User talk:Good Olfactory/Archive 6

Oliver DeMille editing his own article
G.O. - I don't interact with a lot of administrators, but I remember communicating with you in the past. There has been a lot of back and forth between me and some other editors on the George Wythe University and Oliver DeMille articles. It appears one of these editors has a clear conflict of interest. This edit alone appears to be near-conclusive evidence that User:Ibinthinkin is none other than the subject of the article himself, Oliver DeMille. Note the extremely detailed narrative of his high school years, complete with references to obscure newspaper clippings of the time. But the damning evidence comes in footnote 19, where he adds a deep link to a scanned image of his own college transcript, complete with social security number and everything. This transcript is not linked anywhere at the hosted website, and appears to have been added for the sole purpose of being referenced in the Wikipedia article. The site hosting the transcript is owned and run by Oliver DeMille (see http://www.tjedonline.com/about). I really don't know what the next step would be, or how to make a formal accusation. I've already accused Ibinthinkin of being a sockpuppet of User:4by40, but this is something different. Could you point me in the right direction? --TrustTruth (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Would it help if I approached the editor and said someone has expressed a concern about his edits on this article, and it is suspected that he is editing the article about himself? I could also point him to Autobiography for his reference. Depending on whether he denies it or acknowledges it, then we can go from there? If you'd like met to do that, let me know and I can do so. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would be awesome. Thanks a lot. (I have already brought this up with him, but we're in a messy back and forth.) --TrustTruth (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Alleged Conflict of Interest

 * GO: I appreciate the information regarding autobiographical editing. Your tone was absolutely friendly, supportive and respectful.  You may detect in my response a little emotional strain, and I apologize in advance for this.  It is not intended as disrespect or frustration toward you personally.


 * As I have stated repeatedly, I am not Oliver DeMille. It seems to me if Oliver DeMille had an interest in editing his article he would have done so a long time ago.  Based on the discussion history, it has been problematic for POV for a very long time, and it has crossed the BLP line on numerous occasions and for an extended period.  It's pretty clear that DeMille passes on Wikipedia-- and that's probably lucky, because it's arguable he might have had a case for libel.


 * I intimated on TrustTruth's talk page that I have had occasion to form a personal opinion of DeMille. As he is a living person who knows a lot of people, it is my understanding that that, in and of itself, should not disqualify me from being an editor. Let it be noted that TrustTruth has some pretty strong opinions of his/her own, which have repeatedly been cited as a problem for this article, which is, for heaven's sake, a biography of a living person and should be held to the very highest standard of regarding negative bias--and on that basis alone, it should be TrustTruth, and not me, who is being called to account here. If an editor is guilty of sensationalizing a BLP toward the positive, that's just crappy editing.  If toward the negative, that's potentially libel.  Really?  I'm the one being discussed here?


 * And is anyone saying my edits are not neutral? My word, I even put in a link to a totally stinky polemic's site. DGG removed it because it was a blog, which I guess you can't do for a negative source. I'm not experienced enough to have calculated that error to reflect on me; I honestly was trying to represent the whole picture.


 * But back to the point: I'm not saying that a positive bias is necessary to bring balance here. I'm saying, just because I know something about Oliver DeMille shouldn't take me off the list of potential editors of his article.  I think this would not be much of an encyclopedia if that were the benchmark for selection of users.


 * I have declared affirmatively that I signed up as a user with the original intent of improving the Oliver DeMille article (I have subsequently decided that I really like being a WP editor, so after this hubbub is over, I'm moving on to less controversial encounters with editing!!). What more full disclosure could be owing here? And, agreeing that I am not Oliver DeMille editing his own page without disclosing it, what difference does it make who I am? I am subject to the same standards of quality as any other editor, and am committed to the purpose of this forum, which TrustTruth demonstrably is not.  I implore you to review my defense of sockpuppetry allegations  for more on this. I don't know what to do.


 * Other than the concern that I might be Oliver DeMille writing an autobiographical edit without disclosing his identity, is there any concern over the content or POV of my edits? I noted in the talk page several days before I undertook to do it that it was my intention to revise it completely, and supplied for review a sample of the type of revision I intended to make, requesting comment. I received one from 4by40 (which prompted TrustTruth to request an official investigation of sock-puppetry on me).


 * TrustTruth/TheRealGW (they are the same person--see the link I cited above) did not comment on the substance of the proposal, although he did ask why I felt it was necessary. I supplied previous comments from three different users enumerating the deficits of the article.  He did not comment further, although I took my request for comment to his page, where we were interacting, and DGG's page, where we were interacting.  I think a review of my interactions with him will show that I am sincere, and his with me, that he has tried on two occasions now to use administrative action to silence me, rather than to undertake to engage the discussion of what neutrality and format might look like in the article on Oliver DeMille.


 * Upon making my major revision, I immediately asked DGG (the administrator who had been overseeing concerns about the article--forgive me if I misspeak; I am not well-versed in the processes or lingo here) and asked for his review for quality and especially NPOV, specifically citing the concerns TrustTruth had raised over my neutrality--this because TrustTruth had not weighed in himself on the substance of my proposal. Is this not the type of quality control you would want from an editor? Even if I were Oliver DeMille (and again, I am not), what more would you have asked of him? (yeah, a disclosure that it's him--but anything else?)


 * To sum up: as I am not Oliver DeMille, is there any other concern for the content or quality of my editing? At what point does the review of TrustTruth and his reign of misinformation and intimidation result in action against him?   He has repeatedly brought the battle to me, dodged my attempts to reason it out, made accusations about me, and taken administrative action against me.  I offered to discuss our differences in private to try to buffer him from administrative scrutiny, as I had detected that his privileges as an editor were under review.  He chose not only to do it all in the light of day, but to involve others.  Fine.  I will defend myself.


 * Please, GO. I don't know my rights here. What recourse do I have against his attacks? I had previously recommended (in my sock-puppetry defense) that he be retained as an editor with a ban from the articles where his bias has been a long-standing issue.  I'm at a place now where I think that there is more than a lack of objectivity at issue.  He's downright hostile, manipulative and dishonest.  Please help me, if you can.  --Ibinthinkin (talk) 11:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I took your advice and read up on the autobiography section. As far as I can tell, it would not be a violation for Oliver DeMille to edit his own article.  It simply warns that an autobiographer would likely get fiercely edited for POV and OR.  That being the case, what are we talking about here?  1. I'm not Oliver DeMille, and 2. if I were it wouldn't mean I couldn't edit; I would be subject to review of other editors.  I'm already subject to the review of other editors, so again: what are we talking about here?  --Ibinthinkin (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Responded at your talk page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I commented on your latest communique on my talk page. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The Strip
In your close of the Vegas category, where do you come down on the Las Vegas Strip? I favor including items on The Strip and McCarran Airport in Las Vegas, Nevada (as they are in unincorporated areas next to Las Vegas), and Vegaswikian doesn't. So which way should we go on this?--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooo dear, I didn't realise there was a division of opinion on this particular issue of categorizing the specific articles. Since VW didn't respond there to your caveat statement, I kind of assumed he was going along with it. If you want my personal opinion, it may be of little value, since as I suggested I know little about the area and how locals would classify areas. But if both categories existed I would definitely place the two you mention in the "Las Vegas, Nevada" one, since as an outsider that's where I would expect them to be (per the examples you give in your CfD comment). But at the same time I can understand the VW rationale. Any chance of a compromise, and having them in both, or would that not work? Now that I more clearly understand VW's w.r.t. these articles, I can't say that there's a "consensus" for VW's position on them. Would it be helpful to re-list this for further discussion, or do you think it's an esoteric issue that we won't get any more comments on? Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's stopping me from finishing out the city renames. I guess I'll just nominate all of them and see what happens.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

User:4by40 sockpuppetry
Thank you for your help on this. --TrustTruth (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

questions
"On the other hand, if you are in fact Oliver DeMille but you declare now that you are not, it is possible that there will be negative consequences in the future if it is later determined that you are in fact Oliver DeMille."--from Ibinthinkin's talk page
 * 1) Is it the policy of Wikipedia that conflicts of interest must be declared? What "negative consequences" happen to a user who fails to declare his conflict of interest, beyond the consequences that would happen to him anyway as a result of repeated tendentious editing? 2) Isn't it true that, in any event, Wikipedia has no mechanism for ascertaining the real-life identity of any given user, in the absence of self-disclosure? So how could those "negative consequences" against an undeclared-COI user ever be enforced? 160.39.213.97 (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (1) I don't think "must" would be the proper word. "Strongly encouraged" is probably more accurate. Hypothetically, if you are Oliver DeMille, the "negative consequences" that would result would not be because you failed to declare your COI, but rather because you lied to an admin when asked about a specific issue. (2) See the duck test; if a consensus between editors determines that someone has outright lied about their identity, it could be enough.


 * I'm curious though why you seem so interested/concerned in this issue. Since you are not Oliver DeMille, shouldn't all of this be irrelevant? I wanted to give you a final chance to declare whether you were or were not the person in question. You said you were not. Isn't that the end of it? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Good Ol'factory posted a copy of this discussion to my talk, I respond to this on my own talk page. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply, GO. (And for the record, I am neither Oliver DeMille nor Ibinthinkin.) Could I ask a follow-up question though? You seem to suggest in your answer that lying to an admin is a offense that could have negative consequences (blocking?). Sure, our mothers told us never to lie, but is lying-to-an-admin a violation of Wikipedia policy? 160.39.213.97 (talk) 10:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're not Ibinthinkin, I'm not clear who this is and why you're at all concerned with asking me hypotheticals. But whatever—the answer to your question is that it would depend on all of the circumstances of the particular case. It's not practical to have an invariable "rule" about that, partially because of the inherent difficulty of proving definitively that someone has "lied". Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Why are you speaking in generalities? Take the extreme case--suppose that Ibinthinkin really is Oliver DeMille, that he blatantly lied about this to an admin, and that he is eventually discovered. Would he be blocked or otherwise sanctioned? The reason I am asking you these questions is that I was concerned that your warning to Ibinthinkin was, to put it bluntly, both baseless and toothless. Your invocation of WP:DUCK partially answered the toothless part, but I'm still not clear on what the basis is, in Wikipedia policy, for your warning in the first place. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a hypothetical I'm not willing to entertain, mostly because it doesn't matter in this particular case. The user has said he is not DeMille, and until/unless further information comes out that suggests otherwise, consideration of the "what ifs" is irrelevant. At the end of the day, since you are not Ibinthinkin, it's also none of your business. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You're not getting my point, and I persist because it concerns your future behavior as an admin. Let me try to put it bluntly again: I think it is inappropriate for an admin to warn a user of "negative consequences" for lying about whether he is or is not a certain real-life person. Do you disagree? 160.39.213.97 (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, in certain contexts. No, in others. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * But what is the basis in Wikipedia policy for such a warning ever to be issued, under any circumstances? 160.39.213.97 (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It would vary depending on the particular circumstances of the case. As I said, I'm not going to entertain hypothetical situations or discuss it in the abstract void of any particular (actual) circumstances. In the circumstances of this case, you may be misunderstanding the purpose of the request. It was made to allow the user to deny his association with a "real world" person to an admin. It was not done to positively ascertain his identity. He had already willingly made the denial to other users, and I was obtaining a final denial so that I could return to the other user and say, "see—he denies he is this person, so let's let this dispute drop." But as I've said, I don't see this as involving you in any way, and the dispute has been amicably settled, partially due to what I did, so there's really no live issue to discuss here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You are an admin, with the power to block. You warned a user that negative consequences could happen if he lied about whether he was a certain real-life person. You say your warning "was not done to positively ascertain his identity." Even so, the effect of your warning, had the user been DeMille, would have been to force him to self-identify or face "negative consequences." Because you haven't pointed to any basis in policy for such a warning, I continue to think it inappropriate. Background circumstances of this particular case and your purpose to resolve the underlying dispute are, as far as I can tell, irrelevant to the question of whether issuing this warning was justified. Issuing such a warning--again, as far as I can tell--is never justified. It's clear I'm not going to convince you, so I'll let this drop now too. I only hope that going forward, you would refrain from issuing warnings like this again. Policy, as I read it, never sanctions an admin to coerce a declaration of COI, let alone of a confirmation or denial of being a certain RL person. As I said, I will drop this now, but I hope experienced users or admins who are watching this page will weigh in on whether your warning was appropriate--again, not to protract this particular dispute involving Ibinthinkin, but to guide your behavior as an admin in the future. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Vice
Hi, regarding "I'm more concerned here that the closer was the same user as the nominator!": If that's also breaking a rule, I apologize for that as well. I thought I was correctly following the recipe in WP:CDP, linked from WP:CFD, which appear to imply that it's the nominator's responsibility to close off the case they began. As I mentioned, it seems some CDP clarification is called for... Thanks, —EqualRights (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, perhaps. The page does link to Deletion process, which in the lead states, "People should not close discussions in which they have been involved. To do so presents a conflict of interest." Maybe that needs to be added to CDP. I'm not thinking you did this in bad faith or anything, and you're big to be able to admit a mistake. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Gulp, it sure does. Well, I have no further deletion plans, but I definitely know what (not) to do next time.  Thanks, —EqualRights (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You'll probably be fine. Probably the worst that could happen is someone could ask for your close decision to be reviewed at WP:DRV, and the discussion might be re-opened for an uninvolved closer to assess and close. But unless someone specifically takes the initiative to do this, nothing will happen. I don't foresee that happening—I'm not going to be doing it, at least. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

For future reference
For future reference. I also updated your archived notes. - jc37 10:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * AN/I thread
 * Thanks. Had I known about it I might have contributed a word or two, but at this point it seems like a futile cause. Next time, I'll just block, I guess. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Cat:American Neoconservatives
Why did you delete this category? There was NO MENTION of a previous vategory being deleted called "American Neoconservatives". You have just ruined hours of good faith work. Please tell me where I can appeal against this. Vexorg (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * furthermore you didn't even bother to speak to me first before deleting it Vexorg (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The "neoconservatives" category has been deleted a number of times after formal discussions, so I validly deleted it under speedy deletion general criterion #4. Doing so requires no permission or notification of the creator. Deleting it also does not imply any bad faith edits on your part. Appeals of deletions can be lodged at WP:DRV. For your reference:
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_26
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_7 — Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:American conservatives has also been deleted multiple times. Postdlf (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes; I should have mentioned that as well. Links to those available upon request. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I've seen that. That was 'neoconservatives' not 'American neoconservatives' so therefore there was no notice telling me of this previous deletion. In view of that you should have at least, out of courtesy spoken to me about it, and really put up a deletion review. Furthermore only 3 people commented on the review of 'neoconservatives' which IMO is hardly any kind of serious consensus. Vexorg (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Category:American conservatives is not Category:American Neoconservatives - two different things Vexorg (talk)


 * If you really want it put up for discussion, I will. But judging from the repeated deletion of "American conservatives", "neoconservatives", "Iranian conservatives", "Jewish American conservatives", etc., etc., I just don't think there's much of a question that it will ultimately be deleted, just as the others were. See the comments below by Postdlf for the reasoning. Let me know what you'd like done. (Incidentally, even if a category for American neoconservatives had been deleted previously, you still would not have seen the notice of previous deletion, because you capitalized "Neoconservatives". The proper name for the category would have been .)Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to continue to butt in, Vexorg, but while we're on the subject, a good general consideration regarding characterizations of political orientations is that they are just that&mdash;characterizations. These can never be considered objective fact; there's no way to identify a neocon under a microscope. Instead, it's all a matter of self-identification or applied labels, so you can state within an article that someone identifies as a neoconservative or is regarded as one by others. It is just simply never a matter of "is" or "is not". And that's one of the reasons why political characterizations are not used for categories. Postdlf (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * neoconservatism is notable and defined enough. There are plenty of sources to verify someone is a neoconservative and many self identify. I disagree with your premise. Vexorg (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you misunderstand my premise. It's not a question of whether neoconservatism is a notable or defined concept.  It's a question of what such political labels mean generally.  Finding sources that call someone a neoconservative does not establish that someone "is" one, any more than a source calling Obama a "moderate" or "liberal" establishes that he is such a thing.  But he either is or isn't the President.  Postdlf (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't get this logic. If a wide range of reputable sources agree that a person is a neoconservative, in what meaningful sense is the person not a neoconservative?  Michael Ledeen's article describes him as a neoconservative.  Ditto Paul Wolfowitz and Norman Podhoretz.  By your logic, shouldn't we remove the relevant text from those articles?  And for that matter we have categories like  and  to which your argument theoretically also applies; should we delete them?
 * Sorry to carry on this discussion on your talk page, Good Ol'factory. I understand and respect the reasoning behind your deletion.  But this isn't the first time I've seen perfectly reasonable and useful categories deleted without real consensus. Jd4v15 (talk) 00:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem with using this space. I think confusion can result from equating article space and the application of categories. There are countless things that can be mentioned in an article that we wouldn't want to categorize. The reasons Postdlf gives are a reason not to categorize, but not a reason to not mention it in the article. (Man, if you can figure out that last sentence of mine ....) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * But the deletion of was just used as a rationale for changing the Michael Ledeen article so that it no longer refers to Ledeen as a neoconservative: .  I get the distinction you're making, but I don't think it's clear-cut, and deleting the category clearly has ramifications for what you can say in an article.  I also made a few other points that you haven't addressed (a wide range of reputable sources find the label acceptable, and other categories exist which by the same logic ought to be eliminated); if you or Postdlf is willing, I'd very much appreciate a response to those points. Jd4v15 (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are you closing CFD discussions without consensus?
You recently closed a number of CfD discussions (here's one) where consensus was not reached. 2 in support of the nomination and 2 opposed does not constitute consensus. In support of your decision, you put up a note to say that this has been discussed elsewhere and so you're in essense disregarding the discussion of the category at hand. The discussion you direct people to is here, where the result of THAT discussion was 2 in support and 2 against. I fail to see where you justify any of those discussions resulted in a consensus to rename.--ABIJXY (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, consensus is never reached by vote counting. Second, there are many other discussions used as precedent for such a move besides the one GO links to.  Per WP:CON, Consensus decisions in specific cases do not automatically override consensus on a wider scale  --Kbdank71 20:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto. And note that the one I linked to was not linked as proof of the previous consensus; I was merely linking to incorporate the comments I made there into the other discussion. And if you are "vote counting", you're miscounting. I see 3 votes in favor, 2 against (in both). Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Northwest Territories
There's never been a very strong consensus either way as to whether categories should be named "Northwest Territories" or "the Northwest Territories", to the best of my knowledge. I don't particularly believe the word "the" is necessary, though I suppose YMMV. Bearcat (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just going by CANSTYLE. But I'm not sure how well that reflects consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Cancer deaths in Korea
Touché Are all these country categories inclusive of ancient kingdoms? It's not like we have Category:Cancer deaths in the Abyssinian Empire in addition to ...in Ethiopia, ...in Eritrea, ...in Djibouti, etc. I don't see why Korea gets a pass. That having been said, your point is well taken, as Korea has been a country. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They are not inclusive that I know of. I wouldn't assume them to be, since we have one for the Soviet Union. Though not for cancer, we do also have similar categories for Czechoslovakia. But you're right that it could get out of hand, and I don't think we'd need one for Abyssinian Empire unless we had a number of articles to so categorize. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm
Thankfully this talk page is no longer on my watchlist, btw the Indonesian states created in XXXX i notice they are red cats - I do hope you are going to actually make them valid categories before you are off line :) SatuSuro 03:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC) also Principality of Hutt River was never a valid legal entity either - as far as I can remember - so what it has as categories are indeed open to question SatuSuro 03:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to delete any redlinked ones that remain now. I was adding them thinking I would create the category, but I only create the category if there are a few that have been added. They will eventually be created, and I'll come back to the redlinked years later, but for the time being the category could be removed because I'm not going to be working on this for the next few days. I don't think I left any hanging although there may be one from the 2000s, I can't remember. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My understanding of the scheme is that it applies to any unit that claimed to be an establishment of a state or territory, regardless of the legality. That way we can mostly avoid POV problems in deciding whether or not to categorize. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good - 'that claimed' - sounds like a good way to operate it - thanks for responding - enjoy the break :) SatuSuro 12:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

May I get you some Bactine?
I see you've been on the receiving end of a little prick. Otto4711 (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

State Establishments
Why exactly don't you leave them as is, or at the very least leave the old one? The new one is ridiculously limited; what good are all of these categories when most only have 1 entry? --Human.v2.0 (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They will soon have more. Don't worry. I'm working on it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's only 50 states, and many were not established in the same years. In fact, the max any of these categories is going to have is 8, and twenty seven will have only one.  It's an absolutely pointless change which only serves to seclude the category contents, with no tangible benefit or enhanced adherence to policy.  What is your proposed reasoning for the change? --Human.v2.0 (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The scheme is not limited to U.S. states. It includes all past and present sovereign states, as well as non-sovereign territories around the world. There are thousands of relevant articles, so your above points are not relevant as far as the scope of the category is concerned. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Good catch
I did a bit more reading, and was about to revert myself. Thanks anyway. :)  TheAE  talk / sign  03:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I find the distinction a bit weird too. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

List of fictional religions
Hi, Could I ask you to keep an eye on List of fictional religions where there's been repeated adding of Mormonism by an ip user from internet.co.nz, please? Here's the history. I'm off on rl holiday until early May.--Cavrdg (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Tiramisoo
Is back:. Cheers, Katr67 (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup—looks like it to me. Thanks for keeping me updated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar
I removed the category 'territories established in 1713' as it does not really fit. Although that was the date of the Treaty of Utrecht, British Gibraltar predates that considerably, and the territory was identified as Gibraltar prior to its capture in 1704. So its rather complicated ! The ToU was simply the legitimisation of a previous conquest, although the Spanish still argue they never did any such thing. --Gibnews (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I'm sure you know more about it than me. :) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Cayman Islands
My first edit was about Helsinki. I see that Cayman Islands has had page protection for a year. It's a nice article with little edit warring or vandalism. It may be good to end page protection. It doesn't affect me but if Helsinki were page protected, I would have given up and not edited. But it wasn't. Since then, I've corrected a few errors in other articles that wouldn't have been done had Helsinki been padlocked. Do what you think is best; this is just a suggestion. User F203 (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They are both just protected from being moved. Anyone can edit either article, as far as I can see. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Otto4711's chronic incivility problem
To pull some of your remarks from Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 17: "(5) how do you know I or any other editor "routinely overlooks" Otto's incivility? For all you know, I've already dealt with the issue over email, or I'm dealing with the issue right now over e-mail, or I'm prepping some on-WP comments/actions as we speak, or, or, or .... It's kind of a pointless game to try to guess at how others regard certain behaviour. (6) All I can suggest for your personal feelings is that if another editor is rude to you personally, ignore him."

Every time a cop pulls me over, I get a ticket; The cop looks at my driving record and sees I've gotten previous tickets and won't cut me any slack the next time I have a police car with its lights on behind mine. My wife gets pulled over just as often, but every time she gets pulled over, the cop checks her record and sends her off with a warning, and the same thing happens the next time around.

We have the same problem here with Otto. I have no idea what you've done, if anything, to deal with one of the worst incivility problems I've ever seen on Wikipedia, one that makes anything I've ever said or done pale in comparison. You have seen the clearest examples of incivility from Otto -- calling me and others an "asshole", their views as "bullshit" and most recently telling me to "shut up" and calling me "arrogant" -- but have never, to my knowledge, left any public warning of incivility on his user page. While I'm sure that the possibility exists that you've sent a warning by email, the warning is worthless. Any other admin looking at his record then gets the false and misleading impression that his record is clean. Yet you have had no problem whatsoever in finding mere trivialities in comparison to Otto's to justify a block.

I find it extremely difficult to accept the ILIKEIT / IHATEIT approach that leads to wildly varying results at CfD, based on justifications that have no relevance to each other. The "rules" (such as they exist) appear to be applied with near complete randomness, based on the personal biases of editors. Unfortunately, Wikipedia "justice" appears to be applied with no more consistency. By failing to publicly address Otto's blatant incivility, it appears to me that you only encourage it. I assume you suggested that Otto lay low for a few days and make a greater effort to control himself, but he only jumps back in with more of the same incivility and personal attacks; Nothing has been solved, and Otto is only emboldened for some more incivility. And if you truly believe that the only response to incivility is to turn the other cheek (or as you state, "if another editor is rude to you personally, ignore him"), I fail to understand why you can't abide by your own adage when it comes to those who disagree with you.

As an attorney in academia and as a Wikipedia officer of the court, I am sure that you can understand that any system -- whether it be a legal system, Categories for Discussion or administrative blocks in Wikipedia -- can only have any measure of community acceptance if there exists a consistent set of rules and regulations that is applied on a consistent basis. The evidence, as I see it, is that CfD has little credibility as a consistent system, and the administrative approach to incivility is not much better. In both cases, you are the person best suited to achieving some much-needed balance. Alansohn (talk) 05:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know, I've read this. I don't really have time to respond in detail right now as I'm going offline, but I hope to come back to it later. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Response
Where to start on this? You're really talking about two different issues here, though I see you've tied them together somewhat in your comment. I'll address the CfD issues first, then the Otto issue.

CfD issue
I think you're right to find it difficult to accept many editors' approaches in CfD. Most editors that I've talked to about it do as well; I do too. As you know, Wikipedia is ultimately ruled by people, not by rules. A consensus of users can pretty much overrule any WP guideline, and there are very few policies that are non-negotiable. In CfD, there are not really any "non-negotiables": everything is up for grabs. That can lead to problematic results, of course, particularly if (as you say) participants are basing their comments simply on whether they like a category, or don't like it, or other biases, etc. But at the end of the day, any editor can express their opinion and give the reasons that they want. Sometimes the reasons are based on the guidelines; sometimes not. But if enough people want to keep (or delete) a category, the category will be kept (or deleted), regardless of the strength of the arguments used. I'm not saying vote counting is or should be used—but it's just a recognition of the reality that ultimately there comes a point where overwhelming numbers will carry the day, whether it occurs at CfD or DRV.

I'm sure you know all this, but it's worth being reminded of it. CfD does not operate like a court of law, with strict rules that are not deviated from. (I track CfD cases for my own use in helping me remember what consensus decisions have been made in the past. I've never claimed that my lists at User:Good Olfactory/CFD and User:Good Olfactory/CFR are anything other than personal lists. (The CFR ones should make that clear, since I track only the rename subjects of particular interest to me.) They are not official WP guideline lists, which is why they are in my personal space and not in a WP space. But I use them because they help organize my thoughts as I approach CfDs. It's also true that others are free to use them for any purpose they wish to use them for, but no one is ever compelled to use them or acknowledge that they are somehow authoritative. It's just part of my approach; it doesn't mean it's the one and only correct approach.)

Thus, if you or anyone else is concerned that the CfD "system" (such as it is) "little credibility as a consistent system", I say—"Welcome to Wikipedia!—I'm glad you've recognized how it all works!". This is not a perfect system. It is probably not as effective or efficient as a court of law, and courts of law in many jurisdictions are not very effective or efficient. But at the heart of your complaint is a dissatisfaction with the underlying principle of rule by consensus—it's nothing inherent in CfD that doesn't also exist elsewhere in WP. (Why do you think so many people have sincerely suggested at various times that there are different types of "cabals" that control certain aspects of or topics in Wikipedia? CfD is not unique in this regard.)

What can be done, then? One person can only do so much, of course; I just try to contribute my part. All my contributions at CfD are done as good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia, as are (I believe) the vast majority of editors' efforts there. I can't name a single editor who regularly participates there who I would ever accuse of having any ultimate motive other than to improve WP. The fact that editors differ in their approaches in how to achieve the betterment of WP is unavoidable, though. That's the rub. And it will continue to rub, so I wouldn't hold your breath for any great meeting of the minds to suddenly occur there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Your remarks only further undermine the credibility of the system you administer. I have no "dissatisfaction with the underlying principle of rule by consensus", which would lean towards counting votes consistently in all cases. The system we actually have has admins counting votes in some situations and then has closing admins toss out clear consensus when the claim is that it disagrees with "guidelines" that are said to contradict consensus. In other words ILIKEIT / IHATEIT in action. It is very hard to take seriously a statement that "All my contributions at CfD are done as good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia" when you describe the justification for your vote here as "the thought of an editor hawking this solitary result ad infinitum as a 'unanimous' so-called endorsement of some questionable principles of 'precedent' is more troubling than the prospect of actually having to keep the category around. Hence I dissent". I hoped that you would deal with the issue of consistency, knowing full well that your alternate choice was to do nothing. I never anticipated a third option of seeing you casting a vote out of spite, solely as part of an effort to undermine a unanimous vote from good faith participants. Alansohn (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You can take seriously whatever you like and assume bad faith where you like. I've noticed a trend in that regard, however. Once again you've taken an isolated quote from my entire reasons for deletion out of its context, thereby suggesting that the reason you quoted was my only reason to be in favor of deletion. Nice try, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You describe your own actions as being taken primarily out of pure spite. If you can provide a good faith explanation for your actions in stating here that "the thought of an editor hawking this solitary result ad infinitum as a 'unanimous' so-called endorsement of some questionable principles of 'precedent' is more troubling than the prospect of actually having to keep the category around. Hence I dissent", please share the explanation with all of us. Far from an "isolated quote", you offer it as your primary reason. Alansohn (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You assume too much. It is not my primary reason. My primary reason is the first thing I say, which you keep leaving out. The criteria is subjective. The other is supplementary. I've no compunction about saying it's how I feel. It should give you a good idea of how others generally react to your approach. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the term is "hoisted by your own petard". I can't stop you from thinking about taking actions out of spite, but when you put that down as a reason, even one of many, the question of absence of good faith seems rather obvious. If you can explain this statement, I'm all ears. Alansohn (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a reflection of how I (and others) have come to view you. People have feelings, even about you. As I said, I've no problem with airing them. Do you want to know more? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Otto issue
First of all, my comment that you should ignore Otto were prefaced by the following phrase: "All I can suggest for your personal feelings is that if another editor is rude to you personally ...". You left out this part of my comment, and thereby attempted to use it against me by stating, "I fail to understand why you can't abide by your own adage when it comes to those who disagree with you." I don't always ignore comments that conflict with my own opinions, but in general I'm also not personally hurt by the comments! The whole point of what I said was not to simply ignore all other editors and what they say, and that you shouldn't have any dialogue with anyone—rather, it was that if another user says something that upsets you or hurts you, ignore it. That's just my advice, though. You don't have to take it. I've been upset by others' comments about me in the past. Sometimes I have ignored it, sometimes not. But just because an advice giver is not perfect doesn't mean it's not good advice. And maybe it's not even "good" advice. It's just advice. If you don't like it, just don't do it. No need to tell me it's bad advice.

But on to the substance of your comment—my reading of your message as a whole is that you are, essentially, advocating for a block to be imposed on User:Otto4711. You're concerned that as compared to him you've been treated more harshly and there has not been equitable treatment. You've been blocked; you think he should be blocked.

Generally, I give very little heed to any user who approaches me to advocate for a block of another user. I find that almost invariably such requests are motivated by the tit-for-tat approach of "equal WP justice". You're free to advocate for a block all you want to whomever you want, but doing so will not be the motivation for me to impose a block. You called me a "a Wikipedia officer of the court". I reject that designation, because there is no standardized Wikipedia "justice system" or "penal system". "Equal WP justice" is a fable. I don't know who made it up, and I have no idea why. I suppose it's an admirable ideal to strive for, but I'm not going to strive for it by handing out my blocks for "balance" or "consistency".

After my spectacular failure several months ago when I tried to "help" both you and Otto, only to have my good faith effort thrown back into my face for its lack of "equal justice", I have given up on trying to bring any sort of resolution between you and Otto. I don't care if you get along or not. I hardly ever block users for reasons related to incivility, but when a user is on an officially-imposed editing restriction, as you are, I am far more likely to act. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have never asked for a block for anyone; I have only asked for consistency. Your vote made out of pure spite here speaks volumes about your approach to fairness and consistency. Alansohn (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If Otto was under an editing ban, then I would likely treat you "more equally" in your eyes. Since he is not, I do not. But perhaps you could tell me what you are asking for, then, specifically. What is it you want? If not a block on Otto, then what? And let's be specific. No platitudes about "equal WP justice", because as I said, there is no such thing and it doesn't help us know what we should actually do. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The same circular logic the cop uses; I've never given even a warning to Otto for his blatant civility which was swept under the rug, therefore he has a clean record, so the newest example of blatant incivility on Otto's part can be ignored. The complete and utter failure of any admin to take any public action to deal with the Otto problem only perpetuates and enables it. Are you actually OK with any editor calling someone else an "asshole" or pushing "bullshit" opinions? Alansohn (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So, what is it you are asking for? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To start dealing with the Otto problem publicly, in some vaguely consistent fashion. Or to just say that you won't deal with Otto's chronic incivility problem. Alansohn (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Specifics? What do you want me to do? If you can't offer anything apart from generalities, then I'll assume you just wanted a tit for tat, which was my initial impression. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (Incidentally, in the name of full disclosure I notified Otto that this conversation was being had.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Fictional religion.
In which case Religions such as Jedi, Sith from starwars, Origin from stargate, And many other Fictional religions should not be in the list as there are people who sincerly practice them. Scientology as everyone knows, and scientologists acknoledge, was made up as fiction, The creator declaired himself that he simply made it up. Just because some whackos wish to play a fool and practice it, does not change the fact it is fiction. Okay, Ill give you mormonism. But to remove scientology, means removing most of them, as I guarentee, most of them are practiced by someone. 210.185.5.18 (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll "give me" Mormonism but then you'll add it back to the list? And you'll add Scientology even though multiple editors have disagreed with your adding it to the list again and again? The page has been semiprotected so that the persistent vandalism to it will stop. Find me a notable group that practices "Neptuanism" as seen on Spongebob Squarepants and perhaps I'll agree that you have a point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not say ALL, I said most. And I added mormonism back only because I was lazy and just hit undo. It is not vandalism if one is puting ligitimate infomation in. Fiction is fiction, regardless of what people choose to make of it. If I chose to Practice "Neptuanism", Would that make it any less fictional? No. 210.185.5.18 (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To just argue that Scientology belongs because "fiction is fiction" is not convincing. And yes, your edits would be considered vandalism when they are opposed by multiple editors. At the very least they have been disruptive, which is a good enough reason to protect the page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I argue it shouldn't be there because it originated with known fiction. It is a fact that he made it up. he stated that himself, If the fact that it is practiced is reason not to include it then the same reason would be enough to disclude Origin, Sith, Jedi, Bajoran, Goa'uld, D'ni and all the many other religions practiced that originate from known fiction. I have nothing against the religions in question, I list them as fiction due to the fact that they are fiction. You cannot state one is okay to list but another is not, when they are in the exact same situation, It's okay to list Jedi, despite the fact MANY sencearly practice it, And yet not okay to list scientology for the same reason? Double standards. Absaloute hypocracy!210.185.9.115 (talk) 07:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you attempt to gain a consensus for your views on the talk page of the article. Then you can add Scientology if there is a consensus agreement with you. I wouldn't count on it happening, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Counselors in Presiding Bishopric
Thanks for your comments regarding those called as counselors in the presiding bishopric. It does make for an interesting thought or discussion, one that I can see a couple ways. So, this comment is intended to get your discussion thoughts.

I guess it might depend on how "called by" is to be interpreted. As you implied, the Presiding Bishop has opportunity to recommend who might serve with him as counselors. That recommendation is then approved by the First Presidency, with the call then extended by a member of the First Presidency. So, who really "called" them? The one that recommended them to serve or the one who has the authority to extend the call?

The Presiding Bishop also doesn't function in a role - or more directly - doesn't have authority to call someone as a general authority. Since the bishopric serves as such, does there service there begin by a call from the president of the church?

I agree that linking to who a man served with as a counselor in the presiding bishopric has lots of merit in tying that bishopric together.

Just wondered what your thoughts might be. I am just throwing a few ought there as I wondered about them this evening. Thanks! ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm; I would think it would make more sense to link to whomever "selected" the person, not necessarily who formally "called" them. It was my understanding that a counselor in the bishopric isn't called by the president of the church in the same way that, say, an apostle is identified and called by the president of the church. In a way, through the line of authority, I suppose everyone is "called by" the president of the church ultimately, so I would be inclined to narrow it down a bit more to the person who did the selecting. (Originally, I wasn't sure if somehow you knew that the counselors are more like counselors in a local Young Men presidency, which are selected not the by a YM president.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, I also did actually wonder about the example of a local YM presidency as you noted. (Of course the YM organization is probably the main "non-presidency presidency" in the church) It is my understanding the newly called/existing presiding bishop has that opportunity to recommend names.  So, I am good with having it show as it's been - looks like on most of the others, so thanks for updating HBE when you did the other two.  It just looked a little "odd" to have someone called as a GA by someone other than the president of the church.  That's why it caught my eye initially.  Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts! ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I figured this was as good a place to respond as any, though not in the topic thread we originally started here. Thanks for your kind comments about sustaining dates vs. ordination dates.  In some of the places, I've not looked extensively enough to ensure consitency, meaning whether the intent for a specified list had been to use sustaining or ordindation dates.  Anyway, the real intent of this comment is to thank you for the GA info boxes.  Nice to know who had established them.  I believe they are excellent and really add value to the articles they are associated with. ChristensenMJ (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Request
I'm hoping you will see this, and I'm anticipating that you will—but just in case you don't for some reason, I want to make sure that this request has been brought to your attention again:. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My response there was as follows, per your request. Please let me know if you have any further concerns in this regard and I will do my best to address them:

I assume that you will be demanding that User:Otto4711 revise his patently offensive and blatantly false remark here in response to mine that he is "unlike some I could name who have a kneejerk desire to keep practically anything and everything". Otto's response to me at the time was "I mentioned no names. If you choose to believe that the descriptor applies to you, either in reality or in how you are perceived by others, that is a matter for you and your therapist." In this case, you are certainly not the only one that was covered in the statement as I was referring to all of the editors involved in the 25 previous cases cited as "precedent", but there is some merit to the issues you raise and I will reflect your concerns. I revise my remarks to read "As those pushing for deletion throughout the process have not indicated that there is a single ethnicity category within the Category:American actors that justifies retention and have offered no guidelines to distinguish between those that should be retained and those that should be deleted, the choice of dealing with this issue one category at a time just ends up wasting community resources for no beneficial purpose." Alansohn (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

(originally posted at CfD)
 * No, I won't be pursuing anything re:Otto's comment since it doesn't appear to involve me. I think I tried to bring peace between you and Otto once. It didn't go so well. Perhaps some other brave soul would like take a stab at it and put out their shingle. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason it didn't go too well then or now is that you have not dealt with the clearest possible incivility from Otto in any public manner. Again, by ignoring it, the behavior is enabled. He got away with it before and he will again, if no admin deals with the problem, and I have asked you explicitly on multiple occasions to step to the plate and deal with Otto. Alansohn (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

(not posted at CfD)
 * Hm, that's one interpretation. Unfortunately it's based on a lack of inside information, and is of course is biased in that it comes from one of the antagonists, who of course will blame the other side or the mediator for scuppering the effort. I've asked explicitly above what specifically you would like me to do, but I can't get a response to that either. All I hear is I need to "deal with" Otto and offer "equal justice" or do something in a "public manner". "Step to the plate", you say. And do what, exactly? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this is getting tiring, and all I'm doing is watching this unfold. Alan, if you have such a problem with Otto, please assume responsibility and take it to dispute resolution. Your constant demands that GO handle it when he is under no obligation to do so is quickly turning into harassment, and is very clearly a waste of everyone's time. --Kbdank71 02:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Consistency, and the lack thereof
Your grotesque paraphrases at List of cabals severely misrepresent the statements I have made about the dysfunctional nature of CfD, including the lack of any mention of a "cabal or coordination. Posting a blatant personal attack of this nature after demanding changes of your own is in rather bad taste. I look forward to your corrections. The double standard is alive and well. Alansohn (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a humour page. If you don't like your comments being linked there I'm sure you're permitted to remove it (though that may be viewed by some as the epitomy of taking yourself too seriously). Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For someone who takes himself so seriously that you have made repeated claims about being mischaracterized, including when direct quotations are used, you appear to have no qualms about doing it yourself. It's a clever gimmick to put personal attacks on a page and call it "humor". Alansohn (talk) 11:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if it hurt your feelers. As I said you can remove anything you find offensive. (I typically don't take myself seriously at all, Alansohn, but for you I'll make an exception. (Oh no! That's not consistent! My constitutional sensibilities are assaulted yet again! The late-eighteenth century American yeoman in me screams in agony, etc.)) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely I have said something worthy of note at List_of_cabals? That pesky Alansohn gets all the fame. Occuli (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, I don't know. I can't think of anything offhand. It has to of course imply the existence of some sort of overarching conspiracy in one way or the other. I find most of your comments far too grounded in reality. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

BYU-Hawaii text usage
First, not being totally sure if I did it right to give you notification, but wanted to be sure you saw the message I threw into our discussion thread about the presiding bishopric.

When I first began participating in efforts to "help" and contribute to Wikipedia, you were quite patient with me when it came to my efforts to update text and style usage for BYU-Hawaii. So, I thank you for that. I hadn't fully realized they were not using text guidelines that would have them be consistent with that of BYU-Idaho, which would be the desired intent. I believe they have completed making the necessary adjustments in that regard. An updated copy of their identity guidelines is now available through one of the sites you helped steer me to: http://webmasters.byuh.edu/node/19 or http://ur.byuh.edu/communications/identity_guidelines.

So, with you being far more accomplished in use of Wikipedia, my question to you is what is the most effective way to update the primary Wikipedia page and resulting links throughout? Is it use of a move function? Also, {maybe this is actually the first question} would it be necessary or appropriate to have opportunity for discussion before making that change? Just seeking your counsel on the best way to proceed. Thanks for thoughts you would have. ChristensenMJ (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and moved things along (see Talk:Brigham_Young_University–Hawaii) but need help with the cats. —Eustress talk 18:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's very kind of you to let me know ChristensenMJ. I see the move has gone ahead. For articles it's just a move function that anyone usually can perform. For moves that are likely to be controversial, they are usually proposed on the talk page of the article and opened for comment, to make sure others agree with the proposed move. Since this one is fairly minor and conforms to the updated style guidelines of the school, it's probably appropriate that it was done immediately. As for all the links on other pages, they have to be changed by hand, although Brigham Young University Hawaii will still link to the correct page via a redirect. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I like this quote


Have a good weekend. --Kbdank71 18:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh so timely. Me and him have to get together to form a "know nothing" admin cabal. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Editing Barnstar

 * note - Olfactory or Ol'factory? Bugboy52.4 (talk) 02:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I never knew--it's technically Olfactory but I sign it Ol'factory. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean like the organ? Bugboy52.4 (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's "Yamaha". :) Yes, like the organ. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

States and territories established in yyyy
Hi, I noticed that you've been adding many articles to categories named States and territories established in yyyy. That's well and good, except that articles about counties in U.S. states do not really belong in that category as they are neither states nor territories. I'm really not sure what would be a more meaningful category, but that one is pretty clearly inappropriate. older ≠ wiser 12:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Number-one albums categories
Hi Olfactory. In March, you speedily deleted the categories, Category:Number-one albums in the United Kingdom and Category:Billboard 200 number-one albums, per G4 as recreations of previously deleted material per a CFD (Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 15. While these have not been allowed to be recreated, there are more and more and more number-one song categories being created (see Category:Number-one singles), in which lists are available for most of these as well. My question to you is: How can I re-open up a discussion of a CFD from nearly three years ago that could allow new discussion of recreating the number-one album categories?  Thanks for your help. --Wolfer68 (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically you should go to WP:DRV. You could also just start a section in CFD saying you'd like to re-create them, and get a discussion going on whether or not they should. However, I'll tell you what. Why don't you re-create these two categories? I won't speedily delete them again. Then we'll see if anyone else does (in which case we'll go from there) or if anyone else nominates them for a full discussion. It's been long enough now that we should probably have a discussion about them. If no one does either, I won't interfere. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

music categories
re this: can you maybe tell me what the correct format is for music categories? -- Ludwigs 2 01:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See Category:Music by nationality. You could code it like this:, but then you'd have to insert a line for nationality. I tried to do it but it's beyond my coding abilities. I can get everything to work category-wise except then the name of the nationality shows up at the bottom of the template in plain text. But I think most of the articles the template attaches to are in subcategories already of the general music categories, so it's not really needed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ok, I hadn't seen that category before. let me fix the template (if I can), if only for the sake of future articles.  otherwise, how does the template look?  anything that should be added, changed, or removed?  -- Ludwigs 2  03:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think otherwise it looks good; a nice addition. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ok, I fixed it - it will now add the transcluding pages to ' music', if the culturename parameter is set. I'll document it now.  it should work with both the 'Music by nationality' and 'Music by continent' categories.  anything else you see, let me know.  -- Ludwigs 2  04:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Mercer category
Re your post "Just nominate Category:Songs written by Johnny Mercer and have at it there." How to do that; I'm not proposing deletion of that category but splitting it up. -- BRG (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you could have a discussion at CfD about splitting it up. Discussions like that are rare, but not unheard of. You would just nominate it for a "rename", and then in your nomination statement clearly set out what your multiple target categories would be. It could work; I would've thought that doing that would be easier than trying to get the old category restored. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope I did it right. I don't often post on the deletion pages -- I'm a really strong inclusionist! So I'm not a great expert on the procedures. Could you check that I did it right? -- BRG (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks fine but .... why are you starting the CfD now, before the end of the DRV? My suggestion at the DRV was just that a CfD could be had to discuss this, but I was thinking it would be after the DRV was closed. To have two processes going on at once for the same thing is confusing, and my suggestion at the DRV may not be the consensus position at the end of the day. Sorry if my comments have been confusing in the timing regard. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I had thought your comment implied that the CfD should be done instead of the DRV; as I said, this whole process is a bit foreign to me. -- BRG (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI notification re latest incivility and personal attack
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Shucks, no fair that all the fun happens when I'm asleep. It has come and gone before I'm even awake. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You should know better...
Just because you found a source for something doesn't make it defining. How many times do I have to tell you that? --Kbdank71 14:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Phew. My world was crumbling down. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm totally lost. (Looks around for Rod Serling, or at least Allen Funt....) - jc37 09:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, join in the fun. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Woah, you're attacking Mitch Hedberg now? Not cool.  --Kbdank71 13:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Better than trivializing child molestation or the Holocaust, no? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Point. George Carlin, on the other hand... --Kbdank71 14:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Honduran cardinals to Category:Honduran Roman Catholic cardinals
I don't think this will be a speedy. However this is one of those cases that seems to keep coming up and most of the regulars would probably support as a new speedy criteria. The tricky part will be the wording so that it does not get abused. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thx. Won't proceed speedily. Perhaps I'll try a test nom. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

moving List of individuals executed in Texas pages
Hi. You've moved the various List of individuals executed in Texas pages - i.e. the 1870-1879, 1920-1929, etc. I don't see any particularly reason why the short dash "-" page names were changed to the long dash "–". I, and imagine any other editors, would use the short dash of the keyboard, and wouldn't go to the trouble to find the code for the long dash. Could you please explain on moving these pages? I see them as unneccesary moves. As things as it is now, the wikilinks on the main page List of individuals executed in Texas and the succession boxes at the bottom of each of those pages have not been redirected. Please reply here on your talk page to keep thread together. JRH.uk (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a manual of style issue: see WP:DASH. Dashes are not the same as hyphens; see WP:HYPHEN. I will be fixing the redirects shortly. Anyone typing in or linking to the old name will still be redirected to the page in question. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ensign Page Movement
All I can say is wow! Over 200 edits of changing a few silly little letters! You're amazing! I just feel like you totally deserve this... so, here you go! Thanks for all the work you do to make the wiki a better place!

Thanks! And there are still more to do—Fun, fun! Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Chaplin
You appear to have missed a joint nominated cat at. I can relist if you wnat. Thanks. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Taken care of. --Kbdank71 17:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What does FOO mean?
I keep seeing this acronym and I can't figure it out. I think it's something-of-origin but that's as far as I can get. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * foobar --Kbdank71 18:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They don't actually mean anything. They're just used as placeholders.  --Kbdank71 18:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. Got it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Happily using Good Olfactory's talk page as if it were my own... :) --Kbdank71 19:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Carry on. My time zone constrains me. You can take care of all the hard questions from the Americans, Canadians, and Europeans while I'm busy sleeping. I'll be able to handle things if any Fijians want to know something. (I might also pass the Australians on to you, though.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Gee, thanks. ;)  --Kbdank71 23:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

simple.wikipedia
Could you please check the Mormonism section in the article Fall of Man? Remember it's the simple wikipedia so use simple words. Thanks. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * added a bit there. It's difficult to write in that way when you're not used to it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why I monitor recent changes instead of editing. It's much easier to do that at simple. One edit every 3 minutes on average compared to here (which is 120 edits per minute). Thanks for helping. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

So, you're obviously not a warrior...
I'm going to guess you fit into the hierarchy as a Magic User. --Kbdank71 16:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was always partial to the halflings. Little guys, no real skills except rock throwing, can't use a bow and arrow ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

about Category:Bahá'í Faith in Georgia
I don't have an issue about it. Smkolins (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Category: Camp Rising Sun Alumni
I noticed that the category of "Camp Rising Sun Alumni" was deleted; however, I believe this was in error as the programme's name does not indicate accurately either its content or its nature.

In fact, the programme is more aptly termed an international scholarship programme dating from the early 1930s and has grown to become one of the most prestigious in the United States. Sponsored by the Louis August Jonas Foundation, the programme has a large array of prominent alumni and is frequented by university admission officers from some of the most prestigious universities in the United States.

I believe that those who first thought that the category should be removed were unaware of this fact and I trust that this information should explain why the category should be revived.

I was unsure of the process of reviving the discussion on this, though thought that this was the place... At least, I'd be interested in hearing from others who are aware of the program, its nature, and its status over the last 75+ years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angkorgo2 (talk • contribs)


 * Note: this needs to be posted at WP:DRV, not here on my talk page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Billboard 200 number-one albums
Can you G4 and salt Category:Billboard 200 number-one albums plz? It just got re-created again. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 04:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Normally, I would. But see my comments here. I'd like to see if another admin agrees with me that it should be speedily deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Christian monasteries and abbeys by century established
Taking up your invitation to comment, I'm entirely happy with your call on this, which as far as I'm concerned sorts the problem - thanks! HeartofaDog (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know that I wasn't totally off on this ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Past Category
I have ditched the idea of a category called Actors-singers or Singers-actors, but the reason why we don't categorize people for being Actors-singers or Singers-actors is still completely unclear. Why don't we categorize those people for being such? Like i said, i've ditched the idea for eternity, but i still need to know why we don't categorize people like that? Ryanbstevens (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The discussion for that is here, where users give their rationales. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 11
Regarding your comments at Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 11, instead of


 * Category:European Americans → Category:European American people

would you support swapping them the other way?


 * Category:Alaska Native people → Category:Alaska Natives
 * This is the most problematic, very complicated, maybe we could leave it alone
 * Category:Native American people → Category:Native Americans
 * Category:Native Hawaiian people → Category:Native Hawaiians

Just trying to find some agreement.... somehow.
 * --William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

See response at User talk:Hmains.
 * --William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:People by island
Created it, put a couple of entries in it, then I got bored. And then I returned to it... Whoa! Great job... GregorB (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I had fun with that one, trying to think up others to add... Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Christian monasteries and abbeys by century established (part II)
Sorry to bring this up again, but although all the "xth century" cats have indeed been renamed, the overcat, named as above, has not, although it was included in the CfD nomination - could you fix it if you get a minute? Thanks, HeartofaDog (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure I'll do that ASAP. Not sure how I overlooked that one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you!HeartofaDog (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please remove mentions of hoax
Good Olfactory, please delete any reference to hoax, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:House_of_Lopez_de_Prado. These articles were deleted at my own request (G7, not G3), and I do not want them re-published. Besides, hoax accusations have been proven wrong, see User_talk:Qqtacpn. Thanks! (Qqtacpn (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Responded at your talk page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Good Ol’factory, thanks for correcting this. I have received some unfair treatment in the last 48 hours, but you have done the right thing, and I appreciate it. (Qqtacpn (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)).

CfD - Bridges (all)
I see that you closed this category for deletion discussion but only deleted one of the two categories that were nominated. Was there a reason for that? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's in process—being done by a bot. Check back in a little while and it should be deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The bot had emptied it so I manually deleted it just to speed up the process so I could tell you it's done now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

LDS leadership cats
Given your interest both with WP Cats, as well as with Mormonism, I'd like to hear you thoughts about this. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking—I've commented there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Another Tiramisoo Sock
Katr67 (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah do believe you are correct. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

category rename suggestions
Hi Good Olfactory, I see you've deleted the Category:Max Schreck I just recreated. Yes, it was deleted "per 2009 MAY 7 CfD". I then posted Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. There I pointed out I did not get any notification of any discussion taking place. And then I recreated it again. After (now) looking at CSD and WP:OC and the comment by User:Occuli, I think I would have supported a renaming as Category:Max Schreck images instead. Could this be done?

Please move this wherever it seems best for discussion. I could not understand how to open an undelete request but what I really want is a new "disposition discussion". I don't want to post on Category talk:Images of actors and actresses because that itself might get merged and the talk lost. Meanwhile I wonder if there are better ways than categories for these wikipedia-hosted images? Gallery pages? There are several that cannot be hosted on Commons but that fit the English wikipedia public domain criteria (eg. those PD in the USA only). I'll drop a note that links here on User:Occuli's and User:Otto4711's talk pages. 84user (talk) 04:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, just find out what the other two editors think. If a rename is OK with them, I will rename it. It will probably be OK with Occuli, since the rename was originally his suggestion. If it's not OK with Otto (the nominator), I think it should probably go to DRV. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Migrate those images that can be to Commons and be done with it. How many images of Max Schrek do we need anyway? Otto4711 (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good points. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you support my application for Administrator?
When I was most active 3-5 years ago, I turned down folks that suggested I become an administrator. It wasn't a big deal. Now, I'm finding that many tasks and templates that I'm accustomed to doing (including many that I created and/or extensively re-worked) now require being an administrator. I suppose it's mostly an increase in *pedia size, but still disconcerting.

Mostly, I've assisted at CfD and TfD these days, but they're still far behind. Do you think that I should apply for administrator? --William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've found that being an admin when working with categories is a huge help. We're always looking for admins who would be willing to assist with CfD. User:Kbdank71 carries a huge load of closing discussions, and when he's away, we tend to fall behind on closings (as recently).


 * So in that regard, I'd certainly support you. I haven't "investigated" enough of your edits to know if I should be concerned about anything, but my first impressions are that I wouldn't have any major concerns. (I have noticed you were a bit sharp with a few editors a couple of times at CfD—but who hasn't been, right? I'm as guilty as anyone in that regard. Sometimes there's an instinctual reaction to act that way in response to stupidity. But I just mention it because at RfA I know some editors place a lot of emphasis on examples of civility, or a lack thereof, that they dig up.)


 * In short, I would encourage you to do it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hijack, but: when he's away, we tend to fall behind threw my back out and my son has been sick, so I've been away from cfd the last week. I should pick up come Tuesday. --Kbdank71 03:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Mercer category (2)
When the discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 18 was closed, a whole bunch of pages were recategorized. It's clear that only Richhoncho wanted this recategorization, considering all the discussions that have taken place. Yet the question on Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 9 is still open, and when I asked King of Hearts about this he said that because he was the one who put the question there, it is not appropriate for him to close it. Until the question is closed, I don't think people can go ahead and undo those recategorizations. Can you close it? or is there someone else I need to contact? -- BRG (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was avoiding closing it because I had been involved with you in the DRV in recommending a relisting at CfD, so I didn't want to be accused of having a conflict of interest. Perhaps if you're OK with me doing it, it will be fine if I do. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not only am I OK with your doing it, I want you or someone to, as I said. -- BRG (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've (finally) closed it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Religious views on masturbation
There is (was) a dispute over the inclusion of material that said that some Mormons (LDS members) did not follow (practice) the LDS doctrine concerning masturbation. Since you are an admin and you work with these types of articles could you please look over it? Thanks. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to have ended without too much back and forth. Let me know if it picks up again. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Hare Krishnas
I have nominated hare krishnas for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Wikid as&#169; 00:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Joke?
Category:Christianity in Vatican City - its probably my monday morning eyes maligned by the weekend but it looks like a dan brown inspired joke - but seeing you seem to spend your life embedded in the stuff - does it make sense to you? SatuSuro 01:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, no—it doesn't really. It looks like a situation where someone is trying to bring "completeness" to, and it would work for any other country, but I agree that this is probably a special case where it doesn't quite make sense. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to do anything with it (Islamic religion in Mecca would be a good one)- I am trying to 'keep up' on the swine flu in my hometown of west oz, perth - trust it hasnt hit the idyllic kiwi islands yet SatuSuro 02:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, we haven't escaped unscathed, and were actually one of the first casualties—had a planeload of high school students come back from a trip to Mexico just as the swine flu was getting underway. They all went into quarantine, and apparently they've all recovered. Haven't heard much about it lately. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK -not too bad then -keep safe keep healthy and I'll stay out of your way (I have a non swine variety at the mo and my round the world ticket ((hmm as long as the swine thing dosnt cancell it)) in a few months will not be including nz :)) SatuSuro 02:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)  context to that was that I had been planning on a south island visit - an old friend is now a prof at one of the unis - but the itinerary is now too prblematic for a nz stop :) SatuSuro 02:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's too bad. I could have met up with you, kicked your sorry a— in tiddley-winks, etc. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Heheh - you never know - it all depends which countries decide to go into lockdown in the next three months - might have to do some odd routes if that happens and christchurch might be back on the list - :) SatuSuro 03:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleting Grammy awards nominee category
Dear Good Olfactory,

The last thing I want to do is get into a pissing match with an administrator here. However, I am absolutely astonished and disappointed with the callousness displayed by the decision to deem Grammy Award Nominees as trivial. Let me start by giving you the anatomy of a music recording. The artist starts out at a tremendous disadvantage. Just getting someone in the industry to listen to their material is very hard. They have to self finance for sometimes years before they're even in a position to send out a demo. If and when they get a demo, the rejection begins. One after another. Christopher Cross was rejected dozens of times before Warner Bros. Records finally picked up "Sailing," which went on to sell millions. Do you have any idea of the heartache that he went through before he realized any success? Once an artist actually releases a product, he or she is faced with unbelievable competition. There are literally hundreds of thousands of products released every month.

If an artist finally has a modicum of success, only a record label or a voting member of the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences can "submit" that recording for first round voting to determine the nominees. The lists in each category are voluminous, since every label submits nearly their entire roster. Out of the long list of submissions, the voting members eliminate all but about five for each category. Those five have been selected by voting members of the academy (the artists' peers) and they are the nominees. At that point those artists each "won" a nomination. I'm not the one who coined it as a win... it's the academy who calls it a win, and it's the academy that issues certificates acknowledging the win, and it's the academy who holds a special ceremony several days before the telecast to honor those winning nominees.

The vast majority of musicians go an entire career without a single nomination. Your actions here tonight say that Wikipedia considers the hard work and years of struggle that accompany a nomination, to be nothing more than "trivia" and not worthy of being recognized with a category on Wikipedia.

Shame on you and shame on Wikipedia for becoming what Wikipedia fought against for years. The fellow who nominated that category for deletion is Explicit. I tried to post my view everywhere I could, but the instructions as to where to post it are anything but clear. I believe I read in the rules that "debate" would go on for seven days before deletion took place. "Debate" didn't last seven hours, much less seven days. I tried to join the "debate" but apparently didn't post my response in the proper place. Nonetheless, I posted a message on Explicit's talk page and on the talk page for the category itself. Apparently no one saw my messages or ignored them. I told Explicit, who himself hopes to be in the music business some day, that if he is lucky enough to ever be nominated for a Grammy, he will certainly not consider that nomination to be trivial.

I tried to do something good for Wikipedia and musicians by providing recognition for those who had actually won a Grammy Nomination. You have a category for "Garment districts" that breaks down into minutia, but find Grammy Nominees to be trivial. Shame on you and everyone else who has no appreciation or consideration for the hard work and accomplishments of others.

Todd --Warriorboy85 (talk) 07:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Shame on me. Message received. Shame accepted. But note that the decision was (shamefully) deleting via consensus a long time ago, and that that's why it was speedily deleted on being re-created. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I had no idea the category was there before or that it was previously deleted. Nothing ever told me that when I created it. However, that means that at least one other person agrees that there should be a category for Grammy Award Nominees. Although I spent quite some time explaining why there should be such a category, I notice you basically just ignored my entire point and made light of it all. I won't bother you any more, but you've confirmed in my mind exactly what's wrong with Wikipedia.--Warriorboy85 (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I accepted the shame. What more could I do? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_16
I would have liked to have seen more discussion on this before it was closed, particularly how OC#SMALL does or does not apply, there was no decisive argumentation on that point. I'm a little annoyed it was you who closed the discussion when you're someone who has nominated the same type of category for deletion yourself. And now if someone is looking for articles on e.g. sci-fi film series by genre, they won't find the Class of Nuke 'Em High film series, because the category was deleted and there's no Class of Nuke 'Em High film series article. One could create an article for it, but I don't suppose it would have much content unless someone were really motivated; the categories didn't require anyone to create good articles, just links. Grumble. What would you suggest? Creating a film series article? Putting just the first article in the series in Category:Science fiction films by series? Шизомби (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to solve every conceivable problem with WP; I just closed the discussion that I'm not particularly interested in. I don't know much about the topic so I'm not sure what to recommend. But I do know that if you're going to have a problem with a user closing any discussion that is even remotely similar to one they have previously commented on before, there will arise a tremendous backlog at CfD. But since you seem to think I am somehow biased in this case, I will "un-close" the discussion and let someone else close it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm, almost immediately after I re-opened it and restored the categories another admin closed it as delete, so I hope this does help you realise that I wasn't deciding to delete out of biased motives. It was an honest assessment of the discussion on my part, and this assessment has been confirmed by the closing admin, at least. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Holy Church of Mormonistic Temple Lot or whatever
I appreciate the improvements you made to my edit, but not the disprovements, if there is such a word. Bear with me if you will, I plan to add more and more documentation, such as a photocopy of that September 5, 1898 Kansas City Star article. There was a good deal of coverage of Mr. Pattison's trial in other Jackson County newspapers--including a full transcript of his testimony transcribed and published in some now-defunct newspaper. Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As you can see, I have indeed added more never-before-published-online press reports about Mr. Pattison/Pattyson/Patterson in 1898, and there is more. As I review press reports and court documents for both the 1898 and 1990 arson fires, I notice something weird: The facts and motives and conduct of the 1990 arsonist went mostly uninvestigated or reported by local and national media....but facts and motives and conduct of the 1898 arsonist were simply submitted in the public and private record as having been duplicated by the 1990 arsonist! In almost every aspect of the 1990 case, the young man was simply described to press and police and courts as having done exactly what Pattyson did in 1898 for exactly the same reasons. In reality, the 1990 arsonist claimed he was explicitly protesting against the type of religious fanatic "lunacy" and egoism not only attributed to Pattyson before his trial, but openly admitted by him when he testified at his trial.


 * Conversely, when the 1990 arsonist was finally able to explain his motives and conduct at the January 14-16, 1991 trial, it evidently was alarming to the non-Mormon Prosecutor and non-Mormon newspaper reporters that the public, and law enforcement, and fellow Mormons of the protester, might finally learn the startling truth. Hence, facts continued to be suppressed from public view while the same false rumors initiated a year earlier continued to be promoted. I'm convinced that you, as well as so many others, have been misled/deceived by the false statements expressed by some Temple Lot members about the 1990 arsonist, which were then widely published without corroboration, causing more and more people to firmly believe in what is essentially an amazing hoax foisted by just a few "renegade officials" in the Temple Lot sect. The 1990 arsonist's motives, conduct and explanations before during and after January 1, 1990 arson fire were not only unalike those of the 1898 arsonist, but in almost every respect, completely the opposite.  For example, a persistent falsehood about the 1990 arsonist is that he wished to demolish the church headquarters building because he believed no building except the Temple should be there, and also that if any building except a Temple were demolished, then hopefully it would somehow hasten the Second Coming. And further, the 1990 arsonist was falsely alleged to have claimed that "God told him to burn the building down to cleanse the site" and so forth. Court records reveal that the 1990 arsonist never expressed such a motive, totally disagreed with it when he learned about it (by reading it in news reports falsely attributed to himself), and in fact felt and expressed the opposite view: He stated that he wanted to protest against uneducated religious fanatics who were abusing people's human rights, and that he wanted a new, safer, more attractive and Christian-like headquarters building to be constructed, and was pleased when church officials decided to do so after carefully removing church records and valuables, almost none of which had been damaged or destroyed in the 1990 fire.


 * Furthermore, the 1990 arsonist repeatedly asserted (and proved during the ensuing 18 years) that he had no desire to further cause damage to any property belonging to membership of the the Temple Lot sect, and stated in testimony on March 7, 1991 that he or anyone damaging or threatening to damage the property again would be completely irrational and pointless, unlike his vandalism on January 1, 1990 which he always asserted was similar in purpose and nature to the 1773 Boston Tea Party,(hence the "Indian paint" on his face and the "Indian dance" on the front stoop of the church, etc.) Enough said....I just want you to know our motive for editing Church of Christ (Temple Lot) and Temple Lot at this point...an agenda shared by a growing number of acquaintances, friends and relatives of you-know-who, all obtaining and readying for publication online a ton of information about the Temple Lot sect, and religious and political issues relating thereto... Our agenda is to more fully document both the 1898 and 1990 arson (and other newsworthy incidents which have occurred at the Temple Lot), and show the dramatic differences between the 1898 arson/arsonist and the 1990 arson/arsonist. To date, the reading public has been totally betrayed and disappointed and deceived into believing the 1990 incident was simply a repeat of the doltish 1898 incident, in which a pompous, run-of-the-mill self-serving nutcase set fire to a building because congregants didn't want to accept his delusions of grandeur about himself and his desire to be "Mormon Pope" or whatever.  Again, there's a ton of entertaining and surprising and useful information coming down the turnpike. We will greatly appreciate the assistance of yourself and other "advanced" editors in presenting the information in as professional and enlightening manner possible. Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Because of previous conflicts over the page, it was agreed by consensus to not include an in-depth discussion of the motives of the 1990 arsonist in the articles Temple Lot or Church of Christ (Temple Lot). Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Category removal
Regarding this removal of Category:American Catholics from Farrah Fawcett, was that because of the article or the category, both, or neither? Thanks - Frank  |  talk  11:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It was b/c of BLP. Religion does not appear to be relevant to to her notable activities. But if it were to be included, it should be . Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Great. I love that guideline; if only we can get the wider community to accept and implement it. (I'm on board.) Frank  |  talk  01:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin nomination
See here for a discussion about an editor who has turned to you in connection with a possible adminship. Debresser (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

naming synagogue centuries
Just do it. I created all four categories (after discussion with other people who edit on synagogues)  We didn't discuss naming style. I didn't even think about naming style. If this is the standard format, please do just go ahead and make the changes. It's hardly significant enough to warrant discussion.Historicist (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I completed the chronological series of synagogue categories. adding Medieval,, 14th-century and 15th-century, as per your format.  Unfortunately, I left the hyphen out of the fifteenth century.  I will add more Medieval and early modern synagogues as time permits.  I do appreciate your help in getting the categories properly formatted.Historicist (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's OK I can have the hyphen added in the 15th one. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks—all I can say is: what is the DEAL with that guy? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Category MPs implicated in 2009 Expenses Scandal
Another day, another 2 MPs - Julie Kirkbride and Margaret Moran forced to say they wont stand again for election because of the expenses scandal, and as the category got more relevant, as the expenses scandal became defining in the lives of more and more British politicians, you went from tepid to firm, shouldn't that be tepid to hot?? in your opposition, more convinced the category should be removed. Brilliant. If I could offer you a shadow barnstar, a negative barnstar for aiding in a miniscule way corrupt and corrupting politicians I would Sayerslle (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * GO is aiding corrupt politicians? How do you figure that?  --Kbdank71 18:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I meant "tepid to firm", not "tepid to hot". See, with gelatin desserts, first you add the hot water. Then the water cools—it gets "tepid", see, and then the next step is the gelatin firms up. So you go from hot to tepid to firm. Mmmm: Jell-O. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So you firmed up to the consistency of jell-o. So the Category issue is still up for debate because that isn't very firm is it. Jay Z said in Hard Knock Life he 'went from luke warm to hot.' I prefer that. Its clearer, more straightforward, direct, more honest - like how I think politicians should be. Sayerslle (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Decisions are made not by me: they are made by consensus. Consensus was clearly against retention of the category. I suggest everyone get over it. (And anyway, I'd take Bill Cosby over Shawn Corey Carter any day.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The consensus was for Barabbas over Jesus - didn't make it right. And I thought it was a useful category. But in the spirit of Dr. Huxtable - we got the Cosby Show in the 1980s in Britain and I loved it, and I liked his calming, reasonable influence in the household - I will get over it. Sayerslle (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Gee, that's quite a novel way of indicting of the whole WP system of using consensus to make decisions. At least you resisted bringing the election of Hitler into the argument—but to use the execution of Jesus ... that's probably the next best thing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It was consensus, but as I understand it you were the first to seek the category's removal. The problem I have when you say, cheerily, 'get over it' is that , in a tiny way, the category was part of a recording and tabulating of the corruption, fraud and theft of the powerful in Britain - it is important always to challenge power, to limit its abuses, to ridicule its pretensions etc. While the super rich MPs, and people like Bill Cash are multi-millionaires, (but do you even know who these people are, being in your Canadian Ivory Tower, saying ' hey, don't take it too seriously').. While these chancers steal more money, people in the real world actually die, don't have operations, slave for practically nothing etc..So theres a time to be cheery , and theres a time to be serious. I saw your seeking to remove the Category as a timid, weak-minded, servile, fear of offending Power. But the emperor never has any clothes. You can't hide behind consensus as if you are not an individual, and individualy I think, you were on the wrong side. And I didn't mention Hitler because thats not relevant but as for consensus, majorities etc I think Nietzsche did say 'If you want to multiply your supporters, add zeros.'Sayerslle (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the category was just an unreferenced list of people. If you want recording and tabulating blah blah etc, you should read Disclosure of expenses of Members of the United Kingdom Parliament.  --Kbdank71 13:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If I click on any category, say 1976 in television, there all just lists aren't they. I dunno Ive a lot to learn. All I wanted was like  a one-click guide to the rogues gallery kind of thing. Anyway I'm bored with this subject myself now. Sayerslle (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You can reach an article in "one click" too, you know. As for your suggestion that I am "timid, weak-minded, servile, [have a] fear of offending Power"—well, let's just say I'll add it to the list of insults directed my way. I think it's usually best if we focus on content and not worry so much about what motivates other users. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I just looked at that article - its messy, of off-putting length, clumsy because its trying to gather too many threads, not as comprehensive - like where's Don Touhig,  put in charge of cleaning up the system, the Guardian,  with one of my favourite quotes of the scandal said it was like putting ' a pyromaniac in charge of  a fire brigade.' Im more convinced than ever the deletion of the Category was dumbass - that the action was dumbass, not calling anyone anything. And I'm sure its pointless to speculate on the political motivations of editors  - I'm not 'worrying' about what motivates other users, I couldn't give  a flying bonk  what your politics are,  Im just saying the Category was good and useful and its gone , and I'm annoyed because you instigated its removal. The removal annoys me. Its not personal. I say again the one-click article doesn't answer at all, its  a too long jumble, and the Category was ace. WTF! TTFN!! Sayerslle (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's pretty finessed: "the deletion of the Category was dumbass - that the action was dumbass" and you're annoyed at me for instigating the dumbass action, but you're not calling anyone anything. I don't think that hair was split exactly down the middle—you might want to try again. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * o.k i'll try again, last time, promise. I remember watching the World at War narrated by Laurence Olivier and the episode which included the Battles of Narvik. Churchill backed the ill-advisd Narvik landings, supported a premature, dumbass action. Do I therefore want to say Churchill was a dumbass. I do not. Anyway last night I backed £20! the mighty New York Mets to beat the Florida Marlins, and 3-2  they did , so I shall finish this , in a good mood by saying , I did not mean to equate the execution of the Category with the execution of Jesus, (and I'm not comparing you with Winston Churchill either) , I'm just giving examples from history which prove majorites are no guide to the rightness or wrongness of an action or belief, and in the second case, of how non-dumbass people can do or say dumbass things. Probably I have , but I am not a dumbass. Sayerslle (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In light of WP:CONS, I don't think there's much anyone can do about the fact that groups of people often make decisions that will be opposed by single editors. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You nasty cyberstalker!!!1!!eleven!!!
WTF? --Kbdank71 14:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WTF indeed. Psychosis, anyone? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Really. I'm surprised you're not getting tagged as Sam Blacketer as well...  --Kbdank71 14:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Give it time. This guy comes around every 2 months or so and tries to rehabilitate himself on WP, even though all but a passing mention of him has been purged from Temple Lot. He'll be back. He torched a church while doing a native American dance in front of the inferno—but he's not a crank! Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_22
This CfD reeks of bad faith on the part of the nominator. the nominator, TenPoundHammer, nominated this for deletion in August of 2008; the creator of the category made a case for its inclusion, and it was kept. In this AfD, TPH nominated it again with the thinnest of reasoning (is that even a valid rationale for deletion?) and without any notice of the prior CfD, and the category was deleted on the basis of one !vote. Based on the results of the last CfD, there is no consensus to delete this category, and one new !vote ("per nom") shouldn't have changed that. Can you please restore it? Chubbles (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that this was nominated in bad faith. The nominator does nominate a lot of categories and I wouldn't be surprised if he had forgotten about the previous nomination. I closed both discussions and I (in good faith) hadn't recalled the earlier one. I'm not convinced, however, that deletion was an inappropriate result for the second nomination. The reason is that normally assessments of consensus in a second discussions are considered afresh, without resort to the old discussion. That said, I think this would be a good issue to discuss at deletion review, where you could raise these issues. If other users agree that I should have considered the previous discussion as well, I'll accept that, but I'm not going to do so unilaterally. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The DRV is now open. Chubbles (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Temple Lot
You posted a diff (now at User talk:Jimbo Wales) of your favorite legal threat. I'm not sure who he was calling an idiot as I was not aware of the diff until it was pointed out. What is the background on this vandal (if that is a proper term)? Griffinofwales (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's quite a complex story. The user was originally User:Jsmith 51389, though he's used a number of sockpuppets over the months. In a nutshell, the person was convicted in 1990 of setting fire to the church building that sits on the Temple Lot. He initially started editing the article in a way that made it look like he was whitewashing the crime—he was concerned first of all that his name was being used, and second, that his motives for burning the church were being misrepresented or not explained fully. (His claimed motives are a mix-mash of religious prophecy fulfilment and social protest, as near as I can tell.) These changes were resisted by other editors, and then the user began making legal threats and was banned from WP. Ultimately, it was decided to not refer to the user's name and to just make the arson incident a brief mention in the article, since it's not terribly significant in the overall history of the place. He keeps popping up with various usernames and always pretends to be an otherwise uninvolved person who is interested in adding detail about the various arson incidents at Temple Lot. When he's "exposed", he usually flips out like he did on Jimbo Wales's talk page. We've had some very unfortunate incidents with him in the past—once he posted the real-world identity of another user on a talk page and made legal threats and threats of violence against the person. He's the most bizarre character I've come across on WP, and unfortunately probably has some real-life psychiatric problems he's dealing with. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Claiming that an editor or anyone made...threats of violence against the person is one of several grave claims Good Ol’factory makes in his little 'summary' here, and notice there is no attempt to substantiate that or any of his characterizations or claims? This is because his are false and/or slanderous allegations, there is no substantiation anywhere for his false report that jsmith51389 made threats of violence against a fellow editor or against any other person. And so here we see an 'editor' and 'administrator' make no attempt to draw your attention to any real-world substantiation of anything he claims. It is because he doesn't want you to know the facts, but he does want you (and many others) to believe slanderous falsehoods. In a nutshell, that is the problem my brother has complained about since the end of July 27, 2007--and me and other loved ones or associates of my brother are methodically working to resolve the problem, in which apparently deranged or unusually dishonest opponents of Joseph Smith, Jordan Smith and other politically-active 'Mormons' (living or deceased) for some reason feel totally free to censor, slander and harass editors and/or civilians via the Talk Pages and articles of Wikipedia, and for political and religous reasons. My brother has never threatened or abused anyone at Wikipedia, and never will. He has complained to, or about, certain persons. In the USA at least, (where Wikipedia is headquartered), complaining isn't a crime. jared d. s.mith —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unfrayed (talk • contribs)


 * You want a diff, you get a diff, here it is, and WP is not a democracy. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Griffin, if you're interested further, I can email you and put you in contact with the editor that was threatened. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Why thank you, but why would I need to contact this person? and on a side note, shouldn't the diff above be oversighted? Griffinofwales (talk) 04:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't know how interested you were in finding out more, and just in case you were wanting to know more, I was trying to defuse the situation, since User:Unfrayed was clearly not happy about the matter being discussed here. ... As for the diff, I think you are right. I didn't even know about this one—I was referring to a different user he identified and then threatened. The diff you include was before my time; I've researched a heap of the person's edits at Temple Lot, but have not looked in detail over these talk page ones. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI, I've referred to the diff to User:Wizardman, an arbitrator, for oversight. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * lol. Now the Griffin's favorite 'diff' has been deleted, supposedly because it names an editor LOL...go to his Userpage, and he names himself:  "Hello, Salut...My name is Michael-Forest...."  LOL, how about you clowns ban Jade_Knight for providing his own name?  LOL! what a bunch of kids. Please don't expect me to reply anymore to either of you, on any page. We don't have time for this level of discourse. By the way, Jade_Knight, if you read this: We have no abiding complaint with you or anyone who respects Joseph Smith, Jr..  jared d. s.mith 06:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unfrayed (talk • contribs)
 * You may not be familiar with WP:OUTING. The problem with the comment wasn't that it revealed the user's name. The problem was that it revealed more details about the user that the user had not revealed himself, such as the school the person was attending, as well as other details. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

overdue American people
I see that you've already archived my previous note.

You haven't !voted on Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 11. For awhile, the !voters wanted "... descent", 2 more after 2 weeks want plural (as originally nominated).

Likewise, Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 16.

Need some experienced commenters (assuming that KBDank will close it eventually). You'll be one of those regularly enforcing the decision, so it would help to know your preferences. -- watching here --William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I've hesitated to comment again in the first discussion because I actually prefer "Americans of Fooian descent" for clarity and consistency reasons, but I don't think speaking in favour of that one will bring us any closer to consensus—it looks like it might push us further into no-consensus-land. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As for the second, I've hesitated to comment for a similar reason—I would actually oppose removing the "people" from the categories for people, but would support removing the "topics" from the others. I oppose removing the "people" because in my view having and  would be too confusing a distinction for most people to understand the difference. But again, stating this there is likely to push things further into lack of consensus, so for the good of all I'm kind of abstaining. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Aha, then we are in agreement! Although topics is fine with me, too, as I find using suffixes help avoid confusion. Those were my first proposals earlier in May. And had you spoken up sooner, we'd have had Fooian descent, because that's the majority !vote on the 8 day mark. Then some folks chimed in the other way on the 11th day.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh well, lack of consensus is what we have now.... Maybe I'll re-list.

Temple Lot arson agitation through other means
Just noticed this on Jimbo's talk today. Can I do anything about this? I've left a remark. Cool Hand Luke 14:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish I knew something that I could suggest for you to do. I've been at a loss as to what to do myself. It is difficult when an editor seems to come to the table with some unreasonable pre-conceptions. Based on his latest comment, he doesn't seem prepared to accept the fundamental principles of how WP works. Understandable, considering the COI. But it's not at all clear to me what the user is seeking, apart from an admission by me that I'm a sockpuppet of another user. The underlying allegation of "cyberstalking" is bizarre, to say the least. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming you are, you adopted the current name in relation to the RFA, and clearly not to "stalk" him under a new identity, but I doubt he would gather that nuance. I guess we could just let him rant and reblock him if he starts edit warring. I think his postings speak well for themselves. Cool Hand Luke 14:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll let you know if there are any content problems in the future. I should probably let another admin decide to block if it comes to that, since my judgment is obviously tainted in his view. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

His latest attack on a commentator ("your prejudice is showing") pushed me over the edge to posting on ANI. See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Cool Hand Luke 15:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: OS request
Taken care of. If you find others in the future, it's probably best to e-mail them to me, this way I'm the only one seeing the diff as opposed to non-oversighters browsing through my talk page. Thanks. Wizardman 16:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks; will do. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Cats of ambiguity
Did a leap of idiocy (always you say?) last night into the US project categories (my recent eds might show it up more clearly) and was intrigued by the incidence of American within the rather neglected and labyrinthinan USA category tree - does your precedence memory bank have any incidents where such a word is used with impunity or with sufficient prescience allow it to occur amongst more specifically tighter cats (I ask one with canuck tendencies I suppose is asking for trouble :) - or should I suggest changes to some categories? - your circumspection and or judicious comments are awaited SatuSuro 00:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually your recent eds show me that the xxx of America vs XXX in the United States do co-exist but I would still be interested in your comments to my obtuse and inarticulate question SatuSuro 00:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's pretty much a mixed bag, of course with the proviso that if it's a noun, it's "the United States" and if it's an adjective (modifying a noun) it's "American". Always "FOO of [or in] the United States" or "American FOO", but never "FOO of [or in] America" or "United States FOO". The type that uses "United States" are generally called "by country" categories and the type that use "American" are generally called "by nationality" categories. The impossible part is deciding which form to use. Categories for people almost always use the "by nationality" form (though I'm sure there are exceptions). But so too do a lot of cultural topics, like music, films, literature, etc. I can't figure out any real rhyme or reason for the differences. But at least there is a list of some that have been somewhat settled on one way or the other: Naming conventions (categories). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough response - appreciated SatuSuro 08:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Drug categorization: consensus sought
Should the 2nd, 3rd and 4th levels of the Category:Drugs by target organ system mirror the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System exactly, or be consolidated when possible?

Please read the more thorough description of this issue at WT:PHARM:CAT and post your comments there. You're comments would be much appreciated! Thanks ---kilbad (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_28
Hi. The decision was delete all, but I think that the cat for Hebrew names was supposed to be an exception? --Dweller (talk) 09:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh? I didn't see anyone single it out except for the nominator. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And no-one dissented from the removal of it from the nomination. It's clearly a different issue, being a language not a national point. --Dweller (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Any response? --Dweller (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll re-list the Hebrew one to try to get some clarity. The nominator's intent wasn't very clear—if he didn't want it included in the nomination, I'm not sure why he listed it (it also wasn't tagged). No one singled it out for comment, so I think we'd benefit from a discussion centred just on it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea, thanks. I can see from this page you have some unpleasant stuff going on onwiki. If you need a crat intervention (say someone's username changed) please do drop us a line - if it needs secrecy, use the mailing list advertised at BN. Some crats with oversight hats can now do namechanges that are very private. --Dweller (talk) 10:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I'll keep it in mind. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

CFD, help please
Hello Good Olfactory, I just have some questions about the CFD process that I think you may be able to help with, but no obligation to. Basically I've moved two of the categories in the speedy renaming section on which the time stamp had expired and then redirected the old categories to the new ones, is anyone allowed to move categories in that way? And should I have nommed the old category for deletion as opposed to redirecting it? All I did was remove the requests, is this the correct action, I have a feeling its not? If you could just talk me through the process that would be incredible helpful and appreciated. And finally, how does one move a category into full CfD discussion? Thank you for your time, all the best SpitfireTally-ho! 09:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, for a speedy one if 48 hours have expired without any objections, any user may create the new category and move the articles. Typically, the old category is deleted, so once it's empty you can just tag it with Template:Db and just indicate that it was speedily renamed for the reason.
 * To do a full CfD nomination, just follow the instructions at CFD. There are different templates to add to the category depending on whether you're proposing a rename, merge, or delete. After you add the template to the category page, the template guides you through the final steps to take. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you greatly, all the best SpitfireTally-ho! 10:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you still allowed...?
Probably the latter. --Kbdank71 13:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Mmm. Unanimity isn't what it once was. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit on Mormon
Hello, I saw your most recent edit to Mormon and had a question about it, which I posted on the talk page. Boccobrock • T • C 22:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Another small glitch in Cydebot
Sorry for the late response. I have responded on my talk page. -- Cyde Weys 02:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

ANI notification re West Ridge Academy
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 02:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Alansohn. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Please
Could you speedy the Indonesian poliical party item at Speedy? It would be appreciated- thanks SatuSuro 04:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, since u r the creator we can do it immediately. I've placed it in the work queue so it should be done shortly. Was there anything in the category? It's empty at the moment. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done (but still empty): Category:Former political parties in Indonesia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you as always - will fix now SatuSuro 04:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks. Very odd, I did find it. Though at the same time perhaps not surprising. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:congregations, churches, or both
Would you care to share an opinion here on my talk page on
 * Category:Former Roman Catholic congregations established in the 13th century vs.
 * Category:Former Roman Catholic churches established in the 13th century vs.
 * Category:Former Roman Catholic congregations and churches established in the 13th century -- Carlaude talk 20:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

fictional Jews
Someone recreated and repopulated Category:Fictional Jews. Since you've been deleting it, I guess you have some bot to empty it. Can you delete it and salt? - Altenmann >t 17:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like another admin did so and salted it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Your close of Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 1
You recently closed Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 1 as delete. Despite arguments from several editors that there is a distinct connection between being a banker and being Jewish, including taking note of the House of Rothschild, your close takes no notice of these arguments nor offers any explanation for your actions other than a single word. The arguments for deletion all relied on what is essentially "is not" in rebuttal. Any additional information to explain your close or consideration of reversal will be appreciated before any further action is taken. Alansohn (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The comments in favour of deletion were far more compelling than the rationale to keep. For one, they were based on an official WP policy. The fact that there is a logical historical reason some Jewish persons became bankers does not make the heritage "essential" to the occupation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Or, maybe it's just because I'm an alleged anti-Semitic Holocaust denier. I'm sure you'll decide which is true. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Per a discussion below, this was meant to be a joke, but a user suggested that it was confrontational, so just to clarify my intent I'm striking out the comment. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Badges of honor
Wikipedia might be a nicer place if you didn't enjoy peoples' dissagreements with you so much. Not many Wikipedians save up insults against themselves as if they are badges of honor. -- Carlaude talk 04:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Way to miss the irony. :) They are more than disagreements—these are instances where people have been rude and uncivil to me. I generally find them humorous and they are intended as a fun diversion for the interested and the bored. Most users who are rude to others won't stop if you (as their target) tell them they are rude and boorish, so I generally just let them continue and collect their bon mots. (There's always a chance that memorialisation of their words will help them realise how offensive their comments can be; or maybe it could shame them into reforming or at least apologising or something. Dunno—that's not my purpose, though—mainly I just try to have a sense of humour about these things.) If you're offended by my "collection", I would think your indignation could be better used at encouraging others not to be rude in the first place. But I apologise if it's tarnished your WP experience. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not miss the irony nor am I offended by the collection. If you think I should encourage Wikipedians to be nicer to each other instead of talking to you, then obviously you have missed the point of my comment. I do not think User:Alansohn was rude in the first place. -- Carlaude talk 05:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? The linked-to quote was nothing to do with Alansohn. I was trying to make him laugh. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sure he laughed it up. He could also have been offended by being likened to others who dare to dissagree with your actions. If you were not so touchy yourself, among other things, maybe your humor would be even more successful. -- Carlaude talk 10:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, wouldn't the world be a better place if women who were raped wouldn't be so touchy and write books about it? Those darn victims, always making it uncomfortable for the rest of us. I'm with you, Carlaude, we shouldn't have to be reminded of blatant incivility, especially by the target. I certainly disagree with GO's actions by reminding us, how about we become grossly incivil to him? You go first. --Kbdank71 12:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Careful, I think there might be a irony barrier here. But yeah, I'm touchy all right—that's why I have bookmarked a link to ANI: I file so many reports there about others. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Chopping up others' comments

 * It is always bad form to take others comments out of context-- and without even a timestamp-- on any talk page. You were and are able to just move your comments up to just below the statement of mine you are commenting on. Your comment timestamp will show when it was placed relitive to others, if that matters to you.
 * You could also have done an inline quote with time reference if you wanted, like this:

Carlaude you stated above, "Yada yada yada yada yada" Actually, I'm following Johnbod's general position etc. etc. etc. --Good Olfactory
 * But by waiting until after Johnbod posted a clear possition at 02:40, 9 June 2009, and then repeating my statement of 01:00, 9 June 2009 on his obfuscation with your timestamp 22:43, 9 June 2009 and placement where you did, you have served no good purpose, unless you want to make me look Illiterate. But if you still want all your comments from this page removed that is fine with me. -- Carlaude talk 05:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Quoting out of context v. Removing out of context quotes

 * Try this. Let's say that...
 * On Monday:
 * On Tuesday:
 * On Wednesday:
 * On Thursday:
 * On Friday:
 * To anyone who did not read carefully, or who only shown up only on Friday, Charlie is made look like he cannot understand a statment like "Mr. Black is Caucasian."
 * This is not earth-shattering stuff so far. The difficulty is that Oliver wants the right to have his "own comments"— really his own out of context quote of Charlie— unmodified, and the right to leave any misleading impressions intact. This is dispite the fact that the same Friday comment can be rewritten without this difficultly. Why does this "right" overrule the need to not misrepresent Charlie. I don't know. I know even know why this is claimed as a privilage or need at all. -- Carlaude talk 14:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And your point is ... ? You believe you were taken out of context and made to look illiterate. But an equally likely possibility is that you just maybe weren't as clear in your comments to others as you understood yourself to be, and the quote happened to highlight that fact. You can look at things from more than one perspective; it doesn't make the other view "wrong". That's why it's always best to leave others' comments alone and in the same format as they post them. You are technically free to do as you like on your own talk page, but if you ever do that elsewhere, you could run into some serious trouble with some editors. (Cool font colours, though. I'm more mesmerised by these than anything...) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

PastorWaning
user:70.104.123.20 and user:70.104.102.120 are quacking (see eg history of Category:Dutch Reformed Christians from the United States). See User:Jc37/Tracking/Pastorwayne for previous quacking ips. (You have an interesting talk page, BTW. This must be the dullest post on it ... must try harder.) Occuli (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I try my best to entertain. I'lll check out the IPs, thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. The first was already blocked, but I did so to the second. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Avraham Gileadi article
Hey Good Olfactory, would you be willing to weigh in on Talk:Avraham Gileadi? There's no war, I just feel the issue is complicated and it would be good to have some more editors opine. Carneadiiz (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletions without warning
Why wasn't i notified of these deletions? You nominated two of my categories for deletion without telling me about it! I would really like to be notified of these deletions please if that's not too much to ask. Ryanbstevens (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want automatic and instantaneous notification, just add a category to your watchlist. It will pop up in your watchlist when someone adds a deletion template to it. That's why the addition of a template is required. I often notify creators but usually it is not instantaneous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Gad
Take a gander a few noms up on the same date. He's actually citing a Mel Brooks film as a reason to keep a category. Otto4711 (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I should create . Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Request, assistance needed
At the West Ridge Academy article, the edits have been taken over by some very biased COI/POV Mormon editors. I am new to Wikipedia and could really use some assistance adding levity to the article. The way that it is being controlled by Storm Rider, an admittedly biased editor, is appalling. Please help. --66.74.10.34 (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would love to help try to bridge some disagreement there, but I recently had a nasty experience with the article—another user accused me of doing administrative work there with a conflict of interest, since I had been in an edit dispute about the contents of the page a few months ago. Would love to help but have withdrawn myself from doing so. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Unwilling, mainly


Welcome to the club! Took you long enough to get here. --Kbdank71 16:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I tire slowly, apparently. Especially when I'm having fun. Trying is not fun anymore. I'm going to try accomplish something a bit more achievable, like—oh, I don't know—reverse translating the complete works of Homer from Korean into Swahili. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Admin abuse!
Administrators'_noticeboard

I love some of the responses. --Kbdank71 19:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of those are classic. If only it went forward, I'd be happy to volunteer as the first subject of debate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Randal Simmons
Randal Simmons was on my watchlist for some reason and has just been recreated. Doubtless you can check whether the present version has any resemblance to the deleted one. (Apologies again for the unmitigated dullness of my contributions to your talk page.) Occuli (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks substantially the same; no new sources. I could use a bit more dullness from here on out. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Seldom has the dullness of my comments been so resoundingly welcomed; I'll endeavour to maintain the same levels in future. Occuli (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal
There is a proposed merge that I think would interest you at Talk:Limited geography model. I am posting this notice because I saw that you were a recent editor at one of the pages listed below: --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Limited geography model
 * Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting
 * Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

Category:US towns named after planets
I've just noticed this category I made has been nominated for deletion; thanks for letting me know! Do you not think it would have been a courtesy to talk to me about it? Moonraker12 (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want automatic and instantaneous notification, just add a category to your watchlist. It will pop up in your watchlist when someone adds a deletion template to it. That's why the addition of a template is required. I often notify creators but usually it is not instantaneous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Murdered Iraqi children
I have nominated murdered iraqi children for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ryan 4314  (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Nakba
Could you stop removing the Nakba category without discussion, please? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 05:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, because I'm moving them to the correctly-named category (i.e., the one consensus has agreed to). The category was renamed Category:1948 Palestinian exodus in this discussion. I've deleted the re-created category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with that discussion is that it hinged on calling it the same as the 1948 Palestinian exodus article. But there was an agreement some time ago to call that Nakba (it just wasn't moved for some reason), so we will need yet another discussion about the category. Can I ask what made you notice this so quickly; that is, did someone direct your attention to it? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 05:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The category was at the top of the list of newly-created categories, which is how I became aware of it. Since the article is still at 1948 Palestinian exodus, I would suggest looking into getting that moved first. If it is moved, then it would probably be a good time to reconsider renaming the category. Most users probably won't want to rename it if the article is still at 1948 Palestinian exodus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, that makes sense, thanks. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 05:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

CfR for BAFTA award winners
Thanks for your offer. If you could close and relist, that would be much appreciated. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Atheist and agnostic politicians
Hi. It seems (since I have been checking) that no one else is contributing to the WP:CFD for the category "Atheist and agnostic politicians". I created the WP:CFD on June 10th. Can we close it out? There are 6 votes in favor of deleting (including yours and mine) and 4 against deleting. Yours,Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't close it out since I participated in the discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Listify!!!
I can't recall any specific noms, but I think kdbank or jc or one of the other long-time closers said, when someone raised it, it wasn't their practice to do the list. I have some sympathy with this position. Johnbod (talk) 01:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, maybe I'll search around a bit, or ask them about it. Or perhaps having the discussion you refer to resolved the issue anyway. Thanks ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're all talking about, but I have said in one or more of my closes that I've stopped listifying categories, as there was no point. Far too many times we've listified at CFD only to have AFD come along and delete it.  My personal, non-admin-closing opinion is that lists do work well, sometimes along with categories, sometimes in place of them, but as a closer?  Nope.  --Kbdank71 02:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, that must be what Johnbod was thinking of. We were discussing whether admins actually did any listifying if there was a consensus for listifying. Do you mean you will never do it, even if consensus wants it listified? Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say "never", but for all intents and purposes, it might as well be. What I will do is close as delete (as that's what happens to the category when you listify anyway) and let it be known that if anyone else wants to listify it, feel free, I'll provide the articles for them.  --Kbdank71 03:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this sounds like what Johnbod was referring to. Awesome. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it was. Johnbod (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope you guys aren't listifying manually. For what it's worth, PyWikipediaBot has a listify capability. I know because I wrote it :-D  Cyde Weys  03:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Tell me more. I've listified a few manually in the past. Though it sounds like the benefits of the list is a dying appreciation in the opinions of both closers and AfD/CfD participants. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Since I always learn best by example, I'll teach here by example. It's quite simple:
 * Listify has three other flags you probably won't need to use:,  , and  .  One final option that is not listify-specific, but that you might want to use nonetheless, is  .  Further documentation is contained within the source code to   itself.  That pretty much covers everything there is to know about listify.  -- Cyde Weys  03:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Listify has three other flags you probably won't need to use:,  , and  .  One final option that is not listify-specific, but that you might want to use nonetheless, is  .  Further documentation is contained within the source code to   itself.  That pretty much covers everything there is to know about listify.  -- Cyde Weys  03:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So why do we bother listing stuff at WP:CFD/W/M if these can be done with a bot? Not that you should know the answer to that, but it seems that no one else involved in CfD knows about this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you still need a human to write the lede for the list. Just a raw list isn't very user-friendly.  -- Cyde Weys  13:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * True. Anyway, I'll remember this if we're ever faced with having to listify a massive category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly the steps should be documented at WP:CFD/W/M. Any chance the bot could pick up an entry at WP:CFD/W like the other bots?  Vegaswikian (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Surnames

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: It's time for everyone to move on and either bring this to WP:DRV or contribute to making the new scheme work. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Upmerging all of the "surnames by country" categories to Category:Surnames is ridiculous as there are over 12,000 surnames in that category, making the category useless for just about anything. I'm considering creating a Category:Surnames by language as having to hunt through 12,000 surnames for possible Japanese surnames is completely unacceptable. What are your thoughts? ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My thoughts were expressed in the close. If you're looking for Japanese ones, I suggest you go to Cydebot's contribution history and find the edits where the bot removed . Of course, the bot hasn't even completed this yet. But I can tell you that right now there are only 2 articles in that category, so apparently no one has gone through the challenging work that you describe. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The bot is mostly done removing the category from Japanese surname articles as I have a very huge number of new items showing up on my watchlist because of this poorly thought out decision (not on you, as you only determined consensus, which I strongly disagree with). The people who brought it up for deletion/upmerging were not thinking straight. Having a category with nearly 13,000 articles in it is next to completely useless. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, if it's in the process just go to the user contributions for User:Cydebot. They should all be together. If you read the close, I did not suggest that they all be kept together in . This is kind of an intermediate step until we can reach consensus on a system that's going to work, whether it's by language or by culture or something else. I gotta run now (it's 05.00 UTC) but I hope this helped. I don't have all the answers for how to work this out. You're right that it's a large task. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, upmerging all of the "surnames by country" categories to Category:Surnames is ridiculous. There are loads of cases on my watchlist where entirely correct and unambiguous categorisations have been degraded by this process. For example Fehér is certainly a Hungarian surname, but now its category doesn't tell you that. A contrasting case is Green (name), where as a result of the bot's actions now appears five times. This does suggest what would have been a more intelligent approach, but requiring a cleverer bot, to merge where there were several national categories given, but to leave things alone where there was only one. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to come participate in the discussion at Category talk:Surnames so we can figure out some other way to take care of this mess. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 10:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Good Olfactory. Your decision on upmerging every category:Fooian surnames into category:Surnames bounds on vandalism. Tens of articles on my watchlist with entirely correct and unambiguous categorisations and supported by relevant academic sources (for example, B. O. Unbegaun, Russian surnames, Oxford University Press, 1972.) were removed from category:Russian surnames only because the category itself was improperly placed into category: surnames by country. Moreover, the category:russian surnames itself was deleted based on wrong assertion by uninformed people that it's category of surname by country. Henry Merrivale (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This discussion has been moved to Category talk:Surnames. (Unless you just want to complain, in which case feel free to post here, but I don't think that will accomplish much at this stage.) The close makes it clear that a new scheme may be developed. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I stated a fact: you deleted content supported by reliable academic sources. And asked a question: Isn't it vandalism?Henry Merrivale (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it's not, because it was done pursuant to a formal discussion. If you're confused about this, read the first two paragraphs of WP:VANDALISM. All users' time will be better spent on developing the new scheme rather than casting aspersions at someone who's volunteered to do a job they don't have any particular interest in. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your answer: it was misguided and ill-considered attempt at improvement rather than vandalism, I see it now. And how it is that deleting and then recreating the same categories is the development of the new scheme? Russsian surnames, japanese surnames, hungarian surnames will be created again within categories: surnames by language. Is it you idea of time better spend? Please excuse my frustration and anger but I think you should explain and defend your decision to concerned editors. Henry Merrivale (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The new scheme will need to change the names of the categories so that they are not confused as "by country" categories. Thus, the categories won't be re-created under the same names. One could be, e.g., . Others have suggested a naming system based on "culture", whatever that means. It's not my job to resolve this issue, which is why the close directed people to discuss the development of a new scheme at Category talk:Surnames. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Adding a sentence on a cat page stating that this is a cat by language not a country would be a zillion times better, easier, and efficient solution. But, of course, it's so rare that people are willing to admit their mistakes and correct them. They rather direct others to do it. Sad. Henry Merrivale (talk) 23:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've tried to be nice and respond to your inquiries, but it's becoming clear that your real intent here is probably just to harass. I've shied against saying "get over it", but I think that phrase's time has come. A decision was made that you disagree with. Get used to it: it's Wikipedia. If you want to press the issue, the correct route would be to use WP:DRV, not to imply that the person who made the decision and stands by it is "sad". Further, I'm not "directing" anyone to do anything—I didn't intend to use that word above in the sense of "commanding", but rather, "pointing". If you read the close (and it's becoming apparent that you haven't really digested what I wrote there, if you read it), it's relatively clear that people are free to participate in this if they wish, but no one is being compelled to discuss anything or otherwise be involved. If you don't want to join the discussion or process, then don't. As for whether my decision was a "mistake" or not: I made a decision that for the long-run benefit of WP, getting things right is better than implementing a quick and easy fix that would be inferior. I don't view this as a mistake at all. Finally, you may want to reconsider your approach to other users when they do something you disagree with. To accuse a user of vandalism as your first introduction to a user when you apparently knew full well that the actions were done pursuant to a formal discussion is not a way to gain sympathy with your audience. Perhaps you could have brushed up on what constitutes "vandalism" before tossing the word around. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Good Olfactory, I can only repeat you own words to you. You may want to reconsider your approach to other users when they do something you disagree with. And I fail to see how your actions are pursuant to formal discussion. They seem rather to contradict it.Henry Merrivale (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't change my comments on this page, thx. I'm not sure what you may be referring to, since I didn't accuse anyone of vandalism, nor am I disagreeing with any administrative action you've taken. I think it's time for you to use DRV if you want to press your concerns further. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't accuse anyone of vandalism nor I am disagreeing with any administrative action you've taken. If you try to actually read my comments rather than read smth into them that will be obvious to you as well. And please excuse me, but I will not be answering your further comments (if any) as you not trying to understand what I'm saying.Henry Merrivale (talk) 00:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So you don't disagree with the administrative action I took, and yet you called it a "mistake" and find it "sad" that I won't "correct" it? Wha? Pardon my confusion, but I think that would probably be a common perception of what your English words meant. So you just came here to complain? As I initially said, not terribly productive at this stage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There does seem to have been undue haste in this case. It is easy to agree that the current now-abolished scheme of national classification of surnames was imperfect. It might well be a good idea to replace it with one based clearly on linguistic criteria. Many (though by no means all) of the current previous categorisations fitted fairly well into that scheme, so that the sensible way forward would have been to keep them intact until the new scheme was worked out and agreed, then with suitable bot assistance review the categorisations, each nationality/language at a time. Now, however, that is not possible. The old categorisations have been deleted, as have the categories themselves. Any allocation into new categories will have to be done from scratch. It is to be hoped that those who have been so eager to expunge all trace of the old system will be equally eager to undertake this mammoth task. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not that big of a deal. All the contents are preserved in Cydebot's record of contributions. It's easy to go there and re-categorize, if appropriate. The discussion was open for well over 2 weeks, so "undue haste" is not a concern, I don't think. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Speedy?
Category:Telecommunication companies of Yemen needs an 's'. In fact there are quite a few - Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Telecommunication companies. Occuli (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this a speediable "error", or can it also be correct to use it in the singular? I'm not sure. If it could be correct, maybe we need a full CfD to standardise the naming for all of them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wedding chapels in Las Vegas‎
Do you really think that these are churches? While you need to have a congregation to officiate at marriages, as I understand it, you don't need to conduct services at the chapel for a congregation. So maybe the question is, if a building is only used to perform marriages, does that make it a church? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, good point. Perhaps not. You can take them out if you want. Just thought it was a good fit, but maybe not for places that are solely wedding chapels. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Songs written by Don Robey
You have amended the text of this category. However both BMI and AMG confirm he is the writer of these songs. Those that want to add this kind of wording have not been able to verify the accusation that Robey stole songwriter credits. As it is unverfied which songs, assuming the general accusation is correct, Robey wrote. I feel very strongly that WP:V should be applied to these statements. Care to reconsider?

BTW The nomination for deletion was withdrawn by the nominator. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I just adjusted what User:Sumori wrote, for clarity purposes. I don't want to be involved in the edit war that you've been engaging in on that category page. I don't care if what Sumori wrote stays or goes, but I think it should be discussed and worked out rather than the back-and-forth edits that happened earlier. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair comment. But are you also saying that WP:V can be ignored too? which is the crux of my argument - if the other user had verified his statement then his edit would be correct. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I wouldn't go that far. To be honest, I haven't researched the substantive issue enough to know if WP:V is being violated. If you're strongly convinced that it is being violated, then you have a strong argument. If you are running into a wall with neither side willing to give ground and no other editors contributing, just let me know. I'd be willing to put in the time to look at the issue myself and offer a third opinion on the matter. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We have come up with a compromise wording. I never had any doubt that Robey, in common with other label owners of the period, didn't claim a little that wasn't his. My objection was that there was no evidence that the songs in the category wren't written by him. We will never know what a man and his piano get up to in private! It was your comment above that made me step back and thanks for that. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, glad to hear it was worked out. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Surnames redux
Looks like we're crossing wires on the Chinese surnames category. Do you want it deleted or kept? If kept, it can be nominated for renaming, or I can delete it and you can just repopulate the Chinese-language one right now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see you took care of the Jewish ones already. Look like 1 user is vigorously mass re-creating deleted categories. No idea whether the contents is language oriented, so delete them and let more cooperative editors populate them. And I'll bring him up at WP:ANI, this is really disruptive editing.


 * OK, thanks. I'll delete any that are re-creations. The ones that didn't exist before I guess you'll have no choice but to nominate for renaming, as you've done. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've a favor to ask. Surname needs to either be semi-protected, so I can edit, or swap in the code in the sandbox. I've asked politely at WP:RUP, and was denied; then tried editprotect on the Talk, and the next guy wants more information. (heavy sigh) Too slow. It needs to be done before the job queue load increases today, so the pseudo-categories propagate, and the old parameters (now red-link categories) can be found and removed. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Done--changed to semi-protect. Let me know when you're done there and I can change it back to full protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Good Olfactory (talk • contribs)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Many Thanks!


 * You're welcome. And thanks for actually doing something productive with this. It's easy to complain here, but unlike others you've not done so, even though I probably didn't do what you would have thought was ideal. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * True. Among other things, my ideal would have been to allow Category:Surnames by culture rename to complete, as I've a strong preference for CfD over just a category talk page for decisions. But it may have been for the best, as re-creating Category:Surnames by language in parallel probably saved a few days of griping.... We'll need to validate the decision at CfD later, or just let it fade away empty.

BTW, it appears to me that somebody (who shall remain nameless for now unless they complain) created Category:Surnames by culture and emptied Category:Surnames by language out-of-process, and the latter was db-c1. Are you able to undelete the complete history at Category:Surnames by language? --William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right, looks like that happened. I've restored the full history. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

user matthead
as someone who has dealt with the above user in the past, I was hoping you could look at the comment he left on my IP talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:119.173.81.176

119.173.81.176 (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that his comment was a bit prickly and probably not ideal, but you do need to realise that sometimes people react in this way when they receive comments like this on their talk pages. Rest assured, though, that the comment has been noted by other users and Matthead has been approached about it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

LDS MOS
Did you read the manual of style? You are incorrect in your usage of "(Mormon)".
 * Summary of naming conventions:


 * Articles wholly pertaining to the Latter Day Saint movement should be parenthesized "(Latter Day Saints)", unless the article name is unambiguous without the parenthetical.
 * Articles should not be limited to a single Latter Day Saint denomination, unless including the entire Latter Day Saint movement is impractical or awkward. For example, instead naming an article "Restoration (Community of Christ)" or "Restoration (LDS Church)", the article should be called Restoration (Latter Day Saints).
 * In article names, references to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should capitalize the initial The and include a hyphen and a lower-case "d".

I will leave it up to you to change it back to "(Latter Day Saints)" per MOS. If you feel there is a MOS referring to individuals as Mormons, then I don't see it in the MOS. Perhaps it needs to be updated, but I see nothing in the MOS to warrant your revert. If I am in error, please let me know. I may just be missing something. Bytebear (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're just confusing bio articles with non-bio articles. The relevant point is found in the LDS-NC, which is referred to in WP:LDSMOS: "When a leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has the same name as people outside the Latter Day Saint movement, the person may be disambiguated with the parenthetical (Mormon). See, for example, John W. Taylor (Mormon) and John Gould (Mormon)." I see there's a proposal below this statement to change this (proposed by you, it appears), but it hasn't been accepted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did a little digging and found Naming_conventions_(Latter_Day_Saints) which clearly says "(Mormon)" is appropriate. but something needs to be said in the main MOS section on naming convention to clarify this exception. Bytebear (talk) 04:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

moves/MOS
Thanks, I don't understand it, and think that something else should be chosen, because when you wiki Mormon it says that that title applies to all sects to split off from the Church after the succession crisis, so it would make it confusing if there was a John Taylor as head of the FLDS for example. But, thanks anyways. LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, if there was an FLDS John W. Taylor then I suppose a more specific DAB could be appropriate. Thankfully I don't think we've run into this situation yet! I suppose if you're interested you could re-open the issue at Naming_conventions_(Latter_Day_Saints). Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks (it's a learning process for me, as everybody who as met me knows). LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm about to move Kenneth Johnson (Mormon) to Kenneth Johnson (LDS Church), per the naming convention. Is that the correct move? LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No. The convention is to use "(Mormon)" for LDS Church members. People are "Mormon"s but they are not "LDS Church"es. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the late response, but I don't see what you see. The Naming unidenominational articles section seems to agree with me. The The term Mormon and its derivatives section says this, The term Mormon or its derivatives such as Mormonism are appropriate when  referring to doctrines and practices that have a historical connection to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but no historical connection to other denominations within the Latter Day Saint movement. The part that is in bold says that the term Mormon should only be used for the articles pertaining to the doctrines and practices of the Church. Or am I reading it wrong? LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 03:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm looking specifically at Naming_conventions_(Latter_Day_Saints), which talks about naming the articles about people. "(LDS Church)" is used for unidenominational articles about things that aren't people. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How did I miss that?! Maybe it was the tag at the bottom. Thanks though. LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 04:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Jewish surnames
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Jewish surnames. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Alansohn (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Aborted removal of category from Kyle Broflovski
Your this edit of Kyle Broflovski that removed the Category:Fictional Jews with the explanation that its is "probably not defining--not even mentioned in lede" is clearly contradicted by the first sentence in the second paragraph which states that "Kyle is distinctive as one of the few Jewish children on the show", in addition to extensive discussion of his Jewishness and its function in defining his character later in the article. The justification you cited for the removal, that it was "mentioned in lede" is not a legitimate argument for removal of any category, nor is it a standard that is met in the majority of articles for most of the categories included. Despite the fact that you restored the category in your subsequent edit, the fact that you allowed your preconceived notions to involve your efforts at WP:STALKing my edits only demonstrates the extent of the clear problem that exists here. I'd love to have a conversation about these issues, but far too often it appears to me that your mind is already made up, even before discussion (or voting) starts, and the result preordained. Please convince me otherwise. Alansohn (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What is exactly your concern? I'm not clear on that since ultimately the category was not removed by my series of edits. If you're paranoid about stalking: I was not stalking your edits—it was a category that had been on my watchlist because of my past involvement with it, and I had seen that it had been re-created. (I hadn't even noticed that you were the creator, though I see that now. Users often get nervous about wikistalking when really all that's going on is a convergence of interests or watchlists.) I'm going to start attempting to patrol some of its contents so it doesn't become a "non-defining fest", as it was in the past. You may or may not agree w/my future assessments of "definingness", but that's essentially a question to be discussed on the talk pages of the articles once the cases arise. It's probably a bit difficult and not terribly useful for us to try to discuss the principle in the abstract, without an actual disagreement in a case to base the discussion on. Feel free to express yourself here, though. The fact that I'm not up for a "moot court" discussion doesn't mean you can't opine. I'm always on the look out for great quotes—thought-provoking, bizarre, or otherwise. Especially, you know, if they comment about me as a user, rather than content. Good Ol’factory (talk)


 * Alansohn, I'm not sure if you had anything to add here or if you were going to respond. I was about to archive this as June 2009 material, so if I don't hear from you on this in the next day or so I will be archiving this thread. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to amusing e-mail message sent to me about 30 minutes ago
Oh, that was funny. But yes, after the laughter—I agree. Something to laugh about rather than worry about. (Sorry, my email won't send messages today for some reason. Hopefully you'll see my response here.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy rename House of Taillefer
Thank you for your quick work. Much appreciated. :) Benkenobi18 (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Parsis
When you change the article from list of notable Parsis to list of Parsis, it doesn't make sense. You are saying this is a list of Parsis, which this isn't. A complete list of Parsis would include upto 110,000 to 210,000 adherents. It is a list of notable Parsis. Warrior4321talkContribs 02:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In lists, we only include those with WP articles. The only Parsis with WP articles are the ones that are "notable". Thus, it's self evident that those on the list are "notable". I don't think anyone will think the list is intended to list every Parsi person who has ever lived. This is exactly how other lists are named. For example, it's List of Methodists, not List of notable Methodists. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Why didn't you post this on my talk page? It's much more easier for the other person to know when they get a reply. For the list, I understand that. Thank-You for your reply. Warrior4321talkContribs 16:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I just thought since you posted here it would make sense to reply here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You get a notification when something comes on my talk page. It makes it easier, yet it's your choice. Thanks for the reply. Warrior4321talkContribs 17:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I prefer keeping discussions together. If you want someone to reply on your page, it's usually best to let them know up front in your initial comment. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand, I will next time. Thank-You. Warrior4321talkContribs 22:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.