User talk:Good Olfactory/Archive 13

Laurel Lodged
Hiya G O ... and happy new year!

If you have a mo, could you cast your eye at User talk:Laurel_Lodged? I have been watching this editor's category edits recently, and don't like what I have seen. (I have used permalinks in case LL's talk page is blanked or refactored)

LL's latest edits include this disruption of church categories, while earlier damage that I found in a check through past contribs include removing the Irish parent cat from Category:Irish abortion providers, which LL vigorously defended ... and removing Category:Church of Ireland dioceses from Category:Anglican dioceses.

On each occasion when I try to discuss it with LL, the response is hostile, and there seems to be no improvement ... so I am wondering what to do now. ANI? RFC/U?

Any other ideas? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been watching this page for some time now, and I have been somewhat perplexed myself with what to do about the recurring problems involving this editor. At first, I thought it was just me—I had a few issues with her manually emptying Ireland categories and weird categorizations, but now I can see the "problem circle" expanding steadily to involve other editors. The only thing I have found that works with him/her is just to bring the issues to CFD. So far there has been little if any support for her peculiar sense of categorization. However, I know that's not a solution for all situations, as with categorization of particular articles, etc. If s/he manually empties any more categories I think she needs to be blocked for being disruptive.


 * But as for the other stuff, I'm wondering too what to do too. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy
New year - (ahh weird categorisations ahh) - have a good one - rumble free hopefully SatuSuro 07:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Fox News people category
The content on the two pages is completely different: the code on the deleted category was This category contains persons currently appearing on the Fox News Channel as newsreaders, hosts, and in other capacities.

while the code on the present category is Moreover, G4 is for reposts, which this situation definitely isn't; Ser Amantio di Nicolao isn't an admin, so he would have had no access to the code of the deleted category page unless he saved it from almost four years ago. Nyttend (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The parent category may be different but the concept is identical. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Eden
Category:Eden, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Villages in Mull
Hope you don't mind, i relisted the rename. 21:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Simply south (talk) and their tree
 * Er, no, I don't mind that a discussion is relisted, but normally that is done not by removing the discussion completely from its original placement. Usually the discussion is closed and copied to the new day. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Robert S. Wood
Hi, Good Olfactory: I see you made some contributions and corrections to the page, Robert S. Wood, so I am turning to you with a larger editing/correction question. An IP Address added "peacock" tab, but I don't think it applies. Every fact in the article is verified from an outside source (many of which I tracked down and added), so I don't know how it applies. The IP user is not responding to my questions. Could I ask you as an experienced editor to take a look and decide whether you can delete the banner or explain to me how I appeal on the talk page for others to make a group decision? I thank you for your help in advance! (By the way, I hesitate to remove the banner myself, since I added such a large amount of information to it.) NearTheZoo (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Has it been removed now? I don't see it on there currently. Anyway, I think it probably doesn't need to be on there as the article stands now. The article is far better than it used to be. In the future, if you are concerned about a banner being added, the best thing is to just start a new section on the talk page and simply ask something like, "why was this banner added?", and wait for a response. If after a few days there is no response, just remove it and then in the edit summary type something like (see talk page) to direct users there if they wish to object to its removal. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Category deleted from four year-old discussion
Originally posted at User talk:Cyde:

Please undelete Category:3,000 hit club was deleted per Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_24, which was a pretty weak consensus from several years ago. If you think this should be deleted, I recommend that you restore it and post to WP:CFD. Please post any response to this on my talk. If you don't write back in a few days or decide against undeletion, I'll to to Deletion review. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought in light of the recent similar discussions that consensus was still along these lines. Ultimately, it is still arbitrary. Things like this really should go to DRV if users want to re-create something that was deleted via a formal procedure. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:The Atlantic (magazine)
Category:The Atlantic (magazine), which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Grammarians
Hi, excuse me coming to your talk page, but I have never used CFD. Seems you are a tireless and expert cat editor. Could you please have a look at Category:Grammarians of English (a category I just created with 28 inhabitants)... presumably not Category:English grammarians since some are Scottish, American and Australian. Also Category:Dutch grammarians which has nothing to do with Category:Dutch language if Radulph of Rivo (Medieval Latinist) is the only inhabitant. Also Category:Jewish grammarians, which makes sense, but what of Wilhelm Gesenius who should be in Category:Grammarians of Hebrew. Likewise Maurice Grevisse Category:Belgian grammarians and Category:Grammarians of French. Seems that most sub-categories are straightforward - but not where French/Belgian, and particularly classical languages are involved. Sorry to dump this on your plate. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mmmm. Looks like a bit of a confusing mess. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, understatement. Would it be desirable (?) to structure Grammarians by language and Grammarians by nationality as two separate category sets?In ictu oculi (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't say I know much about the area, but judging by what exists right now, what you propose would probably be a good idea. Obviously any sort of clarification would be helpful at this stage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

speedy renaming ?
Hi Good Olfactory, thank you for so much good 'focusing and cleanup' work that you do. The User:Hike efforts need a new CfD type star... The Category:People in the colonial Southwest of North American could probably benefit from a speedy renaming to drop the last "n" ? I don't know how yet, but just saw your nominating of Category:Traditional Narratives for that speedy need, and wondered if you might help? Best— Look2See1  t a l k →  22:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can do that. If you want to learn how, the template to use is at Template:Cfr-speedy. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's just a two step process: (added simply by adding People in the colonial Southwest of North America to the category text), . Then it will be renamed after 48 hours unless there is an objection to it posted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for posting the "n" - and taking the time for instructions above. I'll paste them to my talk page for reference. Appreciate your help— Look2See1  t a l k →  07:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

this one's going to take some sortin' out....
See my edit comment and change here for starters.....Category:British colonies, Category:British colonization of the Americas (Look2See's latest creation, or I think it's his haven't looked but never seen it before) and Category:British North America are all inter-related and the latter two are clear overlaps, or if the the "colonization" one survives then the British North America one sould be a subcategory....I don't really like the name of it, it was never a constituted body (until 1867 anyway, when parts of it became Canada under the British North America Act, just an appellation...the "colonization" one is derived from a series of such "colonization" articles but the title is really the subject of "colonization" as opposed to "colonies" as such...I'd be more comfortable seeing as a subcat of "British colonies" a Category:British colonies and territories in North America than the "British North America" one - partly because the former more easily includes the Thirteen Colonies etc. and the latter is more identified with Canada as such; but also because there were the Columbia District, New Caledonia, Stikine Territory etc....there was redundancy in teh adding of the "colonization" cat to the existing cats on Colony of Vancouver Island, which were already redundant....some may turn out to be "mutually nested", i.e. each other's grandparent or parent, haven't looked close, but with this new category it looks to be getting to be a tangle....Skookum1 (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is like a lot of situations I come across—someone will have created a category named after the proper name of the territory or colony or whatever—and then there will be a parallel category that is more descriptive, like "British colonization of the Americas". Often they include virtually identical materials. It probably results from two separate builders working off two different branches in the category tree. It's problematic, as is this one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Geen Ween
What's wrong with catting Geen Ween albums? Rich Farmbrough, 13:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC).


 * Well, let's look at the article Synthetic Socks. On it, you will see there is already a category there called . Ween is a band; it was formed in 1984. Gene Ween is a member of that band. I'm no expert, but I'm guessing that whoever categorized the album in this way decided that it was best to place the sole Gene Ween album in the category for Ween albums, probably because it was released in 1987, when the band Ween existed and Gene Ween was one of its members. So one category or the other needs to be added there, but not both, which you have done. I would be in favour of keeping this album with  rather than creating a one-article category. It's stuff like this that I mean when I say category creation sometimes takes some thought. You can't just mechanically spit out what a template might say. Good Ol’factory (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yah, but the article is fairly clear that this is not a Ween album, as is the navbox. It is GW project, with little DW input. Rich Farmbrough, 14:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC).


 * So why would you leave both on it? That's the point. It needs one or the other—not both. Did you see the other was there? (Personally, I would be in favour of keeping it with the other Ween albums.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If someone is looking for Geen Ween albums in a super-cat such as Category:Albums by artist they will look under G. Rich Farmbrough, 22:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC).


 * No, they will look under "W" since "Ween" is his [stage] surname and that tree is supposed to be sorted by surname. "Gene" is his [stage] given name. But again, my point is that it should be in one or the other, but not both. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Procedural request
To save CfD/CsD's please feel free to empty/delete or category redirect (preferably) album categories I create subject to the usual, under G7. I go through empty cats periodically checking and deleting. I'm also checking out (all) the albums by artist categories for more naming anomalies (not just &/and), I will let you know when that's complete. Rich Farmbrough, 22:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC).


 * I have a better idea—how about you make more of an attempt to ensure that the category name is correct before you create it? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that they are pretty much all correct now. The lack of consistency certainly doesn't help. Rich Farmbrough, 01:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC).


 * I "will find" that they are correct now? I'd better find that, since I was the one who fixed a hundred or so of 'em. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Japanese acolyte
This editor user:Jun Nijo seems to have learnt a great deal from the legendary PW. JN has cropped up a few times on my radar (and yours too to judge from their talk page) ... there is a considerable intersection between PW's obsessions and JN's. I wonder if JN is really editing from Japan. Occuli (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jn's 2nd edit was the creation of Category:Suicides by firearm in Austria on 21 Apr 09: clearly not a first-time editor. I shall see who else was creating suicides/deaths categories around then. Occuli (talk) 12:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Westfieldme is the closest I could find. PW has been a great nuisance. Occuli (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm, that is very interesting. I must say I haven't seen JN obsessively categorize religious categories, but granted I haven't monitored him too closely. All I know is that he refuses to respond to inquiries from me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The good pastor did obsessively categorise almost anything (starting from an Australian UM bishop who died in Singapore of a knife attack by a Filipino national, with categories spreading globally from his tomb in a catacomb in xxx). It would be uncharacteristically subtle of PW to adopt a Japanese avatar but I must have looked at JN 10 or so times in the last year and thought it couldn't be PW only because of the Japan thing. (No edit summaries, few replies, mainly creating and populating categories, using ips to populate. Does JN's editing follow Japan time or Ohio time?) Occuli (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

List as mentioned (first cut)

 * Take a peek at User:Rich Farmbrough/temp19. Rich Farmbrough, 15:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC).


 * Holy crap. Well, that's a nice compilation. I just wish we could have got it right the first time, but better late than never I suppose. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Holy crap indeed. Some of the first list are wrong, or, rather, need individual attention. Some on the 3rd list are wrong (eg the band is Aborted, the albums cat is, and it is obvious that will not do). I suppose the problem is that about 5% need deeper thought and 5% is quite a lot here. Occuli (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes there's more that I can do to clean the list, but not lots more. Rich Farmbrough, 01:57, 16th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Mountain Meadows Massacre

 * Hi -- You moved The Mountain Meadows Massacre to The Mountain Meadows Massacre (book), and I take your point about the variants of the phrase pointing to the incident. However, this has left lots and lots of links to the book now linking to the incident.  So, I'm going thru & fixing them.  But next time you change an article's name, please pay attention to the link-to's.  Thanks. --Lquilter (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. My apologies for not doing it immediately. It actually was on my radar, I did think of it, and I was going to do it today. I shouldn't have moved it until I was ready to move the links. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Notable stamp collections
Category:Notable stamp collections, which you deleted, is under discussion at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_14. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It was created in the midst of the discussion, which should not be done. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Incomplete CfD
A CfD discussion page was never created for Category:Martin L. Gore albums. I've removed the tag. &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 02:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember I had decided not to pursue that; I didn't know I forgot to remove the template. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Weird Tales
Glad you picked up those cats! Rich Farmbrough, 23:07, 16th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).


 * Yeah, I would have found it eventually one way or the other as I'm working through some science fiction story categories. There's a lot to go in the Weird Tales one. Thx. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to thank you for the added categories, been working on H.P. Lovecraft articles, saw you adding a bunch of categories, keep up the good work! NeilHynes - TalkEdits 19:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you the stinky sort of factory?
Because someone needs to ask, and it may as well be me. Half Shadow  02:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Maclean's -> Category:MacLean's Magazine
Saw your addition of this to Allan Fotheringham. The name-possessive by itself is a bit stark don't you think: If I'm not mistaken their DBA name/registry as MacLean's Magazine, which would seem to be a lot clearer. Does Category:Harper's similarly exist (for Harper's Magazine - hm of course there's Harper's Weekly too...)?Skookum1 (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ... And Harper's Bazaar. The article is at Maclean's which is what I followed. It's definitely a lower-case "l", I do know that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of JEL:Q
This category, first created a month, was earlier deleted without discussion, pre-empting the outcome of a broader cfd discussion. The outcome of that discussion was Rename. I request that you recreate the category. JQ (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Journal of Economic Literature, the discussion says. That category does exist, so I'm not clear what the problem is. It's Category:JEL: Q which has been deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No matter. I'm abandoning the entire project. More grief than it's worth, I'm afraid.JQ (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * ? I just don't understand your query. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Me neither. User:Arthur Rubin can perhaps explain.JQ (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I doubt another user can explain what you are thinking. I can try to resolve the issue if you just explain a little clearer what the problem is and what you want the resolution to be. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The deletion of JEL:Q never went through any discussion, and the admin who deleted it has ignored repeated requests to recreate it. It replaced a category with a long name, deleted as unwieldy, but was then deleted anyway. Now it's tangled up in bureaucracy, and User:Arthur Rubin has escalated the dispute by reverting unrelated edits of mine. As I said above, I don't see that the grief involved is justified for me, so I'm signing off altogether.JQ (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that Category:JEL: Q duplicates the other category that was renamed. If this is the case, the proper thing to do would be to nominate the existing category for a rename to Category:JEL: Q using WP:CFD. If you like, I could help you with that process. Once a category exists under one name, you can't create the same category under a different name without going through WP:CFD because doing so is a type of "content forking". I agree that WP "bureaucracy" can be frustrating at times, but part of working together collaboratively is that we need processes to help us discuss and come to consensus decisions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the offer and sorry for unloading on you, but I'm afraid I'll have to decline. I was coming back after some bruising content disputes, and thought I would make some quiet improvements to the JEL categories, which I created ages ago. Instead of being helped, or even left in peace to pursue the project, I got hit with (IMHO) totally unjustified deletions. Even if these had been done in good faith, I couldn't justify the time required to achieve such small improvements. But being wikistalked as a result was the last straw. So, I'm afraid, that's it for me and Wikipedia.JQ (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting
Intrigued by your getting into a meaty subject so to speak - incidents of sounds very judicial in its temprement - I am not sure there is an implied automatic Death project link in that one either... sigh - cheers SatuSuro 02:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The "incidents" category is a bit curious ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think anthropologically speaking the term standing alone itself assumes an on-going long term practice, that is culturally accepted usage by specific groups of people - whereas the incidents might be a short term behaviour by people who might not normally practice it - for issues like survival - or other less justifiable behaviours SatuSuro 02:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I think so. The strange thing is that it seems to be mostly populated by articles about people who are already categorized as . Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

''What should the category be called? Category:Victims of cannibalism? Category:Cannibalism victims? Something else? - that looks like a classic question for the death project talk page - but forgive the pun it is quite dead at the moment apart from a newbie - my unfortunate inroad on all of this is having Alexander pearce and related pages on my watch list - as it is close my old stamping grounds in western tasmania - where he indulged - the thing is in most cases the victim is dead first then eaten - I am honestly stumped by this one - might have to wander off into real life today and think about it - issues of (a) dead first (b) then eaten - does that preclude the remains from being a victim if'' the death was not by intent to eat? thank god I am not legally trained. - cheers for the moment SatuSuro 03:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I called it until I come up with something better. It's not prefect, because as you say—can you be a victim once you are dead?  just doesn't have the right ring to it that "Incidents of cannibalism" does; but I suppose that should be used for articles about incidents, not people. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not bad. Or . Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The last one is the least ambiguous - well done! SatuSuro 09:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC) SatuSuro 09:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

dash/hyphen re RD and other categories
Hi, please note the discussions at the Poland-Lithuania talkpage (RM) and also at MOSTALK re "growing abuse of ENDASH and EMDASH, which are drawing to at least a partial close; the decision on Poland-Lithuania should apply also to the RD articles linked on Talk:Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District and should provide the basis for, I hope, a speedy rename of the categories, rather than a CfD re-hashing all the same issues and non-issues; they were done (made dashed) by speedy CfD, contrary to what MOSDASH actually says about the use of the dash vs. hyphen, so if there's an agreement/consensus about that on an article title, or series of them, I'd hope that the laborious and testy process of a further CfD won't be necessary....in lots and lots of cases where hyphenated names have been wrongly dashed.....I'm moving and by mid-next week will be full-time back in the film biz, long hours of overtime, won't be around much. Would have liked to see various things wrapped up before a necessary hiatus, and wish also these things hadn't had to be unwrapped so I could have contributed the history articles I'd been intending upon my return, and improved various geographical articles. I have a lot of writing in political blogspace to keep up with, and my own book projects; it's much easier, needless to say, to write without being hamstrung by OR/SYNTH and NPOV and wrestling down foolish arguments and foolish contributions...as someone quipped, given once my history/geography books are out, "imagine you chagrined they'll be if they have to cite you". Not that I'd publish as Skookum1...well, mabye some of the news/politics stuff, but not the formal histories and the "Popular Geography of British Columbia", which I've considered as tome on particular BC geographic usages and what "Omineca Country", "North Coast" et al by way of region names are, since there are no extant formal sources for them, just decades of conventional and accepted usages, most of which are recognizable and understandable to British Columbians (except many Vancouverites, especially newer ones), and about things like the varying meanings of "down coast", down on the Coast", "out on the Coast" and the like, which vary depending on where teh speaker is, or is from....Anyway, lots of packing to do, just wanted to make sure I gave you a heads-up about the hyphen/dash thing, which has gotten a lot bigger than just the RM at Alberni-Clayoquot.Skookum1 (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The simple rule for categories is that they just match whatever the article uses. So the articles need to be changed before the categories can be speedied. I've said this several times now here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What I meant is "so long as they can be speedied"....given the scope and arduous nature of the P-L RM and originally the ACRD one....they were speedy-changed, erroneously as the P-L RM is working out (I've been invited by Ozob to write a short amendment to the relevant bit in ENDASH about other kinds of names than family/personal names that should be - should remain - hyphenated.Skookum1 (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Once an article name is changed to use a hyphen I will be the first to support a corresponding change to any categories that use the same name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Protection template on Mormon
Hi, the protection template on Mormon seems to have been subst or incorrectly added, would you be able to tidy it up to match the protection you added to the article? Thanks Rjwilmsi  12:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks; yeah, I must have mistakenly used subst on that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

DefunctAmericanSFMagazines template
I see you've added Template:DefunctAmericanSFMagazines to Wonder Stories; there was an intervening edit so I wasn't sure if you realized I'd removed it after your previous addition. I've started a TfD on it, in case you're interested; but in a nutshell the problem with the template is that it is very incomplete, and completing it would make it so huge as to be useless. I can't think of a better alternative than something like Template:SFMagazinesEstablishedInThe1940s and so on, but I'd be glad of any suggestions. Mike Christie (talk – library) 03:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I didn't see your previous edit, but thanks. It did look woefully incomplete to me when I first saw it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll go ahead and cut it again from Wonder Stories, then. Thanks for creating the Astonishing Stories stub, by the way; I'm working my way through the old pulp articles and will get to that one sooner or later. Mike Christie (talk – library) 04:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Princes of Brazil
Hi; "Prince Imperial of Brazil" was a title restricted to the heir apparent of the throne. "Prince of Brazil" was a title given to the other children and grandchildren of the Emperor. There was only one Prince Imperial per time; some were Princes of Brazil which were elevated to the status of Prince Imperial – some, but not all. Not also that not all Brazilian princes were Princes of Brazil.

This title must not be confused with the Portuguese title of Prince of Brazil, used until the beginning of the XIX century.

WP:EN was putting everything together, what is a mistake. Cheers. Tonyjeff (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks; I think I figured that out, but almost too late, Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Lea
Please see Talk:River Lee (England) as this was never concluded. I hope this isn't pointy. Simply south...... 16:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me to sort out the article name first and then follow its lead. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you want to close the relist? Simply south...... 20:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes; the page was moved, so there's no reason to continue it. I would just remove it completely from the Feb 2 page if I were you and change the close on the original discussion to "withdrawn and moot because article was moved to River Lea." Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I just removed the relist; hope that was OK. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And I just listed the original as withdrawn. Done and done. A bit of an unorthodox procedure, but it got the job done. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not the end of the Lea moves. See Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 2. Simply south...... 23:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

RD hyphens again
Needless to say, I'm pretty choked that an admin relisted teh Poland-Lithuania debate just when it was (finally) reached consensus=concession from the DASH fanatics, while at the same time "closing: no consensus" at Talk:Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District, which is where the Poland-Lithuania debate branched off of....I looked up when the CfD happened (June 4) about the regional districts, and note (and have commented to Black Falcon) that the nomination only talked about talking the comma-province dab, and made no mention of the substitution of dashes for hyphens in the de-dabbed names; this was undiscussed, therefore that aspect of the CfD should not have gone forward; in his comments about the Columbia-Shuswap Regional District, he claims that BCGNIS and StatsCan use the dash - this is entirely false, though perhaps unwitting on his end (wanting to see a dash, vs. a dash actually being there). Turns out the name-changes themselves were not done by RM, so are ostensibly auto-reversible as having been undiscussed and unsupported by sources, and that any RM should have proceeded from the original title (and would have failed). I understand the date-range stuff; by hyphenated names are hyphenated names, and MOS should overrule anyone's insistence that dashes are just "style" and the sources are irrelevant (which is an incredibly OR argument). MOS was already clear enough, it's clearer now...and IMO the frustrations of deadling with dunderheads in RMs and CfDs who arduously defend the indefensible changes they've done and support should not be tolerated any further. Wikipedia's job is to represent reality not change it.Skookum1 (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't tolerate any longer having to heal with hearing the opinions of all users who wish to comment on a particular issue? That seems to be somewhat contrary to one of WP's core principles ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * that's not what I meant by "not tolerating"....what I meant is not tolerating when someone obstructs a correction based on a clearly false, and misrepresentative claim, about what the facts are and in MOS-related cases, what MOS actually says. And letting speedy-decisioned changes stand when incorrectly citing MOS or the sources, either one, or CfDs such as this one which contained "torpedo" moves ("snuck beneath the surface"), and then expecting the people who know it's a mistake/mis-citation have to right lengthy CfDs or RMs with people whose interest isn't in teh subject matter, but on just being contrary and making false claims about either sources or MOS - that's what should not be tolerated. I'll look again, maybe I was even in the comma-province dab CfD and might have even said "yeah" as I thought it was only about the comma-province problem, which I'd pointed out long before; but if I was, I didn't look close, and wasn't around to see Black Falcon assert that BCGNIS and STatsCan used a dash rather than a hyphen in Columbia-Shuswap Regional District (they most certainly don't), or would have contested that, and very loudly. Tolerance is one thing, tolerance for giving equal weight to the opinions of people who don't care about the sources or those who want to use MOS to do things MOS doesn't actually say to do is another entirely. Letting unjustified and unwarranted changes stand as faits accomplis and then being obstructionist when the errors are pointed out/confronted is, instead of conceding they were in error, as is very clearly the case in many≤ many instances; lengthy RMs and CfDs and AfDs shouldn't be necessary if people did the right thing first off, and not tried to claim MOS or the sources don't say what they do, or discount the sources entirely........it's obstructionism, and OR in the sense that "that sentence doesn't mean waht it says, because I say it doesn't" and the assertion of "style" over substance.....Skookum1 (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't you talk with this with someone who can actually do something, like Black Falcon? I was not involved in the issue, so I'm not sure what I'm expected to do. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm here because that nomination only said it was for removing the comma-province dabs....it said nothing about changing hyphens to dashes, other than that one item about the CSRD. It wasn't, therefore, passed as proposed....Skookum1 (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's nice of you to post here, but I can't do anything for you. I was not the nominator in the discussion, nor did I participate in it, nor did I close the discussion. I don't see how I am involved, nor do I wish to be. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think of you as "the category guy", sorta, so if anything was here to inquire about procedure when a CfD isn't closed properly, according to its nomination, as is the case here.Skookum1 (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article name-changes were done by User:Arctic.gnome, who's in Edmonton; I've informed him of my dispute about all such changes, including Vancouver neighbourhoods similarly changed as if they weren't hyphenated names (they are) and as if they were "and" or"to" constructions (which they're not). No word back yet...no RMs were used to make these changes...which since they were really contrary to MOS/ENDASH, should be able to be reversed without RMs; once those are done it paves the way for the RD categories to follow suit back to hyphenage.Skookum1 (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. I think you are going about it correctly.
 * As for the categories, if you want immediate action, I think the first step would be to take it up with the user that closed the discussion. If you don't get what you are looking for there, there are a couple of other options. You could discuss it with the nominator: see if he would support a move back. You could renominate the categories for renaming, or you could use DRV. The latter is not great unless you think the closer actually misinterpreted the discussion itself, so a renomination might be the easiest approach in this case.
 * What I personally won't do is rename some categories out-of-process because someone asks me or it seems like a good idea. I'm not saying you were asking me to do that, I just want to get it out there. (I'm kind of a process guy, but it's only because I've seen the even worse problems (arguments, ANI reports, blocks, hard feelings that last for a long time, etc.) that can result when one editor believes (sometimes even correctly) he knows better and attempts to unilaterally change some categories out-of-process.) I'd also just restate my position that in names like this, categories almost always just follow the applicable article name, so efforts are usually best spend on changing the articles, and then the category names are very easily changed by consensus in most cases. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Cats, note
Thanks for fixing that cats at Cheng Jianping (is that what you do around here?). Also, this was amazing. Ocaasi (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hate groups
Hi! You're getting this message because at the deletion discussion for "cat:organizations designated as hate groups," you expressed support or interest in a list. I have the beginning of such a list here, and I welcome your contributions. Specific things that need work: is the list comprehensive, including all groups that have Wikipedia articles? Should we include the designating organizations' reasoning? Are there other institutions that designate hate groups whose designations should be added? Can someone help with the nitty-gritty work of referencing? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What a drama magnet - those peoples labels, why should we print them, the title needs to be something more like List of the groups the liberal activist Poverty law centre has called hate groups. Are you sure it is an encyclopedic topic? Can I write a list about who the Jewish defense league has called  ***** ****** How it it independently notable, are you actually suggesting to publish this list through wikipedia? Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Loads of reliable sources name them as an authority on hate groups. I'm pretty sure that isn't true of the Jewish Defense League. (I'm not actually sure if it's true of the ADL either, but talk page discussion seemed leaning towards wanting to include them.) You're within your rights to think that the SPLC is a "liberal activist" group, but it would be POV to name them as such in an article title. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Things only inspire drama if you let them (though I guess everything will for the inherent dramatists among us). I don't see a problem with a list article; I certainly agree that the list is notable in and of itself, judging by the amount of media the listings get. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've copy/pasted these questions to the talk page of the list (in my user space), if you're interested in contributing. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this list, clearly notable, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs)

Another
Tiramisoo sock for you: User:Lampsalot. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 06:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Technical glitch
IP reverted vandalism here, content does not match diff. I haven't a clue what's the matter. --Confession0791 talk 08:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, ... what? Should I know about this? Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're the first admin I ran across. Where should I report this? --Confession0791 talk 09:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about the technical side of WP. You could try asking at Village pump (technical); someone there could probably point you in the right direction. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The Scottish play...
Hi - there is a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland that could do with some input about categorisation if you are willing. It is not contentious, but if possible I'd like to avoid the creation of a bunch of cats followed by proposals to move them to something else. Ben  Mac  Dui  09:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

CfD
If you have a moment, can you take a look at this, as I do not think I formatted it correctly. I would appreciate it, thanks. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 04:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it was fine. I tweaked it slightly, but it probably would have worked fine as you had it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you. It looked wonky to me, but I am sure you are right.  Thanks again. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  05:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Errr.
This is extremely uncomfortable, and I don't want to pick a fight or insult you, but I don't think a number of your recent edits are achieving what you want / intend. For example, you have placed a number of companies and categories that have nothing to do with food in food-related categories. How can I draw this to your attention without being rude? Yours sincerely, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Examples? I'm considering beverages to be a type of food, since there is no corresponding eponymous category for beverage-only companies. Good Ol’factory (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I repeat, I'm finding this extremely uncomfortable. I really don't think it is at all appropriate to classify companies that only produce alcoholic beverages as "food" companies - all of these companies have never been guilty of producing "food" at any time in their histories, and some have 400 year histories. If there is no "appropriate" category, then create one. e.g. I have placed Category:Fosters Group, Category:South Australian Brewing Company and others in a new category Category:Categories named after Alcoholic beverage companies. It may not be a perfect solution, but it is a vast improvement on the situation that existed before I did so. I stress that I'm not out to pick a fight - it's just that I see a problem and I'm looking for a quick palatable-to-all solution. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk)


 * Liquids are a type of food in my world. That's why is a subcategory of . You'll also note that  has been happily sitting in the "food" companies category. But why the caps on "Alcoholic"? Good Ol’factory (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You raise several issues there, half of which I don't understand, and if I do understand the other half, then I don't agree.
 * But first, let's clarify the one I don't understand. "But why the caps on "Alcoholic"?" Sorry? What caps? Where? You've lost me.
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Category:Categories named after Alcoholic beverage companies. Good Ol’factory (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh! I was looking for something far more cryptic!! Short and boring answer: No reason - change it, with my blessing, to "alcoholic" if you prefer. (Sorry!) '-) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No, nothing cryptic. As for the other issue, beverages are just categorized as a subtype food in the category system, so if no beverage-only category exists, they can be placed in the much broader food category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be a nuisance, but it's past midnight here - I'll be back "tomorrow". Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. That was a bit nasty and pushy, not to mention rude, of you! Good night. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Wha ...? OK; I won't ask.Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oops. Sorry. (Wiki-golden-rule: Don't edit when you're tired.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ver
Thanks for sorting that. Simply south...... 15:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Native "deities", "gods", "goddesses"
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America. I posted that there rather than on Talk:CfD though I've made similar comments on the new CfR about "Native American" categories. I've been very uncomfortable with them ever since first seeing them; other than south of the Rio Grande, I suppose, perhaps a few cultures north of it, the concept of "gods" and "deities" just doesn't exist, not with the connotations it does in reference to, say, Roman, Hindu, Chinese or Egyptian religion. I don't even like seeing Coyote (mythology), as "mythology" isn't quite how I would think of the corpus of stories about him, which are "traditional lore" maybe. I posted it on NorthAmNative in the hopes of getting feedback on possible renamings of them, and because of the cultural-imposition sensitivities that that's one of the few places people are aware of said issue. Please note on the "Native American" categories that many have subcats not just for Canadian First Nations peoples but also for the Inuit, which is entirely ethnographically incorrect in the latter case and pretty much a gaffe in the former. And where the Mapuche subcategory in one case came from I suppose is because Americans tend to use "Native American" even for Central and South American peoples/cultures....which to non-USians is just wrong.Skookum1 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy? Category:Anishinaabe individuals - "people"?
Found this in Category:Native American people by tribe. Is there a reason for that variation in name, or should it be "people" like all the others?Skookum1 (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No reason that I know of. I can speedy nominate it if you like. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, please, I think it's best....though to me "individuals" is easier to comprehend than "people" because the latter often has a plural sense, i.e. the whole group, not just individuals, but it's become the standard hasn't it? Been wondering about Category:First Nations which maybe should be Category:First Nations peoples....part of the issue is that "First Nations" in CAnada is often also just an adjective, and when e.g. Spuzzum First Nation is used it means the government rather than the Spuzzum people, ethnographically-speaking.....Skookum1 (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that was probably the original rationale in using "individuals". I'm not sure about the First Nations issue; in my personal experience, I think I would expect to hear "First Nations peoples", so you may be right. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Changing Deaths in sport category entries
Hi there Good Olfactory, Is there any way a non-admin can change a whole bunch of categories? I'm thinking of Category:Deaths in sport, where it would be much better if they were, eg, Bobsledding deaths, Boxing deaths, Bullfighting deaths rather than the verbose Bobsledders killed while racing, Deaths due to injuries sustained in boxing and Bullfighters killed in the arena etc etc. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You would have to use WP:CFD to propose renaming them. No one can change them without proposing the change. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the reply. Ericoides (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a forewarning though—well, not really a forewarning, but a fore-question, I guess—I'm not sure the majority of editors would accept shortening the names. It seems to me that the longer titles are somewhat clearer in meaning, and I'm not sure users would find it acceptable to reduce the clarity of the names. I agree though that there is a problem with consistency in the category names from sport-to-sport. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had considered that. Obviously Category:Cyclists who died while racing shouldn't be changed to Cycling deaths, but Cycle-racing deaths would do. Equally Category:Racecar drivers killed while racing could happily be changed to Motor-racing deaths without loss of clarity or nuance. As I said, they are mostly a real mouthful and could/should be simplified. Establishing cross-category consistency IMO trumps absolute clarity; they are not police reports. Anyway, ta again, and I'll do it when I have time, although I don't relish working out how to do it. Ericoides (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

re Category:2010s fads and trends
What's wrong with Category:2010s fads and trends? We have a similar category for the other decades (starting with the 1920's). Is it too soon, or what? Herostratus (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing inherently wrong with it, but it was deleted because it was created by a sockpuppet of a banned user. With this particular user, he is so persistent in getting around his ban that we have to delete his new creations, whether or not they are productive or not, in an attempt to dissuade him from evading his blocks. You can re-create it if you like. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I understand. Good work, then, and sorry for bothering you. Herostratus (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Andre Dawson
I don't even recall making this change. I must have clicked on something I didn't know I was clicking on. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh. Must've accidentally hit the "rollback" button. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not the first time recently that something like that has happened. I'm on a temporary PC that has some quirks. Once I get back to my normal PC, hopefully things will get better (relatively speaking). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm getting odd popups sometimes, and when I go to close them, I might miss the X and hit a rollback link instead. That's my best guess at this point. Thanks fer listenin'. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Regional district RM closure - cats now?
Talk:Alberni-Clayoquot_Regional_District;. Meow?Skookum1 (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Mike Gold
I just ran across this article, and the infobox looked funny. So, taking a look, I realized someone used infobox spy instead of infobox writer. How do I fix that? I assume that simply replacing "spy" with "writer" is not enough, yes? ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 04:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Use Template:Infobox writer. Copy the parts on that template page in grey and paste them into the article, adding the parts that you know after the "=" sign on each line. That should work. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Righty-ho! ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 04:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If that made sense, that is ... it's a little hard to explain. If you play around with it I'm sure you can figure it out, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I got it sorted out. A lot of the fields are empty, simply because the article has very little information about him.  Perhaps, at some point in the future, someone will fill in the holes.  That person, more than likely, will not be me.  Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  05:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Books changes
You have removed Category:Books by Buckland Publications Limited from the article Send Port & Pyjamas! (here), and also Category:Books by publisher from Category:Books by Buckland Publications Limited (here). I don't see any reason for these changes; perhaps you could explain. (Please respond here.) HairyWombat 18:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's the deal: there is no article for Buckland Publications Limited. When it comes to things like categorizing by record label, book publisher, film distributor, etc., we generally don't categorize by a particular firm unless that firm has a Wikipedia article. Since this publisher only had one article in it, I just figured the category was created by a user who didn't know about these conventions. If you'd rather I nominate the category for deletion so that a formal discussion can be had, I could do that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't find the guideline which says this. Could you please point me to it. (Please respond here.) Many thanks, HairyWombat 16:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's a formal guideline that says it, but from my experience at previous discussions made by consensus, that is typically the approach that is adopted. As I said, if you'd prefer to have this particular case discussed formally, it could be done. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I see you started a discussion. I guess that's the best place for this discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

How to launch a bulk speedy-CfR?
I've got WP:CFD open and am at the part where it gives the newname template, but it doesn't say how to do bulk nominations. I'd thought the revert back to their proper names would happen on the heels of the RM on Talk:Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District so since it's been a few days and "no motion in the ocean", seems it's time to start these; or is there any point in listing them for two days? IMO they never should have been speedied to the dash, since WP:Canada and WP:BC weren't consulted - nor were actual sources. But if it has to be, it has to be; but is there a special template;procedure for bulk speedies? Or just the same across the board?Skookum1 (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No special procedure for bulk speedies—we generally just list them one-by-one. In this case I would say that it would be OK to just process 'em if you let me know where they are. Is there a category that contains all the ones that need to change? If so, I will just do them all at once. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - there are two categories, all subcats of Category:Regional districts of British Columbia, some with subcats of their RD cats as noted:
 * Category:Regional districts of the British Columbia Interior
 * Category:People from the Regional District of Bulkley–Nechako
 * Category:Populated places in the Regional District of Bulkley–Nechako
 * Category:People from the Columbia–Shuswap Regional District
 * Category:Populated places in the Columbia–Shuswap Regional District
 * Category:People from the Regional District of Fraser – Fort George (the populated places category was not changed)
 * Category:People from the Regional District of Okanagan–Similkameen
 * Category:Populated places in the Regional District of Okanagan–Similkameen
 * Category:People from the Thompson–Nicola Regional District
 * Category:Populated places in the Thompson-Nicola Regional District
 * Category:Regional districts of the British Columbia Coast
 * Category:People from the Alberni–Clayoquot Regional District
 * Category:Populated places in the Alberni–Clayoquot Regional District
 * Category:People from the Regional District of Kitimat–Stikine
 * Category:Populated places in the Regional District of Kitimat–Stikine
 * Category:People from the Skeena – Queen Charlotte Regional District
 * Category:Populated places in the Skeena – Queen Charlotte Regional District
 * Category:Populated places in the Squamish–Lillooet Regional District

Kitimat-Stikine and Squamish-Lillooet "bridge" the Coast and Interior regions, which are the two main regional divisions of British Columbia; note that the name-structure of some titles has changed due to the RM's recognition of the legal names, which are at variance in some cases with the DBA name (i.e. Foo-fum Regional District vs Regional District of Foo-fum) There remains one unchanged title, which was omitted from the RD because when I drew that up it was still hyphenated but was 'dashed' a few days before the RM was over. - Comox-Strathcona Regional District in Category:Former regional districts of British Columbia.....in my conversation with the Office of the Leg Counsel, I think she mentioned that Kootenay Boundary was actually hyphenated, despite the DBA name without it (a similar variation exists for Columbia-Shuswap). That may require a separate adjustment in future; for now it's not a dash so that will do.Skookum1 (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Starting to process (listen carefully for the loud grinding wheels of Wikipedia process) ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * These should be done; let me know if you find any I have missed. Thx. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Award

 * Thank you Mariah-Yulia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Factual error in your close
Category:British politicians convicted of fraud was created as a subcategory of Category:British politicians convicted of crimes - whose existence pre-dates the issues now at DRV. So, I'm not understanding your logic. Your close is simply likely to complicate the issue. Please undo it - otherwise we get into a real mess at DRV. I can't see any policy reason for your deleting Category:British politicians convicted of fraud which was not nominated for deletion.--Scott Mac 00:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Category:British politicians convicted of fraud was created at 01:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC). The DRV was started at 23:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC). Thus, the category was created after the DRV started. I don't see any factual error in my statement. Once the DRV closes one way or the other, the categories can be re-created (or not) and if they are re-created the DRV can be used to assist in coming to a conclusion regarding whether or not to delete them permanently. That's why I didn't empty them of their contents. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please look at the longstanding Category:British politicians convicted of crimes of which the Category:British politicians convicted of fraud was created as a subcategory. If you think Category:British politicians convicted of fraud ought to be deleted, please feel free to nominate it via XfD. It meets no speedy deletion criterion I know of.--Scott Mac 00:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am very aware of the existence of Category:British politicians convicted of crimes. That said, I stand by my close that users may not get around a CFD/DRV process by simply making the category more specific. It's entirely possible (in fact I suspect) that you were not aware that the broader category was deleted and was the subject of a DRV, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that its creation during the DRV was inappropriate. I encourage you to just be patient and wait for the DRV to end, and then things can proceed. Thx, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As I say, it was not the subject of the CFD. We can debate this at CFD if you chose to nominate it.--Scott Mac 00:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would have deleted it regardless of its CFD status because its creation represented a pre-emption of a formal process. I previously had deleted, only to have the category creator replace it with . Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to the WP:CSD applicable for this contentious deletion?--Scott Mac 00:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a permanent deletion; it's putting things on hold until a formal procedure completes itself. That's why the categories were not emptied. Do you have some sort of objection to waiting a few hours to a few days for the DRV to be closed? If you're looking for which CSD it comes under, G4 could be used. Since the category was deleted, it cannot be re-created and made simply more specific to avoid the decision made at the CFD that applied to the parent category. But really, it's more of an administrative action to make sure that the one process is completed before we venture out into dealing with subsidiary issues within the broader issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Unfortunately, if this category is deleted, then the "fraudsters" category will be replaced on certain articles (a category who use on certain articles a number of us find objectionable on BLP grounds) and the conflict will restart. This category was created (and seems to have been accepted) as a way round that. I am sure your IAR deletion was in good faith, but it will cause more trouble that it can possible solve. IAR should not be used in contentious cases. There is no CSD for contentious deletions that you call "administrative". Administrative is for uncontroversial stuff.--Scott Mac 01:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The category has not been removed from the articles, which should preclude the result you fear from happening until the DRV is closed. But if you have done what you have done with knowledge of the CFD close/DRV, I suspect it should be regarded as more serious. If the category that started this all was deleted at CFD, then I don't understand why a user with knowledge of that close who acts to make a new category with a similar but more specific isn't acting to completely subvert the result of a formal process. That's not good. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The DRV isn't about the fraudsters category. So, I'm not following this. I have no objection to the fraudsters category, only its application to people who cannot neutrally be described as such.--Scott Mac 01:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is about, which—if it existed—would be a natural parent category of . If the parent category is deleted, how can we justify creating a more specific subcategory of the same topic before the DRV is concluded. And may I ask—how you can justify coming here to ask me to restore the category, and then when I respond with an explanation and a request for you not to re-create the category until the DRV is over, you feel it is OK to just go ahead and re-create it anyway before you understand why I did what I did? What is your objection to waiting? Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already given that reply. If you want to deleted this, understand it is contentious, and nominate it through XFD. Given you have opined opposite to me on DRV, you are now abusing your admin tools. There is no applicable CSD here.--Scott Mac 01:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it is not contentious to wait. If one user refuses to be patient, that doesn't convert a non-contentious administrative action into a "contentious" one. I do love how it turns into "abuse of tools" whenever a user disagrees with an admin's action. We've gone from I made a "factual error" in my close (which I didn't) to "abuse of tools" in half an hour. If you're not going to respect what I say and acknowledge a reasonable request to wait until the DRV closes, why even bother posting here? Just ignore the CFD close and do whatever you want. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh my goodness—you are the user who started the DRV?! (I just realized this.) That kind of changes everything, and it really makes it look like you were attempting to get around the CFD result by creating another category! Jeez ... That is so not on. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the wonderful world of working with Scott :) DuncanHill (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dah! Why didn't someone tell me?! I really hate these less-than-full-disclosure conversations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

We are in dispute. A dispute over whether something is deleted or not goes to CFD. There is no applicable speedy deletion criterion here - you are misusing your tools. "Administrative" covers house keeping, deleting a populated category is not housekeeping. As I say, the proper venue for this discussion is CFD.--Scott Mac 10:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah Scott. You are a real keeper. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:British politicians convicted of fraud
Hi, could you provide me with the pre-deletion edit history of Category:British politicians convicted of fraud? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC) — Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 01:13, 11 February 2011 . . DuncanHill (talk | contribs | block) (84 bytes) (removed Category:Fraudsters; added Category:British fraudsters using HotCat)
 * 01:13, 11 February 2011 . . DuncanHill (talk | contribs | block) (76 bytes) (added Category:Fraudsters using HotCat)
 * 01:09, 11 February 2011 . . Scott MacDonald (talk | contribs | block) (52 bytes) (create as subcategory)


 * Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

ANI thread concerning you.
Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You are welcome to participate in any debate there. DuncanHill (talk) 10:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently he just incontinently cannot hold himself back. That's fine. Funny, but fine. Thx. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Athletics and Category:Female athletes
I understand your reaction here, however, Athletics is not the same as Track and field. The opening sentences of the athletics article is helpful: "Athletics is a collection of sporting events that involve competitive running, jumping, throwing, and walking. The most common types of athletics competitions are track and field, road running, cross country running, and race walking." There has been some thinking done on this topic - Talk:Athletics_(sport) - and track and field has been split off from athletics. Think of it like Category:Maleae and Category:Apples with Maleae as Athletics and Track and field as Apples. Marathon running, for example, is an athletic event, but it not a track and field event (it does not take place on a running track, nor on the "field" enclosed by the running track). Grouping marathons and other such non-track and field events under track and field is as inappropriate as grouping a pear variety under the apple category. Where there is a doubt, it is better to have an event under athletics than it would be to have it under track and field, and it is only when there is a clearly identified specific that meets the track and field descriptor should something be classed as track and field. If you have further queries about this please let me know before I continue recategorising. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 12:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Carry on. It looked like forked editing to me given past discussions on categories at CFD. But if there's going to be a parent category for which is also called "Athletics", it seems to me the name should match the name of the article, as in, since "Athletics" is an ambiguous term. (That's just a suggestion from my perspective.) Thanks for telling me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The Athletics (sport) name is a little contentious, and in discussions it appears that the name Athletics might be preferred. While articles can be named and renamed with relative ease, categories need to be more stable. As Athletics is a disambiguation to most of the articles that would appear under the main Athletics (apart from the baseball team), then that is a safer title to use. I'll carry on.  SilkTork  *YES! 21:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The main problem is that the limited meaning of undisambiguated "athletics" really is NOT understood by the majority of American readers. It's just not, and that's a fact that needs to be confronted. Most Americans read the word as being equivalent to the word "sports". If categories are named using the undisambiguated "Athletics", they will be nominated for renaming, I'm quite sure of that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've picked that up from the talkpage discussions. I am starting to put some explanatory text in the cats.  SilkTork  *YES! 23:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is the crux of the matter. The apples/pears/Maleae description is a stupendous analogue of the situation. I only wish I'd thought it up myself! The sole difference is that everyone instantly understands the topic of Maleae and its relation to apples and pears - this is not the case for Athletics, hence my push for the "(sport)" disambiguator. Category-wise, I assume Category:Athletics (track and field) will be moved to plain Category:Track and field? I think it's good to separate out the categories of athletics and track and field, seeing as we already have separate ones for the other sports classed as athletics, but I'm unsure whether the disambiguator is worth repeating in categories... SFB 20:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for this..
This template was only translated from Arabic one I noticed that these changes (abuses) made by Good Olfactory (why he removed Category:Arab Currencies) this work is not in the right way to help users and encourage them to work more in English Wikipedia...? --ترجمان05 (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)--ترجمان05 (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we don't organize economic topics by the Arab World in the English Wikipedia. We do it by country, and the countries are placed in continental categories, but we don't do it by ethnicity, or multilateral political group. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment
I think you may like to comment since you previously tagged this image for deletion. Additionally the same issue has been addressed --ARTEST4ECHO talk 14:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added a large number of the uploader’s images to another Deletion requests.. I would appreciate a comment by you.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 18:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I love how User:AnonMoos is still trying to justifies his belief that you can guess at publishing dates. I showed him he was wrong, both as a policy in general and regarding this very image.  Yet he is still being stubborn and rude.  --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 18:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Stage works by P. G. Wodehouse
I notice (quite fortuitously) that you have proposed a speedy rename this category, only a few hours after I created it. The reason why I chose "stage works" is that Wodehouse's work for the stage covers plays, revues and musicals, but none in sufficient numbers to really justify separate categories. Neither of the two pages currently included in that category are plays, they are musicals--they were, in fact, previously categorised as "Songs with lyrics by P. G. Wodehouse", which was equally inappropriate, and it was because another editor (rightly) removed one of them from that category that I created the new one. Jimmy Pitt  talk  22:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Have responded there. I don't see a problem with categorizing a stage musical as a "play". Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Conrad
I reverted your edit-- Joseph Conrad actually changed his name legally upon obtaining British citizenship; as a result, all of his writings were written and published under his legal name, Joseph Conrad, so it was not technically a pseudonym. siafu (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good to know; I see that now in the article. Thx. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

John W Bryant
Thank you for revising the piece, i was unable to find a legitimate article so i was obligated to remove. --Eidetic Man (talk) 08:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Renaming Torslandaverken to Volvo Torslanda Assembly
I am new to Wikipedia I have no idea how to do but I tried to put in a rename request to chance Torslandaverken to Volvo Torslanda Assembly. Not quite sure if I did it or not could you please verify. Nfjb (talk) 06:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:RM explains the process of proposing an article move. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

PW
Sockpuppet_investigations/Pastorwayne. Please rollback all edits once this has finished. With any luck some other socks will be revealed. Occuli (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Rrrrrrrrrolled back. It's a shame as some of it was actually productive editing, but I agree that it has come to this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, some, possibly most, was productive. But I expect it would soon deteriorate once the old confidence returned. He managed to stay off my radar for longer than usual this time. Occuli (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * user:108.75.253.96 (whom I identified in the recent checkuser report) is still editing. Please block. Occuli (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked and rolled back. I'm not sure why someone said that one was being autoblocked, because clearly it was not so. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Political office-holders in the Republic of China on Taiwan
It might look right now as a duplicate of Category:Political office-holders in Taiwan, but it will not be — please see Category talk:Politicians of the Republic of China for the underlying reasons for my creating the category. In particular, Category:Governors-General of Taiwan should be a subcategory of the Taiwan category but not of the ROC on Taiwan category. I am going to undelete the category, but if you have a good reason why you still think they are completely redundant, please let me know. --Nlu (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In particular, while the Governors-Generals category (during Japanese rule) is the only current non-overlapping category, there should be more in the future — Qing governors of Taiwan and other Japanese title-holders, for example. That's the rationale for my proposing a revision of the category structure (which I've started but won't be able to finish in a day; this is a multi-day, if not multi-week, project).  --Nlu (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, looks good now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

"The" Solomon Islands
Hi. I see you've been moving articles by adding "the" in front of "Solomon Islands". As explained on the article page of Solomon Islands, the correct usage in the country itself is to have no definite article in front of the country's name. Unless, I'm mistaken, the convention in Wikipedia has always been to respect local variations in the English language. It's not up to us to tell an English-speaking country what it's called in English, against the name it has constitutionally given itself ("We the people of Solomon Islands [...] establish the sovereign democratic State of Solomon Islands", etc...). Aridd (talk) 09:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In any case, I'm going to revert the Parliament pages for the time being. "National Parliament of Solomon Islands" is the actual name of Parliament, per the Constitution, and as you can see on Parliament's own website. Even if you feel that international usage should trump a country's self-ascribed English name, I hope you'll agree we shouldn't be changing the full English name of an institution. (For the same reason, RAMSI is "Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands", not the Solomon Islands. And that happens to be an international mission.) Aridd (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look on the talk page that you referred to, I posted my opinion there. In a nutshell, we generally follow WP:COMMONNAME, even if that differs from an "official" name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Categories for government ministers
Hi, I've noticed you frequent the WP:CFD a lot so I'm coming to you for help. Is there any chance of all the subcategories in Category:Government ministers by portfolio like for example Category:Health ministers being renamed to fit the "Health minister of X" format? In my opinion this is the format they should all have (and it seems to me that WP:NCCAT confirms this), to keep in line with the articles of respective portfolios such as Health minister, Finance minister, Justice minister (which is currently a redirect to "Justice ministry"), etc? Bear in mind that we are talking about portfolios here, not organisational forms of specific ministries, e.g. an article about a hypothetical minister for sports, health and mining would be tagged in all three portfolio categories, just like his potential predecessor who was head of the ministry of mining and sports would be tagged in two. The situation with these ministries and offices is chaotic at the moment and I'd like to tidy it up but I'm confused by the rules for umbrella nominations at WP:CFD. I thought this would be pretty uncontroversial so I tried nominating about 10 of these at WP:CFDS and spent about half an hour tagging everything, only for another editor to oppose my nominations on the grounds that the proposed renamings do not match the already chaotically named article titles. This makes no sense and it's very frustrating. I also have no idea why some "ministry of x" articles are redirects towards "ministers of x" and in other cases it is the other way around. I assumed that WP:POLITICS might have some guidelines concerning this, but it seems that the project is more or less dead so I don't know who to turn to or where to discuss this. This is driving me nuts and I'm tired of ignoring inconsistencies just because the process of fixing them seems so confusing and frustrating. I hope you'll understand. Regards.  Timbouctou  02:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi; that is frustrating when relatively straightforward speedy renames go down. I can empathize with you there. I've considered starting a formal nomination for these categories in the past—and I agree with you that they should all be "Health ministers of X" and so forth—but I have always hesitated starting the discussion. I'm afraid some users might argue that country Z calls this position the "Minister of Health and Wellness", for example, and that therefore we need to have different usages for different places. But I agree with you on the underlying principle and would support a move to standardize them.
 * There are no special rules for umbrella nominations really—you just have to tag them all with Template:Cfr and then list them under the same section in a big list at CFD. You could do a separate nomination for health ministers, a separate one for justice ministers, etc., if that is easier. It might be a good idea to just nominate one batch—say the health ministers—and see if there is consensus for the standardization you're proposing. If there is not, it would be better to find that out before you go to the bother of nominating each and every last category for ministers.
 * I'm not sure about the direction of the redirects issue—it sounds like it's pretty much arbitrary. There's probably no standard for it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Taiwanese politicians by party
Since no political parties existed under Japanese or Qing rule, all Taiwanese politicians who belonged to a party necessarily are ROC politicians — and therefore this category is already a subcategory of Category:Politicians of the Republic of China on Taiwan — which is also a subcategory of Category:Taiwanese politicians. There is no good reason that I can see why it should also be a "direct" subcategory of Category:Taiwanese politicians. --Nlu (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean, a major part of what I've been doing is to try to untangle the web of interlocking circle of categories that these Chinese/Taiwanese politician categories have become (with little logical reason to be tangled, as far as I can see). To the extent that the category tree doesn't have to become tangled again, the better.  --Nlu (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that every category that is called "FOOian politicians" has a subcategory called "FOOian politicians by party". It seems extremely strange that one would not be a subcategory of the other, given the names. I would expect users would expect to find it in both places, not in one or the other. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

deletion proposal for splinter cell novels
I know you weren't the creator, and the message doesn't (shouldn't) imply that. But you were a recent contributor, and I thought you'd like to be involved. If not, fine. I'll spare you the pointers to the other SC books articles that you recently edited. Nczempin (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I see—just trying to stir up some interest or participation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
Maybe not quite enough evidence yet, but quack quack. Valfontis (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe now: Created several "2011 in Foo" categories, removed here (with no rationale). Valfontis (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that's probably enough. If we are wrong, I'm sure we'll find out soon enough! Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I check new users who edit Lights (musician). If my suspicions are correct, this is amusing. (contribs). I'll continue to monitor. What can we do? It's fun to be good at pattern recognition, but I weary of the game. Valfontis (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR
Can you clarify the WP:3RR rule to me. For example, if myself and Bob were editing something back and forth. Say I made a change to a page that bob didn't like. Would it be my edit (1st), his revert (2nd), my reverse (3rd) and rule in force. Or is it three reverts just by me my edit, his edit, my revert, his revert, my revert, his revert, my revert (3RR). I don't want to mistakenly violate 3RRR.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 21:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have seen it interpreted both ways—some people include the first edit by you as your 1st, while some do not. (It may be purposefully ambiguous, because the point is not to mechanistically allow people to edit war three times until they get blocked—the point is to stop edit wars as soon as it becomes evident that there is disagreement between two editors.) If you want to be safe, I would include your first edit as your first "revert". That said, if you are merely adding new information and not changing any other editor's old information, I think you have a pretty strong argument that the first edit should not count as a "reversion". But many other users out there wouldn't have much sympathy for someone arguing that they reverted only three times, not four, because the first one didn't count. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well what I'm confused on is if its the number of reverts you do, or the number of reverts total. Can I revert something three time to what I want?--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 22:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To violate the 3RR, my understanding is that you have to do a 4th one. But there are two issues with this: (1) in your example above, some editors would consider your first edit where you add information to be your first, while some would exclude it from the count, and (2) some administrators will have no problem blocking someone who is doing multiple reverts even if they don't technically violate the 3RR, because the violation of 3RR is merely a way of determining that someone for sure was edit warring. If an admin thinks an edit war is going on and isn't about to stop, they may block someone before they get to their 4th revert. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I get it now. I did realize that an admin could block someone even without a 4th revert, but I just didn't want to be the guy who accidently violated 3RR.  Thanks.

Vote needed
Votes are needed on the Thomas Jefferson talk page, (1st section) Gwillhickers (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Clarification requested
I am a little confused as to why you recently deleted my comment from this page that was related to comments made in a discussion at Talk:John W. Bryant. Just speculating, I can think of a few alternative reasons why you might do this: I thought #1 could be ruled out since you haven't deleted earlier comments by other users. Any of #2–#4 are fine and if communicated to me the deletion of my comments would not result in any protest from me. If #5 is correct—and at this stage I don't think it is and hope it is not—I don't think it would be a productive way to approach a disagreement. A response to this request for clarification rather than simply deleting it will help me completely rule out any concern that you are intending #5. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It's just your normal way of archiving the page and/or you do this with all comments left here;
 * 2) You are embarrassed or upset by the comment I left and don't want other users to see them posted here;
 * 3) You agree with my comment and wish to forget the incident;
 * 4) You disagree with me but wish to withdraw from involvement in the issue being discussed at Talk:John W. Bryant and are communicating this by "wiping the slate clean";
 * 5) You wish to belittle me or my comment by deleting it.

I don't want to talk about this issue on my talkpage - your first comment was not very nice and that kind of thing is not welcome on my talkpage, this one that I have brought here also has bit of when will you stop stop beating your wife in it also. - as I have already said you are using obscure sources to add controversial contentious content that wikipedia will become the primary vehicle of. Your continued desire to add such content imo is a bad show, the person has very little note anyways. I am concerned as to the reasons you should be continually wanting to add such controversial content cited in such a way about a low notability living person. There is as you know a good faith objection from a connected ip account. I can't believe you are pressing on with this, you are an administrator and high standards are expected from you. I suggest you just leave the guy alone and move along. I will not withdraw and see it as my wikipedia editor duty to protect the living subjects of our articles. If you insist on continuing with your desire to add such sexual and drug taking claims then perhaps you should present your desired addition to the WP:BLPN for discussion and independent editors to assess. I am watching your talkpage and the article talkpage, for the time being please don't post again to my talkpage regarding this issue. Off2riorob (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * First, we need to establish some facts. #1 The sources being used are not "obscure". They are the central sources with respect to this person. #2 The information is not peripheral. Whenever John W Bryant is mentioned in a source, these issues are the subject of what is talked about. #3 The person's notability is a separate issue. If you think he is non-notable, then nominate the article for deletion. But as long as it exists, it is fair to use the sources we have, which are the ones I have proposed using. Everyone agrees with my approach except you and the IP address. You haven't presented a guideline- or policy-based reason that the sources are not reliable sources or that they should be otherwise excluded.
 * You seem to claim to have an idea about this person's relative notability and the quality of the sources, etc. But I am curious. Have you examined the relevant sources? How familiar are you with the literature on Mormon fundamentalism?
 * Finally, there is one problem with your approach that I have tried to highlight but so far you have ignored. The IP user apparently has no objection to the content of the information being proposed. His only problem is with the use of the Van Wagoner source, which says the same thing as the other sources. In that respect, you and the IP address are talking about two very different issues. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, any sources I am unable to access imo are obscure - this person is low notability. You are a mormon from that area so perhaps he is notable in you circle but the wiki is an international project. Although I am busy I am watching, I will look at the move discussion
 * If you consider anything you can't access to be obscure, that will cut out a fair percentage of the world's knowledge, I would guess. Why do you assume I am a Mormon? I am from Canada, and currently living in New Zealand, so I am not "from" the Utah/Nevada/Oregon region. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So, you deny you have any interest in this subject? Please, accept your interest.Off2riorob (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course. I don't edit subjects for which I have a conflict of interest, per WP:COI. Why are you assuming otherwise? Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * my interest here is WP:BLP thats all, the fact that you are attempting to use obscure citations ....I have told you that already, and you claim to be an uninterested passer by, at least stand up for your interest here, your denial is clearly ridiculous. Off2riorob (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What? I haven't accused you have having a conflict of interest, so you don't have to defend your participation. But do you have a problem believing other editors? What are you basing your belief/accusation on? Please clear this up. You may be confusing me with the IP user, who stated that he was one of Bryant's children. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, I have no conflict of interest apart from the protection of living people in the articles on wikipedia - any one will tell you that - your interest is undeniable - this is an obscure mormon person barely notable and you are strongly desiring to add, using obscure opinionated books, first that he is committing incest and then that he is a homo drug using gang banger - and you want to say you are not involved, please. You seem to object to anything that might protect this living person, so under such unbelievable claims, and your apparent desire to add such content, go ahead add your desired addition and we will go from there. Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I didn't say you had a conflict, so you don't need to defend yourself. Your assumption that I have a conflict of interest is quite telling as to your attitude towards other editors. I think I'll get some other eyes on your accusation. (I can only assume that you don't know what WP:COI says or don't understand it—it sounds like you think if someone has an intellectual "interest" in a topic that you think they have a "conflict of interest", but the word "interest" does not mean the same thing in these contexts.) As for the sources, I don't have much faith in your assessment of them, since you have said you have no access to them. Never mind that they are books that can found in academic libraries in New Zealand (!). I'd also appreciate it if you didn't use language like "homo drug using gang banger" on my talkpage. If you truly think that's what the sources say, well ... you are wrong. Your latest comments in this thread have filled in a lot of blanks for me, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I see you have added it anyways without regard to the objections and that is your responsibility, I am not in any hurry and will look at the issue in good time. Off2riorob (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, per the rough consensus on the talk page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Off2riorob. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Templates
Hi Good O'Factory, do you happen to know the template for these things?


 * name (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I searched all over WP and can't locate the right template. :/

Thanks. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's Template:Usercheck, as in results in . If you just want a shorter version, there are tons of options at the template page; each one adds or removes the different options. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:People from Kuwait
Would you mind providing an answer to a category question at Help Desk (Categories for Britons born outside the UK). His/her proposed Category:People from Kuwait seems to make sense, but there is no Category:People from the United States and you deleted Category:People from France. There is Category:Kuwaiti people by ethnic or national origin, which could be used for a new Category:Kuwaiti people of British descent, but that did not fit the OPs Help Desk request. At this point, I realized I had no idea as to what to answer, so I'm hoping that you can help. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest?
I am not sure if this is a WP:COI. I've made a Wikiquette review of someone today, which I considered to be fair Wikiquette_alerts. The filer User:Collect of the WQA didn't seem to like the fact that I applied scrutiny of both side and he kind of exploded. Then he stalked my contrib history and proceeded to go to an RFC/U I am involved in to make comments that obviously criticized my behaviour.

While he has the freedom of having whatever opinion he wants, there are obvious signs that he is just doing this for vendetta. Any suggestions?

For the record, I've never met this user before and he had never taken part of any discussions I've been in. — Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I always find it hard to know what to do in cases like this. Basically, it looks like he is acting like a bit of a dick, but it's difficult to say that there is anything you can do at this stage, until the stalking gets worse. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Somali literature
Hi Good Olfactory,

In this discussion about renaming the Literature of Somalia article Somali literature, Middayexpress has made reference to a series of discussions in which concensus was established about the use of "Somali" and "Somalian" in article titles. I have reservations about that concensus, so Middayexpress suggested that I contact you so that you might direct me to the appropriate discussions. Any help in this area would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of any consensus that was formed to use "Somalian" in article titles. I am aware of a discussion that we had in which it was decided to use "Somalian" in category names when the nationality is being referred to and to use "Ethnic Somali" or "Somali" when the ethnicity is being referred to. That discussion was here. I'm not aware of this being extended beyond category names, but it's possible it was somewhere and I just don't know about it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Good Olfactory,


 * Thanks for the link. As a sidenote, would you mind me using your "academic" userbox on my userpage? I think it's really funny and I identify well.


 * Neelix (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That would be fine. It's just a modified version of the other ones out there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Knopf
I thought the idea of 100% congruence between all parents and all subs had been abandoned long ago? In fact since a) the vast majority of the articles are books of the last 20 years, b) book publishing contracts are normally indefinite unless terminated, and c) the notable books here are presumably successful enough to be re-issued at intervals, it is very likely that all the articles in the category have received a Knopf edition since they were taken over in 1961 (was it). Can you point to any that have not?  As you know I think these categories should all be deleted, but pending that I really can't see the point of you keeping removing this. The category should in any case have a big note explaining all the many caveats that it involves. Johnbod (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to know the nitty-gritty details of this issue, it sounds like a question for Occuli or Vegaswikian. They haven't abandoned the close congruence approach, last I heard, and have been trying to continue implement it. I was under the impression that the guidelines generally suggested congruence should be sought, but that there was some pretty intense fighting over it at WT:CAT, which I long ago stopped following. I pretty much take the view that congruence should generally be sought and in cases like this, Template:Related category or an explanatory link does well to link the two categories rather than a parent-child relationship. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Heads up
Hey Good Olfactory. Thought you might want to be aware of this request since it involves you. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Inappropiate page move
I undid your April 11, 2010 title move to List of volcanoes in Canada because your edit summary "naming conventions specifies "of FOO" for landforms" was misleading. Not all volcanoes in Canada are landforms, especially seamounts and volcanic pipes. Seamounts are underwater features and are therefore not landforms. Volcanic pipes are underground geological features formed by eruptions of deep-origin volcanoes. In addition, every other volcano list uses "List of volcanoes in", not "List of volcanoes of". Did you even look at the list before you moved it? It included seamounts and volcanic pipes before your move.  Volcano guy  11:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My memory's not good enough or at least not detailed enough to answer your question. (Incidentally, your view of what is a "landform" is too limited. See landform, where it states that "Landform elements also include seascape and oceanic waterbody interface features such as bays, peninsulas, seas and so forth, including sub-aqueous terrain features such as submersed mountain ranges, volcanoes, and the great ocean basins." I would think that that is broad enough to include seamounts and should probably be extended to volcanic pipes. There's no reason that I can see to treat this stuff differently as compared to all other types of natural features. Of course, no one has bothered to implement the general convention, so in article space what we have is a great big mess of inconsistency across all landform lists.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The landform article is not a good source since the statement is not supported by a reliable source. According to my dictionary, "landform" refers to "a specific geomorphic feature on the surface of the earth, ranging from large-scale features such as plains, plateaus, and mountains to minor features such as hills, valleys, and alluvial fans." Seamounts are not land.  Volcano guy  16:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's disputable. To certain geologists, the seabed is as much part of the land as is a plateau. In any case, there's not really a good reason to treat natural formations on "land" one way and natural stuff under the water a different way just because they are under the water. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hyphens
Regarding category name changes, 21st-century with hyphen is the standard so far. Check out the subcategories at Category:21st-century people by nationality and Category:21st-century people, or better yet Category:People by century. -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * I know. That's why I'm nominating them for a change. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * D'oh, I just figured that out. Apologies for my mistake, and thank you for cleaning them all up! -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * No worries. Hyphens are pesky little things. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Arts & Crafts Productions
Hey Good Olfactory, I renamed the article as above. I posted a rename at the WP:Cfd. As for the categories involved, I have not yet added a Category:Arts & Crafts Productions artists. Would that help your deletion concern about the necessity of Category:Arts & Crafts? Argolin (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I moved the article back. Despite the company's "official name", I think "Arts & Crafts" would be the common name of the company, so per WP:COMMONNAME, Arts & Crafts (record label) would be appropriate. If you think it should be moved, maybe use WP:RM to get a broader opinion sample. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it would be contraversial, since there is a redirect in place for Arts & Crafts Records. Argolin (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It could be controversial because it does not reflect the WP:COMMONNAME principle. Just because there is a redirect doesn't mean it's OK for the article to be given the name of the redirect. In almost every case in proposals to move articles, the name the proposer wants to rename the article is a valid redirect to the article, but redirection is not the issue. The issue is what should the article actually be named. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, what about the name of the category? Argolin (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what the CFD is about. My proposal is that if the category exists, the name should be the same as the article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's clear that you want it renamed; no objections, but it seems odd that it is also a deletion discussion when it was not mentioned in the rational section. Back to my other question above, would adding the Category:Arts & Crafts artists help with you deletion concerns?  Argolin (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I did suggest the possibility of deletion in my rationale: "I'm not sure if we need this category, ... but if kept..." I've raised the issue but am not strongly pushing for either deletion or retention. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Care to explain this?
 If there isn't a single article in a category, there is no point in keeping it around. Name a single article that could potentially be in this category. If you cannot, why not just admit you have no idea about the topic and let it go. --dab (𒁳) 11:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Ironically, I note the last time I came to your talkpage was because of completely unreasonable attempts on your part to mass-delete perfectly valid categories. Now you are trying to protect a category that has no conceivable use ("Swiss Lutherans" was created by mistake, by people erroneously assuming that Swiss protestantism was Lutheran). Is there a connection? Or is this just a sign of persistently bad judgement without any ulterior agenda? I am asking because it is hard to tell. --dab (𒁳) 11:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, are you stupid? I see you have re-deleted Category:Germanic names even though I have pointed out to you that it did not fall under your confused and ill-advised umbrella of "fooian names". Your "fooian names" thing was assuming that "fooian" referred to an ethnicity or nationality. I have explained to you that "Germanic names" is in reference to languages, classifying the linguistic origin of names, not their use by a specific ethnicity. (viz., people called Michael have a Hebrew name, but they are, as a rule, not Hebrews). There is a full dedicated article at Germanic name. You single-handedly deleted the main category for a huge class of names for no good reason, and against better knowledge, simply because you felt you needed to throw around your weight as an admin. This is an appalling case of abuse of privileges. I do not have the patience to take your sort of armchair-bully through a full wikidrama, but I will have you know that I think your "contributions" are detrimental not just to the project but also to the community spirit. --dab (𒁳) 11:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The proper procedure when a category is empty is to wait 4 days, then tag it as an empty category. This gives editors a chance to re-populate it, if possible. And yes—yes, I am stupid—if by stupid you mean that I know that the battles of Lexington and Concord occurred in New Hampshire. Ha! Just a little "Bachmann" humor for you there. Seriously though, you're a riot. Welcome to the museum. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Question
I would like to ask you a question about proper "protocol". Since I don't want to be accused of doing something that is improper and you are not really involved in “Commons” stuff, I thought I would ask you.

I have listed a number of images for deletion on Commons. The debate has been opened for over a month and the discussion as gone round and round again. It is clear that nothing "new" is going to be discusses. Therefore, I would like to ask two administrators who have closed debates under the exact same "Reasons for Deletion" circumstances to make a decision, but I'm concerned that, a. This is improper, and b. It will prevent those two administrators from acting as an administrator simple because I asked them to decide.

Can you tell me what you think?--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 16:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's probably OK to ask an admin to close a discussion, as long as you word your request neutrally. Don't suggest that you would like to have them close it in any particular way, just say something like, "Hi, this discussion I started has been open for a long time now; would you be able to close it sometime?" An individual administrator might be hesitant to respond to such a request, but I think most would probably be OK with that kind of approach, especially if there is a shortage of admins closing discussions at commons. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, That is what I thought, but you never quite know, and I didn't want to break some polocy.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 16:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Race
Thanks for pointing out the SWK quote. I thought I read through everything in the document and couldn't find anything about race. —Eustress talk 22:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. However, I think the inclusion of that sentence might be original research, so it might need to be removed in any case. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Fergie category
I noticed in my watchlist that the recent category I created had been tagged for renaming. Since I'm the creator of the "Fergie" category, it's primary editor, and I agree with your proposed rename, can the CfD be speedily closed if I fix this now? I don't work in the category area, so I thought I'd ask you first before doing anything. Thanks. Acalamari 10:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suppose if you make the change now, you can just do it and note at the CFD that you did it, and then it could be closed. If you are the sole editor and no one has objected to the rename proposal, there's nothing wrong with that I think. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition, I've been creating books, and one thing that was mentioned to me when I asked for advice on them was to create a parent category (which is how "Category:Fergie" got created). Some categories I that I was planning to create had already been deleted, such as Category:Hilary Duff and Category:Carrie Underwood, though their deletions were years ago. How do I go about re-creating them? Do I go to DRV, or can they be re-created due to the time passed and more articles to populate them with? Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks! Acalamari 22:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If it was years ago, you're probably OK to re-create it if there is enough to go in it. A lot has changed over the years. If it was within the last 18 months, I might think more carefully about it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've dealt with the category change, but I'll let someone else close the CfD itself. As for re-creating categories, yes, the deleted categories I've so far come across were last deleted well over 2 1/2 years ago. Thanks again. Best. Acalamari 11:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Georgian escapees
Category:Georgian escapees, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. Mike Selinker (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Benny Sela
Just out of curiosity - how do you know about him? (I've seen what you worte in his TalkPage). Have you been to Israel or something?93.172.250.185 (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The BBC World News Service. (I have been to Israel but it was years ago.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
At Mae Taylor Nystrom, as its creator, I'm guessing you watch the page with how fast you showed up. If I'd checked and realized you were on, I'd have just come to you; I didn't think to do that with its creation date and most recent change, though I've seen your username many times before. Thanks for the years of work and help. I think it looks a lot better now. I just hate leaving things that make no sense to me; according to Lewis Black, that's what causes aneurisms. :D Dru of Id (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem; it's good that you caught this typo on the year, as you were right that it didn't make very good sense of the life timeline. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for "cleaning up the lead" in my very-recent edits to Temple Lot. Obviously, I (we) wish to add more information, but we appreciate modification by experienced Wikipedians. Community of Christ (talk) 08:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Reformation Historians
Thanks for deleting this page. Gamonetus (talk) 11:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Fraternity and sorority templates
I've been working on adding categories to the appropriate templates. The category has 75 templates and 2 subcategories in it. Almost enough to think about subcategories. :) Naraht (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would hesitate to create subcategories unless they are ones that correspond to regular categories. For instance, I wouldn't say we need a category to group fraternity and sorority presidents templates because there is no category for . Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the fraternity and sorority president templates each include some links to people who have served as president, that the category mentioned would be able to be made.Naraht (talk) 09:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe. I'm not sure that would be considered a defining characteristic for some of those linked-to. To me, a template seems a safer course. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:College fraternity founders already existed before this whole thing started. :) Naraht (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for category work
Thanks for your recent work on LDS categories! That's the part I hate the most, but they are always such a mess. CO GDEN  08:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I still need to work on manually adding a bunch of them to articles so we can take away the automatic application from the templates, which is an annoying task. Some lazy user created categories using that method, but it's generally a bad idea I think. There's a little bit more to do. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"Districts" -> "Electoral districts"
Please note my edit comment here and apply across the board; "Districts" has particular contexts in BC; when a riding is meant, either that word or "electoral district" is used to refer to it, given the number and range of possible kinds of "districts" in BC; "district" primarily means a district municipality, and is rarely used to refer to a riding; even if an "MLA comes from a district" that can easily mean as "from the region of" (and is more likely to). Also the the Category:Government of the Northwest Territories, are the councils I saw you add that to aprt of the actual Government of the Northwest Territories, or are they more municipal or tribal in essence and then would be "governments in the Northwest Territories"?Skookum1 (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The piping issue is minor; I'm not too concerned about how they are piped. As for the other—"Government of the Northwest Territories" can be a collective noun. But "Government" is also a verb, as in "the Northwest Territories is being governed". They are part of the system that governs the Northwest Territories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then again, if that's too weird, the articles can just be moved out of the category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

StateestcatBC
Hi, I merged this template with Stateestcat, now called State est cat. The new template now allows for both AD and BC dates, using negative years. It also handles both established and disestablished categories by checking the page name. I had my bot switch all uses from to, which I hope is agreeable. Would it be alright to delete now? I am also thinking of making the core part of this template even more general by creating a template, which could be used by the "Musical groups established in YYYY" series, but that is further down the road. I can revert or modify what I have done if there is a problem. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Jewish American businesspeople
You had deleted the category a while back. I believe that it should be restored for two reasons. For one, many other Jewish occupations, including some with a lower population of pages, have their own categories. For two, this discussion indicates that it and several other related categories originally deleted in error or without consensus, and I can find no record of a proper CfD discussion on the topic (the deletion rationale links to the category itself, not a CfD or other discussion). If you think that this matter should be resolved by a DR or an undeletion request, or if I should just be BOLD and create it myself, please say so  Pur ple  back pack 89    23:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)