User talk:VegaDark/Archive 5

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:Sandboxcategory1

In follow up of Category:User:Dendodge/Sandbox category, please take a look at Category:Sandboxcategory1. Thanks. Suntag (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Nominated for deletion. VegaDark (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

UCFD User bat-smg

--Roaring Siren (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Pssst—I think my overly convoluted rationale threw you. bat-smg wikipedia already exists, so your rationale just had its legs kicked out from under it. You might want to reword it. (smile) Horologium (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:ORE COTW Version 2.2

Hello WikiProject Oregon contributors. It's time for another COTW. Thank you to those who helped improve Kevin Duckworth and the Statesman Journal last week, we received another DYK () for the SJ. This week, by request we have Mr. Ken Kesey and not by request Nike, Inc.. Nike is the only Start class article in the top 30 of those articles selected for the hard copy edition, and it could easily be improved to B class. Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleting empty categories

You may want to be a bit more careful in deleting empty categories. Category:Ghanaian Muslims has not been empty for 4+ days. In fact, not too long ago I removed an article from that category that was in violation of WP:BLP#Categories. For the past few days, the category has been populated and then depopulated a number of times for BLP concerns, so it would be somewhat understandable if you've been watching it for 4+ days and every time you have checked it has been empty. If that's the case, there's probably nothing else you could have done to be "more careful". Thanks! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's been on this list of empty categories since September 11, so yes, that must have been what happened. I always make sure the categories I delete have been empty for 4+ days, at least make sure as best I can (which appears to have not been enough in this case, but we can't help that until Wikimedia software changes). Further, however, the category was previously deleted as C1, and I've been advised before on WP:AN (this was over a year ago, however, so consensus may have changed since then) that it is acceptable to not have to wait the 4 days on categories that have previously been deleted as C1 (so users can't simply recreate categories after being originally deleted as C1). Thanks for watching for this though. VegaDark (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your quick response. Yes, what happened is understandable, since you're working off the list. I'm not too worried about this category in particular; I just wanted to make sure you had a process for ensuring the 4 day requirement, which you obviously do. Keep up the good work! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

CSD C1s

Didn't delete the page, just blanked it. Going forward, I'm going to be using a paste and then link to the oldid system to reduce the number of sandboxes I use. So, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=239444378 is the page you're after. And User:MZMcBride/Sandbox 2 is where the index is located. :-) Keeps things a bit simpler and doesn't screw up the WhatLinksHere function. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Babel

• User_talk:Horologium#Babel_extension

Just thought you might also want to know : ) - jc37 01:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Red red links make me feel so fine...

Greetings WikiProject Oregon editors. It's time for another edition of the COTW. Thank you to those who helped improve Ken Kesey and the Nike, Inc. last week. This week, by request we have the Northwest Forest Plan and then a Red Link Elimination Drive. For the red links, pick any one you want from any article, the list provided is just to help make it easier. And if you get a good article started, don’t forget to nominate it for a DYK. Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of sufi barkat Ali

Dear,

The man in discussion was not an ordinary person who served his whole life for the preaching's of Islam and made significant impact on the life of Muslims to lead their life for peace and love with the human kind. There are more than 100 books he has written down during his life for the welfare of humanity to learn exactly what islam is. So in no way a page from Wikipedia can be deleted which provides information about a person with such contribution to his religion where millions of people followed his teachings to lead their life according to what exactly islam teaches to its followers. He also started free healthcare camps for eye treatment at his place Darul-Ehsan where thousands of poor people got their eyes treated twice in a year. This year on 16th of Ramadan there was his 11th death anniversary which was attended by around 1 million people.

You are requested to make this page available for people to find firsthand knowledge about this legend of islam. Azam Ishaque 09:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azamishaque (talk • contribs)

• I deleted the redirect per speedy deletion requirement WP:CSD#R1. I did not delete the original article, so I have no opinion on its merits VegaDark (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Block

I am afraid I think it neccessary for you to reblock 72.29.253.250 due to continious vandalism after the previous block imposed on him. A Cool Editor (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• It looks like he had a final warning, if he vandalises past that please report to WP:AIV. VegaDark (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Category :Norwegian-American Wikipedians

Thanks for letting me know about that, I'll take my case over there. I appreciate your help. - Schrandit (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football October 2008 Newsletter

The October 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) 22:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Very Special COTW, act now!

Greetings WikiProject Oregon peoples. It is once again time for another edition of the COTW. Thank you to those who helped eliminate some red links the last few weeks (the NWFP received little attention). This week, we have the stub High Desert Museum and then in honor of losing airline service again, McNary Field. Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Database reports

You're welcome. :-P --MZMcBride (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Sri Lankan terrorists

I see you deleted Category:Sri Lankan terrorists and I guess it was based on a report of empty categories. But note that this category is controversial. It was kept at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 6#Category:Terrorists by nationality, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 25#Unqualified "Terrorism" and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 9#Category:Sri Lankan terrorists. But all articles in it have been removed by editors who apparently oppose the terrorist label: [1][2]. This has left it empty for some time but Category:Terrorism in Sri Lanka still exists with subcategories like Category:Terrorist incidents in Sri Lanka. Maybe the category should not be speedy deleted under these circumstances although it may technically qualify as C1 currently. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Situations like this is basically why 4 days of being empty is one of the requirements for C1, but I guess it can't catch everything (this category has actually been empty for at least 10 days). That being said, I don't have any vested interest in this category existing or not, as I was in fact working from a list. Personally I don't feel this deserves an exception because it is such an easy action to reverse. If the category gets re-populated (hopefully via consensus), then I have no problem with someone restoring the category or even doing it myself, as a C1 deletion certainly doesn't bar recreation. Until then though, I don't see the point of keeping around an empty category. I won't re-delete it if you feel restoring is the best action, though. VegaDark (talk) 02:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply to UCFD submission

Ding dong. — neuro^(talk) 11:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

XXX<-COTW->XXX

Howdy WikiProject Oregon humans. Time for another edition of the C to the O to the T to the W. Thanks to those who help out on McNary Field and Bend’s High Desert Museum. For this week, we shall tackle Bridges on US 101 and then with the last few days of decent weather, The Semi-Annual Picture Drive. Plenty of red links on the bridge list, or improve a stub! Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Atheism

Hi,

A while ago you semi protected Atheism for excessive vandalism, I think enough time has passed and I was hoping that you would unprotect it. Thanks   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Done. VegaDark (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

help me avoid an edit war

I'm trying to avoid an edit war with Babic R. Branko over content he persists in adding to Category:Fires in Kuwait. The material in question has POV problems and belongs in article space, if anywhere. I've already removed the material twice and left a message on his talk page. I'd be grateful if you'd study the edit history and advise me on how to proceed. - Stepheng3 (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention. I hope it does the trick. - Stepheng3 (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Nominations

At one point I mentioned to Black Falcon (where are they anyway?) that the rate of nominations by month was often skewed by my occasional mass nominations. Well, your steady stream of noms would seem to bypass that.

Just thought I'd express appreciation that you're keeping an eye on user categories. (Especially since I've allowed myself to get repeatedly distracted at WP:CFD. - jc37 02:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. As for BF, I don't know. I sent him an email a few days ago and he hasn't responded. Hope he's alright. VegaDark (talk) 02:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

  Me too.

  So many go suddenly MIA. User:After Midnight is another I haven't seen for while. - jc37 05:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

  At least After Midnight left a Wikibreak message, though. For future reference, if I ever have inactivity for more than a couple months without some sort of notification, you can assume I'm dead. Looking at my history, the longest I've ever been inactive since joining is about 2 weeks, and I highly doubt I would leave without some sort of notice. VegaDark (talk) 06:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

  Rofl.

  I've gone on a few Wikibreaks, though they've (mostly) been due to RL encroaching. (Which can happen without warning, or with little notice.) Though I'll admit that I've also chosen at times to allow RL to encroach.

  And I've been intending on taking a Wikibreak now for a couple months, but I keep finding things to pull me back in. So I'm kinda not quite as active as I might be, but yet quite a bit more active than I probably should be : ) - jc37 08:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

209.68.139.250 indefinite blocking

Is there a process I should go through to request this address be indefinitely blocked? I had done the same for our old address 209.68.139.150 some time ago. I am the network Engineer at Morgan Hill Unified School District. There is no reason that students need to anonymously edit articles. Thanks. --Leuqarte (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Elect the Best Financed, Least Offensive Person For the Job (aka Oregon COTW)

Hello fellow WikiProject Oregon folks, it’s time for another COTW. But first, just remember that those other guys only want to raise your taxes, but I won’t. A big thank you to those who helped make improvements to Bridges on US 101 and participating in The Semi-Annual Picture Drive. And unlike the other guys, I won’t ship your jobs overseas! This week, we have Mr. Bipartisan Wayne Morse who went from being a Republican to an Independent and finally to a Democrat. Then, let’s see if we can finish up creating articles for members of the Oregon House before their January inauguration. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. I’m Aboutmovies, and I approve this message. Paid for the committee to elect Aboutmovies. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocks

Okay. Are they only for registered accounts, then? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Polluted categories

Sorry I missed you earlier. Been a bit distracted all day. :-) Updated the crontab to run the script three times a week instead of just once per week. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Your message to User:Paul August

I'm sorry to say that I found your message to Paul August to be unhelpful and officious.[3] As you may be aware, Paul is a longtime administrator and a former member of the Arbitration Committee; as such, he is well aware of Wikipedia's blocking policy. I have reviewed his indefinite blocks of IP addresses, and have determined that all but two were indefinite blocks of school IPs. Blocking of school IPs for extended periods, including indefinite periods, is commonplace and not outside the acceptable range. The other two IPs are with an ISP whose addresses are unusually stable. Keep in mind that, as a CheckUser, Paul may well have had additional information about activities from those IPs that was not included in the block log for WP:BEANS reasons. This happens far more frequently than meets the eye. I hope that, in the future, you consider the tone of your message - is it friendly and collegial? Is it informative, for example including the (short) list of the IPs you unblocked? It would be far more in keeping with WP:AGF to inquire why an administrator has made a block (even one you have reversed) than it is to chide him like a small child for having made it in the first place. I'd like to think that we're all here to help each other (and the encyclopedia) be better. Risker (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• I don't find anything you said to be persuasive as to excusing these blocks or for me to have made my message "nicer". First of all his block log is fairly short, so I didn't see the need to list the IPs in question as they were easily found in his block log. Second, there are plenty of admins who aren't as familiar with the the blocking policy as well as they could be. In my experience this is ironically often the case for some of the longer standing admins, as RfA's were much less of a big deal back in the day, so the understanding in certain parts of policy were not questioned nearly as heavily as it is now. I have no idea if that is the case here, but all the evidence from these blocks points to yes. People can be great admins in some areas and completely unfamiliar in other areas (as I myself am). As for "Blocking of school IPs for extended periods, including indefinite periods, is commonplace and not outside the acceptable range.", please point me to where it says that in the blocking policy. That is completely wrong as far as I know, and goes contrary to several portions of the blocking policy, examples being: "Users intending to block an IP address should at a minimum check for usage of that address, and consider duration carefully. IP addresses should rarely, if ever, be blocked indefinitely."; "Blocks on shared or dynamic IP addresses are typically shorter than blocks on registered accounts or static IP addresses made in otherwise similar circumstances, to limit side-effects on other users sharing that IP address."; and "However, IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked. Many IPs are dynamically assigned and change frequently from one person to the next, and even static IP addresses are periodically re-assigned or have different users. In extreme cases, consider long-term blocks over a period of months or years instead. Long-term blocks should never be used for isolated incidents." As for "The other two IPs are with an ISP whose addresses are unusually stable", as mentioned above that could possibly justify longer blocks, but not an indef one. Your checkuser point has merit, except for the fact that the block log has absolutely no indication that such blocks were made for such purposes. There are plenty of things that could go in the block reasoning without WP:BEANS becoming an issue, such as "Per checkuser", "do not unblock without talking to me first", or any other individualised reason different from the exceedingly common "Vandalism-only account" reason. It is IMO silly to suggest I should have somehow concluded there could be a secret reason behind these blocks other than the one given. Now, on to the tone of my message, perhaps it was a bit terse, but it was 100% with the goal of improving the encyclopedia. I could have simply unblocked without leaving him any message, for instance, but I wanted to make sure this didn't happen again. I respect everything Paul August (and you) have done for the encyclopedia and certainly didn't want to give off a "chiding like a small child" impression, I simply wanted to help him the next time he blocks an IP. VegaDark (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Tossing in my $0.02 as well: VegaDark, I too was concerned with the tone that you were using towards Paul August, a member of WP:ARBCOM. Even just looking at the history of 71.201.234.208 (talk · contribs), the IP had been used for nothing but vandalism for years, so there was no reasonable assumption of good faith, so I'm not understanding why there was a need to unblock without consultation. We routinely place longterm blocks on anon accounts, for example see {{schoolblock}}. We also routinely place indefinite blocks on proxy IDs, and these blocks can be done "on sight" with no need for warning. It would have been better in this case, and more collegial, if you asked Paul August for his reasoning, per WP:BLOCK#Unblocking. For example, you could have said, "Hi, I was reviewing indefinite blocks on anon IPs, and I saw that you'd blocked the following IPs indefinitely (list). I found this curious, considering that there were no warnings, and that IPs are not normally blocked for long periods. Could you perhaps help explain? I look forward to learning more about blocking procedures on Wikipedia, thanks." --Elonka 21:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
    • To characterize the history of that IP as "nothing but vandalism for years" is technically accurate, but gives the wrong impression from its actual history. 7 edits spread out over 3 years, all childish vandalism, most certainly does not justify an indefinite block, especially without any prior warnings or any message whatsoever on their talk page. Even if they had 4 warnings and vandalised past that, nothing more than a 24 or 31 hour block would have been warranted. I would gladly take up that question with a wider community discussion if that is in dispute. Further, I find this message far more "chiding like a child" than my original message. I am fully aware of {{schoolblock}} and our practice with open proxies (school IPs are NOT considered open proxies), and to suggest I should have said "I look forward to learning more about blocking procedures on Wikipedia" is practically insulting, although I will AGF that that was not your intent. I encourage anyone commenting to review the blocking policy and specifically cite to me any portion where they think I got it wrong. If anyone has an issue with the tone of my message, that is your prerogative, but anyone defending these blocks as not being wrong makes me gravely concerned about the wider understanding of our blocking policy. VegaDark (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
      • VegaDark, thank you for toning down your message to Paul August.[4] However, I still take exception with your claim that "blocking IP addresses, while it used to be a somewhat common practice, is virtually nonexistent now." I'm afraid you're just plain wrong on that. May I suggest that you spend more time at WP:AIV, which may help better acquaint you with common practice? My own experience is that blocks of IP addresses are quite routine.[5] I'm confident that Risker would say the same.[6] --Elonka 04:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
        • I, of course, meant indefinitely blocking IP addresses, not simply blocking IP addresses in general (as can be seen from my block log as well). Fixed now. VegaDark (talk) 04:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification and tea

I'm hesitant to wade into the above, as I don't have all the information (diffs would be helpful), but it seems to me that, unless I'm missing something, the only difference of opinion here is over whether IP addresses should be indefinitely blocked?

If so, then that's something that's come up several times in the past, and my recollection is to not indef IPs except in extreme WP:IAR cases, or, under certain circumstances in the case of school blocks.

(Noting that I've indef blocked IPs in the past before I knew about this myself.)

Anyway, if this is all this is about, could we all please Have a cup of tea? To me, this just seems like several long term editors, which I would like to presume are all acting in good faith, merely having a misunderstanding. - jc37 04:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I second the call for tea. From skimming this thread, it looks like a healthy dose of chill pills are needed all around. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I am embarrassed that my "questionable" blocks have become the cause of such a fuss. I think jc37 and MZMcBride are on the right track here, tea all around. But it is too cold where I live for a "chill pill" so please make mine Earl Grey, hot! Paul August ☎ 17:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

User:81.149.128.104

This is one of the unblocked indefinitely blocked IPs. Is anyone keeping track of these? It would be interesting to know how many reoffend within a short period of time. I don't know if that I did just now was correct, reblocked for 72 hours after vandalism on 2 articles. Too long, too short, too soon? Thanks. dougweller (talk) 09:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't more fully investigated, but if this is a "school block" as has been suggested, then anything less than a week is probably a waste of time. In cases of an IP repeatedly vandalising (over a couple days or over a slew of articles). to the point of where an account would be indef-blocked, I typically lean towards 1-3 months. Sometimes even 6 months, depending on the situation.

I have a vague recollection of a near-consensus on this at WP:AN or WP:AN/I. Someone (I think it was bibliomatic, but don't hold me to it) was mass-indef blocking IPs, and after a discussion of static and non-staic, and emailing schools, and a horde of other things, most didn't oppose 6 months to a year, with indef only for extreme IAR cases.

But this is just a vague recollection. And I'll by no means claim to be an expert concerning blocking, so please take my advice/thoughts with a grain of salt : ) - jc37 12:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• If they continued vandalizing after my unblock then a re-block is certainly appropriate. Considering the history of that IP I personally would have re-blocked for longer, perhaps 1-3 months, but I don't have a problem with a 72 hour block in that case. I've seen as low as a couple hours- It really depends on the philosophy of the admin, some prefer shorter blocks with the hopes that the person using the computer will move on, others prefer longer blocks anticipating the user will come back to vandalize. VegaDark (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Harvest Time @ COTW

Greetings WikiProject Oregon folks, it’s time for another edition of the fabled COTW. Thank you to all who helped make improvements to Wayne Morse and creating some members of the Oregon House. This week, we have by request Upper Klamath Lake which think made the news lately with a salmon plan. Then, in honor of the end of the harvest time, we will go farming with Fort Stevens. There is a beautiful link farm in the article that is ripe for harvesting into citations. It should provide for a bountiful feast, or alternatively you can take your hoe to it and weed some out. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. WARNING: COTW is not approved for children under 3 and may contain choking hazards for small children. DO NOT leave your child unattended with COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

User:213.100.68.170

Only a few hours after the unblock, this editor is again Ethiopia to say it is one of the richest (rather than poorest) countries in Africa. They are, however, discussing it on the talk page [7], so just leave it (someone else reverted it as it contradicted the reference) for now? dougweller (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Zero Down, Zero Interest at the Oregon COTW

Hello to all the WikiProject Oregon folks, time once again for yet another bone chilling edition of the Collaboration Of The Week. I thank yee who helped make improvements to Fort Stevens and Upper Klamath Lake. For this first week of December, we have by request Mike Bellotti and his archrival Mike Riley, both in honor of that great tradition we call the Civil War (AKA the battle for the platypus). As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. This message is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents is strictly prohibited. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football December 2008 Newsletter

The December 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.
Automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted categories

Please undelete all the red categories listed below; they are all targets of category redirects that were waiting for the bot to populate them, and are no longer empty (they each have at least one article now holding the place, with many more that will be moved the next time the bot runs). Thanks.

1. Category:Zimbabwean Test cricketers redirects to Category:Zimbabwe Test cricketers
2. Category:West Indian ODI cricketers redirects to Category:West Indies ODI cricketers
3. Category:Zimbabwean ODI cricketers redirects to Category:Zimbabwe ODI cricketers
4. Category:West Indian Twenty20 International cricketers redirects to Category:West Indies Twenty20 International cricketers
5. Category:West Indian Test cricketers redirects to Category:West Indies Test cricketers
6. Category:Zimbabwean Twenty20 International cricketers redirects to Category:Zimbabwe Twenty20 International cricketers

--Russ (talk) 10:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Done. VegaDark (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There are about two dozen other categories like those above, if you come across and "List of [country] Test/ODI/Twenty20 cricketers", please don't delete them as they are all targets for redirect and will be populated by a bot in the next few days (hopefully). Happy editing. Nev1 (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: One more time with feeling: WP:ATHLETE, college athletes

I can certainly understand where you're coming from on that. To be sure, there is definitely a wide range of opinions on it, and I hope down the line, there is a more rigid standard set as to what is, and is not, good for inclusion. Certainly, I have no interest in including a walk-on who plays one minute of his college basketball career and then is never heard from again. But for scholarship players who have received significant independent coverage in high school and are now playing at the Div-I level, I think they have a place in Wikipedia. Again, my big thing with Wikipedia is the reliability standard set forth by WP:BIO. There are plenty of secondary source sources for college basketball (ESPN, CBS, Fox Sports, Scout, Rivals, etc, etc), which clears the standard of "multiple independent sources" that are "needed to prove notability". Even guys who don't start can be notable. Take Andy Rautins - he hasn't started a game this season, but he played on Team Canada[8][9][10] for the Olympic qualifying tournament and received coverage for tearing his ACL from numerous reliable sources last year.[11][12][13][14] I certainly find him notable, but with the standard of only having Div-I men's basketball players who start be considering for inclusion, someone notable like Andy would not be included. Anyway, those are my ideas. I know that you disagree, but I wanted you to know that I'm not coming out of left field. Thanks. GoCuse44 (talk) 05:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Actually I would support inclusion of someone like Andy Rautins, but not because of his college play- I'd consider playing for Team Canada sufficiently notable for inclusion. What I don't want to see are pages for every college basketball player with no other claim to notability. Yes, they will satisfy the multiple reliable source requirement, but that alone doesn't persuade me that they deserve a page. I've gone through the numbers before, and the NCAA has something like 200,000+ current athletes. If you start arguing that all basketball players deserve a page, it's a slippery slope as to just how far we will go to include other college athletes. Certianly football players would qualify, and it's probably not too hard to find a few sources for players on even minor sports like volleyball or softball. Local papers often have nothing better to do than to run a story on a volleyball player's community service, or a women's bowling team member's story on how they are the first member of their family to go to college, etc. etc. It just isn't that hard for an athlete to satisfy the reliable source requirement, which is why I definitely don't think we should automatically give pages to those that do. Even if you only gave D-I men's basketball players with scholarships pages, that would be a huge number. There are around 320 men's D-I teams, and what, about 10-12 scholarships allowed per team? That's more than 3500 pages right there, with another thousand or so being added every year. According to my Amateur Sports Law class, only 2% of college basketball players ever play professionally. So 98% of these pages will end up permanant stubs saying "He played in college, but later became a plumber/accountant/stock broker/dishwasher/etc." Fact is, not many college basketball players deserve pages at all IMO. I would advocate only allowing pages (this standard could be applied accross all college sports) to 1. Players that play professionally (must play in an actual game IMO, not just make a team), 2. Players who win a major college award (most players that do this play professionally, but not always), or 3. Players who are a school-recognized All-American in their sport (athletic, not academic- This would cover the few guys who obviously deserve a page, such as Curry or Hansburough). If the player doesn't meet any of those standards, then they should have something otherwise notable about them in order to get a page (as is the case of Rautins), or at least extensive media coverage on sites like ESPN and SI (to allow for pages on players like Beasly or Mayo during their freshman season last year). For what it's worth, I've been arguing this pretty much since I've been here- 3 years to this day, actually. VegaDark (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly understand that argument. For the "minor" sports like volleyball or softball, I think the college athlete would need to win something like a conference player of the year to warrant inclusion. But I think for a "major" sport like football or basketball, which really does receive around the clock coverage, all of these players seem to warrant inclusion. I'm sure you would agree that college volleyball doesn't receive nearly the coverage that basketball or football receives. ESPN and CBSsportsline devote entire sections of their sites to coverage of these teams. Think about a team like Syracuse or Alabama or Kansas (or in your case, Oregon), where that particular region does not have a professional sports team. The college team there is followed more than any other team in that region. And while there is no doubt that there are 200,000+ current NCAA athletes that may warrant inclusion, I would narrow my inclusion guidelines to include only those athletes from the "major" BCS conferences in the "major" sports, which receive so much national attention that there really is enough independent third-party coverage to warrant inclusion. Arbitrary? Absolutely. But I think that is where the line should be drawn in the sand. (By the way, if you wouldn't mind, if you have a reply, please leave it on my talk page.) Thanks. GoCuse44 (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

UCFD Merge discussion, again

I don't know if you noticed this, but considering the lack of activity over there, it may be the best course of action, even though the tentative plan was to deal with a few category groupings before the merge. I'm on winter break now, so I have tons of time to help with any last hurrah nominations we want to get in before the merge if you want. VegaDark (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I've commented there.

As for the "back-burner", let's see...

1.) the diver categories need renaming.

2.) rename the alma mater cats, their current names violate the guidelines at WP:CAT. (Wikipedians by campus?)

3.) Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Wikipedians by programming language

4.) prune the generic degrees (BA BS, etc.) retaining only those which specify a "field".

5.) Wikipedians by ethnicity subcats - delete. And replace nationality cats (wherever possible) with Wikipedians "from" <location>.

6.) Wikipedians who "like" be renamed to whatever more specific verb applies. (For example: Wikipedians who watch <TV series>.)

7.) delete subcats of "by collaboration" for inactive collaborations.

8.) And while we're at it, delete (parent and subcats) "by interest", "by religion", and "by philosophy".

Still have any winter break left? : ) - jc37 09:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Very cold, must type about the Oregon COTW to stay warm

Hello again from WikiProject Oregon’s Collaboration of the Week HQ. Since there was no notice last time, thanks to those who helped improve Mike Riley and Mike Bellotti at the begging of the month and to those who helped create Oregon Department of Justice and Lindsay Applegate last week. Those last two were the red links with lots of links to them from other articles (DOJ was #1). For this week, in honor of Arctic Blast/Winter Storm/Damn its Freakin’ Cold Outside 2008/Storm of the Century/Is there ANYTHING else going on in the world?/We Might Actually Have a White Christmas, we have Snow Bunny. Then as part of the Stub elimination drive, we have state senator Margaret Carter, which could easily be turned into a nice DYK entry once expanded 5X. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Have a Holly Jolly Christmas/Hanukah/ Kwanzaa/Winter Solstice. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Oregon State Beavers men's basketball

On 23 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oregon State Beavers men's basketball, 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 06:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hass

Pro Football Weekly, which has the only *official* transactions on the internet (even NFL.com isn't). I usually don't trust team websites, and the Bears' website, when it comes to rosters, is one of the worst out there. Pats1 ^T/C 23:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

User:ArabKh

Don't the racist attacks ArabKh's making on his Talk page warrant a block of longer than 24 hours? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes- If you check the block log, you will see I reblocked him indefinitely after he made those comments. VegaDark (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Profane edit comments by vandal

Dear VegaDark: Thank you for blocking User:Leabnm as a vandal. He left behind 3 identical, extremely profane edit comments in article space. In my opinion, these edit comments should be deleted. Finell (Talk) 05:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC) (To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply here on your Talk page.)

• Well, they have been reverted. Did you want the revisions oversighted? They probably don't qualify as libelous but you could try. VegaDark (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I know that the edits were reverted; the problem is not in the content of the edits themselves. I asked for deletion of the obscene edit comments. No one, particularly minors, should have to see "Undo FUCKED MOTHER FUCKER & NAZI idea cock sucker CFred" when they look at the edit history of Nicolaus Copernicus. Apparently, since I left my prior message on your Talk page, an admin (you?) already deleted User:Leabnm's identical edit comment from the edit histories of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium and the third article (possibly Geocentric model). My concern is with Wikipedia's integrity, not libel, although User:C.Fred could state a prima facie case of libel. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 17:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC) (To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply here on your Talk page.)
    • I deleted two out of the three edit comments after seeing this thread. The third comment, as you point out, was in Nicholaus Copernicus, an article with over 5000 entries in it's history. Unfortunatly, it is not possible to delete and restore such articles by normal means - it won't allow me as an admin to do it - as the server load it creates is huge, and it jams up the site for everyone, so I couldn't do anything about that one. I suggest you take it to oversight, though I don't guarentee that you'll get the result you want. _TalkIslander 17:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh, just wanted them deleted, not oversighted- I see now. Thanks for dealing with that. Unfortunately as noted above, the third page has over 5,000 revision so there is nothing an regular admin can do about that. VegaDark (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection of Matt Smith (British actor)

As the protecting admin, could you take a look at this discussion on the talk page? Cheers, _TalkIslander 11:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up. VegaDark (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the speedy WP:UCFD of Category:Wikipedians who use the iPhone. I appreciate having people around who remember (and cite!) past decisions. Be well, - Stepheng3 (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus Building

As a user who responded to the straw poll regarding non-free images in sports, your further input is requested with regards to the Straw poll summary and proposed guidelines on image use — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject College football January 2009 Newsletter

The January 2009 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) 03:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New COTW

Greetings from WikiProject Oregon’s Collaboration of the Week. First off, thank you to everyone who has done work the last few weeks on the last two COTWs. This week we have by request Oregon and California Railroad, part of the lands involved in the Oregon Land Fraud Scandal. Then as part of the Stub elimination drive, we have longtime politician Grattan Kerans, which hopefully can be turned into a nice DYK entry. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

History of Fort Lauderdale, Florida

Just a quick note to let you know that I reverted your removal of a category from this article. WP:MIAMI covers all of the South Florida area, not just Miami, so the category was appropriate. As I am the primary author of the article (check the edit history), I am quite familiar with the article's history, and that category has been attached to the article since its creation. I am also a member of WP:MIAMI, and am familiar with the scope of the project.

Just a quick heads-up so you didn't think I was blindly reverting you. (grin) Horologium (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: IP

Ah, in most cases that would be true. That said, this IP has been identified as a school-based IP, and the guidelines concerning school IPs state that persistent vandalism can result in revocation of editing abilities. Consistent and continuous blocks exist on every IP I've ever seen within a school, should the same not be true of this IP? Cam ^(Chat) 21:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review of Category:Wikipedians who have a unique unified login

I'm asking for you to review your deletion of Category:Wikipedians who have a unique unified login which you deleted for: "WP:CSD#G4 - Recreation of deleted material (see Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/March 2008#Category:Wikipedians with a global account)"

According to the March 2008 discussion (note the time difference between then and now), Category:Wikipedians who have a unique unified login is a duplicate of Category:Wikipedians with a global account. Category:Wikipedians with a global account was deleted as many users stated that it was a copy of Category:Administrators and that the feature (unified login) is only available to administrators.

Although (by name) it is a re-creation of Category:Wikipedians with a global account (which I did not know about at the time), it cannot possibly be a copy of Category:Administrators since all users have access to the unified login feature (as of May 27, 2008).

So... might I suggest that this be brought up in deletion review?

--Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 19:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• The category being "essentially a copy of Category:Administrators" was only one of several rationales provided in favor of deletion in the original debate. Since then, I personally feel the argument for deletion is actually stronger now since a unified login is no longer just for admins. To quote EVula's rationale, "This is, quite simply, a unique category only as a temporary measure. Unless my understanding is off, unified logins are going to happen for everyone (they're only for admins right now because it's a smaller group with which to test this out with). Once that happens, this category will be as helpful as "Wikipedians with an account"." Hence, I felt the category qualified as "substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." If you disagree, I have no problem with you bringing it to WP:DRV. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Afro-Cuban categories

In the course of my editing of WP Music of Cuba articles, I have run across an anomaly. There are a host of categories starting with 'Afro-Cuban jazz' instead of 'Cuban jazz'. Now Afro-Cuban refers to black Cubans, and yet in Cuban music there really is no such ethnic divide. Musicians who have played, and are playing jazz, are notable for their playing, not their race, and musical groups include men and women of all types. Quite a few people listed in these categories are white, which illustrates the problem.

As I see it, it is wrong to artificially separate members of a single band (say) into racial categories. What we need is a wholesale change of category names from Afro-Cuban jazz... to Cuban jazz... These are the categories concerned:

• Category:Afro-Cuban jazz composers
• Category:Afro-Cuban jazz ensembles
• Category:Afro-Cuban jazz bandleaders
• Category:Afro-Cuban jazz musicians

Category:Afro-Cuban jazz clarinetists

Category:Afro-Cuban jazz double-bassists

Category:Afro-Cuban jazz drummers

Category:Afro-Cuban jazz guitarists

Category:Afro-Cuban jazz percussionists

Category:Afro-Cuban jazz pianists

Category:Afro-Cuban jazz saxophonists

Category:Afro-Cuban jazz singers

Category:Afro-Cuban jazz trombonists

Category:Afro-Cuban jazz trumpeters

Well, you can see it's a big problem, especially as I prefer to spend my time writing articles! I have made a start by moving the wp article from Afro-Cuban jazz to Cuban jazz. It required only modest revision and some additions, which goes to illustrate my point. Perhaps you could give some thought to this predicament. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• I would suggest you bring your proposed solution to WP:CFD, where a consensus can build over what to do with the categories. VegaDark (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That IP

I reduced the IP you specifically mentioned to 3 months (but it's a stable IP, apparently). I'll follow up on all the others you referenced. Thanks for the warning! --Orange Mike | Talk 16:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion procedure for Category:American expatriate Wikipedians

Hi. The section header is a link to a discussion I'm starting on Jerry's talk page regarding the deletion of Category:American expatriate Wikipedians, which you proposed. Aside from the merits of the category, I thought deleting it based on the opinion of a single editor was a little hasty. If you'd like to add to the discussion, please post on Jerry's talk page. -- Meyer (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you Vega for helping us keep the War on Terrorism page vandal free. Bounce78 (talk) 06:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Museums & Prisons COTW

Howdy to all those in WikiProject Oregon land! To start, thanks to those who helped improve Grattan Kerans and Oregon and California Railroad as part of the Collaboration of the Week. This week we’ll try and start some new articles with a red link elimination drive on a couple of Oregon lists. So, you have your pick of prisons, or museums. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Final version

As a contributor to the discussion regarding sports team logos, I am soliciting feedback as to the latest version of that guideline. Your support/opposition/feedback would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Portugal

We reached a compromise deal on how to select adequate images. See the discussion there. Tugaworld (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject College football February 2009 Newsletter

The February 2009 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) 02:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

B-day for Oregon

Hello to WikiProject Oregon peoples! Thank you to those who helped start some new articles on prisons and museums. This week, in honor of Oregon’s 150th b-day, we have the slightly older Oregon Constitution and the first state governor John Whiteaker. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

UCFD working page

Hi, I finally had a chance to come by UCFD today and I will update the topical index by the end of tomorrow (I've been working on it in my text editor). I noticed that there is a bit of a backlog at the working page; do you know which bot (if any) handles UCFD nowadays? Thanks, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Please create User:VegaDark/James Arbuthnot (wrestling coach)

Oregon State Beavers; head wrestling coach (twice). Many thanks. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Xenophopia does not involve a Xylophone: Another WPORE COTW

Greetings to WikiProject Oregon members. A big thank you to everyone who helped last week with the Oregon Constitution and John Whiteaker. This week, we have by request Clyde Drexler and a newer article in Religion in Oregon (I thought surveys said we didn’t have religion in Oregon). Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Categorization

Can you give me a few minutes to work on recategorizing Category:Songs that are playable elements in computer entertainment? I would appreciate it. —Dromioofephesus (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It seemed to me that you speedily deleted one of its subcategories before I had the opportunity to add articles. However, consensus seems to be that this category does not require further categorization, and it was deleted after a short discussion. I guess it doesn't really matter anyway, because most of what I think seems productive usually winds up under scrutiny. Thanks.

—Dromioofephesus (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Reno Aces players

FYI, I've restored Category:Reno Aces players now that it's possible to populate it. Best, Mackensen (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Killer Oregon COTW, its Totally Rad

Greetings WikiProject Oregon peoples. It is once again time for another edition of the World Famous Collaboration Of The Week. Thank you to those who worked on Clyde and [the lack of] Religion in Oregon. This week (as many have noticed), we have the “it was a red link” and by request Eugene Station and Heceta Head in honor of the work that’s been going on at Oregon Coast. Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. On a side note, does the recent news of Portland being the unhappiest place in all the land make people there more unhappy? Aboutmovies (talk) 06:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

IRC user cats

The mIRC and irssi user categories, which you nominated here, are being discussed here, here, here and here. Thought you'd like to know. Cheers, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

V is for Victory at the COTW: Brought to you by the Letter W (naming rights still available)

Hear ye, hear ye WikiProject Oregon villagers. Tis time for another edition of ye ol’ Collaboration Of Thine Week. Thank you to those who worked on Eugene Station and Heceta Head the last few weeks, may the Black Death spare ye family. This time we have a we little stub in the John Ross Tower and by request Bill Walton in honor of a pretty good chance at making the playoffs for the Blazers (sorry can’t think of a good Old English type language for that one, but if we go with Olde English 800, then the Jail Blazers could come into play). Anyway, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Category

How is life? Well I was trying to create a Category:Chileans of Serbian descent but it seems that it was created in the past but you deleted it. I was wondering how can this category be reintroduced. I was trying to place some biographical pages of Chilean serbs to this category. Goldrolex (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC).

• I deleted it as an empty category, so as long as you populate it after creation, feel free to recreate it. VegaDark (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Current Wikipedia birthdays

I have left you a response at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 5#Category:Current Wikipedia birthdays. Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

UCFD & CFD?

Hi, I just saw the batch of UCFD's you posted to the CFD page, with your explanatory note on each. I was wondering how & when UCFD came to be merged with CFD, and thought you would know the explanation. I wasn't aware that anything like this was in the works. Cgingold (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Responded at Cgingold's talk page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Zeus is a really cool dude and he thinks these WP:ORE articles are cool too

Greetings WikiProject Oregon guys and gals. Once again it is time for another edition of the our niche market Collaboration Of The Week. As always, thank you to those who worked on the Ross Tower and Walton. For this week we have the Calapooya Mountains and by request (and in honor of the opening) the venerable Portland Saturday Market. Just remember, if you are feeling blue, try breathing (rimshot please). Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For the help. I wasn't really sure what that page was meant to be. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Automated speedy deletions

It seems to me to be really counterproductive, make-work, and/or acute editcountitis that you apparently automatically speedy-deleted a category such as Category:Quarterly journals that has obviously hundreds of prospective articles just by looking at its name (and the most cursory googling proved so to the uninitiated) just because it was too recent to be populated yet. Had to recreated and populated in a really quick and dirty fashion without all the associated categorization, tags, ISSN research and copyediting, thanks to you. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 01:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've never done an automated admin action in the history of my time on Wikipedia. Every deletion I make is by hand and reviewed by me. That being said, it was an empty category for 4 days subject to the C1 speedy deletion criteria. I'm not going to evaluate every category that meets this speedy deletion criteria to see if potential pages could be added to it. Frankly, almost no category would every be deleted via this criteria if that were the case, and it would defeat the entire purpose of the criteria. It would essentially allow infinite empty placeholder categories to exist unpopulated indefinitely as long as there was a possibility of it ever being populated, which would go against the very reason of having the critera, to delete unused categories to improve navigation. My advice would be that if you are going to create a category, make sure it is populated within 4 days of its creation. I'm happy to restore any categories that become populated, as well. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to revert deletion of two categories?

I was in the process of writing an article and had created two categories (Category:World War I cruisers of Italy and Category:Pisa class armored cruisers) for it but, regrettably, real life intruded before I was able to finish the article. I understand your valid reasons for the deletion of both, but am hoping, if it is possible, that you can restore the categories and their talk pages. Many thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Done. VegaDark (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced material on protected BLP.

Please undo unsourced material put back with [15] per wp:v burden of evidence and wp:blp. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-19t12:47z

Re [16], thanks for citing the spouse and removing the unsourced birth place. What I normally do with BLP complaints is make sure absolutely everything (including finding sources for what are personal website URLs, and for photos) is sourced - this sets an example for the problem editors who add unsourced stuff, and removes the complaint that some unsourced info remains while their unsourced additions are removed. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-20t07:55z

U too can help Oregon

Howdy WikiProject Oregon folks. It is time again it is time for another round of the Collaboration Of The Week. A big thank you to those who worked on Calapooya Mountains and Portland Saturday Market, both saw some great improvements. For this week we have two great opportunities for DYKs with Brian McMenamin and Algoma, Oregon. Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

New image project

Hi. This little form letter is just a courtesy notice to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Conversation about redirecting those projects is located here. Please participate in that discussion if you have any interest, and if you still have interest in achieving the goals of the original project, we'd love to have you join in. If you aren't interested in either the conversation or the project, please pardon the interruption. :) Thanks. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian criminals

Thanks for the CFD nomination alert! PasswordUsername (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Bring on the COTW

Good afternoon WikiProject Oregon peoples. It is time again it is time for another round of the Collaboration Of The Week, Volume 82. Thank you to those who worked on Algoma, Oregon‎ and Brian McMenamin, both saw some great improvements and are up for DYks. This week we have Mary Alice Ford and by request Waterfront Blues Festival. Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Live long and phosphorous. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedians against sports franchising

Delete this category if you want, I only added it for my own sick pleasures. 000Cliftonian000 06:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Scud missiles

I noticed that you deleted Category:Scud missiles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as an empty category. It should have been populated by a template, but an edit made to that template in April broke it, so it was not populating the category correctly. I have now rectified this issue, please could you restore the category. Thanks. --GW… 16:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Done, although the replag is temporarily preventing the articles from showing up in the category. VegaDark (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. --GW… 17:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

XOXOXO - Oregon loves you, now love Oregon back!

Greetings to WikiProject Oregon folks. It is time again it is time for another round of the Collaboration Of The Week. A big thank you to those who worked on Mary Alice Ford ‎ and the Waterfront Blues Festival, both saw some great improvements. In honor of the great weather, we have our Semi-annual Great Oregon Picture Drive for this week’s collaboration. You can go out and take a picture, or search for a free one on the Internet, or in some cases remove an old request. 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) 07:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of category

You deleted Category:Categories for deletion from April 2009. Were you aware this category is the subject of a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#CfD_categories_renamed? Please undo your deletion. Debresser (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, why wasn't I informed, as the creator and (as far as I know) sole editor? Debresser (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Same first argument for Category:Categories for discussion from April 2009 but even more important, since it is the more realistic candidate. Debresser (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• I was unaware of the discussion (I'd passed over it a couple times but didn't read it). I deleted them both because they are empty and it's past April so they should in theory never be populated, although looking over the discussion there does appear to be a few remaining categories in the current category, so if the rename proposal was successful, it's possible one of these could be temporarily populated if consensus is reached before the last few April categories are dealt with. That being said, I don't make it a habit of informing editors when I perform non-controversial cleanup deletions as I believed this to be. Also, it looks as if there is still a large group of people opposed to such a rename, so I find it unlikely that there will be a consensus to go back to using this naming convention before the remaining April categories are dealt with. If these become re-populated I will gladly restore, but I don't see any point to doing so at this time due to them likely never becoming populated. If you want to re-create them go ahead, but I really don't see a point in restoring them. You can make your points just as well with them as redlinks, and even if consensus eventually agrees with you, I think the April categories will long since be dealt with making the restoration of these moot. VegaDark (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your argument. I'm not happy about it, and I am one of those people who are so damned pricipled that I would insist on restoring them anyway, but ok, so be it. Debresser (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

User CFD notifications

Just a heads up, when closing two user CFD's from the 19th, I noticed when you notified the creators, the subject had the link to the category without the colon (adding the user page to the category). I fixed the two I found. --Kbdank71 13:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm, it appears to have been related to a recent edit to Template:Cfd-notify, which I've now rectified. VegaDark (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know . . .

Vega, you were the first recipient of the first-ever barnstar that I issued, perhaps a year and a half ago. Having not known at the time about this page, I was truly amazed that you had so quickly detected and reverted vandalism to my userpage; hence, the RickK Anti-Vandalism barnstar. Anyway, not too long ago I learned from a discussion that apparently the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar, to some editors, denotes sarcasm, in that the person giving the award is not really serious about the award. Well, just so you know, I was not being sarcastic. I was genuinely grateful. Just so you know. Unschool 04:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• I was unaware that some viewed this as sarcastic as well. Thanks again for the barnstar. VegaDark (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Only 24h

Hi, I want to ask you about the block duration you applied here, is 24h enough for someone did these 1 2??, thank you :-) MaenK.A._Talk 13:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• The vandalism was bad, but they hadn't even vandalized past their last two warnings, so I had to balance that factor in. Some admins probably would have refused to even block given that fact. I determined it was bad enough to justify a block regardless, but figured I would reduce the time I normally would have given for such vandalism in the small chance that such warnings actually did deter them from further edits. If they return to similar vandalism, I'll block for much longer. VegaDark (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I was just wondering :-) MaenK.A._Talk 07:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Blah blah blah, Oregon COTW

Hello to members of the WikiProject o' Oregon. Once again it is time for the Collaboration Of The Week. A thank you to everyone who participated in the Semi-annual Great Oregon Picture Drive, we added a lot of pictures. For this edition we have by request Mr. Maurice Lucas of the Blazers, and a maintenance type project with the Dab Patrol. For the later, pick any Oregon disambiguation page (mainly common city names) and use the "What links here" feature to find any stray incoming links and direct them to the correct article. Again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Peace out! Aboutmovies (talk) 07:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Kite Man Says beware of powerlines

Hello to those who participate in WikiProject Oregon. Once again it is time for the Collaboration Of The Week. A thank you to everyone who participated in the Dab Patrol and improvements to Maurice Lucas. For this week we have Oregon company FLIR Systems, and a maintenance type project with the FA Update Drive. For the later, pick any Oregon FA class article and read through it to make sure it is still up-to-date. Again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. I like frogs. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians belonging to the Bear Community

I looked at the related discussion and still don't agree. The Bear community isn't necessarily something having to do with sexuality or gender identification. Rather, it's a subculture found, primarily, within the LGBT community rather than something "identifying who the user prefers to have sex with (if any), or what gender a person prefers to identify with (if any). The category only identified a cultural affiliation rather than a sexual one. Just as you would allow categories like Wikipedians by philosophy, Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality, Wikipedians by interest, etc., which are all things that are a part of one's culture and who they are, so is a subculture one may be a part of. Not only do I believe this should be brought back, I also think there should be a category for Wikipedians by subculture. Thank you for your time, -Skyler 01:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand your view, but I wouldn't have performed the deletion if I agreed with it. I feel this category does meet the G4 criteria as meeting the spirit of why the category was deleted in the first place, and as such is substantially similar to the bear cub category that was deleted. As I said on the message on your page, I won't object if you want to bring the deletion to DRV for review to see if the community agrees with my position. VegaDark (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Boz rates the day a Perfect Ten

Greetings and salutations to members of WikiProject Oregon. We hear bye announce another Collaboration Of The Week. Thanks to anyone who participated in updating any FA articles and for the improvements on FLIR Systems. This week we have two requests: former Blazer Sidney Wicks, and a key historical event with Oregon land fraud scandal. Again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Soccer categories

The reason for my edits was that there were only men's soccer articles/categories under the category Category:Oregon State Beavers soccer, therefore, I thougnt that category was not needed (at least until women's articles/categories were created), and category Category:Oregon State Beavers men's soccer was enough. That's all. Sorry.--Banderas (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

CFD

I didn't vote.

Is there a category of Wikipedians who are unsure about if they support or oppose Flagged Revisions? Is inclusion in the list compulsory? I prefer not to be listed in either category. User F203 (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hot outside, so stay inside working on the Oregon COTW!

Hello to WikiProject Oregon folks, and get ready for another Collaboration Of The Week. Thank you to those who worked on the land fraud scandal and Mr. Wicks. This week we have one by request, Central Oregon, and a gnomish task, the Great Infobox Drive of '09. For the infobox drive, just find some articles without infoboxes and add one. People and companies are two prime areas as many do not have infoboxes, yet infoboxes exist for those areas. Again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Category deletions

Have you considered contacting the category creators first? You could have it wrapped up in about a day • S • C • A • R • C • E • 02:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• G7 deletions don't create G4 precedent (which I always prefer to have), and even if it did, authors regularly disagree with my nominations even in the face of a sea of precedent against them, so I find that contacting the category creators first is only helpful in certain instances (I actually just did contact a creator before nominating while you were writing this). VegaDark (talk) 02:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back, welcome back, welcome back, Mr. COTW

Howdy after a long message absence to those of WikiProject Oregon. To answer a common question, no you did not get removed from the COTW notification list, I was just too busy to send out the notification for the last change. So, thank you to all those who helped improve Central Oregon and Mount Jefferson, as well as those who added infoboxes and adopted a governor. For this edition of the COTW, we have partly by request and in honor of the return of college football, Duck football and Beaver football. If you are a fan of neither, maybe go back and work on a governor or add infoboxes this time around. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Insert profound knowledge and wisdom here with wacky side effects

Greetings from WikiProject Oregon. First, thank you to all those who helped improve the Ducks and Beavers football teams. Second, now on with the countdown. For this edition of the COTW, we have by request Portland Hempstalk Festival and Munson Valley Historic District. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian singer-songwriters

Hi there. I'm here to ask you if you would please stop deleting this category. The consensus was to delete user singer-songwriters, not wikipedian singer-wongwriters. Thank you. Jeremy (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Which is exactly the same category, except under a slightly different name. Please see WP:CSD#G4 - "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion" (emphasis mine). The category you created does not address the original concerns the category was deleted for in the first place, and thus meets this speedy deletion criteria. If you wish for this to be undeleted, please take it to WP:DRV. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

He has done so. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians in Ozolnieki municipality

Replied at User talk:Riharcc#Re: Category talk:Patriots of Latvia (diff).

Ok, delete it, if there realy are this rule about categories for areas with such a small population. But, before You are doing this, please take care about template - dont leave it with incorrect (deleted) category. Have a nice day.--Riharcc (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Goodbye summer, hello Dolly!

Hello WikiProject Oregon member, it is time for another Collaboration of the Week. First, thanks to those who helped out the last few weeks improving the Portland Hempstalk Festival and the Munson Valley Historic District articles. This week we have by request Rasheed Wallace and the Oregon Zoo. The later should have lots of recent news with the new/old exhibit opening. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Cat:Israeli Fascists

Why did you delete it? It wasn't empty it had two people in it, who were self-admitted Fascists in the pre-war period.

[edit to add] Furthermore, the category was empty because one editor happened to disagree with the inclusion of a couple of people who had professed admiration for Mussolini's policies, and tried to set up a movement on the same lines.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• The category had been empty since at least September 24th as per this list, and I saw no evidence it had been improperly emptied. Generally the 4 day time requirement for a C1 deletion is there to give improperly emptied categories a chance to be repopulated. Anyway, it appears you recreated the category, so there's nothing left to do. VegaDark (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Merry Columbus Day 2 all and 2 all a goodnite, beware of large windstorms bearing gifts

Greetings fellow WikiProject Oregon member, time to uncork a fine wine as it is once again time for the Collaboration of the Week. As always, thank you to those who helped out the last few weeks improving the Oregon Zoo, the Rasheed Wallace, Willamette Bridges, and the Vanport articles. This week we have by request Jim Paxson and Films shot in Oregon. The later can easily be improved just by adding some sources. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. And with Halloween fast approaching, remember that pennies really suck as a “treat” and you can expect toilet paper and or eggs on your residence for your “trick”. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: 69.122.153.132

Regarding the block you placed on 69.122.153.132. I would greatly appreciate it if you extended the block to well, forever. The IP made no legitimate contributions, ever, and vandalized my user page four times. Nezzadar (speak) 02:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• I understand your frustration, but 1) We don't indefinitely block IP addresses, 2) Blocks are intended to be preventative, not punitive, so for a first block I almost always block for 24 hours unless the actions are particularly egregious, 3) If they return to vandalize after the block expires I will block for much longer. Hope that explanation helps. VegaDark (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, thanks. Nezzadar (speak) 04:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello

This is gone to sound a little weird but there's is an user from a spanish humor wiki (wikia) with your same nickname. [17] And, well, I want to know if this is coincidence or your the same user that i know. --L1tEnIng1 (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Haha, no, that is not me. Interesting. VegaDark (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted sockpuppet category

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MC10/Archive. The sockpuppets were duly tagged Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of MC10. User:MC10 then removed those tags; you then deleted the category, so MC10's actions can't simply be reverted. Would you mind undeleting it? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 08:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Category restored. VegaDark (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)