majority of all users who were in the category) if you believe categorizing that broadly is useful. As for DRV, yes, user categories can be up for deletion review. There are several currently on there. Would this qualify? I'm not sure, since the category wasn't actually deleted, it was only depopulated. Perhaps a better place to direct the discussion would be on WT:UCFD, or perhaps even starting a new UCFD on it proposing re-population. My main concern with the category is that there are thousands of history-related articles on Wikipedia. I don't think it is reasonable to expect for, say, someone like you to randomly search the category to ask others to collaborate on the specific article you are hoping to work on and for that to be successful. History is so broad that I think it is pretty rare for people like you, who seem to actually be interested in potentially collaborating on all aspects of history, to participate in this category. The historians category above seems better fitted for such people. That being said, I wouldn't oppose further discussion on the issue. VegaDark (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Vega. Yes, I agree it would not make sense to notify everyone in the category - I guess I was thinking more in terms of dropping a note on the talk pages of a few active users in the category prior to the CFD discussion being started. The reason being that the rationale for de-populating was that the category did not facilitate collaboration - something obviously best judged by users in that category. It seems logical to get a little bit of feedback from users in the category before discussing its de-population (for example I would have told you then what I am telling you now, and then maybe you would have reconsidered trying to remove users from the cat). And just to clarify, it's not that I am interested in collaborating in all aspects of history, it's that I appreciate a list of all users who are interested in history in general because what is more relevant (from my perspective) is an editor's expertise in the discipline as a whole rather than their specific interest. In that regard a general category is (was) useful.

I'm not a professional historian (just a lowly, unpublished Ph.D. student) so I think it would be inappropriate to put myself in the Wikipedian Historians category. I'll think about posting something about this at WT:UCFD, though I'm not sure I have the time or energy to put up much of a fight. It's annoying and was quite ill-advised in my opinion, but one has to pick one's battles.

I guess all I can ask, since you apparently do a lot of work on user cats, is that in the future you think carefully before deleting or de-populating categories that revolve around a professional or academic interest. I can see why editors "interested in television" is too broad to be useful for collaboration, but again history is a professional field of study in addition to being a general topic of interest/the sum total of all past events. Wikipedians who are actually in that field (or any other professional field) deserve to, at the very least, be consulted regarding what categorization scheme is most useful to them. That did not happen here, which probably is indicative of a larger problem with how these discussions of user categories often proceed - i.e. hardly anyone participates so a few folks get to make decisions about the efficacy of certain categories without necessarily knowing how users who are actually in said categories perceive their usefulness.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] German-style gamer user box confusion

I think there's a big misunderstanding here that I've tried to clear up in the relevant discussion. I'm not "attempting to misrepresent Wikipedians" (as you say). Quite the opposite. I'm trying to represent them correctly, and repair a simple mistake that will in fact result in misrepresentation. As you correctly point out, repurposing a user box so that it re-categorizes a user is a bad idea. But that is not at all what is going on here. As I've pointed out already, even for users who thought they were expressing a website "affiliation" (something that doesnt' even really apply here in isolation from an interest in German-style games), the chance they lack an "interest in German-style games" is effectively zero. Moreover, as I've maintained, I think most people with the userbox had their interest in German-style games foremost in the first place, and were only incidentally concerned with the website. To the uninformed, the original characterization of the category ("For people who play German-style boardgames or frequent BoardGameGeek") is easily misinterpreted, since it hides the fact that the set of people who "frequent BoardGameGeek" is a strict subset of the people who "play German-style boardgames", so that the latter characterization (and the updated category) is correct for everyone in the old category. Because of this, the correct correct thing to do is to have the old userbox point to the new category. — Aldaron • T/C 20:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• I never said anything about you attempting to misrepresent Wikipedians. Are you sure I was the person who made the comments you are talking about? VegaDark (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• My mistake, wrong user. I should have posted here. — Aldaron • T/C 21:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vera Katz and History

Howdy folks, its time for another installment of WikiProject Oregon’s Collaboration of the Week! Last week we made some improvements to the Oregon Coast and brought The Register-Guard up to B class while garnering a DYK! Great job to those who lent a hand. This week we finish up the High priority Stubs with former mayor and Speaker of the House, Vera Katz, which is pretty much a Start class now and could easily get to B class. We also have History of Oregon by request. Help out if you can, where you can. As always, to opt out, opt in, or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My UserBoxes

I am well aware that the user category had not been created, I was waiting to see if there would be any uptake on their use, hence the category maybe needed. So why have you removed them?

Barry Carlyon (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me, I shall read the relevant article in due course

Barry Carlyon (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Colbert vandal

Hey there. I'm curious why you permanently blocked User:Idontgotmilk. The only real vandalism was the Oregon page move (which I can't believe stood for a good hour and a half). The other edits were mildly unhelpful to decent. Unless s/he has a bunch of deleted edits I can't see? I know a vandalism page move of a major (I'd like to think) article is pretty egregious, but doesn't everyone get four strikes before they are out? Katr67 (talk) 06:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah, that makes perfect sense--thanks for letting me know. Just trying to learn about the policy, since with luck I'll have to make similar decisions one of these days. Happy vandal blocking! Katr67 (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fitna (film)

I don't see any heavy vandalism form IP's in the history of Fitna (film) and there actually where soem constructive contributions. Would you mind if I unprotected the article? —Ruud 11:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi Protection

Thanx for protecting the Janet Jackson article, would you mind adding 1 of those locked pictures in the corner. Realist2 (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. Realist2 (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redirected categories

Of course That makes sense - hence, the disambiguation of the categories in the first place. Thank you so much for your assistance. Also, I noticed that there are a few users in Category:Wikipedians in Atlanta and one in Category:Wikipedians in Ann Arbor. I have no idea how - I've edited the pages themselves and any templates that are in the page and I cannot seem to get them out of those categories.-Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Addendum - I should also point out that they are in the proper categories as well, and if you look at the userpages themselves, there is no indication that they are still in the old categories. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chicago Bears head coaches

I took care of everything you suggested here. Thanks, - Milks F'avorite Cookie 21:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

G1 clearly doesn't apply, and some of us had to actually go to work. I was very disappointed to see all of these pages having been deleted already, simply because the UTC said it wasn't April 1st anymore. -- Ned Scott 01:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• If you feel that strongly, there's always deletion review (of which I see a similar page has already been speedy endorsed). Similar pages were deleted even before April 1st was over, so I don't consider my deletions to be particularly egregious. VegaDark (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject College football April 2008 Newsletter

The April 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User categories relating to media and genres

VegaDark...You are invited to discuss a guideline for the naming and organization of user categories that involve media and genres. - LA @ 10:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elected Oregon

Hello fellow WikiProject Oregon folks and entities. Thanks to those who helped out with improving Vera Katz and History of Oregon during the last Collaboration of the Week! As you may have noticed, we have changed the banners a bit, but not our dedication to everything Oregon! This week, in honor of the political process, we have: Current Oregon Senate members & Current Oregon House members. Hopefully by November we can have an article on every current member of the Oregon Legislature. So feel free to turn a red link blue or expand an existing article. Since it is an election year, there should be plenty of newspaper stories. Plus, the state archives has this site that allows you to go back and see when they started serving and district info, plus at a minimum show they were a state legislator from a WP:RS. And per WP:BIO, all state legislator's are notable so no need to worry about AFD. As always, to opt out, opt in, or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emily Buchanan

Hello! I was just thinking that you might want to restore Talk:Emily Buchanan too. Jobjörn (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I changed my mind on a deletion request

Deletion review for Category:User Follyglot

I have asked for a deletion review of Category:User Follyglot. You opened the original discussion here. So, here's your courtesy pointer.

Thanks!

Winter (User:Snakesteuben) (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Sorry about the delay, but I've been mulling it over. I think at this time I will decline. It's not that I'm not qualified as I have the experience and I would think no one would determine I am likely to abuse the tools, but the whole RFA process can become so divisive, and I've managed to make a fair amount of "enemies" if you will. The tools would be helpful, but I don't know if it would be worth the cost since a lot of the "voting" degenerates into what I feel are non-RFA issues. But thank you of thinking of me as admin worthy, and maybe I'll re-examine the issue this summer. You might try Pete or Katr though. Thanks again. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apparently, we have a fan

...in common. I recently reverted some vandalism from an apparent zombie computer. Never encountered such a thing before. At first, i thought it was anotehr anon who has an account with a similar address. but aside from that, what is the Venn diagram of our collected admirers? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yep, he appeared to get quite angry once I protected my page. Hopefully he got tired of it, I already blocked 5 or so of the IPs he was using. VegaDark (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Err, might I trouble you to semi-protect my user page? As I intend to be the only one working my user page, I'd loe to not have to revert any Crazy that some anon decides to poop out onto my userspace.

Btw, looking to take on a padawan to learn the ways of Wikipedia? I' like to get myself into an admn frame of mind, which also includes knowing how the tools work and such. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will begin to read them. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for blocking Skateboard

Thank you for your help in blocking Skateboard. It is greatly appreciated! Alanraywiki (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neon

Thanks for protecting that page.
I added a notice that the page is semi-protected. Did I use the correct one? Did I put it in the correct place? I am not familiar with the proper way of doing that type of thing, so I wanted to make sure I followed procedure correctly. Thanks again, J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, you did it correctly, good job. VegaDark (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nom of Atlanta Braves fans category

I agree that the Braves shouldn't be singled out. It was the only "fan" category that I've seen. I'd be happy to nom them all for deletion or merge if you will show me where I can find them.--Urban Rose 01:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thirty-Thousand.org

You can follow the progress at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JEQuidam Or it may be preferable to involve a Censor other than yourself who is not so quick to delete NON-partisan content, or is aware of matters relevant to the UNITED STATES Bill of Rights and House of Representatives. (I was mistaken.) Any constructive guidance would be appreciated, then this can be moved to the "Thirty-Thousand.org" article. JEQuidam (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)JEQuidam

[edit] Sorry 'bout that.

I just removed the semi-prot that was already there since it had been added by a random IP and was 'unofficial', but I did it right after you semi'd the page. HalfShadow (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A bit of well-earned reciprocation : )

[edit] Barnstar!

		The Original Barnstar
		Long overdue, and well-earned, for all the work at WP:UCFD you have been doing for quite some time. - jc37 03:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For all you've done to streamline and standardise user categorisation, and especially for taking care of newpage patrol for user categories. Black Falcon (Talk) 15:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedians who are forgetful

I just searched the entire archives for "forget" and couldn't find anything, and that category has no deletion history. Mind pointing out the original debate? Has UCFD finally made me crazy? In fairness, we have dealt with what, probably over 1000 categories by now. It's hard to keep track of what we have deleted or not before. VegaDark (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if my comment came across untoward. I honestly thought you were being "funny" in being "forgetful" about previous, similar nominations.

As for previous noms, I was thinking of: these, these, and these.

Also, deletion of these types of categories are nothing new. See: this or this. Hmm, maybe I should recreate those last two for myself today (smile).

Hope this helps : ) - jc37 16:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

For your edification... Check this out. - jc37 16:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lil' Kim

Thank You very much for the semi-protection. I appreciate it truly.Mcelite (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)mcelite

[edit] Tom Poleman

Thank you for your recent close of the deletion review for Tom Poleman. I've moved my recreated page from my userspace to mainspace, would you be willing to restore the deleted edits and the talk page? Thanks. DHowell (talk) 05:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Graham Spanier

Hi VegaDark,

Thanks for the tip, and I apologize for any trouble I might have caused. I'll keep that in mind for the future.

--Quintin3265 (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for protection?

Hello. Nice to meet you. I saw that you applied semi-protection to the Cuban Missile Crisis article and was wondering if you could also afford the same protection to the Che Guevara article? Me and a host of editors have been working tirelessly to improve the article under FA review and are almost complete, but recently the semi-protection that was included on the article has somehow disappeared. However, because of the controversial subject matter it almost always needs semi protection from vandalism and each day this week, I have had to revert several extremely vulgar and racist messages from IP accounts. It is a daily occurrence (sometimes several times) and I feel badly reflects on wikipedia. Could you please place semi-protection on the article for say 60 days ... so that I and fellow editors can continue our efforts without being besieged with sophomoric idiocy every few hours? Thanks and I appreciate it.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 21:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate it.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 22:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eavesdropping

Hi Vega, I saw that you and AM mentioned my mopworthiness. I think I would gladly accept a nom, if it were to materialize. In the interest of full disclosure, there's really only one episode in my editing that I regret, and that might concern people. The bulk of it took place here. It was a very unfortunate coincidence: Stephen Colbert, who had previously directed his viewers to the Oregon page, did an interview with Jimbo right as we were getting some good participation from new users in an effort to get Oregon improved to GA. An admin semi-protected the page, initially without explanation. I feel that I was right to express concern, but totally wrong in the way I expressed it, and would handle such a situation very differently if I encountered it now. (I suppose I was aware that I was being uncivil, and at the time thought it was justified. The folly of my ways is plenty apparent in hindsight.)

Anyway, I'd be honored if you wanted to nominate me, and open to any questions that might help in your evaluation of whether that's a good idea. Thanks, as always, for your efforts, especially to WP:ORE which of course has a special place in my heart! -Pete (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I do try to follow RfAs somewhat, but will take a closer look. -Pete (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment! It's true, content is my main passion. I am happiest when doing lots of content creation/editing and community building, and I believe I do my best work when happy, and am least likely to get testy or make rash decisions. I tend to go through cycles in my editing. Recently, there's been a great deal of content creation that interests me, so that's what I've been most focused on. (A major recent exception would be the discussion of image placeholders, which has involved doing a lot of work to try to determine consensus from a broad segment of the WP community.) When I get less inspired on content, I tend to go on Recent changes patrol, jump into an XfD or RfA debate, etc. In my opinion, it is a good thing to have administrators who are heavily focused on content, and make brief forays into administrative duties. I recognize that some hold differing views; to them I would say, it's essential that an administrator have sufficient experience with things like image licensing and fair use, other projects like Commons and Wikinews, deletion debates, mediation, etc. to act accordingly. I certainly feel that I have enough experience with that stuff. I have nominated numerous articles for deletion, using speedy, PROD and AfD procedures; I don't know a good way to assess the results, but my sense is that the most of my recommendations have been approved. I do lots of vandalism reversion, and would estimate that I include subst'ed {{uw}} templates about 80% of the time. I have recommended the occasional block for stuff like 3RR. I participate in CfD's and IfD's. I'm familiar with lots of criteria (like speedy delete); I would not claim to know any by rote, but my familiarity makes it possible to read up on something and act pretty quickly.

So, I would make no promises to be the most productive wielder of the mop, but I would make every effort to be well-informed and judicious in my use. I suppose my main use of the tools would to drift over to Category:Administrative backlog at the times that I presently look at recent changes, and do whatever needs doing. -Pete (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Checking Cuban Missile Crisis block -- shows in my watchpage but not on the article.

A bug? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. In a way, it's sort of appealing to think of the vandals getting increasingly frustrated and not understanding why. ;-) Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for blocking 66.234.222.52. Ilikefood (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:User gsw-M

• 15:05, 18 April 2008 VegaDark (Talk | contribs) deleted "Category:User gsw-M" ‎ (WP:CSD#C2 - Category has been speedy renamed)

What was your reasoning for that? About 100 speakers of Alemannic German use this category. -- Matthead  Discuß   21:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Give VegaDark some time to respond to this. It will require a few diffs from the archives. (I would, but, with apologies, I have to go afk for awhile.) Thanks. - jc37 21:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 19 April 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Brown Bears, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bobet 13:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amber Nectar

Can you please tell me why this article was deleted, how I can reinstate it, and where is the discussion history regarding this please?

Many thanks.

TheGeneva (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Juxtaposition COTW

Howdy Ho WikiProject Oregon! Time for another installment of Collaboration of the Week. The last few weeks we’ve knocked out quite a few articles of our current state legislators, and even a few former ones too. Great job to all those who helped make it happen. On a related note, we have had several DYKs from this and now have 53 DYKs so far this year (not counting multiples), less than four full months into the year. Last year we had a total of 83 DYKs for the entire year, and 7 combined for 2006 & 2005. So we are well on our way to another record year. Each time an article makes it to the main page as a DYK it will typically get an extra 1000 hits, which is usually far more than the typical 100 hits per month most minor articles receive. With that said, this week we have two requests, Portland Lumberjax and Silicon Forest. As always, to opt out, opt in, or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiDragon cat

Wow.

I think that something should be said on the person's talk page (and their contributions show they are active, despite what the headers say).

That really seemed to be rather an abuse of "hidden cat".

I wouldn't block over it (especially since it seems to have been an isolated incident), but a warning is probably in order.

I started to, but decided that I should defer to you as the deleting admin. - jc37 01:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• I was thinking about saying something, but figured I would just salt the category if it was created a third time. If you want to say something, go ahead. VegaDark (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Now you've got me second-guessing myself (twice in one day, per my talk page).

Perhaps you're right. A warning may cause more unnecessary "drama".

I guess I'm torn between communication and drama. (Though normally I side with communication...)

I'll think about it. - jc37 01:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that one too, and also the Category:Wikipedians who like geometry, which is a redlink with 79 userpages (the cat got moved but it looks like nobody bothered with the userpages). Do we have a bot that can do that? Horologium (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it appears as if all members are out of the category, the list in my sandbox says there are 79 members in it still however. I'm thinking some of the data that was used to create the list wasn't as up to date as it could have been in terms of category population. VegaDark (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Chad Johnson

Why not just said "reverting vandalism"?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I saw "injected himself with steroids" and immediately reverted due to that without reading further, upon reading the rest it is obviously vandalism, and I shall leave the user a warning. VegaDark (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I just get curious why sometimes I see people revert blatant vandalism with edit summaries like "pleas source" haha.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my brain was a bit shut off when I did that, even not reading farther I should have realized that him playing for a minor league team was so unlikely that it was 99.9% vandalism on that alone. VegaDark (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it's not that unlikely. Ricky Williams and Cedric Benson have played minor league ball. ;-) ►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of University of Oregon people

Can you do a Duck a favor and check out this page move? Not only is the list not all alumni, the capitalization is wrong. I believe the original wording is the convention for such lists? Katr67 (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking of your talk page

Sorry for that deletion. I was give $2 to do so. I promise I wont screw with your page or any others again (mitchell0421) P.S I dont know how to sign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchell0421 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lady Aleena's RfA

VegaDark...Thank you for participating in my nomination for adminship. Your comments have shown me those areas in which I need improve my understanding. I hope that my future endevors on Wikipedia will lead to an even greater understanding of it. If you wish to further discuss the nomination, please use its talk page. Stop by my talk page anytime, even if it is just to say hello. Have a wonderful day! - LA @ 05:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you from Horologium

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed unanimously with the support of 100 editors. Your kindness is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Wizardman, Black Falcon and jc37 for nominating me. — Horologium

[edit] Category:Former Wikipedians

Why did you delete Category:Former Wikipedians? It's there so people can see who has retired from wikipedia. Unless there is another category like this under a different name... Why? – ThatWikiGuy (talk | life) 16:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As seen in the deletion log, I deleted it as recreation of previously deleted content. Please see this debate, resulting in delete. If you want it to be overturned, you can bring it to deletion review. Please also see Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians, which seems reduntant to the category. VegaDark (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Category:Former Wikipedians could redirect to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. – ThatWikiGuy (talk | life | I'm watching you!) 07:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was deleted as a redirect as well. VegaDark (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Toddst1

hanks for sicking up for me, but now he put me on the MfD, and I was wondering if you could help me with the case. Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up} 16:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject College football May 2008 Newsletter

The May 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GAR

Could you restore Image:GARmarker.jpg? I'd like to take a crack at fixing the licensing. --evrik ^(talk) 01:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• thank you. --evrik ^(talk) 15:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spam #1

VegaDark, I do want to thank you in person for your confidence in nominating me, and your support during my RFA. Especially at the beginning, I have to say it came as somewhat of a shock to learn that some people doubted my honesty and intentions, and it made it a lot easier to get through that phase to have someone gathering evidence and speaking up on my behalf. I guess you and I haven't worked too closely together yet, so I'm particularly humbled by the confidence you've shown in my abilities, and will do my best to make you proud! -Pete (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cinco de COTW

Greetings once again from the Collaboration of the Week at WikiProject Oregon. Thank you to those who helped out with the last set of articles. This week we have the lone Stub class article left in the Top importance classification, Flag of Oregon, and by request, Detroit Lake. Help where you can, if you can. To opt out of these messages, leave your name here. Adios. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zzzz Oregon COTW

Howdy ya’ll, time for another Collaboration of the Week from WikiProject Oregon. Last week we improved Flag of Oregon & Detroit Lake, enough I think to move them to Start class, so great job everyone! This week, we have another request in Oregon Ballot Measure 47 and a randomly selected two sentence stub that should be easy to expand enough for a DYK in Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. To opt out of these messages, leave your name here, or click here to make a suggestion. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedians by musical instruments

Hi, VegaDark. While reading through the listings at WP:UCFD, I paused at the entry for Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedian Bass Clarinetists as I agree that the category should match convention. But this got me wondering, what is the fundamental difference in the various "Wikipedian (fill in a musical instrument) players" and categories such as "Wikipedians who own GTA IV" (which I listed my support for deleting) or "Wikipedians by software", etc.? At first glance, I'm not seeing how listing users by instruments played is any more valid than by type of car driven as it relates to building the encyclopedia. As playing an instrument is a wonder skill and demonstrates at least a cursory knowledge of a skill, it does not indicate an inclination for developing content in that subject area. As an active UCFDer, I would be interested in your thoughts on this. --Gwguffey (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Presumably because those in the instrument categories can produce GFDL music to help with encyclopedia articles on those instruments and/or music with expired copyright. I'd prefer a naming convention that reflected that though over the current name, as people not interested in helping the encyclopedia with their musical skills may see the category and add themselves as it's currently named, simply for self-identification. VegaDark (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your point about GFDL music is excellent. That would be valuable if more folks realized that would be a great way to contribute. Overall, I think you nailed it with your second sentence. It does currently seem to be a method of self-identification instead of of project interest and/or expertise given the name. Have you considered proposing a bulk renaming of those categories? --Gwguffey (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've considered it, but I hate making big nominations like that unless I am confident it will pass. It is a hassle tagging all the categories in a big group nom like that, and the risk of a no consensus usually means I'd have to be pretty bored in order to make a big nom like that. I also would like to see all "Who like" categories either deleted or renamed, all WikiProject categories to be renamed to a single standard, and all the programming languages changed to a new convention to name a few other big noms. I'm just about finished with finals now, so you may be seeing some of these noms pop up due to more free time. VegaDark (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Hi VegaDark; I wanted to say thank you for supporting my request for adminship, which passed with 100 supports, 0 opposes and 1 neutral. I wanted to get round everybody individually, even though it's considered by some to be spam (which... I suppose it is! but anyway. :)). It means a lot to me that the community has placed its trust in my ability to use the extra buttons, and I only hope I can live up to its expectations. If you need anything, or notice something that bothers you, don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks again, PeterSymonds | talk 22:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vote stacking assertion

Just an FYI, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with notifiying a relevant Wikiproject of improper deletions and/or a deletion review, that isn't considered canvassing or votestacking at all. I was extremely tempted to remove your "vote stacking aside" comment, as Wizardman did, myself. I'd recommend you re-remove as to AGF of Paulmcdonald's notification of the Wikiproject. VegaDark (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. VegaDark (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

My assumption of good faith is being stretched, however. I would have to completely disagree that notifying a group of sympathetic editors with a message of "HELP! Emergency action required!" is not canvassing. Stifle (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I saw the pre-DRV version and got to the DRV through your talk page discussion, the way it was later changed to go so far as to recommending people vote overturn may flirt with canvassing, but I would hope each editor that read that would be able to decide for themselves. Generally, I don't consider something canvassing unless one is specifically saying something like "VOTE DELETE!", or posting messages to people's talk pages selectively. Recommending a specified action on a Wikiproject page and providing reasons behind it, as Paulmcdonald did, doesn't go so far as to fit that mold, IMO. VegaDark (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for listening to my opinion. Stifle (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:List of fish on stamps of Afghanistan (CFD)

I don't think this deletion will be controversial, but you may wish to look at some of the categories and lists that already exist - it seems, based on your comments, that you think many of these should be deleted as well. Richard001 (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] QWERTY: Oregon COTW

Hello WikiProject Oregon participants, time for another edition of Collaboration of the Week. Last week we made some great improvements to Wallowa-Whitman National Forest and Oregon Ballot Measure 47 (1996), with a DYK for the forest. Great job everyone! This week we have another stub, George Lemuel Woods, one of only two governor stubs left, and should be an easy job getting it to Start class. Then, in honor of the long weekend, we have our second State Park Article Creation Drive. Lots of red links to turn blue, lots of opportunities for DYKs. Help if you can, even if it is only adding pictures of state parks. To opt out of these messages, leave your name here, or click here to make a suggestion. May the The Schwartz be with you. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedians Who Support Change Congress

Hello, I'm the user who started that category, which has now been listed for deletion. After reviewing the relevant policy, I can see why the category is out of line. My bad. Just a couple questions:
-Would changing the name to "Wikipedians interested in Change Congress" help?
-Why is the policy on user categories so much more strict in this regard than the policy on user boxes (which show all sorts of potentially divisive affiliations)?
I'm not trying to start anything with that second question, I'm just curious... Anyway, I won't oppose pulling the category as is, and given that no-one else has joined :( I can't imagine anyone else will.... you may delete when ready... --afamiglietti (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Got your message on my talk page! Thanks for the feedback! --afamiglietti (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects for Deletion

Hi, could you close the Six Degrees one here? Thanks Enigma ^message 05:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GFDL through deleted edits

Good afternoon. I noticed a comment that you made in your closure of a recent RfD discussion that it is your understanding that we can comply with GFDL through our preservation of deleted edits. That is, unfortunately, not true. The MediaWiki developers have not elected to purge out the deleted pages in the past few years but they have always reserved the right to do so if they need to improve performance or make some other change to the system. We could lose the deleted history of any given page or set of pages in the future with little or no notice. That means that we can not rely upon content within deleted pagehistory in order to comply with the attribution requirements of GFDL.

That said, your implication in the closure is correct that there is value to history beyond just GFDL. I just get tired of saying the same things over and over in every RfD thread that involves a pagemove. I've explained some of my thoughts in greater detail here if you're ever interested (and bored).

Thanks for your time. Rossami (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Just saw another closure you made. I would ask you to reconsider your decision on Six Degrees of Wikipedia. In your closure, you said that you were not aware of any policy backing for the maintenance of redirects in order to document pagemoves. According to our legal team, the pagename is part of the content and is subject to the attribution requirements of GFDL. Some record of the pagemove must be maintained. Redirects are not the only allowable way to record the attribution history but they are the most common and the easiest.
I would also point you to Wikipedia:Redirect#k4, the policy page which talks about keeping redirects in order to avoid breaking links and explicitly includes the requirement that we consider the probability of external links. Internal links can be corrected over time (and a bot run periodically to make sure that they stay corrected) but redirects are the only way we have to ensure that we are not breaking external links. Old pages such as this one are more likely to have external links than newer pages. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak directly to the external link part of the question, but I've personally spoken with a senior dev who has explained to me that the deleted contribs will not be removed from the database. Therefore, the deleted contribs satisfy the GFDL rules. While it is important to consider outside links, it is expected that the community, through he RFD process, will do so. Should one feel that there has been an error in the process, I would suggest they take itup with deletion review. MBisanz ^talk 21:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, my understanding of deleted edits is that, like normal edits, they are to remain indefinitely and thus satisfy GFDL requirements. As for breaking links, this looks to be pretty bare for internal links, and I don't really know a way to judge the number of external links. I do know that the proper page comes up as the first search result when "Six Degrees of Wikipedia" is typed in the search bar. Additionally, Wikipedia:Redirect#d5 specifically mentions this type of redirect to delete. In the end, it was a balancing test, and I believe consensus went with delete. If you still feel strongly about this, you are free to bring it to DRV. VegaDark (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no reliable way to gauge the external links that a page has. You can attempt an advanced google search such as this but interpreting the results is problematic. First, that format of search returns a high proportion of false positives such as link farms (though apparently not in this case - all three appear valid and current). Second and more difficult, though, it fails to return any off-line links such as journal citations.
Depending on the age and visibility of the page, the probability of external links can be quite high but there's almost no way to prove it. That's why we've always been taught that redirects are cheap and that we should apply the precautionary principle in those cases. Rossami (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I goofed in the google-search immediately above. The search I intended run was this. Interestingly, it many more links but few of them could be easily verified - that is, the links are not obvious from the text of the page. While the format above returned only a few results, all of them were relevant. Probably, you would need to run both formats of search. And then still admit that the results are extremely difficult to interpret... Rossami (talk)

[edit] X marks the WPOR COTW spot

Guten Tag WikiProject Oregon team members! Great job last week with the Collaboration of the Week, we improved George Lemuel Woods and added eleven new state park articles. This past week we also surpassed the 6000 article mark as a project. The weather may suck, but WPORE is not. For this week we have by request Music of Oregon and Phil Knight. Both need some help, and with Knight we might be able to improve it to GA standards. Once again, to opt out of these messages, leave your name here, or click here to make a suggestion. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi!

Hey, listen what was the article you deled the one with advertising, can i see it?

I think we have a sock case. Keep in touch talk to me on my talk!

5dsddddd (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks, I got to go now but i will analyze the whole thing. Also one last favor: I need the context of: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_dreams&action=edit

keep in touch! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5dsddddd (talk • contribs) 17:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject College football June 2008 Newsletter

The June 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request

(See User talk:Kbdank71 for info.)

Basically, I won't be able to sign in (indefinitely), once I sign out today.

But I noticed a cat in the "interested in media" parent (concerning newsmedia) that probably needs nominating. Sorry for the lack of links, but I have to go. I sincerely hope I can get this comp issue "fixed" sooner than later : )

Hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 00:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• The category I presume you are talking about is Category:Wikipedians interested in media as propaganda? Considering the userbox it is linked to, that definitely looks like it needs to go. I'll nominate it within the next few days. VegaDark (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A is for Apple at COTW

Hello again to those of the WikiProject we call Oregon. Time for another edition of Collaboration of the Week. Last week there was some good improvements to Music of Oregon and Phil Knight, great job everyone. This week, by request is the Applegate Trail, which is short enough to easily conjure up a DYK. Then, I’m trying something a little different, with the Portland State stuff. We included the two high profile schools during Civil War week last year, so now its time for the younger sibling that gets no respect to get some attention. After all, it is the largest college in the state. Feel free to help with whatever aspects you like, though to help with some ideas I added some to the article talk page. Click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Nana na na, hey hey hey, goouud byeeee. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:203.152.103.28

Hi there I see you've blocked User:203.152.103.28, which is the IP of a school in New Zealand. I have since added {{SharedIPEDU}} (didn't know such template existed before) on User talk:203.152.103.28 to advertise that fact. Can you please reconsider the block with that in mind and add the appropriate {{schoolblock}} on the page. Thanks. --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• I would have not made the block length any different had the IP been tagged properly, since they have had several blocks before. However, the block is anon only so registered users will be able to edit, and I have added the schoolblock template to the page. VegaDark (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know if the block length would be different since I don't know the policies regarding to these so I thought I'd give you a heads-up. --antilived^{T | C | G} 06:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Albert P. Brewer High School

Apologies for that - I'm so used to the school district articles existing. So many policies to remember :-) CultureDrone (talk) 07:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok - should be sorted out now. CultureDrone (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help?

I was messing around with my monobook page and the Wikibreak enforcer, and thought that it would run on Wiki time, not my actual time, and am now in an enforced wikibreak. Can you help me out please? The link to my page is User:Dustihowe/monobook.js. Thanks!! Dustihowe2 (talk) 06:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Delisting RFD Subpages

When you close the last debate on a RFD subpage, please remember to remove that page from the "Current list" section of the main page. Subpages are only listed while debates are active. By the way, I appreciate your activity on RFD. We don't get a lot of admins who routinely close debates there. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• I was aware it needed to be done, but figured someone like you would do it :P. I suppose I can start doing it myself though. VegaDark (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)