User talk:VegaDark/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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

I apologize

Sorry about the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heartland Trophy. I made some poorly worded statements, and they should not have been said. Especially since we ended up argueing from the same side of the point we were both trying to make. So, I make an unconditional apology.

To clarify the point I was trying to make, it is more helpful to provide references to provide evidence to support your view than to simply make short, blanket statements. Other users, and especially the closing admin, need to see why the article in question should be kept. There is no guarantee that other users commenting on the article, or the closing admin, is familiar with the practice of the Rivalry Trophy, and thus may not be able to accept the idea that they are ALL notable. I agree with you; most of the Division 1A rivalry trophies are extensively covered in reliable sources, and thus should almost always be able to pass notability tests. However, this is not plainly evident to everyone, and so evidence needs to be provided so everyone can see that the subject at hand is indeed notable. This is true of every AfD. Though some of us understand that "All XXX are notable" because they ALL are covered by reliable sources, most people viewing an AfD, and closing admins, may not realize that. Providing evidence in the form of links to reliable sources helps "head off" problems before they come, since the evidence of notability is plainly readible by all, and not simply covered by a single-sentance blanket claim of catagorical notability. I hope that makes my intent and point behind my comments more clear. Again, I am dearly sorry that I made the initial comments I did. There is not excuse for my behavior, and I only have my apology to offer. --Jayron32 05:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• I understand your point. The thing is, the nomination said basically "not notable". I looked at the article and it had a source and said enough in the article to prove notability from my standpoint. So it boiled down to "I think it's not notable" vs. "I think it is notable", there wasn't really much more to say as everything one needed to make the judgement was already included in the article (although adding more sources would have been helpful, one was enough to prove it is real). So no, I didn't go in depth into my reasoning for keeping the article, it seemed like a pretty cut and dry keep. VegaDark 05:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

3rd AFD nom for List of Battlefield 1942 mods

You may be interested in the List of Battlefield 1942 mods AFD and also the Call of Duty mods list deletion. Bfelite 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

SatyrBot

Thanks, VegaDark, for the comment on my page. I manually review each change the 'bot' wants to make, so I must have totally missed that one. Sorry about that! I'll keep a better eye on whether or not the template is already on there.. :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. Take it.

I am a little annoyed that people ignore the sign at the top of my user page, asking them not to post anything, but you seem pretty reasonable. I only log in about once a month at this point, so the article in question may already have been deleted, but if it hasn't:

Go ahead. Take it. I was a crummy editor who didn't really care that much as long as I was enjoying myself. I quit when another user wouldn't get off my case about how I was trying to improve an article, and rereading that dialogue has just rediscouraged me from rejoining the Wikipedia.

But I digress.

My proclivity for obscure articles is evidence of my hacksmanship, and although I deliberately sacrificed many of my worst surviving pages at the AFD some time ago, I'm sure there are others that shouldn't exist but do. This place got too nasty for me, and I want no more of it. So take them. Take them all. -Litefantastic 05:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• It was written between those arrow things that mean you can only see it when you're editing the code. Sorry if I was giving you a hard time; I'm still rather bitter. -Litefantastic 04:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Dennis Erickson edit

Yup, that was a mistake. Don't know how that happened, thank you for fixing my mistake. I've been having lots of problems connecting with Wikipedia, and Wikipedia only, but that's the first time that happened. Thanks again for fixing my error. --MECU≈talk 13:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship

VegaDark/Archive 2

---

Thanks for your support on my successful Request for Adminship (final result 78 Support /0 Oppose / 1 Neutral) I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months. I am humbled by your kind support and would certainly welcome any feedback on my actions. Please do not hesitate to contact me. Once again, many thanks and happy new year! All the best, Asterion^talk 16:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

---

A request for assistance

Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 05:02 3 January 2007 (UTC).

DYK!

On 9 January, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1985 Oregon State vs. Washington football game, 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.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 01:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

UCFD

Why did you nominate my category "Wikipedians named Time Person of the Year" and not tell me (the only person that worked on both the userbox and category)?! No, I did not purposely recreate something that was deleted. Thanks for insulting my work by calling it "bad". And finally, yes, it does facilitate collaboration. It may be made in good fun, but it builds a community of responsible editors, because few people want to to vandalize something they feel they personally belong to. More than half of the cats you nominate for deletion work to find both common ground and familiarity between editors to help bridge barriers and build the community Wikipedia so desperately needs to succeed. But I guess thanks to laziness on your part I wasn't even afforded a single chance to explain myself. Dark jedi requiem 08:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason I didn't notify you is that notification of the category creator is not part of the nomination process at user categories for discussion (at least there are no instructions to that end that I have seen, unlike in other Xfd discussions). Tagging the category is considered sufficient, probably due to the expectation that the creator will have the category on their watchlist. I will admit though, even though it isn't required I could have granted you the courtesy of notifying you. I'll keep that in mind next time I nominate a user category, and I am sorry I didn't. However, It was speedy deleted by an administrator as recreation of previously deleted content, so as you can see I wasn't the only one who felt it qualified for that, regardless of it was intentional or not. If you believe it does in fact facilitate collaboration you are free to bring it to Wikipedia:Deletion Review and see what they have to say about it. VegaDark 08:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Nick Diaz

Nick Diaz has been flooded with a series of vandalism. I'm not quite sure how to fix the article with how many edits there are, so wondering if you could help out with fixing it and possibly help me figure out what to do in the future Thesaddestday 12:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy help and reply. I appreciate your patience and help. Like I said, I wasn't exactly sure how to change it back with that many edits. All the information you gave will be very helpful though, and again, thanks Thesaddestday 19:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Greetings

Hi. I didn't realize you've got a whole page on proposed usercat guidelines. But my real question is, is there any reason you haven't tried for RFA yet? I think I know you better than I did before, and I think you could use the tools. Xiner (talk, email) 05:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Mostly I've just been waiting for someone to nominate me. I could probably pass with a self-nomination, but I know I like it when RfA candidates have the trust of another user to nominate them, so I should probably hold myself to that same standard. VegaDark 05:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah, of course. Well, I've found that putting an "interested in being admin" userbox on your userpage will attract nomination offers, although some people don't like it. I'm not an admin, so I'm not sure if my nomination would help. I wonder if I should ask jc37 or Mike Selinker what they think. Xiner (talk, email) 20:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, an admin as a nominator helps, but If I can't succeed with a non-admin as nominator based on my own merits as an editor, I'm not so sure I'd deserve adminship. I would accept if you nominated me, but if you want to talk to Mike or Jc37 to see if they would like to I certainly wouldn't complain :). VegaDark 20:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I'd co-nominate you, but do you have any skeletons in the closet I should know about? :) Xiner (talk, email) 02:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Mmm...not that I can think of at the moment, I've gotten into a few disputes but nothing I'd consider a "skeleton". You can look through my talk archives and judge for yourself. VegaDark 02:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't feel experienced enough to nominate anyone on my own. I'd be happy to see you succeed, though.--Mike Selinker 02:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Alright, question time. You seemed to say here that you reported someone to AIV after the second act of vandalism, and only three minutes after your first warning to them. Did I read that wrong? Xiner (talk, email) 17:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Nope, that is accurate. But circumstances in this case definitely merited a report on AIV, and I do believe the reviewing administrator was in error in this case. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam article was semi-protected at the time, and sleeper vandalism accounts were surfacing to vandalise the article (See my reverts). I left a {{bv}} warning to User:Kappettipola, one of the sleeper accounts, and they proceeded to vandalize again, 3 minutes after I left them the blatant vandal warning. At this point I listed them on AIV, and the reviewing admin removed them saying they "wouldn't go so far as to call them a blatant vandal". I was quite surprized by this, as I felt they were blockable based on two reasons. The first is that if you look at the page history, one could easily see that these were vandalism sleeper accounts that should be blocked indefinitely. The second reason was that, even if that were not the case, the {{bv}} warning counts as a final warning on AIV, so if somebody justifiably (i.e. for vandalism such as this, not for simple run-of-the-mill vandalism, which would not merit a {{bv}} template upon first warning) leaves that warning on another users page and they vandalise again, they should be blocked to prevent any more damage to the encyclopedia. I left a note on the administrator's talk page to try and clarify the situation to them, hoping that they would see this user should indeed be blocked, but instead they left the message you see above. I mentioned the matter on IRC and someone re-listed them on AIV, and they were indefinitely blocked, and I replied above as such. VegaDark 20:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's a sleeper account alright. Well, I guess the only question now is a co-nom. I'm willing to lead it, but this will be my first nomination and I'm sure you'll pass with another nominator. Xiner (talk, email) 01:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, you're just being nice...alright, here's the deal. I can write up a draft nom, but you have to promise to place a link to it on the top of your user or talk page. Unless, of course, if you think I could do it alone. Xiner (talk, email) 02:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

A proposal

Hi. I talked to VegaDark about RFA. We would value your input. Xiner (talk, email) 02:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

(responding here) - This is an RfA that I wish I had been able to support : (

Fortunately, it was successful, and we have another "bearer of the mop". Congratulations VegaDark : )

- jc37 22:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this too. Nonetheless, I'm happy (but not surprised) that it didn't need my help.--Mike Selinker 21:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Oregon State on List of schools by Bowl appearances

I was wondering where you found the information that Oregon State has 12 bowl appearances. The CFB Data Warehouse site that was used for the rest of the information only lists 10. Mishatx *разговор* 06:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, the CFB DW website doesn't seem to count those three games as real bowls: [1]. Which just gives another example with the problems of compiling lists of NCAA football awards/championships/etc. The schools all have different definitions, and the writers all have even more different ones. Mishatx *разговор* 07:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Oregon Coach Template

It's more standard in the CFB templates to only list someone the first time they are a coach. The template isn't a succession box all wrapped up into one, someone wanting previous/next succession information can find that with the succession box on each page. Further, multiple wiki-links in the same template are not allowed. De-linking just the second (or more) occurrence of someone would be confusing, so removing it would be best. The template it just to say "All these folks were coaches at this school in this 'order.'" I created about 30+ of those coach templates with that method and no one has complained about it until now. I don't think "Because the governors templates do it that way we should" is a good argument either. --MECU≈talk 15:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Let me know where you bring this up. I think Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) should definitely factor into the discussion. --MECU≈talk 19:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

UCFD

Referring to your message on proposing to delete Category:Wikipedians Walking Mancunian Way -- there is nothing I can say really but fully agree -- namely, I was just experimenting and then by accident clicked "Save" instead of "Preview", and then of course I couldn't delete it anymore. Hence the meaningless title as well. I hope there isn't a real discussion ongoing about it! ;-) It's all about just a bit too quick mouse-click. I really apologise for this, however, and promise to be more careful in the future. --Igorwindsor 23:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, although I sincerely hope I will never make such a mistake again ;-) Of course it is a case for speedy deletion. I really apologise for the mistake again, and the trouble I seem to have created. --Igorwindsor 23:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT/UFC 71

I've noticed that someone has started a UFC 71 page. I'm not sure where exactly I find the template to propose deletion (wiki is not a crystal ball), so if you don't mind helping me out again it would be appreciated (sorry still learning, and lots to learn) Thesaddestday 05:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, I've skimmed the info you gave me briefly and it appears to be very helpful. I'll give it a deeper look in a bit and become more familiar with that all. Again, I appreciate the help, and your patience with my learning. Thesaddestday 08:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations!
It is my great pleasure to inform you that your Request for Adminship has closed successfully and you are now an administrator! Useful Links: • Administrators' reading list • Administrators' how-to guide • • Administrator's Noticeboard • Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents • Administrator's Noticeboard for 3RR • Your admin logs: • blocks • deletions • moves • protects • uploads •

If you have questions, feel free to leave a talk page message for me or any other admin. Again, congratulations! Essjay (Talk) 20:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. Rettetast 20:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations VegaDark! If you ever need any help with the admin tools, feel free to message me. =) Nishkid64 01:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. You're an administrator now. Congratulations! You fully deserve it. :-) PeaceNT 07:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations from me also .--Dakota 08:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RfA. Happy mopping! - Anas ^Talk? 08:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Use the new buttons wisely, (as in, see that 'delete' button on Main Page? Don't click it!) See you around VegaDark. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Congrats and good luck. ~ Arjun 13:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

How fitting that my first RfA vote replied just before me. As my first successful RfA nomination, I'm proud of what you've achieved and hope you'll live up to the expectations of the community. Champagne, anyone? Xiner (talk, email) 14:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Cheers :P. Yuser31415 20:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Have nothing to say, but Congratulations! Causesobad → (Talk) 03:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Congrats. (sorry it is a bit belated, but I am on wikibreak) :) Cbrown1023 talk 01:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Protected broken redirects for deletion

Hello, I noticed that you are able to work with deleting pages. I have a few that are fully protected that need to be deleted. They are broken redirects, and I am not able to tag them. They are: User talk:Fourstrings@earthlink.net and User talk:I think I just stuffed a toy truck up my ass I thank you for taking the time to help me with this. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 03:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence Taylor

I noticed you are a member of the Wikiproject National Football League, I'd like to ask a favor of you. I've done a lot of work recently to improve the Lawrence Taylor article and recently made a request to have it peer reviewed. Would you mind looking it over and giving me advice on what to do next? The peer review page is here. Thanks in advance. Quadzilla99 13:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

CFD

Can you have Category:Wikipedians who need to update their userboxes deleted as well? Thanks. --The Dark Side 02:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm putting it up for deletion because it is outdated. There is currently a bot runninga around updating the userboxes. Any links to the category have to be added by hand so there aren't many. I'll put it up for deletion tomorrow. --The Dark Side 03:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Category: Wikipedians born in Texas

Grumble. There need to be separate categories for "from" a state and "born in" a state. Having just a "from" category leads to confusion, since I was born in Texas but now live in Minnesota. Which am I from? I wish I'd known about the CFD, because I'd have commented. -- Jay Maynard 15:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that I'm not, and never will be, a Minnesotan, but I am and always will be a Texan. That doesn't mean I have no information to offer on Minnesota, though. That's why it makes a difference whether I was born in, or live in, a place. -- Jay Maynard 01:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Dyspraxia deletion

Thank you for deleting my article. I hadn't realised what to do with it. Thanks Pureferret 23:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for fixing up the categorization on my CVU userbox, I appreciate it. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 01:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Economic Right and Social Authoritarian Wikipedians

I was not aware that category had been deleted. I apologize. Please delete. Additionally, you may want to strike this out of the userboxes as well on the four possible categories for this as well. Chris 02:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Political compass categories

I wasn't aware of the consciouses, I was under the impression that the categories just hadn't been organized. The userboxes will still point to and list users on those categories, but that can't be helped. I'll amend the ones in my userspace to exclude those classifications, though. Thanks for the heads up. User:RideABicycle/Signature 03:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

(U)CFD

Hope you haven't got bored with being an admin yet. Thanks for bringing my mustache-twirling WP:ABF to light at DRV there. As it happens, I was looking for a vocation - something to mention at RfA, if I ever get round to it, other than the usual "I will play whack-a-mole with vandals and speedily delete newbies' prize articles". I'm not made for hours of blocks and speedy deletions. I've closed quite a few AFDs, but it seems only fair to leave that to newer editors, otherwise how will they get to try it? Anybody can close AFDs: it's a really simple process.

So, it seems that helping out with CFD is my destiny! Looking at the options, it would have to be that or images, and image policy makes my head hurt. But first off, I'll have a go at mopping out Category:Categories to be listified then deleted. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've closed two CFDs, so if you can check that I didn't screw the pooch, that would be handy. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_4#Category:2007_Tamil-language_films (a rename) and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_15#City (a redirect). Would updating Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working by moving things to the ready for deletion section help or not? Thanks in advance, Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

For the renames, I just stuck the cats in the ready-to-be-deleted section of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working when they were emptied. Seems to work ok. Thanks for checking! Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sibling categories

Thanks for the heads-up. I've posted in the Wikipedia:User categories for discussion section. If I happen to miss whatever consensus is reached on those categories, let me know - the userbox is on my username, and depending on how major the change is, I may have to tweak the code. grapħıte_elbow_β 01:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

UCfD on birth year

Hi. I'm getting confused by all the conditional clauses in the separate question section of the discussion. Could you clarify it for me? Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 20:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so I did misunderstand the question. I'll reply on the UCFD shortly. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 21:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User categories for discussion

I just noticed that you are closing nearly all the user categories for discussion. This would be fine, but you are also nominating 90% of them as well. Although I think you are acting in good faith and not going against consensus, I think you should probably post a message on the administrators noticeboard requesting that other admins close these discussions because it does represent a conflict of interest if you continue to nominate categories. I would lend a hand, but I am on semi-wikibreak with graduate school. Just so you know this has nothing to do with our obvious disagreement about what is appropriate for userspace categories. Best, IronGargoyle 02:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with your position, IronGargoyle. UCFD has only a few people who close discussions, and I have closed many that I've nominated, and User:Jc37 has done so as well. We are all acting in good faith, and we can be counted upon to call each other out if one of us believes another has made an error. There's no conflict of interest here, as WP:COI says nothing about people not being able to close their own nominations. Therefore, VegaDark should continue to close any and all discussions he wants to close on UCFD. Thanks for your interest.--Mike Selinker 03:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt-in, but I saw Vega's message on Mike's page. It may be out of the scope of the guideline titled WP:COI, but closing discussions that you have been involved is definitely widely frowned-upon, and is part of Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. I trust both of you to be impartial, but others may not. In any case, removing the appearance of a conflict of interest is probably a good idea merely to help stave off wikidrama and DR. Meegs 06:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that we should try to minimize Wikidrama, I have to agree with Mike S's post directly above. Right now there seem to be only 3 of us closing discussions on WP:UCFD. And as has actually happened in the past, discussions may be re-opened, or the result modified if necessary. (In other words, mistakes, oversights, and the like have happened in the past, but they are and have been easily fixed.) MS and I have also discussed questionable closures before closing. As MS says above: "We are all acting in good faith, and we can be counted upon to call each other out if one of us believes another has made an error." I hope this helps clarify : ) - jc37 15:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, Vega, I saw your recent AN post, but I'm afraid that I have no new advice for how to handle the process's dearth of admin attention; I think Radiant's explanation for the problem is probably spot-on. I can help you guys out as a stopgap if you ever get ridiculously backlogged, but its nothing that I want to become involved in regularly. Best ×Meegs 06:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Meegs, I still disagree. The "let someone else do it" line means that in this case, no one else will do it. In any event, part of the reason people are handed the admin tools is that they're trusted. This reading of the policy says people are not trusted. The spectre of drama does not make me want to change my mind on this.--Mike Selinker 16:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I don't have a problem with it; I just wanted to point-out that there is a guideline addressing the practice. ×Meegs 18:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Through happenstance I came across this discussion. I've noticed backed up queues at CfD as well. I think we could try advertising the need for people to close CfDs and UCfDs without asking them to do the cleanup chores. That'd take a wider consensus though. Would anyone mind if I try closing non-Keep XfD's? Should I ask about it on the UCfD talk page? Xiner (talk, email) 03:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Category recreation

Both Category:CSS Attributes and Category:Czechoslovakian motorcycle Grand Prix were listed in the "Categories without categories" list of items needing attention. All I did was add a category to them. If this has recreated them when they were awaiting deletion I apologise, but there was no indication that these were awaiting deletion. I will not put anything in them so they should now vanish. Malcolma 11:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

XfD Barnstar

		The XfD Barnstar
		I'm proud to award you the first XfD Barnstar for your excellent work at UCFD. Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 23:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks! My first barnstar :). VegaDark 23:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • With all your work, this is your first one? lol! Happy Editing by Snowolf^(talk)_CON^COI on 23:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I love the delete key. I think that whatever the Second Amendment says, all delete keys should come with a seven-day waiting period.--Mike Selinker 00:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies

Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of [unassessed articles] tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 23:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Category merge

Sorry, I didn't know there were such laws for creating new categories. I'll take more care from now on. Thanks for merging it instead of deleting - Raquel Sama ^★Talk★ 18:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

UCFD template

The template is here. It's quite awful, especially technically, but it works. Feel free to clean up or modify it in any way. Happy Editing by Snowolf^(talk)_CON^COI on 23:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I forgot: the sintax is this: {{subst:User:Snowolf/Templates/UCFD warning|Title on the UCFD page}}. Anyway, it was right on my user page ;-) Happy Editing by Snowolf^(talk)_CON^COI on 23:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

My request for adminship has closed successfully (79/0/1), so it appears that I am now an administrator. Thanks very much for your vote of confidence. If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to let me know. IrishGuy ^talk 01:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Economic Left and Social Libertarian Wikipedians

I noticed that the category has been deleted but it hasn't been removed from the user pages that have been using it. I'm sure the users would appreciate it if you removed this category (and maybe the others that were deleted in the same instance) from their user pages. I was itching to recreate it when I saw it as a red link on somebody's user page but was wise enough to check the deletion log first, others may not. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 18:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The coding for the userbox that adds people to these categories is extremely complicated. I'll have to ask the creator to remove these. VegaDark 08:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to Wikipedians who are Gemini.

I responded on my talk page with: Sorry about creating the category, I was unaware of that discussion. I created the category because I thought I was being helpful in removing a redlink. Thanks for removing it. Acalamari 16:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

List of premature obituaries

Thanks for your comments on this featured list candidate (FLC page). I've now made all the suggested changes that have come in, including yours re removing non-fair use pictures (actually another user helpfully did this). If you're happy with it now, I'd be grateful if you could provide a 'support' vote. Thanks! Ben Finn 13:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Biography 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. Mocko13 22:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Tim Sylvia

I was simply stating the obvious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Voodoolove (talk • contribs) 23:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Re: NBA players?

Hey there. I consulted User:Betacommand on the original issue, and we decided it was probably best they weren't tagged. If anyone in the project feels otherwise, I'm happy to re-tag them, as I've still got all the lists. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 14:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Resp

Hey VG, I re-created Category:Economic Left and Social Libertarian Wikipedians, because I though it was deleted or blanked be accident. It looked so because so many users were in the catagory. Sorry for the mix up. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 09:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Snowbot

I've just got unblocked. I'll deal with that in half an hour. Happy Editing by Snowolf^(talk)_CON^COI on 13:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed your second message of March 3, I'm very sorry :-( Well, I'll run more frequently, all right. Anyway, I was blocked because I wrote "worthless" meaning something like "its value cannot be judged upon", like countless, priceless on Essjay's talk page. Pschemp is quite emotionally involved in Essjay's case and blocked me on sight. When I came back, I asked the first administrator that I've found to unblock me, which he promptly did ;-) Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 13:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The template

Hi VegaDark. I've replied to your comment on my talk page. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 21:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The Fascist Wikipedian category (sigh)

Billy Ego has recreated it again after your last deletion and your note on his talk page -- four times now, three of the marked for speedy by me. I have a question -- does either my actions or Billy Ego's actions count as a WP:3RR violation? thanks! -- ArglebargleIV 21:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks! -- ArglebargleIV 22:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Category Creation

Give me a few days to go through them and see which are empty, etc. The have arisen out of a process to clean-up and standardize the alma mater categories. Since they are populated by userboxes, it is not easy to know at the time of creation which are empty and which are not (or at least from my end). Wikipedia does not immediately populate categories that are linked this way. You have to wait a few hours or even a day for the computing to catch up with the creating. In addition, some of the current userboxes populate categories that are not named properly, so when we edit the userboxes, people will be re-cat'd to the properly named ones. This also requires us to finish the whole process. The good news is that we're almost done with that part. So, in short, yes, the empty ones should be speedy deleted, but only after we finish the process. If there's a way to hold off on nom'ing them for even a few days, I'd appreciate it. --NThurston 13:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Georges St. Pierre

Why are you saying im a vandal? that fight DID happen, it was an undercard fight. i was there, i saw it live. just because wikipedia is your life, doesnt mean you know everything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Horrorfiend138 (talk • contribs).

• Sorry, he never fought Hulk Hogan and even if that fight did happen, you would need to cite a reliable source for the information to stay. VegaDark 21:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ross Pointon

No. Unacceptable. I have all of the episodes on DVD that I recorded when it was on (the ultimate fighter 3) This is rediculous, Ross DOES say those quotes. Why, because you don't remember it that means it didn't happen? It ALSO said Bisping asked about the submissions and he responded about smashing his face in. You didn't change that. That never happened, it was mike nikels and kalib starnes who asked him about that. STOP BEING SO ONE SIDED YOU DONT KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT MMA YOURE PROBABLY A WHITE BELT ON SHERDOG. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Horrorfiend138 (talk • contribs).

• If you have a source for you edits, then cite it. The quotes showed the subject of the article in a negative light, so they are especially important to source. Also, please stay civil. VegaDark 21:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who are pilots

Howdy! I've removed the above category from Wikipedians by profession because many (if not most) of the folks listed (including myself) are private pilots. We are not pilots by profession, we're pilots by action, so the named category would be inaccurate. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, but the category needs some categorization. It can't just be a stand-alone category. Feel free to look for a more appropriate parent category, but it at least needs something. VegaDark 22:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

An inaccurate category is worse than no category. Not sure where it belongs. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added it to Category:Wikipedians by skill. VegaDark 22:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi VegaDark. Thank you for being patient with my nervous rants during the RfA. Rest assured that I have heard every voice loud and clear during the discussion, and will strive to use the mop carefully and responsibly. Thank you for your support. I'll get back to my UCfD routine ASAP. Xiner (talk, email) 01:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh uh. You'll have to wait on that. I've to write up thank-you notes, read the manuals, and who knows what else, before returning to UCfD. I see the place has got quite a few new members; they'll have to keep you company for a couple more days. Xiner (talk, email) 01:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi VegaDark. Please take a look at my first closure, and see if you've got any suggestions. I'll do the rest if you've no complaint. Xiner (talk, email) 19:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

VegaDark, people who don't know something can't collaborate on it. But you're more than welcome to keep whichever cat you didn't think should be deleted, because I'm pretty sure I'm misunderstanding something, and that usually means I could've made a mistake. So please, please feel free to undo any delete and just let me know. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 20:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Category deletion

Please see my comments at Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Category:Wikipedians_born_during_the_Truman_administration and get back to me. Thanks. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 21:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Good for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		For all your work on trimming the excess fat that is user categories through your intense involvement with WP:UCFD. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 23:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks! VegaDark 23:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Article name change

i'm interested in changing the name of the O-Part Hunter article from that to 666Satan, but i am a bit curious as to how to go about doing so, is there a specific discussion page (such as for userbox's) or is it a discussion that is held within the page it's self's talk page and then we bring in an admin who changes it and etc, etc.... if ya can get back to me ASAP that'd be awesome.... thanks again, Ancientanubis 00:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Re ...User Category for Discussion

Hi VegaDark,

A category created by you or to which you have significantly contributed is being considered for deletion...

Thanks for your courtesy in leaving the above; I've now added some context at the relevant CfD entry. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

0-level UCFD

Hi VegaDark. Could you take a look at the 0-level UCfD? A whole bunch of them still exist, but are no longer listed at CfD/Working. Any idea why? Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 20:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Oic. Well, some of these are tough, es-0 in particular is not a template. I'm not a happy camper. =P Xiner (talk, email) 21:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Was it? It's just that I saw both the cat and a user page had the whole messy code that was not a template. Xiner (talk, email) 21:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Oic. I hated all the Windows Updates for .NET framework, so I uninstalled it, and now I can't run any of the Wikipedia utilities...anyway, could you take a look at Category:User_es-0? One template is left, and I've no idea how to change it. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 21:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 21:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Good advice. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 21:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, could you give me a hand with this group of deletions? Or would AWB help? Xiner (talk, email) 22:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yay, woohoo, cheers! Thanks! You can start from the bottom of the list to avoid conflicts. Woohoo! Xiner (talk, email) 23:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

UCFD edit

Hi Jc- With your most recent edit to UCFD, you removed 4 edits by people who submitted them since you started your edit. I know it was obviously an accident, and I've replaced the 4 comments, but you may want to click on "Show changes" before you click save as any comments replaced becomes much more noticable. Another thing you could do is spread out your changes over several edits so this is less likely to occur. Thanks, VegaDark 18:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

True enough, good catch, and thank you for fixing/restoring them. If you look at the edit, you may notice that there were more than just those due to edit conflicts, but I had "re-added" them. Apparently (obviously) I missed those 4. So, again, thanks for catching that. As for the multiple edits, I tend to try to minimize my edits (I'm not a fan of padding my edit history), hence the multiple votes at once. However, I tend to do each close separately for transparency, etc. Hopefully that made sense (I'll likely be sleeping soon : ) - Anyway, thanks again, and hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 09:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians in Serbia and Montenegro

Has the category tag been removed from the dozen or so userpages it appeared on? I didn't create the page randomly, but because it appeared on Special:Wantedcategories. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 14:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:User ase-0

I made this category? Oops, well thank you for deleting it because I did not mean to make it. -23_PatPeter*∞ 16:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Snowbot

Well, I've tried a run, but the 0 cat are generated by templates. And my bot cannot do anything about template-generated categories. Tomorrow (Europe) I'll take a look and manually fix the templates. Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 22:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Signing on userpage

Oh, wow, I must have been pretty out of it, I have never done that before, sorry about that, lol. -23_PatPeter*∞ 15:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

666 Satan page

hey Vega, some user came in and changed the article name before it actually should have been (i think) and i was wonderin if you could go inn there and look to see what the official 'concensus' is for this, assuming that theres been enough discussion about it... if possible just get back to me as soon as you can...

thanks,

Ancientanubis 15:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

ok, thanks.... i'm just lookin for the decision to be made so i can kinda get back 2 workin and less of checkkin to see what may or may not be happening with the debate... peace, Ancientanubis 19:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

nvm, it appears that it was switched back again:P, i do have a favor to ask of you though... would you be willin to add (manga) in front of it, as to better help with organization.... AND also to switch o-part hunter on the other 2 articles about the show too 666 satan.... if theres anything i need to do for this please let me know, thanks...Ancientanubis 20:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Alma mater merge/rename

Thanks for your help. Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of California at Santa Barbara and Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Texas are empty and can be deleted per your closing. -NThurston 20:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. --NThurston 21:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"Wikistress cats" UCFD closure

I don't think it was the best move to close that as no consensus. We had 2 people supporting delete and 1 person supporting merging, and nobody supported keeping, which a "no consensus" results in. I think it certainly merited a relisting though. Do you mind if I undo your closure and relist it? I could also leave your closure and relist if you think that would be better. VegaDark 19:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw the no consensus more from the comments. The merge was to a wholly different category, and the two deletes had thoughts as well. And even if counting "votes", 2:1 isn't consensus to delete. If you would like to relist, and possibly add the other "tangent" Wikistress cats (beyond the basic ones), please feel free. And btw, thanks for bringing this up. Anytime you have thoughts or concerns, I hope you feel free to share them, I think discussion is a "good thing" : ) - jc37 07:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I would not have closed it as delete either, I would have relisted it. Even if there were 5 for deletion and 5 for merging, I still would not have closed it as no consensus, as no consensus defaults to doing nothing, and there was a consensus (if you can consider 3 people a consensus) to do something. I usually don't even consider no consensus as an option for closing a debate where nobody advocates keeping it the way it is; I usually consider merging/renaming the "middle ground" with delete on one end of the spectrum and keep on the other. With that in mind, in this case if I were forced to make a decision without relisting I would have merged. If someone supports deletion, for them a merge will always be preferable to a keep, so I think that is a much better option than to close as no consensus which defaults to keep. Do you see what I am saying? As for relisting, I'll probably end up doing it at some point. VegaDark 08:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Most everyone who comments on WP:UCFD (or any of the XfDs), typically wants "something" done, even if it's keep the category in question. No consensus means that there wasn't enough of a consensus to determine what should be done. Mike Selinker had a way to close discussions that I liked, so I somewhat adapted from that. (Though I also received advice from several other CFD admins regulars - Kbdank71, The wub, RobertG, David Kernow, for just 4 examples - which I also sort of meld into how I close as well.) First I try to determine if there is consensus to delete, if not, then should it be merged or renamed? If no consensus, either close or relist. (Obviously I'm simplifying the process : ) - In this case, since (I seem to recall) you commented about thinking that several others should probably be nominated as well, I chose to not relist, since this seemed to be a part of a "bigger" discussion, and merging this category when it's likely that it will be deleted later just leads to unnecessary edits to user pages. Due to how categories are depopulated, I tend to try to minimise the number of edits to a user page, as much as possible. Hope this helps clarify. - jc37 08:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"Deleting WV-Southern"

I just got your message concerning the deletion of "Category - Wikipedians who believe West Virginia is in the Southern United States". I really don't understand why you want to delete it. I also don't know if it has been you or not, but somebody deleted it several times before, then I kept bringing it back. Seems like almost everytime I create something on Wiki, it always gets deleted. Please, could you explain to me why it has to be deleted. Thanks. The Punk 22:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A question

Hi. There's a problem about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sajdah. Sajdah article should have been redirected but a wikipedian had made an AfD. Then I redirected it. Is it correct manner?--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 07:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to redirect Arabic place of Sajdah, but There is another problem. I think few people notice to it. Can we closed that AfD and open a new one just for Arabic place of Sajdah.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 08:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:Nmajdan/Template1

I don't think this template could be used on football team article because WP:CFB (of which I am a member) already settled on the template they could use and I don't think we could convince them to switch. But, it could be used on many athletics templates with simple modification. I'll take a look at your proposed changes sometime early next week.↔NMajdan•talk 15:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I opened up a discussion concerning the new template at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Need opinion on a couple templates. Please feel free to share your opinion.↔NMajdan•talk 14:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Schoolblock

Please use {{schoolblock}} as your blocking reason otherwise unblock-en-l may still get emailed complaints from users at schools who never bother reading their talk page. Thanks. --  Netsnipe  ►  12:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Brai-0

I'm sorry about creating that category. I was creating 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and N, and I forgot that I don't have to create 0. Sorry about that. Taric25 03:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:UCFD

Are you some sort of WP:UCFD bot? - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 18:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I'm going to start on a userbox you might like. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 11:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here it is:

• Code: {{User:UBX/UCFD}}
• Result:
  This user patrols user categories.

- Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 11:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Awarded by PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 13:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Awarded by PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 13:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• I am very selective of my userboxes, but thanks for the barnstars. VegaDark 18:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

They don't have to be on your talk page. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 19:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just always put them on user pages. Plus, do you like the userbox? - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 19:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I bet WP:UCFD is the page you edit the most. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 19:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wannabe_kate says you have 473 WP:UCFD edits. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 19:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Snowbot

No problems ;-) But it also removes the subcategories :-( Let me know if it's ok. I'll make it running automatically every X days with Windows' Scheduled Tasks ;-). Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 11:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can do it by running manually AWB, and filtering the pages that are categories ;-) Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 22:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Smile!

Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.}

- Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 12:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for your Support on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 89/1/1. If there's anything I can help with, then you know where to find me. Cheers. - Michael Billington (talk) 07:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Stress

Ah, I appear to have missed that. Thanks for the heads-up. >Radiant< 08:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandals

hey vega, how you been, long time no talk

im interested in reportin a vandal who appears 2 be a repeated offender, he basically went in and deleted the entire main page, it has sense been fixed but i'd still like to report him, where about should i go inorder to do that (its an unregistered user(165.138.145.12) btw) thanks...Ancientanubis, talk 17:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Enforcing depopulate

I made a page for UC which needs a periodically enforced depopulate. I'll patroll 'em every two days or so. Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 17:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:UCFD

Hi, I noticed you voted on some of my entries at WP:UCFD and I was just wondering, when you nominate categories for Merging, deletion etc, where do you find them from, I tend to use Special:Prefixindex and change it to display categories and type in Wikipedians then view them all and I was just wondering where you find the from just to make it easier? Thanks in advance. Tellyaddict 20:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, that really helps! Tellyaddict 20:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Would an acceptable solution to the Category:Wikipedians who support Israel DRV be to rename it to Category:Wikipedians interested in Israel? Hmm, then again, I'm not sure I would like a Wikipedians interested in X category for every country. --Iamunknown 03:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Userbox removal

Hi, I was including a couple categories as templates to join them and use the userboxes on my userpage. You changed them to plain category membership with the explanation that I was in incorrect categories. What cats were these and how to I get my userboxes back? Thanks, Potatoswatter 04:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:User ada-2

Beware, you broke the userbox while depopulating the category here. Please check your other changes to see if you broke any other userbox. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Isolated incident caused by an AWB error, thanks for the catch. VegaDark 22:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

List of premature obituaries

Hi - this list has come up as a FLC again here (having run out of time before getting enough Support votes last time). I'd appreciate any further comments or your Support vote again! Thanks Ben Finn 16:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for adminship

Hello,

I would like to be considered for Wikipedia Adminship, however I don't wish to nominate myself. You have once edited my user page, so this is how I found your name. Tell me if I'm going about this the right or wrong way, but would you or someone else consider me for an adminship? Some points of note:

• You'll see I have thousands of edits, including vandalism reverts
• I've been quite productive at standardizing pages and templates ({{Infobox U.S. County}}, {{Infobox poker player}}
• If it is worth anything: I'm the "wiki champion" at my workplace — I set up our wiki (which uses MediaWiki) and I'm its chief administrator

Just let me know... thanks! / Timneu22 23:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: Thanks, this is exactly the type of reply I wanted. Timneu22 00:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Categories & Useboxes

Hey Vega. After the message you left me, I realized that categories are supposed to serve a purpose and not just be used as a networking tool for userboxes. I saw many categories that have been created solely for connecting people that have used the same userbox, and of course I was curious to see who were using the ones I created. Anyway, I agree with most of what you've said. Maybe some other categories based around userboxes should be merged/deleted as well; or maybe there should be a way to display a list of people who use that one userbox which doesn't involve categories. Talk to you later. ChaoticLlama 01:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack

Seeing as you're the only administrator I know (your welcome message), I'll explain. Going around reverting recent changes that appear to be vandalism, I come across my user page in recent changes. It seems someone (70.187.239.252) disliked my probable reverting of its vandalism and decided to make some (minor) attacks at me. Now, I've not been here long and have been away for a while with difficulties, so I don't really know how to go about this sort of thing, or even how one would go about this sort thing. It appears to have stopped now, but can I be helped?--Steven Weston 19:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's me again, it (70.187.239.252) has given up attacking, but has continued to blank its talk page. It obviously cannot stand your warning.--Steven Weston 11:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

UCFD notification box

That yellow box you've been using to notify users of UCFDs, are you substituting that from somewhere? If it is, I can't find the template. I think the user category in question should actually be named in the message. Other boilerplate templates like {{AFDNote}} don't put themselves inside a box like the deletion tag on the actual page. However, I do like it for easier readability (and skipability) and don't propose to see it changed. –Pomte 02:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

CSD

I made a list for potential adding to WP:CSD at WT:UCFD. If you have a moment, I'd like your thoughts before I post it to the WP:CSD talk page. Thanks in advance : ) - jc37 08:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

AN/I discussion about UCFD result

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Are_users_appearing_in_user_categories_disruptive_and_does_it_warrant_a_block.3F and the related User talk:SchmuckyTheCat#Wikipedians by Religion

I'm leaving you and Mike Selinker a message, since the three of us seem to be the current "active admins" on the page. (I may have missed someone, feel free to let them know.) - jc37 17:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Kweschun

Hey, say your nom of "Wikipedians who crack eggs etc.", and noticed you labeled it as a "WP:POINT violation, which redirects to "do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point". I was wondering if you'd consider elaborating on how the category is disruptive. Milto LOL pia 20:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:UCFD

I've brought up a closure technicality at Wikipedia talk:User categories for discussion#April 4-20 discussion on user wiki categories: upper vs lowercase. I posted it at a more centralized location because it concerns both you and Jc37. –Pomte 22:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography 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. BetacommandBot 20:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians who like spicy food

I understand your closure, but was it necessary to create Category:Wikipedians who like spicy food-1, Category:Wikipedians who like spicy food-2, and Category:Wikipedians who like spicy food-3? "Levels" are generally only used for the babel system and I see absolutely no reason for levels in a category such as this. Or, were these categories already created before your closure and you were simply converting the name? If so, I'd make this clear in the creation edit summary so inquiries like this are less likely. VegaDark 02:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly it was just because there were three tiers of two separate sets of userboxes (besides the main cat). I don't have much of a problem with subcats as long as users aren't in both a subcat and the parent cat. - jc37 06:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Could I know why?

Thanks

Smashman2004 (talk • contribs • email) 16:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

List of premature obituaries

Hi VegaDark - thanks for your FLC comments on this list so far. I'm hoping to wrap it up in the next day or two (otherwise it will just run out of time due to lack of interest, like it did last time I submitted it for FL status!) - so if you have any further comments to provide, or better still, just a Support vote, I'd appreciate it! Ben Finn 00:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Not categories

Hi VegaDark. I was searching for something with special:prefixindex a few moments ago when a use of that specialpage occurred to me: the identification of "not" user categories. (Wikipedians who oppose whatever, for example). I'm a bit busy so I'm not going to be sorting through there looking for "not categories" to nominate, but I figured I might was well tell someone who is active at UCFD about this before I forgot. Cheers, Picaroon (Talk) 22:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'd support renaming all of those. Unfortunatly, political cats such as those don't always have consensus that it qualifies as a "not" category, and several of those have been on UCFD before, resulting in no consensus. Feel free to nominate, though. I think the best route to take would be nominating them for a rename to "Interested in". VegaDark 22:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Beaver logo

There are undesirable white edges around the old logo, easily seen against a dark background; 450px is a bit large for a copyrighted logo; I didn't like the filename. Punctured Bicycle 00:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: typo correction

Just so you know, your edit here was a mistake. Goten is a character's name, it should not have been changed to "Gotten". Just a heads up in case you edit any more DBZ-related pages. VegaDark 19:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Duly noted. My apologies. --Bachrach44 21:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for letting me know about the WP:ANI thread. Best, Johntex\^talk 15:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:82.167.4.200

Thankyou for dealing with this vandal, his immature edits were getting very annoying. Omega Archdoom^Talk 08:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

laDairis

You're totally right. It's my fault for not doing enough fact checking. Thanks again!Jwalte04 15:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN

Thought you might be interested in commenting on this discussion at WP:AN. VegaDark (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the heads up. I finished the template editing, and commented there. - jc37 09:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandilism

65.184.221.57 [2] has vandilized Talk: Metallica I request for him to be banned. Skeeker 03:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but I think he'll do it more. Skeeker 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, can I ask how you determine that? Skeeker 04:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the info. Tommorow can you take the block off of Lamb of God (band) User:Inhumer and I have resolved our issues. Skeeker 04:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: DBZ wrong Typo fixing.

I am sorry for wrongly fixing Goten's name as Gotten. My bad. I will keep in mind when checking DBZ pages. ~~ AVTN ^{T C}_{V A} 16:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay

Okay. I didn't think about explaining my deletions at the time. I'm sorry.But what I deleted is unnecessary in my view such as the See Also sections because at the bottom of the pages, there are categories that take you to the same page that the links in the See Also section. That's the only reason I deleted them.And I just think the External Links looks better than External links so that's why I changed those. I've read the guide lines and I' try to make sure I don't make the same mistakes again. Thanks. (MgTurtle 16:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)).