User talk:Vegaswikian/Archives/2008

Active discussions

Leo Sayer

Your recent edit introduced incorrect formatting for song titles. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style. In brief, "Song titles" are styled thus, with Album titles requiring italics. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Let It Be

Hi, looks like you moved this page before any discussion was completed. I'm attempting to collect more input on the idea - I don't particularly like the way it currently is. Just thought you might want to participate in the discussions: Talk:Let It Be (album)#Requested move. (John User:Jwy talk) 21:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Explaining your reverts

I've learned my lesson with the same editor a while back, and this morning I reverted an article's edits and published my explanation at the same time. If you're interested in what happened today and before, just look up my contributions and that particular article and its talk page--it's the same article that taught me the "lesson" a while back. HkCaGu (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Review of CfD result

How do I go about getting a review of the decision made at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 31#Category:Intellectually impaired. I'm not happy with the result and feel that it should have been renamed per my comments. I've left a message at the talk page of the closing admin, but no reply as yet. I thought I'd ask you because I always see your name at CfD and figured you would know the correct process for getting a review. I'm still pretty new around here and advice from more experienced Wikipedians is appreciated. Cheers, Sting_au Talk 23:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I don't think a deletion review is what I'm after? I never liked the original category's name anyhow. My problem is with how the cat has been renamed. Actually, now that it has been renamed. Do you think I'd be better to re-nominate it and suggest the name change I put forward? Or is it too soon after a CfD renaming to do that? Did you read the original discussion? What did you think of my opinion on the renaming please? Sting_au Talk 03:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

organizations

Hi Vegaswikian -- since you're thinking about organizations & associations, it would be great to have you also think about a related problem with Category:Non-profit organizations, Category:Charities, and Category:Non-governmental organizations. I brought it up at a related CFD on 12/31 ([link) and the discussion got a little wacky, but I think there's an overview of most of the issues buried in there. Now I have to try to do some sort of comprehensive mega-nomination, I suppose, and I'd appreciate any thoughts you might have in advance of doing all that work. --Lquilter (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I don't see an easy solution. This probably needs to be worked out before another nomination. I'll offer a suggestion even though I may not like it. Use Category:Organizations as a category only category and include all of the types of organizations under it. A question would be do the various subcats get listed directly or by inclusion from the parent? Would require splitting a ton of categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Glad you're thinking about it too! It is a ton of work. I have been picking around the edges of Category:Organizations for a while trying to clean them up, and figure out a solution for the NPO/NGO/charities issue. Multiple people have commented on it here and there over the past few years but I think everyone has been daunted by the size of the issue, and in the meantime, people have done things like try to clean up Category:Non-governmental organizations by creating whole new trees. So now there's Category:Non-governmental organizations by country which includes a ton of country-specific categories, none of which are linked into their individual country trees. ... There's been some discussion at Category talk:Non-profit organizations, if you want to peruse the discussion further. ... Also, do you know of a mac-friendly bot that can help with mass category edits or nominations? I'd like to get all the country NGOs categories at least linked in to their country parents, and probably they just need to get merged. --Lquilter (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, don't know about Mac tools. Right now I'm trying to cleanup the articles in the main category. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete request on Crew

Hi there. I've declined the speedy request on this article, as it's definitely not an A7 candidate. The article's been around since 2002, and while I agree it needs sourcing, I'd say it's a notable concept. I'd suggest that if you feel it's delete-worthy, you open an AFD for further discussion. Cheers. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

National Historic Landmarks

I think your edit of the speedy renaming queue here [1] may have inadvertently removed most of the categories from the queue. Is someone working on them, or should I put them back in the list? Thanks.--Appraiser (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Category discussions

As i have just said also to Katr, I am sorry i was being unnecessarily argumentative and personal in my recent discussion about District of Columb. category renaming. I regret, myself, butting in; i should just go back to editing articles about historic sites which is what i like to do. Sincerely, doncram (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hidden Forest Cabin and NV sources

About sources for other NRHPs in Clark County, Nevada, and specifically looking at Hidden Forest Cabin: you may not be aware of the Elkman NRHP infobox generator tool. I used it to add more info to the Hidden Forest Cabin infobox. See new section in WP:NRHP main page Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Editor help for how to use it (it is simple).

In Clark County, only Hoover Dam is an NHL, so it is the only one that i would expect to have NRHP text and photos documents on-line at the National Park Service (and I added links for Hoover Dam's documents to its articles a while back; the info in them could be used to improve its article more i suppose). I followed your link to the Nevada state historic preservation office and see that it does not offer much. However, you can get the full NRHP inventory/nomination/registration text and photos for Hidden Forest Cabin by requesting them directly from the National Register of Historic Places Reference Team, just send email to nr_reference@nps.gov, giving them the reference number of the site and your postal mail address. Expect a prompt email reply and then expect to receive hard copy by postal mail in a week or two. The NRHP document is a gold mine. Hope this is helpful. doncram (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Corrected infobox link

I disagree with you on the use infoboxes website field. By just putting in the name you are adding extraneous information that doesn't need to be there. The infobox could just be redesigned to have a link that says Official Website.

If you look at the examples on most infoboxes it requests you add the url. e.g. Template:Casino_infobox, Template:Infobox_Company, Template:Infobox_Software --Tvwade (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  • On another point, please be more careful when reverting edits. You orphaned two images I uploaded during separate edits. Thanks. --Tvwade (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Musicals by nationality

The Category:Chicago musicals is not being CFDed for the original nomination reason because it is not a category being used for the same reason. The closure and reinstatement is incorrect because the category being nominated for a different set of reasons and should be considered under a separate discussion. The nominator does not present the case that this category should be deleted for the same reasons as the other category so it is going to go down with a whole group of categories that it is not correctly grouped with. Could you please reopen the separate CFD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. also note at Broadway_In_Chicago#Notable_productions that the statement that Chicago only has reruns of Broadway productions is incorrect. Many shows are performed in Chicago before going to Broadway.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The point here is that there is that several categories are being deleted for because they are musicals created by fooian categories. Category:Chicago musicals is not a musicals created by fooian category. It does not necessarily take consensus. It would just take a responsible admin who is willing to say. It has been pointed out that this debate is about deleting a bunch of musicals created by fooian categories. Category:Chicago musicals is not such a category so its debate should be considered elsewhere. As an admin, I can see your arguments against Category:Chicago musicals are different and so it should be debated separately. In this case, a CFD is being ramrodded by false grouping. I am just getting back from holiday travels and will look more closely at populating the category, but it is not among the musicals created by fooians up for debate. Note it is no longer a subcategory of the main category up for discussion, unlike all other categories at issue. Please talk a moment and be WP:BOLD and do the right thing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I have dropped a note at the nominators page requesting he consent to a separate CFD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Dickson Mounds

You have asked about the title of Dickson Mounds Museum. There have been similar discussions in the past about another historic/archeological site which is: (a) a National Historic Landmark, and (b) owned by the state of Illinois, namely the Grand Village of the Illinois. There is no easy answer to these questions, as the entity that owns these sites is not the same as the entity that grants these sites their standing as National Historic Landmarks; and the owner, the state, has chosen to give some of these sites different names from those accepted by the U.S. federal government.

The Grand Village of the Illinois discussion concluded with acceptance of the name used by the State of Illinois, the owner, in preference to the name used by the U.S. Department of the Interior. I believe this is an adequate precedent and Dickson Mounds should be known as "Dickson Mounds" or as "Dickson Mounds Museum".

Please think about this situation and let visitors to the Dickson Mounds site know what you think. Bigturtle (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of West_coast_rock_school. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mundokiir (talk) 10:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

North Lake Middle School

I've declined the speedy tag you placed on North Lake Middle School. The reason is:

CSD A7 explicitly excludes schools

For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Categories of categories

I started a discussion about tourism categories here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Minnesota#Category:Tourism in Minnesota. I'd like your input if you have time. Thanks.--Appraiser (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Airline code templates

What exactly is the purpose of all those airline code templates? Since each one only transcludes into a single article (and since none of them would be appropriate to transclude into any other article but the one for which it was created), can't these just be subst'ed and removed from the template space? Cheers! bd2412 T 00:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Actually another user came up with the idea to use templates. The data is transcluded into two articles. One for the codes by first letter of the airline name and the other for a list of all codes. This was split up to reduce the load time for editing. Having the data in one article, as it was to start was very slow to edit and load. This was a solution to allow quicker editing and loading for most user who only want to look at the list by letter. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Ok, I see how that works - but is it necessary to have an article containing all of the codes (that is one huge article, after all)? Compare the division used for IATA airport codes. If there is no second holistic article, the template becomes unnecessary, and all can be on one page for each letter. bd2412 T 01:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
      • The problem was that the data for IATA and ICAO codes and call signs was in three articles with duplicate data. They were never in sync and always wrong and all of the lists were missing airlines. Some editors use the full list to search by code so that solution needs to be available. The only real option here is to split it back out and have a separate article for the IATA codes, ICAO codes and call signs. I'm, not sure how usable that would be since you would not be able to find all of the codes for one airline in one place. Remember that there are many more airlines then there are airports with codes. So two different solutions may be called for. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Hmmm. I don't have a satisfactory response to that problem. bd2412 T 03:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

terror/mass murderer

Hi. I closed the merger discussion after realizing the difference. I understand that mass murderers aren't automatically terrorrosts, but are terrorrists automatically mass murdereres?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that is correct, I'm under the impression that you have to kill someone to be considered a terrorist. If the intention was just to kill yourself then it's plain suicide, and if the intention was to kill others but you were unable, then you are a wannabe terrorist. I thought of a different distinction, however. A mass murderer has to kill a lot of people, but a terrorist only has to kill a few and he is a terrorist as long as they are civilians. Do you think that's correct?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Types of Airports

No, you didn't miss anything. I just though I would be bold and align the cat to Category:Aircraft by type in (what I thought at the time, without checking too deeply) was the "Standard format" under Category:Categories by type. I see now that the standard format is not very standard, but I still don't think the rename is very controversial. I you want we can still put is through the process. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 20:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

White Plains Airport

Thanks for your help/explanation on the HPN deletion page. I wasn't really sure *what* to do since I don't fully understand the intricacies of AfD. That was part of why I kicked it to Project Airports for someone who could help. I had never seen the deletion rationale on the talk page before, so I was confused. Travellingcari (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

assns / orgs in US by state

Hi vegaswikian -- In the recent CFD for state-orgs, you said "Given that the trend appears to be for the rename, someone needs to check the introductions after the rename. They probably will all need to be modified. This would also be a good time to make sure that all of them have the same parent categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)". What do you mean, "check the introductions after the rename"? --Lquilter (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles S. Panek

Could you explain the rationale for speedy deletion of this article, when there was a hangon !vote in the AfD, claiming that the article was under construction? -- RoninBK T C 16:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not the author of the page. I was merely reading through AfD when I saw a speedied closure. I noticed that the hangon-style comment was added from a anonymous IP edit. I reasonably came to the conclusion that the author was a new editor who probably does not have the grasp of policy that you or I have.-- RoninBK T C 21:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

Hi Vegaswikian, I've contested a number of the speedy deletion tags you just placed on several aviation articles as I believe the A7 criterion does not obviously apply and that notability is asserted in the article or is reasonably apparent. If you disagree, please take the articles to WP:AFD. Thanks, --Canley (talk) 08:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added more material and references to the articles Airborne radio relay and Insectothopter, hopefully enough to dissuade you from pursuing their deletion. As such I have removed the proposed deletion tags. If you still feel they should be deleted, take 'em to AfD. Thanks, --Canley (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Flight service station and air traffic control

I agree that a more specific cat for this article would be useful, but unfortunately, it doesn't fall under air traffic control. ATC has controllers who give (mandatory) instructions and clearances to pilots and are often responsible for maintaining separation among aircraft; FSS has specialists who give briefings and advisories, and sometimes relay clearances from ATC when a pilot cannot reach ATC directly, but are never responsible for maintaining separation. An FSS specialist is much more like a dispatcher at an airline than like an air traffic controller. (Apologies if you already know all this.) David (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Categories

Hello. Why are you removing categories from articles? It looks like the items that have been removed are useful. There may be some overlapping of categories, but this is an advantage for those people that actually use our encyclopedia (as opposed to those of us who are intimately familiar with its construction). The overlapping categories help these users find what they're looking for and are encouraged at WP:CAT. Is there another reason you're axing them? Thanks. E_dog95' Hi ' 10:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that some of these edits are ones that replace generic categories with more specific ones. I don't think this is a good idea. It may seem good from our perspective (we're experts at Wikipedia), but from a casual user's perspective, these edits have just made it harder to locate similar articles. Please re-consider your efforts in this area. :) This is simply one editor making conversation with another. I can see that you're talented and that you are an excellent contributor. I'm not attempting to make enemies. Thanks. E_dog95' Hi ' 10:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the summary. I appreciate your example as it does ring true. But be aware that this example shouldn't be applied to each and every circumstance as a black & white rule. There are many instances where multiple and broader categories are a more useful solution for the readers. E_dog95' Hi ' 01:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Little context in Category:Brewing companies (beer)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Brewing companies (beer), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Brewing companies (beer) is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Brewing companies (beer), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Help with KVTE-LP Wikipedia Page

Vegas -- I need your help with KVTE-LP A user continues to vandalize and remove information from that page. How do I lock the page ? Is there a way to ban or prevent said user from editing in the future? Thanks for the help! --Ghettorichie01 (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Buffalo Club

I have nominated Buffalo Club, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffalo Club. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters(Broken clamshellsOtter chirps) 14:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Highway categories

I dispute both of these moves.

--NE2 06:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you oppose if I did? --NE2 08:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Now listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 26. --NE2 08:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
That didn't work at all... --NE2 18:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
That's because I linked it on WT:USRD. --NE2 05:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Aeroxchange

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Aeroxchange, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! TonyBallioni (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy rename of Category:Error

After you listed Category:Error for speedy renaming there was some disagreement of whether it fit the speedy criteria. I have moved the discussion to a regular CfD. Please express your opinions here. Happy editing. -- pb30<talk> 01:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Most Phallic Building contest

An article that you have been involved in editing, Most Phallic Building contest, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most Phallic Building contest. Thank you. faithless (speak) 08:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

    • feel free to alter your vote now that more references have been added...JJJ999 (talk) 04:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Myrna Williams

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Myrna Williams, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

By any chance...

...were you dining at Pho Saigon 8 on Thursday afternoon? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I wonder who that was? Youngish (mid-20s at most) blonde fellow in a Wikipedia t-shirt. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Double upmerge

You made a good call re the defunct museum categories - thanks. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Myrna Williams

An editor has nominated Myrna Williams, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrna Williams and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Buses used by New Jersey Transit basis

I hope that this link shows you what I mean about every bus being owned by NJT in that article. It lists operators to which NJT assigns the buses. For example, bus 8409 is assigned by NJT to DeCamp Bus Lines, bus 8558 was reassigned from Trans-Bridge back to NJT, and bus 1868 is assigned by NJT to Coach USA. If you have any questions, leave a message. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Delco Carousel

I've declined the speedy tag you placed on Delco Carousel. The reason is:

not about a real person, organization, or web content, so non-importance isn't covered by any CSD

For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Flagicons

I removed the flags from Zoom Airlines following the view of the airline project that they added no value. I have brought up the subject again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines your comments welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't revert changes that agree with discussions about not including flag icons in airline destination lists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines. This will be considered vandalism. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Re doing this for all articles. See my post on the project talk page which I have raised this exact issue. The major problem is finding the airlines with the icons. So if you see them and remove them, it will save everyone from having to search for these. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Finding them? Ummm . . . ever heard of Air France, Delta Airlines, KLM, etc? These are not small obscure airlines here. And no, I'm not going to remove work that I didn't do, especially for something I don't believe in. Sorry mate.--RobNS 20:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

speedy

Even if you don't consider Arundel On The Bay a town , Surely you remember that WP:CSD A7 can not be used except for the types of articles specified there.DGG (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Pahute Mesa Airstrip

Why do you think the reference I removed from the article should stay? — NRen2k5, 08:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

for closing the Pranksters CFD. You're right, it was open way too long. --Kbdank71 14:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Your block.js

Could you please edit your javascript so that it wont include itself in Category:Tor_proxies_blocked_on_Wikipedia.

Something like:

var lang = new Array(
	'[[WP:VAND|Vandalism]]-only account',
	'[[WP:3RR|Three-revert rule]] violation',
	'[[WP:EW|Edit warring]]',
	'Abusing [[WP:SOCK|multiple accounts]]',
	'{{' + 'blocked proxy}}',
	'{{' + 'tor}}',
	'{{' + 'UsernameBlocked}}',
	'{{' + 'UsernameHardBlocked}}'
);

should do the trick. Q T C 02:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

MIPRO

Hi Vegaswikian, MIPRO is a Taiwan-based wireless microphone company; recently lanuches industry first digital wireless microphone system. Thus, I'd like to edit MIPRO in Wikipedia; however, this title has been protected. Can you help to unprotect and edit it? (If you need detailed information, I am willing to contribute it). thanks and I am looking forward to hearing from you soon--Ccdavid (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for suggestion

Hi Vegaswikian. thanks for your suggestion. MIPRO is the top 5 brand in the pro audio industry, and it's well known by majority of sound engineers. Please do more research about pro audio field and hope to reconsider your decision. thanks! --Ccdavid (talk) 07:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Glenloch Interchange

I've declined the speedy tag you placed on Glenloch Interchange. The reason I declined it is because it's not about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content. Articles about other subjects, even non-notable ones, can't be speedy deleted under CSD A7. For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wireless Repeater

I've declined the speedy tag you placed on Wireless Repeater. The reason I declined it is because it's about a device, not web content. Speedy deletion criterion number 7 for articles does apply to web content, but not to devices which allow you to access or modify it. For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Similarly, VoxPolls is not an A7 candidate. Thanks for keeping an eye out on article quality, however. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

DRV for Category:Visitor attractions in Orlando, Florida

I closed this DRV in your favor, but I do not have familiarity with triggering the bots. Would you please take care of that part? Thanks. JERRY talk contribs 23:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Done, and drv updated. Thanks. JERRY talk contribs 00:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing articles

As you did with Splendid China (Florida). You are extremely ignorant. You need to research a bit before you make your erroneous changes. The park is not in Orlando PERIOD. Idiot. Miamiboyzinhere (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

How much of this user's belligerence is Wikipedia expected to tolerate? &#151;Whoville (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
About as much ignorance as I am expected to tolerate Miamiboyzinhere (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Mediabase

Hello! I just wanted to let you know that I removed the {{Where is it}} tag that you had placed on the Mediabase article. Please review the article again... it's about a company, not a place, and thus the {{Where is it}} tag does not apply. It is mentioned in the lead paragraph of the article that the company is based out of Sherman Oaks, California. Thanks!--InDeBiz1 (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Clark County Commission

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I agreed with your thoughts on the discussion of whether or not the Clark County Commission is considered the most powerful organization. I just did a quick and dirty change because the previous wording stated that it "IS" the most powerful governmental body in Nevada, something clearly open for debate, and in this context, "Power" is a term with many different meanings. I think it may be best to avoid that issue and just find an article that makes an argument that is the most powerful body, just to show that it is a common opinion among many Nevadan political pundits. Thanks for the help, I am long time reader and just beginning to edit.

PaulWilliamsNV (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A revert

Why did you do this to my edit? Acalamari 18:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It was not intentional. I was reverting the addition of an added link the same day as yours and missed that there was another editor involved. Should be OK now. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks. Acalamari 19:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Disney and "Orlando area" category.

Greetings. There has been an ongoing debate over on the Disney page (posted on the Hollywood Studios talk page) as to one person's sudden desire to change the category of "Orlando Attractions" to "Greater Orlando Attractions". I see that you were involved in April 2007 in a category name change yourself, and I was wondering if we needed to reopen that can of worms? (See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_28#Category:Orlando_area_attractions for original convo). Thanks. SpikeJones (talk) 05:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

A followup from today -- the articles were moved back by Cydebot with this comment: Robot - Moving category Visitor attractions in Greater Orlando to Visitor attractions in Orlando, Florida per CFD. Immediately afterwards, Miamiboyzinhere switched it all around again and created a new category called "Attractions in Bay Lake" throughout the Disney articles. Me, I'm staying out of it and leaving dealing with it to the experts who are better equipped to handle such matters. Thanks for looking into it. SpikeJones (talk) 05:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I see your point about it taking the "orlando" controversy, such as it was with that one user, away. However, it still goes against the original Orlando category setup from april 07 that said that although the category said "orlando" it was to be interpreted as "orlando area". Setting up the granular bay lake category (which is silly as all of WDW does not reside in bay lake necessarily) is like removing the Vegas strip casinos from the "Las Vegas" category because they are physically outside the Las Vegas city limits... which is really what the Miami fellow seems to be contesting about Orlando. SpikeJones (talk) 12:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, *that* was fun today, wasn't it? SpikeJones (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

And thus it begins again. The fun part is that it's as if the people who are insisting on the specific category/city changes aren't even paying attention to the history of the resort as indicated on the WDWR page ("the City of Bay Lake and the City of Reedy Creek (now the City of Lake Buena Vista)" is what the resort's acreage were incorporated as.... so where do you draw the line between a and b, especially as Walt referred to it as the "Orlando project" himself. Sigh.) SpikeJones (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Even more revert fun tonight. Plus, we were all apparently called idiots a few moments ago over at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 22‎ SpikeJones (talk) 03:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Having the article say "near Orlando" and having the category say "in Orlando" is a contradiction and UNENCYLOPEDIC VANDALISM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.51.206 (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(sigh). I see that you restored the CFD on Category:Visitor attractions in Bay Lake, Florida. thank you for that. If we're going through cleanup, then we may also want to do CFD on Category:Visitor attractions in Orange County, Florida and on Category:Roller coasters in Greater Orlando, and merge items as necessary into Category:Amusement parks in Orlando, Florida, remove the page List of amusement parks in Greater Orlando as redundant to the category. It's like a giant game of 52-card pickup over there on the Orlando pages. SpikeJones (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

.....and now that the CFD has been completed, the categories have been recreated. Good morning, america! SpikeJones (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


Be aware of two separate discussions taking place on WP:AN/I regarding this user: here and here. At this point, I think reverting his or her edits and category changes again and again is adding to the perceptions of some administrators that this is a petty content dispute or edit war—and that all users involved are equally at fault. It might be more effective to explain your position in those discussions and hope an administrator will understand and take action. &#151;Whoville (talk) 03:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

He's at it again ... can we do a semi-protect, since it would block these newly-created and/or anonymous accounts from editing? Look at the current sock's talk page. We are trying to be constructive, but the user resorts to blanking pages and ignoring us. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Admins don't get enough barnstars for being admins

  The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I'm awarding this to you and Seicer for helping out with the massive protections of the entire Orlando business. It was a mess, and it took all of us to clear it out. I hope I never have to deal with that sort of thing again. Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Amen ... thank you all for your help. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Airlistbox/Temp2

A tag has been placed on Template:Airlistbox/Temp2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Golden Gulch Casino

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Golden Gulch Casino, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Golden Gulch Casino. Jmlk17 22:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Golden Gates Casino

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Golden Gates Casino, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Golden Gates Casino. Jmlk17 22:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Golden Mardi Gras Casino

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Golden Mardi Gras Casino, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Golden Mardi Gras Casino. Jmlk17 22:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do the Las Vegas casinos say they are in Paradise, Nevada?

If that is the guidline then why don't the Orlando resorts say the specific city they are in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.224.123 (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the category Category:Casinos_in_Las_Vegas, you'll see that regardless of the casino's mailing address, they're still listed as being in Las Vegas for sake of the category. If this is not what you are looking for, then you will need to be more specific with your question. I also recommend that if you have a specific question that it is better to ask it on a single appropriate page rather than to post the same question on multiple user's talk pages. SpikeJones (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
As SpikeJones said, they are all grouped in the correct category. However the casino articles, and most others, also list their actual settlement since Las Vegas refers to the general area. So you can use the LV categories to find what is in the area and you can also look in the categories by settlement to find what is in each. If you think that a postal service address tells you were something is located, you are going to be using really bad information in many cases. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN

Please respond at Jumbo Elliott.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks for clarifying

Thanks for clarifying where to have the rename discussion. Wxidea (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Culture nominations

Vega. You asked me on my talk page to stop nominating cities until the city/metro issue is worked out. I have agreed. I would ask the same courtesy from you. This is obviously an open issue, and piling more and more nominations into the middle of a undecided issue is not really helping IMHO. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

speedy delete for Citizens For A Better America (R) question.

I would like further information about why my content didn't pass the "indicate the subject's importance or significance" test. I realize that there are other organization on Wikipedia and I wanted to answer the question who is the real Citizens For A Better America (R) that has been raised in the media. I also planned to list the candidates that had been endorsed and other such thing.

While I realize I am a newbie at doing a full article I do want to get this right. I looked over Moveon.org's page and I could emulate that style if that is what you are looking for.

I made some comments on my own mytalk page, which deal with the speed of the delete, you are welcome to read them and address my issues there if you like. It mainly says that was on my way to type in 'hangon' but the page was gone.

I have played in the sandbox but that really just helps with presentation not content review, at least as far as I could tell. Please advise. Techant

Techant (talk) 09:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Georgios_Toubalidis

I noticed you closed the above AfD without indicating the outcome of the debate. The consensus, such as it was, was "delete". Should I go ahead a relist for better consensus? Thank you. – ukexpat (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

100 Longest-Running Broadway shows

As you may be aware, the debate on Category:100 Longest-Running Broadway shows was closed as listify. I've created List of the 100 Longest-Running Broadway shows. It's in need of quite a bit more work, if you're interested. Also, if you know someone with a bot that can depopulate the category, that would be nice. I'm not going there. Matchups 12:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Fish product sales

You have deleted an article, which I created a few minutes ago, and is central to a number of articles linking to it and the work I am doing right now. You have stopped me dead in the water. If you had done your work, you would have noticed that already about 200 articles link to this article. How dare you delete this article after just a few minutes. Who the hell do you think you are. Immediately restore my work, and stop interfering. --Geronimo20 (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This is cowboy wikilawyering, and you know it. Get a sense of balance. --Geronimo20 (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

i apologize

i apologize for deleting your page and rerouting it to im a poop head...it was very late and i hadn't slept in over 24 hours and was trying to make an article that you deleted as soon as i pushed save...i did not realize that you couldn't see that the page was being edited and i know that now so i am very sorry... i thought that you just did it out of spite not liking my work but i now realize that you couldn't have known so i am sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckystar41292 (talkcontribs) 01:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Aloha Airlines

I know that sometimes being an admin is a thankless task. (Part of why, so far, I haven't persued becoming an admin.)
I don't argue that there's a bit of edit warring on Aloha Airlines, which I'm not the least involved with.
But isn't it overdoing it to protect the article for 60 days, until June?.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reply; right. Semi-protection. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

McCarran International Airport

Can I ask why you reverted my changes? They were well-sourced, and made in good faith. As a relative newcomer I would like to learn how to enhance Wikipedia without treading on any toes. 78.145.178.86 (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

G11 speedy?

Hi, I feel I've been around for long enough to have developed a good understanding of our deletion policies including speedies and hangon (see my contribs). I was away from wikipedia when XAD (resins) was nominated under G11 speedy criterion at 08:13 GMT, and therefore unable to tag the article {{hangon}} before 08:18 GMT when it was deleted. I would certainly have tagged it if I had been given a fair chance to do so. I am surprised that it was speedy deleted only five minutes after nomination, and I would like to explain my reasons.

The reason I respectfully disagree with the speedy is that I do not think that G11 applies to this article. G11 is for pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. XAD resins are widely referred to by that name in analytical chemistry, where they are very extensively used in continuous sampling protocols. They are the most widely used resins for continuous sampling, and the name has become fairly generic. See, for example, this mainstream journal article in Journal of Chromatography A: Lepane V (1999) Comparison of XAD resins for the isolation of humic substances from seawater, J. Chromatography A, 845(1-2):329-335 G11 says that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion. The article was a stub about a highly specialized material that is a commercial product, and I was planning to expand it, though it was already informative as to some of the properties, structure and purpose of XAD resins; it did not need to be "fundamentally rewritten" to make the description encyclopedic.

I am only interested in the science of XAD resins; I have no connection with any manufacturers of XAD resins, and no interest in promoting their products. I have zero tolerance of spam, and I don't consider the article was spam.

The history of the article should be mentioned too. XAD was an article about both XAD software and XAD resins, and yet it was in the category software stubs, which is wrong, because it should clearly have been a dab page. I moved the page to XAD (software), reworded the XAD resins content, expanded it and moved it to a new page, and created a dab page at XAD. I was in the middle of expanding the XAD resins article, and would like an opportunity to continue writing it. I would be grateful for your thoughts on this. - Neparis (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If you had indicated that the article was the result of a split from the XAD article in the edit comment, I probably would have changed the nomination to a PROD. I have no issue with the article being recreated if it has something more to establish notability. The time between nomination and deletion can be short if someone happens to drop in and see something, review it and then delete it. In this case the queue was small and this article matched one of the criteria that I use to select articles that I look at. So I saw it and followed through. Speedy deletion is based on the article content and not how long the article has existed. The old text exists in the original article and you can use that for the basis of a new article with a bit more to establish notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I still think the G11 criterion doesn't apply to the article for the reasons stated, at least as I interpret G11. Since I edited and reworded the old text, adding significant details of properties, structure, purpose, etc, that were not in the old text, it would save me some unnecessary work to be able to see the article again. Could you userfy it for me, e.g. as Neparis/XAD_(resins)? I'll work on it userspace, adding a few more RS citations for better establishment of notability — a different but more easily resolvable issue fortunately. Many thanks, - Neparis (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. It was in mainspace though, so I moved it to userspace. Could you delete the mainspace redirect? Also, for GFDL compliance, could you restore the version history too? - Neparis (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Trauma Centers

With the trauma centers being US only then i think they should be removed from the template as that is worldwide which is what wikipedia is and not only just usa. So i think that either the template be renamed as "USA emergency medicine" or have all the non world wide removed. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.137.201 (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Incivility by Huaiwei

Hey - I've noticed you be extremely diplomatic and an all around good guy. I was wondering if you could talk to User:Huaiwei about civility and commenting on the content and not the contributor. I fear that the attitude taken by this editor is toxic and anti community, and I don't feel that I can help. Thanks, --Matt (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Me too. HkCaGu (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the complement. However I may not be the best person to have this discussion. I am one of the parties in a mediation over editing of one article along with Huaiwei. We are on different sides of that issue so I have also butted heads with this user. I have also been on the receiving end of some negative comments on several talk pages so I suspect that my opinions or suggestions may not be heard with an open mind. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
After I asked, I noticed that the mediation and more interaction, and I understand you not getting involved. Can you point out a good road to follow? --Matt (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I just looked at WP:AN and did not see anything that really covers this. Adding comments to the mediation discussion may be a way to go for now. While not binding, the recommendation from the mediator would carry some weight if no change happens. Also, the more input that discussion has, the more likely that a reasonable solution can be proposed. If the problem is larger then the scope of the mediation and really involves more editors, then those facts should be raised now. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Raised in the mediation, or raised elsewhere? --Matt (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Raised in the mediation. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that he is not respecting the WP:AIRPORTS guidelines and making his own rules. He is against using "consistency" in articles. Audude08 (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

For Example: 1. He continues to added faux-direct flights that requires plane changes (UA 896 SIN-HKG-ORD-ATL) with a plane change in ORD. 2. Dismabiguating Jakarta (as the majority of the passenger service to Jakarta is at Soekarno-Hatta International Airpot) which is totally unnecessary. He disambiguated 'Jakarta to Jakarta-Soekarno-Hatta. 3. He also change the wording of the WP:AIRPORTS guidelines without discussing it. By the way, I saw your comment about the Jakarta dispute at WP:AIRPORTS. He just disambiguated Jakarta on the Singapore Changi Airport and not anywhere else. Thanks! Audude08 (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Audude08

Just so you'd know, Audude08 (talk) has just retired. -- Dave1185 (talk) 06:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Cat

My mistake; it's been restored. Singularity 20:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Too quick on cat rename.

Noted for next time. See response my talk page. Cheers. Peet Ern (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Anybody out there? I guess not so i will put back the changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.137.201 (talk) 05:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

TfD changes

I see that the format has been changed. My concern is that days are already being missed. March 30th should be on the page but it wasn't. I went ahead and added is. If you want this done in a different way, let me know. I know from the past that the bot gets confused easily. :) Nature of bots. Right now, the bot is adding the days in the old format, not the new format. No idea if that's going to hurt things or not. You know more about this than I do. :) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Help at US Airways

Need some help here... someone is trying to remove the massively-sourced description of US Airways as a low-cost carrier. FCYTravis (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Morgans Hotel Group

Vegaswikian - The edits I make to the Morgans Hotel Group page seemed to be reversed by you, I would appreciate if the History can stay as is - I can have a re-write of it to better reflect MHG's history to your liking, but Ian Schrager is not to be mentioned. Please reach out to me if you have any questions. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgenerale (talkcontribs) 19:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Police Station article

Thats exactly what I was trying to get across to him its relevant and not trivial, thanks so much for backing me up :) Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 19:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Interstate 124

Thank you for deleting Interstate 124; Talk:Interstate 124 should not have been deleted, however, since I was able to get it back. --NE2 04:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you undelete it? --NE2 07:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Requesting a Copy of vForums

Hi,

First, I'd like to apologize about the vForums page. We intended on working on it, but it was deleted before we had a chance. If you could please email me the contents, we'd like to work on it in a separate area, then once it has a reasonable amount of content, we'd like to move it back to its page.

Thanks, Mithras6 (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of US Airways livery

I have nominated US Airways livery, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US Airways livery. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Россавиа Диалог 19:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

DTools

Hihi...any chance you can shoot me a copy of the deleted page[[2]]? I was in the process of talking withthe author to try to help him sort things out. It may well never get to the point where its a GA, but I'd like to give him the chance to play with it :) Thank you!! LegoTech·(t)·(c) 15:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much! Hate to chase off an editor...even if he starts of SPA, perhaps we can get him hooked ;) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 21:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Image Cats

Hi! I see you deleted categories from Image:Japanese garden Lady Dixon Park.jpg. Where does it say that categories for images have to be "image cats"? PeterClarke 13:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, \o/, !!?!? - category intersects are nearly here, w00t (allegedly)

David Gerard, who knows everything that's going on, or so it seems, spilled the beans about category intersects, long promised, not here yet. But it seems that they will be here soon. Obviously that'll make a lot of difference to categorisation. Thread on wikitech-l here may be of interest. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Discrete chips board

Rouge admins

Please don't remove categories from another user's userpage. This has been hashed over several times. If the user wishes it to be removed, they can remove it themselves. I feel that it was potentially just a tad insensitive of you to modify a retired user's page, especially so soon after her departure. Let her make the decision. FCYTravis (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Kind of hard to make a decision like that if you're retired... --Kbdank71 16:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

CfD Category:Ship disambiguation

Hi Vegaswikian . You edited Category:Ship disambiguation. Your opinion at CfD Category:Ship disambiguation would be welcome. GregManninLB (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

museum stub question

Hi, quick question re: this edit, among a couple of others that have floated past my watchlist. Just curious how to know when it is or isn't a stub any longer. I wrote the article and tagged it as a stub because I thought it was too short to be considered an article. Is there a stub/article guideline? TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 19:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

and actually further with this one, what's the point in saying it's no longer a stub but tagging it for expansion. I'm not disagreeing, just don't understan that one at all. I expect that issue to be fixed as your tagging reminded me to work on it, but I'm curious TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 19:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Had a feeling there was a guideline I hadn't read. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 19:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Addressed, I think, your tone issues. I agree it read before like a museum brochure. Feel free to re-add if you think there are issues remaining TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 19:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

metro area categories

I agree with you. I've been editing the St. Louis article series for a while now. I'm been making new categories and deleting old ones at will (manually without a bot) because I assumed that the St. Louis wikiproject had the autority over the pages that we covered. I've just started some working groups on our wikiproject to divide up the workload and create a sense of focus. I you could go here and look at the methods used, I would appreciate any feedback that you could give me. This is the line that I will probably continue on for some time. I'd like to build a strong foundation. I think it is really important that a metro area category be made to operate alongside and slightly above city articles. This is my version. DaronDierkes (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspect that a wikiproject that creates a good solution would not have a problem. However be aware that some of your actions could be consider against policy since it goes against the perceived consensus for metro articles. However the nomination for renaming Category:Companies based in Las Vegas, if approved, would show consensus for the metro area categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Taproot Audio Design

You previously deleted Taproot Audio Design as "db-spam." He's recreated the article and is asking for help in doing it right. I gave him some advice on his talk page and the article talk page. Would you be willing to 1) help him out some and 2) invite the person who tagged the original article as spam to do the same? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleting Natural Remedies

Could you weigh in on the Onion Juice Therapy debate? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Onion_Juice_Therapy#Onion_Juice_Therapy Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesMMc (talkcontribs) 01:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Another gaming/gambling POV-pusher

FYI, Talk:Sportsbook.com. I fixed the change and pointed to the obvious regulatory sites, but a word from you might keep the editor from personalizing things and persisting. 2005 (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Something got deleteWhy?!

--FuturePil()t (talk) 07:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines request for formal mediation

Hi, as the informal mediation in relation to the various issues regarding the Singapore Airlines article was not successful, I have now instigated a request for formal mediation on these issues at MedCom at this link. As you have been involved in editing this article in direct relation to the various disputed issues and/or have been active in discussion regarding these issues on WP:AIRLINES, previous dispute resolution attempts, or on the talk pages, if you believe that you are involved, then please take a look at the MedCom request, and add yourself and any issues as you see fit. Thanks --Россавиа Диалог 18:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Conway Public Schools

I noticed that you deleted Category:Schools in Arkansas from Category:Conway Public Schools. I can see the logic in doing so, but that now makes this category a category that can never have more than one article. As such, the category itself should be deleted. Dbiel (Talk) 02:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really correct since schools could still be included as a part of the school district. Also you should have noticed that this category is up for deletion. The district category can include everything about a district like police, administrative facilities, sports facilities or anything else that is notable. Since it is not restricted to schools adding all of those other items to the schools categories is not really right. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I agree that schools may be added to a specific School District Category. But if that is the direction to be followed, then the category should be renamed Category:Conway Public Schools District The current name fits better under Category:Schools in Arkansas, but noting that there currently are no schools that are part of the category which is why I created the deletion request. Dbiel (Talk) 03:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

US Air/America West

I can't understand the whole legal mess regarding the merger, but you might want to go over other edits by newly-registered User:EditWithFacts to see if they make sense. A super-long subject line looks bad though. HkCaGu (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You might need to revert further on US Airways. I don't know all the details, but text inserted by User:EditWithFacts seems to be too hard to understand and possibly POV. HkCaGu (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

SR 604

I've requested a move at Talk:Nevada State Route 604. The others can simply be moved after the redirects are deleted as "housekeeping", but this one has some history. --NE2 12:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

NV State Route articles in Las Vegas

Why are you changing the names of Las Vegas area Nevada State Route articles to their street names? State highways are notable, with individual articles falling under the purview of WP:USRD and WP:NVSH. Individual streets (such as Rainbow Blvd, Sahara Ave, etc.) are not notable according Wikipedia: WikiProject U.S. Streets or at all, in my opinion.

Outside of living in Las Vegas or maybe having visited there, nobody is going to be looking for articles on these streets (and having grown up in Vegas myself, I know of nothing overly notable about any of the streets you've moved articles for already). Excepting the proposed move of SR 604 to Las Vegas Boulevard by NE2, I don't see a purpose to any of these moves. If the article moves remain intact, they'll need to be expanded to cover the notable subject along the road and will should be expanded to include more than just the existing state route info.

If you can point me to other state route articles where there is a precedent for such moves, I'd be happy to see it. Otherwise, making these moves just for the sake of using the "common name" seems unjustified to me. --Ljthefro (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The way the state route articles are written, their context only covers the length of the state route designation and clearly state where the termini are. To point a state route article to a street name could also be misleading since one could construe that the state route designation covers the entire road, which it doesn't. And how many other articles really reference or link to Sahara Avenue, Rainbow Blvd, etc. anyway? --Ljthefro (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I think confusion would result if we use the SR designation for some article titles and the street name for the others. Whatever the convention that is decided, it should be consistent for all the state highway arterials in the area. Since I'm working on the Nevada State Routes Wikiproject, I'd obviously prefer those titles to remain but will yield to a greater consensus. However, I can maybe understand having separate articles for Russell, Tropicana, Flamingo, Spring Mountain, and Sahara, since their notability might be higher due to proximity to the resort corridor/Strip. Separate articles for roads like Jones or Rainbow would be questionable though. --Ljthefro (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Robert I. Coulter - Organbuilder

Pardon me, but how was my entry for Robert I. Coulter - Organbuilder, a company not an individual any different than the following entries?

Kegg_Pipe_Organ_Builders Pasi_Organ_Builders Noack_Organ_Company Orgues_Létourneau

Thank you, --Tuben (talk) 11:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Kegg Pipe Organ Builders

I added some references to Kegg Pipe Organ Builders. You may want to take another look at the article and its AfD. --Eastmain (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:People from Greenwich Village, New York

You had participated at the original discussion of the People from Greenwich Village, New York category at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 30. The original decision to delete was overturned at WP:DRV and is now being discussed again at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 19#New York places categories. Your participation will help ensure that a broader consensus can be reached on this matter. Alansohn (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

US Airline Pilots Association article - Solicitation for input

Hello. I'm soliciting opinions regarding the controversy surrounding the formation of the US Airline Pilots Association. Please see Talk:US Airline Pilots Association#Controversy and add you opinion. -- Tcncv (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Fictional life-forms

I was in the middle of commenting when you closed it. (Which is, of course, perfectly fine, and not an uncommon event : )

My main comment was: "Why "Life-form" (which redirects to organism)? Is there are reason to not use Creature?"

The closure makes sense based on the existing discussion. However, I'm tempted to immediately renominate in deference to creature. For one thing, wiktionary, and commons both seem to currently default to that usage.

I'm hesitant to just Be bold, as the discussion was "just closed". But I suppose I could. There's also the choice to renom. or DRV. What do you think? - jc37 22:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

When I decided on the name to use for the close, I based it on the discussions. I think that even with an additional comment, there would be support for the name I closed it with. DRV would not be appropriate since I don't believe you would have any criteria that they consider valid. I have long taken the position that sometimes it takes a few shots to arrive at the best name and clearly the new name is better then the old one. I have no objection to you doing another CfD to propose a better name. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
As I said, I felt it was a good close based on the discussion present.
And I totally agree about DRV (I merely listed it as an additional option).
It looks like it's off to renominate, we go.
My main concern was that (due to typical constraints of renaming categories), we get further from the orginal editors with every rename.
Would you mind holding off on listing the category until the end of the renomination discussion? I presume waiting an extra five days wouldn't "hurt" in this case. (No BLP issues, for example : )
If not, no further arguement from me.
Thanks for your insight, btw : ) - jc37 22:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd say just open a new discussion. If there are too many options, it frequently causes a no consensus decision. With only a single choice it is easier to gain consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure you understood my last request ("last request", gee that sounded ominous : )
Anyway, it's now listed. Please let me know if you have any concerns. - jc37 22:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess never mind, it seems cydebot is already in action on the rename. I'll alter the nom accordingly. - jc37 22:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
And thank you for tagging, that was my next step : ) - jc37 22:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually I was in the process of midifying your nomination for you when the edit conflict hit. :-) Vegaswikian (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Funny : )
Isn't it great when two well-meaning editors encounter each other? rofl.
(Not that we haven't encountered each other at CFD in the past, or anything : ) - jc37 23:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


Notability of World Bet Exchange

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on World Bet Exchange, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because World Bet Exchange is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting World Bet Exchange, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of images from category

I noticed you removed the WHCJ logo from several categories. If you review the meta wiki article on images you will note that:

"By adding a category tag on the image page, images can be in the same category as other pages, but are treated separately: on the category page they are not included in the count of articles in the category, and they are displayed in a separate section, with for each a thumbnail and the name, see category page.

On Commons there are essentially only images. On projects with real articles a category can either mix articles and images about a subject, or one has separate image categories. An image category is typically a subcategory of the general category about the same subject, and a subcategory of a wider image category."

I have reversed your edits. Please feel free to contact me if you have an overriding wikipedia policy. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines formal request for mediation (2nd filing)

Hi, as the informal mediation in relation to the various issues regarding the Singapore Airlines article was not successful, I have now instigated a request for formal mediation on these issues at MedCom at this link. As you have been involved in editing this article in direct relation to the various disputed issues and/or have been active in discussion regarding these issues on WP:AIRLINES, previous dispute resolution attempts, or on the talk pages, I have added you to the involved parties list, so if you agree to participate, please sign your acceptance on that page. Thanks --Россавиа Диалог 21:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Some assistance, please?

the pinball article has become an interesting revert arena today. While I was making a good-faith entry onto the talk page after I had reverted an edit, I was (threatened?) with being blocked for being disruptive. I don't think mediation is necessary right now, but if you wouldn't mind keeping your eye out for me, that would be appreciated. Thx! SpikeJones (talk) 04:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Singapore Airlines, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Anthøny 17:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


Request for mediation not accepted

  A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Singapore Airlines.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 11:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Dominican people

Hello, can I ask about this CFD closure from last week? It seems that, if anything, there was consensus to change to Category:Dominica people, not Category:Dominican people. Was it a typo in the closure maybe? The Dominican people cat still has a disambiguation tag on it. — jwillbur 22:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I too thought the consensus looked like Category:Dominica people (even though I didn't particularly like this option), but I see you've now reversed it to Category:People from Dominica, which was the original name. I'm confused. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to check Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working I think I have it correct this time. Seems like I have been having a problem getting the cut and paste correct. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I be an Adminastrator?

I wanna be an adminastrator.Can you make me an adminastrator?Satipo (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)SatipoSatipo (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Punk filmmakers cat

You had said at CFD that you were allowing some time for Category:Punk filmmakers to be listified. We're past that time, can the cat now be deleted? Otto4711 (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Vegaswikian1 (talk · contribs)

This editor claims to be you. I want to make sure you are aware. Toddst1 (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Military, er, things

Hi Vegaswikian. Wanted to check what your thoughts were on another potential proposal; somebody suggested merging the main categories military bases and military facilities to 'military installations.' We could set up whatever permutations of subcategories were necessary to define what was or was not a base or a facility under that main category - be interested to hear your thoughts on what was best. What do you think? Kind regards Buckshot06(prof) 11:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I would probably take the discussion over to the military wikiproject. I think that your idea may be sound, what I don't know is how these would be structured in terms of parent and child. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:RRISD

You tagged this for rename but apparently didn't list it at CFD. Otto4711 (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

cfd - Companies with current or prior private equity ownership

Vegaswikian -- In addition to my disagreement over your nomination, I also did not receive any notice of your nomination and am not sure you filled out the template correctly. I would like to try to persuade you of my conviction on leaving the category and strong disagreement with your WP:OCAT assertion. I don't spend a lot of time creating categories and when I do it is only because of the real dearth of acceptable existing categories. Would love you get some feedback and a little clearer sense of where you are coming from in your nomination. I am not going to spend more time categorizing companies until this gets resolved (which I would have liked to have done) so I would like to try to come to some kind of resolution. Thanks. |► ϋ r b a n я e n e w a l ◄| (talk) 04:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I responded to your points on the cfd discussion page but I wanted to reiterate some points to you directly.

  • I really don't want to be rude and I want to start out by saying that considering what was on wikipedia when I started working on this area, you should be thanking me for my efforts, not ridiculing them as you did. I have spent three months cleaning up, patching holes and organizing what was frankly a mess. While I don't mind explaining to people when the same point is reiterated I have to spend my time explaining to you rather than working on articles. I think the body of my work is actually very solid.
  • I have found that the uphill climb I have had to endure to fix the private equity and finance sections on wikipedia has been a real challenge. Your point about the number of references in the "private equity firm" article may be accurate and I will get to that in time but I am forced to prioritize my time and have done a lot over the last few months.
  • There seems to be a general lack of understanding of the topic, which is not uncommon on wikipedia and that is fine but I think at this point if you want to rename the subject that is fine if you have a proposal to discuss, but I am think you should give the benefit of the doubt on this that I have thought about the distinction between the proposed category and the "privately held" category you want to collapse it into. I personally don't understand why you think this is such a badly named category - it captures the point precisely and is as succinct as possible. I would have liked to have called it Private equity owned companies or Companies with private equity ownership but that would not be factually correct and that to me seems most important.

As you can tell you hit a nerve with your comment and I would like to try to work together. If you really have an issue with the category we can discuss it further but this is not typically how I like to spend my time on wikipedia. |► ϋ r b a n я e n e w a l ◄| (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about the cfd. I responded to your points and that will be resolved. I did not appreciate your comments directed toward my work. That's it. I thought it was rude. That's not "simply how it is done". No need to respond. |► ϋ r b a n я e n e w a l ◄| (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevada Highway Patrol

Since you are insistent in removing the links I attached to this article, stating in your summary that they are unrelated - in YOUR opinion - please tell me why you believe them to be unrelated. I think that the general articles on the various types of State Police are indeed related, and since you have made it clear that you will continue to revert what I have added, I would appreciate an understanding of your reasoning. SGT141 (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


That section of the Help guide does not, in my reading of it, in any way suggest that articles discussing State Police in general ways is unrelated to the Nevada Highway Patrol. I still do not see how my inclusion of these links is violating the spirit of Wikipedia. I respectfully disagree - but I will not restore the links. I just don't feel like getting into a revert war, and it appears that would be the inevitable result. SGT141 (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: CFD Category:National parks in Kerala

I created both the categories. Initially I created Category:National parks in Kerala and then found there was a different convention already as below

Therefore I created Category:National parks and sanctuaries in Kerala again and Just asking to delete the former one (Category:National parks in Kerala) which I had created -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 11:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Mesquite

Why isn't Mesquite not in the Las Vegas metro area? Heegoop, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

But Mesquite is in Clark County and according to the US Census Bureau the Las Vegas metro area includes all of Clark County.

GRDC

Hi, you recently deleted the GRDC page, could you please give us reason why? All the infomation on there was correct

--Grdc (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of software from Category:Unmaintained software

Hi, I wonder why you reverted many of my edits (like [3] [4] [5]), when I was adding software that is unmaintained to the category: "unmaintained software"? You may argue that Internet Explorer 5 is still maintained, with version 6 and 7 (something open to debate...), but what about internet explorer for Unix? that is clearly unmaintained by Microsoft... could you please explain that? Do you think that category is not appropriate? If so, could you please explain why you think that? Thanks. SF007 (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to make a guess because those are all already in Category:Discontinued Microsoft software. Since that is a child of Category:Unmaintained software, there is no need to have the articles in both parent and child categories. --Kbdank71 17:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Excellent reply, thanks a lot, I haven't even thought of that for a second... yeah, if that's so, then I have to agree with Vegaswikian... Thanks again for the reply. SF007 (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • To Vegaswikian: no need to explain anymore ;) SF007 (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Audio Analogue

Hi. I notice you declined a speedy on this article as it had already been through an AfD. I was going to argue that the article in place now was wildly different from that which passed the AfD and so the vote didn't count, then realised I should simply revert the article to a previous version. So, apologies - I still don't rememeber ALL the options available when editing :-) CultureDrone (talk) 07:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi protect user page

Vegaswikian - I was wondering if you could semi-protect my user page. Every few months, someone decides to log on from a hotel IP and edit my user page inserting a false narrative about my life. Sounds trivial, but is kind of stalkerish in pattern. Thanks --Matt (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Social Science Research Resources Network

This is a major project, though better sources are needed. Please restore & I will work on it. DGG (talk) 11:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:ICAO airline designator

A tag has been placed on Template:ICAO airline designator requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Encore Suites

Thanks for creating the new page and clarifing the name. Good work.Davehi1 (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

About the Miles Smith article

Nice work... I reverted myself and the vandal after realizing what he had done. I also reverted you without intention to do so ( When i started reverting your edit hadn't been made). I apologize to you for this mistake. Again, nice work reverting vandalism and my mistaken SD. Thank you. --Legion fi (talk) 07:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Reduplicants and double named places CFD

I'm a little confused as to how these two categories can be retained given that there is no reliable sourcing for the arguments being made by those wanting them kept. They are positively asserting a linguistic association between these random collections of words and place names; shouldn't they be required to offer some proof of that to keep the categories? Otto4711 (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the CFD notices from the category pages, noted the outcome on the talk pages, and noted the suggestion to listify on Talk:Reduplication. HTH. - Fayenatic (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Eugene C. Eppley

Hi Vegaswikian. Could you please review your deletion of Category:Eugene C. Eppley? The argument presented by the nominator was addressed, and there was no response to the CfD beyond the first few days of the discussion; the majority of the work completed on the category happened after that. Thanks, and thank you for responding on my talk page. • Freechild'sup? 03:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about Renewable/Alternative/Green Energy categories

Hi, Vegaswikian. There is a discussion how to organize the categories related to the renewable energy. As you have lot of experiences with categorization issues, your input is appreciated. Thanks.Beagel (talk) 07:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you do the protect for the talk page too please?

WP Citing sources the talk page got the great spanish diatribe in a larger burst i think - thanks SatuSuro 13:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats fine=low level no protect -cheers SatuSuro 23:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Accident data on airport-pages?

Hi, I saw you contributed your opinion on this matter on the talk-page. I really hope to continue this subject and try to find (new) concensus IF, when and how to include this data on the airport-page. My response/POV is put here. And I added this link on your talk-page as you might not follow the talk-page in question and my last contribution is a few days ago. Feel free to remove THIS text from your talk-page, no point in keeping a link.. Many thanks, --JanT (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

CFD for Category:Intelligence_gathering_legislation

Hi VW -- In case you're logged in here instead of as your "alter ego" -- I was hoping you'd reply to my question at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_22#Category:Intelligence_gathering_legislation. Cgingold (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Breweries (buildings)

Hi Vegaswikian.

I found the Breweries (buildings) cat placed within the main Beer cat. I looked at the few articles it contained and I wasn't sure, and am still not, of its purpose. It doesn't belong within the beer cat structure as we already have an elegant and well tried and very workable cat system of dealing with breweries on a regional level (Beer and breweries by region) - and if the purpose would be to place all breweries within the Breweries (buildings) cat then it would simply be mirroring the Beer and breweries by region cat, which is already well stocked and well structured. There may be a possibility that it could work as part of the architecture cat structure, though some thought would need to be given as to how it would fit in there. If the cat were to be used to hold historic brewery buildings some thought would need to be given as to how to structure it as there would be historic brewery buildings from all over the world. Possibly an historic breweries cat could be structured into Category:Historic sites or Category:Historic preservation. Let me know your thinking. I think simply repopulating Breweries (buildings) isn't really the answer. Let me know what you're thinking and we can work together toward a solution. Regards SilkTork *YES! 07:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The existence of this category was the result of a discussion on a CfD months ago. It is for articles about the buildings and not the ones about the companies. If it does not belong in Category:Beer then that is a different issue. Simply removing everything from a category is against policy since that in effect sets it up for speedy deletion and category deletions need to be discussed before acting. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
It's a cat for which sort of brewery buildings? Would you link me to the CfD discussion. Also, would you link me to the policy that says that a cat should not be depopulated. I have never known depopulating a cat to be against a guideline let alone policy. A depopulated cat is sure enough a target for a discussion on deletion. But it may also be repopulated so the act of depopulating a cat does not in itself speedy delete it. What is generally frowned upon is somebody depopulating a cat and then bringing that cat to CfD with the reason: Delete - empty cat. SilkTork *YES! 08:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Midwest Air Group

Midwest is no longer listed on Amex and that's why I removed the template. The article needs to move into the former company mode. The template adds an inaccurate category. Americasroof (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

CFD

Hi. I've emptied Category:German Christian Democrat politicians now, so it can be deleted now. --Soman (talk) 11:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

more on Las Vegas hospitals

It appears that {{Las Vegas hospitals(template)}} puts articles into Category:Healthcare in Las Vegas. Can it be changed so that it puts them into Category:Hospitals in Las Vegas, Nevada and/or Category:Hospitals in Clark County, Nevada so as to reduce redundancy? It seems to me that hospital articles should be placed in hospital titled categories when available and other miscellaneous medical articles into the category related to healthcare. Thanks for pointing this out and let me know what you think. Xnatedawgx (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

further clarification on LV hopitals

Let me know after you've done that, because as of now I can't place each hospital into the appropriate city or county it is located in without deleting the template. Only the two institutes and the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada should remain in the Category:Healthcare in Las Vegas(see Category:Healthcare in New York City. Xnatedawgx (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate template and redundant categories

The navigation templates were inaccurately pointing articles to the wrong city or were causing redundancy in listing them in "healthcare in LV" and "hospitals in LV". (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Beer category decision

Hi Vegaswikian. I've just become aware of further changes you have made to the Beer category system. I am disappointed and a little disturbed that you didn't inform either myself or the BeerProject of your intentions, even though you and I had been in discussion on this very issue and I had offered to open up the discussion on the BeerProject talkpage if you wanted to pursue the matter. I have opened up a discussion now, and sent this message to members of the Project:

A discussion has been opened on changes that have been made to the existing Beer category system. The changes reverse the decision made by the Project in April 2006. The changes were based on agreement by only two people, and by a discussion that took place outside the Beer Project. There may be some merit in the changes, and to prevent future conflict it is important that there is some discussion of the matter. If you're interested, please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beer#Brewery_cats. SilkTork *YES! 18:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Patricia Jacobs

You recently speedied Patricia Jacobs. I haven't edited the article, but fellows of the Royal Society are usually notable. Could you please restore the article? --Eastmain (talk) 06:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As FRS, that would seem unquestionably notable, not merely "usually," and therefore should be restored. If you don't care to, I will. Of course it could be rewritten, but it would be better to admit the error in the deletion. The most that could have been said is unsourced, but sourcing something like this is pretty easy & that's not a reason for speedy. DGG (talk) 09:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thanks, I will work on it further. DGG (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Piedmont (ecoregion)

Please undelete Piedmont (ecoregion). You failed to check page history for "The initial edit summary may have information about the source of or reason for the article." The source was a GFDL Wikipedia article which points at the EPA and Talk points to confirmation it is PD information. Google of phrases also easily finds an EPA document other than those maps. [6](pdf) If you read the bot message on my Talk page then you also should have seen the referenced response.[7] The proper procedure for a missing source is a no-sources or {{cn}} tag, not deletion. -- SEWilco (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, any text donated to Wikipedia is under the GFDL. Whether Wikipedia rejects it is not relevant to the licensing of the text. So, did you speedily delete List of ecoregions in the United States (EPA), or merely request more sources? -- SEWilco (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, if you don't delete the source of the text, List of ecoregions in the United States (EPA), then restore my article. Keep me informed. -- SEWilco (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines formal request for mediation

Hi, as previous attempts at gathering concensus in relation to the various issues regarding the Singapore Airlines article have not been successful, I have now instigated a further request for formal mediation on these issues at MedCom at this link. As you have been involved in editing this article in direct relation to the various disputed issues and/or have been active in discussion regarding these issues on WP:AIRLINES, previous dispute resolution attempts, or on the talk pages, I have added you to the involved parties list, so if you agree to participate, please sign your acceptance on that page. Thanks --Россавиа Диалог 00:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Bass shandy

Declined speedy - WP:CSD#A7 applies to people or groups. This is a thing, so A7 does not apply. Suggest PROD or AfD if you still aren't happy in a week or so, but maybe give the article time to grow as the author promises on the talkpage? Fritzpoll (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Done. Synergy 07:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

a possible mistake?

Regarding this, how is "energy" a more specific category than "renewable energy"?--Rockfang (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Energy efficiency is not restricted to renewable energy. This is a concern and a consideration for the entire system from generation to distribution to consumption. To have that category under renewable energy kind of hides it. I was surprised that there was no category for energy conservation which would be a better home for that one. However moving it up the tree is a better choice then hiding it in an odd category that does not cover the entire picture. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Electrical installations in Herrenwyk

Hi, Vegaswikian. I put {{hangon}} tag to the Electrical installations in Herrenwyk article. In general, I agree with your assessment; however, I would like to discuss before any action, what could be the best thing to do. I started a discussion at the talk page.Beagel (talk) 06:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Indianapolis categories

Why? You requested that I leave this open: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_27#Indianapolis.2C_Indiana. Why exactly? If the main article is to be at "Indianapolis" it seems as though the main category should also be named "Category:Indianapolis" as well, right? Why would you disambiguate in the name of the article but not the category? Please respond on my talk at your convenience. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 23:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-open That doesn't exactly answer my question: Then why would I re-open the prior request? Do you think all of them should be located at "X in Indianapolis, Indiana?" —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 23:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


Proposal to revise primary usage guidelines, would affect Worcester

Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Propose_change_in_guidelines_for_primary_usage: I've proposed a change in general guidelines on primary usage that would result in a move for Worcester.--Loodog (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Lehman template

Thanks for creating that. Jayjg (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

occupations

Are you emptying out Category:Science and engineering occupations to see if it will stay empty for 4 days? I trust you have a plan, I'm just wondering what it is. ... Thx. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Working together on Beer cats

Hi Vegaswikian. I've had a look at your comments on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beer#Brewery_cats, and I am not sure what point you are making. The Beer and breweries by region cat system DOES follow the "by country" route (see Category:Beer and breweries by country}. Though where it diverges is that it doesn't finish at "by country" but goes on up through the continents which are held in Category:Beer and breweries by region. It seems appropriate to have cats by continent as there is a degree of connection historically, culturally and stylistically between beers in a continent. We also have a cat for multi-regions to cover those instances where breweries are either global or cover more than one country, continent or other region: Category:Beer and breweries in multi regions. I'd like to work with you on this as there may be some mutual misunderstanding going on, and it might be useful for us to work together as there may be merit in what you are saying that I'm just not getting at the moment. SilkTork *YES! 13:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, the category structure does not have to be like a tree, they can go up through several parents. In my opinion the only issue may be how to break these out at the lowest level so that they can roll up into the various categories that they should be in. For example using a US state for an example. The buildings should roll up into the appropriate state buildings category. The beers should be in the appropriate Category:Alcoholic beverages subcat. I will note that Category:Beverages has no US cats and probably needs a lot of work. The breweries, as companies, also need to be in Category:Alcohol companies and Category:Beverage companies by country. Beer brands need to roll up into Category:Brands. In addition, your project wants these to also roll up into your beer and breweries cats which don't include buildings. So you are correct in that there is probably no large difference, just the understanding that at the bottom, the categories need to be at a finer level and they they simply roll up through several different parents. Does this help? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to be nominating the categories in Category:Beverage companies by country that don't conform to Category:Beverage companies of Foo to that format. Breweries are a type of beverage company so there is no reason for the mention at this level in the category name. They should already be rolled up into the top level country category like wineries already are.. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


The beers are in the appropriate Category:Alcoholic beverages cat, and the US states would be in the system, but they have been removed. It goes like this - Category:Beverages - Category:Alcoholic beverages - Category:Fermented beverages - Category:Beer and Category:Brewing. The Category:Beer then goes to Category:Beer and breweries by region - and so to Category:Beer and breweries by country - Category:Beer and breweries in the United States - Category:Beer and breweries in Alabama / or from Category:Beer and breweries by region to Category:Beer and breweries in North America - Category:Beer and breweries in the United States - Category:Beer and breweries in Alabama, etc. At the moment though Category:Beer and breweries in Alabama and other states are a dead end because they have been deleted. (I started to revive Category:Beer and breweries in American State, but then realised what had happened because it was a such a widescale change so stopped). If the Category:Beer and breweries in American State cats were all revived and repopulated, then the US States would fall in line with the rest of the world, and fit in with your first two comments. SilkTork *YES! 07:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
My point is that you can populate your beers and breweries categories with beer categories and brewery categories. The beers would follow up the tree to Category:Alcoholic beverages. Breweries would wind up in Beverage companies and both could roll up into some lower level of Category:Beer and breweries by region. Beers, or at least the brands, would also wind up in Category:Brands or some lower level category there. My point is that if you categorize at the lower level you can cleanly go up the ladder in many different ways. If you combine mixed items, then you can cleanly roll these items up since in this example, companies are not beverages and beverages are not companies and companies are not brands. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that the beer and the company are intertwined. We would rather not have too many standalone articles on beer brands, so most beer brands are dealt with within the company article. However, some brands do split out into their own articles. Also within the Beer and breweries cats are articles on related regional beer culture - we have a long term aim to reduce the amount of individual company and beer brand articles into regional articles as per our discussions for Wikipedia:Notability (breweries). So the articles would be on the beer brands and brewing companies in a particular region or country. Take a look at, say, Category:Beer and breweries in Belgium or Category:Beer and breweries in the United Kingdom. You'll see articles on beer brands, breweries, the beer of the region, and related matters. We can talk about breaking down those cats a little further to accommodate other related interests (such as Category:Defunct brewery companies of the United Kingdom and Category:Public houses in the United Kingdom inside Category:Beer and breweries in the United Kingdom), but I am not sure how removing this cat system would be advantageous.
I took a quick look at the Category:Alcohol companies. I'm not entirely sure of the benefit of that, as each alcohol cat system does get down to companies at some point, but I have put beer into it at the nearest level we have at the moment, and this can be adjusted later as we discuss further how to incorporate brewery buildings and companies in the cat system. Talk more later, I have some work to do now! SilkTork *YES! 07:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Let's try it this way. How in your proposal would you roll up the articles about breweries that belong in the US city and state company categories so that they also roll up into a category for breweries as companies by type at the top? You keep saying how this does not work for your structure when in fact it does. Everything I'm saying fits into the major category structure in place for everything else, and the unique structure that you want. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I do have this in the back of my mind and am aware of it. Apologies for being slow getting back to you.

It's a really hot day here in the UK after a series of hot days and my mind is not working clearly. I'm not sure what you're asking me. I think you're talking about Category:Beverage companies, and how breweries end up there. At some point that has been organised thus - Category:Beverage companies - Category:Alcoholic beverage companies - Category:Beer and breweries by region - Category:Beer and breweries in North America - Category:Beer and breweries in the United States - Category:Beer and breweries in Alabama. The brewing companies are contained within each "Beer and breweries in Foo" cat. What you are proposing is the same thing as already exists, but separating the companies from the brands at a low level, and then having two cats - one of products and one of companies, running side by side up the tree. What I am saying is that is not needed and is unwanted. We'd like to keep the beer and the brewery together in the same multi-purpose cat. Beer and brewery are often related. Bass and Heneiken, for example, refer both to product and company. Where possible we deal with both product and company in the same article, though with notable examples we will split off the product into its own standalone article.

Would you ping me when you respond, otherwise this might drift a bit. SilkTork *YES! 16:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be focusing on what your needs are and nothing more. What you want is fine, I'm just asking that you do it in a way that allows correct including of the categories in additional category trees. For example. The companies need to roll up into the various company categories. A category with beers and companies should not be rolled up into a company category since beers are not companies. If your lowest level is beer and breweries, then every brewery article must be tagged to a company category. If the breweries are in a category, then they get rolled up into both a company category and your beer and brewery category. If you use your beer and breweries category, then it would included two subcategories, one for the beers which would also be included in the appropriate brands category and one for the companies that would also be included in the appropriate company category. Basically you seem to be missing my point that the way categories work there is no problem in what you want to do and what the rest of wikipedia is doing. Everything can be placed in the existing major categories and in the variants that you want for beer related topics. Categories are not intended to be structured so that there is only a single parent. They can branch off in many different directions. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am focusing on the needs and situation of the beer and brewery topics. You appear to be focusing on the needs of the category system. The category system is in place to assist readers navigate and editors to organise. I have, I think, mentioned several times that product and producer are very much linked within the beer topic - sometimes product and company share the same name (Orval, Duvel, etc) sometimes different. We have Spitfire (beer) which is dealt with in a section within Shepherd Neame Brewery (both beer and brewery), and Mort Subite dealt with within Alken-Maes (both beer and brewery) for example. The way that you propose to arrange it then those articles will need to have both beer brand and beer brewery categories placed within the same article. We are not going to get a neat separation (even though organisationally it may be desirable), because in the beer world it unfortunately doesn't exist. We either tag every brewery with both beer brand and beer company tags, or we keep the existing tag which already does that! Are you starting to see the situation? The one size fits all solution doesn't always work, and we sometimes have to be adaptable to the individual situation. Regards SilkTork *YES! 06:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what more I can do to explain to you that ignoring the entire category system does not help everyone outside of you your product. You seem to be unwilling to categorize brands as brands, beverages as beverages or companies as companies. You only are willing to accept placing all of these into beer and brewery categories which do not roll up cleanly to any other category. Solutions exist, but you don't appear to be willing to budge placing your goals above those of the entire encyclopedia. Solutions that serve both needs are simply not something you will accept.
Still given that position, let me try this again. I'll use your example of Mort Subite. First I will note that the redirect in place for this is not correct. It really should take the reader to the section in the article that has the information. Putting that aside, all you need to do is to add appropriate categories for beers and brands to the redirect and Category:Beverage companies of Belgium in the main article. Category:Beer and breweries in Belgium really should not roll up into the company category since it is not about companies. It includes beers, which are not companies, and it can include people or other items which are also not companies.
I guess I fail to see why all of the other editors of articles on all types understand the value of multiple categories when appropriate yet for this topic there is an instance to ignore the full potential to use categories in a way that does not incorrectly classify items. If you are really worried about too many categories, then you can include one category in the brewery articles that is for the beverage company by country or region that has two parents, one being your beer and breweries and the other being for beverages of. No extra work here. Then for the beers you can include a category for beers of country. That category would have parents of alcoholic beverages, brands and your beer and breweries. Everyone gets what they need and there is no confusion. The amount of 'extra' work is tiny. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

  A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Singapore Airlines.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

NevaDA eDUCATION

Just a request to clarify for my Wikitraining. I saw that the article was barren so I wanted to give it life. While the edit started as a copy, I did rework it so that it would be appropriate to the article. Or so I thought (and still do)--Buster7 (talk) 07:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Note dropped

Per your request here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_30#Category:Education.2C_training.2C_and_library_occupations, I'm letting you know that I'm renaming the category, so you can move out the library articles whenever you want. Thanks. --Kbdank71 13:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Johnsville Naval Air Development Center

Thanks for deleting this article. You screwed up the NAWC article by doing this. I wish I could make carte blanche decisions like that. :\ --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 14:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: your comment - I wish I knew how this happened, because the NAWC wikilinks were not corrected. I edited that page, and it had good content. You say you deleted it because it lacked content, but where is all the history? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 20:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Diaoyu Islands protection movement activists

Hi VW, Just wanted to let you know that I took care of that odd, unattached comment on "Diaoyu Islands protection movement activists" that you closed out. The moment I spotted that I knew right where it went... because it was clearly a reply (from the category's creator) to the CFD that I had opened for Category:Diaoyu Islands protection movement activists on August 7. Somehow or other, he left it on the wrong day's CFDs, instead of following the link in the CFD notification that I left on his talk page. Oh well, I tried! :) Anyway, I've moved the comment into that CFD, and simply removed the remaining traces of your closing template. Cgingold (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Revisit

When you get a chance, would you stop by this cfd for a message I left for you in that thread? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you be willing and able to participate is discussing some of the "larger issues" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Categories? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy criterion #6 challenge

There's been the first challenge that I'm aware of to the use of the speedy criterion #6 that you proposed and helped along ("Georgia" to "Georgia (country)", etc.) How exciting! ... See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_11#Georgia-related_categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

BCC Research Improvement

Updated talk page with COI, NPOV, and additional sourcing prominently featured: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BCC_Research Stuartfost (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Rollback is only supposed to be used when an edit is obviously vandalism, see: Wikipedia:Rollback feature#When not to use Rollback. swaq 22:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually what that says is unworthy change to an article (usually vandalism). Vegaswikian (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
It also says "Rollback must only be used to undo edits that are blatantly nonproductive, such as vandalism. This includes edits that are obscenities, gibberish, extremely poorly worded content, smart-aleck editorial comments, and other useless remarks that have nothing to do with the subject." I hardly think following the Wikipedia:Red link guidelines qualifies. swaq 15:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, so exactly what do you want me to do. Are you saying I should have used undo instead? No matter what way you go here, if you were to look at the article, all of the airlines are linked so undoing a random link should be considered vandalism. I will also note that your edits were also noticed by other editors and I happened to get there first. And as a final point, at least one of those articles has been rewritten and sourced to make it notable. So it is no longer a red link. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I think using undo would have been more appropriate. I could understand interpreting it as vandalism if I hadn't left an edit summary, but in my summary I stated they were deleted articles, so it wasn't like I picked random links to remove. I did notice that one of the articles was recreated. I'm not against my edits being reverted, but it would have been nice to have good faith assumed. swaq 20:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Airline codes-A‎

i noticed those two articles being delinked too. I added them to Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/AFD Record, and I wonder if they should be undeleted. Yet another reason for getting some notability guidelines written out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

London City Airport

You have put a lock on London City Airport.

I want to show there is a BIAS from Wiki editors. For instance if you look at the "Stanstead airport" wiki page. There is a Section called "Opposition". Yet a similar section has not been allowed for London City Airport?

Clearly there is "bias" on the between editors?

For "London City Airport" - there is a Opposition Group called "Fight the Flights" who oppose the airport's expansion. So people who know nothing about the subject matter then remove it.

It would be nice if there is a link to the "Fight the Flights" web page (at the moment this is only a Blog). If they decide to get a .com it would help....

But I note for "Stanstead Airport" there is a link to the Stop Standstead Expansion.

So Wiki editors have to apply the "same" standard?

Please can you look into the matter.

I have heard the Airport has employed a PR company. So I don't know if the people who don't want a section called "Opposition" are associated with the PR company?

Go investigate.

I don't plan on further edits on London City Airport, but the page will be poorer for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.188.151 (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is only locked for a few days to prevent anon accounts from edit waring over edits that are WP:POV pushing. All material must be meet the WP:NPOV test as well as being from reliable sources. Clearly the issues have been made clear in the edit summaries. Nothing above indicates that any of the anon edits should be retained. If you can add the material in a cited and NPOV manner please do so in the future. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
You have not answered my question on IMBALANCE!!! Why Standstead Airport & Heathrow airport all have a Section on "opposition". Whilst London City Airport is not?. This s a case of Wiki editors ganging help!. Will a 2 line summary kill people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.163.175 (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
That's your opinion. As I said, write a NPOV section that has reliable sources. You can post your proposal on the talk page and any established editor can include in the the article right now. There is no ganging up simply looking for well sourced material. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS explains why using the argument that something being in one article means it needs to be in another. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Is n't the following NPOV?

Opposition "There is a residents group "Fight The Flights" who oppose London City Airport expansion from 80,000 to 120,000".

(the group is mentioned on BBC web site - so notable).

Is that too much to ask?

Only the Airport's PR company would be "upset" about the above. Since they would like to show that they are a nice airport and everyone loves them.

BTW the bit about the Transatlantic service, well that was released by their PR company. And it appears on Wiki - amazing "free" advertising for new upcoming services!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.145.104 (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Take it to the articles talk page. I am not making a decision on what should be in there. I only got involved to stop the edit waring. If you want changes discuss it on the talk pages since I will not be involved in the specific changes. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Jewish inventors

Hi Vegaswikian: 10 March 2007 you had deleted Category:Jewish inventors per the results of the CfD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 10#Category:Jewish inventors. However it seems those results were ignored and the category was recreated out of process on 31 October 2007 by User No Free Nickname Left (talk · contribs) [8] who is an indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer. The category needs to be either deleted per the decision reached on 10 March 2007 or it should have been taken to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Your attention to this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:African American lawyers

Same problem here: On 2 May 2007 Category:African American lawyers was supposed to be deleted and merged into Category:American lawyers per the results of the CfD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 25#American lawyers by ethnicity. However it seems those results were ignored and the category was recreated out of process on 23 April 2008 by User Ewenss (talk · contribs) [9] who is an indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer. The category needs to be either deleted per the decision reached on 2 May 2007 or it should have been taken to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Your attention to this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Italian-American actors

Same with this: On 13 August 2007 Category:Italian-American actors was supposed to be deleted per the result of the CfD Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 8#Some American actors by ethnicity. However it seems those results were ignored and the category was recreated out of process on 5 July 2008 by User Foxcloud (talk · contribs) [10] The category needs to be either deleted per the decision reached on 13 August 2007 or it should have been taken to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Your attention to this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Johnsville Naval Air Development Center

I see that it you speedied this article under A3.

I've been away for a while, so maybe my memory is faulty, but I recall a pretty decent stub on this facility, mentioning its role in Project Mercury and Project Apollo, advances in sonobuoy and hydrophone technologyc, and so on. I also note a comment in Talk:NAWC, Aircraft Division, Warminster (the name of the facility at the time it was closed) that the old article had more content than the current one.

I would like to see the deleted article, to check my recollections and those of the other editor. It would be really nice to be able to check older versions to see if it became semi-blanked at some point. Obviously, my desire is to expand the current article.

Thanks. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Obviously, that is not the sort of article I was recalling, though the links may prove useful. Perhaps my memory is faulty. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Category thing

Hi, can you take a look at this and this and close them if you think it's warranted? I would close them, since I closed the previous discussion, but I've involved myself in the discussion now and I figure I'm in too deep now to take a neutral view of it. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As I looked at these before I was wondering what action, if any should be taken. I'm looking at WP:POINT and WP:Disruptive editing. I'm also thinking that given the timing Wikipedia:Deletion review should be the correct forum to review the previous decision. In addition, Category:LGBT Hare Krishnas is now empty clearly a process violation. Also, Category:LGBT Hindus only contains a single article. Don't know if that one was also emptied. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the HK one I can understand, since during the first discussion it only had one article in it and there was some debate about whether it belonged or not. But there was 4 or 5 in the Hindu category, if I remember properly, so I'm not sure what happened there. Thanks for your attention to it, though; I'm really not sure why exactly it flared up again, unless it was just a couple of editors who missed the boat the previous time around. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe the nominator does a lot of editing of Hindu-related articles, so that may have something to do with why he has a bee in his bonnet about these categories. In any event, thanks for taking matters in hand and citing the appropriate authority for shutting down the discussion, VW. The funny thing is, I had actually included a comment to the effect that the proper thing would have been to take those previous CFDs to DRV -- but then I thought, "Hold on, how does that make sense if they weren't deleted in the first place?" -- so I took it out (not wanting to sound like an idiot!). It's been a while since I checked in on DRV, and I just don't recall if I ever saw a "Keep" decision taken there for review -- it's usually the deletions. Cgingold (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I have seen keeps at DR. Basically you need a reason to contest a close of keep or no consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Antarctic Press

I just closed this discussion and a related one. Seems the categories were deleted two days before you relisted them. So they were already closed by virtue of the fact that they had already been deleted per the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

And I was the closer of those two discussions.
Two other editors (who also are admins), Hiding and Emperor, requested that the closure be looked at again. We discussed it (User talk:Hiding), and I reverted my closure and relisted. That they are currently deleted is not a problem, as the the discussions make clear what their contents were.
Please revert your closure to allow the discussion to continue. - jc37 22:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Then it should not have been relisted. Once it is closed and deleted, then objections can be taken to deletion review. However in this case, it is apparently late comments about the discussion after it was closed. If that's the case, deletion review would probably support the reason for closing as delete.
So the question is what to do now. Recreating would be cause for a speedy delete as a recreation. I think the best solution is to start a new discussion about these two categories so that they can be recreated without being speedy deleted if there is consensus to do that. I'll start doing that now. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Isn't the relisting essentially the same as "starting a new discussion"? And this way, those discussing get the benefit of the previous comments.
I guess I'm not sure I understand your current concerns. Closers revert their closes often enough. - jc37 22:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I just read your (re-)closure. I think I see the misunderstanding.
After I closed the discussions, I posted the cats on the /working page. And Cyde/Cydebot takes it from there. So no, Cyde didn't close the discussions at all. - jc37 22:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Relisting is to gain additional input and not to reopen a closed discussion. Yes, the wording did not make clear what you were trying to do. However I think that the new nomination makes clear what happened and why we need a new CfD discussion. Yes, closers can reverse themselves based on the existing discussions. I know I have done so. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
And I've been called a "process wonk"... (grin) - jc37 23:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
(Since this may turn into a more "serious" discussion, I suppose I should clarify that I wasn't in any way making an accusation, but was making an attempt at humour (which I presume that Vegaswikian "got"), about how I've been accused of that myself. Just didn't want my attempt at good-humour to be misinterpreted, as I've seen happen with others in the past.) - jc37 21:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
And that was how I took it. The issue comes down to the fact that this is a very Grey area and in my opinion doing this using a process that will not be challenged afterwards is what we need. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced this was needed and perturbed at the precedent. I think this highlights a flaw in our deletion policies. Categories should not be subject to speedy as recreations, since it cannot beat the caveats laid out within the clause; A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is 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. I have a feeling that was written before categories were implemented, but I could of course be wrong. I'm going to bring this up at WT:CSD. Hiding T 20:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Jc makes me feel guilty and so I modify the above with the following: Oh, I don't mind that it happened, and I understand what everyone's thinking is, and it possibly is the neatest solution, but I wonder if we shouldn't review the speedy criteria, even if it is to add a caveat that categories one would wish to recreate be relisted at CFD. The only trouble with that is the paperwork it may entail. The easiest thing would be to get it right the first time, but we can't do that, and we have a propensity for navel gazing. I have, however, wandered from my original point, which is that I am not here looking to accuse or get serious, merely to carry out a step in the cognitive process. Vegaswikian is free, as ever to ignore what I have to say, as I trust their judgement. Despite not appearing to do so 20 minutes ago. Hiding T 21:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually, what concerns me here is that we now have a very unbalanced situation. Where we are in doubt we do not delete; that is why no consensus defaults to keep. We now appear to be in a situation where no consensus will default to delete. No, I don't like the precedents being set here one little bit. Sorry. Hiding T 08:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
        • I think you have that backwards. There was a discussion and that resulted in a delete, plain and simple. As a result of that discussion, some editors raised some issues with the closer. He tried to reopen the discussion, which is out of process, by relisting which is used when more discussion is needed to reach a decision. Since a decision was reached and implemented that is clearly not a way to resolve the problem especially when the facts about what happened were not fully disclosed in the relisting. Deletion review would have been an option if the reasons were a bad close which was not the case. So that leaves the issue of how to reconsider the deletion so that there is no speedy deletion as a recreation. The only option I see is for a new discussion. The old one was closed and the category was deleted. Where was the doubt in the closing of the first nomination? I did not see any. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
          • I will say that every once in a while (though rather rarely) if someone wishes to recreate a category which was deleted at CfD, I've seen them nominate it at CfD (since it's clearly a "discussion" related to categories). I personally liked that. And I personally was seeing VW's procedural nom along those lines. The part I disagree with is the idea that if a discussion is closed, and an action is taken, the closer can't undo both the close and the action. I find that to be incredibly incorrect. A closer may revert themselves, or in some way modify their close, and by so doing, revert any actions which may have been suddenly taken based upon their closure. I've actually seen that innumerable times. To presume otherwise just seems rather contrary to the "wiki-way". - jc37 10:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
          • I don't have anything backwards. I'm not entirely sure you are understanding my points though, since you seem to be sticking to one reading of the events which have happened, rather than looking at them from a variety of contexts. For example, the deletion debate represented a consensus amongst only those who participated. With wider input that consensus can change. Looking through previous debates at WT:CSD, the way this should have been dealt with is at DRV since new information has come to light, that being the emergence of a category structure. If we look at DRV we can see it states This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented. the reasons myself and Emperor object were never presented. The text at DRC allows them to be presented. The debates should have been relisted per WP:DRV, The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist. Now we didn't have to go to WP:DRV because the closer agreed to relist, per WP:DRV, Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look. So I think both technically and sensibly the relisting was the correct outcome, and that your closure of the relisting is out of order. I guess if we are bound by process I am bound to ask you to overturn the closure of that relisting, otherwise I will have to take it WP:DRV, which I hope we can all agree is a waste of everybody's time. So, is there a way out of this? Hiding T 10:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
            • Why do I feel like I just fell into a time loop shaped like a Möbius strip? And I seem to have misplaced my Tardis... - jc37 11:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
            • If you really fell this should be at deletion review, then take it there. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
              • I will. Thank you for your time. Hiding T 21:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Citations missing

Template:Citations missing has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Irving Depot

Thanks for helping out with the categorization of this. Like I said at the Cfr, I'm obviously quite confused, but I'm not sure that there was a depot at Irving (I doubt the person who split the articles knows either), who knows, maybe the train just stopped there and there wasn't necessarily a building there. So it still makes sense to me to simply have all the cats at the Irving, Eugene, Oregon article. Do you know more about the depot/station thing than I do? If you're not a train specific person, I think I'll ask the trains WikiProject to take a look, since they haven't seemed to have picked up on the Cfr yet. I hope that's OK, you do know your way around the wiki quite well, I know! Katr67 (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I'll make a trip to the library this afternoon. If I can't find out anything, or even if I do, I'll check in with the trains folks. Thanks again. Katr67 (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Seattle

Page moves of US settlements are never uncontroversial and should not be done without discussing it. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the note. I thought that the article had simply been created by bot in the beginning and no one had bothered to rename it. I did check Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#General rules which seemed to say that "City" was more appropriate than "City, State". In retrospect, I should have realized that it wouldn't be so simple. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Antennas

Category:Antennas, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, VW -- I think you commented on the "wrong" CFD, as it were (we agree on that one). The one I was notifying you about was just below it on the page. Cgingold (talk) 05:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Category "Negro League baseball" to "Negro league baseball"

This is NOT an appropriate change. Where is the discussion on it? Your bot program has already renamed a lot of them. You need to discuss this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball before imposing this change further. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Without opposition"? How were we supposed to know about it? Did you pose the question on the WP:Baseball page? Or did you just figure you would slip it in and no one would notice? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Five Percenters

Hello--I see you're participating in the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_17#Category:Five_Percenters. I don't care much about that discussion, but happened pretty randomly on the category. I noticed that it's been applied liberally to bio articles without any source or material in the articles themselves indicating it's true. I'm afraid this is a wp:blp problem, and I started clearing it out, but I got lazy and concerned I was overdoing it... Any thoughts? CRETOG8(t/c) 04:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, BLP is always a concern with some categories. It needs to be renamed if kept. If consensus is to delete, I will not be upset. Clearly any articles that are not sourced can be removed from a category. The fact that no one complained about what you were doing in removing some articles is, in a way, support for your actions. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't really care about the renaming. I have a sneaking suspicion that somebody went applying the category willy-nilly. I'll start removing it from articles and see what happens. It could well be that after I've done so there's few or no articles left, which should make deleting more clear-cut. CRETOG8(t/c) 06:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!

On Talk:Bugsy_Siegel, you write, “Basically you put the bulk of the material in a single place and use the link to access it.” That sounds like a good idea; is there some Wikipedia policy I should link to when I do it? It wouldn't surprise me if the question (of de-duplicating, and which page should be the “home” page) turned out to be somewhat contentious.

Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a few. I bookmark this page for searching. Using 'policy "duplicate material"' as the search term, you get this link. Which has several sources for reducing duplicate material as policy. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

companies portal

I only add the template to the major companies articles. Jamcib (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

For the Category, I try to add the template only when I think it's usefull. For exemple I don't add the template for the category who are named after companies. I think other wikiproject do the same things, like the EnergyPortal template on the Category:Energy. Jamcib (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I understand the problem but for me only a few wikiproject are using the template:portal. I think this template is very usefull, for exemple see the statistics difference since I put the template for the companies portal (on semptembre 17). Perhaps we should use this template more and then find a solution for the articles and categories who could use a lot of portal templates. N.B. Sorry for my english... Jamcib (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

E-Pass and E-PASS Wikipages

Hello VegasWikian, I've changed the REDIRECT on both of these articles from SunPass to Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority because the fact is that E-Pass is owned and operated by the O-OCEA and NOT by the Florida Department of Transportation which owns and administers SunPass, I feel that any references to E-Pass should be directed to it's parent operator and not a third party and as a point of reference the only relationship that exists between the E-Pass and SunPass programs is a reciprocal agreement to accept each others transponders at their respective toll plazas otherwise they are two separate and distinct programs. Simon Bar Sinister (talk) 07:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Relisted

I relisted because it's been open over 20 days, so apparently none of the regular closers deemed that there was yet consensus. (Though noting that two comments came in in the last 2 days.)

If you feel that there is now consensus, please feel free to speedily close. - jc37 21:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Settlements

Having some trouble with some editors from the australia wikiproject over the rename of the settlements categories. I'm done reverting. Can you take a look at it? Thanks --Kbdank71 23:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy

I was just working on the Protected areas of Western Australia article yesterday and today I find that the category is changed. Could you possibly explain why please? SatuSuro 05:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This is taken from another editors user page:

(1) "Of" means "belongs to". "In" merely means "located within". Protected areas clearly should be an "of" as they pertain to the state or territory in which they are located and usually are created under some piece of state/territory legislation. If it was an "in" but not an "of", then it wouldn't legally speaking *be* a protected area.)

(2) If you follow the discussion all the way back, someone made exactly that point with respect to national parks. Since they are national, they can't be of a state; they are of Australia but only in a state. So Category:National parks of New South Wales was moved to Category:National parks in New South Wales etc. This precedent was then used to establish the ludicrous convention that countries are always "of" and states are always "in", and all Australian protected area categories were speedily moved in accordance with that.

Please considering the above points - and that below - in good faith, could you change back - thank you SatuSuro 06:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, you can't speedy rename when the exact same proposition has previously failed at CFD. Orderinchaos 06:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
You've based this speedy rename not on an established convention, but on a previous discussion in which it was agreed that a national part can't be of a state because it is, by definition, national. That discussion essentially endorses the proposition that protected areas that are defined by the laws of a state and under a state's jurisdiction are of that state. Unfortunately, you have somehow managed to misinterpret it so as to justify doing the exact opposite. Hesperian 06:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
As Hesperian notes, National Parks, despite the name, *are* of a state here. They are established under state legislation and maintain their legal existence and status through said legislation. Example: WA VIC Orderinchaos 06:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Have you considered using CfD to make the change? No one in there right mind is going to go against a standing approved discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't need to. The 13 May one is sufficient evidence that the community didn't agree with the change. Orderinchaos 07:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Hello Vegaswikian - I concur with the request by SatuSuro - it has been made politely and is reinforced by a number of other points and comments. Please act according to that request and the community's previous input so as to display the good faith that is expected in such a circumstance.--VS talk 08:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Like I said, take it to CfD. The National Parks were renamed based on this CfD. The process was followed to make the change and if you want to reverse it please follow the process. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Noted. Pat yourself on the back for giving such a good answer twice.--VS talk 21:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

BlackHawk (band) vs. BlackHawk

Why the hell does this need the "band" at the end? There's NOTHING ELSE that uses the exact spelling BlackHawk (note the capital H), and there's a link to the dab page on the band's page. I can't possibly imagine anyone getting confused over it. I think it's just stupid to have the "(band)" at the end when it's not needed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 21:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Okay. I see your point, but I still think the (band) part of the name isn't needed, especially when there is a link to the dab. If someone types in "BlackHawk" when they're looking for the car or the Indian chief, they'll find right at the top of the band's article a link that points them in the right direction. I think it's similar to if someone types in "Zits" — they're probably searching for acne, but they end up at the page on the comic strip, with a handy link pointing them to the page on acne as well. It's an extra step, sure, but I don't think it's confusing at all, not even for a total n00b. Plus, even if the band's article is moved back, I don't see any point in having "(band)" in the category name too. It's not like the name "BlackHawk" is misleading here, as opposed to, say, if we had Category:Alabama albums instead of Category:Alabama (band) albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 22:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Let Me Kick Something By Ya

How does this look?

I am going by the templates everyone else is making. Are we using the same names as the previous templates? - NeutralHomerTalk 04:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The "60 Mile" thing wasn't my idea. It was whoever created the template (I am kinda copying). In Virginia (where I am out of) there aren't that many channels, like Phoenix. I just wanted to make sure using the previous template locations (the names they are saved under) is cool....don't want to create my own OTRS mess. If you like to edit the templates I am making, please feel free. Take Care and Thanks for the Input, I appericate it. :) - 05:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
There isn't really anything special about them, I just thought I would be a little different :) If you would like to add those to the "local stations" section, you are more than welcome. - NeutralHomerTalk 05:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you changed the Hampton Roads TV template to the MSA version, this is cool. Should this be done to the rest of the Virginia templates? - NeutralHomerTalk 05:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
What's great about Virginia is there isn't that many MSAs in the state :) I will knock the VA templates out right quick with the new changes. - NeutralHomerTalk 05:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I made a couple changes, but then I put half the information for Roanoke in Richmond. Caught it before saving...soooo, I think it is time for this editor to grab a couple hours sleep, before move half the state around :) Take Care and Thanks for the Help....NeutralHomerTalk 06:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Alaska Seaplane Service

An article that you have been involved in editing, Alaska Seaplane Service, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alaska Seaplane Service. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Eastmain (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

RE

There was only 2 articles in this category and already exist Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers of the United States. But now I know for next time... Thanks, Jamcib (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

CFDW listing format

Hi, I'm sending this message to regular users of WP:CFDW. Now that I've rewritten Cydebot in Python, the door is open to make all sorts of changes to the listing format. Join the discussion here. I'd love to hear some comments from the most frequent users of CFDW on how best to improve it for humans. --Cyde Weys 03:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Notice

The more I think about it, the more I think you should be notified.

At first I thought that it was best to not bother (since these seem groundless), and because this is a case where notification could potentially cause disruption. (Creating a mountain where one actually never was before.)

That said, the page where your name (among two others) has been mentioned is, I believe a fairly highly watched page.

So in hindsight, I don't believe it's a good idea for you to "not be notified".

I'll leave it up to your personal discernment as to whether commenting there would be appropriate at this stage.

My apologies for taking even this long to come to this conclusion. - jc37 23:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I was kind of aware that the discussion was going on. I'm not sure that there is much to add. Jumping in would only add to the issues since WP:AGF is not going to be considered by a lot of those involved. What I found funny about this is the comments about projects not controlling articles. Reminds me of that old saying, People who live in glass houses should not throw the first stone. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind if I pointed to your comments here? - jc37 23:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll be honest, I don't know but I'm leaning to leaving the comments only here. I'm doing some article editing which I have not done for a while. So, I'm willing to let some of that discussion die, it is not going to do any good. However if you like the line feel free to use it. Vegaswikian (talk)
Though it's now (apparently) currently moot, I had different intentions than the quote (Though I'll freely admit that at times I wonder if every Wikipedian lives in that glass domicile : ) - jc37 09:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Fictional characters

(Saw a comment of yours at a cfd semi-related to this, hence why I'm asking you : )

After several (rather lengthy) discussions with Hiding and others, there's a possibility that we may start a discussion "somewhere" concerning WP:CLN in relation to fictional characters.

There simply is a severe problem of WP:OR in these cats. The most problematic cases seem to be characters related to the visual arts (television, film, and comics). A key part of which is that no one single author tends to write these, so the different "visions" of am in-universe "world" means different interpretations of the characters, which means that the characters are not "stable" in terms of attempting to define what is "defining". (And further what is "useful" for navigation, rather than just being overcat.) Among several other problems.

These days, (as I have unfortunately discovered) group noms are often opposed simply for being group noms. (With those complaining being people that I've seen use group noms - which makes their arguement confusing at the very least, but whatever.)

With that in mind, what would you suggest as a forum for this discussion?

A WikiProject? the WP:VP? WP:OR/N? WP:CFD nom? WT:CFD? Somewhere else? - jc37 09:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd lean to WP:OR/N with pointers in a few other places. It seems that notability is the primary issue to some, but perceived lack of OR is maybe the most serious technical issue. If the current nom is deleted, adding that to a list of previous deletions listed in the ned discussion opening would help build a consensus in these discussions. Adding the reasons why other similar nominations were not deleted would provide the needed POV balance. I think the opening of the discussion needs to make it clear that the discussion is not about deleting any articles and this and, I think anyway, that most of these categories probably should be lists to address the OR and other definition deficiencies. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
("perceived lack of OR" - based on context, guessing that's not what you meant to say?)
Looks like some excellent advice. Thank you.
I'm going to try to write something up. I may ask you to proofread. (Apparently the presentation of the nom can make quite a difference in such discussions.)
Thanks again : ) - jc37 23:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
No problem. You are correct that a good opening statement can help keep a discussion focused and that helps reach a consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

People's Park "primary usage" discussion

Please voice your opinion on the following talk page where there is a debate occurring. Your input would be helpful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:People%27s_Park#Requested_move Gjs238 (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Alsek Air Service

I wanted to bring your attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alsek Air Service for your input. Much thanks. --Allstar86 (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Strange

Copy and paste from Allan Memorial Institute except for additions noted below

Vegaswikian/Archives/2008
Geography
LocationMontreal, Quebec, Canada
Organization
Care systemRAMQ (Quebec medicare)
TypeTeaching
Affiliated universityMcGill University Faculty of Medicine
Services
Specialitypsychiatric hospital
Links
ListsHospitals in Canada

I have here added "| Type =" & psychiatric hospital, which does not show here. What else did you add in Douglas Hospital? This template appears to be problematic in all Canadian hospital articles. Peter Horn 00:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:I have inserted "teaching" but I still don't get the desired results. What did I miss?? Peter Horn 00:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Eureka, it is all in the capital T!!!! Peter Horn 00:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places listings in Nevada

Hi -- Check out National Register of Historic Places listings in Nevada, which i have started converting over to the list-table format adopted in many other states. You can use shortcut List of RHPs in NV. Be sure to try the Google map link at the top. Currently it provides you a Google map with little flags for all the NRHP sites in the first three Nevada counties. There's a fair amount of work involved in converting a state's NRHP list this way, but the bulk of the initial work is done by a county-list-table-generator tool provided by Elkman. Right now this is in response / followup to your talk posting suggesting changes to the NRHP infobox, by the way, but I or another wp:NRHP regular would have gotten around to this eventually. Cheers, doncram (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup, am aware of the MOS change about usually not linking dates. That has changed how new NRHP pages are being created, now with non-linked dates in NRHP infoboxes, for example. However, for the county NRHP list-tables, the date column is a sortable column. For date-sortable columns in tables, I understand the consensus has been that there's no change to make. But otherwise, how do you like how it is developing? There's a bunch of work to do, including dropping the old lists below, only after capturing all useful dablinks and other info. And it will get better as more pics get added. But I think it already starts to look pretty good... :) doncram (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for letting me know. Xxxsacheinxxx (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Virgin America Arbitration Request Filed

Hi. Please be informed that an arbitration request has been filed for Virgin America regarding the LAX focus city dispute in which you have been included as an involved party. Best Regards 45Factoid44 (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 16#Category:C-Class Korean cinema articles

I have replied to your comments in this CfD. Your analysis is indeed wrong, but I honestly don't know what to say to you beyond what has already been said. PC78 (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

C-class articles for WP INDIA

You might want to keep abreast of the latest developments on the topic on the page. Could you also weigh in on:

  1. If the implementation of C-class has been effective in general?
  2. Does C-class articles involve more red tape?
  3. Are the lines of distinction between Start and C, and Start and B classes blurred?
  4. Does C-class complicate the assessment process?

Eagerly awaiting feedback. Thanks, =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Cookies

I moved the parent article to Cookies (band) per the CFD discussion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 19:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

User:BoldSolitude

I have recently done extensive research and created a few articles. I also corrected some errors on other articles. I found several articles stating that Vegas Vic was 40' tall so I changed articles that said 75' tall. Please (Vegaswikian) contact me before changing these back and deleting my articles and transferring them to other articles. Vegas Vic article needs to be incorporated in Pioneer Club article instead of having all my hard work and research I did taken from my article and added to Vegas Vic. The Vegas Vic article also references an article that states that Vegas Vic is 75' foot tall then says Wendover Will is 63' tall and Wendover Will is in the Guiness book of world record as being the tallest. How can this be so if the 75' measurement for Vegas Vic is correct. I triple checked all my facts. To have all this hard work reversed is frustrating. Also, I have much more data on Vegas Vic than the Vegas Vic article. Since Vegas Vic is part of the Pioneer club then it goes to reason the article shold be part of the Pioneer club article. You have also changed my formatting, I saw no problem with the formatting. You seem to be systematically reversing everything I've done. You have even removed direct links I've added in articles for Fremont Street and Fremont Street Experience. What is accomplished by removing these direct links. It looks to me that having these direct links in place is beneficial. Have I done something that has offended you? Some of the reversals you have made doesn't seem to make sense to me.


"T Keen (talk) 07:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)"

Changes

In the YESCO article you changed where I changed Vegas Vic from being 75' to 40' back to 75' when that is wrong and I have citation on the Vegas Vic article. Also, i have several images on Pioneer club of vegas vic through the years with his different shirts. You requested a citation for shirt color in the article. Is the images not sufficient to prove this? Also, these images were not moved to the Vegas Vic article when you moved everything else there. I don't mind the research I did being in two articles. I just want it to be as cohesive and clear as possible. This is why I was thinking a single article that covers both Pioneer club and Vegas Vic would be the better way to go. Also, on the Wendover Will article I started I added categories Category:Landmarks in Nevada and Category:Signage, the same categories Vegas Vic is assigned to and you removed these and assigned it to Category:Casinos_in_Nevada. Wendover Will is a sign that stood in front of a casino just like Vegas Vic, it wasn't a casino. This is what is confusing me. The 40' and 75' reversal, the direct link reversals, the category reversals. I'm new to this and I'm still learning the ropes but it took me several hours of research and fact checking and learning the formatting to put these articles together. To have them reversed and not understand why is frustrating. Please contact me and see how we can work together to fix this.

"T Keen (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)"

Proper Changes

I have just commented on what I was doing because I just figured out how to do so, as I stated I am new to this. I didn't mean to imply that I own any article. I didn't know how to go about the Vegas Vic article. The one in place is so full of errors, even the citation [1] it gives at the end of Howdy Pardner! The Tale of Two Mechanical Cowboys. is completely wrong. This article is the one that states that Vegas Vic is 75' tall but Wendover Will is 63' tall and is in the guniness book of world record for being the tallest. The article I went by was the Lasvegassun.com article as well as several other sources I verified it with. You said not to undo proper changes but you did that when I corrected the 75' measurement in the YESCO article to show 40' and this is a valid proper change. Also, why did you systematicall remove any direct links I added in articles that mentioned Fremont Street or Fremont Street Experience? To me these seem like valid improvements. I'm not going out trying to ruin articles, i'm trying to improve them. I had several hours of work that you reversed in minutes. Now I have to go through the Vegas Vic article and verify all that information. Since you moved it without notifying me first, then I don't know what information was already in the article and which of mine was moved to it and where. Most references that the Vegas Vic article reference doesn't even work anymore. I would have been happy to fix it but I didn't know if such a massive redo of an article was appropriate. I also don't understand reformatting of the article I wrote when it looked fine to me. Unless there are stringent WIKIpedia guidleines on formatting that everyone has to follow religiously then it seems to me that whoever writes the article can format it how they deem fit. If there is some strick formatting guidelines out there then I'd be glad to follow them. The images I had in there were aligned with the text. Where I was talking about he had a yellow shirt I had an image of him with a yellow shirt. You moved these images to the gallery and then asked for a citation for him wearing a yellow shirt and red bandana. I don't know what better reference there is than a visual one. You placed citation needed on almost everything in the article I wrote but the Vegas Vic article has none and most of the information in it is wrong. Like I said, I don't know if I got off on the wrong foot with you for some reason or not. I'm just trying to put together articles that were non existent. I come to wikipedia a lot to look up information. Sometimes it's not here so I research elsewhere. THis time I decided to remedy that. I would have contacted you sooner if I could have figured out how. I wished you had contacted me, seeing that I was a new user and consulted with me about why I made those changes instead of blindly reversing everything I just did. Please get in contact with me on this. I will try to fix the Pioneer CLub and Vegas Vic articles when I hav the time. Right now I have to go back through all my research and verify the information versus what is currently on the pages. If you think two articles is the best way to go then that suits me. I just thought having them both in one article was more organized. I did however make a seperate article for Wendover WIll and Stateline Casino and then questioned if that was the best way to go with Pioneer Club and Vegas Vic. At that point I had started work on Pionner Hotel in Laughlin and River Rick and they seemed to work best togehter so I figured leaving Vegas Vic and Pioneer Club together was the best path. Anyway, I have rattled on for too long. I just wanted you to understand where I was coming from and to try to understand your reasoning.

--T Keen (talk) 08:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Grasping Changes

Now that I have had a chance to look into the changes that you reversed I see that most of them were right. I went back and changed the 75' back to 40' on the boneyard section of YESCO about Vegas Vic and added the categories back to wendover will stating that is is signage and landmark and not a casino. All the other changes you reversed I saw your reasoning on. Just imagine if you were me and just worked two days on putting together four articles and stuff started changing, deleting and getting rearranged in front of your eyes with no notice what so ever. I was just undoing these changes because to me the articles perfectly abided by wikipedia rules except for citations. That was something I was working on learning, how to place line citations. I guess I should have done all this in the sandbox but navigating this site and learning the formatting isn't excatly easy for a first time user. If you can give me a day or two to make updates and changes to Pioneer Club Las Vegas and Vegas Vic then I would appreciate it. For citations is there a way to cite an image instead of an article? If so, then I have most of the needed citations covered. These images will also need moved to VEgas Vic from Pionner Club or left in Pioneer Club and added to Vegas Vic as well because it shows the three shirts through the years. Also, I will need to add the $1 token image to the vegas Vic article as well. I included it for an unbiased clear account of how to spell Podner. I saw it in other articles as Pardner, Partner, etc. The badly written and self contradictory article that the Vegas Vic article bases all of it's info on had it spelled Pardner. I thought there was no better difinitive source than one of the Pioneer Clubs own tokens. See, this is where I don't know where to stop. You have to include something about Vegas Vic on the Pioneer Club article, but if you are then going to branch it off into it's own article then you have to find somewhere to stop. I don't know where the best place to stop and give a reference to Vegas Vic article. That is what led me initially to adding the Vegas Vic section. I initially started the article just to write about the Pioneer Club. You can't write one without covering the other. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

--T Keen (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Vegas Vic Changes

I made changes to Vegas Vic article. I deleted reference links that no longer work. I added reference links that work and support data in article. I added images as visual reference inline links and added images to file. I added inline references everywhere you had requested inline references need to be added. However, now it looks a bit cluttered. Is inline references needed at each and every point that it says he is 40 foot. Also, it is necessary to add inline visual references to images that are already in the file. I did this only because you had asked for inline references for the color of his shirt through the years, each time where i mentioned his shirt color. To me having the images in the article should suffice without having to be repetitive and add inline references to them as well.

Also, I think the entire second paragraph of the top part of the article talking about Pat Denenr and the tale of two mechanical cowboys should be deleted. It is self contradictory on severa loccassions. The web link says howdy podner, but the text and images say howdy pardner (which is wrong). This is also the article that says vegas vic is 75' tall and wendover will is 63' tall and wendover will is in guiness book of world records. The actual height of vegas vic is 40' and i give three inline references.

If there is a better way to format the inline references then I would like to learn it. These references are given below in the reference section and thus that is why I never had inline references while this was part of the pioneer club article.

Please get with me and see how we can best improve this article. I will also work on the Pioneer club article today if i have time. I will delete most of the Vegas Vic stuff that was added back into the article when I performed an undo on your edit.

Also, if I didn't make it clear yesterday, I don't view these articles as that I own them like you stated. When I said (my article) concerning pioneer club and vegas vic I was referencing the one that I wrote versus the vegas vic article that was initially started by someone else. I don't want you thinking I'm on some power trip or anthing. I was just added information that I thought was historically relevent and was currently non existent on wikipedia. I didn't want to destroy someone els's article while doing it. (even though it had many errors).


-T Keen (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)-

Continuing Issues.

I don't know how to go about resolving what's going on between us, is there a way to request a mediator. I am still not up on all logistics of adding inline references to proper guidelines or guidelines you're following. I have all the references needed added in the reference section or in images. I had to go ahead and delete the eroneous section by previous contributor that self contradicted itself on two issues. I had pointed that out to you but instead you changed the changes I had made and left that section untouched. I would appreciate help in added the inline references in the proper manner since I am still learning how to do this, instead of deleting the ones I added then marking the article as having no inline references. It did have inline references. I don't see how this is constructive for either one of us. I am trying by best to put together an accurate article. By you only changing what I've added and not correcting other wrong entries by previous contributors that comes off as "appearing" biased. My inline references may not have been formatted correctly but they were inline references to valid articles. Other sections written by someone else that had no citings at all and were totally wrong you left alone. You also stated that wikipedia is not a reference for wikipedia. I was referencing the image because you marked that i needed a reference about the change of shirt colors. What better reference is there than a visual to a vintage photo postcard. Would the reference had been legit if I referenced a similiar image on another website. You are confusing me whether than helping me. Please, if you think the inline references are wrong then fix them, don't delete them and tell me to fix them. Please give me a more detailed account of what is happening here or how you perceive what I'm doing is wrong. I want to help wikipedia but you are turning me off to the experience. If this issue cannot be resolved then I'll figure out how to contact a mediator myself and have them unbiasely look at what is happening here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BoldSolitude (talkcontribs) 18:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Erroneous reversals and corrections

You keep stating I quote: "problem is that you are reverting good corrections and making other errors." Can you specify what you are talking about? You have reverted correct revisions that I have made. Examples are: 1) I changed Vegas Vic height in the Young Electric Sign Company Vegas Vic section to 40’ and you reverted it back to 75’. 2) I created the Wendover Will article and categorized it as Landmarks in Nevada and Signage. You went right behind me and deleted those categories and categorized it as Nevada Casino’s. Wendover Will is a sign as is no longer associated with a casino. I had to go back and revert it back to the correct categories. 3) When I had Vegas Vic as part of Pioneer Club article you deleted category of Landmarks of Nevada and Category of signage. You then sent me a comment stating I Quote: "You apparently have a misunderstanding on how the categories work. Vegas Vic is about sinage so it should be in that category. A casino article is not about signage so it does not belong in that category." At that time all categories applied. This also fails to explain the the revision you did to the categories to the Wendover Will article that apparently does exactly what you were condemning me for. I looked through the history of the Vegas Vic and Pioneer Gambling Hall and Casino of laughlin and see you have contributed a lot to those. Maybe you feel like I am stepping on your articles, I don't know. Like I've said in previous messages, what's going on isn't constructive. I am new to this after all, I would hope you would have some patience in letting me learn the ropes or helping me learn the ropes instead of deleting or reversing everything I've done. You also state ad I quote: (Ignoring the first attempts to help were not productive) Whn were these first attempts initiated? You never contacted me until after I reverted your reformatting of the article I had worked two days on. You then blindly reverted any revisions I mde on any other articles. No first attempt was ade on your part. I'm willing to put everything behind me and move forward in a positive manner if you are. I just want to be treated fairly. I triple check all my facts before putting them in any article, I don't go off of a single article like it appears some have done.

-T Keen (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)-

Removing templates

hey, i just stumbled across this edit - i applaud you for removing a dead-end merge request, but it makes things much cleaner when you remove both templates when they are paired like this -TinGrin 04:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Stateline Casino

Stateline casino is now defunct, it is it's own article. If you think it should be called Wendover Nugget then you will need to also petetion every defunct casino article to placed under the new casino name article. I could name off several that this would effect if you choose to do that. Binions Horseshoe and Binion's Gambling Hall and Saloon. Barbary Coast Hotel and Casino and Bill's Gambling Hall and Hotel. I could go on but what would that serve. Really, I feel you're singling me out on every minute thing you can think of. Stateline Casino is an article about a defunct casino, not the current casino in its place. There are too many articles on wikipedia to count that sets precident for this. I advise you not to pursue it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BoldSolitude (talkcontribs) 00:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Nevada State College

Good job on the cleanup, thanks! LuxNevada (talk) 10:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for removing the additions that I made to Binion's Gambling Hall and Hotel, Binion's Horseshoe, Fremont Street and Fremont Street experience. I have a better understanding of how the categories link to each other and when to add a inline link. I'm still learning the ropes. I was just trying to improve the efficiency of the articles but didn't realize that I had just simply duplicated work. --BoldSolitude (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Texas Station and Boulder Station

I see you restored Texas Station. I think I messed up here. I was just trying to move these to articles with the official name of the casino but ended up causing more problems. You can look at my contributions and see what has been happening today. I know we haven't agreed on much but it's been civil and I think you've helped me grow as a contibutor by requesting citations. It has made me more aware of importance of such citations and their placement in articles. If you're restoring texas station you need to take a look at boulder station as well. I have a mediation resolution filed for the new pages of these, trying to get them reinstated. I'm waiting on a mediator to respond. you can see the dispute probably in my contributions as well. I'd be interested in your opinion on this. You should be the most unbiased on this. We don't agree much but you and i have always been reasonable with each other I think. Anyway, be sure to check out boulder station as well. If you think there would have been a better way of doing what my original intention was then please let me know. Thanks, --BoldSolitude (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, also look at westin hotel and casino

The user that flagged Texas station and Boulder station new pages for deletion then proceeded to flag westin for quick deletion. It was denied and now he has filed another deletion request on it. Also, boulder station site was deleted seconds after it was flagged. With your expereince what would be the reason for this? I didn't even have time to reply to flag and i was in front of my computer at the time. Please look at declined speedy deletion for westin and current flag for deletion for same page when you get a chance. --BoldSolitude (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to your post of external links, I am wholeheartedly in agreement. My intention was to systematically go through all casino articles and add citations and external links. Researching articles to supply for articles take massive amount of time, much more than policing does. I have done some policing of articles as well, but I prefer to do the research and improve articles with citations. My only goal here is to make thourough and accurate articles for Las Vegas and Nevada. In order to do that, there will be massive amount of research involved. I have wasted all of today on defending articles. I will get back to researching tomorrow and again try to improve articles. I wish you a quick recovery and maybe we can work together on articles in the future. As far as the Pioneer Laughlin. If you think the restaurants should be removed then that's fine. I was just trying to fill out every line in the casino info box. The casino info box only stated restaurants, not notable restaurants so I didn't think nothing of it at the time. The display does say notable restaurants so if you think they need removed I won't contest it. My tradegy here is to go through each page of each casino and fix the same thing on each. Like one day I built info boxes for articles that didn't have info boxes. One day I went through and made sure all casinos were in the correct categories and nothing was in the casino category that didn't belong. Today I was intending on making sure that the article name was the offical name of the hotel and casino for each article. Tomorrow I was going to supply external links. I have several sources, library.edu sources, lasvegassun and las vegas review journal links, etc. I try to get the most official and unbiased external links I can find. --BoldSolitude (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

McCarran International Airport

I disagree on the category for this, can you explain your opinion. You said it has unlimited license, one of the largest? There is not a single mention of a casino in the article. The infobox is also a infobox for an airport. I think this article should be solely in airport category. Maybe an article titled (Casino in McCarran International Airport) would be more appropriate. Giving it the casino distention isn't supported by any facts, not even a mention in the article. --BoldSolitude (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Boulder Station

If you can't undo boulder station, I have it saved to a word document. I can't move it all to the document and bring it back up. Let me know what you think is the best course of action here.--BoldSolitude (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, it would probably be best to wait on the mediation cabal to make the decission on the issue. --BoldSolitude (talk) 12:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I filed for a mediation cabal to look into the quick deletions of texas station and boulder station and the insueing flagging of westin. I'm waiting on their decision. If you think its fine to restore boulder station, then that's fine. It had a fairly well established history on wikipedia with numerous contributors if I remeber correctly. --BoldSolitude (talk) 04:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

LVCVA

I'm concerned you didn't revert the vandalism of the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority page when you had the chance. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdr81 (talkcontribs) 16:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I invited you to help improve the article but I have never met a administrator who will blank sourced material on such bogus grounds or allow others to do the same. Shame (Kdr81 (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

Myron Leavitt

Hello, thanks for removing the stub class. I hope to contribute to this article when I have some time. Take care.MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

re: Category deletion

I was working through all of the Category:American B-movie actors and related categories and any that weren't merged already have been now. Apparently I wasn't working fast enough, but it's covered. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw the merge suggestions late last night and really was just checking to see if it was necessary. I wasn't much worried, as I was sure, as checking confirmed, that most were already in upper categories. I don't nominate too many categories for deletion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 24#Category:Terminal railroads

You closed this as rename, but nothing's been done. --NE2 23:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Gaming Statisitcs in template for the downtown casinos

Thank you for your suggestion: Another option for that could be in the template for the downtown casinos if the contents are kept current. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)' I agree that would be the way to go.Pacomartin (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

RfB

I was just looking over User:Jc37/RfA/RfB candidates, and thinking about who else I haven't yet asked, but should.

See also User:Jc37/RfA/Criteria, for what I tend to look for in entrusting someone with more responsibility.

And I think you easily meet my requirements. (As I think you already know : )

So is this something you might consider? - jc37 22:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I would consider this. I guess civility is my strong point, however the missing tip of my tongue hurts me to no end. I should point out that some of my recent closes on CfD may have been based on using my crystal ball. Given that they have not gone to deletion review or resulted in any posts to my talk page I would have to say that the ball is finally working. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok.
Well, if memory serves, the first step is to read through WP:CRAT (and the "see also" pages at the bottom), and make sure that this is something you're interested in, and to figure out what niches of bureaucratship you'd be interested in helping with.
You also may wish to check out some past RfBs (the archive is at WP:RFA, I think), to see what sort of questions/criteria people may have.
And in the meanwhile, I'll try to assemble some cogent thoughts about how impressed I am and have been about you both as an editor, and an admin.
And of course, if anyone else wanted to co-nom (pokes Kbdank71), they would be most welcome. - jc37 10:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Done any further thinking/reading/more thinking? : ) - jc37 09:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Yea. I guess I would do it if nominated. Most likely starting in the RfA nominations. Consensus, especially when there is a specific way to determine it, is a clear decision. I expect that I might get some opposition from one continent, but who knows. Moving to user renames and bot approvals is, to my mind, a bit tricker. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Cat:Solidarity

Hey VW, thanks for weighing in on that. You could probably hear my sigh of relief all the way in Las Vegas! :) I was really beginning to despair, mainly because nobody else was joining the discussion. I mean, I figured it was just plain common sense, so pretty much anybody who was passing by would have done the job just fine -- but there was no foot traffic. Must be the time of year or something -- maybe the economy. (heh heh) Anyway, thanks for coming to the rescue. Cgingold (talk) 12:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 10#Category:WikiProject Religion work groups

I'm trying to close this CfD, but can't quite figure out what you meant by "Move to talk page" since as far as I can tell these categories are only used on Wikipedia: or Talk: pages. Please clarify. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up

And you might want to comment here. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Las Vegas disambiguation

Woohookitty (talk · contribs) has been actively disambiguating Las Vegas, but not doing a very good job of it. Think you could help? I corrected 4 and undisambiguated one, as I'm sure it's not correct. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

  • OK, I did a few. Hard to find the real links in all of the user, talk and project pages. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Las Vegas Disambugations

I believe some of your disambugations of Las Vegas have incorrectly led the link to the disambugation page located at Las Vegas. In particular, your edit to Google Earth led it there instead of the proper page located at Las Vegas, Nevada. To be less confusing, you basically turned [[Las Vegas, Nevada]] (the way it should have been, no redirect) to [[Las Vegas|Las Vegas, Nevada]], which may make it look like the correct link, but actually leads to a disambugation page referring to other common reference use of the term "Las Vegas", such as movies named after the city or the general metropolitan area. I'm just informing you that this change was not constructive. Please keep in mind that I'm not in any way insulting your Wiki markup style (as I believe you are new to Wikipedia), and am just trying to help. You may leave a response at my talk page. Sincerely, ♦Leo-Roy 01:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Airport-dest-list

Look at this page. Notice that the two copied directly from McCarran International Airport#Terminal 2 work fine but that the other three that I created don't work. I can't seem to figur out why the one type works and the other does not. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really but I'm going to play around in the sandbox later and see if I can get it working. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 19:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Finally got lucky and found the problem, here, now it can have 75 airlines per box, and then updated McCarran. Nothing clever just blind luck. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm just thinking, would the two boxes be better if they were a bit wider? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll give it a look later. It also needs the documentation. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Documentation is there. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Great Basin Bristlecone Pine

What a cluster. But see what happens when you're willing to compromise the general WP:COMMONNAME guideline in the name of consistency with a more specific naming convention like WP:NC (flora), or dare I say it, U.S. cities? I'm supporting your efforts here, but these pansy lovers have formed quite the cabal, and it has been very difficult to get people excited about defending WP:COMMONNAME. Please bring my attention to any conflict where WP:COMMONNAME is being compromised. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you're beginning to get it. You wrote: I want WP:COMMONNAME to be primary only when there is not another guideline that establishes a uniform naming convention. That's exactly what some claim WP:NC (flora) establishes and why they believe Great Basin Bristlecone Pine should be at whatever seemingly random string of letters that comprises the scientific name they claim WP:NC (flora) calls for. Read the comments associated with those opposed to your move. They are very similar in sentiment to your own arguments defending the city, state convention. Yes, I don't think it's good for Wikipedia when any specialized guideline contradicts any general and widely followed guideline like common name. Specialized guidelines should complement and clarify when the more general guidelines fall short; they should not contradict the more general guidelines. Once specialized guidelines are allowed to contradict the general guidelines, you essentially have a free for all. While you may have pockets of consistency, overall inconsistency is inevitable with such an unprincipled basis.
By the way, I would prefer Bristlecone Pine (x) to Great Basin Bristlecone Pine. The most common name for this tree is simply Bristlecone Pine, and the title of the article should reflect it. The fact that that name is ambiguous is a separate issue. I don't know if the Great Basin species qualifies for primary usage over the other uses, but I doubt it. That means more precision is necessary in the title, and adding "Great Bristlecone" at the beginning is one way to do it, but it also wrongly implies that that is the most common name. So I would prefer Bristlecone Pine (x), with x being Great Basin or even Pinus longaeva. Bristlecone Pine (Great Basin) or Bristlecone Pine (Pinus longaeva) would correctly specify the most common name used to refer to the topic of the article, and still appropriately disambiguate from the other uses. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
When people say "Bristlecone pine" they are referring to a taxonomic section comprising three species. They might not know that there are three species, and they might not know that together they comprise a section, but the fact remains that when someone says "Bristlecone pine", the set of plants they are circumscribing comprises a section not a single species. You might just as well argue over which species of Acer is meant when people say "maple". The fact is they are not referring to a particular species at all; they are referring to the genus. Hesperian 10:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Apologies to Vegaswikian for butting in on this talk page, but I had some things to offer. First, calling us a cabal is simply a mischaracterization. The naming guideline we produced is the only logical guideline you can readily agree upon when you know anything about this subject. To back up that assertion, I submit the plethora of new articles that are added to the project daily. I've watched this list for as long as it's existed and new editors, anon editors, established editors who took a chance and created a flora article all probably without knowledge of WP:NC (flora) invariably create their article titled at the species name. It's common sense. You clearly are off the tracks of common sense if you think that Bristlecone Pine (Pinus longaeva) fits the naming convention guidelines better than Pinus longaeva. You seem to be forging ahead on a misguided attempt to fit all naming conventions into the restrictions of a few sentences, forgetting others like "Titles should make linking to the article simple." Your wikilawyering is tiresome. When we created the flora naming convention, we weighed the provisions of the policy and came up with something that fit as many as possible and that used our common sense. The fact that it doesn't fit into your world of perfectly aligned conventions to one of those policy provisions is irrelevant. For the sake of brevity, I will simply say that I completely understand your position, but I disagree with your conclusions. It's overwhelmingly and painfully obvious, however, that you simply do not understand what I and others like Hesperian are arguing for. How can we have a discussion over a convention that you don't understand when all attempts to educate you on our reasoning have failed? Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Parishes

  • The parishes of North America are actually civil parishes. Please read the articles before making these Oppose votes.
  • Read...
Return to the user page of "Vegaswikian/Archives/2008".