This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

A tag has been placed on Donna's Ranch requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Chris1834 (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Vegaswikian! In this edit summary, you asked why I changed the categorization on Frank A. Tracy Generating Station. Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles states "An article should never be left with a non-existent (redlinked) category on it. Either the category should be created, or else the link should be removed or changed to a category that does exist." I did the latter, and then you created the category. I presumed that the category didn't exist because it was a narrow categorization. However, based on your username, I'll presume you know more about Nevada than I do, and can add more articles to this category. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Airports for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Fayenatic_london#Shipwrecks_in_the_Gulf_of_Siam_CFDS. – Fayenatic London 22:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I am conducting a survey of most active Wikipedians, regarding reasons they may reduce their activity. I would be very interested in having you participate in it. Would you be interested? (If you reply to me here, please WP:ECHO me). Thank you for your consideration, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I changed a couple of the ones you did to articles on my watchlist (mostly downtown historic districts like this and this) from public space to urban open space, which I have tried to use in more recent editing as it gets at the concept I meant better. Just thought I'd let you know so as to better inform your editing if you continue in that vein. Daniel Case (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem on my end. Basically, all urban open space is public space, but not the other way around. Perhaps I should put an appropriate picture in urban open space that would help ... it's not like we don't have anything that would fit. Daniel Case (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thought I would bring the discussion to your talkpage. I can understand your point about the year of establishment. However, I really do think it belongs to Category:Universities in England,Category:Education in Oxford,Category:Organisations based in Oxford

Universities in England contains each university category already, so should include the Oxford Brookes University category. Are you proposing we change this for all of these catgories? If so then I think you need to take the discussion to a wider audience. Aloneinthewild (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:SUBCAT which explains this. Clearly Category:Organisations based in Oxford is incorrect as Cotuit Hall and Headington Road among others are not organizations and so they cause this to fail WP:SUBCAT. Category:Universities in England would only apply if most of the content were actual universities which virtually all of the content is not. Category:Education in Oxford could be a closer call. However including streets and facilities not directly involved in education leaves this still not meeting the guideline. These Category:eponymous categories were actually created to provide a parent category for classes of categories like this where it is not appropriate to categorize them in regular navigation categories and will allow for a parent category. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

		Holiday Cheer
		Victuallers talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - Vic/Roger

Category:Former fortresses, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. trespassers william (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Vegaswikian. The category:Vessels of BP was speedy moved to category:Ships of BP Shipping. While I see the logic, it created a problems with this category. The main issue is that this category included not only Ships of BP Shipping but also vessels chartered by BP (and not necessarily by BP Shipping). The most infamous example is probably Deepwater Horizon which was owned by Transocean's subsidiary Triton Asset Leasing, operated by Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, and was chartered by BP Exploration & Production. There is no connection with BP Shipping; however, right now it it categorized in this category. There are other examples. AS a more experienced editor of categories, maybe you could suggest what wWhat could be the best way to deal with this? Beagel (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me try to put this in prospective from something else. When we discuss airline destinations, we only include flights that are flown with aircraft owned or leased directly by the airline. That usually means the aircraft is registered to the airline. Another point is that something can only be owned by one company (ignoring joint ownership which is a special case). So to start answering your question, for the BP owned ships that are not BP Shipping, they could be moved into a new category but no suggestion for a name. This new category could become the parent for Category:Ships of BP Shipping. As to vessels like the Deepwater Horizon, it should be categorized by the owner, going as high up the chain as needed to find an appropriate existing category. Note that DH could be appropriate in other BP categories given the newsworthy ties between the two. I have been away for a while and I'm still trying to catchup and have not looked at the contents. So my reply is intended to be very general. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I fully agree with that logic. Beagel (talk) 05:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

While I appreciate the edit on Dylan Kwasniewski as it alerted me to an error in his actual birthplace (now fixed), the changing of his "sportspeople from" category is borderline WP:SYNTH. All sources on Kwasniewski list his hometown as Las Vegas; not any of the other Las Vegas Valley communities. Therefore Category:Sportspeople from Las Vegas, Nevada is the correct categorisation here; changing it to "Las Vegas Valley" fails WP:V. Please be more careful and check sources first in the future before making edits like this (and for birthplaces where Las Vegas, NV is the correct and sourced birthplace vs. "Valley"). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The issue is our article in the main name space. Sources do not generally break out the city from Enterprise, Paradise, Spring Valley, Summerlin South, Sunrise Manor, Whitney, Winchester, Las Vegas Township or several other places. We on he other hand link to the article on one city. This only includes a fraction of the population all other sources include when they say Las Vegas. So it is really a case of WP:OR to place someone into the city without a source that actually shows the city. WP:V actually supports the Las Vegas Valley since that is what the sources generally mean since they use the persons mailing address. Yes, this is a big mess and the current situation violates WP:BLP by saying people are really in someplace that they are not. Bottom line, when what the sources use and our article covers different areas it is a problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Just because you were the deciding admin at the Squamish RM, way back in 2011, please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_19#Squamish. Given this item, which someone came out with from MOS "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.", I'm of a mind to launch another RM to move the Squamish people article back to where it started, despite the diacriticals (Sḵwx̱wú7mesh), and the let the category be speedied as a result. it would help if the adoption/romanization of this ethnonym was in more common use like other related terms are (St'at'imc, Sto:lo etc) but that's not the case yet. Problem is the arbitrary inputs by people not fully familiar with local geography or language usages or about the people or the place in question wind up causing nomenclature problems, and IMO quite frankly there was "taint" in the RM, and the bit about since how OMR isn't around anymore we don't have to care what he wants should have been ruled out of order. The editor who did this latest gaffe - and it is a gaffe - and I have a "history" and given the washing-of-hands tone of her response to my points I can't see any of this as innocuous, though I[ll be accused or anti-AGF for saying so.... WP:DUCK applies. For now I've depopulated the category she created and put it up for CfD but this points up the whole problem with Wikipedia procedure, time consuming and difficult to put up with; that anyone can come along and overturn decisions like this, irrespective of what informed editors have to say, is nonsense and there should be an easier mechanism to deal with such misconduct and rolling back its consequences; I just spent an hour rolling back her category changes to empty out the new, wrong category. I'll consider proposing another RM for the main ethno article, also, and that bit about the wishes of the original creator should also be applied to Carrier people to move it back to Dakelh (so far Category:Dakelh has not been speedied to Category:Carrier or Category:Carrier people - both article and category were created by the pre-eminent scholar in Dakelh studies, User:Billposer, who like OldManRivers has given up dealing with Wikipedia's vagaries and half-informed decision processes. All of these names should be locked down so that someone doesn't do all this over again, like Kwami did re article names and Usyvidi is now doing with categories she knows and cares nothing about..... none of the people playing these games, or taking part in the RMs and CfDs caused, actually work on the content of these articles, and that is the most irritating aspect of this, never mind the endless sisyphean struggle, going over the same ground again and again and again.Skookum1 (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

While I was writing that I see you weighed in on the Good Ol'Factory's talkpage, thanks.Skookum1 (talk) 07:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for creating ((Penn & Teller)).

I've added to it the new page I've created, List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!.

The page is currently at List Peer Review at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1, please feel free to comment if you have ideas to help further along the quality improvement process.

Thanks again,

— Cirt (talk) 23:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Because it strikes me as redundant when talking about lighthouses. I'm not removing it from all articles - I just think that "lighthouse" implies "tower" often enough that the category already covers it. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

True. Still...I think it's an extra category that doesn't need to be there. (I tend to err on the side of "fewer is better" when it comes to "building types by year" categories, as it can get confusing quickly.) In much the same way as, if I have an article about a house with a tower, I'll classify it under "houses by year" and not "towers by year".

If consensus is to leave it, I'll leave it - I just tend to think of it as unnecessary. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Tell you what - I've been meaning to ask a question about lighthouses over at WP:NRHP (we have a lighthouse wikiproject, but I think it's moribund, or nearly so). I'll loop this one into it, too, and try to develop some kind of consensus going forward for all lighthouse projects. I probably won't get to it until later, but I'll leave you a note when I do.

And...yes, that is rather an overloaded article, no?

Keep up the good work, and happy editing! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you unprotect The Act of Murder? I think it's been long enough that any issues should have settled down, and if move warring becomes a problem, maybe only move-protect it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

As you are an admin i expect forum shopping to be backed up with evidence. Ive not pointed to that discussion at all, ive written asking for comment not giving my strong opinion, which is backed up by a guideline. Also i respect the nominator a better admin than yourself who has said to create more cats so actually your assertion of WP:OC#AWARD was not the deletion rationale. Seriously back up or shut up.Blethering Scot 22:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Where in the nominators rationale does it say that WP:OC#AWARD is a rationale. It doesn't but ill lay the rationale out This category was recently added to some 221 articles on musicals. This actually does not designate musicals that won the Tony as Best Musical, it instead designates musicals that one A Tony (in the case of the one that came to my attention, Pipe Dream, for best costume design. It is accordingly vague and misleading. It is also not needed, as there are a number of categories for having won a Tony already in use. Now you want forum shopping this is forum shopping [1]. He went to that project and gave them all his reasons why should be deleted, thats not notifying users of a dissuasion in a neutral manner. Also he doesn't know the difference between a cat and a template. Big concern.

Now in addition The rationale was also flawed because the nominator failed to notice the vandalism to the cat, which removed its definition. He's admitted that and also directed me to create more separate cats, he's a good admin and that doesn't tie up to your assertion of WP:OC#AWARD. Now Seriously why the hell do you think you are correct in making accusations, unbacked up. Also if i wanted to forum shop SSilvers is your man he does it all the time, however i wouldn't lead others to a certain view, i let them decide themselves. Blethering Scot 22:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Now Are you going to back up the accusation or not. WP:OC#AWARD was not part of rationale, it isn't mentioned in the rfc, its not relevant to the RFC as its only about can a template override a cat, i haven't asked others to comment on the deletion, haven't linked to the deletion, haven't given my opinion on whether its right to wrong I've asked for a neutral opinion. None of that is forum shopping. However here is what forum shopping says below.

Forum shopping states:

it is not acceptable to invite only people favorable to a particular point of view

I didn't i invited whole community. ;Ssilvers however in his documented post invited only members of his project who all hold a similar pov.

or to invite people in a way that will prejudice their opinions on the matter.

again i didn't lead at all Ssilvers laid out in his message to wikiproject theatre members his rationale for deletion, not that of the nominators. This was non neutral

informative messages to Wikipedia noticeboards, WikiProjects, or editors are permitted; but actions that could reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to "stuff the ballot box" or otherwise compromise the consensus-building process are considered disruptive editing.

again i laid out neutral he didn't.

I fully expect you to warn Ssilvers about forumshopping but i except you won't. And i want per these points you to back up the forumshopping comment against me. as an admin you need to.Blethering Scot 22:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I believe that the facts that I stated are correct. We see a deletion nomination that you clearly have a strong position against. Followed by a formal RFC and not even a discussion anywhere except at the CfD. So yes, I see this as forum shopping. That is my opinion and obviously you do not agree with my opinion. So feel free to say so in the RfC. Actually not mentioning the other discussion comes across as problematic since it makes it appear that you did not want others to know about it. My suggestion is to let the CfD discussion run and see what happens. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You've not backed that up one little bit have you. Ive deleted it because your accusation which you cannot back up against the points clearly lad out at forum shopping, has blotted what was a very neurally worded RFC. Yet you won't warn Ssilvers for what per those points clearly was forum shopping. This appears biased and i want you to back up your accusation immediately. Right now.Blethering Scot 22:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

So me not wanting people to influence a discussion which is going no where but delete is wrong. If i mention the discussion i lead them to possibly vote keep, which is what i want but is clearly forum shopping as I'm leading or I don't mention it to stop that which means it will be deleted against what i believe and I'm hiding something. Thats crazy talk. Also again I've nor forum shopped but per your argument and points clearly laid out Ssilvers did. He asked editors of the same mindset, using a non neutral leading statement to vote delete which he wished. Thats forum shopping. What isn't is penning a neutrally worded RFC, asking the whole community who all have different mindsets and not mentioning another discussion which could of been to my benefit but didn't as not wanting to forum shop and influence a discussion which is always going to delete to previous forumshopping. I cant win.Blethering Scot 23:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Since I am now an involved party I really should not do anything. I know other admins follow this page and I'm sure that if one of them sees a need to act they will. I don't know if there is any history here, but clearly this is apparently a sensitive topic for some reason. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Vegas. I am happy to edit my notice on the WP:MUSICALS talk page if it is not neutral. Just let me know (I'll be away from the computer from 7pm until perhaps tomorrow morning, US Eastern Standard Time). -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to comment on that since I am now apparently involved in this. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

(ec)I was not aware of an action by Ssilvers that involved a violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing. Did you issue the warning to Ssilvers as described in that policy? That is the first step recommended. You probably should also mention this with a link on the CfD page so that the closing admin can use that knowledge in helping to decide consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The point is you weren't aware of anything, yet you clearly felt you would accuse me of doing something i made every effort not do. I did everything correctly and deliberately did not violate canvassing as clearly laid out in those points. No if you think i forumshopped then its very clear User:Ssilvers did and is suggest you add it as you were the first to accuse me of something you cant back up. Funny i can but, hey that doesn't bother you. As i point i would rather let the cat be deleted than fight someone like Ssilvers who has a history of forum shopping but gets away with it. Thats mainly due to the admincorp here never backing up what the accuse people of.Blethering Scot 23:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you follow the steps and issue the warning I mentioned above? I responded to the comment I saw in what I felt was a correct an reasonable way. Apparently you do not think so. The ball is in your court to issue the warning if you have not done so. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You either back the claim up against the forumshopping policy or you withdraw it. You have done neither. Corruption and double standards of admins at its best. Ignore the clear violator and go after the one you cant back up against the points at policyBlethering Scot 23:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Ive warned him, I've added notice to talk page and I've put a long message on CFD explaining everything. I still wish you to back up claim or withdraw. Accusations should never, ever be made unless you can back up to the points in the policy you quote against someone. Ive laid out every point to you so please explain how I've done any of those points.Blethering Scot 23:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Your clearly editing, so i take it you cannot back the claim up with evidence. Thats very disappointing from what is supposed to be a highly respected member of the community., i only ask when you make accusations in future you have some clear evidence based on policy to back up.Blethering Scot 00:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Notifying you, as you previously contributed to the page:

1. List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!
2. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1

I've started a Featured List nomination for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!.

Participation would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Gardiners Point Light requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardiners_Point_Light. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Although the article is incorrect as written because it does not include Nevada. The Columbia River redband trout is indeed a native trout found in Nevada. See: [2]. Did the project get removed because the article failed to mention Nevada, or was there another reason? Just curious. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. To include or not to include at the state project level--that is a question. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	You are doing great work on Michigan lighthouses! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

There are two Sand Point Lights in Michigan. As the primary editor of the Michigan lighthouse articles (before the Wikifascists messed with me and my templates) I was well on my way to fixing and creating all the Michigan lighthouses. But being a volunteer, I can unvolunteer when they go out of their way to tear up the track I've laid down. Nevertheless, I really appreciate your effort. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You participated in the move request for Comox. I wanted to let you know I've put forward a more comprehensive move request. Whether you're supportive or not, your input would be appreciated given your past participation.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Three years ago, you moved Cameron County Courthouse (1912) to Cameron County Courthouse (1914) with this edit summary, "...This is the one finished in 1914 and not 1912" I'm wondering what your source was on that. All the online sourcing I see, including the architect records put the construction of this courthouse at 1912. I find nothing that says the county built another courthouse in 1914. Please advise.— Maile (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree! I started them, but wouldn't mind seeing them deleted. I thought they would fill up with boats. A couple of years after opening, they're both watery graveyards. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleted under CSD G7. Thanks. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Holy Land during Byzantine rule has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.GreyShark (dibra) 17:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Vegaswikian! I have a question about reflist templates. If there are more than a few references or if the citations are lengthy, I think it's best to put them in two columns, and I use ((Reflist|2)). You recently changed the template in a page I watchlist from Reflist|2 to ((Reflist|33em)) . This made it go back to a one-column listing. I have seen other people do similar things, with various em sizes; sometimes the result is to keep it as two columns and sometimes it reverts to one. What is the rationale for preferring the em-size template rather than the 2-column template? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Vegaswikian. You may have noticed that User:Falcadore reverted the change you made to the category in 2014 Malaysian Grand Prix. I imagine his rationale for doing so was that, as a general rule, we don't maintain "YYYY in Malaysian motorsport" categories (because they would each contain only one article - the corresponding "YYYY Malaysian Grand Prix" article). Given that, are you happy for Category:2014 in Malaysian motorsport to be deleted? (I thought I would ask you, rather than just tagging it for deletion). DH85868993 (talk) 06:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The category showed up as likely having been emptied. So in researching I saw that there was content and added it. Now, how to deal with this. WP:CFD defines the process for deleting categories. To do this, you leave the content in the category, and then nominate it for a deletion discussion. Given there is a series of categories like this, I'm not sure what the outcome would be. But removing the content without a discussion to have the category deleted as C1 is inappropriate and violates established guidelines. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

"Given there is a series of categories like this" - but that's the point - there isn't a series of categories like this (for Malaysia) - this is the only one. There are similar series for some other countries - where the categories are warranted, but not for Malaysia. In my opinion, the category should never have been created in the first place, so I don't see a problem with it being emptied and re-deleted. DH85868993 (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

But it is, or should be part of Category:2014 in motorsport. That is where things are broken down by country. If the category was created, then deletion must be discussed at WP:CFD following the process identified. Even if it should not have been created, deletion needs to follow the process. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I've CfDed it. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually it's just occurred to me that there are other articles which can go in "YYYY in Malaysian motorsport" categories - the "YYYY Malaysian motorcycle Grand Prix" articles - so I've withdrawn the CfD. DH85868993 (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.118.223 (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_24#Category:Banksia_redirects which I am minded to close as "no action" unless someone takes it forward. – Fayenatic London 10:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think consensus is to delete. The follow on discussion was how to switch them to project redirects. Given that no one objected to the delete proposal, I think that may still be a valid option. My comment was not material to the close decision. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I closed it as Delete, but listed it at WP:CFDWM for the talk pages to be tagged first. – Fayenatic London 09:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Though I imagine you'll be OK with it. (It changed redlinked targets to existing targets.) See here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC) Yea. I wondered why they were red and did not have time to follow up. Thanks. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Due to your recent participation in "Year in Foo" categories, please see the merge proposal of category:1920s in Syria -> category:1920s in Mandatory Syria.GreyShark (dibra) 20:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks for being involved in the discussion at WP:AIRPORTS. I noticed something odd, an IP with only 1 prior edit commented on the thread regarding the listing of Regional Carriers, disagreeing with our change. I have a pretty good feeling it's the same person as 'CLCadiz' (the brand new editor that wrote a very long comment regarding the change). I'm not sure how an IP with no other edits would even know that discussion existed, in addition if you look at the signature of the IP and 'CLCadiz' you will notice they both have two oddly placed parentheses around the signature -- look: (CLCadiz (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)), then the IP's: (27.122.12.74 (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)). Your thoughts? There's no point in getting into a discussion with the IP if it's probably the same person as CLCadiz. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

While the IP may be experienced, it can be rash to draw assumptions. WP:AGF generally is the guiding policy here. It is possible for someone to edit while logged out. So if they are signing within parentheses, that could explain the detail you noticed. I'm sure that most editors have done this a one time or another. Consensus is that IP opinions matter, so the comment will need to be considered as that discussion moves forward. In the end, the decision to remove the extra material will probably come down to WP:V issues. While one can after the fact verify this in a schedule. The fact that it is generally not announced, is a maintenance nightmare. As a general rule we fall back to WP:NOTTRAVEL for questions about what is too much. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, AGF is over. Another IP with the same signature style joins the conversation blatantly pretending to be a first timer. HkCaGu (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The article was cleaned up, removing inaccurate information. I really appreicate your looking at it. I want it to be correct, I really value this forum. Thanks for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrcraig (talk • contribs) 21:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I completely understand the impulse to ignore 3RR when dealing with a user, but you have to be more careful, okay? DS (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Other user came on #-help asking if it was appropriate to report an admin for breaking 3RR; I got him to agree not to, on the condition that I give you a warning to be careful. So this is your warning. DS (talk) 02:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't usually get involved with 3RR stuff, the user was upset, so this calmed the user down, and also one should be careful anyway. DS (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I chose my words poorly, and I regret the inaccurate impression which I conveyed. My goal was to minimize conflict, and this seems to have worked. If I have offended you or caused hurt feelings, then I apologize; such was not my intent. Okay? DS (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Black Sea is categorised under hidden categories only. Is it Normal ? This not the case of Category:Barents Sea.--Pixeltoo (talk) 07:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

When a new user makes a mistake like this, please don't simply revert them; reach out and offer assistance; or direct them to a more appropriate page such as WP:AFC or WP:Teahouse. Tools, such as WP:Twinkle exist to help you do this quickly and easily. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

"Clearly this is ambiguous" - just wanted to say that reading that made me smile : ) - jc37 18:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, you can help improve the paragraph on the Shroud of Turin of this article, thank you: Real Santuario del Cristo de La Laguna.--83.40.238.80 (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Breweries (buildings), which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. BDD (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone keeps changing the headquarters for US Airways from Tempe, Arizona to Fort Worth, Texas (the parent company and AA is headquartered there) but US Airways is still headquartered in Tempe, Arizona and I have provided a source from the US Airways website proving that. Also, is Doug Parker still the CEO of US Airways or is it Robert Isom? AA lists Robert Isom as COO and CEO of US Airways. Rzxz1980 (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_2#Category:Microbreweries

The above is closed. Feel free to implement (else feel free to notify whomever else wanted to implement - or let me know, and I suppose I can notify others from the discussion). - jc37 01:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure there was a consensus to merge there. My support for a different merge topic was if consensus was to merge which I don't believe is present. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Happy to discuss the close.

Hmains said keep, you said you opposed, but also offered a second choice, Shaun offered meta thoughts about the nom, and the the other two noted that microbrewery, while a Wikipedia article, was too subjective a term to categorise by. While they didn't cite Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Subjective_inclusion_criterion, it would appear clear that that's what they were referring to.

That said, I suppose I could have noted that in the close, and can now if you prefer. - jc37 02:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

But that second choice was conditioned by a consensus to merge since the proposed target was simply wrong. So to sum up, I'm opposed but if there is a consensus to merge, it should be to a different target. So I'm not sure how you want to word the close, but I'm not seeing consensus there. It is fair to say that the the alternative target is preferred over the one first proposed. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I understood (and understand) your criteria for second choice, as you note.

Setting that aside for a moment, the arguement "we have an article on the topic" (as you and Hmains note) doesn't have policy/guideline support. Indeed, just because a topic has an article doesn't necessarily mean we should categorise by the topic. There's WP:CLN, etc. suggesting that this is something to be determined on a case-by-case basis. So in this case, arguements of OC#SUBJECTIVE held the weight in the discussion. I didn't see that refuted.

Anyway, I'm fairly sure I'm preaching to the choir here, as you close discussions based upon arguements supported by wider policy/guidelines too, just as all closers do and are supposed to.

All that aside, I don't mind dropping a note on the nom's talk page about the closure too, to allow for him to help with implementation if you like. - jc37 02:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Yea, asking the nom is probably better. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Please don't upload articles until they meet the criteria for inclusion. If you want to work on them, either include the "underconstruction" template or put them in your sandbox. Deb (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Greetings fellow disambiguator! Remember back in February when we made history by clearing the board for the first time ever, for the monthly disambiguation contest? Let's do it again in May! I personally will be aiming to lead the board next month, but for anyone who thinks they can put in a better effort, I will give a $10 Amazon gift card to any editor who scores more disambiguation points in May. Also, I will be setting up a one-day contest later in the month, and will try to set up more prizes and other ways to make this a fun and productive month. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

While buildings may be be built and not established, hospitals are institutions, not buildings. In fact, assuming you've been to one, most contain multiple buildings that make up the hospital. Thus establishment categories are quite proper for when they are established. Thus, removing said establishment category is not in-line with our categorization scheme. I will be undoing all of those this evening, unless you want to take this to RFC. But given you have left some in establishment categories, I hope this was just an oversight. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you fix this move? This was done without reaching consensus. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I was surprised by this edit, which left a category practically unparented. I've put it back into Explosives; do you disagree? – Fayenatic London 19:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess that is OK. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on my talk page about recent category edits to Reid Gardner Generating Station.

In reply ... I follow the guidelines in Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization#In what order should categories be listed within the article?, which state:

Both the alphabet and importance are used to order categories currently. Since some categories are obviously less relevant to the reader than others, categories should be ordered so that someone reading the article can use them to understand the subject, directing the reader to the categories that are most important to exploring the subject or understanding its context. Although this, like most ordering issues in Wikipedia, is a matter for judgment, it is generally clear that some categories – for example the birthplace or birth year of a person – are less important than others, such as their status as an Oscar or Nobel Prize winner. (See also Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Categorisation schemes.)

Cheers! Truthanado (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Diving (acrobatics), which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. NickSt (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, St. Mary's/Duluth Clinic Health System, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Vega, thanks for the help with the new category Problem gambling organizations, i´ve also seen that you´ve already changed the related articles, thx again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euroescritor (talk • contribs) 18:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Vegaswikian, this is Jim856796 with a comment.

I don't get this, the use of the term "sister" when referring to properties of the same class. The word "sister" is associated with women, females and feminism (as well as female siblings), so sometimes, when referring to a company or property of the same entity, the term “sister” may not be appropriate. Not every company or property can be a female.

In these sentences: “On April 17, 1997, ground was broken on a sister property, the Paris Las Vegas.” and “The Paris is linked via a promenade to its sister property, Bally’s Las Vegas, through which it is linked to the Las Vegas Monorail.” The Bally’s Hotel opened in 1973 (as the first MGM Grand), and the Paris Hotel opened in 1999. Because of this, what would you think if the term “sister property” was changed to “daughter property” in the first sentence and “mother property” in the second sentence? I tried to change “sister property” to something else (like “adjacent property” or “sibling property”), but you (and another user, Toohool) reverted it.

Also, in this: “Like its sister property, ACH Casino Resort, it took on its initials as its new name.” I thought about changing it to “cousin property” since the (now-former and closed) ACH is in another city.

Why does no one use the term “brother” when referring to properties of the same class?

Can we please find an alternative term referring to a company/property of the same entity, especially a gender-neutral one? Jim856796 (talk) 08:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Response to reply

"Using sister to refer to related properties is common usage. Why does it have to be gender neutral? This is common English. I suppose you will want to change the Mother Road to something else also. There is no need to change what is correct because of PC or something related."

I already explained why in the original comment (The fact that not every property/entity is a "female"). If we want a gender-neutral alternative to the term "sister" just because said term is considered "feminine", then just use the term "sibling (property/entity)" instead. Jim856796 (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Sister is the correct terminology. Anything else is not what is used. Right is right. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

But is that the only terminology? If so, then why can't the term "brother" be used? For example, "Prior to the fall of 2002, the NBA operating model prevented any WNBA team to exist without an NBA "brother" counterpart." Jim856796 (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Ask the people who use the terminology. Maybe its because it has been in use for decades and usage is not changing? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

If that's the case, then I'd have to refer to every one of my immediate family as my "sister", regardless of whether they're female or male. What do you think about that? Jim856796 (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You are mixing usage. One is inanimate objects and they other is people. I guess we just need to agree to disagree. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Note the usage in this article. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it okay if I took this issue to the Village Pump? Jim856796 (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Cheshire Home, Sha Tin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Ermm, I've unthinkingly landed another template here, straight after I removed the last one. I'm quite mystified as to why you would create a wholly unreferenced article with clearly non-encyclopaedic content on an apparently non-notable topic; so I've almost certainly missed something. Sorry about that! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

"Dam".

Has the split for Queensland, as proposed at CFD April 9, already been done? This is still listed at WP:CFDWM. It looks from the article names as if all the current contents of Category:Reservoirs and dams in Queensland are dams, in which case we can just restructure the categories and use a bot to sweep that one into its current sub-cat for Dams. – Fayenatic London 20:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

As I recall, I did all except for one. Yea, a bot could sweep up these into the dam parent. The only thing that could be lost would be for articles that should also be classified as reservoirs. Some articles covered both. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I've left a follow-up question at User_talk:Hmains#Reservoirs_and_dams as those I looked at are already in the Dams category, so perhaps the sweep should be into Reservoirs. You both seem to have worked on categorising those pages. – Fayenatic London 16:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on HMSHost requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.hmshost.com. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Bgwhite (talk) 07:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• I hate these automated tools!. Note well that this was created, and my last edits were in 2005! There is no copy vio in what I did at that time! As another editor did, you should have removed the newly added copyvio text. Vegaswikian (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Vegaswikian. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Altigany Almahy Hospital, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is an assertion of importance here, but I agree it is probably not notable in the end. If the PROD is contested then AFD might be a good idea. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you archive the dead links. Having dead links in an article is pointless and they need to either be archived to that the archived version can be used or they need to be removed. You decide as you reverted my edit.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Or find new sources, because right now the article is unsourced.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you're changing it to point to the actual Alcohol page, blindly? In many contexts, especially those referring it to a source of abuse/etc., that link is relevant. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I see you've posted some comments on Erin Bilbray's AFD page, but you haven't actually voted there, have you? I mean with a support or oppose? Lightbreather (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Can't policy pages have a lighter spirit? They are so heavy and serious. I wanted to inject some levity. I will try with another, non-bouncing image.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

		The Invisible Barnstar
		for brilliant work on cleaning up and categorising hospital related articles, redirects, etc. WaggersTALK 13:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Generalization (logic). Since you had some involvement with the Generalization (logic) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Vegaswikian, I have reveiwed the policy on external links and made changes to the social credit article based upon that policy. Please review and see if these sites are now appropriate and whether the tag can be removed.

Thanks. Chdouglas (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Could you explain what you did with this edit? I'm not sure why you made it or what you mean.--TM 16:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said on the edit comment, the edits were moved to a redirect for the station. Technically the museum is not a fire station, it is in a building that was a fire station. So the categories about the building should be in the article about the building or the redirect if the article does not exist. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey, you've left this edit summary on a number of edits, and it's simply not true. Category:Buildings and structures under construction in the United States is NOT a subcategory of Category:Proposed railway stations in the United States; you are doing a disservice by removing the latter. Please include both categories where appropriate, unless you'd like to create Category:Railway stations under construction in the United States (which is probably worth having in any case). Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

When I started, I was not sure how many of these there were going to be, I expected only a small number. But at this point, it makes sense to create that category and I was thinking about that. On a different question. Do you have an opinion on categories like Category:Proposed railway stations scheduled to open in 2015? I have a few issues with that. One is that if its opening in the next two years, it is under construction. If it is not under construction any proposed date is WP:CRYSTAL and is probably going to change multiple times making the category useless. One thought is to simply remove that from proposed stations. I may take Category:Proposed railway stations scheduled to open in 2014 to CFD to rename to Category:Railway stations scheduled to open in 2014. If they are opening this year, they are not proposed. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you can assume anything at all about construction status - some Conn River Line stations scheduled to open December 29th weren't under construction until about eight months till opening. But I'd definitely support that category change - drop me a line when you formally propose it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It is "accommodations" rather than "accommodation" which is bad English as per your edit summary here: [3]. However you are correct that "Interior design" is a more suitable sub-heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.90.196.21 (talk) 04:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Multiple notable New Mexico based restaurants are being put up for deletion. They are Garduño's (deletion page), Little Anita's (deletion page), and El Modelo (deletion page). Each of which is notable in their its right. You should check them out and decide for yourself, so far only a single user and IP are calling for their deletion. Smile Lee (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm contacting everyone who has commented but who hasn't taken an explicit Support or Oppose position (or if you did, I missed it). In the interest of bringing this discussion to resolution, it might be helpful if you could do that. Thanks. EEng (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Vegaswikian! You expanded SpaceX CRS-7 back in March saying that it would be "the seventh overall flight for the company's two-stage Falcon 9 v1.1 launch vehicle", but by my counting, the seventh v1.1 is scheduled to launch AsiaSat 6 later this month. CRS-7 would appear to be the eighteenth v1.1 on this list but I doubt that the manifest is sufficiently concrete to include this prediction. -- ToE 18:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all your recent edits to clean-up dam and energy-related articles.--NortyNort (Holla) 23:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

more specific category
Thank you, user with show-time, for tirelessly creating and adding more specific categories and series categories, for disambiguations, redirects "with possibilities", page moves and assessments, for expanding your namesake and starting articles such as Pedestrian separation structure, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you point me to the consensus on which you're basing the mass removal of dams from "Dam controversies" category? Apparently without even cursorily glancing at either the article content or the secondary literature? You have been removing articles in which multiple scholarly sources describe the dams as "controversies" or "controversial", and articles where most of the content is about "controversies", explicitly. bridies (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Vegaswikian. Could you please close or relist a CfD discussion from 11 July named :category:Petroleum industry? Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This is actually different CfD, resulted from the previous one. But maybe you could relist this discussion or recommend somebody else who could close it. I don't think that more than month old discussion will get any attention anymore. Beagel (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you explain this edit? It says very clearly in the article that he represented Naples, Maine in the Maine House of Representatives. It is also supported by the source provided.--TM 10:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference being living and and representing an area indeed, but the source for the information clearly indicates "residence". Did you look at the source before your edit?--TM 18:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Aha, very classy. classy indeed. Happy editing.--TM 01:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for finding an old discussion in a CfD proposal! Could you share how one can easily find old discussions back? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Have the airport lounges and frequent flier program been combined? I thought the airline's frequent flier program is Dividend Miles and the lounge is US Airways Club. Is there an announcement? Shouldn't this page be kept historical since the airline will cease operations? 71.12.206.168 (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I nominated category you created in 2009 - Communications satellite models - for merger. See proposal. SkywalkerPL (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. It seems that you indef. move-protected Operation Polo page almost 3 years ago. Perhaps it is time to remove the protection. In any case, there was a requested move, which endorsed a new title, but it seems I cannot move it. Could you either remove the protection, or move it? Kingsindian (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry about the back and forth. My point is that the pic reflects the content of the article (the line about the sign clearly states it is not in the city proper), and the pictures position is right next to that reference. The underlying citation clearly indicates that this is the sign they are speaking of. I know you folks who spend a lot more time on this page than I do have done an incredibly good job focusing this article on the city proper... I have no problem deleting the pic, but then you should delete the info regarding the sign. If that info is in the article, than a pic referring to that shouldn't be excluded. Onel5969 (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Does US Airways still have a CEO? Someone changed that Doug Parker is CEO of US Airways (but the provided source no longer states that Robert Isom is CEO of US Airways). But since Doug is CEO of AA Group (which includes US Airways) and AA, shouldn't Parker still be CEO of the airline? Thanks! 71.12.206.168 (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I have found another source stating that Isom is CEO of US Airways (http://www.frequentbusinesstraveler.com/2013/06/american-airlines-and-us-airways-announces-post-merger-management-team/) until the 2 carriers combine. The AA source does not mention this. 71.12.206.168 (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I notice you sometimes add ((convert)) to articles—thanks! However, when that is done, there is no need to remove commas from big numbers. It might be better to leave them so the number in the wikitext is more readable for an editor. For example, Jocassee Dam had "811,000,000 KWh" and that should be ((convert|811,000,000|kWh|abbr=on)) with commas (on the assumption that the link is not needed—I agree that it is not). Have a look at my edit to see if you like the "e6kWh". If not, please change it as wanted. Happy editing! Johnuniq (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yea, but better to just use GWH on the input. I have had mixed luck on using e6, so I tend to avoid it. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed you adding the ((anchor)) template to articles such as this edit. Not exactly sure what you are trying to do. Per the template's documentation, the template goes in between the equal signs, not outside at the end. Also, you don't add a parameter to the anchor template, which causes the template to do nothing. Bgwhite (talk) 05:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I noticed your edits about this restaurant. It is a very frustrating case with a viable article destroyed due to a case of wp:indontlikeyouandiwantitmyway with some teamwork. Unfortunately, nothing that I can do about it... The Banner talk 22:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC) but it helps to vent my frustration now and then...

Oops. I accidentally reverted that on Las Vegas. But I still don't understand your edit summary. Could you elaborate on what you said? If I have an image that will satisfy the things you are talking about I would like to see a better image there.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not totally clear what you are saying here, so let me ask if this is a correct interpretation. Are you saying that the current consensus for the article is that the term "Las Vegas" is ambiguous at best and since the area encompasses about 6 different cities and townships that that article image should as well show as much of the Valley as possible and be as "Over encompassing"" as possible because the article is not really about just the city of Las Vegas itself (That makes sense but not sure if that is what you are saying)?--Mark Miller (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

And if you could choose an image for the main photograph, what would that be?--Mark Miller (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

My point in asking you about the image is to see what I might have in my recent photos from the past week that might fit the boundaries we are discussing. While I still think the article covers a larger area (just from a reading of the content) I am trying to stay within the current consensus. The image there now....seems odd to me after your explanation so I am guessing it is the best we have of the specific area in question.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Both those image you showed were of specific structures. Is there a specific area of the City that you feel would be a strong representation?--Mark Miller (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. The airport is not in the city which what confused me. Should that be moved to a more relevant article as to not lose the content but have it on the proper page? Would that create drama on the article? I think if we have a consensus as to what this article is we should take some time to clean it up...but I don't want to piss people off either.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

My original plan was to take my notebook and use the hotel Wi-Fi to connect to the internet and find out what images were most needed on Wikipedia. That was thwarted by the Rio Hotel. They were having issues with the Wi-Fi the entire time we were there. Drat it all. LOL! But I do believe I took a number of images I thought might not be well represented...only a lot of them were done in such a hurry they came out blurry. My skill with my camera is rusty as I have not been using it a lot lately. Oh well. I will add what images I believe are of the city proper on the talk page and editors can decide if anything is worth using to replace the smaller file. I'll get to work photo shopping and uploading. Thanks for your input.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you please update the US Airport Template to the template located in my sandbox? Thank you. Srwikieditor (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I started a discussion for you at Talk:I7#Airport_codes_on_dabs. Widefox; talk 21:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me sir...saidu teaching hospital and saidu medical college... Two different things. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I hope you understand, I fail to see how a category doesnt actually sit in another category - so I reverted [4] - some time later, but really to remove the cats to make a category not linked to any category seemed to be a mistake. Your argument might have been going somewhere if you had reinserted a new category - but to leave it blank doesnt make sense... cheers satusuro 09:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear Vegaswikian, the secondary target of the merge would be as follows:

• Propose upmerging Category:2nd-century Christian female saints to Category:Ante-Nicene Christian female saints‎
• Propose upmerging Category:3rd-century Christian female saints to Category:Ante-Nicene Christian female saints‎
• Propose upmerging Category:4th-century Christian female saints to Category:Late Ancient Christian female saints
• Propose upmerging Category:5th-century Christian female saints to Category:Late Ancient Christian female saints
• Propose upmerging Category:7th-century Christian female saints to Category:Christian female saints of the Middle Ages
• Propose upmerging Category:9th-century Christian female saints to Category:Christian female saints of the Middle Ages
• Propose upmerging Category:10th-century Christian female saints to Category:Christian female saints of the Middle Ages
• Propose upmerging Category:11th-century Christian female saints to Category:Christian female saints of the Middle Ages
• Propose upmerging Category:12th-century Christian female saints to Category:Christian female saints of the Middle Ages
• Propose upmerging Category:13th-century Christian female saints to Category:Christian female saints of the Middle Ages
• Propose upmerging Category:14th-century Christian female saints to Category:Christian female saints of the Middle Ages
• Propose upmerging Category:15th-century Christian female saints to Category:Christian female saints of the Middle Ages
• Propose upmerging Category:16th-century Christian female saints to Category:Christian female saints of the Early Modern era
• Propose upmerging Category:17th-century Christian female saints to Category:Christian female saints of the Early Modern era
• Propose upmerging Category:18th-century Christian female saints to Category:Christian female saints of the Early Modern era
• Propose upmerging Category:19th-century Christian female saints to Category:Christian female saints of the Late Modern era

I hope this helps!

Please note that I've just created Category:Late Ancient Christian female saints for the 4th and 5th century, to bridge the gap between Ante-Nicene and Middle Ages, this category is currently empty. My apologies for the amount of manual work. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of casinos in Alaska is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of casinos in Alaska until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Anaheim (train station) , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Fettlemap (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center opens December 6, 2014! Fettlemap (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you want to take care of the "purging" needed after this rename? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

In response to the "huh" under the reason for removing my move request for KAQY to KMLU...KMLU is the new call sign for KAQY television. KMLU currently exists only as a redirect page for Monroe Regional airport, so I cannot voluntarily move KAQY to KMLU without asking for assistance. I thought I did what I was supposed to in adding it to the list of requested moves but I suppose it wasn't an acceptable request? There is one suggestion on the KAQY page to move it to KMLU (TV)...however, that would not be necessary if the page could simply be moved to KMLU. Thank you, KansasCity (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

You closed this cfd and Cydebot obediently moved the articles but most of the categories are undeleted (although empty). What needs to be done? Oculi (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Just wondering if you have any thoughts re: the idea of WMF hosting a genealogy project. If so, feel free to contribute to this discussion. And apologies if I have made this request before. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Vegaswikian, nice to meet you--I've see you around but I don't think we've ever interacted. I'm very aware that my close is out of process, but I'm thinking of WP:FATRAT here. The deletion nomination is going to drive away potential GLAM contributors even though the categories will, in all likelihood, be populated over the next several days. I will delete them myself if they do not. Best, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks like two categories that were to be deleted in CFD are still out there, maybe do a glitch with the tool? They are both location at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 13. If you interrupted you in the middle of processing these, just disregard. Thanks! RevelationDirect (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I've amended to instruction given to the bot, should fix it. – Fayenatic London 16:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! RevelationDirect (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

• (Deletion log); 00:42 . . Vegaswikian (talk | contribs) deleted page Category:Example ‎(G2: Test page: C1: Empty category)

The instructions as regards contesting this deletion were – if I recall correctly – to click a button and leave a message (on the category's talkpage?). Did you see this message or perhaps a sign somewhere that the deletion had been contested..? The category page also sported a notice explaining its existence – was that seen..?

Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Vegaswikian, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of ((U|Technical 13)) to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Hi; since you commented at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 23#Category:Current spaceflights, you may be interested in the discussion at Template talk:Launching#Recent edits and Category:Current spaceflights concerning the categories emitted by ((Launching)). --Redrose64 (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! I just wanted to take a moment to explain why I'm reverting you on Deluxe Marketing. The problem is that we have sources saying they're based in Las Vegas, including their "Contact Us" page. I suspect that you are correct that they are located Wincester, NV (which appears to be a suburb of Las Vegas), but that their mailing address just uses the big city for convenience. I know it's sometimes maddening when reality does not match up with sources, but Wikipedia reflects sources, not truth. Personally took me months to get past that fact. Anyway, best wishes. 16:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

PS - I now see you've been here a long time. I hope I don't sound condescending or anything. I was aiming for "nice/helpful" instead of the usual "argumentative" found on Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 16:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

There are 3 sources, including the official webpage, that say Las Vegas. We must report what the sources say. You are conducting WP:OR otherwise. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 17:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

A page you previously contributed to, Joe Williams (jazz singer), had many prior revisions deleted due to copyright issues. For details please see Talk:Joe Williams (jazz singer). Your prior version may be temporarily restored upon request if you need it for reference to re-incorporate constructive edits that do not make use of the copyright infringing material. Please feel free to leave me a talk message if you need this done. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 22:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)