User talk:Good Olfactory/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Strongman/Strength athlete

I don't have CfD watchlisted, nor RM, anymore, in order to stay out of the way and it's hazardous to do so, as I've learned too often ("Squamish" for starters), things slip by that shouldn't be decided so "pat". I found out because I have Doug Hepburn (who I knew personally and also as a local sports hero) watchlisted. @Obi-Wan Kenobi: says he can't tell the difference; well strongman and lifting sports people can and do; note Strongman (strength athlete) and Strength athlete. There is indeed a tangled set of categories in this area as you will find on talkpage discussions; one non-category discussion is at Talk:Strongman (strength athlete)#Merge from Strength athlete and note the content at Strength athlete and also that someone wanted to merge Strength athlete to Strongman, the reverse of what this CfD is wrong. The fact is that strongmen, whether the modern televised sport and its super-athletes or the carnival strongman show/person, is only a subset of strength sports/strength athletes, and that there are enough of them to warrant a distinct category, the same as Olympic lifting and Powerlifting, Bodybuilding and things like discus throwing and shotputting are all strength sports with their own categories....but, now, not "strongmen". This is one of those cases where those unfamiliar with a topic have seen fit to nominate/comment/vote on name changes that fly in the face of what those who know the field know; and why I strongly believe that RMs and CfDs that do not notify related WikiProjects should be told to do so, rather than "the blind leading the blind". Obi-wan, a cursory read through the articles should have shown you that they are not the same thing. There's a discussion on one talkpage somewhere, I'll have to try and find it, I think on a talk:bio page for someone in particular, about the tangle of categories and definitions and about the meaning of the terms and why one is not the same as the other.

This CfD should be reversed and the category reinstated, and though there are various categorization issues in this area, deleting a distinct subsport within the larger set of sports was not the way to go; WP:WikiProject Sports and WP:WikiProject Bodybuilding should have been notified, and people who work and write and read in those areas should have been consulted. The nomination was defective; "can't tell the difference" means that not enough research/thinking was done, no effort to understand why the categories existed separately; doing things in isolation from reality and from actual knowledge is increasingly a problem in Wikipedia, and I'll reserve comment on the various RMs and CfDs that went the wrong way because of the uninformed closing uninformed nominations and counting uninformed "votes". It was closed within 9 days, with no apparent effort to enlist input from editors in the series of articles in question; oh, but that would be "polling" and we can't have people with information and valid opinions getting in the way of those who are without huh? Olympic weightlifting, powerlifting, and other strength sports should not be similarly merged any more than Strongman was (and shouldn't have been). Skookum1 (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

That other discussion was started by me on WPSports and is now archived; and though I said there that they were redundant, that was because the Strength athlete category was mostly strongmen, not because they were the same thing.Skookum1 (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Category talk:Cities and towns in Russia#Continental categories". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Paradoctor (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:CFD close

If you need help on the renaming for Category:All Wikipedia vital articles in Biology and health sciences so you feel comfortable closing it, what you do is go to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working#To_be_emptied_or_moved and list it under the "Move/merge then delete" section. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Administrator_instructions which is complicated for that reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe there are some template edits that would need to happen—I had a look and I couldn't figure out what needed to be changed. I know how to close CFDs, it's just that implementing this close is beyond my technical capability. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, cool. Obviously I do have an ulterior motive in getting it closed lol. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Old category merge proposal

Dear Good Olfactory, I've reacted on a pretty old category merge proposal of yours that wasn't closed yet, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_30, feel free to add your opinion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Swazi categories

Hi. FYI I am busy with the split of Category:Bantu people per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 24#Category:Bantu people, which will involve changing some category definitions. I created Category:Swaziland people as there was no category for individual Swazi people by ethnicity. You have undone my edits, I understand why and I am moving on as I have a lot more to do still and I cannot afford to get derailed if I am to get through it all. I previously advertised about this job in progress, which I volunteered for in order to sort out the mess, on Category talk:Bantu people, Category talk:Bantu peoples, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Africa, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa and on my talk page to warn people as reverting me while I am busy is unhelpful. If you have any more issues with my edits in this regard, please discuss them with me. HelenOnline 07:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI I restored this hatnote you removed given the ambiguity of the category title. Please don't remove it again. HelenOnline 07:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I also corrected the Commons category and linked the two categories there with see also hatnotes. I see it was added by a bot here so I hope it doesn't overwrite the correct category. HelenOnline 08:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

If you want to change the meaning of categories which have been established for a long time, you need to propose such changes at WP:CFD. When someone objects, you can't just say, in effect, "don't interfere with what I am doing". Category:Swazi people has been a category for nationals of Swaziland for a long time, and all of the subcategories are similarly named. There may be a case for changing the names, but it needs to be formally proposed at CFD, not unilaterally implemented. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. This is me discussing like we are supposed to. I am not saying "don't interfere with what I am doing". I am saying "this is why I did what I did, I accept your objection and am moving on". I am talking to you so you know exactly what I am up to and there are no misunderstandings about it. I do ask that if anyone has issues with my related edits to discuss them with me as multiple people reverting me without discussion while I am busy with a very complex exercise (which has happened) is doing my head in. I have no desire to start another CFD and all that goes with that (this one has put me off for a very long time trying to fix anything else to do with categories). The category title is ambiguous, I have done my best to address that in the circumstances (hatnote, corrected Commons category) and it is no longer my concern. HelenOnline 10:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I'm not opposed to changing the category in question; I agree with you that it can be seen as ambiguous. But to fix it I think we should have a broader discussion about it rather than just trying to fix it this way. It's fine if you want to walk away from the issue, of course. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Every time I see your username, I chuckle a little. Well played. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Category opinion

Hello, can you please give your opinion regarding a categorisation issue at The Economist and Maroc Hebdo. Both of these publications were founded as newspapers and adopted the magazine format years later. The dispute is whether to add the category Magazine founded in -year of foundation- or to have them under Publications founded in -year of foundation? --Tachfin (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

PopMatters

Hello, could you be of help in getting a bot installed on the PopMatters Wikipedia page, so the Alexa ranking for their site (it is an online magazine) is automatically updated each month? I've read that such a bot exists on Wikipedia. But I've no idea how to install it on the PopMatters page. Can you help? So far I've just been updating it manually every few months. Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PopMatters

Cheers. Neptune's Trident (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi; sorry, I don't know anything about that. I'm not really an expert in bot functioning. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Delaware-university-stub and others

Hello. On the 2 July, you changed Template:Delaware-university-stub and other similar template to link, not to the old, deleted, schools categories, but to building and structure categories.

This has led to quite a lot of categorization errors in hidden categories, since not everything to do with a university is related to its buildings or structures: for example, sports programs, mascots and marching bands -- and even the article for Doctor of Modern Languages -- have ended up being categorized as building or structure stubs. Could you please edit all these to remove the building and structure stub references completely? I've made a start by editing Template:Delaware-university-stub. Thanks, -- The Anome (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

This was a result of this discussion and not something I did on my own initiative. But if there's a better way to set up how Template:Delaware-university-stub is applied in conjunction with Template:Delaware-struct-stub, then it can be done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Ship book citation templates

Hello there. You closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 5#Ship book citation templates and deleted Category:Ship book citation templates. Since then there's been a better-attended CfD (including two of the original participants) concerning Rail transport book citation templates which had the opposite outcome. I think there's a better understanding now of what these templates are and I'd like to re-create the ship category but I wanted to discuss this with you first, as the deleting administrator. Best, Mackensen (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me. ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Kaffir Boy

Hello, I'm TranquilHope. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Kaffir Boy because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! — Preceding undated comment added 08:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Autobiographies is redundant to Category:Sports autobiographies, so I removed the former. Also, don't template the regulars, it's not particularly productive or helpful. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Boston Tea Party (political party) politicians

Category:Boston Tea Party (political party) politicians, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Church and state law

A discussion is taking place about whether to rename a category your created, Category:Church and state law. I thought you might want to add your input.-Editor2020 03:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I already did earlier today. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Category emptying

I'd be grateful if you could warn the editor involved in this to desist. Their tactic is to replace categories with redirects and then empty them, unilaterally. If there is a rationale, they should take it to cfd and get consensus. If you would care to roll back the many related edits then all the better. (I was hoping that some passing admin would notice at the related cfd of 3 Aug). Oculi (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I just saw this. Something not working with my notification. Is this still an issue? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It's now resolved. You could close that cfd as 'resolved', if you wish. Oculi (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying things for me about the creation myth

Thanks for clarifying things on the creation myth category, I didn't understand and thought "myth" meant false is why I removed the category. But I do now. Thanks for letting me know where I was wrong. KellyLeighC (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

reverted edits

Hi, I saw you reverted my last edits. Is there a rule for putting Palestinian Territories instead of Palestine ? --Helmoony (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, my concern there was that you were emptying the pre-existing Category:Water in the Palestinian territories and moving it to Category:Water in Palestine. I guess in categories there's kind of a "convention" right now to use PT to avoid any confusion of "Palestine" referring to the entire historic region, including present-day Israel, but it's obviously a controversial issue and there is not applied universally right now. If you think it should be renamed, you can use WP:CFD to propose a change. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I already have tons of things to do in Arabic Wikipedia. I don't have time to discuss in other wikis. --Helmoony (talk) 02:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Edmundo Alarcon

In an apparent bid to save Edmundo Alarcon, JulieAnnMoore2000 (talk · contribs) has moved the article to draft:Edmundo Alarcon. I do not feel this is appropriate while the AfD is active, and ask that you or another admin undo this move and warn the user not to repeat this, or their recent unconstructive edits. -- ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 18:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, I undid the move myself. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 18:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; I agree with you. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Comprehensive History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Regarding your change to Wilford Woodruff. The "The" in the title should be capitalized. See the Book Cover --- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 17:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I have request a move here, to fix the page.--- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 17:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Musical groups categories

A big thank you for your tireless re-categorization of the musical groups categories. - Hoops gza (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

No prob—looked like it was a job that was half done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:United States Supreme Court justices by party

Not a good idea. The office itself is legally nonpartisan, and we already categorize by the nominating president, whose political orientation the justices may satisfy or frustrate in their later jurisprudence. So this scheme can only be confusing if not misleading. postdlf (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It's all very well documented by reliable sources. Even Black's Law Dictionary indicates the party of each justice in its Time Chart of the court. Presidents have appointed justices from parties different from their own, so it's not quite the same thing as categorizing by appointing president. I don't think it's any more confusing or misleading than categorizing senators of governors by party: the political stances of the parties have changed quite a bit over time, and politically, a Democrat from the 1850s is not the same as a Democrat from the 2010s. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't categorize by party, IMO. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me put another way, there are justices who were appointed by Republican presidents, there are justices who vote Republican, and there are justices whose decisions Republicans tend more to like. Any of those three may coincide in one justice. But there's no such thing as a "Republican Party United States Supreme Court justice". Senators are actually elected on a party's ticket and then caucus with party leadership, so the comparison is completely inapt. Another issue is that this is yet another potential scheme for ghettoizing SCOTUS justices if someone decides the parent category is "redundant" with the party one. postdlf (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand the nuances, but the sources do this division all of time. That doesn't mean it's a shorthand for figuring out what "kind" of justice the person was or who liked their decisions. It doesn't ghettoize because all the articles are left in the parent category, which is the normal practice of avoiding ghettoization concerns. We don't need to avoid subcategorization altogether to avoid ghettoization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I've given it some thought. I wouldn't object to a nomination for deletion so that we can get broader input on this. (Of course, it doesn't matter whether or not I would object to a nomination, as it could be done regardless—but what I'm saying is that I think it would be useful to get other views on this, and if there is consensus that it is a bad categorization, I can go along with that and would understand why users would feel that way.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping to avoid the bureaucracy of a CFD. Anyway, I've copied our discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases. postdlf (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

That too is fine with me. That should be the best place to get insightful input. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Australian specific-source templates

I notice that you made this edit to an Australian specific-source template today, as a result of a recent, poorly attended CfD discussion. Category:Australian specific-source templates is a member of Category:Australia templates, so any modification to Australian specific-source templates requires that individual templates need to be added to Category:Australia templates. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm clear on what you are asking me to do. Is it that you want to be sure that all of the contents of Category:Australian specific-source templates are also upmerged to Category:Australia templates? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that would be required if the category is deleted. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

That can be done. It will all have to be done manually, so it's just sitting at WP:CFDWM, but I'll add a note asking that whoever does it upmerge it to both categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Categorization

Please read Wikipedia:Categorization. You only list the most specific leaf category. Don't list parent categories if there's a child already included. Remove parent categories if a child is listed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, under the current setup Category:Canadian anthems is more specific than Category:Canadian patriotic songs, because the former is a subcategory of the latter, and not vice versa. I have no problem with it being in both, though. I am pretty familiar with Wikipedia:Categorization and how it works. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Endowment (Mormonism)

Is that enough to make Category:Creation myths a defining characteristic? Editor2020 23:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I would imagine so. From what I've seen, it's a central focus of the ceremony. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Category moves

I am planning to initiate additional discussion at WT:CAT on ideas for limiting the disruptive impact of out-of-process moves. I would like to ensure that the discussion is focused and productive; therefore, if you are amenable, I am requesting your input on my proposed format prior to posting (as well as your thoughts, if any, on the proposals).

The [[Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Archive 15#Limiting category moves|June 2014 discussion]] on category moves reached consensus that, in spite of the introduction of the ''technical'' ability to move category pages, categories should be moved only ''after'' they are listed at [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy]] or discussed at [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion]]. Unfortunately, though not surprisingly, this is not happening in all cases. Most out-of-process moves I have seen so far have been problematic in one way or another—not surprising in light of the fact that the people who know most about categories are also most likely to use [[WP:CFD]] or [[WP:CFD/S]].

What steps can we take to limit the frequency and disruptiveness of out-of-process category moves? ~~~~

=== Proposal 1 ===
Update the content of [[Wikipedia:Categorization]] and [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion]] to reflect the June consensus. ~~~~

; Discussion
* ''Discussion here''

=== Proposal 2 ===
In the future, move-protect all categories created following a discussion at [[WP:CFD]] or listing at [[WP:CFD/S]]. ~~~~

; Discussion
* ''Discussion here''

=== Proposal 3 ===
''(If possible)'' As a default, uncheck the "Leave a redirect behind" box when a category is being moved. More thought should go into the creation of a category redirect compared to other types of redirects, since category redirects will cause content to be recategorized. ~~~~

; Discussion
* ''Discussion here''

Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Mormon folklore". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Canadian animists

Category:Canadian animists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Editor2020 14:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of O. Vincent Haleck for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article O. Vincent Haleck is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O. Vincent Haleck until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. pbp 02:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints)#List of early church members

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints)#List of early church members. Thanks. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 00:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

John_Paul_Stevens#Political_affiliation

Could you add a proper cite to Black's here? Cheers.--Chaser (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

New category "Stanford, California"

Hello! I don't know enough about categories to figure out what to do about this situation; I'm hoping you will take a look at it and propose a solution. There was a new category created today called Category:Stanford, California. (FYI "Stanford, California" is the census-designated place that is pretty much contiguous with Stanford University.) Everything that was added to this new category is already in Category:Stanford University, so the new category is completely duplicative and adds no new functionality to our existing categories. Furthermore, right now "Category:Stanford University" is a subcategory of "Category:Stanford, California" AND "Category:Stanford, California" is a subcategory of "Category:Stanford University". They are parents of each other! My proposal would be to simply delete the new category as duplicative of an existing category, but I have not used the categories-for-discussion process before and I'm not sure if this is an appropriate case. I would appreciate it if you would either advise me or else go ahead and do whatever you think should be done about this new category. Thanks much! --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem a bit weird to have that. The only benefit that I can see is that it ties the information into Category:Census-designated places in California, but the article Stanford, California could just as well sit in that category as an article—we don't need a category for it. I would advise that we merge the two. Just place {{subst:cfm|Stanford, University}} on the category page of Category:Stanford, California and then follow the instructions on the template to start a nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that worked! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, Sr.

A little confused here as the article states that he "He moved his family to Palmyra, New York in 1816" Palmyra is in Wayne County. He also "began to make payments on a farm located on the edge of neighboring Manchester Township" which is in Ontario County. So shouldn't both locations be included for him (and his family members, many of whom have articles themselves...? Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 10:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I've had a closer look, and I think you're right, we could include both. Their farm straddled the county line. When they first moved to the area, the family lived in a small cabin, which was just over the line in Wayne County. They then built a larger home, which was on the other side, in Ontario county. Then they lost the larger home because they didn't make all their payments, and it appears they moved back to the Wayne County side. This map, though small and not 100 per cent clear, is instructive on the locations of the two homes. My apologies to you. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

General Conference (LDS Church)

As an uninvolved admin that is familiar with the LDS Church, could you please talk a look at Talk:General Conference (LDS Church), as well as the recent edit history of General Conference (LDS Church), and take whatever actions you feel are necessary for the two involved parties (one of which is me). ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 00:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Official Auxiliary Titles

As an uninvolved editor familiar with the Latter Day Saint topic, could you please talk a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement#Official_Auxiliary_Titles.--- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 15:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 12 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

About Those Civil Rights...

Grateful it is you and not someone else violating Jordan Smith's First Amendment rights in the pages of Wikipedia. The only way you could be justified in deleting a Wikipedia link to Jordan Smith's "official" website and Explanation is by removing all reference to Jordan Smith and his 1990 actions from both Wikipedia articles, something which is not possible. To my knowledge, you have not "been down this road" before now. ChadwickAirport (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not free-speech zones where anyone can post anything they want based on the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. We do have policies and guidelines about content. And yes, we've had plenty of dealings in the past with Jordan Smith. Plenty of his surrogates and sockpuppet accounts have been blocked as being disruptive. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Jordan has pointed out to me that plenty of his constructive edits (and article creations) have NOT been blocked, no thanks to you and your ilk. An example is LDS_Visitors_Center,_Independence,_Missouri (and see http://stats.grok.se/en/latest30/LDS_Visitors_Center,_Independence,_Missouri), one of several dozen articles which Jordan not only wrote, but took the photographs for. So are you going to delete it as being a disruptive edit? Wouldn't surprise me. However, it does surprise us that you are so quick to widely publish controversial statements about a living person and also do everything in your power to keep that person from providing facts and other constructive edits about himself and his actions. Seems that's a quandary the First Amendment intended to address? ChadwickAirport (talk) 05:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

This debate is old and boring, Jordan. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

again, Gratitude for making it so new and exciting to some folks who've not been exposed to it yet, but soon will, Anonymous Coward & Bully. ChadwickAirport (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Question: is User:Cool_Hand_Luke still in charge of the Latter-day Saint Project? ChadwickAirport (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I see he hasn't made an edit since May ChadwickAirport (talk) 05:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't a clue. But I'm not much involved in any Wikiprojects at all. But as far as I know, Wikiprojects don't have "leaders" who are in charge of them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Tongue in cheek, the "Wikiproject" to censor Jordan Smith while publicizing him seems to have you as the "leader".ChadwickAirport (talk) 05:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The U.S. Constitution and your human rights give you a right to speak, but they do not give you a right to be listened to. They give you a right to publish whatever you want on your own webpage, but not the right to link to that website through other websites. If you want to call applying Wikipedia policies and guidelines "censorship", you can—but realize that your rhetoric often overinflates the importance of the issues at stake. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Could be. We'll see. WP:BLP has never been strictly applied in the case of Jordan Smith, and your particular insistence and ease in reviving the dead link to the defamatory "Watchman Fellowship" article is an example. ChadwickAirport (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no biography of Smith on Wikipedia. The editors of the article made a conscious decision to not even use his name. That was at your request, as I recall. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

There is biographical information about Smith in several Wikipedia pages, and the very first sentence at WP:BLP states "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page..." It is disingenuous and a violation of the spirit of those WP guidelines to state that you can say whatever you want about a living person in pages of Wikipedia with the excuse that an entire article doesn't exist for that person. The Watchman Fellowship article includes damagingly false and defamatory statements, such as the quote by C. Leroy Wheaton, and has no business being linked to supposed conduct of Smith or anyone else. I'll keep doing research. ChadwickAirport (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

(Boy, that one stupid action really did screw up your ... I mean Smith's life. Such a valuable case study.) Anyway, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop posting here. I see you haven't moved on, and I'm tired of hearing the old complaints repetitively. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

All right then, this conversation with you is completed. On to the next step.ChadwickAirport (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Lot category

Besides "in fiction" the only subcategory is Category:People convicted of incest, which Lot wouldn't fall into, any ideas for something non-controversial to label the people who did it in literature that may be historical or non-fictional?

This would also cover a lot of royalty I imagine. Ranze (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think we need to have a category that groups real (or possibly real) people that participated in incest. Incest is accepted in some cultures and vigorously opposed in others, so grouping an Egyptian king who married his sister with a modern European who abused his daughter may not be the best idea. (In Lot's case, from the text of the Bible, it reads to a modern reader more like a rape than anything, but it was probably included (or invented) by an Israelite author as a joke/attack upon the Moabites and their ancestry.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thanks for your work on Oliver Cowdery. John Foxe (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

George Odlum

Heya! Thanks for your edits here - would you be able to add a citation for the National Alliance statement? Ironholds (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Done! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Ironholds (talk) 03:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Joseph DeLuca (racing driver) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joseph DeLuca (racing driver) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph DeLuca (racing driver) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Taram (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

hahah

i can smell the canuck origins a mile off when i see those edits - thanks... satusuro 07:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC) as a u of t grad my father would always say london, (pause) england, it must have been very limted imagination settlers who decided to name so many of their localities directly from their home country... satusuro 07:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

That's funny. Personally, I'm fond of Manhattan, Kansas. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

my father was born in scotland but his lengthy time in toronto brought all that on. Also I cannot fail but to see your adding economy and environment with agriculture - in many contexts in parts of australia that it is the ultimate oxymoron. satusuro 07:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It's nice in that it captures both sides of the coin, as it were. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Shore League (2nd nomination) that may be of interest to you.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

re:Template:Christianity

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list#"LDS Church (Mormon)" instead of "LDS movement" about Template:Christianity & Template:Christianity footer where I would like to hear your thoughts, if you're interested. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 23:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30