User talk:Good Olfactory/Archive 20

Greens in Alberta
Given your past participation in discussions at Talk:Alberta Greens, your thoughts on the discussion at Talk:Evergreen Party of Alberta would be welcome. Cheers. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

QNAP Systems Inc. (red-link to previously deleted page)
I wanted to create QNAP Systems Inc. which previously existed and is currently a red-link. However, before doing so, it would be helpful to understand exactly why it was deleted previously. From the red-link warning, I see that you are one of the editors who deleted it previously.

Since it seems that it was deleted two or three times, I do not want to invest time creating a page if it is going to be deleted yet again. Also since I cannot see the deleted material, it is difficult to understand why it was deleted before, although I can see the reasons. Since this is (IMHO) a notable and credible company, I am perplexed why it has been repeatedly deleted in the past. If I can understand clearly why it was deleted before, this would be helpful. Possibly, seeing the previously deleted versions would also contain helpful material to re-create this page in an acceptable format. Enquire (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Change a category
Hello. I appreciate your contributions in the categories that I created. I wanted to know how to change a category. That is, time ago, I did the "Category: Malian American", but now I would like to convert it in "Category: American people of Malian descent", for that the category is more like the other categories of Americans by ethnicity, and I do not know how. Can make do this change a non-administrator user, and if that were the case, how? I'd appreciate your help. --Isinbill (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Favor
Hi. I started an article which I knew was of questionable notability, but it's turned into a ≥50% discussion on whether I hate people who aren't Mormon. Probably the real problem is that only two people are involved which I suppose can make it seem personal. I wonder if you would mind weighing in? And perhaps advising me on whether I should just step away from the conversation? Thanks. *cc Sesmith Snocrates* Thmazing (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know
You have been mentioned at Missing Wikipedians Ottawahitech (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know. You are also a missed Wikipedian : ) - jc37 19:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Enver Hoxha
Category:Enver Hoxha, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

New Zealand civil/public servants
Please see my proposal to merge or rename Category:New Zealand civil servants, Category:New Zealand public servants & Category:New Zealand Māori civil servants. Hugo999 (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Bilateral relations of Georgia (country)
Hi Good Olfactory. I have started a CfD discussion about the subcategories of Category:Bilateral relations of Georgia (country). Currently some of them use the "(country)" disambiguator (such as Category:Georgia (country)–Israel relations) but some of them don't (such as Category:Georgia–Poland relations). I hope the debate can lead to some standardization one way or the other and since you created one of these subcategories, I'm hoping you can chime in. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Minor league baseball teams by Major League Baseball affiliation
Category:Minor league baseball teams by Major League Baseball affiliation, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Astros4477 ( talk ) 23:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

A pie for you!
Welcome back, the place wasnt the same not seeing your category contribs flash across the watch list SatuSuro 01:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You're back? Dunno how I missed that. Welcome back : ) - jc37 01:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ditto.- gadfium 01:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, guys. Kinda sorta back. Not doing much editing even now, but hopefully that can change in the future. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Welcome back. I have to say you picked a good time to take a break. I think I discovered why they call the months leading up to an American presidential election "silly season." You didn't miss out on much. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Disease-related deaths by country
Category:Disease-related deaths by country, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Dezastru (talk) 08:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

So.
So. I have been away. At what stage did the crazies take over CFD? Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (Looks at the clock on the wall), well, I started editing here in 2006, so guessing, 2005? : )
 * (This is humour obviously - And besides, I was a reader long before 2006 : )


 * Anyway, kidding aside, I dunno. Though I'm not sure specifically what you're talking about, I suppose I could guess it concerns a current discussion at WP:AN or a note you just left on someone's talk page?


 * As far as JPL, he seems a well-meaning editor, but sometimes appears to weigh opinion over existing policy at times, which has occasionally led to some contention. He and BHG have had a few arguements/disagreements, but things seem to have been worked out at least "some", in that they seem to be communicating more civilly now.


 * I've been watching things lately and have been thinking that there are a couple category-related RFCs that could be helpful in the near future, especially following up what we've seen in the last RfC concerning WP:EGRS related cats. There's also a VP discussion concerning actresses, while there are several CFDs concerning them, and then there's also the situations I noted at User:Black Falcon's talk page.


 * I'm not sure what else to note, though I have little doubt there's more crazy situations (Oh speaking of which, since you dropped a note on my talk page, you may have noticed what I was nudged into doing by AGK and Carcaroth and others (see their talk pages).


 * Did I cover what you were talking about? Or was there some other situation you mean? : ) - jc37 23:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No, you covered them well, and I was joking, at least to some extent. I'm sure no one is crazy. The discussions themselves just seem a bit loopy. The ethnicity issues are flaring up again. The actresses issue seems to be at the point of debacle, at least process-wise. It's all enough to remind me why I took an extended break. I did notice your nomination; hopefully it will go well for you. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh speaking of category-related things, check out a question by Vegaswikian at WT:CAT. He finds some of the more interesting sortkey questions, and this one has me still scratching my head : )


 * As for the rest of the wiki, there's also another "arbcom leak" discussion going on, with a motion concerning an Arbitrator. There's a LOT of stuff written, but to sift through, it seems that Jclemens made some statements on the arb mailing list that others apparently felt were inappropriate there. Elen has said she had discussed that with at least one someone outside the list, and showed at least part of an email to that person (perhaps more, but facts are still a bit hazy. I'm taking things with a grain of salt til more info is clear). So there is a motion to remove access to elen. And of course several talk pages are active in relation to the situation.


 * As for me, don't read the guides (summary) then : ) - jc37 00:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In regards to "CfD is broken", I'm pleased to be able to tell you that CfDs appearing at DRV seem to have nothing to do with the "CfD regulars" (please excuse the past use of this term, it took me a little while to work out that the CfD regulars that I observed were very poorly sterotyped into a single group).

The "CfD crazies" may be an important subgrouping to differentiate from the CfD regulars?

Anyway, GO, welcome back. I hope you enjoyed the last few months. I see you have returned with vigour (~2000 edits in two days). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I dunno, the "crazies" are fairly "regular" there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * started a couple of months ago by several editors who want and hear nothing but what they dream up daily and have no compulsion about doing or saying anything at all to get what they want. It is a daily mess.  Hmains (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been thinking that I haven't been commenting at CfD enough lately. There's been more "IWANTIT because IWANTIT" lately than I recall in the past. I'm only one Wikipedian, but maybe presenting examples of policy/guidelines/prior consensus and/or MoS related comments might be helpful? - jc37 23:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Giant "yes". That's kind of what I meant when I referred to the crazies. What I meant is many of the proposals seem much less guideline-based, and a lot more personal preference-based. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. Black falcon and Mike Selinker and others used to be good about poking me periodically about CfD. I have this bad habit of being distracted (the wiki can be a big place, and I float all over). So do not ever worry about dropping me a friendly notice of "Hey, over here" : )
 * I like friendly notices : )
 * (Hmm, I wonder if there's a userbox somewhere related to that. If not, I may be making one shortly : )
 * So with that in mind, please feel free to drop me friendly reminders that CFD could use a visit or three : )
 * And for that matter, any discussion, etc. that you think I might be interested in. - jc37 23:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Roman forums close alternative
I noticed you closed my rename nomination Ancient Roman forums as NC. (Quite right too.) However the pages I nominated as an alternative rename Category:Fora of Constantinople, Category:Fora venalia of Rome, and Category:Temples of the imperial fora are still marked as up for discussion. I realise that presenting an alternative is non-standard, I wanted the discussion to go one way or the other instead it just seemed to go round and round (I'm noticing this is a common problem on Wikipedia). I would've just removed the templates from the category pages myself, but I didn't want to step on your administrative toes.

Advice please. --Andrewaskew (talk) 03:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hm. The problem I see is that there wasn't really a consensus to choose one over the other, so I would be just as hesitant to say that there was consensus to rename the fora ones to forums. Feel free to remove the templates. Maybe the best thing to do if you want to pursue it is renominate the "fora" ones for renaming to "forums", and cite the closed discussion on November 8 as background. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I think you're right, there was no clear consensus either way. I dislike the inconsistency myself, but I wont go against the lack of consensus. I'll remove the templates now. Thanks. --Andrewaskew (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing it to my attention. And I can sympathize with your frustration over the lack of consistency. You're right that this is kind of a systemic problem in WP because of the way procedures work. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yup, "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (Not that Wikipedia is entirely a democracy, but close enough.) I still think WP is a good thing. I'm just increasingly learning to pick my fights. --Andrewaskew (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Unintentional edit war
I just removed Category:Wikipedia categories named after states of the United States from Category:California, just after you removed it. honestly, i didnt notice you had removed it, and i had forgotten i had created the category, i just innocently added it back (without knowing it had been added and removed) as part of an effort to clean up the category and its sub cats. personally, i am against this tree, but i thought if we are going to use it at all, it should begin to include more of the categories it covers. If you revert, i definitely wont touch it. I wish there was a way to discuss this weird idea that would get more editor response. no one seems to care. PS, i support the keeping of the death by disease category, and also ask: when did the crazies take over?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's just that—shouldn't it contain 50 categories, if it is to exist? It currently has 1. I believe that an appropriate epithet for the category would be "half-assed", or more correctly "1/50th assed". I'm not too fussed about the entire issue either way, and it sounds like you aren't either. Which is probably why no one has bothered to populate it. Some of the categories in that tree are helpful for category clean-up and monitoring (administrative tasks, essentially). Thanks Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Stop with the insults
Calling someone elses proposed idea for a categorory name "atrocious" is entriely uncalled for. Just because you disagree with something does not mean you should proactively go around insulting ideas.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * On WP, it's generally good form to attack the ideas and proposals you disagree with, rather than the individual editor who made them. That's what I did. The idea was atrocious (in my opinion), and I said so. I stand by the comment. It has nothing to do with it being a personal attack or an "insult". Users "insult" ideas and proposals all the time—that's the way the system works. I think you're being too sensitive and identifying yourself with your proposals. I'm not attacking you; I'm attacking the proposal. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I find the generally excellent Good Olfactory has expressed fairly extreme views on 'male actors' (IMO a logical creation, much as in ) and also closed as 'delete' a finely balanced cfd on actresses (and was the DRV considered?). And welcome back, of course. Oculi (talk) 11:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Aragonese Empire people
I have made a new proposal in the discussion of the much odder than I thought at first glance Category:Aragonese Empire people. I had not noticed initially that we do not have an article Aragonese Empire, but the article is at Crown of Aragon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Just closed way too many discussions ...
... can't breathe ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I sincerely hope you're kidding : ) - jc37 00:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I was temporarily overcome by rhetorical fumes. Whew! Gotta keep my head down. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Down? Thinking of density, I dunno, if the air would be fresher "down" than "up" : ) - jc37 00:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hot air rises. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you use automated tools, like awb?
what the header asks... - jc37 02:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, not AWB. I'm on Mac. I use hotcat, but that's about it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh ok.
 * there are two closes that I did that I have been procrastinating implementing. One because I thought a bot owner might help (no answers on talk pages concerning it), and the other, I thought rfd had a /working page (it doesn't).
 * And I think I'm too much a neophyte with awb to do them that way.
 * I started a request at BOTREQ to start an rfd/working page, but that doesn't deal with the close which needs resolving now.
 * At some point I guess I'll just have to bite the bullet and do them. The cfd one is a couple dozen changes, the rfd one is like 230 I think. - jc37 02:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes—I think I know the ones. I skipped over those ones as well simply because of size. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * , - found the links. - jc37 03:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I misread and thought you had not closed them yet. There are a couple others that are still open that may be big jobs, depending on how they are closed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nod.
 * Hmm, you have hotcat?.... (looks at the cfd closure) ...  : ) - jc37 03:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Mr. Potato Head
Category:Mr. Potato Head, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Bruce R. McConkie
Would you be willing to archive the material on Talk:Bruce R. McConkie? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No objection from me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you officially entering the pool?
So far you are the only entry. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the latter, but I've been away too long to be too confident in my hunch. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The nations in athletics
If you see SR you che see that "Dutch" are the athletes of ONE nation (Neterlannds) and "Dutch Antilles" ANOTHER nation. The athletes of Dutch Antilles are not athletes of The Netherlands, therefore they participated against them. --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but all Dutch Antillean people were of Dutch nationality. These are "by nationality" categories, not "by team" categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Here. --Kasper2006 (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't think so, what? That Dutch Antillean athletes were Dutch nationals or that the categories are "by nationality" categories? Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please, please, pleas look at this: «...the majority of the people of Puerto Rico feel pride in their nationality as "Puerto Ricans"»' (source Puerto_Rican_people). Looks like you're still the ancient times when the Netherlands Antilles, Mozambique, Puerto Rico were under the domains of the various nations, at that time who had the nationality of the ruler, now NO. --Kasper2006 (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, what passport do Puerto Ricans carry? An American one. They are American nationals. What passport did Dutch Antillean people carry? A Dutch passport. They can have pride in whatever they want, but it doesn't change the fact of their nationality at international law. You're confusing legal nationality with cultural or social nationality. A person have have both, and they are often different. A Scottish person may be a Scottish national culturally, but at international law they are only a UK national. Similarly with Dutch Antillean people—culturally, they were Dutch Antillean—they had separate sports teams, etc.—but at law they were nationals of the Netherlands. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You make a mess, confusing dual citizenship with nationality and then the passport is not to blame. See Puerto Rican citizenship - United States recognition of Puerto Rican citizenship you can read ''«... further evidencing that the Puerto Rican citizenship did not disappear when the Americans took over the island in 1898. A similar 1918 official report, this one after the Jones Act of 1917 had become law, states that the "passports...[are used to] prove a person's nationality", thus making clear that Puerto Rican citizenship and Puerto Rican nationality were one and the same.»'' --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's become clear to me that you don't know of what you speak. You're picking quotes out of Wikipedia articles out of context, and they have little to do with responding to what I have written here. Thanks anyways, Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Until someone else involved in the discussion, we could go on to infinity. ;-) --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Journals by ideology
Hi, thanks for closing this CfD. While I agree that the consensus was delete, I find this a highly undesirable result. As I explained in the CfD, this deletion leaves the subcategories of this cat orphaned. As a result, we now have the categories "Feminist journals", "Marxist journals", and "Anarchist journals", as well as the article "Objectivist periodicals" in the topcat Category:Academic journals. While for the article I can simply remove the (now inappropriate) category, things are less simple for the three mentioned categories. And while a CfD for "Anarchist journals" might perhaps be successful, I doubt that consensus could be found to delete feminist or Marxist journals. At the same time, having these categories at a par with other topcats such as "academic journals by publication frequency obviously is undesirable, too. But the "delete" closure of the CfD prevents me from grouping them in their own topcat (such as "Academic journals by ideology"). Any advice on how to handle this impossible situation is welcome. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I just closed the discussion, I don't have any great insight into what to do. I suppose users could try to nominate the (former) subcategories for deletion. If those fail, then we can go from there and may have to re-consider some sort of grouping for them under a different name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Backlog
Looks like a bit of a backlog again. I'll see what I can do for a bit : ) - jc37 10:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * K, it's my turn to be out of breath.... - jc37 12:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm finding some of these closes trickier than usual. Maybe I'm just out of practice, but I think it has something to do with the fact that there is a lot of focus now on personal preference as opposed to users making good guideline-based arguments. I'm doing my best; ultimately, though, I just close them where the consensus lies, even if I know it creates further issues (see section immediately above). Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Nod. Though counting "votes" doesn't = consensus to be sure. Several "my opinion" comments typically do not counter a policy/guideline-based rationale. Classic case of local consensus shouldn't trump a wider community consensus.


 * I really wish we could nudge commenters to get more in touch with the various naming conventions. - jc37 21:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

New categories for immigrants (emigrants) to Texas

 * On Dec 3, you created Category: Immigrants to the Republic of Texas
 * On Dec 5, Cydebot (you and Johnpacklambert) created Category:German emigrants to the Republic of Texas

Whether you use "emigrant" or "immigrant", shouldn't it be consistent? — Maile (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If the category is just named "Immigrants to FOO", then "immigrants" is appropriate. If you add an adjective before "immigrants", then you need to use "emigrants", since the adjective modifies that word, and "emigrants" means moving from somewhere. The adjective describes their nationality prior to or during their move, which is where they are from. This is the standard format of all of the categories/subcategories in the Category:Immigrants/Category:Emigrants trees. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking time to explain. — Maile (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

What?
Per Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_14. Was that a good decision given the support for it? I have vented my spleen at WP:AN. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it was. Sounds like you disagree, which is OK. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You don't think that this is a case of WP bureaucracy overriding the needs of The Readership? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No, because as I suggested I don't think that tagging the category is merely a bureaucratic hoop to jump through. It's a major way we notify interested editors that the categories are being discussed. (If you're so keen to have them nominated but cannot edit a category, why not just ask another editor if they could do it on your behalf? (This assumes that a ban on category editing does not extend to beginning CFD discussions about categories.)) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * But have you done a cost benefit analysis based on the points that I raised? CfD is where the experts in categorisation hand out (I hope!) so the need for tagging the cats is of low importance. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The last thing I want to do is process a rename that seems like a good idea, only to have numerous editors come screaming to me that they weren't notified of the discussion because the old categories weren't tagged. That's happened too many times for me to make the mistake again. The response I have received in these instances has convinced me that category tagging it central to making the CFD system work harmoniously in the greater WP system. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * But surely this one is sooo uncontroversial that any such complaints can be fobbed off as trivial. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Dunno—I have found that as soon as you state that something is uncontroversial, some user will pop up and dispute it. In this case, I don't think it's controversial to standardize the names of the subcategories, but there are several forms to choose from, I suppose. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * So instead of closing the discussion why did you not make that suggestion at the CfD? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * What suggestion? Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That you think there are several forms to choose from. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Mainly because it had been open for more than 7 days and none of the categories were tagged or listed in this nomination. Kind of stillborn, as it were. Nothing precludes another nomination being made, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Can I ask you to making a new nomination? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You can, though I may not get around to it for awhile, as I'm working through something right now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * A better idea might be for you to start the nomination listing, proposing what format you want, and then I will make sure the categories are tagged after they are listed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI: Administrators' noticeboard/Archive242, re: this CFD close. postdlf (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the direct link. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

American actresses

 * The following discussion is closed. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi Good Olfactory

Please can you explain how you came to weigh the consensus at Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 3 as "delete"?

You say that you "kept a tally of the various opinions and weighed up the strengths of the various arguments". Please can you post that assessment to clarify your reasoning?

Additionally, I note that you also closed two related discussions, on Kuwaiti actresses and Portuguese actresses as "no consensus". Both those discussions were based on a specific proposal to delete, and you closed them as "no consensus". The arguments in those 2 discussions focused more closely on deletion than the discussion on renaming, so I would be grateful if you would also explain a) how you weighed those two discussions as "no consensus", and b) whether you considered the arguments in those discussions while closing the American actresses CFD. I am very puzzled by your closure of Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October_30 as "no consensus", because the only two !votes to delete are based on blatantly invalid rationales, so I particularly look forward to your explanation of that closure. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Re: American actresses: I can, but it won't be for a bit. I'm in the middle of something, and I left my written notes on it at my work location, which I am away from right now. I can answer (a) and (b) now regarding the Kuwaiti/Porguguese actresses close, though. Re (b): no, I considered them pretty much in isolation, since they were nominated in isolation. Users need to learn not to do that, and they shouldn't expect admins to rope in all related discussions across a 2-week spread and find consistent results. Re (a), I don't regard the two votes as being based on "blatantly invalid rationales". You may disagree with them, but that doesn't mean they don't make sense to other users. They weren't invalid on their face, and in fact some based their arguments on guidelines, though they were probably interpreted differently than you would have. Past consensus was also referred to. There were 3 in favour of deletion; 3 in favour of keeping, both making decent arguments on either side. Classic no consensus. Feel free to disagree, but that's how I read it. I have noted that many, many users have been making arguments at CFD that are not particularly based on guidelines. This seems to be more common than in the past. I don't simply ignore the opinions of users that do this, however. They are given weight, though less than ones that are based more soundly on guidelines. There are also instances where users on either side of an argument cite competing (or even the same) guidelines, and basically it's just the application of them that is in dispute. It's a messy business, and I found those two discussions particularly messy and excellent examples of "no consensus". One final point: if I was leaning one way or the other away from "no consensus", I was leaning towards merging the categories to the applicable "actors" category, since the current guideline explicitly mentions that categories for actresses "is not needed". See my discussion of the "American actresses" category below for more on how I dealt with this guideline. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that reply.
 * I find your response on the Portuguese actresses very unpersuasive, so I will take that one to DRV while you prepare a reply on the others. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to persuade anyone in what I wrote. You asked questions and I answered them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I assumed that your reply was an attempt to explain why your believed that the closure was sound. Having read your explanation, and I remain unpersuaded that it is a sound closure. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said below, I'm not I'm not interested in playing out a discussion about it on this page, nor am I interested in trying to convince anyone. Yes, it was intended as an explanation, but it wasn't targeted at convincing you. I provided an explanation; let me know if there is anything else I can do. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What's going on? If you don't want to have a further discussion, I have no intention of rehashing the substance here.
 * WP:DRV says "Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page". So I asked you for an explanation, which you kindly gave. I think the gap is too big to make further discussion useful, so I told you I'd go to DRV ... and you also don't want to discuss it. So we agree to disagree.
 * When I make a closure which someone disagrees with, I hope that my explanation may persuade them my closure was sound. If not, they can go to DRV. In this case, I asked the questions of you. If they had persuaded me that your closure was sound, I would drop the matter; but they didn't. So I decided that I should take the matter to DRV, and I briefly notified you that this was my intention. Would you prefer that I simply made no comment on how how I had assessed your response? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever you prefer. It would be nice if my explanation convinces you, or someone else. But I never hold my breath for it and I don't target the individual for convincing when the inquiry comes in. Usually, if users try to discuss it at all, I find it's more of a pro forma thing—they have decided they are going to DRV regardless, and they just want to jump through the hoops and mention it on the closer's talk page so they can say they did it. That may not be what you intended—perhaps you are open to convincing—but given the vehemence which I have seen you comment on this issue in other discussions, I kind of doubt it. There is a difference, though, between justifying the close and justifying the arguments that support the result of the close. I'm not interested in the latter, which is all too often what these inquiries develop in to. If you were not going down that path, that's fine. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My stalker question move to a better talk page --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we wait for the DRV to discuss that issue? I would rather it not play out on my talk page. Please include my statement above in any DRV about the subject. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

"American actresses" CFD further explanation

 * Right, now on to Category:American actresses, as requested, which was closed as "merge to Category:American actors". The nomination started out as a proposal to rename the category to Category:American female actresses. In the end, this was not the focus of most of the discussion, but some users did comment on it. For those that did, it was fairly evenly split, with three being explicitly in favour of it, and two being explicitly opposed to it. Those in favour highlighted the fact that singer categories are named, eg, "American female singers", and the actors category should correspond. Those opposed highlighted the fact that "actress" was a commonly used word in sources and was more commonly used than "female actors". I did not see a consensus from those discussions, and in any case it was rendered somewhat moot by the consensus identified in the "merge" vs. "do not merge" debate which dominated the overall discussion.
 * On this latter issue, the "vote-count" split was not as even. There were 10 users explicitly in favour of merging the category to Category:American actors. On the other side, there were five who opposed such a merge. Clearly, those who were opposed to such a merge bore a greater onus to prove their case, given (1) what is currently explicitly written in category guidelines, and (2) past CFD consensus. Regarding (1), the relevant guideline, found at CATEGRS, states: "As another example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed ...". This guideline was referred to a number of times by those in favour of the merge, and in my view it constituted a strong, guideline-based argument. Those opposed to the merge argued that this example should not be one that is used in the guideline, arguing that gender has a specific relation to the topic of acting, and, as the guideline states, "A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic." Nevertheless, the example of an actresses category is given in the guidelines as a category that is not needed, so those opposed to the merge have a difficult argument to make. Ultimately, their arguments would be more appropriate in the context of a discussion that attempts to change the wording of the guideline. Here, the gender-specific category was created before such a change was made, which makes the argument a little more difficult to make.
 * Regarding (2), several users referred vaguely to past precedent on this issue. I was aware of such past precedents as well and for convenience can include some of them here. Categories in general that have referred to "actresses" or "male actors" or "female actors" have been deleted in the following discussions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26. Some of these go back a fair way in time, and of course many of them are tempered by this recent DRV, which opened to door to reconsideration of the issue, but nevertheless as a body they remain a persuasive piece of evidence, especially when combined with the specified guideline.
 * What the "do not merge" side countered with, in summary, was the argument that the guideline, if interpreted correctly, would not prohibit the creation of "actresses" (or "female actors") categories, given that gender does have a specific relation to the topic of acting. Some users doubted this premise on which the argument was based, but if we accept the controversial point as being true, this is a decent argument, and it was pursued at length. Ultimately, however, it is an argument better suited to an attempt to change the wording of the underlying relevant guideline. In any case, a clear majority of users who participated in the discussion were not convinced by this argument.
 * These factors led me to believe that the users in favour of merging had a much stronger argument overall. This—combined with the fact that the users who participated in the discussion favoured merging by a 2:1 margin—led me to conclude that there was a fairly robust consensus to merge the category to Category:American actors.
 * In the close, I noted that this result was different than the "no consensus" closes that had recently been completed with respect to discussions for "Kuwaiti actresses" and "Portuguese actresses", but I evaluated each of the three discussions based solely on the arguments made in each individual discussion. I could well have closed those other two discussions as "merge to the appropriate 'actors' category", but I felt that given the actual contents of the Kuwaiti and Portuguese discussions, that approach could have been viewed as inappropriate in isolation.
 * In conclusion, I noted that "This discussion does not have to be the final word on the issue", which acknowledged that those opposed to merging had made decent arguments that the guideline itself—which was a strong factor in the merge taking place—could be open to future discussion and possible amendment.
 * If the close of this discussion proceeds to DRV, please include the text of this explanation in the discussion. Thank you, — Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A lot of that is pretty much what I had feared. As I noted at the DRV in September, we have here a sort of bi-directional lockdown: the guideline sets out a general principle, and in this unique case sets out a specific ban on actress categories. So CFD closers give a lot of weight to the specific ban in the guidelines, and seem happy (as you were) to attach little weight evidence and arguments relating to the simple general principles on which those guidelines are based. That then means that any attempt to change the guidelines is stymied by reference back to the CFDs ... so we have an unbreakable circle.
 * In this particular case, there was no coherent counter-argument to the evidence that gender does have a specific relation to the topic of acting, and the closer preferred to count votes. It's long past the time when we should be able to have a coherent discussion of whether to apply the general principle of WP:CATGRS to this topic, without being bound by previous discussions. WP:CCC seems to have been set aside here, and a series of long-past and abysmally short and ill-closed discussions such as those listed at DRV are being turned into some sort of sacred text.
 * So it's back to DRV. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not an unbreakable circle at all, nor did I suggest that my (1) and (2) were "binding" or a "sacred text". I said they were robust and persuasive and guideline-based. But rather than arguing over individual categories, start a discussion about the language of the guideline. The place for that is not CFD or DRV. And no, I didn't just "count votes"—did you not read the entire posting above? Very little of it was focused on vote totals. Please spare me the cheap shots. If that's what you dish out in these discussions, then yes—I would prefer that you not comment on my explanations that are provided by request. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, perhaps I overstated my feelings immediately above. But really, it's frustrating to provide an explanation as requested, and then to have the requester mischaracterise what was written. I understand that you disagree with the close, and probably my explanation for it as well—but please do not put words in my mouth as you comment on the explanation for the close. I understand certain phrases have rhetorical value in making an argument, but no one likes his or her statements characterised in the unflattering light that the rhetorical flourishes create. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't expect you to like my comments, but I'm afraid that I do have to stand by them.
 * Attempts to have a substantive discussion on this issue have turned into a labyrinthine nightmare which has pissed me off mightily. I wanted a substantive discussion on this question, so I tried to do it by the book: I took it to DRV, and was told to either a)create a test category and reopen a CFD; and/or b) start a discussion on the guideline.
 * Neither route proves capable of providing a genuine discussion to resolve the issue. I created a test category, and waited for someone to open a CFD, but the first one which came along was Kuwaiti actresses at CfD Sept 19, which was outrageously emptied out-of-process by an admin who had participated in the discussion, and who went caught out tried to claim that this was acceptable behaviour. Meanwhile, he also emptied out the test category which I had created per CfD.
 * When I recreated the improperly-deleted test category, it was promptly CFDed, when I found that an RFC on actress categorisation had already been opened. I asked for the RFC to be allowed to run its course, but that was refused ... so we now had an RFC and a CFD.
 * Then the improperly-deleted Kuwaiti category was relisted ... so now we had an RFC and two CfDs.
 * Then, only 3 days alter, JPL opened the CFR on Category:American actresses, leaving us with an RFC, and 3 open CFDs covering exactly the same issues. This is exactly the sort of situation deprecated by WP:MULTI, because the discussion is fragmented.
 * The RFC remains open after 7 weeks, and has been delisted as an RFC, so it will provide no resolution, and has been a waste of time. So your suggestion to start a discussion on changing the guideline may be well-intentioned, but it is pointless: that door has already been closed.
 * The CFDs remained open for ages, until your heroic efforts to clear the huge backlog of open CFDs. You closed the first two as no consensus, not on the basis of the arguments in those discussions, but because of the specific text in the guideline and because of the past CFDs.  You identified no substantive policy-or-guideline-based arguments against keeping the categories, but piled on the vote count with the history and the guideline to close the first two as no-consensus ... and on the fourth of these parallel discussions, the only one which was not about whether to keep the category, you reverted to the old guideline+precedent+vote-count formula to close as "delete" ... which is now being used as a fresh precedent to delete all the other such categories.
 * I want to believe that you have done this in good faith, but the result is so procedurally appalling that I find it difficult to sustain that assumption. Out of four simultaneously open discussions on the same topic, you took the one least focused on deletion, and managed to weigh it as favouring deletion, despite it being fourth concurrent discussion on the same topic.  By your own account above you considered the 3CFDs "pretty much in isolation" from each other ... but you took account of all the previous CFDs, most of which were also nominated in isolation, many of them years ago. This absurd; if you can take into account a bunch of CFDs which go back years, even tho a DRV has encouraged relisting, then why on earth did you close the current CFDs in isolation from each other and in isolation from the RFC which was linked from one of the discussions?
 * The substance of these discussions has also been frustrating, with many editors repeatedly conflating the naming of the categories with the question of whether they should exist. I see no sign in your closure or of your explanations of any attempt to separate out the "delete" !votes based on naming, nor of any attempt to weed out the delete votes based on assertion, nor to assess the evidence presented on both sides. In fact, you even go so far as to dismiss the "keep" evidence as better suited to a discussion on the guideline, even tho the keep arguments are explicitly based on the a long-standing principles set out in that guideline. You seem entirely happy for the example in the guideline to override the principle, which is a back-to-front approach.
 * Maybe you were tired when you made the closures, working your way through the backlogs, but I note that only 2 years ago you yourself !voted to merge an actress category, so you are hardly uninvolved.
 * You have now once again closed the procedural lock, by inconsistent consideration of context and poor analysis of the discussions, on a topic in which you were WP:INVOLVED. If that was not your intention, then please revise this closure. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * PS I know that my paragraphs above are a little disjointed, but I wanted to try to jot down promptly why I am so pissed off at this failure of process. You are not the only person to have contributed to the failure of process, but your actions as closing admin have been the steps which have finally closed the procedural lock again. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to revise the closure(s). I agree that the way they were structured was a procedural nightmare. I did my best in dealing with them; I'm sorry you're not happy or satisfied. You continue to mischaracterise much of what I did; you may interpret it that way, but you are wrong. Sorry. ("I want to believe that you have done this in good faith, but the result is so procedurally appalling that I find it difficult to sustain that assumption." So, because you have issues with the procedural results, you are tempted to assume bad faith on my part? Nice. Or should I say—lame.) Anyway, I'd be quite keen to see this go to DRV, because I don't think most outside observers would have any trouble with the closes as they were done. For me, a pretty reliable indicator that I have messed up a close is when more than one user complains about it. There are lots of times one user complains about a close, but inevitably they end up being the only one who has issues. So I'll be interested to see if this fits the pattern, because no one else has approached me about it so far. Good luck! Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of the procedural horrors were a situation which would have faced any closing admin. However, others were of your own choosing, such as disregarding the breach of WP:MULTI, closing a discussion where you were WP:INVOLVED, and your decision to attach little weight to arguments and evidence based on the stable principles set out at WP:CATGRS (you preferred an example over the principle itself).
 * So DRV it is. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * All the rest aside for a moment, I'm wondering why you keep quoting WP:MULTI as if it's a requirement. It's not. Indeed, I don't believe there is anything under Talk_page_guidelines that is required, much less, sanctionable. So I'm not sure what a "breach" is supposed to be considered in that case. - jc37 07:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that it was sanctionable; but is good practice, and its failure here was a breach of good practice.
 * GO's close took a weird approach to the principle of centralising discussion, because it ignored two similar CFDs which he had just closed, and also ignored an open RFC ... but did factor in much older discussions, including one in which he had participated (supporting the action he found as closure).
 * Keeping discussions centralised ensures that all relevant points are made in one place. Where they are fragmented, it is very poor practice for a closing admin to take into account only those discussions which support the view he previously took. When we add in the evidence that he is currently WP:INVOLVED (see below), this poor practice looks less like an error, and more like deliberate selectivity. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

More evidence that you were WP:INVOLVED
Hi GO, I have just been pointed to your !vote at Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 22, where you described categs for male actors as "Simply abominable from a need and practicality standpoint", without reference to any policy or guideline.

So far as I can see, this is clear evidence that you were WP:INVOLVED and should not have closed the discussion. I was quite shocked by this; I had known of your previous involvement, but I did not expect that an experienced admin would close 3 closely related discussions only days after taking such a partisan stance on the same topic (gendered categorisation of actors).

In an earlier response above, you wrote [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Good_Olfactory&diff=526997630&oldid=526997284 This all reminds me why I went away for 5 months. You try your best; it inevitably gets shat on by someone who's not happy; you try to carry on and enjoy it like you once did, but it is tricky for me sometimes when things get treated so seriously, like they actually matter in the real world. They don't.]" You redacted all those words 18 minutes later, but I want to say that I don't think this is your best effort as an admin, by a long way. And while discussions on Wikipedia may or may not matter in the real world, I have always proceeded on the assumption that editors who work to maintain the most popular reference site on the internet should proceed on the assumption that it does matter. This is particularly the case for admins.

If I proceed to WP:DRV, I will cite this as evidence, but before doing so I would like to ask you one more time to review your closure of these 3 discussions. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This is wiki. So any of your comments here may be linked to at DRV, or any other discussion.
 * When I read the above, I really feel like I am reading: "do what I say or else..."
 * If it's appropriate to go to DRV, then go to DRV.
 * You make it sound like DRV is some sort of threat. It's merely a venue to allow the community to weigh in on a close.
 * So let the community decide. - jc37 09:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Do what I say, or else ..." ... or else what? Review the decision, or else ask the community to decide. That's all, and it's the starting point for any such appeal (on wiki or elsewhere) -- if the decision is not reviewed in a way which satisfies me, I will use the process to have it ajudicated elsewhere.
 * Indeed, as you say, DRV is a venue to allow the community to weigh in on a close. If GO prefers to have to community to weigh in on a bad close is which he was WP:INVOLVED, rather than recuse himself, then I will take it to DRV.
 * However, I would hope that a responsible admin would prefer to revisit their own actions in these circumstances, which is why I presented this evidence to him here before taking it to DRV. If he prefers a community decision, then I'll go ask for one. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I asked much the same question of GO in late Nov just above. GO has in fact been off-wiki for several months and may not have noticed the recent shift in consensus towards gendered categories for actors. (I never understood the guideline which asserts baldly that actors in particular were not to be subcatted by gender. Often when one scrutinises a specific guideline one finds it was added unilaterally by Otto4711 on no other grounds whatever.) Oculi (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone is free to take the issue to DRV at any point. I'm not sure why it's being treated like as if it's a "threat". If you're going to take it to DRV, I would like to see it taken there, and—as I've said several times now—the discussion moved there off this talk page. Seriously, what do I need to do, archive the section? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's all. If you don't want to revisit a decision even when the evidence of WP:INVOLVEDment is so stark and so recent, that's your call.
 * So DRV it is. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I revisited it several times, you just didn't like the result of it. "Revisit" is not necessarily a synonym for "change". But thank heavens it's moving on.
 * "I'm gonna take you to Burger King."
 * "OK."
 * "Are you sure you wanna go? I'll give you a chance to think about it."
 * "I'm good. Let's go."
 * "OK, but I have it on good authority that you don't like mustard."
 * "That's OK—we can go."
 * "Are you sure?"
 * "I'm sure. After you."
 * "I don't know why you are so set on going to Burger King. The proof that you don't like mustard is so stark and recent. I'll give you one more chance to change your mind and back out."
 * ... etc and ad nauseam. — Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd fold instantly if someone threatened me with Burger King. Even Arbcom would be preferable.- gadfium 03:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Remedies: and  are each placed on large fries parole for a period of one year. For the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I will never threaten anyone with Burger King. I fear that if I really lost my reason with someone I might perhaps be cruel enough to threaten them with Daniel O'Donnell, but I know that I would then have to turn myself in for crimes against humanity.
 * Anyway, we're not discussing an invite to a vendor of overpriced and over-processed fat; we're discussing a review process. The reason I had a second bite at this was my discovery of the evidence that GO was so recently WP:INVOLVED. Sadly, he seems totally unconcerned about this breach of adminship policy, but I make no apology for having given him another chance to reconsider his position before taking this further. I hope that if I had screwed up that badly, someone would do the same for me. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really want to discuss this here (see above x 4 or 5), but I don't perceive myself as being involved. I have an opinion about categorizing male actors, but I don't care one way or the other about categorizing female actors. The fact that you perceive me to be "involved" is, of course, an issue, since perception is relevant. But it's hardly fatal to the close, and I still stand behind it. So no, I'm not concerned at all about what I did from a personal standpoint. I'll leave that to the mind readers and Sherlocks among us. (By the way, BHG, I like (in a "me gusta" sort of way) how you used your last comment immediately above to get one more dig in on me by referring to me as a third-person. "Sadly [what pathos!], he seems totally unconcerned ... I hope that if I had screwed up that badly, someone would do the same for me." Hence letting me know, one last time, that in your opinion I screwed up. As if I hadn't got that message yet. Anyway, doing that is a little bit ... how shall I put it?—passive-aggressive? Or, as some might say, dickish. For not being a man, you sure do know how to act like one.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You say now that you "don't care one way or the other about categorizing female actors". But there's no need for Sherlock or mind-reading to disprove that assertion; a diff will do fine.
 * As I pointed out to you before, the record says otherwise: you voted to delete Cat:Serbian actresses.
 * It will be an interesting DRV. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Gad, man, do my threats to cack myself mean nothing to you? A quote from 2010? Hahahaha. So according to Sherlock, opinions never change; minds are static and never convinced; no one can ever change his mind and come to the conclusion that he is neutral on any issue because of the balance of competing arguments. Maybe that's how you operate (I'm starting to see much evidence for it), but if I still believed everything I believed in August 2010, I would be ashamed of myself. Some of us are open-minded enough to have changed our minds on more than a few issues. I don't hold out much hope for the "interest" of the DRV; I sense a lengthy polemic coming on, which—to be fair—is usually what DRV amounts to. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Temple garment talk page
When I saw that IP remove something from a template, I assumed it was vandalism. Upon your revert of my revert, I got to checking and discovered that the item in question was added almost a year ago - by that same IP. So I reckon he was in the right to remove it. Sorry about my confusion. :( ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That particular IP editor basically keeps the Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject running, and they frequently make changes to talk page templates on pages within the scope of the Wikiproject. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Rogereeny. Makes sense. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, IPs sometimes carry with them this inherent need for suspicion, but Ajwilley is right that this particular one is quite active and his edits are always good. I knew you meant well and wasn't upset by the confusion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Help me out
Say listen, the fact that they are apocalypticists is well sourced. Unless you can provide some source claiming that all mormans are apocalypticists making this sect not special, then you really need to leave it be. You are wearing me out man. Seriously, help me out here.Greg Bard (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are you moving the discussion here? I've made an inquiry on the talk page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * All I can do is ask. If you want to give me a hard time, then the sky's the limit for how much extra work people can cause each other. I just thought I would approach you personally. Take a look at the source, the NYT Magazine does seem to portray them as apocalyptic to me, so it seems that this issue should be over. Greg Bard (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You can ask me on an article talk page just as easily. I'm the same person commenting there as here. I have looked at the source and have commented on the talk page about it. You've added it 4 times now; I don't intend to violate 3RR. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We've both been around for a while. I've seen you make changes that appear on my watchlist that I immediately questioned, and then soon after got over it. I've done what is required, and I'm still here discussing the issue. So all that I have in my power is to ask that you "help me out." Maybe I'm just tired. Greg Bard (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just seems weird to have two parallel discussions. Whatever. Users seem to have an irresistible urge to comment on my talk page. I should just be flattered, I guess. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks
GO

In the last few hours, you have made one direct personal insult "For not being a man, you sure do know how to act like one" ... and then you twice referrred to me as male.

Those are straightforward personal abuse, and serve no part in expressing disagreement. Please redact those highly insulting comments. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy note
I have linked to this talk page there. I hope that more eyes on this may be helpful. - jc37 06:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:AN
 * Thanks. I think you did the right thing. I have no plans to engage on the matter any further, because the annoyance level was rising beyond comfortable. I was trying to shut down the discussion on my this page time and time again, to little avail. Hopefully now that I have "archived" the section, things will cool off, at least as far as my talk page is concerned. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hyper-Calvinism
You reverted an article based on believing this is an attack, as well as deleting a category. Please do you research next time... Hyper-Calvinism is not an attack title... it is a theological system, not an attack. Fred Phelps is one of the most well known in fact. ReformedArsenal (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no category tree, let alone one for  or . Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see you are creating some. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:CFDW
You lost this speedy nomination Category:Freemasons albums to Category:Freemasons (band) albums by moving categories from WP:CFDS to WP:CFDW. Could you please add it. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I did. Thanks for catching that. I have added it to the queue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Bizarre attacks because people do not understand verifiability
People seem to constantly want to attack me for removing categories from articles when there is no mention that the subject of the article fits the category. The most recent was a statement by someone on my talk page "you do not remove something that is true just because it is unsourced." As I understand it that is the basic essence of the idea of verifiability. I am not sure I am getting through to these people though. They seem to be convinced that they somehow innately know things about people without needing any sources. They have even said I am "bordering on vandalism" for applying these ideas. I am worried that if someone else does not set these people right they are going to try to force me into potential edit wars.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I know; I think this is a very common problem with categorization. All categories are supposed to be at least supported by the text of the article, and preferably supported by text in the article that is cited to a reliable source. It's hard with categories, because you can't add a "citation needed" tag like you can with an uncited statement in the text. You could refer them to the first few sentences in CAT. Another option mentioned there is if they put the category back on the article after you have removed it, just add Template:Category unsourced to the article. You do that by writing .There is no sense edit warring over it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The person still insists on persisting in repetaing his claim that I am engaging in vandalism. I think he really needs to have someone else besides me point out to him that there is nothing wrong with removing a category from a person that is not supported by the text of the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I do indeed object to blindly removing anything from an article just because it is unsourced. "If...you think the material is verifiable, it is better to try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove...it" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability). You have been removing categories from at least a dozen people for whom a moment's research would find good sources showing that they should be included. Do the research and find the source, or say a source is needed, or do nothing; don't just remove valuable information that might take time to replace. cwmacdougall 23:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * A good compromise here might be to simply use Template:Category unsourced. But what JPL has done is certainly not "vandalism", since that implies "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". It is clear this is not JPL's intent, so you should stop alleging it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry; my original claim was that the actions "bordered on vandalism", but I apologise if my language became exaggerated. Anyway, I like your suggested compromise, and I think there are other ways of indicating that a source is needed without removing information that is likely to be verifiable.  cwmacdougall 23:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I know it's easy to get carried away when having a dispute. My reading of the guideline actually seems to say that using the template is the preferred method. It doesn't directly mention removing categories not supported by article text, probably for the reason that most categories that are unsupported by text are in fact verifiable from somewhere. That said, I would think that removing controversial categories from an article—particularly a BLP—would be within the general WP guidelines on verifiability and BLPs. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that unsourced controversial information about BLP might be rightfully removed, but the dozen or so cases at hand were not controversial. Indeed I suspect that it is because it is so obvious that the individuals concerned are African-Americans that no one bothered to source the identity.  Of course it should be sourced, but it is silly to remove the category in these cases just because it isn't.  If I write "The Pope is Catholic" and neglect to put a source, you might write "source required", but you wouldn't remove the statement.  cwmacdougall 23:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that if it is uncontroversial, a template is the way to go. Or best of all, find a source. Sometimes "ethnic" categorizations can be controversial, but generally not with African Americans, I don't think. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Uncontroversial, my left foot. The articles describe the people as "American".  They never mention the people being "African-American".  It is a "known fact" because of what?  I don't know, but it is not supported by mention in the articles.  The Pope analogy is just gibberish.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, opinions can differ on whether something is controversial or not, but do you have an objection to adding the template? That would give users a chance to find a source for the ethnicity and to add it to the article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There has been massive categorization of all sorts of ethnicties without regard to any mention in the articles. Templates generally get ignored, people letting them stand a long time.  If there is no mention in the article to support the categorization I see no reason to maintain the connection.  Categorizaing people by ethnicity should only by done when there is some support for the connection.  Asking people to not place categories before there is some mention in the article is unreasonable, and there is too much unjustified categorization to go any other way.  If the templates are there, the articles will still renain in the categories.  That is just not acceptable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I find that on WP ya just have to compromise, even if it's not your preferred solution to a problem. Using a template seems like a good mid-way point between the behavior you had adopted and the behavior the other user had adopted (which you mention below). The other user has said he would accept the template being placed. As a bonus, using the template is the action that is recommended by the most relevant guideline. That would be my advice of what to do and how I would proceed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Equally frustrating is the cwmacdougall has reverted some of my edits without changing the text of the articles to include any indication that the people involved are of a given ethnicity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To give you a taste of the type of articles we are dealing with, this is one of the ones that was in Category:African-American actors, specifically Niketa Calame. "Niketa Calame (born on November 10, 1980) is an American actress who is best known as the voice of young Nala in Disney's popular animated film The Lion King (1994). She also appeared in 1993's CB4."  That is the whole text, how anyone can then categorize the person in the African-American actors cat with that text, I have no clue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably because they know more about the person than what is written in the text. It's not a recommended way for the article to be developed, I know. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * (several edit conflicts later) - If the issue is sourcing, then per WP:BLP, the cat should probably be removed, until such sourcing can be found. That said, there are ways to ask editors to help look for that sourcing, such as dropping a request on the talk page. (There's also WP:SOFIXIT, of course...)
 * If this wasn't a BLP, I'd agree with the templating, but as it is, the more stringent policy applies, I think. - jc37 00:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Niketa Calame is indeed a good example. A second on Google will show that she pretty obviously appears to be African American.  I agree that there should be a source, so add it, or say it's needed, or do nothing.  The information is verifiable and uncontroversial.   cwmacdougall 00:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My favorite WP rule-of-thumb: the moment you declare something to be "uncontroversial", there will be editors readily at hand who will disagree with that assessment. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * cwmacdougall just admitted that he will categorize someone as something because "they appear to be African-American". We categorize by ethnicity, not by race.  We cannot categorize people by what they appear to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it's certainly possible to "look like" a particular ethnicity, so I'm not sure we need to go down that road. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is just because you "look like" something, does not mean that is what you are. The fact of the matter is that Niketa Calame is the daughter of a Jamaican immigrant.  Whether she would self-describe as "African-American" I do not know, but to categorize her based on her looks is just plain not acceptable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand the point. I was just trying to help bring you together, not wedge you apart further. You both have the intent at making WP better; I think you just have different approaches, but it's nothing a little bit of compromise couldn't resolve. I know it's hard to compromise when you're convinced you are right, but it often helps smooth things over and let's everyone get on with more productive things. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * My point was not to rely on physical appearance, but simply that the category appears almost certainly right, most probably is verifiably right, in all the cases where he has removed it. Why his obsession with removing in a robotic fashion useful probably correct information? Surely the result is to damage Wikipedia? And your compromise of adding category source required is more than sufficient. cwmacdougall 00:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The only damage to wikipedia comes from placing people in categories that do not describe them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Or to remove them from categories that do, surely just as bad? cwmacdougall 01:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This is getting too much. What is with people thinking they have some special right to put articles in categories without any mention in the text that the article fits there. On the article on Denise Burse I have run into another one of these knee-jerk re-adders who insists they can place categories with no mention in the text.  At a minimum these people could do edits to the text that reflect their categories.  I have never gone after a category because the mention in the text is unsourced.  I have done the minimum of complaining about categories with no reference in the text, and then I get reverted because there is some secret stash of knowledge not included in the text that is controlling category usage.  This is all very frustrating.  All I am asking is that these people include a line in the text saying the person is African-American, but that is more work than they are willing to do.  I do not know these people are African-American, but since these other people know it so well, obviously there are sources they could include, instead of just reverting my edits for no good reason at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * JPL, I can't suggest it any other way: try using the template. If all you are "asking is that these people include a line in the text saying the person is African-American", using the template will be a good way to ask them to do just that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you have it absolutely right, and I've never seen any real fuss over the idea that if an article does not even mention the fact the category represents, then the category can and should be summarily removed. You'd think they'd just add a supporting sentence to the article. postdlf (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion is that I agree with JPL. When a fuss does develop, as here, it might be worthwhile to try a different approach. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, in the cases where people reverted my removals twice I then added mention in the lead that the person was African-American. Now someone else has come along, removed those mentions, and claimed we should not be mentioning ethnuicity in the lead.  It seems like people are proactively working to leave the articles categorized in a given way with no mention of the category in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The general example of what happens is on the Ellen Bethea article. I specifically ask that they person add some mention in the article.  They just revert my revision, so I give up and add a mention in the article.  Well then someone else comes along and says we cannot mention ethnicity in the lead and reverts my edit.  I wish there was some way to force people who remove the one place in the article that mentions some thing about the person to also change the categorization of the article.  What is clear to me is that we cannot have the article never say that Bethea is African-American and yet have her categorized as such, but this is the eventuallity that other people seem to be fighting for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I should never have listened to the advice to try something different. The only result has been even more people attacking, and people fighting both ways to keep articles in categories that do not have any in text mention.  No wonder we have thousands of cases of such, people will fight to keep the article with no mention in the text and with the mention in the categories, but the people who work to keep out mention of ethnicity in the text do nothing about it being categorized.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you tried just adding the template? That was my original advice and I'm not clear if that's been tried yet. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If the temple is added, the person is still in the category right? What good is that when people often ignore requests for sources even in articles for years.  BLP rules suggest we should not categorize people based on things not mentioned in the article, so I see no point in adding the template.  This is especially true because when I try to add mention in the article it gets shot down as not relevant.  The deebate about whether someone should be described as African-American should all be in the article, not carried off in both the article and the categories seperately.  Categories proactively say things about people, and I see no reason that we should be doing this if there is not intext support for it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose you don't know what will happen if you don't try. And the benefit is that it will probably spare you the grief you are encountering right now. You can back off and yet still do something about the issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * With the template do I add it in addition to leaving the category as is, or do I remove the current category and leave the only mention of the category within the unsourced template?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The text of the template says "This article is in the category Category:X, but no reliable sources are cited to verify its inclusion. Please help by adding references that support its inclusion, or remove the category link if none exist." So you leave it in. You have to enter the name of the category in question after the | .Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Elaine S. Dalton
I see you declined my PROD with the reason, "dunno--all the other YW general presidents have articles". Of course, your adding reliable references was a good reason to decline that PROD, but that edit summary, um, not so much. There's no guideline that YW presidents have to have articles; at least one other YW president article I looked at had a complete lack of non-LDS sources. So, yeah, to say, "Keep it because all the other ones have articles" is kinda an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument p  b  p  02:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I added a reference from a non-LDS source. PRODs can be removed for any reason. I'm not sure what the purpose of the above comment is, unless you are attempting to school me somehow. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merely to remind you that had this been AfD instead of PROD, it wouldn't have washed p  b  p  04:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was aware of what I was doing. It was more a comment on the "cherry-picked" nature of the PROD than anything. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Users colluding against me
I came across this discussion on another users page. Is this even accetable.

"Thanks. Although the Russia CfD should be a straightforward delete/merge, I suspect it may stir things up more than it need. Your point is right, though the dominance of few editors would not be problematic if they avoided pointless reformatting, kept to broadly non-contentious proposals, or had the good grace to discuss topics with specialists who edit the subjects. OWN is huge issue,and drives away genuine expertise from genuine editors. Ephebi (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Quick FYI on this whole "Johnpacklambert/OWNership" thing...I'm starting an RfC about it at User:Purplebackpack89/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Johnpacklambert. The more I persue his edits, the more disturbing it gets. Feel free to add to it and/or sign on to my edits. pbp 20:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)"

It seems like the person is trying to recruit people for a coordinated attack on my participation in wikipedia. I am trying to not get overly defensive, but the whole situation seems to involve attacking people who the person disagrees with and trying to force those who have other ideas about how things should be categorized to shut up and stop making comments.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting JPL tried to edit the RfC/U draft before it was Wikipedia-spaced, and the fact that JPL was even able to find it indicates that he's been HOUNDing my contributions. JPL, you should think about what it means if other editors are talking to each other about how much they don't care for your editing style.  Yes, I'm starting an RfC/U about you.  No, you can't edit it until it's finished, and no, it isn't about the way you view categorization; it's more about the fact that you make a multitude of edits, many of which are contentious, and that you respond very poorly to criticism (look at how you're responding now...you go on another editor's talk page and try to get him to shut me and Ephebi up).  And yes, it is not only acceptable to ask for other editor's imput in a RfC, it is required.  Please read up on WP:RFC/U, once you've finished with WP:V and WP:BURDEN  p  b  p  18:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The attempt to edit it was a due to legitimate confusion about its location. Also, the claim I "attempted to edit it" is slightly misleading.  I figured that adding comments onto a direct attack on me was logical.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You see, this just illustrates the problem. You insist that any criticism of you is an attack.  RfC/Us aren't attacks, they're a bunch of editors concerned about the editing habits of another editor.  BTW, if you were concerned about this, why are you commenting to another editor?  Why not comment to me, or comment on a community noticeboard?  p  b  p  18:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I feel what is going on amounts to a personal attack. The editor involved has been in my view consistently rude and combative.  Why he attacks my number of participations in CfD, when in the CfD on Category:American people of African-American descent he made 28 comments is slightly beyond me.  His responses to my comments and posts on my talk page have been needlessly rude and combative.  He seems to delight in the most rude ways of responding to my comments.  I try very hard not to react, but he is getting very tiresome.  The way the user phrases things, they do normally rise to the level of personal attacks.  I am not commenting to you, because you do not listen, and respond to my comments with rude phrases like "what does that have to do with the price of eggs".  After getting that response, I have no hope that you will actually consider what I have to say.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, "what does that have to do with the price of eggs?" is no more a personal attack than this meaningless thread you've started. And I said this on BrownHairedGirl's page (which he also commandeered to complain about me), but in case you missed it: I have been concerned about your activity at CfD for a month now, and it isn't just about Imperial Russia or the African-American Americans categories.  Frankly, it's about the unfortunate way you react when anybody says anything the least bit critical about you.  Take this thread, for instance...You found something that spoke ill of you, and you're complaining to mops about it before it's even been Wikipedia-spaced  p  b  p  19:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * A couple notes: an RfC/U is not a personal attack, and tracking another's edits is not HOUNDing. JPL's edit to the the draft RfC/U was in good faith, and the RfC/U (assuming it goes forward) should be an opportunity for the users to discuss their differences, so calling it "collusion" is kind of starting off on the wrong foot. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have little hope of that with the user being so quick to respond to my comments in very dismissive ways.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was trying to point out that I found the phrase mentioned above rude. I still find it a rude and dismissive way to respond to what was a good-faith comment.  The tone is rude, and I do not think it is the best way to communicate with other people.  I try not to react to such, but it is grating at best.  When I do point out that I find it a rude way to respond, my concern is not addresses, it is dismissed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

CfD Category:Non-Christian religious placenames in Britain
Hi, you closed the above category as a delete on 10th Dec. Can you direct me to the list of placenames that were to be in lieu of the category? Thanks, Ephebi (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. No such list article was created, if that's what you mean. I didn't see a consensus for creation of such an article. But if you want to know what was in the category, you can look at User:Cydebot's contributions immediately prior to 02:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — raeky  t  20:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Prisoners sentenced to death by the People&#39;s Republic of China
Category:Prisoners sentenced to death by the People&, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Prisoners and detainees of the People&#39;s Republic of China
Category:Prisoners and detainees of the People&, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment by the People&#39;s Republic of China
Category:Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment by the People&, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:People convicted of murder by the People&#39;s Republic of China
Category:People convicted of murder by the People&, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mohammed Loulichki


The article Mohammed Loulichki has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. -- Patchy1 02:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Oh that great invention they call the Google search. Pichpich (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Burials in Africa
Do you think Category:Burials in Africa should be deleted? It is the only continent specific burials category. Also, Category:Burials in Namibia should be in Category:Burials by country. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I am going to remove the Gonçalo da Silveira from Category:Burials in Africa since it it not specifically stated in the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I would think so (that it probably should be deleted). I don't think there's much utility to grouping burials by continent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you list it at CfD on my behalf. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure—can you give me the text you want me to say? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "per WP:SMALLCAT, i.e. not part of a series and only two subcategories". -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Well, the results are in, and I did surprisingly well, all things considered : )
 * Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012

I wanted to thank you for your kind words during the election.

Happy editing, and I hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 21:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * O, poopy. (The results.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Unprotection of Mormons
Hello Good Olfactory. See a request at RFPP to lift the semiprotection of Mormons. Since you have been a frequent editor of that article, you may have an opinion. If you believe that unprotection is wise, you are in a position to lift it yourself. I've been thinking of acting on this request, but am not quite there yet. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would have no objection at this stage. Whenever it has been unprotected, vandalism has been pretty common, so I'm not sure how long the unprotection can last. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You may be right about vandalism starting up now that it's unprotected, but I'm not sure how much we can learn from the history. As far as I can tell the article was created on 2 April, 2011, and indef-semi-protected on 4 April, 2011 while it was still a rough draft. Maybe we can expect levels similar to Mormonism, but maybe not. This is actually something I've been curious about for some time, so thanks for giving it a shot. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, it took less than two hours for someone to vandalize the article after it was unprotected. 72Dino (talk) 06:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just saw that and I'm feeling pretty stupid right now. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Pending changes? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing last night as I went to bed. It may be a good candidate. It certainly meets the requirement of having a "low edit rate". ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I had a look at the revision history of the article since it was unprotected on Dec 20. It looks like it got about 16 unproductive edits from IP/non-autoconfirmed users. For comparison, the Joseph Smith article got about 14, and the Mormonism article got 3 (which is unusually low in my experience). In my opinion this is borderline for semi-protection, and one could probably make arguments for or against fairly easily. It's a little below the threshold where I take articles to RPP, so maybe Pending Changes level 1 is worth a shot. I think I'll give EdJohnston a ping, and 72Dino, since he's the one who catches a lot of the vandalism. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no good-faith IP edit since 20 December, which is when the semiprotection was lifted. Unprotection should have more than a theoretical justification. If there is no IP out there who is intending to make a real contribution, let's keep it locked down. There are classes of articles (e.g. popular music) where IPs may have good information. I don't see this topic as falling in the realm of typical unregistered expertise. EdJohnston (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There have been a few good faith IP edits, though they were reverted for various reasons. This one tried to fix an apostrophe (contrary to the Manual of style though). This was a good faith attempt to clear up confusion between mainstreem Mormonism and Mormon fundamentalism, which is also covered in the article, but it introduced a slight pro-Mormon POV, and was inappropriate for the 1st paragraph. This edit seemed to push a slight anti-Mormon POV, though it still seems to be in good faith, and was technically accurate. And even though IP edits on developed articles like this are usually reverted for various reasons, sometimes there is a problem with the article that prompted the edit, which can then be identified and fixed. We also have a regular IP editor who frequently makes very constructive edits to related articles, and who has made more than one edit request on the talk page . Anyway, it doesn't matter much to me what the protection level is, and I'll be fine with whatever you decide to do. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm OK to keep it unprotected for now, seeing as there have been some anonymous good-faith edit attempts. We can definitely keep an eye on things though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Okanagan categories
Why did you delete those categories? I was in the process of expanded them. TBr and  ley  02:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * They were tagged as being empty for 4 days: WP:CSD. If they are populated, they can be re-created. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Latter Day Saint terms
Category:Latter Day Saint terms, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Lists of airline destinations
Can you clean out the template and WikiProjects out of Category:Lists of airline destinations? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I always tried to avoid any dealings over the debate as to whether or not templates belong in "regular" categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

ANI notification
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 05:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Temporary direct link for convenience: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Permanent archived link: Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive779 Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite interesting, Alansohn. I will put this into the "hoping that something will stick" folder. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it was fun while it lasted—for the less than 12 hours it was considered worth discussing. Just like old times. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI (copied from User talk:Alansohn)
In that discussion—you know the one I think—you recently stated that "Good Olfactory could have asked uninvolved admins to investigate the suspected sockpuppet in early December". The discussion is closed now, but I just wanted to let you know that I did do so shortly after my question was posted at User talk:Buck Winston. I contacted several admins via email who I thought were investigating the issue and I shared my vague suspicions. At that stage I had seen very few of Buck Winston's edits. Anyway, I also did some work for them comparing historical edits using some tools. Just thought you'd like to know that it wasn't exactly how you presented it. (Or maybe not!—Whatever!) Thanks for reading, Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether you reacted immediately after figuring out that Buck Winston was Otto4711 is not the issue. At worst, even if you had done absolutely nothing, you had committed a mere error of omission. The problem is knowing when you are a WP:INVOLVED administrator and having the wisdom to know that you should have nothing to do with a close in which you are clearly involved, an issue that other editors have raised above and which you seem to have a great deal of trouble with as I and other editors see. You might have had more of an argument if you had insisted that you hadn't realized that BW was Otto's sockpuppet, but acknowledging that you were actively involved behind the scenes in the BW/Otto sockpuppet investigation only makes the issue of being involved that much worse, and turns it into a genuine act of commission. As you have seen, other editors have already undone huge numbers of BW/Otto's edits and started undoing many of his CfDs. You could have done the same or you could have asked another admin to deal with a close, but you chose to intervene despite the clear and overwhelming stench of sockpuppetry. The fact that you and Otto have a long history together, combined with the fact that by the time you closed the second of his CfDs on December 19 it was already clear to you and the rest of the community that Otto was at work here, makes the fact that you took any action whatsoever in one of his CfDs entirely inappropriate, even if you believe that the close would have gone no other way. Hopefully, this incident will make it clear that such improprieties can only be swept under the rug for so long. Either you will stop putting yourself into situations where you are involved or you will only be emboldened and make the same mistakes again. Either way, the underlying problem will be solved. I sincerely hope that your choice will be exercising better judgment and keeping far away from situations where you are even remotely WP:INVOLVED. Just my thoughts, even though its likely that you see things differently. Alansohn (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Dunno, Alan. It's a pretty impressive 3cm molehill, as all the other users who considered the issue seemed to have realised, and your report to ANI and your text above makes it a mountain. There was nothing controversial about the CFDs. I was not "involved" in the discussions. You assume way too much about "who" knew "what" and "when". I would slap you with a trout as was suggested, but I'm quite sure you would turn it into me trivializing the plight of the tuna, or some such weirdness. If there was a live issue at play, I would really expect someone else to give your complaint some credence, but none was forthcoming, so .... (I was surprised to see you say the issue I addressed above is "not the issue", since such emphasis was made of it in the ANI discussion in question. As I said above, this starts to look like an "all of the above and let's see what sticks" approach.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Buck Winston
Unfortunately, I didn't notice this thread until after it was closed, but I thought you should know that your comment on BW's talk page precipitated my investigation and subsequent SPI report. So, a belated thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, in a twisted way that was my ultimate intent. I wanted to bring my early suspicions to multiple users' attention. I'm happy that it worked for you and for a few others I was working with directly. I suspect (though don't know for sure) that Alansohn first saw the record of my comments on Buck's talk page in your comments at Sockpuppet_investigations/Otto4711. So it's all come full circle now—and just in time for the weekend! Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Central African Republic Bush War
An article that you have been involved in editing, Central African Republic Bush War, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Keitsist (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)