User talk:Good Olfactory/Archive 2

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.

Another barnstar :)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		is hereby awarded to Good Ol’factory for immense amounts if work at WP:CFD. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep this up and I'll be keeping an eye on you as future admin material :) Grutness...wha? 01:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm enjoying myself, and that's what's important ... Mind you, my vacation has to end sometime so I doubt I'll keep up the same pace in the future! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Renaming of Naval Air Station

Hi, I thought you might like to weigh in on my request to change the name of Naval Air Station to Naval air station. (An anon. editor has contested it.) Cgingold (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I've left a comment on the talk page for the article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Denial Of Armenian Genocide

i want to add this pictures to the Denial of Armenian Genocide. this pictures help to understand reason of tehcir law that is the part of that events. someone hide the reasons. blockin my contribute about reasons. and blocking my arguments. please Help ME for clear NPOV. someone try to delete the pictures.--Qwl (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not totally clear on what you are asking of me. I haven't suggested that the pictures themselves be deleted and I haven't entered into that debate since I don't really have an opinion on it one way or the other. All I was doing was suggesting that the category that holds the images be renamed to better match WP conventions. I'm not an administrator on WP so I don't really have any control over a situation where you are being administratively blocked, if that's what you are saying is happening to you. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to request for feedback

I just wanted to let you know that I responded to your comment on my talk page here. COGDEN 01:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Black Billionaire category is bad idea

a black billionaire category is POV since there's dispute about who is black or a billionaire. Some billionaires have only a bit of black ancestry and are not universally considered black. Other people who are certainly black, are considered billionaires by only some sources. A black billionaire category would bring nothing but problems. Vexperiential (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you are referring to. I did not create any "black billionaire" category, nor was I planning to. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case I must have misunderstood your recent edit summary to the black billionaires article? Vexperiential (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The category it is in is Category:Billionaires. I merely added an alphabetical sort to it, which is the part coming after the "|". So "Category:Billionaires| Black billionaires" just means it's in the billionaires category and is sorted at the top of the list by alphabet. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Liahona

I must respectfully disagree with your edits on this page. The English issue of the Liahona is identical, with the exception to the center news section, as the other languages. Not all languages get every issue, but every issue is identical in every language it is translated into. You may search an issue at lds.org in several languages and see that it has the same content regardless of what language it is in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heg24 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My concern was that it was WP:OR. I have no interest in performing such research myself. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I may also refer you to an outdated article in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism that addresses the umbrella title: http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/EoM&CISOPTR=4391&CISOSHOW=3784 Heg24 (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Bacchá

Any reason why you feel that the bacchas were not sex workers? Haiduc (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope. But there's also no reason why they can't go in a subcategory of the sex worker category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right here. My "hot cat" got a little too hot, and I definitely wouldn't have made the second edit had I realised yours had intervened. Sorry for my flippancy above. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not think you flippant, merely humorous, a welcome trait. Haiduc (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

VAT and sales tax

An interesting view that VAT is not a tax on sales. I suppose it depends what you mean by "sale". The article on Value added tax calls it a "tax on exchanges" - and indeed there are examples of VAT applying to exchanges which are not sales, just as there are of sales tax applying to exchanges which are not sales. There are also cases where VAT is assessed on a transaction which is not an exchange, for example when goods are imported without a change of ownershipBut such cases are few. VAT is usually broader based than most sales taxes, in that it is applied to sales of services as well as sales of goods, but that does not mean that it is not a tax on sales. If you are thinking about the collection mechanism, whereby the collector pays over only tax on the valued added by him, that is only one way of looking at the matter, and not the way that the purchaser looks at the matter, because he pays VAT on the entire sales price, and the collection mechanism is irrelevant to him.

There have been examples of "VAT"s which operate differently, and are genuinely a tax on the value added (broadly, profit plus labour), and not on individual transactions. I believe that the Michigan Single Business Tax worked that way, as did VAT in Japan at one time, but such systems are not typical of VAT systems generally (Europe, Canada and elsewhere), which are taxes on individual transactions.

The single-stage sales tax (as it is applied in most US states) is not the only model of sales tax. Other models are cascade tax and turnover tax, and, I would suggest, VAT.

It was to recognise the occasional cases where VAT is not a tax on sales that I did not propose removing the subcategory from the Taxation category, i.e. it was a legitimate exception to the normal policy in WP:SUBCAT. But to most people and in most cases, VAT is a tax on sales.

The article on Value added tax needs some rewriting, from the point of view of practical experience of how the tax actually works. I had planned some rewriting, but will hold off until you have a chance to comment. Thanks. Mhockey (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand. Suit yourself — if you think it's improved as a subcategory, that's fine with me. Because of the occasional case, I thought a {seealso} at the top would be more "accurate", but you're probably right that in most cases the point is moot. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Apologies for misposting on your user page rather than your talk page. Mhockey (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh mercy

Thanks Well, I suppose I've made another misstep - thanks for your guidance. Why do you disagree with the redirects; only because of page history? Is there some kind of policy for this? -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, history is one reason, but I think deletion is preferred because then if someone who was aware of the old category name adds the old category, it will appear as red-linked and the hope is that this will cause them to investigate further and find out what the current name of the category is. If it's not redlinked they will have nothing that would cause them to believe that the category doesn't exist anymore. This could result in someone adding a ton of articles to a redirected category and the bot for transferring articles placed in a redirected category is not terribly efficient from what I've seen. I'm not sure about the policy on deletion vs. redirect. The practice has always been to delete the old one unless the consensus is to keep a redirect, rather than vice versa. I'll try to find a policy, but I'm not sure if one exists. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Category Barnstar
		I award User:Good Olfactory this barnstar for his work on fixing categories.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you very much. I appreciate the recognition! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Catholic martyrs

On a quick scan for Slavic names, I just found Josaphat Kuntsevych (!gulp), Omelyan Kovch, & the 13 Podlachian martyrs. But that seems too few for their own cat & too many to ignore? At least the category descriptions are very clear. Johnbod (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I'll leave it as-is for now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Murderers cat

Hi. I noticed that you put Melissa Drexler into the murderers category. I changed it back to the criminals category because Drexler was never convicted of murder, only manslaughter. Please keep this in mind when you work on pages of people who have committed homicide, especially living people. Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details. Asarelah (talk) 06:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "only" manslaughter. :) Point taken, though. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Working Man's Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		This is for your efforts on categorizing articles. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thank you — nice to be recognised. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Murdered Jewish politicians cat.

Hello, you created this category, but so far it is very poorly populated, only Abu al-Rafi ibn Abu al-Huqayq and Jacob Israël de Haan (bien etonnés de se trouver ensemble would be an understatement). Couldn't you find some more names to include? I think so far it is a pretty useless (and sinister) category. Soczyczi (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No sinister intent is intended and I'm a bit confused as to why you think such a category is sinister. It was part of my creation of Category:Assassinated politicians by nationality. I guess you could say that all of those categories are "sinister" in their own way, but this one is just one of many. Generally, the category will only include Jews who can't easily be classified as politicians of another nationality; i.e., there will be many in Category:Assassinated Israeli politicians that aren't also in the Jewish one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and Category:American Disciples of Christ

Category:Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Category:American Disciples of Christ
Disciples of Christ by nationality

These two categories are for the same American denomination. Its official name is The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the United States and Canada. I would like to rename the CC(DOC) category to cover the full official name and then transfer the "american DOC" links there and the link the references that go there to the renamed page. In addition, there is a category:Disciples of Christ. It is really a disabiguation for American vs British Disciples of Christ. My questions: 1. Do you think this is a reasonable idea? 2. Can you help me do it? 3. Should it just be boldly done or should a notice be posted on the talk pages first? 4. Could the "Category:Disciples of Christ" page be linked to the Category:Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) page and then a disambiguation paragraph be added at the top of that page, linking to the British page. John Park (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the rationale. Category:American Disciples of Christ is for individuals who are (1) American, and (2) members of the CC(DOC). Similarly, Category:British Disciples of Christ are for those who are British and members. Both of these categories have a parent category Category:Disciples of Christ by nationality, which is in use for any religion with members of more than one nationality, so that it can be included in Category:Protestants by nationality or similar categories. Category:Disciples of Christ by nationality is in turn a subcategory of Category:Disciples of Christ, which is a meta-category for members of the church. This category is a subcategory of Category:Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the meta-category for the church in general. Everything seems in order here and the categories seem to be named and structured as all Christian religious denomination categories are. To make a change to a category name you need to propose a WP:CFD — the instructions for doing so are laid out fairly clearly on that page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your insight and perspective. I see that there are a number of issues here that will require some thought. My basic concern is still valid, namely that CC(DOC) and American Disciples of Christ are in reality the same category. With two locations, they are less useful than they might otherwise be. Some editors add to one and other editors add to the other. This is not my top priority, but I will add it to my list of improvements to explore down the road. John Park (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The solution is to put American people in the American DOC category and articles about non-individuals in the CC(DOC) category. That's how most religious denomination categories are structured. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

alumni cats

Can I ask what the reasoning is for suggesting that the alumni categories be deleted? Thanks Tvoz |talk 23:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

All in good time. I'm still working on getting the nomination completed where all will be explained to everyone. Thanks for your patience, but it does take time. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on this - I disagree with you but it is entirely fair to nominate the whole lot. Although there are many other countries, so you might be quite busy ... (There needs to be a simple way of nominating a whole tree.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I thought it would be helpful to kind of settle it more since some CFDs have resulted in delete and others in keep or no consensus. Of course, if the consensus is keep or no consensus, I won't be nominating the other country ones! And I agree that it would be nice if the process was easier for large category trees ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't rushing you, I was just asking for the rationale, which I'd still like to know. These categories seem to me to be a helpful way of organizing the encyclopedia and an alternate way to get at information. I assume you have some reason for this, so I'm asking what your thinking it, that's all. Tvoz |talk 01:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup; no problem — the nomination is completed now and posted here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

American Animists category

I noticed that you added the American Animists category to Many Horses, a proponent of the Ghost Dance. It is my understanding that the Ghost Dance movement was a syncretic religion combining Native traditions with Christian influence, and that Wovoka believed that he recieved his religious revalation directly from Gd, not from animistic spirits. I am therefore removing the animists category from his page, and I advise against adding to the pages of other believers in the Ghost Dance. Asarelah (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; that is my mistake. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Ghost Dance

You're welcome. =) I figured it was an honest mistake. Asarelah (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My Koavf input

I realise this conversation is winding down, but I've added a comment regarding Koavf and speedy CfDs at Black Falcon's talk page. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I'll comment there. - jc37 15:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Intentional link to dab page

Hi, I've reverted to my edit of John Taylor (LDS) - intentional links to dab pages are more clearly understood as intentional when the (disambiguation) qualifier is used, even if, as in this case, it's just a redirect. Otherwise, when WP:DPL is removing inbound links ot dab pages, it's not clear if the link is intentional or misplaced. Happy to discuss, of course. I hope my edit summary is a more clear description of the rationale this time! --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know that; I didn't know that was a common practice. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 16:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: English vs British

I completely understand what you are saying. However, the word "English" is regional to England, and anyone living in England, especially before "Great Britain" was formally called that, should be considered "English" in my opinion. This is just my perspective. Please get back to me when you get the chance. Thank you. Marcus2 (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Responded at original post. Thanks for getting back to me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Angolan Marxists

Category:Angolan Marxists should be a subcategory of Category:Angolan communists because Marxism is a theory within communism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes; I just recently created both so I hadn't got around to structuring them within each other quite yet. Thanks for doing it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait, but can't you be Marxist but not communist? That seems to be what Marxism says. If so, the categories should be reversed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Good point. The category should be reversed. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Doctrine

Two peoples separated by a common language. Actually, I speak native USAian, near-native Canadian, adequate Australian, and professional English with a dash of Yorkshire emphasis. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm, you sound like me. I have lived in USA, Australia, and New Zealand, where I've picked up various bastardizations of my native Canadian English. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

edits

Please consider assisting in the following pages.I saw your work and like assistance with them. The Greater Grace World Outreach, the page that was created to replace it, and its dated and not very neutral view Greater Grace World Outreach Baltimore. The Baltimore version is better but it needs references and needs much of the information from the original page.

GGWO has some historical significance having lost multiple million cases including a case to the Target Heiress Betsy Dvondennis (spell?)

As well as the Neil Patrick Carrick page.I have many of the references for it but have not been able to get a handle on how to do them properly. They are mainly web, newspaper and book references.

The ref for GGWO are numerous and I could spend months adding them but not sure how to do it.

Nice Work —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.57.253 (talk) 04:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Category: Chinese Zen Buddhists?

Hey, what is the purpose of this category? We already have the Chan Buddhists category. Bertport (talk) 06:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ch'an Buddhism is a "denomination", so to speak, not a nationality. Not all Ch'an Buddhists are of Chinese nationality, e.g., John Blofeld; John Crook. The one I created is for Zen Buddhists of Chinese nationality. Also, not all Chinese Zen Buddhists are Chan Buddhists. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Khotan

My "Watchlist" Page indicates you recently did some editing on the Khotan article. However, on the Khotan History page I can see no evidence of your edits. I am puzzled. Do you have any idea of what is happening here? Thanks for your help, John Hill (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Khotan is just a redirect page that goes to Hotan. Someone altered the redirect page, so I fixed it here. You're right though, that I have not edited Hotan, which is probably the page history you were looking at. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation - it had me really puzzled. And thanks for fixing the page - much appreciated. Keep up the good work. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 10:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Music venues in Georgia

I'm not opposed if that's the convention, although I feel that it is slightly absurd. But you'd probably also want to add Category:Buildings and structures in Georgia to the same nom, I imagine. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC).

It's not absurd for the 8 million people who live in the U.S. state, which is almost twice the number that live in the country. I'll just make the other one into a disambiguation page for Category:Buildings and structures in Georgia (U.S. state) and Category:Buildings and structures in Georgia (country). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Fugitive category

I think category "Fugitives wanted on sexual assault charges" should be renamed as "Fugitives wanted on sex offense charges" or something similar. There are so many sex crimes other than "sexual assault", and the term itself seems to be overused. For example, John Mark Karr and Richard Steve Goldberg were fugitives wanted for possession of child pornography. Renaming would make things easier. Reverend X (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to propose such a rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:47, 6 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) 17:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Asking for a fourth opinion

Hello, I see that you have been editing some articles related to muslim organizations. (I must admit that I chose you rather randomly...) Can I be bold and ask you for your opinion on the article Islamic_Cultural_Centre_of_Ireland? There is a controversy whether the organizations in the ICCI should be included in the article. Your opinion would be really appreciated and might prevent tiresome edit-warring. Thank you. --Shengyi (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've responded there; thanks for inviting. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand Brigadiers

Category New Zealand Brigadiers to New Zealand brigadiers. A small category anyway; why not New Zealand Army officers (would it be New Zealand Army officers not New Zealand army officers, as it is a specific subcategory of New Zealand Army then New Zealand Army personnel?). But personally why not delete and make Leslie Andrew just New Zealand Army personnel, otherwise half of the New Zealand Army personnel category (c29) will have to be put in the New Zealand Army officers category. Hugo999 (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate it for a rename along these lines. These can be proposed at any time, even when a speedy rename is "pending", so I won't object if you want to propose a full CFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Estevan rename

Please do not keep the category Category:People from Estevan, Saskatchewan. This category is proposing for renaming. The main article and the disambiguation page linked as Estevan as the user has made the requested move. This category has to be renamed. Steam5 (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not "have to be" renamed. Whether it will be or not will be determined by the consensus arrived at in the CFD which you proposed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being eagered to rename the category. I apologized. Steam5 (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Response to your comments on "Chris Heimerdinger" and "List of General Authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"

Hey, Good Olfactory, I'm just posting here to let you know that I have left comments in response to your previous comments on the Talk:Chris Heimerdinger and Talk:List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints‎ pages. Instead of continuing either discussion either here or on my talk page, I invite you to see my comments, evaluate them for what you think they're worth, and respond there. Thank you for your attention to this matter. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Good Olfactory, I'm a bit puzzled about something and wonder if you might help clear it up for me. The edits you keep challenging on the Chris Heimerdinger article happen to have been done by Chris himself. I'm not quite sure I understand your apparent contention that the inclusion of such material constitutes a violation of original research. After all, the material added can be found as being contained in any of the "About the Author" pages for any of his books. I'm interested in your line of reasoning. I'm also interested as to how you would suggest obviating this problem. Chris has a user account now, so now that he's official I would assume that if he lists a verifiable source for the inclusion of the material that this would be permissible for inclusion on his page. At least, that happens to be WP policy as I understand it. I can see some merit in your concerns about original research, but I'm not quite clear as to how information included by him violates the no original research policy. As I stated to you before, it's nearly impossible for Chris to include any information about him on his WP page WITHOUT it being original research. If I could understand exactly where you're coming from and what in particular you are concerned about, perhaps I could help alleviate or eliminate those concerns. That's why I'm posting this message. Instead of responding to it here or on my talk page, I invite you to discuss it on the talk page of the article in question. Then perhaps whatever your concerns are can be resolved without overlooking any of the apparently verifiable information included on the page in question by Chris himself. I look forward to discussing this with both you and Chris further on that page. Hope to hear from you there soon. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you very much for the Barnstar. It was very nice of you and much appreciated. Alanraywiki (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This user is as Canadian as possible, under the circumstances

I like you new user box! Funny! - Ahunt (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course I can't take credit for the phrase itself. As you may know, it comes from the old contest Peter Gzowski held years ago to come up with a Canadian-equivalent for "As American as apple pie". The winner was "As Canadian as possible, under the circumstances". Classic! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Suharto...

I just changed your recent edit on Suharto. Would you be good enough to check? Please let me know if my edit summary wasn’t clear or you disagree. Cheers --Merbabu (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If religion is not cited we can ask for a cite, regardless; as for being Sunni vs. Shi'a, specificity does not ever hurt. It's like calling someone "Christian" but not caring if they are Jehovah's Witness or Roman Catholic. I've expanded on these ideas on the talk page, where the conversation should probably be held. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If you dont mind me saying - you gonna find yourself in some very odd situations if you start dabbling in hypotheticals in the Indonesian domain - you might sound reasonable to yourself - but hey -

(1) creating empty categories is never a good idea - you gotta have articles in them - basic procedure starts the arts and then fill the category

Satu Suro 03:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have a clue what you are referring to. I never create a category without an article in it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies [1] - cheers Satu Suro 03:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Still not following you, but whatever. (Unless you have a complete log of all articles that have ever been added/included/removed from an old category that is now deleted.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies further - I looked at the history of the now deleted category - and I thought that is was one that you had created - if I indeed have misread the history of the category - once again further apologies Satu Suro 03:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

New category

It appears that you have been adding a category to pages falling in the domain of Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Vaishnavism. It was done without a discussion and does not reflect good on you. Wikidās ॐ 06:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, no consensus or "discussion" is needed for categories to be created. If you don't like them, you can propose WP:CFDs, where a consensus can be reached as to their appropriateness. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

methinks you are evil ;)

Indeed, I think you are evil. ;) I take off 5 items here, and you put 4 new ones on. :) Rockfang (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Erp, sorry. I wasn't aware you were striving for a no-request page. :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

Hello. I stumbled across your edits over at WP:CFD, and quite honestly was blown away. The fact that you've only been here for a few months, yet you seem to know policy and everything perfectly, is very, very impressive. As a result, I would like to nominate you for adminship at WP:RFA if you're interested. I don't know if your relative newness would affect you or not, but if you would like to then let me know. I do have a couple questions for you to make sure you're ready to go, though, if you can answer them: Can you show me a couple articles you've written/nicely expanded, and is this actually your first account? Just to make sure you're qualified in all aspects, which you seem to be. Wizardman 19:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think I would be interested, and I've thought of it of something I'd eventually like to do, but I figured that I needed to pay my dues in WP before getting to that point. I'm unsure if I'm there yet, but if you think I may be then I'd be willing to give it a go. I know policies on categorization better than any area, but I think I have a good understanding of most areas. To answer your specific questions:

(1) I've mainly focused on categorization, but have worked at a number of articles in the area of religion. You can look at Mormonism and evolution for an article that's still almost 100% my work. For a section I've worked on as a good "expansion" of an article, see Brigham_Young#Plural_marriage.

(2) The short answer is "yes", but the long story includes some background which might explain things better: I was an editor and administrator on a couple of non-Wikipedia wikis since 2005. In the past year or so, we've been losing editors from those wikis like hotcakes — everyone has been migrating to Wikipedia and becoming editors there and telling us that they were giving up editing on the small wikis. I started checking out WP in more detail to see what the attraction was, and I was overwhelmed with the range of articles WP was now hosting. I simply had no idea on the number or range of articles, I was used to thinking of WP in 2005 terms — I thought it was still pretty generalist with not a lot of experts working on material, etc. Early in 2008, I came to agree that the our small wikis were "losing the battle", and that everything on almost all topics were migrating to WP. So I spent a few weeks reading up on WP policies and getting a feel for how things worked as an observer; I may have made a few edits as an anonymous IP address, but nothing substantial. The category system fascinated me, so in February I registered and began editing. I've had some time off work so I've been able to spend a lot of time on WP, and I've enjoyed it very much. I've given up the other wikis as well and decided this is the place to be.

Otherwise, if you think I should wait, I'm still willing to do that. Any suggestions you could make in ways I could further prepare myself would also be helpful. Thanks for your interest in me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright. You certainly have admin-type experience in terms of operating categories, so what I would say over the next week or two is maybe add in a little bit of participation in afd or rfa, especially rfa just so that you know what to expect and how yours may end up going down. Really the only oppose I would think is that you're still quite new, but ideally your contributions should cancel out. So long as you read up on administrative guidelines and the like in the coming days, you should be fine. Wizardman 00:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will take your advice on these things to do. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely - the main reason I haven't nominated you before now is the short length of time you've been here. Your work on CFD in particular is very impressive, but Wizardman's right, getting a bit of participation in other Wikispace pages under your belt will make both the adminship nomination process and adminship itself easier. Grutness...wha? 02:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your confirmatory advice; I appreciate it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Colombian drug lords

There are two categories - Category:Colombian drug lords and Category:Colombian drug traffickers. What is the difference between "drug trafficker" and "drug lord"? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Drug lords are the kingpins of the operations. Drug traffickers are the foot soldiers who distribute the drugs. Drug lords can be a subcategory of the traffickers. I'm working on it as we speak. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to say hai

Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend or a possibly new friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Have a great day ! -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 10:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Your help please...

I think I initially mis-read your comment on [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abd Al Rahman Al Zahri. Initially, when I read your comment, I thought you were calling me crazy for starting these articles. But that is not what you meant, correct? You were suggesting that it is a crazy world where detention, without charge could be considered normal and mundane.

I saw, on your talk page, that you are committed to following all the wikipedia policies. Me too.

One of the most distressing things about contributing to the wikipedia is that while one can generally count on most contributors complying with the culture of tolerance, good will, collegiality, civil discussion, and assumption of good faith, on most talk pages, I have found the exact opposite on the deletion fora.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that the deletion fora have been infected by a different subculture, and breaches of the civility policies are so routine there that they almost always pass without comment, or may even without notice. When I participate in deletion fora for articles I have not contributed to I don't let abusive comments pass without notice.

Since you are committed to civility and observation of the other wikipedia's policies, if you put Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abd Al Rahman Al Zahri on your watchlist, is there any way you would consider giving a heads-up to participants there if you think someone is lapsing from the civility or other policies?

These articles on Guantanamo captives have been controversial, and in some other recent {{afd}}s I have felt I was the target of abusive personal attacks.

I am going to thank you in advance for considering this request.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely did not mean that you were crazy. You're right that what I meant was it seems crazy that we now live in a world where being held in extrajudicial detention can be "non-notable". In light of many of the comments there since I made mine, I've changed to keep on the articles. I wasn't as thorough as I should have been in looking into things. And yes, I will put that AFD on my watchlist and monitor the behaviour there. I've found that too — that on XfD things sometimes can get out of hand a lot easier than it seems to elsewhere. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I said I would thank you in advance for speaking up when you saw incivility. But that doesn't keep me from thanking you afterwards too. Thanks!

I do my best to be ready to change my mind, and openly say so, when that happens. Some people regard acknowledging changing one's mind as a weakness. I think it is a important strength. The way I see it the overall assumption of good faith is considerably strengthened when individual wikipedians demonstrate they deserve the assumption of good faith.

I wish it was a quality we could count on from all the wikipedia's administrators.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Creating new Oz cats

Could you please help by placing WP OZ and class=cat on the discussion pages when you create em - it helps catching them when anyone creates a cat tree - otherwise I think they dont get caught if the pesky discussion tag remains red - thanks Satu Suro 01:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that. Where's the exact template? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Just look behind the new oz anti nuke cat you created [2] and the thing i put on the back - it'd be great if you ever came across any oz cat without it to put it there - it is a device to have good project management - from memory the nz project has no interest in such :( - to creat a cat tree is a very good way for a wiki project to keep tabs of created cats and range of cats and arts - because its not sexy so to speak many projects dont even bother to have advice on their main pages - hence my forays into very strange places to get rid of the pesky red discussion tags in projects you think would have at least one ed who understood they would never be able to generate a good cat tree without the cats being tagged. I repeat myself - thats a device in arabic discourse as a way of proof - and i am none of the above - cheers Satu Suro 01:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Got it; thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ever bored with life - the nz project needs a good cleanup :| Satu Suro 01:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops but the template creators do funny things - some projects survive on class=NA (like the Indonesian) and the oz project class=cat (oz) and I have been caught out more than once :| Satu Suro 01:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW - the cat man extrordinaire grutness (dare i mention his name) belongs to that fine breed of cfd troops who do give cats a close check - you might find your parallel anti nuke cats are up to question if they are ever checked or stumbled upon as the rule of thumb is 20+ arts to adequately justify a cat population - and i do know some who think 200 is the sufficient max for functionality as well - just in case you havent encountered the beasts of cat cfd issues at their best -Satu Suro 01:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I am well-acquanited with the CFD process — I contribute there regularly. I'll take my chances with the category brigades though — I think these cats are justified because they rope the people into the activists-by-nationality scheme, so the result is that these people can be found from the country/nationality category tree. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your tolerance of my gabbering on then - I really think some projects need a shakeup when it comes to their lack of understanding of cats and tags and all Satu Suro 01:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'll remember this though if I ever create another Oz-related category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Richards - article deletion discussion

You mentioned that you were unable to find any non-IMDB references to this Ryan Richards. Please take the time to view some or all of the following pages. Regards. [3] [4] [5] [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanrichards20 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I meant reliable sources with more than just a passing mention of the name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Anti-nuke cats

Hey there, I just discovered the new sub-cats by nationality that you took the trouble to set up for the anti-nuke activist categories. Nice work -- I can't believe you got them all squared away in one sitting! I created both of the parent cats, so it's great to have you put all that work into organizing them. I've done a good deal of that sort of work on other activist categories, like Category:Human rights activists and Category:Democracy activists, but they were much larger to begin with so there's still more work to be done. PS - I read through the discussion in the preceding section, and there's no need to be concerned about small cats that are part of "by nationality" trees, as there seems to be a concensus that they're exempt from the usual threshold criteria. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input — and thanks for your words on the nationality cats. I figured there was nothing wrong with them ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And what a coincidence; I was just planning on working on those categories today, which I've done now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Koavf

User:Koavf

I hesitate to bring this up again, but ...

More editors than just me are still encountering problems with Koavf's CFD behaviour. Honestly, through this all I've tried to be as clear (while remaining polite) as possible, but for some reason he's just not "getting" some things and he's doing the same types of things again and again. I feel a tad petty bringing it up over and over again with him, but it's to the point where I at least find it disruptive b/c I feel like I should "keep and eye on" him to make sure he's not doing anything off the wall. I imagine User:Rockfang may be feeling the same way.

By the way, I'm copying this message to the other admins who joined in on the recent conversation on Koavf's talk page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. You may also wish to read User talk:Black Falcon#AWB concerns. And perhaps offer this same notice to each of those who discussed there. (Some may appear on wikibreak, but often they're just on a "reduced editing" break.) - jc37 20:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes; I had forgotten about that discussion. I've let Blackfalcon know as well. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Just want to chime in here -- I'm relieved to see that I'm not the only one taking note of such concerns about Koavf. I couldn't figure out what to do about it, though, since it wasn't vandalism. I hope he settles down. Cgingold (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Albert Schweitzer category

Dear Good Olfactory, By the time nuclear weapons were invented, Albert Schweitzer was a naturalized Frenchman (early 1920s). I therefore suggest your category amendment should be reverted. Yours, Eebahgum (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Good call — I've changed it from "German" to "French". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course

Sorry I assumed that it had been dealt with - certainly the author would have seen it by now. Apparently, I was wrong and hasty. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

My recent RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace and talk space, so that is what I will do. I have made a list and I hope I will be able to get through it. I will go for another RfA in about three month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been about three months. I will not be checking back to this page so if you would like to comment or reply please use my talk page. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 06:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Please review Oscar Dahlene

You made an entry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Dahlene, and since that time the article in question has been improved to include significant facts. I ask you to review the page and determine if your have anything to add, remove, or modify.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Lilongwe

Hi G/O, I'm contacting all three of the editors who supported my proposal to rename Category:Lilongwe to Category:Lilongwe, Malawi. As you know, there has been fierce opposition to this proposal. However, an alternate solution has been suggested by User:roundhouse0, through the use of an existing nav-box template at the top of the page for Category:Capitals in Africa. Template:African capitals displays all of the capital cities along with their countries, which (as I said in the CFD) "appears to go a long way towards addressing my concerns". User:roundhouse0 also added an explanatory sentence on the page for Category:Lilongwe to inform readers that it is the capital of Malawi. I would like to know if you feel these steps are sufficient to deal with our concerns. Please post a reply at the CFD -- thanks! Cgingold (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I've commented there. I think it's a good compromise. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks so much for your support in myRfA, which closed successfully this morning. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Jaroslav Kacmarcyk

I dispute you categorization of JK as a "Polish" lawyer. This action is like classifying George Washington as a "British" surveyor. When he was born, Binczarowa was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and his major life's work was to (unsuccessfully) form an independent state, to keep the surrounding area out of Polish hands. He was not ethnically Polish, but was a Lemko. Since there is not a category for "Lemko lawyers", I really would prefer that he remain in an undifferentiated "lawyers" category. I do not think that categorizing him as Polish is correct, and I suspect that he would have found it offensive. Pustelnik (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Prior to any of my edits, he was categorized as a "Polish person". There's even a little Polish flag at the bottom of his stub article. It looks like you need to broaden your target of complaints as I clearly wasn't the first to so categorize. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yvonne Fletcher

Hello - I see you've flagged this article as a terrorist incident. Could you provide a reference for that please? Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What I did was kind of a routine adding of categories based on previously existing ones. The article was already in Category:Terrorist incidents in the 1980s and Category:Terrorism in London; I added location and nationality of victim categories. If pressed into evaluating whether or not it is terrorism, I have no opinion one way or the other and don't have any references on this in front of me. Feel free to remove the terrorism categories, but if you do, I suggest you remove all of the terrorism categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Palestine vs. West Bank and Gaza Strip

Replacing Category:Crime in Palestine with Category:Crime in the West Bank and Gaza Strip may or may not be a good idea, but rather than changing the parent of Category:Palestinian criminals, Category:Palestinian crime victims and Category:Palestinian prisoners and detainees from one to the other, as you did here, here, here, it might be better to propose a formal rename using WP:CFD. Otherwise, it looks like you are attempting to simply change the name of the category without gaining a consensus for it. Alternatively, the WBGS category could be a subcategory of the pre-existing "Crime in Palestine" category. Since you are an admin, I expect you do already know this, or at least should. I thought I should explain to you why I reverted these edits. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You didn't get any approval when you unilaterally created those categories, did you? "Palestine" is not a country. It was a territory controlled by the British until 1948, and became Israel and other things after that. That's why I'm reverting your reversions. If you must unilaterally create categories in the future, please create accurate ones. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"Approval" to create a category? I'm not aware of any approval that is required. There are many categories that use "Palestine" as the name of the place, but I'm not terribly interested in discussing it here, nor is this the place to have that debate, anyway. The place would be at a WP:CFD. (Just one potential problem that could be discussed in a CFD: What if there was a Palestinian criminal who committed crimes pre-1948 in the territory that is now Israel? Why is he in a subcategory of "Crime in the WB & GS" when he committed the crime in not one of those places?) Even categories that you think are misnamed cannot simply be changed at will by you. Please go through the process of proposing a proper CFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What, because you created a category a few hours before me, now you get the right to control what goes in both your categories and mine? I didn't delete your categories, I just created more accurate ones, and populated them. "Palestine" is not a country. It may well be, one day, but it's not one now. Please stop creating inaccurately named categories. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, I'm not trying to start a fight with you and I don't feel that I'm being mean or unreasonable. It's obvious you care deeply about the issue, but my quibble is not with whatever you may believe about it. For all you know, I agree with your position. My problem with your behaviour concerns process. When you take categories and change the parent category for all of them to something similar but different, you are essentially attempting to change the name. See my comments above for potential problems with such a name change; these issues should be discussed in CFD. I could understand adding the new category as a parent as well as keeping the old one, but to delete the first parent in favour of the second acts essentially as a unilateral name change. For now, I've included both parents. I'd welcome a CFD on the matter, though. PS --hope it's OK to move the conversation here; I'd prefer to keep the discussion all together for future reference or whatever. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And I don't want a fight with you, so let's avoid one. I'm not trying to delete your categories, I'm just trying to ensure that they are accurately populated - and one does not need any sort of approval to do that. Your categorization scheme does not really make sense - are the "Palestine" categories also the "parents" of the "Israel" categories? If not, why not? As for discussions, I prefer to have them the normal way, you comment on my page, I comment on yours. If you prefer to replicate my comments on my page, I won't object, but please don't undo my additions to your page as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

See, the questions you raise are exactly the type of thing that should be discussed and sorted out by multiple editors during a CFD. It's not "my" categorization scheme. The "Palestine" could be kept as a geographical descriptor, in which case, yes, Israel could be a subcategory; or it could be used as a political entity category, encompassing either pre-1948 Palestine or post-1967 WB&GS, or both. This is not an either/or black and white accurate—not accurate issue, so I would appreciate keeping both sets of parents for now if you are not going to formally go through the process of nominating these for discussion, as I will at a later time. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, as you might have noted, I didn't delete your pre-1948 "Palestine" categories, nor did I delete it as a parent when sub-categories included pre-1948 events. But if you start opening up categories to things other than existing countries, then you've opened up a can of worms. Do we have "Yugoslavia" categories, and include all Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian etc. categories in them? How about Holy Roman Empire categories? What about a Category:Terrorism in Judea category, and include the items you have listed in Category:Terrorism in Palestine? After all, it's just a geographic region. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Perfect argument for a CFD. I recognize you didn't destroy the category as you might have, but you did remove "Palestinian" categories as subcategories of it even though there are some pre-1948 Palestinians in the categories. As I said, it's not "my" categorization scheme, but my original intent was to have the "Palestine" signify a geographical area, not the current WB/GS. If you think that's impractical, that's what CFDs are for. So yes, Israel should in theory be a subcategory, but the sole reason I did not add it was because I feared the outrage and wrath that would pour upon me from editors that get very touchy about these types of things without stopping and asking if there is some sort of underlying rationale. Sometimes it just doesn't hurt to ask and not assume that someone else (1) has malicious intent or (2) doesn't know what he is talking about. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't assume you had malicious intent, I just thought you had made an error/errors. Let's use another example. Today, as you noticed, I created the category Category:Synagogues in Istanbul. Now, let's say instead I had created the category Category:Synagogues in Constantinople. Do you think that people might have strongly considered that to be an error? And, perhaps, might have re-categorized all relevant articles to Category:Synagogues in Istanbul? As for your argument that the category was intended to signify a geographical area, can you provide examples of similar categories, used in the same way, that refer to a geographical area? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned that I'm not terribly interested in this debate in this forum, but... I don't really think your Constantinople is apposite. There are currently no categories that I can find that use "Constantinople". However, there are many that use "Palestine", and the temporal and/or geographical scope of these categories is not always clear. (See, e.g., Category:Religion in Palestine, Category:Deaths by firearm in Palestine.) Usually "Palestinian territories" is used when referring to WB+GS and "Palestine" when the geographical area is referred to Category:Geography of Palestine, but this general principle is inconsistent and not always clear. Some categories seem to use "Palestine" as a synonym for what you would call WB+GS. It's inconsistent, which is why some CFD to clean it all up could help, rather than people unilaterally assuming they know what it should be. For similar types of categories, see the quite large Category:Disputed territories, where you'll find plenty of examples. Category:Kashmir and Category:Korea and their subcategories readily spring to mind. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And since we are disagreeing about the categories and their scope, can you please leave both parents on the "Palestinians" categories? Why is this too much to ask? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated the 3 categories for discussion and proposed a renaming and structuring system. I trust we can at least let the categories rest with both sets of parents until it is closed. I still believe with issues like this where there are disagreements between two editors it's best to hear what others think in an attempt to gain some degree of consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

From V0taire

I apologize, I am very new to Wikipedia as you can tell. I work with Joe Esposito who as you know was an essential part of Elvis' life for over 17 years. I simply wanted to create a page for him like Jerry Schilling or Lamar Fike who were also members of the Memphis Mafia. You can rest assured that my posts will be limited to Joe Esposito from now on.

I have included additional items on Joe Esposito's page that should merit his inclusion into Wikipedia. Feel free to contact me. V0taire (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Sincerely, V0taire.

You can edit any pages you wish, and limiting your scope is certainly not my intention! I just didn't want you to remove deletion templates from articles that are being discussed. Anyway, it won't do anything to end the discussion as that takes place elsewhere in the link provided in the template. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Palestine

WikiProject Palestine is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of members at WikiProject Palestine. Ahlan wa Sahlan! (Welcome!)

Great job on your recent articles on the Grand Muftis of Jerusalem and your work for Palestine-related categories. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I've signed up and will try to help out where I can. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada call

Goodold, you were one of the editors who contributed to the above article. Since the article has stabilised and I have added proper references as well as provided a NPOVs references, I suggest final edits by the editors who were contributing to the article. Following the general proofing and copyedit, I would suggest nominating it towards GA (Good Article). Wikidās -ॐ 14:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:People from New Plymouth

As far as I am aware, every category should be within at least one parent category, and therefore should not be a redlink. I have no objection to you creating a Category:New Plymouth, but you should then make an attempt to populate it.

You can add a sentence to the top of a category to provide context. This is preferable to defining a "main" article which is not relevant to the category.-gadfium 19:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Redlinks in categories can be useful in that they provide a pre-parent/daughter category relationship for people who create categories but then don't set up the proper relationships. But whatever, if that makes you uncomfortable, have it your way. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

reply

See Talk:Han Snel.Baka man 00:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Great; many thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Medical practitioners convicted of murdering their patients

Hi, I was just wondering why you removed this from the 'murderers' category? Why is it inappropriate - your edit summary doesn't explain at all? Thanks. Malick78 (talk) 09:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, forget it:) I think it must have been because the parent cat (Health Professionals who murdered...) is in the Murderers cat. Sorry:) Malick78 (talk) 09:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was why — it was just doubling up in the main category. Sorry for not providing the explanation at the time. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

WQA filed by you

Please note that per KieferSkunk, this warning also applies to you. The user that the WQA was filed on has been warned directly, and has also been warned not to make personal attacks. This is also to inform you that WQA is now closed as resolved. Regards - Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; yes, I've communicated with KieferSkunk directly and am satisfied with how things have worked out thus far. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Speedy rename

I undid the move. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel like a baboon that just cleaned the nits off your back. And ate them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 14:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah it's alright. It was more from a realization that most of the categories regarding English cities do NOT have that format. Even smallish ones. Here is an example. So it should probably actually just be Rugby for the cat. But it should probably go to CfD and not speedy. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 15:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Northern Irish escapees

Just a word of warning with respect to the Northern Irish escapees category - you are walking into a major shit storm with respect to nationality of people from Northern Ireland - the majority of those that you have listed as wouldn’t consider themselves Northern Irish and would more than likely hold an Irish passport. I understand what you are trying to do and the subcats would make the main category more useful but I suggest you amend the subcat to say Escapees from Northern Ireland - it’s a small difference but an important one. Hope that helps. regards --Vintagekits (talk) 09:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice — that's OK, I've decided to abandon those individuals as far as the scheme goes. It's not a great loss, really, and if it can save us from a "shit storm", then everybody wins. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Something I'd like to see.

Hey. I feel ready to nominate you in the coming week or two, however there's one more think I ask of you. I'd like to see you close a few CfDs (non-admins are allowed to close and do what's needed, an admin just needs to delete the category if necessary). This way I can get a good idea of if you're ready for the tools now or if I should wait a little while longer for you to build more experience. Wizardman 23:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I wasn't aware that non-admins were permitted to close them; it seems a few weeks ago there was a dispute with User:Koavf, who was closing CfDs as a non-admin, and he was asked by some admins not to. Perhaps that advice just applied to him, though, since there were some other issues with his edits. I'll go ahead and find some to close. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright. At least a couple of my previous noms were found as a result of seeing them close CFDs, so I know it at least used to be okay. Maybe the landscape changed, but as long as you do it properly, there shouldn't be any issues. If it becomes a problem you can use me as a scapegoat :P Wizardman 00:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Agh! Per here, you can't close any CFDs. Hopefulyl you haven't closed any yet, sorry about that. Should've checked first. Wizardman 00:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I hadn't closed any, I was just perusing the policies myself, trying to see if there was a position on this. I guess I won't then — anything else you'd like me to do in lieu? ;) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I guess besides getting the answers to questions ready and getting your contributions organized (showing articles written, stuff like that) not much else to do. It'll probably take me a few days at least to write up the nom statement, gonna be a long one to try and discount any cries of inexperience. Wizardman 00:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter H M Ellis

Hi, I invite you to remove Mr Ellis from categories of "prisoners" of New Zealand etc.

Mr Ellis is not a prisoner, having been released eight years ago he is a free citizen. Seems rather a bizarre category to me. RichardJ Christie (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

See comments in section below. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It remains an absurd category. There are hundreds of thousands of current or once-were prisoners. Inclusion or not in the category obviously becomes a value judgement. RichardJ Christie (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is (a judgment, not absurd), as are the application of many categories. The judgment to make is whether or not it is defining for the person. For many people, that is what they are most well-known for, so it's an entirely appropriate category. Seems rather self-evident. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ernst Zündel

With all due respect, I'm a bit perplexed as to why you've added Ernst Zündel to various 'prisoner' categories. The subject of the article is not notable for having been a 'prisoner' - he is notable for his antisemitic actions in Canada and eventual deportation to Germany, where he remains. He is also still alive, and with strict WP:BLP, it really is only accurate to state that he is a German man being held by German authorities. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add the initial prisoner category. Categories are not "current status" only; in fact, categories should not apply only to current status. If someone has ever been a prisoner, I see no reason for not applying the category if it's defining for them. I'm Canadian, and I can tell you that from my perspective, living in Canada at the time, Zundel certainly was notable for having been imprisoned there. Cf. his Supreme Court of Canada case. Incidentally, I see you've nominated Category:German people imprisoned abroad for CfD, but it is not listed at the nomination page. Did you change your mind or is this an oversight? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I am also Canadian, so we differ over Zündel's notoriety. I also disagree with your assessment re: listing any place Mr. Zündel found himself imprisoned. Perhaps if he was not a living figure, or if he was someone who gained notoriety for being persecuted unjustly (as opposed to being in violation of the law), then it would make sense to over-categorize him. The bottom line is that Zündel is worthy of note for being an anti-Semite and Holocaust denier who was eventually returned to his country of birth, where he was also a wanted man. Yes, I did submit that category for CfD as I feel it is rather inutile. I shall get around to adding it in due course. Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

W.r.t. the Canadian imprisonment, it depends on what approach you take. From a everyday layman/newswatcher's perspective, he may be notable for just being an anti-Semite. I was looking at it from a legal professional standpoint (— which you should be able to relate to, being an academic and a lawyer); thus my reference to his case. I agree with you re: the prisoner of the U.S. category — not defining. Re the category nomination, if you nominate it you may want to consider that it's part of Category:People imprisoned abroad by nationality, so you may want to nominate all of them as it wouldn't be terribly useful to discuss one in isolation but leave the rest. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Black Catholics

I think that's a real mistake. i understand that you speededily delted the category before but it needs to be kept because to deny them a category (Black Catholics) is tantamount to clear bias, especially given the fact that the category "Black Jews exist--Briaboru (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way — I didn't take a position on it at the 2008 May 22 CfD, but once the decision is made to delete we can't go on re-creating it over and over again. At least not right away — consensus could change in the future, but it's probably too soon after just 3 weeks to try again. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm

Problematic. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of James Kisina

An article that you have been involved in editing, James Kisina, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Kisina. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Longhair\^talk 00:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Prisoners and detainees

I wanted to get clarification on the way in which you are applying these categories. Is it your intention to add this category to the article of anyone who was ever a detainee or prisoner in the given locale? I ask because I noted that you added the California category to the James Stacy article. Stacy is not now a prisoner nor is he being detained for any reason of which I'm aware. His sentence was served and he was paroled circa 2001. Wendy Yoshimura served 6 months in prison and was paroled in 1980 and received immunity for testimony in much later trials. I really didn't look at others, but I wanted to broach this. My personal view is that the categories shouldn't include people who are no longer imprisoned or detained. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure — I was applying it if the person was detained by a jurisdiction at any time; assuming, as always with categories, that their status as a detainee was significant enough to be considered a defining or non-trivial feature of their lives (for someone detained overnight in a police holding cell on a minor charge, the category usually wouldn't apply, for instance). In general, categories are not and should not be applied in a "current status only" manner, because then they require constant updates/vigilance, and a category should provide more information about someone than just what they happen to be at the moment. It would also make the category non-applicable to dead people, which also doesn't make much sense to me. In my opinion, the fact that someone has served time in prison and has been released does not make the fact that they were a prisoner any less significant — almost certainly the person themselves would not view it that way. (For example, it would be difficult to argue that Nelson Mandela's imprisonment did not have a profound effect on his life and that it ceased to be significant to him after his release.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:People imprisoned abroad by nationality

Have to say this is a wonder piece of legwork you've done. Bravo! --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 20:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! (— not everyone has been as enthusiastic about the categories, though. See the comments in the "Ernst Zündel" section above.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

LDS General conference

I've proposed a new article be created. Read my comment here: Talk:General_conference_(Latter_Day_Saints)#World_Conference Thanks for your help. Kristmace (talk) 09:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

cats at Rudolf Hess

Hi there, I've deleted 'Category:People convicted by international courts' from the page, because IMHO it's the parentcat of 'Category:Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment by international courts' and I don't think this article must be found in both categories. If I'm wrong please undo by hand (because in the same add I've posted {facttags). Thank you --Sebastian scha. (talk) 12:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that's fine. My mistake, probably. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Red Barn Murder

You removed a category from Red Barn Murder namely "British executions". Can I ask why. Ta. Edmund Patrick – confer 13:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's also in Category:19th century executions by the United Kingdom, which is a subcategory and more specific. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

understandable now, thanks for that. Edmund Patrick – confer 06:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Afghan, Afghani, Afghanistani

Where and when was this big debate, can I read it? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 16:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's been more of a series of discussions than one big debate. See here, here, here, here, here, and here. As you can see, it has been contentious in the past, but every time "Afghan" has been settled on. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Your recent comments on Chris Heimerdinger

GoodOlfactory, I am just posting here to give you a heads-up. I responded to your recent comments on Chris Heimerdinger's article, and just now realized that perhaps my comments might be taken as a personal attack on WP in general and on your comments in particular. I wrote the comment with a full head of steam. While I cannot and do not feel inclined to take back the words I wrote there, I wanted to let you know that I have nothing against you or WP. I am still learning the policies and getting acquainted with what is and is not permissible. And there are many things I don't understand. However, when necessary, I have backed down from a stated position, and will do so in this case if I have to. I just got a little frustrated at WP's apparent lack of concern for truth, verifiability, and accurate information, not to mention their apparent lack of concern for the feelings of those who might be affected by having such information in the public domain. Particularly since I know for a fact that what has been printed and spoken about Chris in the public domain is gossip, slander, and misinformation. It seems to me there ought to be a WP policy preventing the inclusion of that kind of information. I am explaining this to you here because I don't know what the consequences will be for the course I chose to take and the words I chose to write in my comment on that issue. It could be I may face suspension or expulsion from WP for letting my emotions run away with me. I'm telling you all this because I have always found you to be an objective editor, and I don't want you to think too ill of me even if I do face suspension or expulsion for what I've written. I hope you'll understand why I have done what I have done, and I want you to again be assured that my comments were not intended to be an attack on you, WP, or its policies. Again, because of the values I embrace, I cannot take back what I have said there. But I'm afraid it may have been misinterpreted, and I may not be able to clarify that myself depending on what happens to my editorship after what I've said is brought to the attention of the owners and operators of WP. I can't back down at this point. All I can do is sit tight and see what happens. However, I want you to know that I hold no ill will against you for your comments and hope that neither you nor WP thinks any the less of me for what I wrote. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem; I appreciate you letting me know how you feel about this. My comments there were not intended to offend you; I just wanted to point out the relationship between truth and verifiability and how they are addressed by WP:V. Since you're demonstrating concern about your comments, I don't think they will result in you getting punished or suspended — it's relatively common for editors to "lose it" once in awhile in the heat of the moment, but unless it's habitual or widespread, no punishment will likely result. The important thing is that you recognise your error and resolve to do better, which I can see you have probably already done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I do recognize that I may have come on a bit too strongly there, but I don't in any way regret what I said. I truly believe that the proposed content would be gossip, slander, and misinformation, and in my mind, WP is not the place for any of that. You didn't offend me; I understood perfectly what you were trying to say. You don't know how hard it is for me to have the whole story but not be at liberty to say anymore than the fact that the information published about Chris's legal troubles is false and one-sided. Because of this, I cannot condone or support content about this issue, nor can I ignore the fact that it is verifiable. Perhaps there's a way around all this. I would welcome your suggestions, because I respect your judgment. You seem to me to be a lot more familiar with WP policy than I am, and perhaps you could suggest what ought to be done. To recap: what's in the news about the situation is one-sided gossip, slander, and misinformation. I know the full story but am not at liberty to divulge details. I want to respect a consensus decision, but if that entails including the information, I don't know what I can do about it. Do you have any suggestions for me? If you do, I would appreciate you posting them either on the article talk page or on my talk page, rather than here. I don't habitually check other user's talk pages but did check yours because I know you like unfragmented discussions, and I wanted to see if you replied. I appreciate any feedback you have for me because I'm in a delicate position--that of not wanting to do or condone anything that might ultimate hurt Chris or cause him to be shunned in the public eye, but also not wanting to violate WP policy. Any help you can give would be appreciated. Thanks for your continued assistance, and I appreciate your kind reply to me above. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll respond further on your page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Angakkuq

I removed the category Greenlandic Inuit people as I think that it's more for individuals rather than groups. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 03:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine with me. I wondered about where to put it. It was in Category:Greenlandic people, which I knew wasn't quite right, but I made it a bit more specific with the Inuit category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

People by city in Alberta

Please do not keep the categories and do not participate in the categories Category:People from Leduc (city), Alberta and Category:People from Camrose (city), Alberta. The Leduc and Camrose categories doesn't need the word city in brackets. The categories are titled Category:Leduc, Alberta and Leduc, Alberta are also titled for the main article for an example. And the main article Camrose, Alberta is titled without using the word city in brackets and it doesn't need to disambiguate. These 2 Alberta categories has to be renamed in order to match the titles. Steam5 (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

? I've made my comments at the CfD, where I think discussion is appropriate. They don't have to be renamed; I think right now they are in the standard format for categories that are "people from foo" where foo is a city and a county, as I said there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There is also another category Category:People from Grande Prairie, Alberta but it doesn't need the word city in brackets and Category:People from Grande Prairie County, Alberta. But still do not participate in these Alberta categories. And the category still proposing for renaming. Steam5 (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It is the standard format, as I could show you with dozens of examples. As I said though, we can take the discussion to the CfD. There's little point discussing it here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I not going to repeat comments and do not support to rename Category:Leduc (city), Alberta in the near future. Steam5 (talk) 08:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Rfa thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA. The Rfa was successful with 64 Support and 1 Neutral. None of this would have happened without your support. I would also like to thank my nominator Wizardman and my sensei/co-nom bibliomaniac 1 5--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarence Skinner

GoodOlfactory, saw you removed the category "Universalists" from Clarence Skinner. Skinner was ordained as a Universalist minister prior to the merger of the Universalist and Unitarian churches in America. As such, he is properly identified as a Universalist. But he's also claimed by Unitarian Universalists as a UU. So, I've added him to the category "American Universalists" which is a more precise classification than just "Universalist" and left him also in the UU category. Thanks! -161.225.1.12 (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That was a couple of months ago, so I hardly remember it, but what you've done sounds good to me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Strawhead at Harvard

Hi Good. It appears from your user page that you attend/or attended Harvard. This post indicates that Harvard has a copy of Hannum and Mailer’s script for the play Strawhead. If possible, please copy the front page of the script and post it to Strawhead. Thanks. Bebestbe (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I attended there, but unfortunately I don't live in Boston anymore, so I don't have access to the hard-copy library anymore. I can access their electronic databases, but I don't think what you're looking for would be on there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Duane E. Couey

Regarding your article on Duane E. Couey, I have a formal picture of him, if you would be interested in adding it to the article.

Ralph.Couey@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonewall Manor (talk • contribs) 00:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Renewable energy categorization

Good Olfactory, noting your comments I have started a discussion on the organisation of this topic and you input is welcome Renewable energy discussion. GG (talk) 05:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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.