User talk:Good Olfactory/Archive 34

Category: People executed by the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic
Hello, why have you reverted back to this previous category? As explained in my note 'Czechoslovak Socialist Republic' did not exist until July 1960. The list of persons include people prior to this date, hence it is incorrect. Please revert back to 'People executed by the Czechoslovak Republic' for people involved prior to 1960. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatraplan (talk • contribs)


 * It includes both pre-1960 executions and post-1960 executions. The key is that it is named after the article Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, which covers the history of the state from 1948 to 1990. If you think it should be renamed, you could nominate it for renaming via WP:CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Well it obviously is wrong, date-wise, that article use in this context is clearly incorrect, there should be two categories for people prior to 1960 and after 1960. I am not that versed in wikipedia renaming discussion but perhaps you could do that on my behalf please? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatraplan (talk • contribs)


 * It's not unusual for things like this to occur in category space. I doubt that it would be a good idea to have two separate categories only because the name of the state changed in 1960. It's the same reason we don't have a separate article for the 1948–60 Czechoslovak Republic—it's just combined with Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and the article name that is used is the one that is most familiar or commonly used to refer to "communist Czechoslovakia". Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * What a real muddle! Someone should sort this out, there used to exist an article 'Socialist Czechoslovakia' 1948-1960 which was wrongly combined with 'Czechoslovak Socialist Republic' 1960-1989, it is all wrong! Between 1948-60 it was just Czechoslovakia or the Republic of Czechoslovakia! But I'll leave it to you guys to sort out, it is misleading and should be corrected not just in the categories I am suggesting, but in the main articles. I hope someone will take it on. Thank you. Tatraplan


 * The main article should be renamed 'Communist Czechoslovakia' (similar to the CZ pages) and divided into 1948-60 and 1960-89 sections within, then it would make sense. Tatraplan

Adam Kelly Ward
Do you know if a code enforcement officer counts as a police officer? I know Adam Kelly Ward killed a code enforcement officer but I don't know if it's technically police.

AFAIK in Commerce, Texas code enforcement is separate from the police (it's under "community development" and not "police") http://commercetx.org/departments/community-development/code-enforcement/ WhisperToMe (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the details of the law in Texas, but I thought it was close enough for a category, since even if they are not police strictly speaking, they are an officer of "law enforcement". Perhaps the category should be renamed to make it more broad in its language. Many "traffic cops" are not police in certain jurisdictions either, but people have been executed for killing them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * That may be a good idea. Anyhow Texas did execute Ward on the basis of "obstruction or retaliation" which could cover any official: "murder during the commission or attempted commission of kidnapping, burglary, robbery, aggravated sexual assault, arson, obstruction or retaliation, or terroristic threat;" - BTW I added the category to James Garrett Freeman since Texas Parks and Wildlife Department game wardens (Justin Hurst, the victim) are tasked with enforcing Texas penal code, and Texas law enforcement officers did show up to Garrett's execution out of solidarity (I didn't hear that any such thing occurred during Ward's execution) WhisperToMe (talk) 04:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's a good point—the reason it was aggravated murder warranting the death penalty was because the victim was an official. I'll have a think about getting a nomination to broaden this out; maybe "law enforcement officers" would be more appropriate than "police officers" in the category name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It could also help making a cat about people who murder government officials in general - Jared Loughner would go into the same general category WhisperToMe (talk) 06:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Then maybe he should have put the comment some place sensible? Dicklyon (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I've started a nomination here. I thought changing to "law enforcement officers" might be a good first step, and then we could have a think about what to do for the murder of government officials in general. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Dicklyon
This editor did not "mistakenly" remove my comment, it was quite deliberate, as seen by this comment he posted to my talk page immediately after. This, after I had just requested that he stay off my talk page (this was a repeat request, I have asked him to stay off my talk page before, more than once). There have been on-going behavioral issues with this editor ever since he accepted a standard offer and was allowed to rejoin the community from an indef block, only a couple months ago. How much more leeway are admins here going to give this person? - the WOLF  child  22:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that that doesn't look good. Removing another user's comments deliberately anywhere but one's own talk page almost always makes one look like a jerk, if nothing else, especially if the comment is a critical one. I don't know a thing about the background or the reason for the previous blocks of the user, so I'm probably ill-equipped to decide how much leeway to provide or how egregious this should be regarded. But it certainly made me raise my eyebrows. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I understand your position. Perhaps if you were to give him a warning about the comment removal and the repeated unwanted visits to my talk page, hopefully that will suffice? If his behaviour continues, then the warning will serve to inform future admins. Thank you for your assistance. Cheers - the WOLF  child  23:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'm comfortable doing that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed warning. What you don't know is that theWOLFchild had been previously warned on his talk page by an admin about his disruptive comments on that talk page.  This was just more of same.  Dicklyon (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right that I was also unaware of that—I don't know much of anything about the background here. I don't think it would change any of my advice though and wouldn't think that it would justify removal of comments. Since there are issues on all sides, probably best to not do anything inflammatory. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But sometimes I am weak, and fall for temptation. Dicklyon (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I hear you. None of us are completely innocent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

An admin asked me to not "personalize" any comments, and since then, I haven't. Dicklyon was warned to leave other editor's comment alone, but then he does this. (wtf?) I'm just gonna shake my head and walk away now. I won't be going back to that page for awhile (as long as my posts are left alone). The behaviour there is mind-boggling. And appalling. - the WOLF  child  01:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Annnnd he's done it again. I said I'm not going back, and I'm not, so I would like you to enforce your warning. Dicklyon needs to leave other editors comments alone. (I don't care how "weak" he is) I don't want my post severed off to a different section under an inflammatory, off-topic heading. I would like it left where I left it, and he found it. Please and thank you. - the WOLF  child  01:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, to be fair, he didn't remove the comment, just gave it a header. I would regard this as "refactoring", which I think often can be just a form of busybodying, but is kind of a lesser form. It is usually an attempt to be helpful to readers more than an attempt to censor or hide comments. It usually involves making changes that aren't necessary, but also do not really hurt and often are helpful. If I were him, I'd hesitate to do any of it, but I don't want to micromanage the page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Then you, or any other admin, won't mind if I move it back? I'd rather forget about the page, but I also want my comments left where I put them. He did this, despite your warning, and now he's 'thumbing his nose' at you. What's the point of an empty warning? Some admins need to start shutting all that nonsense down. - the WOLF  child  03:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would not mind if you did. If you'd rather I do it and you ask me to, I can move it back. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Or, you could just give him the block he begging you for. But, yeah... I would like my comments un-collapsed, and the other one back in place. - the WOLF  child  03:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * When you walk away, you are basically giving the other person the 'last word' But here, that apparently isn't good enough. They want the 'last-last word'. I suppose next will be the 'last-last-last word'... - the WOLF  child  03:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * @ Good Olfactory and - I clearly said I wasn't returning to that page for awhile... and I haven't. But despite that, I still have SMc pinging me with two separate, snippy, insulting comments in a single long post. I'm not sure why he's trying to provoke/continue some kind of battle but, it would be nice if some admin told him to wrap it up and move on, (as I have). Oh, and my last comment is still out place, moved by Dicklyon despite an admin warning him not to do so, only minutes earlier. Pfft! I'm going back to what I was working on. - the WOLF  child  03:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @ Good Olfactory and And now this He's collapsed several more of my comments, with this edit summary; collapse some noise; anyone who objects can just revert this (except Thewold child)) .... . ....... .... - the WOLF  child  03:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If Good Olfactory or Anna Frodesiak thinks that talk page would be more useful with my collapses reverted, they are invited to revert.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It might just be a good idea to revert them yourself as a show of good faith, since you are aware that it's making the user mad. I'm not saying you have to, but a little compassion here would go a long way even if you don't think it would result in ideal organization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't mind making him mad. He's mad already. Else why did he keep up the disruption after Spartaz's warning?  Dicklyon (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, he is already mad, and from what I can see he's not an innocent party, but if you could extend an olive branch of kindness—show some level of understanding, even if you continue to disagree with him on everything—it would, as I say, go a long way. I don't understand your indifference to another user's feelings, even if that user "deserves it". I'm going to revert it anyway, but if you were to do it, it would be an impressive show of forgiveness and would probably help to put a lot of this to bed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I better let you do it. If I reverted the collapses, it would be too obviously bogus.  I may forgive him, tomorrow, but not today.  His feelings have been a thorn in my side for a week.  You do know he called me up on AN/I?  Dicklyon (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think you have to actually forgive him, but sometimes performing actions that don't jive with our feelings can be helpful for everyone. Just a suggestion; I know it has done wonders for me (and others) in the past, and at times I have wished that I had had the gumption to do it in circumstances where I didn't. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, you did it. You left one of his paragraphs in duplicate, so I removed the one whose placement made no sense.  Put it back if you see a reason to.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * He wanted the original placed where it was originally. If you want to copy it to another section, that's fine, but he didn't want the original position changed. He wants the tinkering with his comments to just stop completely—at least that's my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I interpreted you as requesting. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

GoodO, can we clean up that talk page now that he has gone on wikibreak? Or do we have to leave all the rants fully visible in the middle of the conversation? Dicklyon (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Good heavens, just leave it be. Users will be smart enough to be able to read a conversation and separate what they view as the wheat from the chaff without refactoring. Why it would be OK to change it back just because the user is away for a period of time is not an approach I would adopt. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

History of Brazil categories (mea culpa)
I read the discussion but missed that part—mostly because it didn’t make sense to me at the time. I got it now. Sorry for the confusion. giso6150 (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's OK. I think it would still be OK to treat Category:Empire of Brazil as a distinct period as a subcategory of Category:History of Brazil by period, but it should also be a subcategory of the modern history cat given the timeframe of the empire. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Twc
Thewolfchild was already blocked once for editwarring against refactoring of the disruption he causes on talk pages, and he's about one hairspace away from a topic ban and block for his activities at and surrounding MOS. He received a DS warning and a final more general warning about this last night, is subject to escalating blocks (and has already burned through the short ones, recently at that), yet went right back to it as soon as he got up in the morning.

I beg of you not to act as an administrative enabler of these antics. For one thing, it serves to undermine several others administrators trying to herd his behavior back into a constructive direction. He does not own every talk page he posts on and has no more right to determine where headings go, etc., than anyone else. I support all of Dick Lyon's refactoring at that page (other than the delete, which he conceded was a bad idea at User talk:Spartaz, a conversation you might want to look into regarding Twc). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think the refactoring vs. not refactoring issue is that big of a deal. The user requested that the position of his editors not be changed and that his comments not be refactored. That's a "big whoop" if I have ever heard one. Instead of making everything into a federal case and doing what the user perceives as another poke in the eye (whether it is intended as such or not), I think it would be helpful for everyone to just move on and show some forbearance. The user has agreed to walk away from the issues on the page right now, so there's no real benefit in further pursuing a dispute over how to structure his past comments on the page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The position of the comments doesn't matter. The "I'm going to play one admin off another so I can stick it to Dicklyon if it's the last thing I do" behavior is the issue (well, one of a large number of them). Basically, you just got stuck to a tar baby by accident. The discussion above, about which I was unaware, is proof that the user is not walking away, but gaming. He's been saying he's walking away, but posting ranty demands for answers at WT:MOSBIO, and starting a new fight there, then revertwarring (to not refactor comments that are disruptive nonsense posted only to perpetuate the dispute he was told to drop), then saying again he's walking away from the dispute, but then coming to you to act as a proxy for him so he doesn't hit 3RR. Anyway, I didn't come here to criticize just to request and inform.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I just stopped by to thank Good Olfactory for their efforts last night, and I see all... this. You're still going on about this? I haven't posted to MOS (or any comma related debate) for over 10 hours now. In my last comment, I said I was done with that discussion, and I am, despite your repeated attempts to draw me back in, and all the messing around with my posts. In fact, I'm done with all this comma nonsense. SMc, if you and DL want to keep on arguing about this, you'll have to find someone else, I'm done with you guys as well. This has gotten ridiculous. (and surely you don't think you have clean hands in all of this?). I see that this page is now turning into another huge wall of text. I think you guys should give Good Olfactory a break, (and any other admins you're shopping around for). I'm going to stop posting on this page as well, so hopefully that helps. As some people have already advised, "disengagement" is the best way to go now (maybe I'll even take a few days off from WP) Anyways, I just stopped by to say 'thanks'.... so, thank you for the assistance, Good Olfactory, it was appreciated. Take care. - the WOLF  child  11:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You're welcome—I have tried to be helpful and fair. I have acknowledged a number of times that I am not familiar with all the background, and of course users party to the dispute will have varying views of things. But from what I have seen this is a good example of a situation that will definitely benefit by users moving forward. But that's usually good advice regardless! Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review notice about non-governmental organizations
I started a deletion review on a category for which you closed a discussion. See it at Deletion_review/Log/2016_April_14.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  15:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for letting me know. I have no objection. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Mrstinson12
is another sock. If the SPI ever moves, then the sock will be blocked and then the whole mess can be reverted. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah! That makes sense. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:OWN
To me, you appear to be exhibiting a tendency of ownership on category-related content. Hawaan12 (talk) 10:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To me, you appear to be exhibiting particularly poor judgment in edits of category-related content. So I guess we are even. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that you've never edited WP:Title before, it is possible you may have violated WP:HOUND. Hawaan12 (talk) 10:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. Did I look at your edits? Yes I did. Sometimes, when a user is going around making particular bad edits, it's worthwhile to have a look at everything they are editing. In my judgment, your edits over the past few days display a pattern of poor judgment, out-of-process and undiscussed moves of articles and categories; undiscussed edits to core policies, and other problems. I don't apologise for worrying about this and rolling some of it back. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note, however, that HOUND states that it is implicated when there is an "apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." That has not been my intention, and I apologise if it has caused you any of this. My intent has been to correct what I see as errors in judgment and facts. Good night, gotta go to bed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I hear you repeatedly using "I think" or "in my judgement" - I would prefer it if you quote (at least once in a while) policies or guidelines in the future. It is one of the job requirements of being an admin. Thank you. Hawaan12 (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You can let me handle the job requirements and how I carry them out. You could worry more about the quality of your edits. It's interesting, though, that your comment came immediately after I quoted from a policy. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just saw that you've been blocked as a sockpuppet. Well, that explains a lot. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Dato' Seri Ir Hj. Mohammad Nizar Bin Jamaluddin v. Dato' Dr. Zambry Bin Abd. Kadir listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dato&. Since you had some involvement with the ''Dato' Seri Ir Hj. Mohammad Nizar Bin Jamaluddin v. Dato' Dr. Zambry Bin Abd. Kadir'' redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 08:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Bistrița-Năsăud-geo-stub listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Bistrița-Năsăud-geo-stub. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Bistrița-Năsăud-geo-stub redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Potentially a new section in CFD
I started a proposal at village pump here for a new section in CFD called CFRc (Categories for recategorization) where users who like to change sub- or parent-categories, can ask the experienced community. I believe you will like to join the discussion and poll. CN1 (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:Indo-European peoples‎
This category was deleted last year after discussion, but i have some arguments for its restoring. There is Category:Ethnic groups by language family which is needed expansion or deletion. And latter will be sad, as there are plenty categories as Category:Ethnic groups based on language mostly. So where is it possible to discuss the recovery? Cathry (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's kind of a grey area. WP:DRV could be used, but it might be objected to there as something that is not within the purposes of DRV. So perhaps just starting a new section in WP:CFD, proposing that it be re-created, and setting out the reasons. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cathry (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And what if I create "Indo-European-speaking peoples" category? Is discussion needed to create it? Cathry (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If it serves substantially the same purpose as the category that was deleted, it would likely be regarded as a re-creation of the deleted category. Probably better to propose creating it somewhere—WP:CFD would be your best bet. It would be fair to notify those who participated in the deletion discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * OK Cathry (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Book of Abraham
Hi,

I reviewed your comments concerning this article and I did note that the discussion regarding Joseph Smith's impudent fraud and his fabrication of this book is well covered further down in the article. It's sad and unfortunate that so many people have been deceived by these writings. After reviewing your comments, I understand your concerns about adding that to the lead section.166.70.213.246 (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * If you're going to edit religion-related articles, it's always a good idea to keep in mind that not everyone necessarily agrees with your interpretation of what is a fraud vs. what is legitimately of divine origin. There are multiple ways of viewing the Book of Abraham. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * One of the big problems with religious texts, like the bible, is for the most part they were all written by anonymous authors. The book of Mark for example was the first gospel written and it was written around 70 AD,  long after Jesus death.  None of the gospels (Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John) were written by the people they are attributed to since these people had been dead for almost 100 years when these books first appeared (They were codexes and not scrolls).   And the resurrection story was not in any of these early gospels -- it was added later.   The sources of the bible are all dubious, and the sources of Smith's writings seems to be for the most part copied from the bible and Views of the Hebrews.  The BOM and BOA are both of dubious origin but so it the bible and most religious texts.   In fact, the bible is even more suspect due to being written by anonymous people. 166.70.213.246 (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * And there are many people and sources that would vigorously disagree with almost all of what you have written. Hence the need for a light touch and extreme care in religion articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni
Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni were executed for kidnapping and raping 13-year-old boy. Its disgrace for topic called "violence against LGBT people" because people may assume they include pedophile rapists. --MehrdadFR (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But LGBT issues are part of the point of the controversy. As it states, "The British lesbian, gay and bisexual group OutRage!, alleged that the teenagers were executed for consensual homosexual acts and not rape." I suggest you propose removing the article on its talk page and see what other users think. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do not think it's my OR or something, there's quite long review about it which you can download (google: "Unbearable witness: how Western activists pdf"), written by American LGBT activist Scott Long. --MehrdadFR (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, just propose removing it on the talk page. I'm not going to specifically object there to its removal, but I just would like to see that other editors would either agree or be indifferent to such a change before it is removed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI, peer-review article states that alleged "gay-case" has been denied by (1) Iranian judiciary, (2) World leading LGBT organizations, (3) HRW and AI. If we have case with Iran on one side and human rights group on other then we can be suspicious and balance, but this case is quite clear, and its widely published in many other academic works so user's opinions should be irrelevant. --MehrdadFR (talk) 01:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * OK I will (you're the boss). : --MehrdadFR (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I can certainly see your point, but on Wikipedia users' opinions are never really irrelevant, since things are done by consensus. I'm OK if you want to remove it immediately now, so long as the explanation is provided on the talk page at the same time. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

What's the deal on category soft redirects?
In this edit you say "It's a reasonable redirect". I agree. But I made a whole ton of these (110 if I count correctly) as a side effect of moving categories to remove the commas, and I thought it would be good to follow up with deletion of these soft redirects as cleanup. Is this not a good thing? Dicklyon (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a little bit hard to know sometimes with category redirects. It's hard to know how useful they really are. The standard procedure to move a category speedily is almost always to go through the WP:CFDS process. Some users get very upset when categories are moved by editors outside of this process. When the bot moves a category, the default is the same, that soft redirects are created. When I clean up after the bot does the renaming, I usually leave most of the redirects, unless the redirect is for some reason a category that would be otherwise used for a different category or as a disambiguation category. I'm not sure what other editors usually do for these, but my sense is that more often than not the redirects are left. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. My impression was that these redirects were not generally good things except when there's a good reason.  Anyway, I've got nearly 110 deletions pending.  The main reason I did this was so that when I search Categories for "Jr." and then search for ", Jr." I don't see all these irrelevant hits to work around.  No matter one way or the other.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think either approach would be OK, and there's no general recommended approach that I know of. I've heard some users take a "they don't hurt anything" approach, but I can see some drawbacks with search results. They can sometimes be helpful for editors who use HotCat, but I agree that they are not terribly helpful to general readers. I don't think anyone would object to deleting them if they all just resulted from a comma deletion. (Is no comma the standard now?) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I came here because of a note on a userpage on my watch list. Assuming we are only talking about Jr (with or without the comma), I would agree there is no benefit to keeping the soft directs. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say I feel the same way as Good Olfactory. Part of it is that I'm expecting to see category moves done using the speedy processing for category renames. This was not done, however, I do now see that there was discussion on this and a consensus was reached so I see why the moves were done manually. cfr-speedy is still the proper route to take for nearly all other instances to move a category, and that's what I was watching out for until I discovered the further discussion regarding the issue. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 15:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of cfr-speedy. I'll use that in the future if I run into more of these (but I think I'm done).  Dicklyon (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I nearly always use the cfr-speedy route and that generally leaves the soft redirect. In these instances I was never convinced the soft redirect was necessary or beneficial, although I did nothing about them. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Your edits to the General Authority group and individual pages
Thank you for your fine attention to detail on this article and the individual edits you have made, many for which I have publicly thanked you. But I take issue with your edit to Kevin W. Pearson. I fail to see why you felt a need to call the wording of my recent edit there "speculative". It seems to be commonly understood in the Church that if one is not serving abroad in an area presidency, he is serving at Church headquarters. I don't care one way or the other if this edit stays or goes. But I take issue with you labeling such edits "speculative" when they are commonly understood to be the way things are. You can reply to me on my talk page, on the talk page of the Pearson article, or here. Either way, I will look forward to hearing your take, because I have never, in all my years of working with you, had reason to doubt that your edits are relevant. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. I suppose it's not "speculative" in fact because, as you say, it's fairly well understood in the real world that this is likely what will happen, but I really meant just the in the Wikipedia sense. That is, it is not a statement that is supported by reliable sources and just represents an editor's personal knowledge or belief. You've probably seen the policy WP:CRYSTAL before, that "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable .... It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included". That's all I meant. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand now and concur completely. The edit was disingenuous at best. As I said, I don't have any problem with my edits being undone due to a potentially detrimental policy violation. Thanks for keeping me in check. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Good Olfactory
I see that you have recently removed a category from this article. Is it because that particular category (Eastern Orthodox Christians) is not appropriate for ethnic group articles? Do you know if there is any related category which would be appropriate for such articles? The ethnic group at stake, to whom Christianity was first introduced in the 1st century, were predominantly Eastern Orthodox from the 3rd to early 19th century, and there are still Christian people (c. 50,000) amongst them who often live collectively. Despite this, I see only one religious category (Muslim communities of Russia) on that page. I suggest that we should keep or remove both categories together. Thank you. Listofpeople (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians is a category for biographical articles about individuals. It is not for articles about groups of people or ethnicities. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

hoaxes &rarr; forgeries?
Hi there,

I didn't see this discussion while it was happening, but saw a bot implementing the outcome. This looks like a really strange outcome. Now we have a category about "forgeries" that contains subcategories and pages that have nothing to do with forgeries (i.e. forgery is a subset of hoax, not the other way around). It looks like the hoaxes category simply shouldn't have given its main article as literary forgery and we might've avoided some confusion. So everybody who authored a hoax is now being accused of forgery, which is quite different and very confusing. I've not checked to see what, if any, BLP problems this creates, but I'd really urge you to revisit this. Not sure about procedure at this point, though... &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 02:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hrm. I should've read the literary forgery and forgery articles before leaving this message. I've not ever heard the term used so inclusively (extended to the truth of the content rather than just the domain of authorship). How strange. Guess that should be sorted out before drawing lines with categories... &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 02:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think it's a little bit unusual. If the article changes and the distinction between the two gets drawn more brightly in article space, then I think it could be fair to re-establish the distinction in category space. As it stands now, I think it is all a bit unclear and somewhat messy. Thanks for your concern, Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * In no way is a hoax necessarily a forgery. Awien (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Have I suggested otherwise somewhere? Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Apparently it's you who has cydebot changing category literary hoax to category forgery. Awien (talk) 09:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I was the closer of the discussion. Have you read the discussion? Have you read what I wrote in closing it? Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't need to. The bottom line is that Cydebot is now miscategorising works as forgeries that aren't. Is it not you who can call it off? Awien (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, if you want to resolve the issue you need to. Please read the discussion and the close, as it suggests a way forward to begin to work on resolving these issues. If you have any follow-up questions, I can respond. If you want to appeal the CFD close, use WP:DRV. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:Communities on U.S. Route 66
G****t, I wish you would post notice of proposed deletion of a category on the articles affected. I could show you several communities whose publicity efforts are based around being on the former route 66.    List of Route 66 museums  It is the nature of their post cards. It was the nature of their economy and its absence caused the decline in the town's population (or in the case of the other category, its demise). I'll make that argument. You didn't give me a chance. You didn't give any other editor a chance because you do this in virtual secrecy. How many people monitor these categories for deletion? A microscopic handful vs the mainscape editors, or even broader the public. Most of them are simply delete clones. An echo chamber with little thought. You are a disservice to the members of the wikipedia community by deleting these things with so little debate. And don't blame it on the community. How many of of these Categories Nominated for Deletion fail? Virtually none. Its your fault for making the ill conceived nomination with so little information or research. I added some basic links, each one derivative to multiple additional communities. I didn't know all this before, I just knew it would exist. It didn't take me 5 minutes to google this. Did you spend the time? Obviously you failed to look. All the delete voters failed to look, they took your word for it. A cascade of failure. Read WP:BEFORE before you act thoughtlessly again. Trackinfo (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Look, before you reach out and bite someone, it might be worthwhile to figure out who is responsible for the action that you are upset about. I had nothing to do with starting the nomination. I was the closer of the nomination. I performed an administrative task based on the discussion. I have no opinion on the substance of the issue that was debated, but the discussion was unanimous. How would you suggest that an administrator proceed any differently in closing such a discussion?


 * However, I suggest that if you care about a particular category's existence, you add it to your watch list. The nominator is required to tag the category with Template:Cfd when it is nominated for deletion. If you use your watchlist, you will thereby be notified of any attempt to delete the categories on it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * My apologies for biting the wrong head. Bad layout to the discussion, you were listed at the top.  However, even though you were acting as administrator, you were complicit in this.  You too could have done a WP:BEFORE before closing.  I've already got almost 9,000 items on my watch list.  I cannot anticipate when some individual or a small subsection of editors will gang up to do something stupid.  CFD is a badly designed system because it provides no notice to the articles it affects, event though categorization is the way to tie those articles together.  With so little oversight, we need to depend on admins to stop allowing the mindless group of deletionists from doing stupid things.  If you do not think, if you act thoughtlessly, you are just as bad as they are.  And you have so much more power.  The thoughtless damage you do has a much more devastating impact.  I pull the trigger on a bunch of vandalism every day.  But if I do not know the substance of what was added to an article, I google it first.  And you know what, sometimes I learn something.  Things that look like B.S. aren't always what they appear to be.  You could use the same technique before you wipe out an entire article or category at the click of your all powerful mouse.  Don't do stupid stuff. Trackinfo (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * But how do you know I did this "thoughtlessly" or that the editors who participated did what they did "mindlessly"? I think there's a very good argument that was presented that this information may not be defining for the places involved. That is not to say that it is not notable or that references cannot be found that support the characteristic or that a list article might not be appropriate. I don't think there was any suggestion that the category amounted to "B.S." That was not the basis of the nomination. You may feel that the decision was stupid, but other users obviously disagree with you, and that's fine—opinions can differ on these matters. I have well over 9000 items on my watchlist and I manage. It's not a good look to try to shift the burden of your own failure to monitor onto other users.
 * (Incidentally, how much do you know about how CFD works and what the standards/guidelines for categories are? How much do you know about the debates over what is "defining"? Based solely on your comments, it doesn't sound to me like you are familiar with these guidelines, though I could be wrong and don't want to presume. But those who encourage others to perform due diligence should be darn sure that they are doing their own before they criticize other users.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * no response? Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm just getting prepared to take it to review. Trackinfo (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK; thanks for letting me know. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you
Today is a great day for Wikipedia categorization sanity, I do believe. Thank you so much for starting this ANI. I'll keep an eye out for more socks -- they're sure to crop up -- but this is great news, all the same. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A good outcome, I agree. It's sad to me that things like this become necessary, but seriously—it had been pretty bad for a pretty long time. I had had enough with closing those discussions that resulted only from his peculiar categorization behaviour. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As they are banned from CfD, I dunno if we should place CfD notices on their talk page. Just a thought. - jc37 11:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing. To continue to notify him of CfDs could be interpreted as a bit of in-your-face-ism, since he can't participate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

More fun at Murten 'n' Morat
Hi Good Ol'- I tried to move Talk:Murten/Morat to Talk:Murten (which is just a redirect), but I don't have the rights. Back dealing with Daylon.murray/D.murray/Climatelover again... Can you verify that I'm following the correct procedure here: Requested_moves/Technical_requests? Thanks in advance. Eric talk 13:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like it has been moved now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for taking a look. Eric talk 02:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Could you help out?
With starting the group nomination as you noted in Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_30. I don't know/use automated tools that could make it easier, and I don't have the one or two hours to do it manually, listing/editing page by page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How many categories are there that need to be nominated? I didn't think there were so many that it would take hours to do. Aren't we just talking about the ones named "Judicial system of..." in ? There are less than 20 of those. I never use automated tools to start nominations either. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I guess t is 20 or so, but I thought you may have some tools to make it faster. There is rough consensus to do so at Talk:Judiciary that it is the good idea. I also wonder if it would be possible to have people vote on two choices (judiciary vs judicial system)? PS. If you reply here, can you echo me? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikilink in Voir dire
A bit tangled matter: you are not wrong, off course, but there is more to be taken care. I've explained in Talk:Oath of vengeance. --5.170.16.65 (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Help
Hello, I was wondering if you would be able to edit through arch and tied arch bridges to appropriately credit Fausto Veranzio. Also on the page for suspension bridge, the image used for an example of Fausto Veranzio's bridge is his cable stayed. His suspension bridge image can be found on wikimedia and on his page. Creedie123 (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't really know much about these topics. Is there some aspect of the editing that you cannot do, or that you can only do with administrator assistance? Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia and I am just trying to credit countries with proper inventions and edit layouts. I noticed you were correcting me on a few things and I appreciate it. These topics happen to be protected but I notice the mistakes. All of Fausto Veranzio's information is on his wiki but I cannot transfer it to the according pages. Creedie123 (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Page move
Hiya. Just wanted to note that I undid your edit at Category:Organizations based in Namibia because it will eventually be moved over the redirect at Category:Organisations based in Namibia to preserve the page history. Just waiting on a willing admin to action on the G6 CSD tag. Hint hint nudge nudge. ~ RobTalk 05:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh OK. I forgot that we needed to retain the edit history. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Socks
Since you closed the digital games discussion, I thought you should probably know about this as well.
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Slayer of corrupt

On the "bright" side, I suppose, it looks like we just apparently uncovered/discovered a sock farm over 8 years old... - jc37 09:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow. That's too bad. I had a suspicion that the votestacking by the IPs could be traced back to one or more of the registered users who participated in that discussion—some of the arguments were "too" similar. But I think I doubted my intuition because honestly I lacked the initiative to pursue it, so I'm glad you did. Occasionally when I get annoyed enough, I end up pursuing things (see Stefanomione). Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean. I look at all the things which need doing, the cleanup, the messes, the haven't-been-started-but-should-be. And I'm torn between picking up my assigned tweezers and joining in moving the sea of sand one grain at a time, and, just letting others use theirs. After all, when others are using automated tools, what good is my single set of tweezers?  : ) - jc37 10:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

CentiJimbos

 * Centijimbos
 * User:Theo's Little Bot/centijimbo

By my math, it appears you're a 7, if you were to add your name.

Though, if I were to hazard a guess, I think the current top 65 have no lives besides Wikipedia : ) - jc37 11:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

CFD discussion
So I just spent the last two hours or so filling out Category:People with acquired American citizenship, only to find out that Category:Naturalized American citizens was Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_17 two years ago. I think most of the votes on he CFD are, although well meaning, biased. I was hoping we could work something out with the closing admin before all of it gets speedied.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * According to the US government, only 47% of immigrants to the United States are naturalized citizens,source, so I don't know if the "x immigrants to the united states" categories are enough to cover these.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be fine to see a fresh discussion on it rather than a speedy deletion based on the old discussion. I'm not sure I can stop anyone from nominating it for speedy deletion though. One way to stop it would be to nominate it for discussion, though you probably don't want to do that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend procedurally nominating it. Consensus can change, but as it stands, it's a speedy waiting to happen. ~ RobTalk 06:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Relevant CfD
You'll probably be interested in Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_10. Turns out this was even more complicated than I thought, and I'd appreciate your input on what the outcome should be. I'm at a bit of a loss. ~ RobTalk 06:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have commented there. It is a complex one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

cfd close

 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_1

If you have a moment, would you check out the close and implementation of the above cfd? Thank you very much : ) - jc37 18:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Was it just that the contents had not been transferred? I implemented that now; was there another issue? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Page protection may be in order for Gordon B. Hinckley
I am currently involved in somewhat of an edit war on Gordon B. Hinckley. Several users, anonymous and registered, keep citing the MOS and saying that a comma is placed correctly when every rule of grammar says that is incorrect and unneeded. I don't want this to turn into a full-blown edit war, so I thought I'd ask you to take a look at it and determine who is right and who is wrong. I'm reasonably certain that my position of the issue is justified, in which case a request for page protection might be needed. But since I respect your work and opinion, I wanted to nip this thing in the bud before it's blown out of proportion. Any thoughts would be welcome. Thanks.--Jgstokes (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe that both of the commas are correct in "... from March 12, 1995, until his death." When dates are formed in the American-style "MONTH DAY, YEAR" format, a comma is placed after the year if the sentence continues. See MOS:COMMA. This is one of the benefits of the "DAY MONTH YEAR" format—you can avoid the double comma in running text. But the American system seems fairly entrenched, so it is generally used in articles about American people and topics. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Co-operative Party (UK) MEPs has been nominated for discussion
Category:Co-operative Party (UK) MEPs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Men sociologists
Hi GO

I see that in Sept 2013 you closed CfD 2013 July 30#Category:Men sociologists as "delete". But Category:Men sociologists still exists.

Any idea what happened? Your close seems to reflect the policy-based consensus of the discussion, and I would have supported the deletion if I had pitched in. So why won't it die? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)


 * It went to DRV and was changed to "no consensus", so it was kept by default: see here. Might be worth a re-nomination; participation level in the discussion was not great. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the DRV link. That is a depressing DRV, which seems to take no account of the long-standing principle at WP:CATGENDER that such categories do not need to be balanced with one for each gender.  So it ignored the fact that your weighing of the arguments against policy rightly attached less weight to those who insisted on taking the 2 categories together.
 * A new CFD may do better. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I wasn't contacted prior to the DRV about possibly expanding the rationale, and then I was criticized in the DRV for not providing a fuller rationale. I remember that I was so furious at the characterization of my close by one editor that I kind of lost it and failed to ever provide a further explanation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Canadian and South African law by year
Have added a navigation box to adjacent years, see e.g. Category:2016 in Canadian law or Category:2016 in South African law Hugo999 (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Email?
Hey. I was hoping to quickly email you about something, but you currently have things set up so users can't email you. If you don't mind, could you send me an email through Special:EmailUser? It has to do with the possibility of a forthcoming RfA. ~ RobTalk 00:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There, I've enabled it. I can't even remember why I turned it off. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You're up! I plan to transclude this on July 4th, most likely. I'll be on vacation from June 25th to July 1st, but feel free to email me with any questions. ~ RobTalk 08:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Done!—there's one sentence in my nominating statement that I've flagged that you can delete if you wish. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm indifferent about that sentence. I only ever bring up my status as a graduate student where directly relevant (i.e. economics categories) and I don't consider it terribly relevant to the RfA. At the same time, I don't object to it; it's a factually true statement, and I don't hide my educational status. Totally up to you. ~ RobTalk 00:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:German cities that share names with diseases or illnesses
That was quite a find. You were quite right to take it to CFD for deletion, but it really ought to be preserved for posterity in WP:BJAODN, or some such museum. I am a bit disappointed not to have seen its contents. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a very big category—you can get an idea of what was in it based on the some of the comments in the discussion. One user mentions a bunch of diseases/syndromes, and those correspond to the cities that were included. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Ivory Coast sub-prefecture
Hello Good Olfactory,

I am a phd student and came across your map of sub-prefectures of the Ivory Coast (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sub-prefectures_map_C%C3%B4te_d%27Ivoire.jpg). I was wondering if you might have the underlying shapefile for the sub prefectures and the coordinates of their headquarters. That would be a huge help. Let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesohoko (talk • contribs) 19:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's my own creation based on a hardcopy map I have, obtained from the govt of Ivory Coast. For the electronic version, I used this pdf as a basis, though this version is somewhat out of date, being a map from 2011. It has only 498 sub-prefectures, whereas now there are 510. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Listing at CFD/W
Could you list Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_13 at WP:CFD/W for me? Thanks. ~ RobTalk 17:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)