User talk:Good Olfactory/Archive 7

TV series CFDs
Would a listing of eponymous categories for TV series be a welcome addition to your list? Lemme know and I'll add them as I find them. Otto4711 (talk) 06:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, it can't hurt. The ones I included were just the ones I had the energy to compile. I avoided doing most of the eponymous ones b/c there were so many. If you add them remember to add the "keep" and "no consensus" ones too so I don't get accused of maintaining a biased list. That page is getting rather long—I may need to break off some of the larger sections into separate pages soon. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia officials
The category name sounds a bit odd to me, and when I look at the subcategories it appears to me almost if there were two special ICTs, one for former Yugoslav judges and one for former Yugoslav prosecutors. I'd suggest "Officials of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia", likewise for subcategories. GregorB (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I just followed the naming pattern that existed there before with the prosecutors, judges, etc. A rename would require a CFD for all of them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

move protection
Could you please fully protect my user page from moves? I know this will stop me from moving my user page, but I do not anticipate ever having to move it, and I want to make sure that my page is not move-vandalized. Thanks. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. Let me know if you ever need it to be lifted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, now I can go to bed knowing I won't be moved during the night. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Test
Does WestfieldWesleyan remind you of anyone, eg user:WestfieldIns? Occuli (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's see .... adding categories on first ever edit: check. Categories are religion-related categories: check. Categories are not nonsensical but are of arguable utility: check. Anything else to add to the PW checklist? Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 'No edit summaries' was another, but then he is a master of disguise. Occuli (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Another - 72.69.200.217. Occuli (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He really doesn't give up, does he? I wonder if it would be useful to use CU to get some sort of blanket block on a range of these IPs? Or is he a traveller? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He's a pastor in Ohio. The ips (there's a partial list at IP list) resolve to a Reston address (eg here) which I assume is a service provider. I don't know why the ip address keeps changing for the same user. It's possible he has access to a range of computers at say a college. Occuli (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:United Nations media
Hi. I've broadened the category definition somewhat to include independent works about the UN. Hope you have no objection. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And having done so I noticed on the NFB collections page that the film I added to the category, Overture, was in fact created by the UN after all. So no change to the category was needed. Oh well. If you wish, please rollback my change to the definition. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Either one is probably fine for now. If we get a lot, we could separate the two types. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Articles to be split
Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 16

Posted thank you to Vegaswikian, but thought you should be thanked for trying.... As to "Good Ol’factory's points about the headache", my interpretation is that it was really a WP:POINT nomination back on June 4th by Debresser (assisted by Farmbrough) to initiate his idea for mass renaming maintenance "dated subcategories", which is how he came to the attention of WT:CfD in the first place. He nominated it to fail, so that he could remove the Wikipedia requirement in the policy page, as he tried to do after Farmbrough early closed it. They're working in concert. (I was and still am confused by Rubin, who is usually more precise. This time, I think he was trying to be "even-handed" somehow, agreeing with both sides.) -- watching here --William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, that clarifies it a bit when I remember that there was that whole brouhaha over the out of process rename for the admin categories. Without having researched the background, I was thoroughly confused. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Invotation
Please let me have your opinion on my commentary in Category_talk:Surnames. Debresser (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm flabbergasted (as I've written at that link), but the Categorization rule disappeared – because it was removed by Debresser, without discussion. He also added the Category relevant? template, a template that should never be used, as there should never even be irrelevant categories that are unsupported by the text and verifiable reliable sources. (I'm wondering what the section title here means....)


 * The categorization rule was removed from where? From existence, or from a particular category? I have no idea what "invotation" meant, unless it was just a typo for "invitation" (or some kind of invitation–vote hybrid?) Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * From Categorization. I'll also note that Debresser seems to surreptitiously remove rules without discussion after it's cited at CfD on the other side, as he recently tried to do with "Category:Wikipedia" in naming conventions after it was cited by KBDank. It's impossible to watch all these pages, and I mostly check my watchlist only on weekends.... We need a few more policy defenders.


 * Has it been restored? If not, I'm willing to restore it if you send me the offending diff. I'm going to bed right now but I would take care of it in my tomorrow. I'll also have a word with Debresser about this once I have a chance to look into a bit more. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Donald Payne (soldier)
Hi Good, I've left a short note over at Talk:Donald Payne (soldier) explaining why I think he belongs in Category:International Criminal Court. Please let me know if you disagree, or else I'll probably add him back at some stage. Regards, Polemarchus (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Responded there, thx. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a completely different issue, but not worth a separate section: I responded on my talk page. Dc76\talk 02:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Americans accused of spying for the United States
Hey there Good Olfactory, I noticed that Category:Americans accused of spying for the United States was tagged for CfD, but wasn't mentioned in the actual discussion, which lead to it not being deleted. Just thought I'd bring this to your attention. Regards. —  Σ xplicit  04:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I considered listing it now, but in light of the recent results on these categories, that would probably be nothing more than a formality and it's probably safe for us to delete it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Quick question: would these categories of accused spies fall under CSD G10, or would they have to be listed for a full CfD? —  Σ xplicit  04:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This would probably require looking at things on a case-by-case basis. I can imagine situations where creation of one of these categories could be considered a G10, but I'm guessing that the vast majority of ones that people will ever be inclined to create have now been deleted, so G4 will probably be the more likely speedy method of deleting them. We can speedy ones that have been deleted before even if they are re-worded and not identical to the deleted one. Since Category:Accused spies was deleted, there's even an argument that this deletion covers any subcategory type that could be created. If you see any that crop up again, I would nominate for a G4 based on Category:Accused spies being deleted and then do a full CfD if the speedy gets denied. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. I just tagged a category for speedy deletion and will bring it to CfD if it's declined. Thanks for the help. —  Σ xplicit  04:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Stray cat
I tagged Category:People from Pitsmoor but unaccountably omitted it from the list. I leave it in your hands. Occuli (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's probably safe to merge as were the others, since it was tagged. I'll do that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Academics of the Hochschule für Musik "Carl Maria von Weber", Dresden
I am sorry but I missed the discussion on the change of the name of this category. I created the category with the name Academics of the Hochschule für Musik "Carl Maria von Weber", whithout including the name of the city, for the reason that there's no other Academics of the Hochschule für Musik "Carl Maria von Weber" with such name, and the name of the city is not neccesary, as it would not be neccesary to read the following "Harvard University, Cambridge, Royal Academy of Music, London or "Juilliard School NY". I will nominate this category for renaming to "Academics of the Hochschule für Musik "Carl Maria von Weber"". --Karljoos (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Karljoos could nominate Category:Alumni of the Hochschule für Musik Carl Maria von Weber Dresden at the same time. Occuli (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I wondered about this when I renamed the category, but no one had raised it in the discussion. I agree that a re-nomination could be appropriate here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Close of Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 16
Can you explain your close of Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 16 as "Upmerge and delete", which appears to be in conflict with the discussion, which appeared to reach a consensus of keep or no consensus. The argument for deletion from User:Mayumashu in his nomination is the entirely non-policy based "not against the idea in principle but do not see it as necessary and wish to fell this tree while it s [sic] still a sapling", which amounts to WP:IHATEIT, let's get rid of these categories now before there are more categories I HATE. "not necessary" is not policy. User:Mike Selinker's argument had nothing to do with the other entries listed, but observed that Category:Sportspeople in Columbus, Ohio essentially overlaps with Category:Sports in Columbus, Ohio, without offering any other argument for deletion of any of the other categories and I essentially agree with what he appears to be saying which is that the Columbus category should have been deleted and the others retained, though you appear to have interpreted it in reverse. I'm not even sure that User:Vegaswikian's vote actually says anything. With a new CfD at Categories for discussion/Log/2009 July 6 citing this close as precedent, we need to come to a resolution on the original CfD to see if the close is justified. Any input you can provide to explain your actions here could help eliminate the need for any further action on this matter. Alansohn (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's see; just as a preliminary matter, the following is how I read the "bottom line votes" of each user:


 * 1) Mayumashu (nominator): upmerge all
 * 2) Postdlf: upmerge all, except Category:Sportspeople in Columbus, Ohio
 * 3) Alansohn: keep all
 * 4) Mike Selinker: upmerge all
 * 5) Closeapple: keep all
 * 6) Vegaswikian: upmerge all

In summary and as merely an indication of "vote count", the results (as I interpreted them) were:
 * Upmerge Category:Sportspeople in Columbus, Ohio: YES 3–3 NO
 * Upmerge the rest: YES 4–2 NO

The reason I read Mike Selinker's vote as "upmerge all" was for the following reasons: Maybe Mike Selinker could be consulted to see if I misinterpreted his comment; it is, of course, possible that I did, though on a second look I still don't think I did.
 * 1) His bolded vote said "Delete/upmerge"; and
 * 2) He said, "I think categorizing the individuals by city is too specific," which I understood as applying to all the categories under discussion, because the statement was unqualified and all of the categories under discussion categorized individual sportspeople by city.

Leaving aside Category:Sportspeople in Columbus, Ohio, the following arguments are ones that I gleaned from the commenters:

From the "upmerge" side:
 * 1) Not part of a larger categorization scheme (Mayumashu; Vegaswikian);
 * 2) Categorizing sportspeople by city is too specific (Mike Selinker; Vegaswikian)
 * 3) Overcategorization issues: categorizing people in this manner will lead to articles being in categories that are not defining for them (Vegaswikian)

From the "keep" side:
 * 1) A wider scheme would be sustainable (Closeapple)
 * 2) Categories are well-organized and well-populated (Alansohn, Closeapple)
 * 3) A high proportion of articles in one of the parent categories are sportspeople (Closeapple)

My assessment of the arguments:

From the "upmerge" side: no. 1 is true and is relevant, though not determinative and should not to be given any great amount of weight. No. 2 is relevant but essentially a judgment call; however, it is one that was not really challenged by anyone else. No. 3 is significant and gets to the heart of the problem, and ultimately was the most convincing argument for me.

From the "keep" side: No. 1 is relevant but essentially a predictive judgment call, and is not a particularly weighty argument. No. 2 is true and relevant, though not determinative and should not be given any great amount of weight, since many well-organized and well-populated categories are deleted. No. 3 was true for one of the categories, but was not true for the others and would not necessarily be true for similar categories for other cities, as Vegaswikian pointed out.

My conclusions

It wasn't what I would call an in-depth discussion, and much of it focused on Category:Sportspeople in Columbus, Ohio, which I haven't discussed above and for which I saw no consensus. For the rest of the categories: on balance, the upmerge side had the stronger arguments by far. Both sides' no. 1 arguments essentially cancelled each other out and they didn't play a big role in my decision. However, neither the upmergers' no. 2 and no. 3 arguments, either of which could theoretically justify the deletion of the category on policy and guideline grounds, were not challenged. The keep side pointed out some virtues of the categories, but nothing that was particularly convincing or based on a policy or guideline. The strength of the arguments, combined with the 4–2 "vote count" in favour of upmerging (a fairly healthy ⅔ majority), led me to make the decision I did.

—Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

RE:
Whoops, awfully sorry about that, I must have been mistaken about the nomination, thinking that it had been nom'ed for renaming the previous day to when it actually was as a result of not looking close enough. My mistake, won't happen again (fingers crossed), all the best SpitfireTally-ho!
 * No problem; thx for letting me know. Not a big deal in this case. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Lithuanian surnames
Colleague, your repeated deletion is misguided. The page in question is not recreation. It was created as a reasonable redirect, as an easy safeguard against recreation by unsuspecting novices, - a commonly used mechanism, pursuing exactly the same goal you (and me too) are favoring. - Altenmann >t 16:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There a possibility that a by-culture scheme for surnames could be created in the near future. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to pre-empt this possibility by making this page a redirect. A by-language scheme is not the only possible meaning of "Lithuanian surnames". It may eventually become an appropriate DAB page. See the close statement at the relevant CfD for further information. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your justification of deletion is invalid. What is more, when DAB will bepossible, then it will be turned into DAB. This happens all the time. Please stop unilateral actions without discussion finsihed. If you delete the page one more time without proper justification, you will be reported for abuse of admin privileges. - Altenmann >t 10:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like someone else is engaging in a wheel war. Power to you if you want to do that, but please don't project "abuse of admin powers" onto others. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've self-reported our dispute, since wheel war issues are involved. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not as passionate as another editor here on this topic. I have one and only concern. I want you and me to come to understanding about one and only thing: when page content is replaced by something completely different in content and function, it still may be subject of speedy deletion, but it is not "recreation of deleted article". You don't have to argue with me here, please ask opinions of 1-2 seasoned admins.

This question is not matter of life and death for me. For last 1-2 years I am away from any disputes. As a friendly advice, in answering someone's objections please start from addressing opponent's arguments rather than from presenting our position. As an example from above, your position "it would be inappropriate to pre-empt" may be valid (although subject to further discussion), but it does NOT answer my concern that rule G4 is not applicable, even if you feel that the page must be deleted. - Altenmann >t 15:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sometimes editors just need to recognize that there exists disagreement about a particular issue and that one interpretation is not necessarily the one and only "correct" one. I've no problem acknowledging that. At the same time, acknowledging it doesn't have to change your mind about the dispute in question. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with understanding that. However we are talking about speedy deletions here. There have been many long and heated discussions about the scope of CSD. Inevitably the point of view prevailed that the scope this policy should be deliberately kept as narrow as possible and with minimal possibility of "extended interpretations", for a number of reasons I am not going to list. Most of other policies give admins much more "free hand" of interpretation, but not this one. Therefore, much as I hate to be a stubborn smartass know-it-all do-what-I-want, I would like to hear from you whether you acknowledge or not that speedy deletions must be handled in strict "letter of the law", unless a clear harm to wikipedia is expected. - Altenmann >t 16:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Complaints about Good Olfactory's close in the CfD for Category:Slavic-language surnames
Welcome; if you're here to complain about my close in Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_29, you have been expected! Please write your complaints below in a subsection. Replace "Subsection#" with your user name. If you start a new non-subsection section on this topic below this section, note I will move it here as a subsection. I will hold off responding to specific comments for a little while to allow time for more to comment here. After a period of time, I will respond to all the comments at once to avoid repetition, since repetition became a problem with the other surname closes. (In other words, I'm not ignoring you if I don't respond immediately.) Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Plaudits
Splendid close. Occuli (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yay! --Kbdank71 12:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Roman Empire
I welcome your solution to the problem with categorising Category:People executed by the Byzantine Empire in Category:People executed by the Roman Empire. Debresser (talk) 06:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Figured that was best, since apparently I was confused. I thought was inclusive of, but apparently not. But I thought we should link them somehow. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

One to watch
Tiramisoo? It might be a little early to tell. Katr67 (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, looks like the IP that edited Willamette Valley right before him/her originates from here. Katr67 (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Americans accused of spying for the Soviet Union
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Americans accused of spying for the Soviet Union. 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. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Bender
An admin already closed the discussion. Could you please move Category:Bender (I cannot delete), and (if you see necessary also) Category:Communes of Bender municipality. Thank you very much for your help and kind approach. I hope to see you around. If anything anytime (Currently, I am working more on articles in the scope of WikiProject Moldova), please feel free to drop a short note. (Just mention the issue, spare the time to write pro/con arguments; I will ask for them explicitly if necessary.) Take good care. Dc76\talk 02:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks; I've started a nomination for renaming here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Does it always have to go through such formalities? :) Dc76\talk 04:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, unfortunately it does, since we can't move categories as we can move article pages. It has to be formally deleted and then re-created under the new name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand that technicality. If I am not mistaken, it is similar to the case of page moves X --> Y, when Y already exists (generally a redirect to X). I do understand the reason to discuss such things when there were multiple editors, when there could be potential objections. But when we two are the only persons who even know about this issue... :) and our disagreement seems to be only the degree of unfortunateness of having to file this... :) You know, in reality when such things are controversial, sometimes they are done almost incognito (only "my watchlist" feature of a few editors detects it). Anyway, I recommended speedy close. Thinking of it, I could have created the new category, moved everything there, and put a speedy CfD for the old one as the creator and only contributor. But I promised to tell you (also I wanted your opinion about the second category, which I see you did not nominate, so I conclude, it stays where it is?) Dc76\talk 04:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * True. Though it doesn't meet the technical requirements for speedy. You could say what you said here at the nomination and see if any admin is willing to speedy it. I probably shouldn't do it since I've been involved and have started the nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

SamuelTheGhost
Your remark in the close "(I know some of you imagine that I'm biased on these matters, so I'm looking forward to the same people who have complained about my bias in the past doing so again with respect to this closing. If no such complaining materializes from the same parties (or if complaining materializes from new parties), I guess I'll chalk up the difference in the "complaint experience" experienced after the previous close and the "complaint experience" that I will encounter now to simply this: whether the complainers liked or didn't like the actual outcome of the separate discussions.)" motivates my response. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly I think that this pre-emptive counter-attack on your critics shows that you do not have an appropriate personality for an admin.
 * "I know some of you imagine that I'm biased" - I'd never heard of you until 24th June, when articles on my watchlist, some of which I'd created, were suddenly attacked by your bot. I've been trying to fathom your behaviour ever since.
 * I understand it to be correct policy, when no consensus is reached, for the close to leave things as they are. That was what was wrong with the previous case, whereas in this case your action is defensible on those grounds.
 * You are still completely failing to see the point about WP:NOR and WP:RS. These excellent policies are essential to keep control of wikipedia's user community, which contains a large proportion of ignorant amateurs. The insistence on avoidance of OR and use of sources allows those who are experts to keep things just about on track. These policies apply to all wikipedia activity; your suggestion that categories are exempt is pure invention on your part, and utterly wrong-headed, as this whole business shows. What has happened is that large amounts of incompetent OR have been invested in the "new system". The wikipedia community is not capable of such development, and should never have attempted it. The correct questions to be asking about national surname categories are:
 * Are there reliable sources on the subject of "Russian Surnames" etc.?
 * Are there reliable sources on the subject of "Russian-language Surnames" etc.?
 * Are there reliable sources on the subject of "Slavic Surnames"?
 * Are there reliable sources on the subject of "Slavic-language Surnames"?
 * In the cases where the sources exist, what criteria do they use to decide if a name fits the corresponding description?
 * The answers to these and similar questions should control the choice of category names and descriptions. Having an elaborate hierarchy of categories is, I suggest, not very important, and of course many surnames will appear in several categories.
 * Instead of drawing attention to wikipedia policy in this way, you have joined in the OR effort, compounding the problem rather than in any way solving it.


 * (1) I have never said categories were "exempt" from NOR and RS. If you have understood my words to mean that, you have misunderstood. I'm a strong supporter of avoiding OR and requiring RS in the population of categories. What I have said is that typically references are not added to categories in the same way they are added to articles, which is true. You're the only person I've ever met on WP who has given any hint of the idea that categories do not in fact work slightly differently than articles. They do because of the WP software, not because we change OR and RS. If you disagree, please show me how you add a reference to a category that justifies the inclusion of a particular article in that category. It can't be done, except in the particular article space.


 * (2) My comments about perceptions of bias were not necessarily directed to you. In fact, they were not, so you don't need to defend yourself.


 * (3) The fact that you think that I "do not have an appropriate personality for an admin" is interesting, nice, etc. Apparently you missed the irony.


 * (4) I don't have a bot. I use User:Cydebot, as do most closers at CfD, but she's not "mine". Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course I'm aware of the limitations of the software in the referencing of categorisation. It is, however, possible to add references to the definition of a category, giving the criteria for inclusion in it. I'm aware that this is seldom done, but that reflects only the facts that most categories are pretty uncontentious, and that there is in general a rather relaxed attitude to them. I don't think that need change much in general, but in the case under discussion, where there is dissension and a need for clarity, putting a citation into the category definition would be the best course. Consideration of the sources would also have an effect on the choice of names for the categories, namely "English surnames", "Russian surnames", etc. since that is the terminology univerally used in those references, not neologisms like "English-language surnames", which I have never seen in the literature. It could then be established that an "English surname" is whatever is considered to be so in books of that title. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a big job. How many categories do we have now? Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand what you're saying here. My suggestion implies that the set of categories that existed before the bot was run would be a better starting-point. Some of them might need radical alteration (e.g. New Zealand replaced by Maori), but the European ones at least would mostly just need clarification and the citation of book titles (quite a few of which I could do). Whether to populate them from scratch or starting from their previous populations is a separate issue, but involving quite a lot of work either way. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I was just saying your suggestion—if implemented WP-wide across all categories—would be a fairly significant departure from the status quo and would be a big job to implement, since it's not really done at all in category space right now. (I have seen it done once to some "Anglican" categories, but it was done by an editor who was trying to emphasize that Anglicanism was not a branch of Protestantism—it was really more of an excerise in WP:POINT than an attempt to properly reference the name of a category.) I do realize you're speaking more particularly about a particular instance though. I'm not sure how productive it is to continue to debate this issue post-CfD, post-DRV. I suppose eventually you could nominate the categories for renaming back, but if you tried to do that immediately you might run into some turbulence. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course I do not envisage some massive roll-out operation; that's precisely the kind of thinking that created the current f**k-up. What I would like to see is progressive agreement that a correct and wise interpretation of policy requires an avoidance of WP:OR, always, and a use of WP:RS for categories at least in difficult cases, so that the latter eventually became common, though probably never universal. In the particular case of the surnames, I shall continue to say what I think on talk pages, but I didn't create this situation; perhaps those who did could take the lead in putting things right SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * From what I've observed, the new scheme is being worked on, but to some extent things are getting bogged down in petty edit wars between some who liked the old system and some who are trying to implement a new system. The problem with asking that users "put things right" is, of course, that different users may have different ideas about what is "right" for WP. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your first sentence says effectively that the original research is coming along nicely ... except that it isn't. Even if the "new scheme" were to be in any sense successful, which it won't be, it's WP:OR and contrary to wikipedia policy. If editors persist in asking the wrong questions they will get the wrong answers. Insofar as any investigations are needed they should be focussed on what the sources are, and perhaps even on how libraries classify these things. What's needed now is for authoritative voices, such as those of admins for a start, to point this out. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Update, and the way forward
Three weeks after our previous interchange, very little has changed. Badagnani has been blocked for a month. William Allen Simpson makes half-baked threats. Nearly all the new categories remain virtually empty, or have been partially refilled without any attempt to supply references, which was meant to be the purpose of the exercise. (The only exception seems to be in the Russian category, to a limited degree). Editors who might have made a constructive contribution have simply gone away demoralised. There is peace, but it is the peace of the grave. Brilliant.

I've been looking again at the original CfD and I was again struck by the total lack of mention of sources in the discussion, while people aired their newly-minted theories and recounted their personal experiences of surnames. I also looked again with interest at the words you used when you closed it. I didn't and don't agree with your close, but I notice that you said things like " I'm not going to dictate how exactly that is done" and "Ultimately, you can all do what you like." and "some of these categories may well have to be re-created ...".

Further down this page you've said "Oy, I rue the day I closed the discussion.", which is a welcome development. But you add "A week or so ago, I had been G4'ing the re-created 'FOO surnames' ones", but still "I'll G4 them if they get re-created as substantive categories", yet you also maintain "I'm trying to stay out of the ongoing arguments, since ... I don't really care about the substantive issue,".

I think you're trying to have it both ways. Your interpretation of your own judgement has the effect of putting you on one side on the substantive issue. Most editors have given up on this. I want to make a contribution, but I can't, because I'm not willing to consolidate or legitimise a stupid set of category names with gibberish descriptions, which is what we've got now, but if I try to create sensible categories, with sensible descriptions, and populate them with full referencing, which I'm am both willing and able to do, I'll get my work deleted by you, and possibly get blocked. You can't just wash your hands of this. Not only did you do the damage, your continuing stance is preventing anyone from repairing it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Speaking of washing hands, John 19:22 comes to mind. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've now got my hands on three different books on the subject of "Scottish Surnames", that is to say, for two of them with that phrase as the precise title, the other being "Scottish Surnames and Families". I'm therefore considering creating a category "Scottish surnames", in order to categorise articles whose names appear in those books, and of course including the supporting references in the articles. If I do that, what will you do about it? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably speedily delete it as re-created material per a formal CfD and per a formal DRV and suggest that you start another DRV specific to this particular category where you can set out your reasons for re-creation so it can be assessed by the community. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Scottish surnames
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Scottish 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. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think this is a good way forward. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Jewish jurists
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Jewish jurists. 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. lifebaka++ 22:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yet another DRV started by a user who couldn't be bothered to discuss the matter with me first. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy 's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean the entire day was "my" day and I didn't bother to login until 22:40, leaving me only 80 minutes to relish the me-ness? Just my luck .... Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

invite
Hello. I noticed you've made edits to articles related to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and thought you might be interested in participating in the LDS Church work group, part of the Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject. The group aims to serve as a hub for collaboration on Church-related articles. You don't have to be a member of the Church to participate, and the only requirement for active membership is that you edit at least one Church-related article per month. Best wishes! LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 04:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Surnames_by_country CFD
If you could help out, there's quite a bit of discussion regarding your close here and the rash of similar Category:X-language surnames starting up (including those upmerged articles now becoming redirects). I'm not aware of the full history behind this but I'm pretty sure something like Category talk:Polish-language surnames where a request to have a bot unilaterally repopulate the category seems to be a complete end-run around the decision. I'm wondering about G4 all of them (or CFD them again) since it seems like either they belong at DRV or the same problems yet again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As an extension to this, a DRV has been raised for one of the categories, Category:Lithuanian surnames, I wanted to notify you of this and was wondering whether you feel recreation of this as a redirect was precluded by your close. Your reference to User:cjllws comment makes me think you're ok with it. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 13:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oy, I rue the day I closed the discussion. Yes, I am aware of the ongoing s-storm, but thanks for bringing it to my attention. Some complaints never die, and this appears to be one of them. A week or so ago, I had been G4'ing the re-created "FOO surnames" ones, but have decided that if they are re-created as redirects I'm not going to push the issue, since there are a vocal few who want to argue the issue vigorously, and at the end of the day I don't really care about a redirect. I'll G4 them if they get re-created as substantive categories, however. I'm trying to stay out of the ongoing arguments, since (1) I don't really care about the substantive issue, and (2) certain editors have stated point blank that they view me as biased on the issue, so commenting will contribute little in terms of "convincing" anyone. I may comment to clarify anything I've done in the past, however. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is appreciated. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 08:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Recreation
Category:Burials at cemeteries has been recreated (cfd in 2008-ish). Occuli (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In light of recent events, I'm a little hesitant to G4 anything these days, but perhaps I'll go out on a limb here ... and duck for the incoming branches being swung at my head ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Music videos
This category is a mess. Out of the 225 articles, maybe six of them (i. e. Anime music video, List of most expensive music videos) are for something other than songs for which music videos have been made. It obviously serves as an appropriate parent category for its included sub-cats. Would it be kosher to set a bot to empty the category so the few articles that belong can be manually re-added? I'd rather not manually edit 200+ articles if I don't have to. Otto4711 (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think doing this would be OK, but clarify for me why the majority of the articles do not belong in it. Is it because they are already in appropriate subcategories? Or just because they are articles about songs that happen to have music videos, but the articles are not about music videos? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, now that I re-read your comments, I realize it's the latter. I think this could be fine, if you could find a bot that could do it. Cydebot would go whole hog and empty everything and then delete it, which I suppose could be fine if we re-created it and added what needed to be added, but such an approach is bound to be more controversial. I've found User:RussBot extremely flexible for stuff like this—you might want to give User:R'n'B a shout. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I was going to post this where it belonged
and then I realized, I really don't give a fuck.

"I get the impression that you would rather complain than do something about it, thereby enforcing the fifth-grade level mentality. Here's an idea.  Instead of shooting down everything that was said and then complaining about it, why don't you remove the chip from your shoulder and, oh I don't know, help come up with a definition that works? "

As far as I'm concerned, someone painted him pink and erected a Somebody Else's Problem field on him. --Kbdank71 21:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I said as much, though I'm going to be joining you in the caring department. It's becoming clear that there is a lack of desire on the part of some to actually work together to make CfD work. It's a "my way or no way" attitude that is a bit anti-consensus, no? Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, what do you know. I was 100% correct.  I wish I could say I was surprised, but honestly, I wasn't.  --Kbdank71 00:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Positive, cheerful, optimistic Good Olfactory: "I'm looking forward to hearing a productive suggestion. (I hope I'm not getting my hopes up too high.) ..." Negative, grumpy, pessimistic Good Olfactory: "Whoa, déja vu ..." Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Statelessness
Latvian non-citizens are not "stateless" although that is alleged. We can think about whether the category actually applies to the Latvian non-citizen article. V ЄСRUМВА  &#9742;  12:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, to tell you the truth I wasn't positive about that one. Perhaps it doesn't belong in that category. Maybe we should just keep it in . Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow
What in the face of this does one even say? Otto4711 (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I wondered that a bit myself and was a bit flummoxed. Nothing, I suppose—just pretend you are fresh out of billy-goats-gruff for feedings. A happy-face emoticon? Is there an emoticon for "lighten up"? (I didn't know this: attempts at humor are unwelcome at WP? If so, I should have been banned months ago. I'm heavy on the "attempts", light on the "humor.") Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I recalled a quote that I think answers it satisfactorily. Otto4711 (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for responding late, I just saw this and the linked discussion. ( I'm sure this very comment will get linked to ad nauseum for "proof" that CFD is broken, nobody takes it seriously, someone has no sense of humor whatsoever, etc, etc, but... ) damn that was funny. Were I to close it, which I'm not as I have a firm grasp on my ten-foot pole, I would merely discount your keep as the joke that it is. No big deal, chicken little, the sky isn't falling because otto made a funny. --Kbdank71 16:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Other World Kingdom
Hey, how's it going? I'm curious: why did you remove from this article? --Stepheng3 (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops—because I meant to place it in subcategory, which I see didn't work out for me too well. I've put it in there now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick fix. --Stepheng3 (talk) 04:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Micronations as 'states' or 'territories'
Are you sure that Wikipedia should be calling these either states or territories? Because that's what we are doing if we put them in a sub-category of Category:States and territories established in the 2000s. Dougweller (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty solid—both tie directly back to, which has as subcategories and various subcategories about states. Whether or not microstates are recognized entities is an entirely different issue—one that categories are not designed to address, really. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok I guess, but one view could be that the categories recognise these as 'recognised entities'. Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose one could, but there are already hundreds of "unrecognized" (non-micronation) entities included in the categories, so I think the risk is probably minimal in the grand scheme. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Both the words "state" and "territory" imply that the subject has an actual land mass. Hence, Wirtland shouldn't be included. Any others with no land mass should also be removed from these categories, at a minimum. Greg Tyler (t &bull; c) 07:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose one could, but there are already hundreds of "unrecognized" (non-micronation) entities included in the categories, so I think the risk is probably minimal in the grand scheme. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Both the words "state" and "territory" imply that the subject has an actual land mass. Hence, Wirtland shouldn't be included. Any others with no land mass should also be removed from these categories, at a minimum. Greg Tyler <sup style="color:#A00;font-weight:bold;font-size:10px;">(<b style="color:#A00">t</b> &bull; <b style="color:#A00">c</b>) 07:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment
And no, that's it for me: I can see my efforts were only feeding the fire. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I figured. :) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Alansohn's behavior
Dear Good Olfactory, you have been involved with Alansohn before. He is doing what he used to do before he was restricted. Can you analyze his behavior once again? Now he has posted a thread against me at WP:ANI. AdjustShift (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the club. I'd have to say that the only thing that changed since the Footnoted quotes arbitration case is Alan has gotten much better at understanding what is likely to get him blocked and stops just short of that line.  Otherwise nothing is different.  --Kbdank71 19:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed—welcome to the club. (Our size is expanding at a fair rate.) As far as I can tell, in a general way nothing has changed in Alansohn's behaviour since his year-long probation came to an end—if anything, his bad behaviour has increased. He is a disruptive editor, plain and simple, but my saying so on the ANI thread will only elicit a vituperative response from him, possibly accompanied with charges of conflict of interest, anti-Semitism, and/or trivialization of child abuse. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And now, with everything that was said, it has devolved into bickering as to whether or not the blocks were good. Christ on a pogo stick.  What a way to change the topic.  "but he does good work" indeed. --Kbdank71 02:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Category removal
Hello, you have removed Category:Mass murder of Sri Lankan Tamils from a whole series of articles without any comment. So I have put them back in addition to the category you added. I am open to discussions about this category. As these articles are covered by conflict resolution, can you kindly bring up in WP:SLR as to why you would want to remove it and how else you would want to categorize them ? Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't. I have removed them from categories. How does become a subcategory of ? It's ass backwards. I've again removed  as a PARENT of these more generalised categories, because doing so is inappropriate categorisation.  Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, so should be a sub category of  instead of just  ? So how would you suggest I categorize all these mass murders of Sri Lankan Tamils ? Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On the dates categories—if you like, though the mass murder categories by date are probably overcategorization. Personally, I think categorizing something as a "mass murder of Sri Lankan Tamils" is slightly POV, so I'll leave that up to your ingenuity. I suppose you could tag every individual article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good Canadian compromise, I'll take your advice. Have a happy holiday today volunteering your time in Wikipedia :)))Taprobanus (talk)
 * Damn you pervasive nationality stereotype—damn you!! Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am too Canadian to take offense to it. :)) Taprobanus (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's OK; I'll just have to be more grumpy. (I'll try not to.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

XfD script
I noticed that you've been closing CfD debates a lot. Just to let you know, I wrote a script to make the task a bit easier. If you like it, just add importScript('User:King of Hearts/closexfd.js'); to your monobook.js. Enjoy! -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, very nice. Will try it out. Thank you! Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

We can work together
I suppose it seems apparent that we disagree on a few things. Let's AGF and move forward with the attempt to expand and reference the articles with nuetral and accurate prose. I feel you are contributing in good faith, but feel to be nuetral some information should be included and some left out. I know we do agree on a few things so we can certainly try to see common ground.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

CFD about Next Top Model Winners
Hi there, could I request to you change and rename into Next Top Model Winners or Top Model winners for instance according to Wiki policy. Thanks. <font color="mediumaquamarine">ApprenticeFan <font color="cornflowerblue">talk  contribs 23:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's currently listed at WP:CFDS; can be changed after listing for 48 hours there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Move/Merge of Category:Wikipedia official policy
I notice you are listed as the person who moved/merged Category:Wikipedia official policy.

The old location is however linked to very prominently in several prominent places :-), which are now redlinking. Like the big tag on heading Category:Wikipedia_guidelines, and near the top of Category:Wikipedia_proposals. Propably lots of other places too!

I'm quite new here, so my main problem was to find where the old page had moved, and that lead me to you. Isn't there some kind of process, which updates all the old - now broken - links?. Maybe a redirect would be needed, so that newbies like me kan still find the policies! Tøpholm (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't actually close the discussion, but you're right that I helped out by deleting the old category. I think you're right that the closer of the discussion should have checked for links, etc., and changed them. I don't mind doing this, so I'll see if I can change them. Otherwise, yes, we may need to institute a redirect. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:209.237.85.14
Block evasion. Cheers! Katr67 (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Katr67 (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

PW
user:West Bishop ticks a lot of boxes. Actually I have no objection to the edits so far which seem UM-bishop-centric (which is his area of expertise). Occuli (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm, yes. At this point I would say "yes", but I don't know if I'm sure enough to block yet. Shall we keep an eye on it? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure; West Bishop has intersected with 3 of the test pages. However he was encouraged to concentrate on UM bishops and not fixate on categories (and there are even some edits not related to categories). And the 2 cat creations are perfectly reasonable ones. So I am inclined to keep an eye on it and if category creations become rampant and fanciful ... Occuli (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure; just let me know if you see it going the way of his previous accounts. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Our favorite gadfly
Hey, just wanted to stop by to see how things are going. I dropped by CFD to see if I could help with the backlog, but after reading through only three discussions, I remembered that dealing with, well, let's just say abrasive and inconsiderate people, still wasn't in my job description. --Kbdank71 19:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Gadfly"—emphasis on the "gad". ... I find that the degree of the problem waxes and wanes a bit, but it never really goes away completely, and just when you think things have quieted down—BAM! Someone nominates or  and it's off to the races again. I wouldn't worry too much about the backlog, though. Certain users have specially requested that other admins be given the opportunity to close some discussions, so there's nothing wrong with giving them that opportunity, even if it takes a number of weeks for anyone else to start caring. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 96
Thank you for the addition of the article United Nations General Assembly Resolution 96 I have linked it into Genocides in history which you might find interesting as it contains a reliable source on the alteration that was made between the definition of genocide used in that resolution and that of the Genocide Convention, which might make an interesting addition to one or both articles. -- PBS (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Very nice. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Ukranian museums in the United States
I spend 10 seconds trying to figure out the difference before realizing I probably needed a bit more sleep when I did that. Thanks! dm (talk) 10:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Viñas undo
hi I see you undid the addition of the second quorum template. I thought it would be logical link someone might be interested in?Is that something you would not want there? If so how come? I'm still trying to understand wiki Thanks Stuartsampson (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * With those types of templates, usually they are only included if the article itself it linked to on the template. Since that template is for current members, usually it's only on the articles for current members. The article does mention he was a member of the Second Quorum so if they are further interested they could click on the link for Second Quorum of the Seventy to learn more. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy renames
Hi! I completed some of your speedy rename requests at WP:CFDS (diff). Could you check if I did it right, since I haven't done category renames before, and tell me if I missed a step somewhere? Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

controversy re: Pearl of Great Price vs. Book of Abraham
Thank you for your clarification. Very insightful. Lapisphil (talk) 03:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've no problem with similar material being discussed at Book of Abraham. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Disputed Image at Missionary (LDS Church)‎
I noticed your revert, and that the image has been repeatedly placed in the article by anon editors. The picture, to me, looks like a couple of priests or young elders at a Sunday meeting or Fireside. There is no indication that these are "costumes", as this is normal Sunday dress for many LDS churches, including mine. I would rather discuss this "trend" - if any - rather then show a non-documented picture. As I have reverted twice this evening, I will not again. So if you would like to revert............? But I will vote to remove the picture in any future entries. Could we move to delete the image? -- it's identified as Mormon Missionaries! Thanks. WBardwin (talk) 06:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

New Scottish Time deletion
I'm uncertain as to why you deleted the page for "New Scottish Time." The concept is new, but apparently of some note: Edinburgh Researcher Discovers Time Is More Relative Than We Thought. It's all over Twitter and even if the whole thing is a hoax, I'm not sure that qualifies the article for deletion, as there are other pages dedicated to hoaxes. 70.94.242.178 (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can restore it and then nominate it for deletion and see what another admin thinks. I love how being "all over Twitter" is now considered a standard to use for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not so much that being "all over Twitter" should be considered as a standard to use for lasting inclusion, but I think it suggests that the article deserves a closer look before being whisked into the dustbin. If it turns out to be a lot of fuss over nothing, it can always be deleted later, right? 70.94.242.178 (talk) 08:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Or, we could just wait to create it until we are sure it's notable, which is how things usually work. I've restored it and we'll see what another admin thinks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Or there's that. At the very least, I think the article was created in good faith. I'm working on editing it now, so it has at least some substance while it lasts. 70.94.242.178 (talk) 08:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Edits are made and I've provided references in the main article and on the talk page (for back up). 70.94.242.178 (talk) 08:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Just found my ten foot pole.
Just in time, too. I was about to reply again when I realized he isn't interested in change. If he was, he'd have taken it to a venue that can support change. No, he seems interested in only complaining about the lack of change. In other words, great at talking the talk, horrible at walking the walk. And I don't have time for that. --Kbdank71 13:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Such discipline and control. You must instruct me. I must unlearn what I have learned, etc. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Golden Globe category deletions
Sorry didn't see all the nominee categories were CfD before, didn't know, my mistake. But I created the winner categories because several other winner categories were already in place, film actor, film actress, etc. Those were deleted as well, and I reviewed the CfD and it was just for the nominees. Can we keep the winner categories I recreated? Ejfetters (talk) 07:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I know we do use Golden Globe categories for winners. Not for nominees, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my bad, I thought they all got erased, they were rolling to the next line on my monitor and the winner categories are still there. I'm sorry my bad, sorry to bug ya. Ejfetters (talk) 07:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK. Yeah, I didn't delete any winners ones. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Read before deletion
I wonder did you read the page Talk:Fungi the Dingle Dolphin before you deleted it? Thanks Pnelnik (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed I did. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please allow at the very least a few days of discussion as to whether the original article should remain or be deleted. The interested parties can have the discussion on the Talk:Fungi the Dingle Dolphin page. Thus far there has been no dialogue regarding whether the original article should remain or be removed. From the first time it was suggested that the original article should be deleted until the final deletion just 16 minutes were given, it was some time after 2am in my timem-zone and I was asleep. Pnelnik (talk) 10:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt if a stand-alone talk page would be noticed by anyone, so no real discussion would take place. It would only be visited by users you notified. Appeals on things like disputed deletions go to WP:DRV. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Namibia-Botswana border crossings
Hi Good Olfactory, what does your change in this cat achieve? Yesterday I tried to figure out what the difference is between and  is but couldn't find any. Do you perhaps have a link to educate me, I find this whole category area difficult to understand. Thanks, --Pgallert (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure—that is just a "sorting" function. It changes where the category appears in the alphabetical list of its parent category. So before I made the change, Category:Namibia-Botswana border crossings would have appeared under the "N" section within Category:Border crossings of Namibia. After the change, it would appear in the "B" section, which is where it should be since all the subcategories are Namibia–something crossings, and sorting by the other country would help us find things if the category was heavily populated. For more information, see SORTKEY. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and another, somewhat related question (because you seem very category-literate ;) ): What can I do to have users placing the WikiProject_Namibia/Userbox on their user page automatically assigned to a member category like "Category:WikiProject Namibia members"? --Pgallert (talk) 09:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll adjust the userbox to make application of such a category automatic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for both! Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

CFD
--Soman (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Bosnian War CFD
I just noticed that you closed the CFD for Category:Bosnian War (1992. - 1996.) as rename. But if I read the discussion, the consensus is in favour of upmerging to Category:Bosnian War. 83.80.18.68 (talk) 06:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Erm, yes, you are correct. I misread the discussion; or, rather, wasn't thinking when I closed it that way. Thanks—I will make the change. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Unblock Review
Hi there. Please can you comment at the above page concerning your block as I can't see the the connection that lead you to the conclusion that this was a sockpuppet and that's the missing piece of the unblock request jigsaw. Cheers Spartaz Humbug! 19:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Responded there. Essentially it was what User:Occuli has set out. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have declined the unblock. Spartaz Humbug! 21:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

CfD merge procedure
Hey there. I just wanted someone who works frequently at CfD to double check my actions here. I closed a CfD as "Merge", and then added the categories to the the /Working page. Could you just double check to make sure that I did this properly? I don't want to accidentally break an adminbot. Thanks, <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 05:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup, that looks right. (The only thing I changed was the placement of the Template:Cfd top. In CfD, this is placed beneath the header rather than on top of it. See here. Minor issue.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that bit; I'll be sure to keep it in mind. Cheers, <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 14:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

PW
User:Leroy Westfield. You would think he would not revisit Westfield. Also user:70.104.120.26. (Google yields this. I wonder if they have a pastor there named Wayne? Google now yields this QED - towards the end 'Pastor Wayne Scott officiating'.) Occuli (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh dear ... that's funny ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see Leroy is also revisited. I suppose EstherLois must have been the result of unusual inspiration. It is Wayne Scott, which has a curiously Dickensian timbre. (See eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne William Scott.) Occuli (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This test catches all the known August PW socks. (Is there any test for catching articles added to a list of categories?) Occuli (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Very nice. I don't know of a test of the latter type; it would be useful ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * User:72.69.203.189. Occuli (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Lodi Lib. Seems to have moved lib. Occuli (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

New York Giants baseball players category move
Quick trigger on this one, I think. I just noticed it now. If it should have been moved anywhere, it should have been to (or, even better,, to avoid confusion with ) to be consistent with the team-season pages (e.g. 1950 New York Giants (MLB) season). This never should have gotten through speedy renaming. -Dewelar (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And yet, it did. :) Feel free to nominate the new one for a CfD, any of those changes would require a full one, I expect. There were a ton of articles changed, and all that was altered were the parentheses, so I'm not going to change it back. I agree that it can be improved upon, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it did, because it was up for less than a day, and because I don't watch category pages :-D . I agree, though -- don't change it back. This is an improvement, after all, even if it's incremental. At least now it doesn't make people think that these guys played baseball for a football team. -Dewelar (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. (Though I should at least defend the nominator's honor (User:Mayumashu)—he tagged it at 17:24, 29 August 2009 and it was processed at 00:40, 1 September 2009, so the timing was OK. ... Or would that be my honor? Whatever ...) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I misread the page history. I saw only the last edit to the submission and not the original. Sorry about that. -Dewelar (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and nominated the new category for renaming here. -Dewelar (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks; probably a good idea. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Stub templates
Hi, I don't know if you aware of this, but categories like Category:Bruneian footballers are not put on stub templates. Only stub categories, like Category:Brunei stubs are put on this templates. This is because stub templates are not designed to be permenantly put on an article and the category will disappear once the template is removed. Please hardcode the categories directly on the articles instead of putting them on the stub templates. Borgarde (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This was my fault originally. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 16:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah—was just trying to take them out of the main category. I should have changed it to Category:Brunei stubs. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My mistake: User talk:Xeno. All fixed now tho. Cheers for noticing. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 21:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:West Chester University alumni
Hi Good Olfactory, could you please rename this category, now that the discussion has been closed? Its parent category has already been renamed. -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 04:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Heritage descent category
Hi. I made the descent categories because being, for example, a Chinese American, and being of Chinese descent aren't the same and are distinguishable. For example, Lucy Liu is a Chinese American; Ne-yo has some Chinese in him, but giving him the category "Chinese Americans" is not at all inaccurate, because he is not Chinese or a Chinese American. A descent category would be accurate. The two categories aren't duplicates because the two categories do not mean the same thing, and a descent category is a legitimate category. Many other heritages have descent categories, such as Category:Malaysian Chinese, which is meant to distinguish from Category:Malaysians of Chinese descent, so I think it's a perfectly fair move to create descent categories for Americans, such as "Americans of [Chinese, Jamacian, etc.] descent." Categories such as Category:People of Chinese descent can be used for such purposes, but "Americans of Chinese descent" is more specific pertaining to Americans. Surelyhuman (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I restored these categories. It seems to me there have been discussions along this line before, and that it was determined that we don't want both of these types. But I'm not an expert on parsing ethnicities. The categories may be nominated for deletion in the future by someone. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Recipients
Now Category:Kalidas Samman Award recipients, Category:Sangeet Natak Akademi Award recipients, and Category:Sangeet Natak Akademi Fellowship recipients are out of bounds, any way to include it in the renaming? Hekerui (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the nominator is working through these in trying to get them standardized. You may just want to drop him a note and ask that he include these in his next batch of nominations. He's been doing groups of 10–20 at a time lately. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Hekerui (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hard-bop musicians
Hi! I left you a response in the Hard-bop musicians CfD entry. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick-adding category 21st-century treaties
See. I hope you agree (The 21st century began on January 1, 2001). Cheers. --Edcolins (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes; I was under the impression that it was signed in 2000 but didn't come into force until after 2001. That's not in the article, though, so you may be correct. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Obama judges categories
FYI, Category:United States district court judges appointed by Barack Obama and Category:United States court of appeals judges appointed by Barack Obama, both of which you deleted, were set up to hold the list of federal judges appointed by Barack Obama who get confirmed. There will surely be a number of these in each category, and I wanted to get the category names and parents right up front. I don't see any point in deleting an empty category that we know will soon be gaining entries. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't see any point in having empty categories—so we're even. When they are needed, they can be created or restored just as easily. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI it took all of seven days for Category:United States court of appeals judges appointed by Barack Obama to have its first entry. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I see the other one is still empty. It makes sense to create categories when they can be populated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Betty and George Coumbias
Why did you moveBetty and George Coumbias up to Category:Euthanasia? I prefer to have any articles that are country specific to be in a country specific category. Otherwise, esp for big topic areas, the category overflows (more than 200 articles) unnecessarily. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Betty and George Coumbias are not a country. Therefore, they don't belong in . That category is for articles and/or subcategories about euthanasia in a specific country, usually entitled "Euthanasia in [COUNTRY]". Presumably, they would belong in the theoretical category . Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, yeah. Point taken. I do similar categorisation myself. Note that they could also be in . is for generic and global articles. To avoid unnecessary clutter I had moved all articles relating to a particular country to the . Since there are not many such articles it is too early to create individual country cubcats. If the associated article exists AND there are related articles I would create a country subcat. Finally, I don't see the issue of dumping articles of the type in question into a slightly inapprop category. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see your perspective more clearly now. To some extent, it is placed in the by country scheme by placing it in, etc., but again these are quite "general" categories. I recently moved that article and some other stuff out of but I won't object if you want to move them back. Maybe they could be placed in ? Though they may not quite fit the definition of an "activist", either. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Category:Deaths by euthanasia looks like a good option even though it may have been an assisted suicide. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, they are actually dead now, are they? I didn't realize that. I haven't looked at the latest source. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops!!! Will check it out. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Your response
 It'd be a shame if anything were to happen to it ..very subtle, very funny. Thanks for the smile.--Buster7 (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

PW lib
User:Lodi Lib. Seems to have moved lib. [I added this yesterday - maybe you missed it. LL is now getting into creationist mode.] Occuli (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Was just away for a couple of days. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Linwood Street. There's a Linwood Street in Creston, Ohio, a few miles south of Westfield. Occuli (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Before long every IP in the county will be blocked ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * user:Cleve Clin. (Cleveland Clinic?) Occuli (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're the master. How do you find these? Was it Category:19th-century Methodists? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I look at recent changes related to all the categories created by PW Inc., particularly looking for red users + red talk. There are various things PW does and others that he never does. (This only catches edits in category space. If I could catch all editors populating these categories then he would really be in trouble.) Occuli (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Medina Hosp. Seems to be moving from lib to hosp. (QED.) Occuli (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Vermilib. And back to lib. (Vermilion, Ohio, no doubt.) Occuli (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also got User:Seventhstreet. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, a very obvious one. He's becoming rather irritating - how about reverting all his edits as of now? Occuli (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object. I have tended to keep the "useful" or "productive" edits but perhaps mass reversions would send a message? I have already deleted some of his category creations. If there are any categories you want deleted just note them here and I will delete them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of his edits are fine (if inconsequential) but a good number are not (10%? 20%?) so they all need checking; and he retains various misconceptions (about say category inclusions) despite much practice. Please try a mass revert of all edits of the next hosp/lib that pops up in Ohio. Occuli (talk) 10:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Next time we identify a sockpuppet account here I'll block it and just revert all the edits. We usually catch them before he does too many, so it shouldn't be a big job with rollback. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * user:POBOX319 is quacking loudly. Occuli (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, I saw those and I wondered. Glad to have been confirmed. I've reverted all edits. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Valleyfo. Occuli (talk) 23:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked/edits reverted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:DICK
You know, Wikipedia would be a great place to volunteer my time if people didn't act like complete dicks all of the time. (I know, WP:DICK isn't policy, blah, blah, blah ...)

So how ya been? I see nothing has changed around here... --Kbdank71 00:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Meh. You're right that not a lot changes. I'm getting to the point where much of it blends into the background radiation noise of generated by the universe as a whole. The only thing that really changes is the individual targets. I haven't been doing as much admin stuff lately, and hence have become a less favored target when compared to some others. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Serbia–Turky relations
is spelt wrong! LibStar (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No kidding? It's already deleted. Really, give me a 10-second buffer on things. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was only alerting you as a matter of good faith. LibStar (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. Perhaps an idea to adopt one of those 8-second delay buttons like they have on radio stations ... Otherwise I'm gonna have to submit an insurance claim for whiplash. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Bilateral relations moves
Please do not mass-move bilateral relations articles to that "N–N relations" naming scheme. I, and I expect others, strongly object against this scheme. For simple country names that have straightforward adjectival forms (such as "German-Iranian" or "Greek-Icelandic"), the noun-noun compound is grammatically unidiomatic to the degree of becoming effectively plain ungrammatical. There cannot possibly a valid Wikipedia "standard" that overrules the rules of English grammar, and the rule of "WP:USEENGLISH". In normal, authentic English usage out there, these noun-noun compounds are effectively non-existent for many of those pairings. Last time this was discussed at the relevant wikiproject, there clearly was "no consensus"; just because some involved party then went and nevertheless wrote it into the wikiproject guideline does not make it any more valid. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No other complaints coming except from you, and the N–N is used by about 98% of the articles, as far as I can tell. Most of the ones I'm actually moving back to its original position, so if there's no consensus it's actually a more correct placement. You may want to check up on the use of "noun phrases" as adjectives—it happens, especially in English. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But it DOESN'T happen in these cases. Look, I'm not a native speaker, but I'm an academic expert on English grammar, and I actually researched this in corpora of actual English speech out there. These collocations are so rare as to be virtually non-existent. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean it doesn't happen in these cases? Of course it does. I work within the area of international relations (in English) and the noun forms are used all of the time, essentially interchangeably with adjectival forms. Eventually WP is going to need to get it together so it looks like someone here has actually read a standardized usage manual. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * the noun-noun form is fine in my opinion (and I'm a native speaker). and also deals with cases when the adjective form of the country is a bit more tricky than the noun eg United States, United Arab Emirates, etc. LibStar (talk) 05:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the problem: Actual English deals differently with different pairs of country names, because country names fall into syntactically different classes. They are not a homogenous class, and no single uniform naming scheme could possibly serve them all, without sacrificing idiomaticity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, pretty much the only ones that didn't use the noun form were the Turkish ones (but those were all changed by one user last May without consensus), the Kosovo ones (ditto), and the ones for Greece. The ones for Greece can be odd-man out if you want, but the divergence does look goofy, IMO. LibStar's point about some not having an appropriate adjectival form is significant, too. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just compare google searches for "germany-france relations" with those for "german-french relations" . The first has a whopping 9 hits, of which three are wrong positives because they are actually about "West Germany" or about combinations of more than two countries, and the rest are all from non-English speaking countries and were probably written by non-native speakers. The second search has 16,000 hits. Results are similar for other such combinations. And I'm telling you I actually researched this more systematically in academic corpora of English too. – As for the prior status quo, the proponderance of the N-N forms in the wiki articles is simply the result of prior editors pushing systematically for a misjudged notion of uniformity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Suit yourself. Looks unprofessional, IMO, and of course there is a difference between the term being used in text and it being used as an abstract reference as in an article name. I guess everyone will just have to laugh at the Greeks. Ha, ha, Greeks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not Greek. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ? Not you—the category Category:Bilateral relations of Greece. (See above—I singled the articles in this category as the odd-category out.) I'm not ridiculing an editor, just the fact that WP always looks like its users haven't read a style guide. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Another thing about prior Wiki practice, by the way: As you certainly know, there are currently so many bilateral relations articles because some people went and created hundreds of them with minimal sub-stub content mechanically. I recommend you go and study the naming choices of the original authors of those articles that were written earlier than that and which actually have some content that their authors actually cared about. The large majority of those were created under titles that their authors felt were natural English. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what benefit anyone would gain by doing that. It looks like things have moved on, whether for good or for ill. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * By doing that, you could, for instance, avoid trampling over the work of people who actually care about the content they write, rather than the mechanical enforcement of self-invented "standards" simply because somebody invented them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah. Maybe it's just your inflationary rhetoric, but it sounds too good to be true. Besides, why would I trample my own writings? ;| Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Bilateral relations move requested
Could you move New Zealand–Russia relations to New Zealand – Russia relations to match all the other articles in Category:Bilateral relations of New Zealand? (Someone has previously done the reverse move.) Occuli (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, though I'm becoming hesitant about doing any of this WP:DASH business given the contempt that I see heaped upon those who would dare implement it. No, I'm glad to do things like this. If users have a problem with it they can take it up with a MOS discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There hasn't been any concerted objection to en-dash in article names, has there? (The spacing seems to me an obvious rule once one gives it some thought.) Bilateral relations seems to be a vexed area even without dashes. Occuli (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of. But one can never be too careful, of course. As soon as you start believing something is obvious, that's a sure sign that you're doing something controversial. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems that in article names everything is controversial except the dash, whereas in category names the reverse is the case. Occuli (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, how insightful. I guess Alansohn is right after all. This really is a "bizarro world". :) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic/nationality descent categories
Hi Mayumashu. In the past I know you did a tremendous amount of work on the subcategories of. As you probably know, I've been proposing renames for a bunch of these to conform to the "FOOian people" standard. Now, I'm not sure how you feel about these changes, but I was wondering .... If I come across one of these categories that are named "FOOs of GOOian descent" and I see that you are the creator and sole author, would I have your permission to speedily rename these to "FOOian people of GOOian descent"? It would save me having to do a formal discussion for them, and would help us regain consistency faster. If you disagree with these changes—I'm sorry, and you don't have to say yes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, no, that s fine - go for it GoodOlfactory. And for the ones where I haven t been sole author, I ll gladly support each of your noms.  All the best, Mayumashu (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Your move of Serbia–Turkey relations
This move was clearly against policy as there was no consensus for such a move. If you had studied the edit logs you'd have seen that such a move was already carried out and I had reverted it as I disagreed with it and there appeared to be no consensus. As such you should have started a requested move discussion as the move was not uncontreversial. Discussions at WP:FOR have failed to reach a consensus on naming conventions and there appears to be no specific consensus for this page. As such I have asked for this move to be reverted as I can't due to the misspelling (something I'm currently assuming good faith about). If you then wish to start a discussion at WP:RM you should feel free to do so. Dpmuk (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The page move I performed was related to a reversal of a series of moves made by a particular editor (the creator of the page) who awhile back went about changing a bunch of these types of articles from "FOO–GOO relations" to "FOOian–GOOian relations"—a broad change that was made without consensus, as you say. I assumed that his creation of this page under the original FOOian name was part of that effort. The creator himself recognized the error and moved it to the FOO–GOO relations, which by an overwhelming margin is the dominant form of these. If I receive a number of other complaints about this, I would consider there to be a lack of consensus, but for the time being, two in favour of the move and one opposed does not appear to me to be a significant barrier to conforming to the overall pattern of these. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly not but is enough of an indication that a discussion should be held as consensus is not obvious - 2 against 1 is clearly not consensus. I also think that the reason that the majority of articles are now in this form is thaa people have been moving them without consensus (often based on the WikiProject International Relations guidelines which have never reached consensus and so shouldn't really be on that page - I've now removed it).  Personally I prefer the Serbian-Turkish form but am happy to accept that consensus may be against me.  My issue is that consensus has never been obtained for any of these articles and as such moves shouldn't be being re-done without a consensus being formed - personally I think they should all be of the form that was used when originally created as any move after this was obviously made without consensus.  More pratcially I feel that while we are lacking such a consensus such articles should be left where they currently are and this seems to me to fit in with wikipedia policy.  I'm tempted to start a WP:RFC discussion on this at the project.  As far as I can see there are three outcomes 1) all articles should be in the "FOOian–GOOian relations" form, 2) all in the "FOO–GOO relations", or 3) they should be considered on an individual basis.  Without any consensus for 1 or 2 I believe 3 is the obvious default option and I further believe this is where we currently stand. Dpmuk (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I will move it back. I'm not totally sure what good will come of having a minority different than the rest, but I think you are right that future discussion is probably warranted to sort this out. (Thanks for being reasonable, by the way. It's easy for users to get aggro about things like this.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I came across a bit strong in my first statement. This whole issue is starting to get on my nerves, especially with people using a 'consensus' (although often not called that) to justify their moves.  When ever it is actually discussed, for example at WP:RM, no consensus seems to be reached.  Although I have a preference on what convention should be used it is all the moving that is taking place that irrates me.  Anyway I've started a RfC here. Dpmuk (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's OK, I can understand, and I thought you were quite reasonable. Great that an RfC has been started, so we can get an up-to-date assessment of this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Your comment
Strange you have never felt it necessary that I can recall to comment on Otto's endless personal attacks on me! Johnbod (talk) 05:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? (And even if I hadn't, complaints of a lack of tit-for-tat is hardly a good excuse for one's own bad behaviour.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As I say, I don't recall any, & I'm certainly not going to check through the edit history, which would be too depressing. I don't accept your characterization - I can't see how a positive construction can be put on his edits myself. To nominate articles for deletion and then revert attempts to improve them is unattractive behaviour even by Otto's standards. At least the Afd's have deservedly sunk like stones. Johnbod (talk) 06:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think my point was that you need to assume that Otto's trying to improve the project overall, not harm it. You still don't seem to be able to accept such an assumption of good faith. You might not subjectively believe that his actions will improve things, but I think we need to not make the leap from our own subjective assessment to one of Otto's intentions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Inquiry
In spirit of this, I think this qualifies. (Yes, I understand that you have both the right to agree or to shove it, but I thought I'd make a good-faith inquiry anyway). Regards,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:50, September 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that, but—no. Not even a close call. The "legal threat" was not the only issue—it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thought as much. Well, I'll guess we'll be seeing a lot more of each other around fairly soon... This is not a threat.  I repeat, this is NOT a threat.  Carry on.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:57, September 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * I also appreciate the humour, but I would like to emphasise that this is not primarily about users misreading a comment that is not a threat as a threat. It is primarily about Russavia's inability to demonstrate civility, good faith, and a desire to change his behaviour. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you help me here
Can you help me with your comments here? I was trying to close this discussion, and then I got stuck on interpreting this comment: "Otto, you are correct about this particular category of redirects; it is bringing the categorisation of redirects into disrepute. Delete it. And then delete the eponymous category which holds smoke and mirrors and little else." I think the statement is sarcastic. But then as I re-read it I'm not sure. Per WP:SARCASM, help me out here. Bottom line—in your opinion what should be done with the eponymous category and what should be done with the redirects category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't sarcastic. Let's see. Categorising a redirect is useful if the redirect is in a category in a different branch of the category tree. Eg many articles which are not lists will contain an embedded list; a redirect to this list section can be called 'List of whatever' and placed in list categories. Someone looking in this list category can then find the embedded list. (Category:Famous dogs has Station Jim, a nice example IMO.)
 * This particular category of redirects should be called Category:Millennium episodes and is just self-referential (with a lot of repetitions to boot) as the 3 lists give all the episodes. So it's not doing anything useful that I can perceive. After that we are left with a small eponymous category (2 subcats, a few articles) – usually deleted by consensus. Occuli (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, that helps me. I think we can say there is consensus to do as you suggest. Had you been speaking sarcastically, I wouldn't have said that, though. I guess I shouldn't assume people use sarcasm, and I apologise that I did for you. But I've seen quite a bit directed at Otto lately—I'm never quite sure sometimes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Pattyson
All of the details provided in my edit--and many more--are cited here. Sarah Bullard (talk) 04:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Cydebot down
Ok, thanks for the info. I see you already informed Cyde. Hopefully it'll be back up soon – I don't think anyone wants to start working the enormous list of speedy moves by hand :P Jafeluv (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Your last edit to your user page
Wrong link - it links to the removal of Harvard - of course, from my point of view it should have been removed because it's an inferior university, at least compared to one slightly south and west of it :-) Dougweller (talk) 08:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Slightly south and west .... let's see .... I didn't think Bridgeport was that good. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Category US Politicians who switched from Democratic Party to Republican Party
Hi, I was trying to start this category, and I noticed that you removed my initial efforts. Do you think that this category would be better served as a list? Or is there already a category I should be using? I was writing a section of a textbook on politics in the 1960s and 1970s and wanted a quick and dirty list of politicians who switched then and was surprised that Wikipedia didn't have it.

I planned to have the category be a subcategory under these two
 * Category:Republican Party (United States) politicians
 * Category:Democratic Party (United States) politicians

What do you suggest? Thanks!

--Kenmayer (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason I removed it was b/c there has been consensus in the past that such categories for "party-switchers" in U.S. politics should be deleted. The key article, I believe, is Party switching in the United States, which includes relatively comprehensive lists. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Makes sense. There should be a good way to link the Wikipedia entry for the people on each list so that users can see the whole group. Otherwise, what's a hyperlinked encyclopedia for? I suppose a link to Party_switching_in_the_United_States or similar is possible. Thoughts?--Kenmayer (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:American murderers of children
Hi, I noticed that it seems like the category "American murderers of children" is inconsistent because it seems like, if the category was interpreted literally, it would include serial killers and spree killers who don't target specific victims, but killed children as part of the killings. Would killers such as Howard Unruh and Sylvia Seegrist fit under the category? It seems like there's several pages on spree killers who murdered children, but do not have that category applied to their pages.

Thanks,

--Apollo1758 (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I can see that that would be a problem. To my knowledge I don't know if there's an accepted "definition" for these categories. My understanding was that they are for murderers who specifically targeted a child or children. But then, I've seen child "school shooters" included in these as well, which is a bit confusing, because that's typically a person targeting his peers, not targeting children as such. What do you think? Should it include anyone who murders a child? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it would probably make more sense to include only shooters who specifically targeted children, and exclude spree killers, since they rapidly kill people regardless of who they are. I would include school shooters, since they have an intent to kill children specifically, even if the perpetrators are children as well. I'll revise the category so it includes only murderers who targeted children, and put a note at the top of the category page to reflect it. --Apollo1758 (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Sent you an email. Given the rate of current developments it's kinda time-sensitive, so could you get back to me as soon as possible? -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 20:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Dates
Thanks I was in the middle of typing a reply some hours ago, but got wandering off on byways. Your nots is still appreciated. Rich Farmbrough, 22:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC).

Recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross (United States)
I found a couple Milo Huempfner and Milo Flynn in the wrong cats and corrected them. Sorry, but I don't know anything about bots and stuff, how do I check that Recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross have been put in the right country? I don't mind correcting them, but I wouldn't know where to look!--Alchemist Jack (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All you can really do is manually check the articles in Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross (United Kingdom) and make sure they are all UK. If they are US, change the category to Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross (United States). I suspect there may be a few Americans who were mistakenly put in the UK one originally, since it was the un-disambiguated one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I feared it would be a manual check, but hoped there might be some record somewhere that I could use to back trace. I will have a look through the list. Cheers. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI: I think I have removed all US recipients from the UK list, but I noticed the US list is not listing alphabetically Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross (United States)--Alchemist Jack (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration case regarding the Eastern European mailing list
The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.

You are receiving this notification as you participated in the administrators' noticeboard thread on the issue.

The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.

Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

UNSC Presidents
Thank you for adding refs! Poliphile (talk) 05:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Holy See - Peru relations
What happened to the stub about Holy See-Peru relations ? Did it get deleted ? I saw you renamed it, but the new location is a redlink without any actual information. I could not find any existing deletion log on the subject. ADM (talk) 08:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm very confused about this. If you go to Category:Bilateral relations of Peru it's right there: Holy See – Peru relations (but not redlinked). But when you click on it, there's no such page. I moved it from Holy See-Peru relations to Holy See – Peru relations, but somehow it's gone. I'll try to figure this out. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For the life of my I can't figure this one out. The page was clearly moved, not deleted, but there's no trace of the text anywhere. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you search for Holy See peru it is there (in the search) blue-linked with text. This seems to be a miracle. It is also there on special prefix list. Occuli (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone notify the Vatican. The Virgin has deleted a Wikipedia page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

See Village_pump_(technical). Don't know what else to do at this point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Achaemenid Empire
I'm confused as to what you have written on the Achaemenid Empire about changing the date to BCE will break categories? warrior 4321  10:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The template automatically adds the article to categories based on the start and end dates entered into the template. You enter a start date of 550 BC and and end date of 330 BC and the categories the article gets added to automatically are and . If you change the dates to 550 BCE and 330 BCE it will change the categories on the article to  and . Those are red categories—i.e., they don't exist, because the relevant categories use the BC naming system, not the BCE one. So if you change the dates in the template, you break the application of the appropriate categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Notice
I added a comment on your user page under what others thought of you. If it is offensive, please remove it. It is not meant to be offensive. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

CFD: White Muslims
Hello. It looks to me as if this removal of a deletion discussion by an IP went unnoticed. Regards, - Ankimai (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks—good catch. I've re-added it to the 4th, so hopefully another admin can come and close the discussion soon. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, sneaky... I wondered how I managed to miss an open discussion - turns out I didn't!  All done now, in the delete queue.  --  X damr  talk 22:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Beat me to the anon block as well... ;) --  X damr  talk 22:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

South Korea – United States Free Trade Agreement
Can you help with this -- at one point there was an article here as indicated by Google cache, but the history only shows that you redirected the page to itself and the log doesn't show any deletion. I r confused. . 98.122.183.67 (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See the section above also. Everyone is very confused about these. I moved these two articles, and the text for both has somehow been deleted. It got redirected to itself when I was fiddling around, trying to figure out what was going on. It's a mystery. I think I will just need to access the old copies of the text on google cache and re-write the articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, this one's back at least. It looks like the bug is being worked through. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Oera Linda
You removed the Hoax category and I thought you would replace it with a new one, but you haven't so far. Do you intend to? Dougweller (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just removing redundancies. It's already in Category:Religious hoaxes so per WP:CAT is doesn't need to be in the immediate general parent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, sorry. Dougweller (talk) 07:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Circus freak
If you have any interest in maybe pushing a circus article to FA, take a look at Barbette (performer). I've pretty well exhausted my resources but if you have an extensive circus book collection there may be the information to get it listed. Otto4711 (talk) 06:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: CfD closings
Hi! I think I saw that discussion too. It makes sense, since if a category is only listed in the collapsible box the browser's search function won't find it. I'll try to remember that when closing those discussions. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 07:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Russavia
Hi! , whom you blocked last week for making legal threats, has posted on WP:AN to request unblocking (see here). Thought I'd let you know, since nobody seems to have notified you. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Emptying of categories
Lack of sources documenting the status of the "Polish emigrants" or "Polish refugees.IMHO Other categories are more appropriate for these people. Therefore, please undo your changes or add sources documenting the Refugee status --WlaKom (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Cat x 2: Odd Fellows Buildings
FYI. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Tracie Andrews which you contributed to, is currently up for deletion
You are welcome to comment in this deletion discussion. Ikip (talk) 06:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"Plays by" categories
Hi Good Olfactory. I notice there are a whole bunch of "Plays by" categories in Category:Categories for speedy renaming. It appears as though the categories were renamed by Cydebot between September 14 and September 16, but still contain cfr-speedy template. Are these categories just in-between move and cleanup (I would have imagined the cleanup would have been done by now?) or have these ones "slipped through the cracks"? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 09:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah dang. When Cydebot got up and running again around that time, it was having some trouble picking up the speedy templates when it was creating new categories and it was copying the speedy rename template into the new categories. I thought I removed them all, but I've somehow missed these ones. So to answer your question—these are the new categories that have been renamed. The templates can be removed from them. They were just copied into the new categories in error. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Casting out for some help on these here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing that. DH85868993 (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Old King Williamites OKW Category Change
I am remarkably curious why this discussion was not mentioned on the KW article Talk page where some sense might have been obtained by consulting with editors who have some knowledge of the subject. The final category chosen is completely inaccurate. First, as was noted but ignored, the Isle of Man is not part of the United Kingdom any more than the Channel Islands are, it is a Crown dependent territory with no connectoion to the UK, just to the Crown. Secondly the use of the Americanism alumni is jarring to this English speaker at least. Is there anyway to re-open the discussion to find a more appropriate place, I agree OKW is also misleading though that is what the Old Boys (and now Girls) call themselves. Dabbler (talk) 10:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You can re-nominate it for discussion by following the steps at WP:CFD. I don't think the "not part of the UK" issue was particularly relevant for the rename discussion, and where the category is placed in the category structure can easily be changed. As for a discussion of a different name, implying that other editors have no sense or have no knowledge of the subject probably won't win you many points—just a tip. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but putting a public school (in the British sense of private high school) into a category for universities and colleges, does imply a certain lack of understanding of the subject. Basically if you are happy with Wikipedia containing nonsense in categories that is OK with me as I consider category labelling one of the features of Wikipedia that could probably be reduced by about 90% and pay very little attention to them as so often they are sub-divided into a million stupid subs. It is just a blatant inaccuracy that bothers me but if no one else worries why should I. Dabbler (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you read the discussion you can see that it was discussed—it's not like users were oblivious to the issue—but at the same time it was pretty extraneous to the actual proposal I made. You should probably complain to the editor who placed it within the UK universities tree. It wasn't me. I noted that there was no good logical parent. Another editor categorized it somewhere, but it wasn't an important point as far as my involvement goes. I suppose it's also a good idea to make sure you have your facts straight before you imply that the person you are talking to has made a mistake. Or if you aren't sure, at least ask nicely and assume that you could be wrong. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I thought that you had initiated and suggested the Category name. Obviously it is nothing to do with you and any error must be mine for noticing that things don't seem quite right. I will just shut up and learn to know my place in future. A thousand apologies for disturbing you in your wikihappiness. Dabbler (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * RhubarbrhubarbrhubarbrhubarbrhubarbrhubarbrhubarbrhubarbrhubarbsarcarmrhubarbrhubarbrhubarbrhubarbIsleofManrhubarbrhubarbrhubarbaskratherthanaccuserhubarbrhubarbrhubarbrhubarbrhubarbrhubarbrhubarbwwikihappinessrhubarbrhubarbrhubarbrhubarbrhubarb .... 03:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have changed it following the format used for Jersey ... nothing to do with cfd. Google gets no hits whatever on "Old King Williamites" and 2 on "Old King Williamite". The UK consensus (such as it is) is to use 'Alumni of' for tertiary education; for secondary 'Old fooers' is used (if the name exists and can be found), otherwise 'alumni of' or 'former pupils of' have both been supported at cfd. (See eg Category:People by school in England.) There have been many cfds objecting to 'Old Fooers' BTW. Occuli (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)