User talk:Good Olfactory/Archive 9

A tedious pedant writes ...
Hiya GO

I just noticed that once again you have done great work closing lots of CFD discussions, clearing some of the large backlog (generated to some degree my my recent flurry of CfDs for uncategorised categories). Congrats — all good stuff.

However, I do have just one small request, if it's not too much trouble. The edit summaries you use just say "close", but it would be very helpful if they could give some indication of how the debate was closed. It needn't be verbose — anyone who wants the full works can open up the page — but if they just said "close as delete", "close as no consensus" or whatever, that'd make it much easier to track what has happened.

If this is too much hassle, or if my request annoys you, just ignore this. I don't want to do anything to discourage someone doing so much useful housekeeping!

Best wishes, -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, that's actually a good idea. I guess it never really occurred to me that someone might be tracking closes that way, but I can see why you would want to—so I will definitely start to do it. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Another pedant from west of your location
I might just have hit the wrong key when putting up Australasia (and then read your qualifier of the ecozone category after putting it up) but it has a dumping ground feel - which probably could be averted by a much more specific text on the page - I still have my reservations about it and asia - and believe they should only be parent cats - with no actual articles linked - but - how to convert the masses - probably will get shot down one way or other - anyway thought you might just cope with yet another over wordy explanation from self - cheers SatuSuro 06:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, yeah—the ecozone categories. That was a project gone bad. I tried to gain consensus for eliminating the biota by country categories and re-categorizing everything by ecozone instead. It went down in flames, and I was going to delete the ecozone categories I had created to demonstrate how my new fantastic system would work, but someone asked if I wouldn't delete them, so I left them. I swear off any allegiance to them, though, and think they should probably go. I haven't tracked what has happened to them since I created them... Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh hell that makes two bloody nuisance mother's - I really have serious concern that mother 'asia' and 'australasia' - imho they should never have arts (or templates grrr re asia templates grrr ) specifically connected - but how to go about the adequate structuring the tree so that the average punter doesnt hot cat the weird and wonderful :( SatuSuro 07:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Very impressed by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Good_Olfactory/CFD#Death hope you dont mind me looking - it is very salient to the project - can I share the existence of this with fellow death project members?  SatuSuro 14:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely—it's there for anyone to use as they see fit. Good Ol’factory (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow - thank you very much SatuSuro 14:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Another quandary - disused, defunct, and closed railway stations mess right across wikipedia (which of course I have contributed to :) - any thoughts? I have no problems about concurring to the original article (defunct indeed) but really closed seems clearer and more accessible and less ambiguous - although if one gets into the nitty gritty - in west australia we have had railways no longer used that never got closed by act of parliament - so they were in effect disused until that time which the act was passed (in some cases 20 years after suspended activity) - of course it is the dead parrrot/duck test territory as well - well is it dead or not? - well havent seen a train in twenty years, ah but is it closed? SatuSuro 03:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm; yes, I've never understood the difference between all of these, though I suppose technically there could be one. A "defunct" one could be one where the building was demolished or something, whereas "closed" could be ones where the station building is there but it's not operating anymore. I would be inclined to just have one type of category for all situations—I would probably choose "defunct", since it seems to be potentially the most broad. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh well there goes another huge catalogue of CFD listings at some point - If no one else does it - I'll do it later, i think - I am awaiting a msg back from at least one rail editor who looks as though they might have a clue or two - thanks again - as always for considering these odd talk page items SatuSuro 06:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Got an affirmative - will be putting disused and closed up for change to defunct sometime soon SatuSuro 14:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Not bots rugby players
Hi GO

Any particular reason for marking these rugby categories as "NO BOTS"?

I have just been doing a few manually, but then realised that I should have asked why they was manual. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Vegaswikian and I just added those NOBOTS tags to try to get the queue going earlier today. It was stalled on those, so we just thought we would try to temporarily bypass those in case it was something about them that was causing problems. It's still going slow on the rugby ones, though—I'm not sure why. You can take off the NOBOTS tags at any time; it was just a temporary experiment to try to move things along, but I don't think there's anything special about those 3 particular categories that was slowing it down. Good Ol’factory (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Could it be because they don't have CFD tags on the category pages? .... Hm ..... I didn't even realise these weren't tagged, though it would have been empty formality to require it, really. Good Ol’factory (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I have done one manually and removed the NO BOTs tags from the others. We'll see what happens. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

can i get some input?
If you have a moment to check, what do you think of the Britanica table? User talk:Ari89 and I are, sort of, talking about it. He maintains it's Wikipedia:No original research while I say it's not. If it is OR I'd like some clarity as to why.Smkolins (talk) 12:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure since I don't have the source in front of me to compare. It may be WP:SYNTH, but it's not something that would jump out at me personally as being obviously an OR problem. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The links are in the ref - it's two web pages of Britannica online. What I did was take the categories and calculate a percentage growth. Simple math - ((2003#-1995#)/1995#))*100 and then made a table of the results. I didn't build in any sophisticate stats like population compounded growth - I didn't even re-average the results by dividing by 7 for a per-year value. I even amended the table to all columns are sortable so one one entry is at the top. Smkolins (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I see. Well, that does sound like a bit of OR, since we're not just taking raw data as it appears, though it's not obvious on its face and not a huge deal, in my opinion. It would be better if we had a citation where the growth rates are given. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Article rename request
Would you be willing to rename the poorly named Sea Trek (Mormon project) article to Sea Trek 2001, which was the actual name of the project? A redirect to that new name from Sea Trek Foundation might also be of use. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! There is one more thing that I've found I can't fix that you might be able to help with, if you're willing. The following articles are using the name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints incorrectly: I know this is a minor issue, and as a wikignome I'd normally just fix, but those articles are semi-protected, so I can't. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Westboro Baptist Church has a piped wikilink to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in a sentence starting with "On February 2, 2008, the group picketed..."
 * Dick Cheney has a piped link to Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (omitting the "The" from the wikilink) in a sentence starting with "BYU permitted a protest to occur so long as..."
 * Hawaii links to Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, omitting the "The" from the wikilink
 * Mark Madsen links to Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, omitting the "The" from the wikilink
 * Republican Party (United States) links to Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, omitting the "The" from the wikilink


 * Done. Have you thought about getting an account? Once you've been registered for four days or so you can edit semi-protected pages. Or are you in a situation where you're not permitted to register? Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk page of Tocantins
Hello, I've notice you moved the article Tocantins (state) to Tocantins, but you've forgotten to move its talk page Talk:Tocantins (state)--Luizdl (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I missed that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Starvation
I do hope you are not advocating a resort to force-feeding :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Mmm, foie gras ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion
Would be appreciated - prime candidates for...? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Death SatuSuro 12:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies - would you go with which order? The one you dont like we need to put up for change at cfd - I am unsure and was asking your advice... foo of xxx or xx of foo in other words SatuSuro 07:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh I see the section now. Well, I would probably go with "Assassination of XXX" for two reasons. (1) The majority seem to be in that format already; (2) there are articles called "Death of XXX", but they aren't ever called "XXX's death" (as far as I know). Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the poorly structured message- and thanks for the response - cheers SatuSuro 07:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Less info
Would you be willing to compromise on how much content is conveyed using Template:LDSGAinfo? The template dominates the right side of several articles (e.g., Gordon B. Hinckley), not allowing for incorporation of essential images next to their pertinent sections. It seems to give "undue weight" to titles and offices. Thanks for your consideration. —Eustress talk 13:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's only an issue in the select few cases where men have held many positions, such as Hinckley. In almost all other instances I don't think it's a valid concern. In general I don't see it as a problem, but I do use a relatively decent-sized screen. The most obvious solution would be to make it more narrow and/or reduce the font size. Another reason Hinckley's is a problem is that there is another more generic infobox used that isn't used on most of the other LDS GA pages. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see now that you've been adding the extra infobox to some of the GA articles. All I can say is that this looks like a problem of your own making. If you want the infoboxes to be shorter, don't add new infoboxes! Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Infobox person supplies crucial fields for information not provided in the LDS templates, so I don't think that's the issue. The issue is that too much detail is being displayed using LDSGAinfo. Another issue is that LDSGAinfo and LDSinfobox have some redundancies (but we've discussed that before). —Eustress talk 23:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is an issue, frankly. A person holds many positions—their infobox will be long. Fact of life. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

DRV

 * copied from User talk:Kleinzach

Apart from disagreeing with you on a substantive issue—which is a fairly unremarkable occurrence between two editors on WP—I'm not sure what I did to you to warrant this comment, which I'm assuming is some sort of strange combination of assuming bad faith and sarcasm. Users can and do disagree on the issues without stooping to stuff like this. (For instance—to take another involved user, BrownHairedGirl and I frequently disagree about various issues, but we still respect one another as people and don't take the disagreements personally.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My question obviously ht a raw nerve, but I don't wish to discuss this here on my own talk page. This isn't the right place. -- Klein zach  04:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't take your comment as a legitimate question, I took it as an insult. Am I wrong in assuming that? When one user insults another, in my experience it's usually easiest to deal with it one-on-one on a user talk page. I'm not clear on where you think would be better or what you have in mind ... would you prefer WP:ANI? Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

How can we fix this

 * copied from User talk:Alansohn

Please refrain from name-calling and incivility at CFD. Calling me a troll out of the blue in multiple CFD discussions because I have criticized your lack of civility in other discussions is completely uncalled for.,, The comments of yours that I criticized were unnecessarily personal arguments (in the most recent instances, against User:BrownHairedGirl), making them a comment and judgment on the contributor rather than the content.,  These comments, apart from doing nothing to advance any legitimate argument, violate WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and especially WP:AGF.

Perhaps I made a mistake by trying to bring this to your attention in the middle of the CFD rather than on your talk page, as that could be seen as unnecessarily confrontational, in which case I apologize. But the underlying point is that you need to comply with WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF, regardless of how much you may disagree with others. Your comments often suggest that you don't believe anyone who disagrees with you is honestly working to improve the encyclopedia, and in conjunction with your personalized remarks, you frequently do not fairly restate the positions of others, and I don't know that I've ever seen you try at CFD to better understand them. I sometimes might agree with the underlying substance of your arguments, were you to present it neutrally rather than as an attack.

I'm very impressed with your contributions in other areas; I've noticed how many new articles you've written and expanded, how many DYKs you're credited with, and how prolific of a vandal fighter you are. That makes your hostility at CFD all the more disappointing, because I don't think you're someone who has to attack others in order to make a point. Perpetuating a hostile environment at CFD certainly doesn't make it any less "broken," but rather makes it harder for those with disagreements to resolve them, or even to listen to one another.

Please believe that my intent has never been to stop you from voicing your content-related opinions, however much or little I may agree with them. My objections have always been only regarding the manner in which you do so. postdlf (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Are these issues going to be addressed? I too would be anxious to see a resolution to the problems outlined above. Nothing can happen without all parties coming together, though. Apologies if I've pre-empted your response preparation, Alansohn, but I just didn't see anything happening here and I wondered. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The incidents sited are so trivial and so in keeping with remarks from "trusted" administrators such as yourselves as to not be worthy of mention. If BHG has an issue, she will be given every opportunity to address it. While I will tone down my comments as it is clear that sensitivities among admins are rather delicate, I will not respond further to trolling and demands. Where there are clear violations of Wikipedia policy, I will continue to bring them to the attention of violators, regardless of an alphabet soup of claims from the Postdlf / Good Olfactory tag team. Any further trolling here will be deleted; any further trolling from either of you at CfD, where your comments are attempts to manufacture knowingly false disputes, will be ignored. Alansohn (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for postdlf, but I don't view the incidents as trivial primarily because they are not a one-time occurrence. The problem being referred to here is long term and not limited to these instances. I think that's one reason why they cause concern. Your statement above demonstrates, again, a failure to assume good faith in other users. When you constantly assume the worst about users, problems result. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC) [comment removed by Alansohn with edit summary: Remove trolling. On The Sopranos, When someone says watch out or "problems result", that's meant to be taken as a threat of abusive action. That's what I'm hearing.]


 * Alansohn, in the spirit of trying bring some resolution, I noticed one point in your reply that seemed to be specific: you said "Where there are clear violations of Wikipedia policy, I will continue to bring them to the attention of violators".
 * That seems to me to imply that you have already encountered "clear violations of Wikipedia policy" at CFD. Please can you clarify whether that's the case, and if so give some examples so that we can discuss them?
 * If you are right, and admins are violating policy, then I hope you can be relied upon to do the right thing and set them out so that they can be discussed ... and if you do not feel they have been resolved, you should take them to an appropriate forum for further action. However, sniping about them at CFD clearly isn't producing any solution that you find satisfactory, and this situation needs some resolution. --- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * For starters, here's an easy one: Can you point to the policy that justifies deletion based on "superfluous for navigation"? Alansohn (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Isn't that just a difference of opinion between editors? Not every opinion a user voices requires 100% policy backing. If it did, guidelines and policy could never develop in the first place. The OCAT, CLN stuff, etc. are all just guidelines, not policy. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You folks have steadfastly refused to define "defining". Now you want to turn WP:IHATEIT into policy? This is merely "a difference of opinion between editors"? CfD deserves better than that. If you were closing this CfD, would you count that as a valid justification? Alansohn (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a good example of what postdlf is talking about. I didn't say I wanted to "turn WP:IHATEIT into policy". I'm just saying that I don't think an admin voicing an opinion constitutes a violation of policy by the admin. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The game resumes. Are you responding or just claiming that you've been misquoted? Is "superfluous for navigation" a valid justification for deletion? Alansohn (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In the user's opinion it is, and I suspect that in yours it is not, but that's not really the point. The point is that it's an opinion, not policy. There are very few "policies" that justify deletion (the speedy delete criteria being the only real exception). But we base deletions on consensus opinion and guidelines, not just policies. BHG asked for examples of admins violating policy, and you raised this. What is the policy that was violated? I'm not trying to play games here, but it would help if you could answer BHG's question. We are trying to help. Maybe you're just saying "policy" when you mean "guideline"? I'm not sure. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You make life and (mostly) death decisions on categories an average of several times per day.If there are no policies or guidelines on deletion of categories, how is it that you manage to decide that some votes are more worthy than others? Is "superfluous for navigation" a valid justification for deletion or is it not? This is a rather simple question thatall three admins here have refused to answer. Alansohn (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Alansohn, you say that you folks have steadfastly refused to define "defining". Not so: I tried a few years ago (see Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Archive_10), but there was no consensus. I think it would be a good idea to reopen that discussion.
 * As to the incident you refer to, the documents you have cited are guidelines, not policies. They exist to to clarify existing consensus, not to form a code of law.  They evolve over time, and they do not cover every situation; when consensus changes, the guidelines are revised. So, I'll ask again: where are your examples of POLICY violations?
 * Oh, and your final question: "superfluous for navigation" has frequently been accepted (by consensus) as grounds for deletion.  Not every list of template needs a corresponding category. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * More recently Alansohn started a discussion on it: here. I participated—I certainly didn't "refuse" to entertain a definition for it—I was just a bit confused by the proposal, because I had suggested a negative definition previously, which had been rejected by Alansohn, but then the proposal seemed to incorporate what had been rejected. I don't think repeated no consensus discussions constitutes anybody refusing to define it. We have all tried; it is very difficult to gain consensus on it. Again, an example of where it would be better if we could assume the best about everybody rather than the worst. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you must have an answer on the beside-the-point issue: I would consider it essentially as I would consider any other non-policy based opinion expressed in a discussion. If consensus agreed with the point, then it would be a valid reason for deletion. Now, back to where are the policy violations by admins at CFD? Or are there some other things concerning you? Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad I have this all in writing. There's no argument that's any better or worse than any other. We now know that "superfluous for navigation" is just as valid justification for deletion as claims of WP:OCAT and that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is just as worthy as an argument for retention as a stack of books showing a characteristic to be defining. Consensus is just a numerical counting of Keep vs. Delete. Yet somehow arguments for retention are routinely "discounted" as being less worthy than others by closing admins such as yourselves. Is that how this game works? Alansohn (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Can we—just for this one conversation, if nothing else—put aside disagreements about how CFD should or should not work? Can we please assume good faith for the purpose of this conversation? Can you try to assume that our intentions are good—even if that requires a suspension of disbelief on your part? Can you cease paraphrasing what others have said to frame it in the worst possible light? The initial concern expressed by postdlf was clear that the purpose of this section on your talk page is not primarily concerned with content of arguments, we're concerned with manner and tone: "Please believe that my intent has never been to stop you from voicing your content-related opinions, however much or little I may agree with them. My objections have always been only regarding the manner in which you do so. " That's what is troubling me, at least. Could you address these issues, please? Perhaps you are uncomfortable with me participating here. I'll withdraw from commenting here, and let you (hopefully) respond to postdlf's original concerns. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have addressed the supposed "tone" issue. See above. As both WP:CAT and WP:OCAT are not policy, and as any guideline can be safely ignored, how is any delete vote "better argued" than any keep vote? Remember, you do this several times each day and compile statistics (of whatever value) of the results of all such decisions for a year. Alansohn (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I somehow missed your question here; not sure if you're still wondering. I'll just briefly say that determining consensus in most discussions is not too difficult. The essay What is consensus? is a good place to start when you have a more difficult one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see your statement above that you will "tone down" your comments. But within the same paragraph, you accuse us of "manufactur[ing] knowingly false disputes." That's exactly the problem we've identified here and elsewhere. I take you at your word that you consider these incidents trivial, but you need to accept that we do not, and to take us at our word that we believe what we say. We have found the tone of your comments to be a non-trivial problem, which is why we have all tried to bring it to your attention at various times.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with me or everyone else on everything at CFD, and I have no problem with explaining myself or my rationales, or discussing competing interpretations of policy, guidelines, and editorial judgment. I don't assume that you are trying to destroy CFD or undermine Wikipedia simply because you disagree with me, or because I don't always understand why you think what you do. I try to understand by asking questions to tease out your underlying premises (sometimes pointed rhetorical questions, which is fair game, but never personal ones I hope), and I try to make you and others better understand my arguments and conclusions. To the extent I want to change your mind about any substantive questions of content or policy, I only want to do so through persuasion. That's all I am asking from you, nothing more. Assume that everyone else is working here in good faith rather than playing games, trying to delete categories because we hate the category's subject matter (I've always been confused by that accusation), or saying or doing anything that we think is "knowingly false." On top of those negative assumptions being contrary to WP:AGF, they aren't helping either of us understand or persuade one another.

Re: your opinion that we have "steadfastly refused to define 'defining'", notwithstanding the obvious dictionary definition of that word (which I note you yourself use quite frequently in your CFD comments without elaboration as to what you mean, and without regard to whether the deletion nomination argued that the category was trivial or non-defining), I accept that you want more guidance on that. Apart from general concerns of instruction creep, I personally don't see how it could be more than a case by case judgment particular to the subject matter of the category. But regardless, you dropped out of the the last substantive discussion you started on this issue after several contributors offered their thoughts. Further, my comments in that discussion in particular tried to lay out the premises that I basically operate from in CFD; I'll leave it to others to say how much that explains their view as well. I was hoping for you to read that and better understand our different perspectives, and then we could have a real discussion, but for some reason you didn't participate further. postdlf (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"Disruption" as a word

 * copied from User talk:Alansohn

Just a note that it's generally not a good idea to suggest that others are being "disruptive" by voicing their opinion. If I understand you correctly you are speaking of "disruption" to the category system, as in a category being deleted, but given the special meaning of "disruption" on WP, you might want to find a different word to express the idea. I mention this here rather than the CFD discussion because it's not particular germane to the issue being discussed there. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A rename here is the least disruptive approach, plain and simple, and I'm not sure what your motive is in opposing it as an option. No rational person would see an issue with the wording. The result you seem to prefer, to delete the category, remove the category from the 12 articles, have a new category without the word "Current" created and then have all 12 articles retagged, borders on a WP:POINT violation of deliberately trying to disrupt Wikipedia where there is a logical alternative of a rename that addresses the nominator's only legitimate issue. You're really grasping here to try to manufacture something where nothing exists, in a CfD that should be open and shut. Alansohn (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry; I just agree with the original nomination. Users disagree; it's normal. (What you've set out as my preferred approach is not what I prefer though, so you must have misunderstood.) My point here was about the use of the word, not to continue the substantive disagreement. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry too, but your actions are disruptive here. You disagree; it's normal. The difference is that I have never abused administrative powers to impose or to threaten to impose a block where you have a rather blatant conflict of interest. Your continued threats are not normal or acceptable. Just voicing my opinion. Alansohn (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Participant satisfaction
from Deletion review/Log/2010 January 12
 * Relist for further discussion. Consensus wasn't clear enough.  The close looks too creative, and is not a result discussed by many participants.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Endorse. To do otherwise would be to inappropriately impose bureaucracy where none is needed. A user presumably saw that no consensus was developing for their preferred rename yet went ahead and created the category anyway in the middle of the CFD. It was appropriately deleted. Both categories were not standardly-named categories within the established schemes and were appropriately deleted, with serving as the appropriate category within the scheme. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree that to relist would be inappropriate. A continuation of the CfD can focus the discussion on what should be done, and why, and on understanding each others various perspectives, as opposed to this discussion which focuses on bureaucracy of how and when things were done.  To relist is not necessarily to judge that the close was wrong, it can be to acknowledge that the discussion was not complete because there is more that someone wants to say.  These CfD discussions are not just about getting the right decision, they are also about education.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Overly bureaucratic, in my opinion. It's really just a difference in semantics at the end of the day. Either way, there can be a new discussion. I bet I can guess what the result will be, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In terms of what the final decision is, I won't disagree. In terms of participant satisfaction that they are important to the process, and a perception that discussions can when forcibly shut down once the administrators are decided, there might be a world of difference.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Participant satisfaction"? "Forcibly shut down"? Geez, it sounds like the discussion was an illicit sex orgy or something. If there's one truism about Wikipedia processes, it's that not everyone is going to be "satisfied". That doesn't automatically mean we use redundant bureaucracy or procedures to satisfy the squawkers. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good Ol’factory, again I am surprised at how what you seem to read and what I mean to say differ.


 * I think I understand that you have little reserve for squawkers, but I disagree that processes, particularly CfD, shouldn't pander more to new participants how want to be heard further.


 * "use redundant bureaucracy or procedures to satisfy" I'm not really sure that I follow. Do you mean that DRV shouldn't be used to voice mere dissatisfaction with details of the discussion?  If so, then I agree.  What I think is that if someone has something to say in a CfD discussion, and they feel disenfranchised by the timing of the close, then the best thing is to quickly re-open or re-list the discussion to give them the chance to say what additional thing they feel they have to say.


 * Ideally, in my opinion, Jafeluv would have relisted the discussion he closed. As he hasn't participated since, I guess it we will wait for a DRV closer to do the same.  Why we are waiting seems to me to be unnecessarily bureaucratic.


 * While it is true that satisfaction for everyone everytime is vanishingly improbably, it doesn't hurt to relist for additional arguments, but it does hurt to refuse to listen to them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that we're disagreeing about much. I just prefer less hoop-jumping, I suppose. There are easier ways, and it avoids conflict better. Some users just like conflict. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

RPP
Hi Good Olfactory, I wouldn't bother you with this, but my Twinkley Twinkle won't let me ask for page protection, for some reason or another. Would you consider temporary protection for Lovie Smith? He's rumored to become the new head coach at the University of Tennessee, and a ton of IP edits sometimes mess things up--screwing up the infobox, doing irreparable damage to English grammar, adding information about the weight of his wife. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe I spoke too soon--things seem to have died down a little. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me know if it keeps up, we could probably temporarily protect it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you see the history? I don't know if this could be called "excessive" and worthy of protection--earlier tonight it seemed to be that way. I wouldn't mind if you protected it from IP edits for a day or two; Tennessee is expected to make a decision by Sunday. OK, who really needs protection is David Cutcliffe, who seems to be the top runner for the job! That article's history is awful. Thanks for your time, Drmies (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone protected David Cutcliffe. I semi-protected Lovie Smith for 3 days; let me know if it needs to go beyond that. I would call the history on both "excessive". Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks--for the protection, and for the clarification of terms. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

various mergers
With so many mergers, like Category:Bahá'í Faith in Senegal it pretty much breaks up any cohesive discussion. I don't quite understand what is being proposed - to scrap the Baha'i categories exclusively towards the religion categories per country? That seems to be excessive if that's what you intend. I didn't originate some of the current structure but I do care what happens. So what's going on? Smkolins (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I found this comment - "Created .. months ago and still only contains main article ... Suggest upmerging to parents without prejudice to re-creation when more articles or subcategories on the topic are available" - is that it? Smkolins (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes--the discussion linked to from the categories is where my proposal is found. What you quote is correct. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Indian Swedenborgians
I have nominated indian swedenborgians for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Linguisticgeek (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of category
I am contacting you as the closing admin of the deletion discussion for Category:Equipment used in multiple sports, which was merged. During the time this was discussed, I was out of the country, and I had no internet access, so I had no way of posting a comment in favor of keeping this category. Hellno2 (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hellno2, that's a bit unfortunate, but do you disagree with what was said in the discussion to the point of disagreeing with the close? If so, then what is it that you have to say?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification Hellno2. Were you asking me to do something? Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I do feel it should be restored.
 * One of the big issues was that it was in its infancy. It only had 4 articles, and part of the justification for deletion was that it was a "limited" category. But it takes time to populate a category - it cannot always be done on day one.
 * I also cannot recall ever having been notified that it was up for deletion, something the proposer is supposed to do. Hellno2 (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, well I don't think any of those reasons would allow me to override the unanimous consensus in the CFD. I suppose you could try WP:DRV, but it would be hard to argue consensus was at all ambiguous or misinterpreted there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

On the narrowness of Category:Beachcombers
Greetings, my intent was this cat was the historical usage of the term, as shown here: Beachcombing. This refers not to portly middle-aged men with metal detectors wandering about Santa Monica looking for lost trinkets, but to sailors/sealers/whalers in the South Seas in the 19th century who were shipwrecked, jumped ship, etc. and "went native" with the Melanesians and Micronesians, signing on as mercenaries, becoming local rulers, etc. I admit this is a pretty specific use of the term that doesn't clearly correspond to the modern pastime of picking up drift-glass on the beach. However the historical definition is a categorisable concept, maybe a clearer name? Note that the current 3 articles (and I'll be creating more stubs soon, most likely) share a very common historical Oceania concept. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm from Canada and there are professional beachcombers; it has a much broader meaning than just people who casually look for valuable stuff on the beach. There was even a much-ridiculed Canadian TV show about some pro beachcombers: The Beachcombers. Obviously a more specific name is needed if you're trying to limit it in that way. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of UK spelling for Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_11 Rename
You used the UK English spelling "recognised" for the close of Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_11. The spelling appears to conflict with consensus and the content of the category. Any thoughts of changing the spelling? Alansohn (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops! Yup, we should keep that the same unless there's consensus to change it. (Just copied the first mention of it, which was by BHG.) I'll fix that. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Football competitions in Spain
Category:Spanish football competitions, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Djln--Djln (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Works by Richard Wagner

 * copied from User talk:Kleinzach

See talk page. Category:Compositions by composer is a subcategory within Category:Works by artist. Since the category contains written works and compositions, it would go in both parent categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * More than one editor has already explained to you that Category:Works by artist is for visual artists. Please stop this edit warring. Also please don't use my user page, as I previously requested. -- Klein zach  03:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is actually being used for visual artists and musical artists, if you have a look at it. And no, that hasn't been explained to me by anyone. You might be confusing me with someone else. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop writing unnecessary messages to my talk page
Very politely Can you please stop writing unnecessary and repetitive messages to my talk page. Thank you. -- Klein zach  03:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm only writing the ones I think are necessary. When users disagree, it's normal to try to discuss it. I mentioned it there because I was not sure if you'd be watching a talk page of a category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just as well ...
This comment of yours reminded me that when I used to say that as a kid, my brother used to say "just as well".

Doesn't apply in your case of course. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ouch. Gotta love the tender care of older brothers. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Beauty pageant winner categories
I see you've added "women nationality" categories to some of the pageant winner nationality categories I've recently created (for example, Category:Spanish beauty pageant winners). I'm curious though, do you think it would be more appropriate to instead be using the "women nationality by occupation" categories? As far as I'm concerned, pageantry isn't technically an occupation, but it might be close enough to warrant using the more specific category.  Mbinebri  talk &larr; 19:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I agree. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

European Capitals of Culture
I'm sorry, but now I am really angry with you. The ECoC is not a big deal outside Europe? Maybe. But I think The Price Is Right (U.S. game show) is not a big deal in Europe (actually: we never ever heard about it), but it still has its category: Category:The_Price_Is_Right_pricing_games. Should I nominate it for deleting? I think one of the main problem with enwiki is that it's not an English speaking Wikipedia about anything that has its own importance in its field, but a Wikipedia about English/American related topics only or mainly. And this is a sad thing. --Perfectmiss (talk) 08:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you are angry about; I withdrew the nomination. I made a comment about a Factiva search I performed; I wasn't really speaking from my own opinion. (I'm neither American nor English, by the way.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am angry because you didn't make any research in the topic before nominating it for deleting. Remember, first you said this category was subjective as if I had dropped the cities together into this category randomly. --Perfectmiss (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds kind of petty to me. I've tried to rectify my mistakes. What exactly is the problem at this point? Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Do page moves properly
Re your move here. Why is U.S.–Soviet Space Bridge improperly hidden away with U.S.-Soviet Space Bridge a redlink? See WP:Redirect: "Titles containing dashes should have redirects using hyphens." Gene Nygaard (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Because the page originally did not use periods in "US". Anyone (i.e., you) can create a link from a redlink, you don't need to bring it here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 25
Hi - I see that you closed this CfD as a delete for this specific category, but not for the related categories which had been discussed - these were created after the original nomination by the only editor who commented in support of keeping the now deleted cat. Did you feel that there wasn't sufficient discussion or notification to delete these? If so, I'll re-nominate them. Warofdreams talk 14:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with your reading of the discussion and have adjusted the close. Thanks for tweaking me on this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion
In this Categories for discussion you say "Well, some users find it polite and others find it terribly annoying. ... The safest way to be notified is to have it on your watchlist." Depends on the size of ones watch list. I am always looking for ways to reduce the size of my watchlist (currently at around 1000 pages) and tend to remove pages with a low hit rate and which are none controversial (which categories usually are). I keep a lot of low hit rates articles on my watch list for vandalism patrol purposes, but I do rely on notification for many pages I have created over the years if someone wishes to AfD them or whatever. -- PBS (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup. But if you really care about something, it's still safest to keep it on your watchlist. Otherwise you are relying on other editors. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, nope. "The safest way to be notified is to have it on your watchlist" applies regardless of the size of your watchlist.  Sure, categories may add entries to your watchlist, but for the most part, categories are edited much less than articles, so they won't show up on your "display watched changes" list.  --Kbdank71 21:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Yup" here being a generic term of acknowledgement used to try to avoid starting a fight. Nice job, Kbdank. (I agree that category pages get very few edits, especially if you turn bot edits off. The vast majority of the edits made to categories are interwiki additions that are irrelevant to most English-speaking users.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. Whoops.   --Kbdank71 02:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Andrew the Apostle
Good Olfactory, on 5 October 2009 you expressed an opinion concerning the St Andrew article's being renamed to Andrew the Apostle per per nom and per (naming) convention which is Wikipedia policy. The issue is being considered again. You may want to express your present opinion at Talk:Saint Andrew. ─AFAprof01 (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. As a SysOp, please help me understand how user consensus can trump Wiki Policy here. No one has made a logical case for exception to the policy. It's just "we don't want to change." If an enforceable policy is not to be enforced, then it should become a suggestion or be removed, IMO. Thanks. ─AFAprof01 (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Two different things
You seem to have overlooked the fact that "Bosniaks of Serbia" and "Serbians of Bosnia and Herzegovina descent" are two different things altogether. Monegasque (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't. One is (largely) a subtype of the other. There's not enough of the one right now to subcategorize into the other. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Largely" isn't quite good enough. For the sake of clarity, one should be as precise and unambiguous as possible. You should consult this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosniaks_of_Serbia. The Bosniaks of the Sandžak area have lived there for quite a few centuries. Besides, most of their ancestors came from Montenegro, not from Bosnia-Herzegovina. The most important point is that Bosniaks are a clearly defined ethic group, whereas a category consisting of people of "Bosnia and Herzegovina origin" is merely a geographic category, not an ethnic one. As I said: two totally different things. Monegasque (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No thanks. Still looks like OCAT at this point, though—but what's new? Almost all the nationality/ethnicity combo categories are drenched with triviality and original research. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You should really try to be more specific. About that article I quoted: what is it, precisely, that you disagree about? Can you give me some sources that would motivate your disagreement with the article? Monegasque (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't expressed any disagreement about any articles. I'm not really concerned about the issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

DRV comment

 * Copied from User talk:Alansohn

I don't think this comment about the intent of other users was appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment

 * Copied from User talk:Alansohn

I don't think this comment, suggesting other users are "obstinate", was appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to disagree, but the evidence points to the contrary. Where is our definition of "defining", a concept so fundamental that CfD should not exist without it? Alansohn (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If that is your concern, you should explicitly criticise the process when you comment. A process can't really portray "obstinacy", but it's easy for use of that word to be interpreted as applying to individual users. That may be what you meant but it's important to be careful when expressing criticism about a process so it isn't interpreted as a personal attack. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

DRV comment

 * Copied from User talk:Alansohn

I was not making a "threat", as you suggested. I would appreciate you withdrawing that part of your comment now that I've clarified the confusion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You make rather explicit threats to delete the category in question if community consensus goes against you at DRV. What's the issue here? Alansohn (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Predictions are not threats. Saying that a CFD would likely result in deletion is a prediction.  An explicit threat to delete the category would be him saying "no matter what happens, I will delete this category."  postdlf (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was a prediction; nothing more, as I indicated in my clarifying statement. I would appreciate it if you would withdraw that part of your comment now that I clarified the confusion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to remove and nothing will be removed. You've already been warned regarding harassment here and any further trolling will be removed. Alansohn (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Category deletion
I don't know whether you have already noticed and corrected this, but whatever tool you are using to assist in deleting categories has been leaving odd deletion summaries, as here. I rather doubt that you really meant to suggest that Category:Sammarinese football competitions should be a redirect to Category:Ugandan media. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How curious and embarrassing. Thanks for letting me know; I have rectified the problem. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Introductory statement on Template:Cathead Socialists by nationality
Hi! I've seen you deleted the statement I added to the new Template:Cathead Socialists by nationality about people being miscategorized. While I agree that the wording was premature, I didn't mean to limit valid objections to situations where someone is "convinced" of someone being miscategorized. Actually I aimed at the opposite, making sure noone takes these categorzations for granted, which is a problem especially with living people. We might want to develop a good entry phrase for all these political orientation categories. For now, I just leave it out, as this means no degradation to the current situation and is easily changed later as soon as we reached a consensus on this. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, that's good. I wasn't sure. I think if you want it to say something like that it wouldn't be a problem, we just need to word it better, I think. I agree that one that would apply to all political categories for people would be helpful. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Just noticed that you left a comment on the template's talk page. Obviously you thought about a different limitation the passus implied. Both is true, which certainly means: better no statement on this than the misworded one. Let's talk about a better implementation of this statement tomorrow, if you like. PanchoS (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, whenever you get around to it is fine. I'll watch the talk page there where you can make comments. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Internet
I've been having a bunch of trouble with my Internet connection today. It's there, but it's been kind of sketchy at times. I may not be online for the next little while as I work on getting it fixed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Notification about arbitration: request for amendment
Request for amendment which involves you has now been filed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment re this - I've just had to update my statement, in light of the fact you appear to have misled me on the timing. It is difficult to tell whether this was intentional or unintentional, as while the latter is possible, the former is likely given the entirely understandable desire to distance yourself from the claims being made and in doing so reduce the credibility of mine. Another user pointed out to me today that the blocks in question were performed in April 2009, not April 2008, which was nearly 7 months after I first came into contact with you guys. At the RFAR, you said: "At the time the blocks were performed, I hardly knew User:Kbdank71, User:Otto4711, or User:Jc37". I would contend you knew and were friends with at least the first two, and had been for a considerable time by the time of the blocks. As it's not strictly related to the RFAR itself, I may have to follow this up separately with ArbCom. Orderinchaos 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problems - thanks for your response. Orderinchaos 06:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * YW. I suggest a more robust assumption of good faith when you encounter something suspicious. The recommended process is assume good faith—then inquire—then re-evaluate the assumption. Not assume/suspect bad faith—then inquire—then re-evaluate the assumption. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not actually satisfied with the explanation given - it seems too convenient, and there's at least two big holes in it. I thanked you for it, however, as you chose to respond and did so civilly, and I'm generally the type to let something rest even if I'm not entirely satisfied but if I am not particularly interested in the outcome. As for assuming good faith, after the tirade of crap I had to put up with from you yesterday regarding my alleged motivations, there's something to be said for the pot calling the kettle black. Orderinchaos 12:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh huh—nothing like a good cliché to make a point. I thought we clarified the meaning of my "crap tirade". Or are you just "not satisfied with the explanation[s] given there, either"? "I'm generally the type to let something rest even if I'm not entirely satisfied". Is that so? I'd love to see it in action sometime. If you're hanging on to and still have a problem with something I've done, then report it at ANI, but stop blustering at me. It's mussing up my hair. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

de Clare
Then I would ask you to re-read because you missed the key words, i.e., "whatever your opinion, please weigh in on the discussion". If that is not clear to you, I do not know what else to say except, please note, they all obviously did not agree. Mugginsx (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't miss that. The point is—a neutral message is completely neutral. Yours was not. What you intended subjectively is not necessarily the same as how your message reads objectively. Objectively, it was non-neutral, even if you didn't have that intent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Another administrator posted his comments to the page. Apparently he understood my message.  I am sorry you did not. Mugginsx (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You should make the effort to leave messages that are objectively neutral. Your message was so blatantly non-neutral that it's not surprising it caused confusion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

SISE... SISI...
Po-tay-to... po-tah-to... I think it's me that screwed that up anyway, considering the related article name is Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue. I'm just used to abbreviating it as "edition" rather than "issue."  Mbinebri  talk &larr; 22:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, duh. I saw SISE and though, "of course that's right, what was I using SISI for?", but then again I wasn't thinking about it too hard .... Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if there's one topic it's forgivable to not put much thought into, it's anything related to models. Which is why I wonder how I end up in debates about them so much, haha.    Mbinebri   talk &larr; 22:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

James Rossant article
If you're tracking the James Rossant article, I have just added citatations/references, as requested. Tnx Aboudaqn (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't—but nice work. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

C2A and ENGVAR
I noticed your comment re C2A and ENGVAR in some of the recent 'organisations' speedies. Clearly there is something of a disjunct in cases like this, where the nomination is within the ambit of C2C (as the tree observes differences in local usage), but seemingly excluded by C2A. I suppose it is down to their expression in prohibitive terms - essentially 'thou shall not edit war over US/UK English'. Anyway, I've made a little alteration to C2A to allow for US/UK swaps in event of local distinctions being a feature of the tree. Hopefully that will be a little clearer for the future.

I'm now off to see if I can bring myself to close what seems to be a million pages of Cfd debate on whether 'liberal' is subjective...

 X damr  talk 06:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, that change is great! Thanks, I was wondering if we should do something like that. I was always nervous of getting ENGVAR thrown at me in cases like that, so I always worded my nominations, uh, "liberally". Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Beat me to tweaking my tweak as well! The semi-colon definitely gives it that little touch of je ne sais quoi! -- X damr  talk 07:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Pedants of the world, unite. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Smith redirect
Since the "Joseph Smith" redirect has been most recently edited I tried to get input on this a few days ago, but nobody has made any reply (see Talk:Joseph Smith). Care to weigh in with your wisdom? ——Rich jj (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Commented there; thanks for the notice. As you suggest, it seems kind of obvious ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Guidance needed on Homophobia
Good Olfactory, I note that on 2 February you changed the criteria for the "homophobia" category, including adding the words, "This category is for issues relating to homophobia. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly homophobic." There appears to be continued confusion about the exact meaning of this, please see talk:Spanish Inquisition, where an editor is claiming that the key word is "allegedly" and that the category can be applied to groups that he thinks are really homophobic. Any comment that you could offer about this would be greatly appreciated. UserVOBO (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thx, I've responded there. You've interpreted my meaning correctly. The intent was to have all individuals and groups removed if anyone is claiming they are homophobic. To open it up to "actually" homophobic groups and people is re-creating the original problem. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Treaties - cats
I noticed you are engaged in redefining categories of articles about treaties. Since I do a lot of work on this kind of articles, I wonder what categories are appropriate for treaties? I usually just copypaste and modify the cats from similar treaties, but never had a thourough understanding of what is expected. I'd appreciate it if you leave me a note which categories one is expected to add to articles about treaties (less work for you in re-organizing the mess I created...). Best Skäpperöd (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's generally not been a mess. I've just been creating categories for treaties by year and emptying the by century ones into them: hence all the changes. I think one for the year of the treaty (or the century, if there is no year one) and ones for the countries that signed them are at least appropriate. There are also by topic categories at Category:Treaties by topic, one of which you could include. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank's a lot. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Please teach me something
I'm a bit confused. I totally agree that your last correction on the List of Latter Day Saint practitioners of plural marriage is the way it should be, but I'm would like to learn a little LDS history from you, since I know you know it. My goal was to move John Smith (Nephew) out of “Presidents of the church" where I KNEW he didn't belong, but I put him in the wrong place, since he was a General Authority (Presiding Patriarch).  However, your "Edit summary" note confused me a bit and I'm curious about it, since I have actually never heard of “John Smith (Nephew).” or “John Smith (Uncle)”.  You called him "Uncle" John Smith" when you moved him, but wasn't he the "Nephew" of Joseph Smith. I would think that John Smith (Uncle) should be "Uncle" John Smith, which according to his page he was called that (see first paragraph). Was John Smith (Nephew) also called Uncle John? This is personal history for my family since it has been part of the LDS church since the Kirtland days, so it's something that really interests me. ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a good question and it confused me for a long time. The answer is that there is two different John Smiths. The first is John Smith (uncle of Joseph Smith, Jr.), also known as "Uncle John". He was the brother of Joseph Smith, Sr. and served as a counselor in the First Presidency to Joseph Smith, Jr. After Joseph Smith was killed, Uncle John succeeded Joseph's brother William as the Presiding Patriarch of the church. He was not an apostle, but he was a general authority.


 * The second one is John Smith (nephew of Joseph Smith, Jr.). He was a son of Hyrum Smith, who was Joseph Jr.'s brother. Thus, he was Joseph Smith's nephew. After Uncle John died, this John Smith became the new Presiding Patriarch. I think a lot of people assume this one is the son of the first John Smith, but Uncle John is actually the younger John's great uncle.


 * In summary, there were two John Smiths—neither were apostles, but they were both Presiding Patriarchs. One was Joseph Smith's uncle, and the other was his nephew. When I moved Uncle John from the apostles section in the article to the general authorities section, I didn't change what you had done with the nephew John Smith, which you were right to move out of the "presidents" section. Does this help? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So they were both call "Uncle John"?:--ARTEST4ECHO talk 16:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the nephew was called "Uncle John". Not that I know of, anyway. It's possible, I suppose. The first "Uncle John" was called that because he was the uncle of the prophet of the church. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Settlement categories
Hi. I don't see any consensus. One person supported. WP:Brazil or WP:Cities were not even consulted it would seem. The reason I object is because very few other countries are categorized as "Settlements". If you broswe by city you'll see what the general standard is and by renaming the Brazilian places settlements they can no longer be accessed from browsing cities by country. I purposefully deleted the Cities in Brazil, Towns in Brazil etc cats too as the ordering was a huge mess before I took the time to organize them by state. Either we keep them as Settlements and change every other category naming system by country on wikipedia to conform with the Brazilian naming or I recommend that the category change is reconsidered and placed back to how it was before. I strive hard for consistency on wikipedia, and just because one editor supports the move that is not consensus. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 12:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: this editor posted the same text to my talk page, where zie also omitted to include any links which might help identify which categories are involved, or where the discussion was. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 2. The Cities, towns and villages cats were replaced by Settlements in. This against the standard naming convention... And if you click settlements by country you'll see most of them are sub catted as Cities, towns and villages in.. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 13:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You can nominate them for renaming back, or start a DRV ... I wasn't the admin who closed either discussion, I was the nominator in both, so there's not really anything I can do. It wasn't even my idea initially to change to "settlements"; I pointed out in the first discussion that there were a lot of categories that still used "Cities, towns and villages", but things went the other way, which I was fine with. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltarian emigrants
Hi Good Olfactory. I do not understand why the proposals to rename the various categories of Gibraltarian emigrants (to Gibraltarian immigrants) were simply deleted earlier today from the list of categories for Speedy rename. You had stated that you "can't say that the speedy criteria would not apply here, since all the others do use "immigrants"." However, within 35 minutes of your comment, the complete list was deleted. As you rightly noted, all the other similar categories (many hundreds) use the word "immigrants" and even among the the list of categories in the Gibraltarian section there is a Category:Gibraltarian immigrants to the United States. Am I misunderstanding something about the process? Cheers Davshul (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * They were moved to the section for "contested speedy nominations", at the bottom of the page. I didn't move them there—they were moved by User:BrownHairedGirl, who lodged the formal objection. Personally, I can't justify not using speedy rename on these, as I said there. I'm not sure that BHG is on solid ground with her objection, but usually at the speedy renaming section if there is an objection of any type, we take the discussion to a full discussion, even if it appears that the criteria have in fact been satisfied. So I think the only recourse you would have at this point would be to nominate them for a full discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If only more people understood this very simple concept...
--Kbdank71 16:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, that's a classic insight. It shall go on my board of quotes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Hungarian Germans
Good Olfactory, regarding the batch of categories for renaming by reference to "descent", removed by you a few hours ago from cfd/Speedy, just to let you know that, apart from the above, I had already checked through all the individuals listed and, where necessary, re-allocated them the an appropraite category in instances where they did not fit into the proposed new name of the category. Hope you read this in time to avoid duplication of work. Davshul (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I started to go through them and noticed that they all seemed to be sorted out. Thanks for doing that. I withdrew as it seemed to be something quite different that, and would probably require a full discussion to merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Foo American booers
After the renaming of American people by ethnic or national origin, have you considered what should be done with the subcategories?

I notice that there are rather a lot of sub-categories of, and , many of which use the old "Fooian American" format. The same probably applies to many other categories of Americans by descent. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to jump in here with a quick heads-up - there's a possibility that this closure might end up at DRV. Nothing settled yet, but I did point it out as an option to a malcontent editor - don't yet know if he's going to grab the ball and run with it, but probably best to give things a day or two to settle down...


 *  X damr  talk 13:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have thought about what to do and I am assuming that it would be best to rename them to the format "American actors of Italian descent" and the like. But I also agree with Xdamr that I probably won't pursue this until it's clear that the renaming is final. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Completely Retarded
There is a big difference between someone who has lived in America for generations and someone who was born overseas and came to the U.S. For example, Antonio Pierro was born in Italy. He was an Italian-American, not an "American of Italian descent." Also, such combinations fail to consider the reality that many persons are dual citizens. John Babcock was both a Canadian and U.S. citizen.

Also, the poltically-correct bandwagon has gotten so wrapped up in itself, that it forgets that words were often coined for convenience of use. Saying "Italian-American" uses a lot fewer letters than "American of Italian descent." Please explain how this is "progress"? Ryoung 122 06:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's OK to disagree about a proposal that has been implemented based on a consensus decision. It's not OK to suggest that the user who proposed it is "completely retarded", and to use that phrase to refer to the proposal itself is a little inarticulate. It is also unwise to assume that a proposal was motivated by "political correctness" when the nomination statement sets out a rationale that is not based on that amorphous concept.


 * In any case, the place to complain would have been in the discussion regarding the proposal. There's not much I can do at this stage even if I wanted to. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Whatever. On second thought, I'm just going to smile and nod. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Editing Category:People investigated on charges of terrorism
G7 would be if the ORIGINAL author requested deletion of the page. Please restore it Bachcell (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Leaving a category empty and blanked of parent categories is often a sign that the creator wants it deleted. Apologies if I misinterpreted your intent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

!
- Cue the eye rolling... -- X damr  talk 00:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, the contingencies of randomly seeking advice .... Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Americans of Dominican Republic descent
After an objection to the proposed speedy renaming of Category:Americans of Dominican Republic descent, the category has now been nominated for a full discussion to seek consensus on the suggested renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Laredo – Nuevo Laredo
Thanks for this. I was surprised to see that the category had been tagged since February (and that I had tagged it), but I thought that might simply have forgotten to complete the listing at CFD/S. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I remember seeing it listed a few weeks ago, and I know it was on there for several days. I don't know if I removed it to process or someone else did, but obviously it didn't get done as planned. ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Ceará
Hi G O, I have just removed a speedy-rename tag which you had added to Category:Ceará back in early January. It seems to have been tagged done at the same time as a batch of other categories from that part of the world, but was not listed at WP:CFD/S along with that batch.

Its omission seems to me to be Good Thing™, because your proposed renaming to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Ceará looks wrong: Category:Ceará is a category for a state, not a sub-cat of towns & villages within that state ... there is already a.

So I presume you spotted the error and decided not to list it, and forgot to remove to tag. If I have misunderstood the situation, and you did actually intend to list, please can you count this as an oppose of the speedy? :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like a mistake on my part. I probably tagged the wrong category, realised it, and then forgot to undo my edit. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Please revisit
Please revisit Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_10. Debresser (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Living Anarchists
I submitted a request for undeletion and they referred me to you, so I'll copy paste what I wrote and I guess we can take it from there:

The original rationale of deletion was that we don't create living and dead categories for everything. This is a good point on most things, but not on niche beliefs. "Living Christians" would have so many possible members so as to render it too vague to be useful. However, a person who is a) an anarchist b) culturally important enough to have a page that doesn't get deleted and c) is still alive, is in such short supply that it's hardly vague, and is (on the contrary) very useful for an ideology for which 90% of the chief luminaries are dead. People browsing anarchism on wikipedia may want to know who is still available to comment on current events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.227.131.37 (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll tell you what—and I hate to be giving you the run-around like this—but I need to refer you to the administrator who closed the CFD discussion on this: User:Erik9. I was the user who nominated the category for deletion. The closing administrator is the user you should approach in cases like this. Thanks for your understanding. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I was going to, but when I went to the user page, it said User:Erik9 was a sock puppet account that has been blocked. 01:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.21.143.7 (talk)


 * Oh dear—interesting. I didn't realise that. Obviously, he was not an administrator. I suppose then the thing to do if you still wanted to pursue this would be to use deletion review. However, I can tell you that in the past consensus has almost always been in favour of deleting "Living XXXs" categories, so I would guess it would be unlikely to be overturned in a DRV. You could try, though, and request that it be relisted for more discussion (since discussion was limited) and so the discusion could be fairly closed by a non-sockpuppet account. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

:category:tablet PC
Since there is a speedy rename on tablet computer to computers, why isn't there a corresponding speedy on category:tablet PC ? (There has been discussion of the tablet PC article's name.) --Ancheta Wis (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy renames only get done as people propose them. I proposed one for but not one for category:tablet PC because I didn't know the latter existed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Questions about another user
I hate to bug you, but I don't really know what to do about this. I just ran into some odd edits by a user and found a pattern of weirdness that may even relate to other users. I posted the whole massive thing to his talk page. Maybe that wasn't wise, but it doesn't look like the user has been around for a couple of years anyway. Please take a look at User talk:Ronny22. I hope your eyes don't bleed at so much text and I hope I'm not embarrassing myself. ——Rich jj (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had a look there, and it does indeed raise my eyebrows a bit. It definitely looks suspicious, and were he or User:Hard2Win actively editing, we'd probably want to pursue this a bit further—check IPs and see if the two accounts are emerging from the same IP, etc. But because neither has done anything since 2008, I think we can probably let it rest for now, at least as far as these two accounts go. If either starts editing again, I think we would want to take some action. It's possible the editor has moved on, but it's also possible the individual is still editing under a new account, so maybe I would suggest that you just keep your eyes open for any edits that kind of questionable edits that seem to resemble those of Ronny22's. I would suggest that it would be OK at this stage to revert any of his edits, since such a high percentage appear to be questionable, if not outright vandalistic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll fix Ronny22's damage. As for my conspiracy theory, if Hard2Win is the same user, as I suspect, and if there were other accounts before and afterward, as I also suspect, there could be a long chain of sockpuppets.  When Ronny22 did something positive (fixing POV, vandalism, errors), he could have just been cleaning up damage introduced by another one of his accounts.
 * It could take a huge effort to discover any other accounts, and another huge effort to fix all damaging edits. I don't have the time/energy/commitment and I don't want to worry that I'm nurturing a paranoid conspiracy theory.  I doubt I'll even fix Hard2Win's edits, since I don't want to find another user account and get sucked in again.  Maybe this mean random articles may continue with obscure incorrect dates and details.  Be careful if you can't easily check the source.  ——Rich jj (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the subtle or sneaky vandalism that is the most difficult challenge on WP, I think. The blatant stuff is relatively easy to catch, but some of this type of stuff probably never gets caught. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Gov Douglas
From what I remember he was as much Guyanese as Barbadian....I think the more general "Caribbean" category may be more accurate....Skookum1 (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just going by what was in the article: "James Douglas was born in Demerara (now part of Guyana) to John Douglas, a Scottish planter, and Martha Ann Tefler, a Creole originally from Barbados." You may be correct about what is actually true, though, so if you're comfortable doing so, you can change it back. Either way, we should have some text in the article that would support the category, and ideally of course that text should be sourced. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I realise what I wrote above is confusing. What I mean is—he was born in present-day Guyana, but I'm not sure if that means he's "of Guyanese descent". Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title
You are invited to join the discussion at. DrKiernan (talk) 09:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using )

Aaronic Order
Hi, at Aaronic Order I provided the requested citation, but for some reason at at the bottom of the page it says "Cite error: There are ref tags on this page, but the references will not show without a references tag." -- even though the two references do show. Bio metrix (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed it. The problem was that there were refs in the "Publications" section, which was located after the "References" section. I solved the problem by moving the References section after the Publications section. DH85868993 (talk) 11:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Luxembourg architecture
Hello Good Olfactory.

I posted the following message on the Categories for discussion page but I am not sure I found the right place for it. To make sure you get it, here it is again:


 * There is a suggestion this should be merged with Category:Luxembourgian architecture. Well, my first reaction is, I woúld never have thought there might be a category Luxembourgian architecture when I was trying to find a suitable one for my article(s). The natural term is of course Luxembourg architecture - and that's why I added it. If you do a Google search for "Luxembourg architecture" (in quotes) you get 5,400 hits. If you search for "Luxembourgian architecture" you get 115 with the WP category at the top! Luxembourgian is not an adjective used here in Luxembourg. In fact it sounds very pretentious. So let's call a spade a spade and have Luxembourg architecture, just as everyone else calls it. Then you can merge the few existing instances of Luxembourgian architecture into Luxembourg architecture.

I am of course aware that there have been erudite discussions for years about the correct adjectival form for the country Luxembourg. The debate centres on a choice between Luxembourgish (quite commun here in Luxembourg) and Luxembourgian (which I have never heard in my 38 years here) whereas by far the most common usage is simply Luxembourg. Indeed, people talk of Luxembourg schools, Luxembourg wines, Luxembourg shops, Luxembourg exports and of course Luxembourg architecture. So why should WP be more pious than the pope? -- Ipigott (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but Category:Luxembourgian architecture has existed since June 2008, so if you wanted to change the format you could have proposed a rename, not create the competing category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I certainly did not create a new category in order to "compete". I just found that there was no Category:Luxembourg architecture and therefore created it. It was only when I saw you had proposed a merger that I became aware that Category:Luxembourgian architecture already existed. The problem is that when you propose a new category with Luxembourg something, even if there is already a category Luxembourgian something, there is no indication of its existence when you are trying to create it. If you want to test the problem yourself, try to create Category:Luxembourg art. Although Category:Luxembourgian art exists, there is no indication whatsoever. So there is every likelihood additional Luxembourg rather than Luxembourgian categories will continue to be created. Now I don't know whether it is sensible to bow to the 20 month history of Category:Luxembourgian architecture or to try to sort things out in a more rational way by pushing for Category:Luxembourg architecture. Perhaps a compromise would be to have a Category: Wikipedia soft redirected categories attached to Category:Luxembourg architecture or perhaps more sensibly to Category:Luxembourgian architecture (cf Category:Nova Scotia culture). -- Ipigott (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I realise that wasn't your intent, but the effect is the same. The typical solution is to merge the categories into the older of the two. If someone wants the newer category name to be the one that is used, then you need to formally propose a rename using the CFD process. In the meantime, category redirects from the new one to the old one are appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Inspirational fiction

 * Good Ol'factory: Thank you again for your help and understanding yesterday. I wanted to ask you to check the article on Inspirational Fiction that I have tried to update, largely as a result of your discovery that it almost entirely equated that term with Christian fiction, and also because I was able to begin to incorporate a lot of the issues that are being discussed relating to deletion or non deletion of this category. Also, because I saw that LYRASIS, evidently the largest membership organization for U.S. libraries, holds courses for library professionals, including one on the subject of Inspirational Fiction, I faxed them a request to share their definition of that category/genre with me. (The first course objective in their course is to help professionals define and use the term.) My hope is that their definition will be helpful to our discussion, but in the meantime, I would appreciate your opinion of the wikipedia article I have tried to improve. Thanks again!! NearTheZoo (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added some more info to the article on Inspirational Fiction, but think I should withdraw from the discussion regarding whether or not the category (as opposed to the article) should be deleted. I would be interested, though, in your thoughts on both the article and the question of the category. Also, on a related issue, the "off-topic" discussion about the question of deletion has been "collapsed," but I wonder if it fits the description of a discussion not directly related to the question at hand, and therefore could be deleted by you? Of course, I'll leave that up to you - and thank you again for your understanding. Meanwhile, I'm enjoying working with Wikipedia on a host of other topics! NearTheZoo (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Latter Day Church of Christ the Lamb
You are one of very few people to have previously edited the Latter Day Church of Christ the Lamb redirect. I would like your input on this page. Can you please see Talk:Latter Day Church of Christ the Lamb when you have the chance?--ARTEST4ECHO talk 17:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Cydebot change
Just figured I should drop you a note to keep you up to date on the latest Cydebot update. See User talk:Cyde for the details on the change. -- Cyde Weys 19:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sweet, thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Luis Moreno-Ocampo
Let me know if the reversal leads to escalation. -- PBS (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks; will do. I have no problem with it moving if there are sources, but all the sources I see use the hyphenation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)