User talk:Good Olfactory/Archive 24

Edit Counts
Hi, Good Ol’factory I do not suffer from Editcountitis but I was looking at your edit profile (more curious about %s than #s) and was astounded that you had 437,232 edits over about 5 years. This is amazing! Are there tools you utilize or areas of editing you focus on? I know you're active in CfD but you also must be working on vandalism rollbacks, too, to accumulate that many edits. I guess I should say that this edit count total is nothing I am aiming for myself, I'm just curious about how Wikipedia works and the habits of particularly prolific Editors/Admins. :-) Liz  Read! Talk! 13:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit surprised by that too. I've done a bit of a lot of things in the five years—quite a bit of categorization, a fair number of garden-variety article edits, lots of CFD, especially minor speedy renamings, and yes, some vandalism rollbacks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:New Zealand people of Yugoslav descent
Category:New Zealand people of Yugoslav descent, 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. Dwpaul (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

LDS cats
Hi. Some of your new LDS cat assignments aren't making sense to me. You have George W. Romney in both Category:American leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Category:Mexican leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But he left Mexico at the age of five and was never the leader of anything there, only in the U.S. And you have Harold A. Lafount under Category:British leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints only. He left England at the age of 13 and was an LDS leader in America, not in Britain. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I generally just put them in subcategories of whatever "FOOian Latter Day Saints" categories they were in. Eg, Romney was previously in Category:Mexican Latter Day Saints. And the FOOian refers to nationality of the person, not to country of service or residence. I have no idea if Romney kept Mexican nationality or if Lafount kept British nationality, so they can be tweaked as needed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I am away from WP
Note that I'm going to be away in the jungles for a few weeks starting tomorrow (6 October), so I won't be able to respond quickly to any queries posted here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Have a good break! Liz  Read! Talk! 12:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Of getting rid of cats
I am not going to dispute your deletion of the category (leave it deleted), but that editor's "argument based on policy is" NOT "sound, at least as I read it." (See this diff of your statement.) His understanding of the category, use of HSOCK, and use of the "suspects" template, is strongly disputed by many editors, including a number of admins.

I suggest you take a look at this discussion:


 * Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_29

You will note that all of these editors (including five sysops) dispute that editor's interpretation:


 * (,, , , , , , , , , , and.

They believe it would be detrimental to the project to delete this template (and category, since they are tied together). have reservations about the current messy wording at HSOCK.

Conclusion: As long as HSOCK's confusing and internally inconsistent wording is under discussion, it would be wise to not follow that editor's interpretation, and to not delete any categories based on it.

Background info

The problem is that WP:HSOCK has been altered in such a way that it contradicts the very templates it refers to. It needs to be fixed. The current wording makes no sense, regardless of how Template:IPsock (and thus Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets) has EVER been used, and in the context of how it has ALWAYS been used it makes even less sense:


 * First, take a good look at the template itself and notice the wording: "Please refer to or the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer for evidence." Notice the "or"? Anyone looking at the template can look at the contribution history and try to figure out what's been happening. If they are really concerned, they can always ask the editor who placed the tag. IF there is an SPI, the part after the "or" comes into play. This is basic English 101. An SPI or existing block of the editor/IP in question is NOT a requirement for placing the tag on that editor/IP. The template itself makes that clear. See next step:


 * Then, take at look at the bottom version of the template. The tagging works like this: (1) tag a suspect; (2) if later confirmed by SPI, then modify the tag; (3) if it then gets blocked, modify the tag again: "If the user believed/confirmed to be using the IP is blocked, you can add the "blocked=yes" parameter." That such modification doesn't always happen is just a simple fact of life. The confirmation and blocking don't automatically appear in the watchlist of the editor who placed the tag. It may happen some time later. No harm done. Only a guilty party will be blocked anyway, and if it's an IP, it's a very short block. If it's a dynamic IP, the editor won't even know their page was tagged and that they were blocked! They will usually have moved on and don't even know which IPs they have used.

Solution? Fix the nonsensical HSOCK wording! Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

After it has been fixed, the question of whether or not only admins should be allowed to apply tags can be addressed. That wording (only admins do it) has existed, but is not currently policy. I never even knew that someone had added it at some point in time, and then it disappeared, also without my knowledge. Apparently many others didn't know either, because many editors have continued to use the template according to its original intention. I don't care one way or the other, but either way, editors and/or admins need to work with logical wording. Right now it's a mess because it contradicts the template itself. The two need to be in harmony. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a crock. A handful of editors try to delete the IPSock template on the grounds that is "harassment", then it gets noticed and consensus to delete evaporates. So what's the next step? Start nominating sock categories for deletion on the same grounds? Utter hogwash. The language of HSOCK makes no sense, and no admin can seem to explain why only an account that receives a minimal block can be tagged. Doc   talk  02:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Some of the nominations are also in bad faith as HSOCK did not exist when the IPs were tagged. Also no evidence has been given that IP harassment is a large problem. Wikipedia is already open enough to trolling. Is it really necessary to make it easier for them? MarnetteD | Talk 02:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The IP editor in particular seems to be on a misguided crusade for all IP editors since they felt harassed by the tag; and those who actually understand the template are expected to pay the price. The nonsense about "super-secret evidence" and all that is tiring. The other main editor besides this seems to have participated in only one SPI that I can see, though I may be missing something. Two central editors who have limited to no understanding of the sock issue trying to delete a template (and concept) that has been around (and used) for years. Doc   talk  04:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have a number of thoughts about this. At present I have time only to briefly mention a couple of them, but I may perhaps return to this issue in more detail when I have more time.
 * 1) I am not happy about having words put into my mouth. To say that I "believe it would be detrimental to the project to delete this template (and category, since they are tied together)" is a speculation about what I may or may not believe. The editor who wrote that may believe that that belief logically follows from other opinions that I have expressed, but to conclude that I believe that is an extrapolation from what I have said.
 * 2) At present, policy in this area is a mess, and needs clearing up. However, as long as it exists in its present form, it is unreasonable to blame an administrator for making a good-faith attempt to apply the policy, even if one disagrees with the actions that administrator has taken. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * , my apologies, and I agree on both points.


 * My main points here are that the policy needs fixing, and that as long as discussion is happening, we should hold off on deleting templates and categories. I was only orienting Good Olfactory about the situation, not faulting him. He was acting in good faith, but putting his faith in an editor who is fighting a battle for an IP who is a likely sock (or sympathizer) of a banned editor. Therefore that editor has very good reason for ignoring the inconsistency in the messy wording. BTW, I have stricken my wording and made it hopefully more neutral and accurate, at least for you. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

All admins have performed in an excellent manner. The IPSock template remains after there was no consensus to delete it. I think we need more attention at the policy talk page regarding the wording of HSOCK... but few admins seem to want to address this. Doc  talk  06:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Category:Barristers' Chambers
That is, this. Thank you for closing the thing, and thank you for the recommendations.

Best wishes, -- Qwerty Binary (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Expert category help
Hi! I expected you'd still be away for a bit, so welcome back! I virtually never do anything with category issues, but have recognized the great work you do in that area. So thanks for bringing some balance to the John Taylor page - it appeared that maybe another editor was just pushing too hard on a personal preference of not having both an American and American Latter Day Saint category, so I was also "grasping" for justification and surmising what accomplished "categorizers" might do! :) As always, thanks for all you do! ChristensenMJ (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's OK—the discussion was indeed obscure, and until now I haven't been motivated to move things back to how they were before. My trip got delayed by a few days—I will be off for awhile in the coming days, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Have a great trip! Sounds intriguing! :) ChristensenMJ (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks—Oh yes! Should be educational! Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:CFDW
Every discussion on Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 29 was closed, but it's still in CFDW. Could you remove it? Armbrust The Homunculus 20:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure; nice catch. I do try to keep that list reasonably up to date. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Basketball players from Chicago, Illinois
A bot has never finished merging this category to Sportspeople from Chicago and Basketball players from Illinois. Isn't that a bit odd at this point?Hoops gza (talk) 00:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there is a bot that can merge the contents of one category to two target categories, but if I remember correctly it only runs when the owner tells it to run. In the meantime, such categories sit here and wait for the owner to run the bot or for some poor schlub to do it all manually. The problem is‒I can't remember who the bot owner is, otherwise I would notify them. I don't even know if the user and bot are around anymore. It is a very bad system we have for these merges from one category to two. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Bots/Requests for approval/Hazard-Bot 23? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't ring a bell--but is that one operative? Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's theoretically in trial, but the bot-op seems to be busy. Armbrust The Homunculus 03:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding CFD list/delete
I just noticed that a lot of the CfD closures by you two days ago on Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_11 were closed as list/delete but the categories haven't been cleaned out / listified. If it's still the same way in roughly 18 hours when I get off work (need to sleep shortly and then work tomorrow) I will work on cleaning these out. I feel I should help in that regard since the outcome was one I !voted for in those closes. But, is there anything else or would you like me to ping you (or someone else?) when I finish with listifying a category and removing the categories from the articles? Regards, —  dain  omite   04:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Listifying is a manual task, and the categories are listed at CFDWM. If you leave a message on my talk page (please indicate, where the list is), than I let my bot empty the categories. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of these "listify then delete" categories stick around for a bit of time before being listified. I think that's OK—as long as someone gets around to them eventually, but obviously, the sooner the better! Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Question
Hello Good Olfactory. Regarding this CFD I am wondering if you could tell me if I can start to add the category to shows that won the award. I know that the bot has removed it from the individual actors articles but I don't know how to find out if that same program has been deleted (if that is the proper term) so that it won't remove the cat after I have added it. It is possible that this info is easy to find but I have never dealt with this kind of situation before. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 04:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it can be populated now. It won't be auto deleted again because it was removed from the listing at WP:CFDW. Sorry for the delay in responding. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. There is no problem with the delay. I know how busy life can be on wiki and off. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 22:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Category: Indian Catholics
I dont get the logic behind why the category "Category:Indian Catholics" should contain pages which related to "not in communion with Rome"? It should be otherway round isnt it? Also I need help removing the category Indian Roman Catholic Diocese Stubs from Avur Church. I cant see it in the source. Could you remove it please? Because the church is not a diocese on its own. Its is a "Roman catholic church stub". ~ ScitDei talk 08:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry - didn't intend to revert that. Button slipped. Doc   talk  10:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Those in communion with Rome go in the subcategories. Those not in communion with Rome but who are nevertheless Catholics just sit in the main category, not a subcategory. There is no subcategory for "Catholics not in communion with Rome" (nor should there be), so the articles have no where else to go. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know which articles you are referring to as "Catholics not in communion with Rome". In my (limited) knowledge, Catholics are those people who are in communion with Rome. Could you please point me to the ones who are not in cummunion? Moreover, the two people who feature in the Category also are Catholics who are in communion with Rome as far as I know. ~ ScitDei talk 05:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not all Catholics are in communion with Rome: some traditionalist Catholics, for examples, such as some Sedeprivationists and Sedevacantists; members of the Old Catholic Church; etc. Good Ol’factory (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if they could be called Catholics (which I doubt, still), they should be moved to another subcategory something like "Catholics not in communion with Rome". This would be more clearer IMO. Another way is by highlighting it in bold that the pages not in the subcategory pertain to "not in communion with Rome". Also Did you check the category of Avur Church? I can't seem to delete the category "Indian Roman Catholic Diocese Stubs". Can you? Please... ~  ScitDei talk 16:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is Category:Catholic bishops not in communion with Rome, but that is not broken down by nationality. This is the way it has been implemented across all subcategories of . It would require an across-the-board change, not just a change in the Indian category. And no, just because a Catholic is not in communion with Rome does not mean that that person cannot self-identify as a Catholic. No one really controls who adopts the term. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_25#Category:Rape_victims
You are invited to join the discussion at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_25. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

City Creek Center
First, welcome back! Hope it all went well! I don't know if you've ever had an eye on the article regarding the City Creek Center but there has been a user focused on trying to make assertions regarding its funding. I know that an "edit war" is still an edit war, regardless of motivation, so I don't want to have someone decide to block me for engaging in such. Yet, the user continues - and that particular user's contributions are only on this one item. So, wondered what suggestions you might have....? Thanks for any thoughts! ChristensenMJ (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never had anything to do with that page and don't know much about the topic. But I will take a look at the edit history and see what can be done. I'll post here if I want to tell you anything. Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ChristensenMJ (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (After looking at it) ... yeah, I agree that the user's edits are problematic there. He's essentially adding uncited criticisms, which are probably just his own. (Not to mention that the criticism completely misunderstand the difference between tithing money/interest and funds the LDS Church holds as ongoing business concerns, most of which were donated (as non-tithing) as testamentary gifts, if I understand correctly. But that's a bit beside the point.) I'll watch the page and will try to revert any similar edits. If he continues, I will also post some comments on his talk page. I think it's a fairly clear cut case, given the lack of citations in his edits for the specific criticism. Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to look and then share your thoughts. About a week ago when he and I were going back and forth, I added some info to the article's talk page, but probably should have tried on the user's page as well.  I also appreciate the additional set of eyes as I try to ensure I am not too far off base & clouded in my own way.  Great work on all the link and ref fixes/cleaning you've been doing as well! ChristensenMJ (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Flag icons and other redundancies
Hi Olfactory, while appreciating your good work, I notice that you're reverting removals of flag icons that are purely decorative and add no information value. I needed sunshades, figuratively, to look at the raft of bright colours here.

Do we really need to be told that New York City is in the US? In a space-constrained, summary format such as an infobox, it might be a good idea to drop the country name when the city-name is unambiguous and well-known to any reader who knows enough English to visit an en.WP page. Even an eight-year-old in Tanzania would know where NYC or LA are. Thanks and I've watchlisted here in case u want to discuss. Tony  (talk)  04:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think flag usages are entirely appropriate per MOS:FLAG in the context of United Nations treaties and international relations. If you don't want the other edits to get reverted with the flag ones, perhaps they should not be made in the same edit, but I see few problems with including a country name in an infobox. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the name of the city in the infobox: in United Nations/international relations, no one refers to NYC as "New York City"--it is always referred to as "New York". That's why the article New York City is piped to appear as New York. That's why I would oppose using the plain "New York City"; I would oppose using "New York" without the link because without it it could be interpreted by those not familiar with the common terminology as referring to the state. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Do not damage articles by block-reverting without explaining on the talk page and the edit-summary. Better still, do not block-revert at all, which in this case has reinstated obvious errors and degradations. Tony  (talk)  09:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There has been no "damage" to the article, as you suggest. It can also be considered a but gauche to template a regular user with a stop sign icon, especially by a user arguing for the use of fewer color graphics in articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Category matter
Hi Good Olfactory. You were involved in renaming Category:Turkmen people to Category:Turkmenistan people. Please consider responding to this Help Desk request to change Category:Turkmenistan people of Russian descent to Category:Turkmenistani people of Russian descent. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * He's been pointed to WP:CFD; is there anything else that needs to be done? Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

New question
Hello again. I just stumbled on this CFD from over three years ago. Since you commented in it a couple times I thought that I would ask whether it should be put up for CFD again since it would seem that no articles are forthcoming. Unless they are being written with goose feather quills and we are fresh out of geese :-) Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 06:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I missed the Pig-faced women article entirely. Glancing and seeing only one item in the cat I forgot to read what the item was. Many apologies for wasting your time. Normal service should resume shortly. Enjoy your Sunday. MarnetteD | Talk 07:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No shame. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Strange category
Hi Good Olfactory, I find myself having reverted two changes you made to articles where you added a redlink category of Category:1902 establishments in the Czech Republic. There was no Czech Republic before 1993 so I find the notion quite strange. It would appear you have added similar links/categories of other years as well, so I would appreciate this being rectified. Thank you, C 679 15:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It was a matter of restoring the status quo ante by reversing several changes a zealous editor made in removing categories while the fate of the categories was actively being discussed. The categories could be valid as indicative of things that happened in 1902 in the territory which is now in the Czech Republic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Unofficial names - original research
This is Skookum1......dabbling, not returning.....I found this category tonight when it had been added to items like Fairweather Range which is official in both the US and Canada. User:Trivialist who has been applying it clearly doesn't have a clear idea either of the subjects he's putting it on, or of the reality that concocting such a category is WP:SYNTH as well as WP:OR. It's because of this "omnibus irrelevance" in combination with OR and SYNTH issues running amuck that I finally left. You're the categories guy, I think you see the problem with this category. "Mountains with unofficial names" I can see, because of the activities of the listowner of bivouac.com, who has created scores - hundreds - of such names, now found on AcmeMapper and Wikimapia and Googlemaps...but they got there because they were put on wikipedia and so taken as credible, instead of being the ego-spew of the bivouac siteowner. But even so such should be a hidden category and/or such articles shoudl be deleted. The proliferation of garbage content in Wikipedia is a great disappointment to me, as I once regarded it as having had a chance at legitimacy and credibility; not a playpen for codefreaks and infonerds.,....this category is an infonerd item, his username is all too apt; see WP:TRIVIA.70.68.136.193 (talk) 06:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm, yes, I see that category as a problem. Essentially it could be added to any article for which the article name (common name) is not the full, official name. It also runs afoul of WP:OC, not to mention the original research problems you note. I'll see how it develops over the next few days and then possibly nominate it for discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, Trivialist here. In the case of Fairweather Range, I was going by the article itself, which opens, "The Fairweather Range is the unofficial name for a mountain range..." But I certainly defer to your judgment on whether it's an appropriate category or not. Trivialist (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

New Brunswick Sports Hall of Fame inductees
HI there. It's been quite a while since we crossed paths and I'm glad to see you doing well. Would you know: am I correct in recalling that we generally only keep national sports hall of fame inductee categories Cfd? I'm asking because of the just created Category:New Brunswick Sports Hall of Fame inductees. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's my basic understanding. We've deleted quite a few U.S. state halls of fame/sports halls of fame. I can't remember a Canadian one coming up, but I think the same considerations would apply. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Spacecraft which reentered in 2013
An English question. Category:Spacecraft which reentered in 2013 or Category:Spacecraft that reentered in 2013? The first one seems very bad English to me. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * English-wise, I think that technically either can be used in this context, since it's a restricted relative usage. That said, I think there are few categories that ever use "which"; it seems to me that "that" is far more commonly used. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Mormon prophets
Is Judas considered a Mormon prophet? Editor2020 (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the original 12 apostles of Jesus are considered prophets in Mormonism. As for Judas, prophets in Mormonism have never been considered infallible or incapable of failing in their calling and position. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Editor2020 (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Move fix please
Good Olfactory moved page Freedom of the press in the Russian Federation to Freedom of the press in Russia: per convention and per Russia, which is about the Russian Federation.

Can you fix the talk page, as well, please?

As you can see, the talk page is named something different than the article page.

They should both be the same.

Thank you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Sorry for the inconvenience. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Christian Clergy vs. Clergy
Not all clergy are Christian. There are Imams, Rabbis, Zoroastrian priests etc. So Christian Clergy is a subset of clergy. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'm not sure why you are posting this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Because you have used hotcat on USA clergy to do the opposite. 86.47.121.16 (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Show me where. What category? Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Here Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It redirects to . Are you only looking at one of the edits? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And here. What do mean one of the edits? Laurel Lodged (talk)
 * I guess the larger issue is this: I'm not exactly sure what your intent is in creating various categories for clergy "in country X". Are these meant as nationality categories, as you have parented them, or are they meant as a "country of residence" categories to work in parallel with the nationality categories? If the former, they are duplicative. If the latter, they are a mis-parented and otherwise a mess. (On this issue, note that not all chaplains are Christian. In some militaries, it is often a generic term for "religious leader". See the article Chaplain. That is why I moved it to the broader category.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I get you now. Yes, the re-direct is wrong because the intent of the category is to be be consistent with a "performs his ministry in X country", as opposed to "was born in Y country but happens to minister in X country". See Category:Roman Catholic clergy by continent. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I see. I can reverse the redirect. If these are not nationality categories, we need to take them out of the nationality category tree. I'll have a look. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, there's a problem here. These are not nationality categories. But you are populating a lot of them with other nationality categories. If there's going to be two schemes, the schemes have to be kept separate. That's going to lead to a lot of duplication, and it's not necessarily a good idea. But what can't happen is mixing of the two schemes—that leads to confusion and incomprehensibility. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. I can see how that might happen. I built it block by block for Irish bishops, so the inconsistencies that you describe do not arise. However, I may have been a bit rash with the USA. A more measured approach might be best. See Category:Bishops in Ireland and Category:Bishops from Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Overall, I see this as a very difficult problem. One of the problems is that "American", for instance, could be interpreted strictly as meaning a nationality of a person. But others might interpret "American" as simply meaning "of the United States", and would have no problem putting a person of another nationality in the category if they worked in the U.S. The only way to be absolutely clear is to have two parallel category schemes for both, but that would be a lot of work, and for most articles the nationality and the place would probably be the same. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the reverts. I tackled two big recategorization projects today due to POVs and I think I need to call it a night before I start making mistakes. Thanks for catching mine. Liz Read! Talk! 04:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, mine were total mistakes. Didn't mean to do them. I'll double check. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Israelis, non-Jewish
Hi. Since not all Israelis are of Jewish descent, would it be a good or a bad idea to create categories along the lines of "Israeli people of X-Jewish descent"? Solar-Wind (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, personally I don't think we need to have any categories of "FOOian people of X-Jewish descent". Just having "FOOian people of X descent" and "FOOian people of Jewish descent" would be my preference. So I'm probably the wrong person to ask. Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for fixing the colon breaking the formatting with the nowiki tag. I am a grammar and punctuation nazi, so it bothered me too. :)     Thanks also for your other excellent edits. --HectorMoffet (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * YW, I have been meaning to expand Sidney Rigdon for as long as I have been on WP, and have just never gotten around to it. It's nice to see more info being added. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

User: Dailycare
He has already reverted 3 times on this page here. Additionally, his edits raise WP:NPOV concerns. Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_diaspora&action=history

Evildoer187 (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Turkmen
Category of Ethnic Turkmen people should be used for Turkmenistani Turkmen. These are different peoples. Turkmen is a generic name. And this naming for all Muslim Oghuz peoples. Iraqi Turkmen speaking with Anatolian and Azerbaijani Oghuz dialects. -Esc2003 (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes it's generic, which is why is the logical parent category of . I don't think most readers would expect otherwise. I don't believe the intent of  was to limit it to "Turkmenistani Turkmen". Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You should be do research. You're acting arbitrarily. Example, Türkiye Türkmenleri (Turkmens of Turkey) is an article in Turkish language. Maybe you want to look at this. -Esc2003 (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm acting "arbitrarily", if what you mean is "based on whim". I do have reasons, which I believe are logical and supportable. Sorry, but I don't read Turkish, so I can't look at the article you referenced. But in the English Wikipedia, we do generally do things based on English-language sources and how terminology is used in English. This may or may not be the way similar terminology is used in the Turkish language. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice. "...The Iraqi Turkmen dialect is often called "Turkoman", "Turkmenelian" or "Turkmen", but should not be confused with the Turkmen language spoken in Turkmenistan..." Please read all page! -Esc2003 (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The category refers to an ethnicity, not a language. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Read all page' -Esc2003 (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand where you are coming from, but I still think that users would be better served by the general category parent than the more specific ones you added. It's only if is conceptually limited in scope that a problem is created. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Articles removed for WP:International law To Do list
I've removed the following articles from the Article requests section of the To Do list of WikiProject International law as you have added the articles and information. I am letting you know about this as I can't really make a call as to whether they should be added to the Expand section. If you feel any of those articles should have been moved there, please add them. Thank you for the additions. IMHO (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1970 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft
 * 1971 Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation
 * 1988 Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation
 * 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation
 * 1988 Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf
 * 1991 Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Identification
 * OK, thanks. There are no doubt some of them that could be expanded. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The Polish Operation of the NKVD (1937–38)
I would like to encourage you to read my note on talk page, why using "the" was the only logical way to distinguish this operation from the genuine "Polish operation" (Akcja Polska) in the Lemko Region. You invariably reverted my carefully thought out resolution to a major semantic mistake. "The Polish Operation" was the title of the operation written with the definite article by the following historians:
 * 1) Simon Sebag Montefiore: the Polish operation
 * 2) Anne Applebaum: the Polish operation
 * 3) Sarah Davies, James Harris: the Polish operation
 * 4) Norman M. Naimark: the Polish operation
 * 5) Timothy Snyder: the Polish operation
 * 6) Encyclopedia of Mass Violence: the Polish operation, etc.

Thanks, Poeticbent</b> <span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#FFFFFF;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk 02:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The most recent substantive edit to the talk page was in August 2012, where there is discussion of using quotes in the article name. It looks like you moved the article to include the "The" in October 2012 as a means of disambiguating (instead of using the quotes). I think that's what was done, but it's difficult to tell, because there was no discussion about it apart from your comment. I disagree with this move. Per WP:THE, I don't think this is a case where a "The" is necessary or desirable, and when I don't think it's a good means of disambiguation. Do we even have an article about the general Akcja Polska? If not, even searching for a disambiguator is not yet necessary. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I hope we do understand each other. The Polish operation wasn't "Polish". The operation was carried by agents of the NKVD against the Polish minority in the Soviet Union. Here's how historians use that phrase, quite consistently. http://jch.sagepub.com/content/48/1/98.abstract I'm not a POV pusher like the others who participated in that discussion. No wonder consensus could not have been reached. <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> <span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#FFFFFF;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk 07:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Archangel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Angel Gabriel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Community of Christ Infobox
Someone has put the Community of Christ infobox up for deletion because he feels that we shouldn't be using an infobox on more then one page, (see here). This template is used the same way that Infobox LDS Church and his reason for deletion could very easily be applied to that page. I think that perhaps some more editor of Later Day Saint pages need to chime in, of we are going to find that this will happens to a number of LDS Related infobox templates.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

LDS hymnwriters by nationality
Several categories you have shown an interest in are being discussed at Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 1 & Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 1. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Question
Hi, I was looking at Database reports/Deleted red-linked categories/1 and one of the top-ranked categories is Category:Early Life which you deleted. I assume a red-linked category would be a category that has articles assigned to the category. But you deleted the category (and others did, too, saying it was empty). So, maybe I'm misunderstanding what a red-linked category is...if you could fill me in, I'd be grateful. Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 01:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Xmas morning surprise; barrage of speedy RMs and CfDs
I've been told I'm "welcome" to take this to WP:CWNB but I find, as before, I'm facing a massive workload just to list and argue for reversions of undiscussed, unwise and controversial speedies of so many items at once, done at 5 am on Christmas Day (I guess that was Greenwich time, so late Xmas Eve, by an admin who should know better, and without discussion, that as so often before I'm aghast at the unnecessary waste of effort and energy to correct a name-game gambit that did NOTHING to improve the content of the encyclopedia. Why do I care?  Why am I still here?  I don't know. Force of habit?  A sense of what's right and what's wrong?  I've learned that the latter doesn't carry much weight in Wikipedia circles, and that the spirit of the guidelines is rarely respected, and imposition of them as "rules" and arbitrary suppositions by fiat is by far the norm.  You've heard it from me before; my lack of admin powers, which I'll never earn because of my habitual feistiness, prevents me from repairing the damage wreaked by those who do have admin power. I hereby submit that "good judgment" and some degree of actual education and expertise in the real world should be credentials for creating someone as admin, instead of a soft tongue and circumspection and obedience. That being said, here is a summary of what went down thanks to an eager-beaver Xmas elf:
 * Category:Legislative Assembly of British Columbia was speedily deleted and Category:Parliament of British Columbia substituted in its place. A new Category:Terms of British Columbia Parliaments was created, though the proper terminology used in BC and by the Government of British Columbia is "Sessions of the British Columbia Legislative Assembly" per the Electoral History of British Columbia, 1871-1987 to be found on the Elections BC website and which is used as a cite on Parliament of British Columbia.  Note that the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia article still exists.  But the contents of the "Terms" category and of Parliament of British Columbia list "Assemblies" still, though the articles targeted by that term have been changed from "Nth Legislative Assembly of British Columbia" to "Nth Parliament of British Columbia" in the same mammoth undertaking by the perpetrating admin.  There is a difference between a Parliament and  a Legislative Assembly, to whit that that Parliament as a body includes the monarch/viceroy, the assembly is its own entity paired with the viceroyal "chair", but also note that the term "Legislative Assembly" is the norm, is in common use, is most common in all citations, and "we" as Wikipedians have no right, nor should assume any such, on revising such terminology, especially arbitrarily and undicussed.  By a non-British Columbian no less (the admin in question is in Alberta).  So why am I laying this on you as the go-to guy for categories?  Because the deletion of the Category:Legislative Assembly of British Columbia should be immediately reverted, and on the basis of the evidence/citation in the BC Elections electoral history, the new Category:Terms of British Columbia Parliaments be speedily-changed to Category:Sessions of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia (or to be true to the source, Category:Sessions of the British Columbia Legislative Assembly) ..... note the subordinate categories to the current 'Parliaments" one all use the "Legislative Assembly" terminolgy (e.g. "Members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia" - we do not called them MPPs or BCMPs, for example, but MLAs).  As for the articles speedily-renamed from "Nth Legislative Assembly of FOO" to "Nth Parliament of British Columbia" with the justification "we number legislatures not assemblies" (as if "we" do not WP:MOSFOLLOW the sources) I guess I'll have to do a bulk RM on those, but strongly feel that should be a speedy bulk RM, not one open to debate; the debate as with the native endonyms should have been to move these, and should not have to be to argue for reverting them to their original state.  I've asked the admin in question to do the reversion; he just says I should take it to the WP Canada noticeboard......what really gets me is that the contents of all of the articles in question, other than word-tweaking, have not been improved one bit and that they all echo was is already on the Category:British Columbia general elections articles, namely the names of seats and MLAs, and nothing about the actual sitting/session is to be found, i.e .what was discussed, who voted for what, and so on...... rearranging deck chairs on the titanic, and poeple using admin powers for arbitrary and unwise and timewasting and unsourced changes.  "We" are not amused.Skookum1 (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I backed down; see here. Tempest in a teapot, but I'm still finding the usage a bit odd; it concerns procedural terminologies of the antiquated Canadian political system (we are really still colonies with a colonial system) and as often in CAnada a wide divergence between common use and legal technicality; we speak of the Legislature - "the Leg" or "the Ledge", we rarely speak of "Parliament" unless meaning Ottawa.Skookum1 (talk) 01:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)