User talk:Good Olfactory/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Oncology categories

James Murdoch died in Australia, in suburb of Sydney, New South Wales ... so I'm guessing that means he wouldn't reasonably qualify for inclusion in Category:Cancer deaths in Scotland? --Tenmei (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The infobox states he died in Scotland. That's what I was going by. Sounds like it needs to be fixed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A present for you

Category:McLeod's Daughters charaters :-D Hesperian 06:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Another please - excusing my pollution of your talk page previously - in my careless checking :) Category:Central Highland Tasmania should have been what appears to be common usage in the Island below Australia as Central Highlands Tasmania SatuSuro 13:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys, you're too kind ... You can nominate them yourselves, of course. But if you prefer that I do them, that's fine too—I don't mind! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that the cfr it gets to Tasmania in (brackets) and out - thanks anyways SatuSuro 02:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Phantom CFD talk pages

I finally found and fixed the problem of Cydebot's phantom undeleted category talk pages. Details are on my talk page. --Cyde Weys 02:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN discussion

As a user who contributed to the discussion concerning Koavf (talk · contribs), you're invited to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Specific_Sanctions_-_proposals also. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Nudist Christian Church of the Blessed Virgin Jesus

• I think you are acted improperly toward me.
• You come across as someone who has used up his three reverts for the day a hates to "lose" so you just lock the page.
• Its not vandalism if I edit in good faith... i.e. if I think it is an improvment.
• I do think it is advisable to lock up a page that has had zero vandalism and just two comments by you ever-- just 35 min appart.--Carlaude ^(talk) 05:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You reverted the change even after a citation was provided, as requested. You had also removed another category for which there was absolutely no dispute about whether or not it applied. All together, that looks like vandalism to me. I suppose I could have blocked the editor, but that didn't seem like the right move to me. Glad you agree it was advisable to do so, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Petrus Schaesberg

Dear Wikepedia user,

I am writing to ask you not to make any more changes to the page of Petrus Schaesberg. It would be very kind of you to read my note and to understand the reasons I am writing to you.

1. It has not been proven that the death of Petrus Schaesberg was a suicide. Nor, was it proven that it was an accident. Both versions theoretically are possible, but neither one will ever be proven. No one will ever know the cause of this death.

2. It is true that there were a couple of articles in the internet, saying that the death was a suicide. Let it remain on their conscience. I, personally, believe it to be an evil to gossip (this is what they are doing) about such issues.

3. Saying one's death was a suicide without means to prove it is a serious responsibility. Please, think of the feelings of family and friends of the dead person before making any statements.

4. All the information on the Wikepedia page is verified with the closest friends and colleagues of Petrus Schaesberg. The man died just ten days ago. It is a difficult time for people who were close to him. Please, do not make it more difficult for them then it already is.

Thank you for your understanding! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Znaika (talk • contribs) 06:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it was a suicide comes from a newspaper article. Where is the reliable source questioning whether or not it was really suicide? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no reliable source. And, of course, a newspaper article is definitely not a reliable source. Please, just don't make more changes. I do not want to argue at all, I am just asking you. This is a difficult time for some people, including me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Znaika (talk • contribs) 06:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

WP works off reliable sources; newspapers are generally regarded as reliable sources. I'm not trying to be difficult, but if you're having a hard time about the events, it's probably best to stay away from the WP article about the person. I certainly won't be just because it's a tender time for some, but understandably so. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, leave this page as it is. There is nothing "tender" about death -- if you think there is it's a good reason to see a doctor. Don't you have anything better to do than make horrible changes in Wikepedia biographies of people you never knew and you know nothing about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Znaika (talk • contribs) 06:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I still think you will understand me if you will give it some thought. Please, do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Znaika (talk • contribs) 06:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I meant the feelings of the man's family and friends may be tender at this time; i.e., easily harmed or damaged. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Duh!

Thank for this! Pinkadelica (talk) 07:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Maya Ababadjani and Anais Alexander

Maya Ababadjani is of Lebanese background. Read this: Her biological parents were Lebanese Christians. And Anais Alexander is of Bulgarian background. Read this: Her mother is Bulgarian-Italian. I hope that now is clear. Thank you in advance for your understanding.

(Yadamavu (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC))

The categories in question are by-nationality categories. Being "of Lebanese background" does not mean you are of Lebanese nationality. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Johnny "J"

We still don't really have an official source stating he's actually dead. Pretty much every link posted is the equivalent of 'I heard from my uncle's brother's cousin's sister'... HalfShadow 22:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the slow workings of denial ... I think it's fairly clear that he's dead; the only uncertain thing is the official cause of death as the coroner hasn't finished his work yet. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't denying he was dead, per se, just that we didn't have anything more than an (untrustworthy) source and pretty much everyone referring to that. Apparantly it's official now, and that's all that matters (I mean, would you believe something if some guy on the street said it or you read it in a newspaper?). And what is it with you covering all the death-type stuff anyway? Other people'd call that creepy. Get outside and get some sunlight. Sheesh... HalfShadow 02:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It's OK, I knew what you were getting at and I mostly agreed with you. Speaking of creepy, a user called "HalfShadow" recommending some sunlight treatment is kind of weird in and of itself. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am only half shadow. THere's no reason the other half can't be tanned. HalfShadow 03:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Who died?

Not sure what's up with this. I see no evidence that Foli is dead. Could you re-check some of your edits to make sure you didn't kill anyone else prematurely!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I did. He took a leave of absence—in a way, somewhat like dying I suppose. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

David W. Patten

Thanks. :) I'm at BYU right now, and I checked out a couple of biographies, but I have to return them on the 17th, so I'm trying to rush through them. Hopefully it'll be ready for GA soon. Emphasis on "Hopefully"! LOL Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Fictional elderly martial arts masters

Can you explain why the Category:Fictional elderly martial arts masters will be deleted and how you came to the conclusion that consensus was for deletion? Alansohn (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It was actually more of a "listify, then delete", but yes. Primarily, the comments for deletion were far more convincing and reliant on current WP guidelines on categories. A host of problems with the category were pointed out, including the fact that it was a quadruple intersection and the fact that defining the category is problematic because "elderly" is a subjective requirement. Finally, a list exists, so deleting will not result in any loss of information if the category contents are added to that list. Just so you know, I do realise that there were a number of users who wanted the category kept, but determining consensus is not a simple vote-counting exercise. The strengths of the arguments and their consistency or inconsistency with WP guidelines have to be kept in mind as well. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The use of WP:OCAT as a justification for deletion relies on the argument that there is somehow a "quadruple intersection" of "fictional characters", "elderly people", "people who participate in martial arts" and "master" (or so I guess, the four are never listed), when in reality this is a rather well-defined -- and defining -- single entity. You will find "elderly martial arts master" in Google searches (I know of none in real life), but you will be hard pressed to find any other meaningful combination of those words. The claim that there are "subjective" issues is also specious; There are no "Fictional middle-aged martial arts masters" or "Fictional martial arts masters rapidly approaching retirement age". We all know what the archetype is supposed to mean, and one will never find a definition or source that says "the character Foo is an elderly martial arts master because he meets the following definition..." While there may be some minor issues with some characters -- I will grant that Obi-Wan Kenobi might be questionable as he is initially presented as an archetypal "elderly martial arts master", but later (or is it earlier) presented as non-elderly -- the vast majority of characters (e.g., Yoda and Mr. Miyagi of The Karate Kid films) are unquestionable examples of the archetype. That there are some borderline cases does not undermine the argument for a category. The solution would be to keep the category and argue about the two or three borderline cases. I know of no Wikipedia policy that pushes information to lists because they somehow don't belong to a category; The exact same sourcing requirements apply to all list and all categories. As I have consistently argued, WP:CLN strongly advocates for both lists AND categories. We are thus left with a situation where there is a clear defining characteristic that is left completely uncategorized. There was no clear consensus either for retention OR deletion. The arguments presented for retention are fully in keeping with Wikipedia policy and are equally as strong, if not stronger, than those for deletion. What we have here is, at worst, a "no consensus". I will again ask you to reconsider your close. Alansohn (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw most of these same arguments in the discussion; I'm not sure why you feel it's necessary to state them again here. I simply disagree with your assessment of the consensus, but that's probably to be expected since you were a participant in the discussion, and the decision was contrary to your stated position. There are always other routes open to you, of course, if you're wanting to "appeal" the decision, but I'm standing behind my close. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As you have chosen to impose your own arbitrary preferences and to ignore equal arguments for retention, I will appeal your improper actions. Alansohn (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That's somewhat of a mischaracterisation because I don't find your arguments "equal". I suggest some AGF is in order regarding my close. But whatever. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that you believe that your actions are in good faith. Unfortunately, the WP:DRV process by which such decisions are "appealed" basically forces me to so characterize your actions, whether any of us like it. I have had no problems rebutting the "definitional problem". Before I start the DRV, can you list the four categories that are part of the "quadruple intersection". It will help to show how the argument is untenable from a policy perspective as an argument for deletion under WP:OCAT. Alansohn (talk) 02:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoa—DRV requires you to characterize my decision as a bad faith one? I don't think so. It can be used if you believe "the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly". That's says nothing about bad faith motives or the closer making the decision on his "own arbitrary preferences". That said, if you think it was a bad faith close, go ahead and say so. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that the close was in bad faith. DRV pushes all editors to characterize your actions as having interpreted the debate and Wikipedia policy incorrectly. My good faith belief is that this is the case with this close. Alansohn (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

With respect, DRV doesn't "push" anyone to do anything. If you want to appeal a decision, it's your responsibility to ensure that it meets the requirements set out by DRV—you should not be "squeezing" the situation into the DRV requirements because you feel "pushed" to do so. If you do feel pushed to do so, that's probably a sign that there's not a good reason to overturn the decision. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't pushed to do anything in questioning the decision. That equally valid policy arguments were offered is indicative of a no consensus. That WP:CLN was ignored presents a clear policy issue. Alansohn (talk) 04:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

How do you know I ignored WP:CLN? Perhaps I considered it but decided that the reasoning based on that was not as convincing as the others? If I were you, I would be very careful about not suggesting that I ignored this argument, because it was discussed in the discussion quite a bit. To suggest that I ignored it would tend to suggest that I essentially closed the discussion without reading the arguments or thinking about them after reading them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't mentioned. A proper consideration would have not merely said that you believed that one set of arguments were arbitrarily better than the other, but would have addressed the arguments and explained how you came to that conclusion, especially given that the close seems to contradict WP:CLN and to rely on a "listify" process that exists nowhere in Wikipedia policy. The need to fill in a substantial number of blanks to justify the close also raises issues on the thoroughness of the consideration given. I do believe that you read the arguments, and I assume that you acted in good faith in thinking about them, but it does appear that some elements of Wikipedia policy appear neglected. This is my good faith analysis. Alansohn (talk) 06:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Closers rarely write more than I actually did. I'm not required to explain in intricate detail my entire thought pattern from beginning to end. As I said, I would be careful about making assumptions about what was and was not considered based on what was or was not written. And are you seriously suggesting that "listification" is outside of current WP practice? Seriously? If you can't come up with anything better than this for DRV, I don't think it will be much of an issue. I wish you'd quite harping about things here and actually start a DRV so we can see what others think about what you're saying. Right now, it just sounds like sour grapes or something. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In considering pursuing DRV, what are the four categories included in the "quadruple intersection"? Alansohn (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

When speaking of "intersections", reference is not necessarily being made to existing categories. Usually it's just in reference to four characteristics, attributes, traits, states of being, etc. So here you could potentially class this as a quadruple intersection because the people in the category need to be (1) elderly, (2) martial artists, (3) masters, and (4) fictional. I don't know for sure if those are the 4 that Vegaswikian was referring to in his comments, and I won't speak for him on that point, but that's what I interpreted it as meaning. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That it is unclear what the four characteristics are also raises questions of thoroughness, especially given that "elderly martial arts master" is a term that you will readily find in a Google search, which would strongly support the argument that this is one, unified defining characteristic not four characteristics arbitrarily combined. Alansohn (talk) 06:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not unclear to me at all. I just don't feel comfortable speaking on behalf of other users. And having fewer than 500 google hits, many of which are WP pages or their mirrors, isn't exactly a vote of confidence in the category. I can find many phrases describing a type of person that have thousands of google hits (try "young hot chick"); that doesn't mean we necessarily need a category for them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That's true, not all arguments are of equal weight. Especially when some arguments rely mainly on WP:CLN and the insistence that lists and categories must co-exist, even after having been told in other CFD's and a current DRV that no, they don't. A well-written reason for retention will go much farther than pointing to a guideline as if it were one of the five pillars. --Kbdank71 02:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that lists and categories must co-exist, as you misleadingly claim, nor has any CfD or DRV addressed this claim. WP:CLN is rather clear in recommending that they should -- not must -- co-exist. I disagree with the insistence that the supposed superiority of lists over categories is a valid argument for deletion of categories; Lists an categories each offer advantages that the other does not. WP:OCAT is also not one of the five pillars and much of it represents a rather narrow consensus, if it represents community consensus at all. WP:CLN's arguments for the synergy of lists and categories should be given equal weight to rather narrow and arbitrary interpretations of WP:OCAT. Unfortunately, WP:CLN is ignored in far too many cases, as if it didn't exist at all. Alansohn (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm a big fan of WP:CLN (even though it's recently been through quite a few re-writes).

However, there is a rather big distinction between "may" and "should". Often a list and a category can go hand-in-hand. As can a Navbox and a list, or a navbox and a cat, or all three. But there are times, as clearly noted at WP:CLN that one or the other should only exist and not all three, or even combinations of two.

The whole point of CLN is to help illustrate that each is ideal for certain situations, and not so ideal for others.

And a key one for categories is the fact that no explanations or references for the individual members is possible. So tighter reign is kept upon categories. Especially due to the potential for WP:OR. Inclusion in a category can very easily be WP:OR. For example, do you seriously propose to suggest that there are sources in every one of those articles which inidcates that each category member was an Elderly martial arts master? Or was inclusion simply due to editorial presumption? If the latter, then that's very clearly WP:OR. And that's a problem with most of the fictional character cats. - jc37 17:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Fictional characters by nationality

Well, you're getting it from all sides, aren't you? I really don't understand how 'there might be original research applied to the category', in the absence of evidence that the category relies on original research, is a valid justification for deletion. There might be OR in any category. This decision pretty much signs the death warrant for any fictional character category that attempts to categorize by anything other than who created it and when. And there are disputes about who created some fictional characters too, so maybe those are also in jeopardy. Otto4711 (talk) 10:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What are you saying? I close them as I read the consensus, not for how I'd like them to turn out. The decision wasn't based solely on the "OR risk", as the lengthy comment should have demonstrated. It was but one factor which laid a foundation upon which the other factors built. The whole reason I went to the bother of such an elaborate closing statement was to avoid being accused of resting the entire decision on the very thing you now raise! So much for pre-emption! In the end, there were simply no convincing arguments marshalled in favour of keeping the scheme, whereas there were numerous in favour of deletion. Whether the decision signs a "death warrant" for anything in the future was not my concern—I typically decide things on a case-by-case basis and I didn't make the decision based on what I thought would be the future fallout. This is because consensus can change, and it can always be decided that consensus made a bad decision there. No, I won't reconsider it, unless you can point to something I have misinterpreted that would fundamentally change my overall interpretation. Yes, you can start a DRV. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• I am assuming that you are listing off your deletion criteria in order of importance. The one that you cite as most important is that "classing fictional characters by nationality is a process almost alwasys [sic] fraught with original research risks." Well, yes, so is any classification scheme to a greater or lesser extent. "It might happen" is a pretty tiny hook to hang the deletion of hundreds of categories on. I'm sorry I didn't respond to your other rationales initially, but honestly they struck me as so minor in comparison to the first one I didn't see the immediate need. The notion that nationality is mutable, while true, seems a very minor concern indeed, especially based on the deeply flawed examples offered up by Hiding (Wolverine, Psylocke and the thoroughly unsupported Burger King, which is especially ludicrous since looking back through the edits the The Burger King it does not appear that the article was ever categorized by nationality) and was answered by noting that we use reliable sources in making categorization decisions. If anything this argument is deeply weird, not persuasive, as it is based in the bizarre notion that a change in a character's appearance means that there's a corresponding change to the character's nationality. In looking at various articles in which major reboots are done to characters or new characters are created that use the same name but are different people, categories that describe each iteration seem to co-exist quite peacefully. I see no reason why a system that works for such equally mutable characteristics as fictional occupations and the like somehow don't work when the topic is nationalities. There were also a lot of WP:PERABOVE-style comments in favor of deletion so I have to wonder how apparent the consensus to delete actually is. Whether any of these concerns are so fundamental as to make you change your mind I have no idea. Otto4711 (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say I listed reasons in any order of importance on purpose, though probably in result that's what happened. It was more of a chronological listing intially, in that I addressed the argument that was raised first by the commenters. But I disagree that "it's a pretty tiny hook" because—while, yes, the OR concern could apply to most categories, in the opinion of many of the commenters it appeared to be an especially significant problem in this case; i.e., the problem would be far more likely to arise with fictional characters or would be more severe than in most cases. That was my reading of it, anyway, and in the discussion I saw no one refuting this argument. To attempt to refute it afterwards is great, but not terribly helpful to the closer. But I certainly would not oppose you starting a DRV if you think these issues need to be addressed in greater detail by more than just me. Naturally, I'm going to think that I made the right decision, so I wouldn't advise you to open one. But also of course it's possible that it was wrong. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

On a point of detail, it wasn't the nominator who recommended deletion on the grounds of OR, but the next editor who commented -- the nomination was only for rename.

May I ask if there's a way to check which of these articles are currently being orphaned by the bot? Secondly, some are not being orphaned, but are being removed from their only sub-cat of Category:Fictional characters -- is there a way to trace those? - Fayenatic (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As was noted in the close, this] lists the modified pages. You may find it easier to filter by namespace. - jc37 17:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -- but it was me that added that specific link to the closing text. Most of them are categorised, but a sizeable minority have been orphaned. Is there any way that AWB or another utility can identify pages that are now orphans within that list of contributions? - Fayenatic (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the detail of me confusing Otto (nominator) and jc37. I've corrected that mistake—perhaps I should write up these things when it's not so late and my mind is running at half-speed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. :-) - Fayenatic (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Others

Per the close, you suggest finding the "strays". I'm unclear on whether you are saying that they fall under this closure, or should be speedily nommed, or should have a new nom. - jc37 16:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I would think a new nom would be in order based on the precedent. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. (That was my thinking was too, but wanted to make sure I wasn't stepping on your close : ) - jc37 01:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

cat pruning?

I notice you removed a valid cat from an article I recently posted (Louis Mandrin) Why? I expect this article to be rewritten to death in no time, but don't see why remove categories when the article's subject fully fits in them. Yours --Svartalf (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It's already in Category:People executed by breaking wheel and Category:Executed French people, both of which are subcategories of Category:Executed people. "Executed people" is one of those categories that don't really have many individual articles in it—mostly just subcategories—because most articles can be slotted into one or more subcategories of it. In fact, when I removed Louis Mandrin from the category, it was the ONLY article in that category, so as you can see, it's really not used to house articles—just more specific subcategories for executed people by nationality, by country doing the executing, by crime, and by method of execution. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for making it clear --Svartalf (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Punctuation Inside or Outside of Quotation Marks

Hmm, that's interesting, because I've always learned that a period or comma would always belong inside the quotation marks unless there's at least one word after the quotation marks before the sentence ends, or if the quotation itself ends the sentence with something other than a period.

I wonder why Wikipedia has the "rules" that you showed me. I believe they're incorrect and that their "guide" should be rewritten so that it's correct. Let's have a look at the grammar book Keys for Writers, Second Edition, by Ann Raimes; part 8, section 49c, page 342:

"Put periods and commas inside quotation marks, even if these punctuation marks do not appear in the original quotation." An example follows:

• America, F. Scott Fitzgerald said, is a "willingness of the heart," and that says it pretty well.

--David Lamb, A Sense of Place

"Put question marks and exclamation points inside the quotation marks if they are part of the original source, with no period." Example below:

• She asked, "Where's my mama?"

"Put a question mark, exclamation point, semicolon, or colon that belongs to your sentence..." (but not the quotation, I add) "...outside the closing quotation marks." Example below:

• The chapter focuses on this question: Who are "the new American Dreamers"?

So how about we approach the Wikipedian Administration with this correction so that they, in turn, will correct their "Manual of Style" to an ACTUAL Manual of Style (a CORRECT one)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.60.232 (talk • contribs)

No, personally I support the logical quotation system. It's a widely-accepted system everywhere, but probably moreso outside the U.S. than in. The system you set out is probably more popular in the U.S., but it's rejected most elsewhere. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Category-People executed by the Kingdom of Ireland

Would it not be better to amend to People executed in the Kingdom of Ireland? The 'executing authority' is not so clear cut (no pun intended). At least the Kingdom as a geographically defined space is less ambiguous. RashersTierney (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps; right now all similar categories use "by", though, so consistency is the flip side of the coin. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but it inclines me to be even more conscious of the limitations of 'categories' and their tendency to editorialise and oversimplify. (no personal criticism intended) RashersTierney (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Munich massacre

Why do you keep adding "Munich massacre" as a category to the "Munich massacre" article. A category is a like grouping of events - the Munich massacre was a single event. Please do not add pointless edits to an article. BassPlyr23 (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What? Articles are almost always added to categories of the same name. They are the "main" article of the category. Without a clearer explanation of what you mean, what you are saying doesn't make much sense to me. Why would the article about the Munich massacre not go in the category called Category:Munich massacre? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Paul Ehrenfest

Please stop adding inappropriate categories to Paul Ehrenfest. This article is about a scientist, and is intended to highlight Ehrenfest's scientific accomplishments. It is not about murder, suicide, and all that; it does not discuss it. I have spent a lot of time and effort to bring this article up to wikipedia standards, and I do not want it so see it corrupted by someone whose seems to have some kind of obsession with murder/suicide. Thank you for your cooperation, JdH (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It does "discuss it": "Having made arrangements for the care of his other children, he first shot his younger son Wassik, who had Down syndrome, then killed himself." See my comments on the talk page there. And WP:OWN, while you're at it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

NV FPS CFD closure

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Excellent closing statement on the non-violent fps CFD, very well-thought out and delivered. cheers, –xeno (talk) 13:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll second this. --Kbdank71 16:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Incidentally, I think "NV FPS CFD" is my favorite abbreviation in a long time. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Could I "Borrow" You for a Moment?

I have a uncontroversial move proposal (mostly a history move) on WP:RM, would you mind taking care of that for me? I would appericate it. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • October 16, 2008 @ 03:43

• Looks fine; I've moved it now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 16, 2008 @ 03:46 03:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• you're welcome. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Geez, death and torture.

Sheesh... HalfShadow 03:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry—my next scheduled project is on Category:Sun, followed by Category:Happiness. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

And how many people died due to each? HalfShadow 03:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Deaths from hyperthermia, anyone? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating edit summary

• [1]

The irony of the edit (dunno if it was intended) was a big "laugh-out-loud moment of my day : ) - jc37 05:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh. In my defence, once in another discussion I used the G-word as a throwaway term, and another editor reamed me out for using offensive profanity. So I try to avoid it now to avoid offence. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Offensive profanity, eh? Who knew. I almost used it yesterday as a throwaway as well in that very same discussion. Then I realized that the rest of the post would have had people shouting TLA's at me, so I just scrapped the whole thing. --Kbdank71 13:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Well the irony for me was that in some circles, your replacement is just as bad (or for some even worse). So the edit summary struck me funny : ) - jc37 16:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Can you please edit my userbox subpage? It has been a target of vandalism by a stalker. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. I'll keep an eye on the anon editor as well. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and as far as the anon editor is concerned, see here. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi from Italy

Hi Good Olfactory, how are you? here's Rei Momo, user of IT.WIKI. I saw you are one of the last change of the page of my friend Sergio Franchi.

I made the Latin page. You can use the picture, because I put free license. It will be nice if also in EN.WIKI will know the face of Sergio !!! Can you help me???

Thanks a lot and good luck!!!

Rei Momo It. Wiki

193.58.223.72 (talk) 10:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not super active on editing that article; I just added a category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy denied

Hi there, I see you denied speedy deletion on this article. I've listed the article for Afd to develop a thorough consensus on the issue of notability and WP:OR. The Afd can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P. Vinod Bhattathiripad. --Flewis^(talk) 12:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Pace memorandum

Hiya,

Regards this edit, I normally am in complete accordance - external links should not duplicate footnotes. However, in certain rare circumstances I think there's merit to having an EL as well - for the satanic ritual abuse main page for instance, Lanning's 1992 report was both a footnote and an EL for a time. Had I been thinking, I would have linked to both the memorandum and the final report as both seem to bookend the topic of the article and are of high relevance. Whaddya think, is it worth having the duplication, would you rather discuss on the PM talk page? WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 13:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me if you think it's worthwhile. I thought the duplication was an oversight, but if you think it's a good idea, that's OK. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Oversight? Me? King of teh mispelings? Never!

Let's try this - put it up for a bit and see if we think it's stupid, reconsider in a couple weeks. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 22:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Done, if you revisit in a couple weeks and find you really, really hate it, then proceed to remove it. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 00:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll let it stand. Unless someone else complains about it, I won't raise it again. When coupled with the memorandum at the bottom, I think it makes sense. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

edit comment on category removal

Not a big deal, but if you could mention "due to CFD" as a bit more detailed reason in your edit summary, it would save a bit of extra clicking to see what's up. thx (John User:Jwy talk) 05:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This is with regards to .... ? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. In particular this, but in general, your HotCat removal of approved Categories for Deletion. Coming across just the one, I had to prowl around to see that you removed it because the category was deleted and not for some other, perhaps disagreeable reason. (John User:Jwy talk) 14:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Protestant Denominations

Hi Good Olfactory: I see that you have objected to my making Salvationists in Australia and New Zealand a subcategory of Australian Protestants and New Zealand Protestants; claiming that they are really Methodists so are a subcategory of Methodists (because the Booths were Methodists). But they are now a different denomination. The local phone book (Wellington, NZ) has seperate listings for “Methodist Church” and “Salvation Army”.

So should the Methodists be made a subcategory of the Anglican (Episcopal) Church, because that is where the Wesleys started? And why not make Christianity a subcategory of Judaism? I only changed it because of the difficulty of finding the Salvationists (Salvation Army members) when I was looking for categories for some New Zealand Labour politicians who were Salvationists. I think that what is a mainstream Protestant denomination in New Zealand should be a subcategory of New Zealand Protestants, without having to hunt through denominational subcategories to find them. Hugo999 (talk) 07:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

As a broader point, if you're gonna change the structure you need to change it for all Salvationists, not just a selected nationality of them. However, Salvationists are a subtype of Methodism just as Methodists are a subtype of Protestantism. Denominations aren't monolithic—there are subgroups within them. Just because the Salvation Army is in your phone book doesn't remove them from the Methodist denomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"Evidently contentious"

A claim is evidently contentious if someone removes it. Doesn't mean that it is in fact a BLP violation, but it was apparently unclear enough that a user in good faith thought it was one ("evidently contentious").

Also: User:ATren says he will remove the comment. Wanted to tell you in case you don't notice it on BLP/N. Cool Hand Luke 15:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty low standard. But let's assume it's true—fine, that means he was justified in removing it first. But he still was discourteous by not letting me know, and there is still no actual BLP violation, so no reason to maintain the removal, which is what is in question. No one's convinced me it needs to be removed, and it won't be. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, since you are not following that page anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ATren (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the notification, but I disagree. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for not notifying you on your talk page. I was worried that bringing it to your talk page may have seemed like finger-wagging. Andjam (talk) 12:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'm also sorry I'm a stubborn SOB. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

G2 deletion

Hello,

I was wondering if a what links here is checked for G2 deletions? You deleted a page I produced as part of my AfD argument. 70.55.200.131 (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Typically, yes, I would. It's possible I made a mistake, though. What page is it? I could restore it if you like. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It's no longer necessary, the AfD has been resolved, and the example page was recreated by someone else in a slightly different form. 70.55.200.131 (talk) 05:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Indian Ocean Basins

Some advice needed please - I'll try to keep it short - the category with that name is a misnomer - it is river basins - last night i created an article that would fit with that but is a marine basin (there are about 5 or 6 named ones in the indian ocean). Is it better to go for a rename with a qualifier of the existing basin category (indian ocean river basins) and simply create a new one - indian ocean marine basins, or is there another way of looking at it? Just interested in how you would see it from where you sit. cheers SatuSuro 04:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I don't really know anything at all about basins. If you're saying that the term "Indian Ocean basins" is wrong in every context—it's just a misnamed category—then it should be fairly straightforward to propose a rename on the category to "Indian Ocean river basins". On the other hand, if you're saying there are "marine basins" and "river basins", then I'd probably lean towards making a separate one for rivers and adding a definition to the original one specifying that it is for marine ones. Or you could create the new one and propose renaming the other one to add the word "marine". Sorry I'm not super clear on this, but as I said I'm not up on my basin knowledge at all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem - it was as I was trying to word it simpler last night i came up with the idea of the death project and portal.

The problem was the indian ocean littoral (it is not a commonly known usage) which would offer issues to be placed into another category altogether - which could have all land based coast oriented geographical features collected together so that indian ocean river basins could have been part of it - but hey i havent seen a category with the word littoral in it - it could have some reaching for their dictionaries or xfd templates.

The oceans, marine geology and geography and basins and features are still in formative stage in wikipedia with little consistency around the globe and i aint gonna try to dabble too far into it at this stage SatuSuro 07:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

project idea

Also because of the prevalence of your moniker at categories related to it - I think there at least should be a Wiki project to damned well tag all of your creation of death categories - to see that amount of talk page space red linked and empty suggests a need to get back at your methodical creating of such a vast number of untagged categories (that is meant in valid agf and humour but also seriousness) cheers SatuSuro 05:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

To show I am not joking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Projects - I'll tag every last one of your death cats if its the last thing i do :) SatuSuro 05:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I've actually been considering starting something similar for awhile, but I'm just not too "into" WikiProjects, really. I find they can be extremely helpful in accomplishing some things, but at other times I find them incredibly isolating and even divisive within the WP community when they begin to exert symptoms of ownership over articles and categories. It all depends on the editors involved, I suppose, but my overall experience with them hasn't been terribly positive. Just my viewpoint. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I can understand that - and I know where that comes from - from both sides :) - so if I get a 'death project and portal' up and running I'll probably give you a hoy - cheers SatuSuro 07:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, from your viewpoint, what's the major downside of having a red-linked category talk page? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

From my viewpoint it is a complete sidestep into the deepest dark abyss and ether of the net - there is potentially no project to maintain it, to assess it and to make stats out of (yes even cats too) - possibly a bit like having a nation state with no statistics bureau - you have no idea what you have - I am totally intrigued that the brits (last time i looked) have no concept of tagging articles or cats and the russian project was actively harrassing those who wanted to tag cats - its like having articles with no project tags - where do they belong? ok there are some really wierd ones (grutness at this very moment is cleaning up some ill placed volcanology tags which i too was involved in doing). I probably due to my tagging experience am very biased - and some might say tagged articles are enough and that there is no need for cats to be done - but hey - some might say cat trees can be created without project tags - from where i stand - they are damned useful - my slow hand tagging of the new zealand project has been useful in a number of ways - but some believe that bots are the best. I still think its worth the exercise - you get to find some interesting stuff, sometimes... I have probably not answered as much as thoroughly enough - but hey thats for the mo SatuSuro 07:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've replied...

... re Category:Health risks on my talk page. Cgingold (talk) 12:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

wrong

it is a mc bush contrevercy why change it to political —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.170.48.216 (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is what you're referring to, but see here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Fictional Americans

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Fictional Americans. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Otto4711 (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Otto. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

ambiguity

It's just not cricket is an expression in Australian english - I can see somewhere it could be used SatuSuro 03:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And having watched recent events I am now personally convinced that Wikipedia does not need global standards against various usages of categories (there is such a thing as differences between cultures and countries) - but I couldnt be bothered in getting to arguments about it with you or anyone else - so you probably wont hear much from me in the future in relation to categories - as I can see you like globally applied thingoes with your work - so good bye and good luck - except for when I get the death and dying project and portal are up I'll give you a hoot or buzz or whatever SatuSuro 06:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I like global application, unless there is a good reason to depart from it. In many cases, I believe that there are good reasons to do so, so I'm by no means a "blind global applicationist" (to coin a term). Best wishes in your future work; hope to see you around. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that - and the same good wishes in return - maybe we'll find some happy and simple compromise on something else sometime - best wishes SatuSuro 23:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for speaking up for me in the Category:Fictional Americans by ethnicity deletion discussion. This is the first time I've seen someone suggest blocking my account, and I doubted whether a response from me would help the situation. Your response helped me put the incident in perspective.

By the way, this discussion has convinced me that the decision to delete Category:Fictional characters by origin was flawed and needs to be reversed. I imagine that, had someone taken the trouble to tag all these subcats back in September, the discussion would've gone very differently and you would not have closed it as you did.

Again, my thanks. Even though we don't always see eye-to-eye on categorization issues, I have great respect for your contributions and tireless efforts on behalf of the Wikipedia. - Stepheng3 (talk) 08:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks—yeah, I actually left a message to the user on his talk page as well, since I think what he said was totally out of line in the circumstances. I closed the discussion on Category:Fictional characters by origin and I agree that now that more users become notified of it, consensus is probably not what it seemed to be at the close of the discussion, so I'll have no real objections if my close is over-ridden. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_18#Category:Fictional_United_States_Democrats

Could you explain your closure? - jc37 06:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really :). But let me explain: now that I read through the discussion again, it looks more like a "no consensus" to me, and I'm unsure why I would have closed it as keep. Maybe I was thinking "not delete" and accidentally said "keep" when I might have been thinking "NC". The way I read it now, there is no clear consensus to keep, nor is there a clear consensus to listify or delete. I think I'm going to change it to a "no consensus", but I'll wait on doing this to hear back from you. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the "keep" in this case surprised me somewhat : )

And I think that I'd agree with the NC on independants (as easily being within admin discretion), but the other two would seem to lean toward listification. Especially since there were several who didn't have policy/guidelines-sourced reasonings (per WP:AADD: "When taking part in deletion discussions, then, it is best to base arguments on the policies of neutral point of view, no original research, verifiability, biographies of living people and what Wikipedia is not, or on Wikipedia guidelines", which is in turn based on WP:DEL#Deletion discussion).

Would you further clarify your thoughts based on the above? - jc37 07:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting—the more I read through the discussion (and I have done so probably 10 times now), the more uncertain I become about what I did as closer.

As for the comments specific to the party ones: To at least some degree, I think I may have fallen into the trap of vote counting here. (Also, any discussion that Alansohn participates in has closers treading lightly lately because of the frequency of complaints/DRVs about closes that result in deletion. That probably played a role here too for me.) Anyway, as for the comments—there's not much substance to Occuli's "keep all" comment. Alansohn brings up the RS issues, as he is wont to, but this argument (perhaps counterintuitively) supports the listification argument, in my opinion, even though that clearly wasn't his intent. His argument certainly doesn't make the case for having the categories in preference of having lists, though. Postdlf suggets renaming the party categories to politicians of a party; Cgingold says this seems reasonable, which I assume modifies his original comments for keeping. Dimadick's comment is ambiguous, but I think he's saying listify the party categories. DGG says keep but also have a list. J Greb says make lists. Anon agrees with listifying or deletion. At the end of the day, there's no strong or convincing voices for keeping the party ones; it's still a little tricky for me to say that there's exactly a consensus for listifying, since I don't think Postdlf and Cgingold were in favor of that. However, I do believe it's certainly trending that way and could probably go either way. At a minimum, I would say renaming these ones to be "politician" categories would be acceptable to most who commented.

With respect to the independents one, I don't really see any consensus on what to do, or even really a trend towards one. That may be more a function of the fact that not as much space was spent discussing these. But some (Postdlf, Dimadick) did seem convinced that the fact that these were limited to politicians made a difference.

I'm a little unsure what to do about this now. Would you be opposed to a relisting if I added a type of summary explanatory note that there have been strong arguments in favor of listifying and in favor of limiting the party categories to politicians, and we need to decide between these two? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are several options at this point.

My preference would be to just "re-open" - to revert the close. Since there are others still open on the page, you could leave it at that. Though I think a direct "relisting" of the discussion might be more appropriate. That said, I have little problem leaving it to your discretion : ) - jc37 08:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to open it again and leave it open for a time; if nothing else, more comments will hopefully help me feel better about making a decision down the line. If no more comments are added to it by a few days, I'll relist it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.

And by the way, thank you for your thoughts/time/etc. As I'm sure you know, not everyone can manage to discuss such things in even a collegiate way, much less a "friendly" one. And so I always find that refreshing and greatly appreciate it : ) - jc37 08:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm collegiate and collegial because I went to college. :D Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(My pun-self sooo wants to add a comment about that being a colgate-smile : ) - jc37 08:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you know you've arrived when Jc37 starts asking you for clarification on your closes. Now all you need to do is get yourself listed at the top of his talk page.  :) --Kbdank71 15:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

ROFLMAO.

And, you owe me another apple juice, and almost owe me another keyboard : p - jc37 15:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Just "almost" another keyboard?? I must be losing my touch. --Kbdank71 15:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, your edit summary was on my watchlist, and that helped prepare me : ) - jc37 15:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And I am mortified to see that my remarks can possibly be regarded as lacking substance. My seconds are setting off forthwith in the general direction of NZ. (It is expecting a lot of us to make substantial remarks regarding every fictional cfd raised by jc37; every day brings another batch.) Occuli (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(Weird, that's the second time today I've seen "how dare you" used as an edit summary.) I just re-read your comment, and I probably would have questioned it as well: Keep all – as often Jc37 seems to be struggling with esoteric difficulties that I cannot grasp. would appear to be commenting more on Jc37 and his reasoning for his nominations than the nomination itself. --Kbdank71 17:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You go to bed, and look at all the fun you miss .... How dare I?—Really, it was nothing personal, just a fairly bloodless analysis of what I'm finding to be a hard discussion to interpret. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"My seconds are setting off forthwith in the general direction of NZ." - I have no idea what that is intended to mean. - jc37 03:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It had me puzzled for a little while too. I think it meant he was sending somebody to NZ to get me, presumably for some sort of duelling challenge. His "seconds"—meaning like his representatives who work out the details of a duel for the principal parties. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I had considered that, but there are just too many other interpretations. For example, they might be a soldier seconds away from being stationed in New Zealand. Or perhaps a Star Trek reference to the Neutral Zone. - jc37 04:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

And why just the "general direction"? Depending on where you're coming from, heading in NZ's general direction can have you end up in Toowoomba or Marie Byrd Land. It must be a very subtle joke implying that I'm all "at sea" over this issue. Either that or Star Trek's Neutral Zone. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It could be "your general direction" as in "I fart in" a la Python. --Kbdank71 10:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes—and of course this intended meaning is highly likely, given my username. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Art object

This should just be deleted, as pure duplication of Category:Works of art. Same with the same editor's Category:Artwork. He is new & a bit of a nuisance at the moment. Johnbod (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thxs Johnbod (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for insight

Before I make the request, let me ask if you're interested.

I'm likely about to start a DRV. But before I do, I'd like someone else to look over the discussion. After all, I could be entirely misinterpreting something, and I typically don't DRV lightly. - jc37 07:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure I could although I won't be online for the next 24–36 hours. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to put this "on hold" for now.

Closures based upon a misunderstanding of policy is one thing (which was most of the DRV I was mentioning above), but closures simply based upon fear of doing what is right, simply due to fear of having to explain why?

While I am empathetic, I'm very not happy. - jc37 06:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Even if you don't pursue it, I wouldn't mind knowing which ones are in question. I get the impression there a multiple problems? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm going to let it drop for now. If you feel up to some lengthy reading, check out the talk pages of a couple of the CfD closers. - jc37 08:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Saints

Having picked up the track of User:Roltz, I see he has created a set of categories like Category:Italian Roman Catholic saints, which seem pretty pointless to me, especially as he duplicates every entry in the main category. I think these categories are only needed for nations where there are non-Catholic saints. For the rest, a see also on the main RC saints by country cat will do. What do you think? Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't sure what to do about this. In many cases the distinction probably doesn't mean much, but if he's trying to develop a "complete" Category:Roman Catholic saints by country it might be OK. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You stop

You're the one that keeps reverting my change. I think I've made a decent case for it, and consider your talk of "consensus" to be beside the point. Semantics aside, several Mormons have complained about this usage.

I call the 3-revert rule. Revert me again, and I'll file a complaint. If you're dissatisfied by your inability to get the last word (just as I am to by your pointedly ignoring my argument) then ask for arbitration. But I will keep putting the change back. Isaac R (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You're not just making a "change", you're deleting well-cited information with no WP policy justification. You are the only editor objecting to its inclusion. 3 other editors have said you are wrong. What more do you want? I'll initiate a 3rd party comment on the information if you like. Arbitration is not really appropriate where there appears to be a rough consensus with only one hold-out. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've already explained why the citations are irrelevent. I don't think we're going to settle this without outside help. I've put in a request on Wikipedia:Third Opinion.Isaac R (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your explanation didn't comply with WP policies, including WP:NAME. I think it's well on its way to being resolved via regular consensus discussions. It's a fairly clear-cut issue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I was considering reverting back to your version to prevent your being troubled with the Three-revert rule. You might want to slow down a bit and let the consensus that appears in your favor to express itself! (John User:Jwy talk) 22:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

True, thanks; I'll cease. I reverted my violating edit. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Suicide categories

I notice you've been retagging a lot of suicide articles, and you moved alt.suicide.holiday into the suicide prevention category. It's pro-choice not prevention, so I've moved it back again! But I'm not sure if you're moving things out of the main suicide category per some policy discussion I haven't seen, so I thought I'd let you know so you can find a more appropriate subcat if needed. Cheers, Eve Hall (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. No, I was just creating some subcategories, and it looks like I got that one wrong. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 19:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Categories

Are you aware you've been adding a string of redlink categories, such as here? Just wondered. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I'm on the verge of creating them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I'm really not trying to pester you, but I do have another question. I noticed the category "19th century executions by the United States" on the Theodore Durrant article and am puzzled. Durrant wasn't executed by the government of the United States. He was executed by the state of California. Shouldn't this category be titled "19th century executions in the United States"? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No pestering taken. Yes, I think probably your suggestion would be more correct. If I remember correctly, this category pre-existed the system of breaking executions down by state. Before, there was just one huge categories for people executed in the U.S., and it was phrased "people executed by the U.S.". Some of the remnants of that system still haven't been changed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. :) One more comment. The category "18th century executions by the United States" may need to be divided and one called something to the effect of "Executions in colonial America", since all but a couple articles in the current category took place before there was a United States. I'm not very savvy in the category creation department or I'd probably forge ahead and make errors. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I've noticed that one too. Strictly speaking I suppose it should be limited to those from 1776 onward, with a separate one for colonial America. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Prop 8

Regarding Adding external links to Mormon article regarding Proposition 8:

I am sorry about my addition to the Mormon article. Thank-you for correcting it. I was trying to be careful because I knew that any article on such a well known subject would have a huge readership, so I made as small an edit as I could, but at the same time, I was trying to be bold, which is why I chose to make the edit in the first place.

I have a pretty good handle on how relevant/notable something needs to be to be included in an article, but some things like Prop 8 may seem very relevant to Mormonism right now but may not be relevant for long enough to warrant inclusion in an Encyclopedia.

Can you help me to understand how long something should be notable for it to be included? What are your ideas on notability? My thoughts were that if Prop 8 failed it would be quickly forgotten, but that since it passed it will probably be remembered for years, which is why I decided to mention it.

Whether or not Prop 8 might be relevant to Mormonism thanks for removing that link because it did not contain good information. I didn't notice this at the time (I guess I need to look at the source of my sources more!) but that website was a blend of factual information retrieved from the State of California open records, and anonymous emails from users! (Seeing that it was based on the State of Cali website, I neglected to look further and notice that they had no way of confirming the anonymous emails)

I think that if it appears Proposition 8 will continue to be associated with Mormonism for a long time (which I think is possible since prop 8 has devastated so many Californians and California has a fair impact on the media worldwide), then it may be appropriate for one sentence about prop 8 in the Mormon article with maybe a reference to one of the many Newspaper articles on the subject, but assure you I will be less bold with that edit than I was with this.

Thanks again, VegKilla (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather than notability, I was concerned about two separate issues: (1) the appropriateness of placing the info in Mormon. Since the term "Mormon" can apply to those who are not members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), but it was the LDS Church specifically that was involved in Prop 8, I thought it would fit better in the article about the LDS Church or an article about the LDS Church's involvement in politics, if one exists. (2) I was concerned about the reliability of the source. It appeared that is was determining which contributors were Mormons based on "emails and reader tips". This obviously would have WP:BLP implications for those identified. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

3O

If you have a sec, could you drop by my talk and give your opinion on one of your closes? Thanks. User_talk:Kbdank71#Depopulation --Kbdank71 18:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:People convicted of murder by England and Wales

I've withdrawn the nomination, per your request. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks—sorry for the confusion I created. :)

No worries. DH85868993 (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Murdered

By whoever - gawd I hope you are able to transcend the bloody subject sometime - im about to take a break (not before time some might say) - the death and dying idea - unless someone else is able to run with the idea - wont happen till next year now. Hope either real life or off wiki has nothing to do with your preponderence of cat changes - happy christmas etc - cheers SatuSuro 22:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Current female heads of government

Since female heads of government are still a novelty I think deleting the Category:Current female heads of government is sexiest especially after it was decided after a discussion with 4 people... -- Mariah-Yulia (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You could raise that at a DRV nomination, which is that-a-way. ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't think it is worth the hussle for this cat but I might need it in the future... -- Mariah-Yulia (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Temple Lot protest

the citations provide exactly the information stated. The conduct of you and other anonymous 'editors' at Wikipedia is being monitored. Please do not censor the factual, cited information again. enabled1000 (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, please see Talk:Temple Lot#Reversion. There are problems with the provided citations. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The 'problems' do not justify deleting all the information, and you know that. enabled1000 (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

In my view they do. We're talking about a living person, so see WP:BLP. You can't just throw out claims that are completely unsubstantiated by reliable sources. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I know what your view is: To suppress factual information about a political and religious activist, and maintain a false characterization of him. Everything else you posit is just a disingenuous claim on your part. Again, I needn't argue it with you; other, cooler heads are prevailing, and have needed to see what happens when truth about the January 1990 incident is posted at Wikipedia. enabled1000 (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to check out WP:AGF before you go around suggesting that people are lying about their motives. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Check your email please!

I was asked to ask you to check your email. No, I don't know who it's from, nor what the email is about. :) Kylu (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I got the one in question. ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

James McNamara

I noticed that you added some categories on James McNamara, which is a redirect page. Is that correct? I did not think that redirect pages should have categories. •Life of Riley (talk) 05:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Generally you're correct, but there's nothing wrong with a redirect having categories if they are categories that would apply to the redirect term but not to the main article. These types of situations are relatively rare. In this case, though, the categories on the redirect apply to James McNamara, but not to his brother, so they wouldn't be OK on The McNamara Brothers, so they go on the redirect page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread

Don't take my post the wrong way, okay? I'll keep an eye on Temple Lot, that's all. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No, that's fine; and it can be closed now. I know I was being cautious; I just wanted another viewpoint or two. :) Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Very weird. I don't understand what's motivating the user. By taking the (quite common) name out of the article, it seems like there shouldn't be any hint of defamation issues. User seems to want the event portrayed as a milestone in civil rights. I can't even imagine why; with all of these allusions to slavery, MLK, and so forth, it doesn't make sense that one would ignite the temple lot church.

I don't know what else to say. The comments speak for themselves. Cool Hand Luke 08:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It's bizarre. But from what I've seen of the history of that page, it's been that way on and off for some time. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Baptist Churches in Ireland

Say, when you've got a bit of time, would you take a look at a "tiny little problem" (heh heh) that I've uncovered. The trail starts with this CFD, which turns out to be just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. After you've looked at the articles I linked there, check out User:Chromenano, and I'm sure you'll understand why I'm concerned. I've already left a note for him on his talk page, but from past experience and given the apparent scope of the problem, I suspect further intervention will be necessary. Apologies for dumping this in your lap! (I thought you might take an interest given your extensive work in various church categories, etc.) Regards, Cgingold (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hoo boy. .... Unless the churches are mentioned in the articles, I agree that it's pointless to have them as redirects, much less as the sole contents of a category. I suppose we should probably delete the redirects, I'm just puzzling about how to go about justifying it. Taking all of them to RfD would be a real pain. ... I suppose they could be "harmless" if we can just get the categories off of them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I got a start on these, and it actually wasn't that bad. It turns out he had placed templates and categories on all the pages, and other users deleted the templates but not the categories, so I deleted the categories. See my comments at the CfD. Completely out of process, I know and am ashamed, but I honestly think this may be the best way to go about this. First time I've ever invoked WP:IAR. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a hand in cleaning up this little mess, GO -- and for leaving your own note at Chromenano's talk page. I'm glad it turned out to be somewhat less of an iceberg than I feared (though I'm not entirely sure about leaving all those redirects...). Btw, the related Template is also up for deletion, if you care to add a comment at TFD. Cgingold (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't like keeping the re-directs either. But what's our option? I suppose we'd have to take them all to WP:RFD. I suppose we could instead just de-link them on the "list of" page, to prevent frustration for readers. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

At the very least they should all be delinked, as you suggest. But I'm not sure that list has any business even existing as a Wiki article if there are no links to articles. Cgingold (talk) 02:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Derek Hill

why do you keep deleting the Derek Hill Article?

Please read Wikipedia:Notability_(people). An article that doesn't meet these standards are deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Another CFD problem

I've replied at my talk page -- and I could use some help on another CFD problem. Cgingold (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I do apologise, I don't tend to use the deletion process much in my work here, even less for categories. I managed to completely misread the nomination process, entirely my fault. I was expecting the CfD to run a few days anyway, but as for Half-Life 2 screenshots I figured it was fairly uncontroversial, the change there was primarily for maintenance purposes. I had it mistakenly in my mind that renaming categories would only go to CfD if potentially controversial. I'm happy to let the CfD run its proper course on the Half-Life 2 categoriy and if its really deemed necessary, Half-Life screenshots one as well. -- Sabre (talk) 10:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As Cgingold said on his talk page, no problem. Everybody learns through stuff like this, and your intentions were clearly in the right place. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to be sure you know that I've replied to your last comment at my talk page. Cgingold (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Brigham Young

I didn't vandalise, I corrected the vandalism Spinerod (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Did I say somewhere you vandalised? I don't see your contribution at the history page of Brigham Young, so I'm unsure what you're referring to. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes—I think I mistakenly tagged you at User talk:69.139.167.4, which is what you must be talking about. I'm sorry about that; I've changed it to the correct IP address. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's alright Spinerod (talk) 3:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Players of American football by agent

Hi. I noticed you commented on the discussion and I also know that you're a cat guru, so I'm asking you to help me with the nomination. The discussion section does not seem to be set up right. Additionally, I know that I am supposed to link the the subcats to the discussion but I don't know how to format that either. Also, I don't know what cfd tag to place on the subcats. I know someone with 30k edits should have a bit more of a clue, but that's the way it is :-)--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. For future ref, the step-by-step instructions are at WP:CFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see what the issue was. Yes, you generally just add the links manually on the CFD page and then each category is tagged in the normal way, but with the link redirected to the properly-named discussion by adding a "|CORRECT REDIRECT" at the end of the template. I agree it's a complex thing; it really should be more simple. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help. Yes, the nomination process for cats is unclear. However, it seems like the brainy Wikipedians are the ones involved in category discussions so the extent of its detriment might be minimal. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of two categories

The deletion of Category:United States Senate candidates and Category:United States House of Representatives candidates were in error. It was based on a CFD from February 2007, over 22 months ago. It was deleted by a bot, I don't know why. I've restored the categories, but I don't know how to restore all the contents. —Markles 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ha, I just posted at your page simultaneously. We'll take it up there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Lights

You closed this rename and I assume you meant delete? Otto4711 (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for catching that. I did at least delete the category, so I knew what I was doing, I just didn't write it. :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

CfD comments

Copied from User talk:Alansohn

Alansohn, I get the impression from your comments at CfD that you may not really respect me as an editor, but I want to communicate something to you nonetheless and you can take it for what it's worth. Stated bluntly, your interactions with Otto4711 at CfD are on the verge of becoming disruptive. I realise that it takes "two to tango", so to speak, and Otto is one of the more abrasive editors I have come across, and he is far from blameless. However, from my viewpoint it appears that you do indeed kind of "follow" Otto around and whether it is deliberate or not you tend to make comments at discussions shortly after he does, and your comments usually relate directly to something that Otto said in his comment. I recall that recently you made a number of comments re: "the Otto test", and it was never totally clear to me at least whether you were referring to this "test" in a sarcastic way or not. Even if this fixation on the same discussions Otto participates in is not intentional and you just happen to be interested in the same categories as Otto, if you put yourself in his position you can imagine that this might have a grating effect upon Otto, making him less likely to be nice. It also bothers other editors, and I have received a number of e-mails from others complaining about it now. I know you have said you disagree with much about CfD. You view it as a type of "game"; you disagree with many of the policies; you see it as slanted towards favoring deletion; etc. I also get the impression at least that you think I and other admins who are heavily involved in it are biased in favor of deleting categories. I realise all this but you do need to know: when you repeatedly make these points and disparage the system as a whole, other users who are trying their best to make the system work for everyone get annoyed, and they come to the point where they will disregard almost everything you say, whether or not your points are valid. In other words, if you're trying to have influence and have your voice and opinion heard—the way you're going about it is counterproductive. I hope you realise I'm posting this in attempt to help you and in an attempt to help the situation that others have complained to me about, and I don't want you to interpret this as a "warning" of any type, since that is not my intent. I'm not going to be "monitoring" you either, since I'm just on the verge of departing on vacation where I'll be away from Wikipedia for a little while. But I do encourage you to reflect on how you've been relating to others at CfD, and with Otto in particular. It's a safe assumption that everyone who participates at CfD—including Otto—does so under the intent of making Wikipedia better, and I know that is your intent too. But we can all only do so much; we are each just one voice, and it's important not to make our own voice so shrill that we turn others against us and counterproductively make them oppose anything we stand for. I hope you can accept this message in the spirit with which it is posted. I hope to see you around CfD (though moreso when I get back), Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

My remarks and your original comments have been moved here from my talk page. I do appreciate the concerns you raised, parts of which are meaningful and genuinely well taken, and will guide my future interactions.

I am disturbed that you would buy into Otto's paranoiac concerns about being followed. He edits CfDs that are on my watchlist and does so in waves. I see his edits and those of others on my watchlist and choose to respond, or not. If you would check our edit histories, you will find CfDs where I participate and he does not, and plenty of CfDs where he participates and I don't. You will even find -- believe it or not -- CfDs where the two of us agree. Your implication of stalking is questionable, at best. I would hope that you would have investigated the claim a bit more thoroughly before buying into Otto's claims, generally a good idea.

I am also concerned about the rather one-sided nature of this conversation. It takes two to tango as you stated, and you yourself have noted that "Otto is one of the more abrasive editors I have come across" (emphasis in original). Yet I notice no comments on this issue on Otto's talk page, by you or any other admin. Nor did any of the other admins with intense concerns about the spirit of communication lift a finger when Otto's usual personal attacks rose to profanity-laden tirades on several occasions, in addition to the usual patronizing insistence on his part that he had repeated himself enough times.

Despite what clearly seem to be the best of intentions on your part, there is no balance here. When there is an admin out there who has the guts to stand up to Otto and his persistent abuse of policy, it will be far easier to work together to solve the issue than when the biggest part of the problem is ignored. Alansohn (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

My impression of you commenting at a lot of the same CfDs was not based on Otto's comments. As I said, it was based on my own impression. I never said you were stalking. This is what I said: "Even if this fixation on the same discussions Otto participates in is not intentional and you just happen to be interested in the same categories as Otto, if you put yourself in his position you can imagine that this might have a grating effect upon Otto, making him less likely to be nice."

Also, you need to worry about yourself, and not how Otto is being approached. How do you know I am not having dealings with him via e-mail? As for the specific use of obscenities issue: I think I mentioned this on a CfD page, but I was unaware of that incident, and I hadn't heard about until your mention. Nor did I receive a bunch of e-mail about it, as I have about your behavior.

And when it comes right down to it, to suggest that you're not going to change unless and until the other person gets the same treatment or makes similar changes is rather petty. I thought you could be a bigger user and rise above it and make changes regardless of how others behave. Perhaps I was wrong, but I hope not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If your impressions are your own, they are mistaken, as I have indicated. The word "fixation", which was the basis of my impression that you are claiming that I am stalking him, is not supported by the barest review of the CfDs we each participate in; He has initiated and commented on many CfDs that I have never responded to. Nor will I agree to simply avoid "his" CfDs, as if he had marked his territory and now owns it. As in the past, when I believe Otto -- or any other editor -- is wrong, I will respond, and explain why.

As I stated in my earlier response, you made valid points that I will take to heart. However, if your efforts here are intended to be evenhanded, and I sincerely assume they are, I would hope that I would have been extended the same courtesy of an email conversation as is being offered to Otto. As I will assume that Otto received his comments from you in private from your response, I fail to see why you felt the need to make a public case solely on my part. From my perspective, this is still a rather one-sided process. {P.S. I waited to check your contributions before clicking Enter, but this still appears one-sided). Alansohn (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You are free to comment where you like, of course, and "stalking" is not the concern. Nor do I think all of your behavior at CfD is problematic. Of course it is not. I was merely trying to get you to reflect on the Otto-centric nature of many of your recent comments at many CfDs, and particularly your recent (inadvertent?) mischaracterizations of some of his arguments, the repeated reference to the "Otto test", etc. I'm not asking you to avoid all discussions Otto engages in, and I'm sorry if that's the impression you got. I was looking for a little self-reflection on it, and to try to see things from his perspective, that's all.

You still have no idea the steps I'm taking with Otto, nor do I think you should. How do you know I'm not currently in the process of drafting some comments to him? You just don't know. As I said before, I suggest you focus on yourself. But if you want to play martyr to avoid some self-correction, that's your decision to make. Anyway, I'm not acting in an official "arbitrator" role here where there will be perfect balance. This is not an official WP procedure. I was just trying to be helpful and to try to respond to a number of concerns that were shunted my way. I'm sorry if this has upset you in any way. We can leave it at that, I suppose, and you're free to delete/archive these comments from your page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Now take a stab at looking at this from my perspective. You point to my actions and Otto's, but you only post publicly to my talk page. Whatever you've done with Otto, you have not offered me the same courtesy. I would assume that you might recognize that this appears rather one-sided. If you are telling me that other editors have "come to the point where they will disregard almost everything you say, whether or not your points are valid. In other words, if you're trying to have influence and have your voice and opinion heard—the way you're going about it is counterproductive" you could well appear on my part to be saying that other editors are just being contrary because they disagree with the style, not the content, of the argument, or perhaps that CfD is a game of popularity, not principle. Even if you have contacted Otto privately, you have still not explained why I am not due the same courtesy. I will tell you again that you have made valid points and that I will take them to heart. I hope that you can show a small step towards evenhandedness, whether or not this is an official process. I look forward to seeing those steps on your part, and Otto's, as I have already committed on mine. {P.S. I waited again to check your contributions before clicking Enter, but this still appears one-sided). Alansohn (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but you still don't know (a) what I have already done to contact Otto, if anything, and (b) what I am yet to do with respect to contacting Otto, if anything, and how I will do it. Nor do I think you need to be privy to this information. It exactly this "tit-for-tat" attitude that gets you into these kinds of issues in the first place. If you want a formal process where there will be tit-for-tat, then request one, but I'm not sure that would be appropriate at this stage. For now (and for the third time), I suggest you worry about yourself, and not about Otto. You may be surprised at how things can change when one person does. (I'm not saying you are the one at fault. I'm just giving some suggestions.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Take a gander at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_26#Category:Russian_Ministers_of_Defense, which you just closed. I participated, Otto jumped in, and I changed my recommendation to match his. Does this still fit the stalking theory? Alansohn (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you miss my most recent comments above? There is no "stalking" theory. I was referring to some discrete events. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It's been disproven on your part (whatever "fixation" refers to) and on Otto's part. Alansohn (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Did my above comments not make clear what I was referring to? By above I mean: "You are free to comment where you like, of course, and "stalking" is not the concern. Nor do I think all of your behavior at CfD is problematic. Of course it is not. I was merely trying to get you to reflect on the Otto-centric nature of many of your recent comments at many CfDs, and particularly your recent (inadvertent?) mischaracterizations of some of his arguments, the repeated reference to the "Otto test", etc. I'm not asking you to avoid all discussions Otto engages in, and I'm sorry if that's the impression you got. I was looking for a little self-reflection on it, and to try to see things from his perspective, that's all." Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you think

this analysis is correct? Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yup—I would agree with what you said. It should be the parent one for those who survived and for those who died. And it should be empty of articles, I would think, since each article should be able to be placed in one of the subcategories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you might get a chuckle out of what I just posted, GO. Cgingold (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Btw, I'm going to do my best to carve out some time later today to write a couple of email notes (to you & the other party) regarding the preceding discussion and attendant issues. (Yours will probably be the shorter of the two... ) Cgingold (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Boy, that's kind of rich. It's like he figured it out and then forgot it all somehow. Maybe it's been nagging in his brain for a while. :) ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Categorizing redirects

Thank you for restoring the categories I erroneously removed from the Mohammad Ahman al-Naziri redirect page. I just discovered Categorizing redirects, so you shouldn't have to follow me with a broom and dust pan anymore. :) Feel free to let me know if I muck up anything else. Best, momoricks ^{make my day} 04:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No, no, that's fine. I haven't been tracking you, I swear. Thanks for letting me know. :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries. The following me around bit was a joke, although I've seen you cleaning up categories on crime-related pages. It's much appreciated. Best, momoricks (make my day) 03:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

...

Thanks for your comment regarding the template. Yeah, I agree that the standardization would be a huge pain...why didn't you just modify LDSInfobox in the first place instead of creating LDSGAInfo? Anyway, since it seems you and I are the only one's involved on these templates that much, could we just remove LDSInfobox from articles where LDSGAInfo is already sufficient? (e.g., Monson, Hinckley). (P.S. Our conversation was on Template_talk:LDSInfobox#Delete_or_merge.3F.) --Eustress (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was probably my mistake in creating the new one. That would be fine with me if you want to approach it the way you propose. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Black and White vs. Shades of Gray

Your recent withdrawal of your proposed deletion of Category:Ivor Novello Award winners at this link makes an excellent point as to viewing issues in shades of gray, rather than as black and white versions of they all must go. As you stated, "The more I have read up on this award over the past day or so the more inclined I am to think that it's more 'prestigious' and notable than I had been suggesting." You had the option of going in rhetorical circles and insisting that no award could be included, but you chose not to. As I stated there, I vociferously disagree with where the bar has been set, but there is a bar. There are categories for awards that all of us (even reluctantly) can agree are notable, some that we would all agree are not and many that we would differ on. In light of your recent remarks, I would suggest revisiting your opinion that "performer-by-performance" is a relevant standard to require deletion of Category:60 Minutes correspondents. I don;t know where the bar should be set, but I find it hard to be believe that many will object to inclusion of a category for this program, with a four-decade long track record as the most popular news program in the United States, while excluding others. Let's see some of that "horse sense" in coming up with an appropriate guideline. Alansohn (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive copy of withdrawn discussion

Please assist. I'm totally unsure about this and would welcome any enlightenment. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's OK with you I'm just going to withdraw that nomination and delete it from the CfD page. What you said makes perfect sense to me, and I don't think I want to be the one to pursue a discussion on it. I really should have just asked you, since that was kind of the input I was looking for. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, fine with me. I'm glad to know that my response was helpful. Cgingold (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't resist making a small change in the middle of my comment. Cgingold (talk) 04:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

How dare you violate the preserved lamination job! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back

Holy shit, are you ever making up for lost time. (I've lost count of how many new CFDs you filed!) I infer that you returned well rested from your vacation oops, I mean holiday -- and not a moment too soon. I sure was glad to see that you (thankfully) found your way to Category:Solidarity. As I said to Vegaswikian re his comment, "You could probably hear my sigh of relief all the way in Las Vegas! :) I was really beginning to despair, mainly because nobody else was joining the discussion." It's really strange and *perplexing* how common sense just goes AWOL from time to time. Kinda like entropy just kicks in at random intervals. Speaking of which (segue alert), I'm on the verge of starvation here -- gotta get me some alimentary fix'ns before I keel over! Cgingold (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; yes, I'm temporarily back from holiday/vacation (aw, use either—I'm Canadian). Temporarily because I'm off again in a few days, so my holiday banner will remain for the time being. :) I honestly didn't mean to start so many CfDs in the past few days, but I just got looking at some newly-created categories, and one after another there were problematic ones so I figured I would do some nominating. I did find some of the opinions at that Solidarity nomination a bit strange—I imagine it comes as a result of people who are big fans of the group (or at least the WP category), and they figure that it should have primary usage over the word. I find there's almost always resistance on disambiguation that comes from those who are "close" to the subject for one reason or another. Another lesson that love and common sense do not always go hand-in-hand. As my grandfather used to say: "Love is like lightning—it can strike a castle or an outhouse." (Actually, I think he really said "shithouse", but mom always quoted it as "outhouse" to protect us from grandpa's vulgarities ...) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

CFL

Your comments on Category:Players with NFL and CFL careers displays a lack of knowledge on the differences between Canadian and American football. A player with skills highly valued in the NFL can be of little use in the CFL and vice-versa. Indeed, the salary structure is considerably higher in the NFL and a player who has the choice to actively play in either league would certainly choose to make the big money but that does not mean that players across the board are lower skill. In fact, they are not. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a defining intersection. We generally don't categorize sportspeople by participation in 2+ different leagues. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

for real this time

Enjoy! --Kbdank71 21:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Dominican volleyball clubs

I Agree with your consideration of renaming this category, what can we do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osplace (talk • contribs)

Just place a "vote" in agreement at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_16#Category:Dominican_volleyball_clubs and it will happen after a few days. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Community Center

Like Category:Burger King, it should be in singular, it is an orgranization, and not Category:Burger Kings. The category is not about community centres that so happen to be Jewish, it is about a specific organization called the JCC formally the YMHA. Since the information on the speedy move has already been removed off of here (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy), I removed the heading tag, since I am unable to comment on it, but I really don't think it should have been put through speedily. Epson291 (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey there. I noticed you're still around, so I don't need to hold off on this. You may recall that I had expressed my doubts about keeping the caps at all. After seeing this note, I checked and discovered that we now have two nearly identical categories, both with caps -- Category:Jewish Community Center and Category:Jewish Community Centers. In any event, I had assumed that it would go to full CFD, so I'm not sure what happened. The visible edit histories only left me feeling confused. Perhaps you will have better luck than I did getting to the bottom of this little mystery. :) Cgingold (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Aha, I see you've already deleted Category:Jewish Community Center since I last checked. However, the page still shows all of the articles, and I believe some need merging. I still don't understand why the new cat with caps was created, though, since an objection had been raised. Cgingold (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

PS - Your talk page seems to have acquired a category. Cgingold (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bit strange. The pages were listed at WP:CFD/W when I found them, and I kind of unthinkingly deleted the original one to help it along. I think I will restore the original one and delete the new one, and we'll go from there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it, if a discussion is needed on the name it should be from here. Regards. Epson291 (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Mexico State

Would you be interested in doing something about the inconsistency between Mexico State and Category:State of Mexico. Hesperian 02:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. Except I don't have an opinion on which usage would be better, so I'm probably not the best person to propose any change. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Me neither. Hesperian 02:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Lol—I'll think about it and look around at the categories and articles—maybe something will come to me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Ta. Hesperian 02:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Your closure of the CfD about parishes

I believe you erred in closing the discussion about parishes whilst still allowing the nominated change to take place with respect to England. No notices were posted to any appropriate places concerning this nomination, and I would certainly have expressed an informed view about the change if I had been alerted to it before a bot started to implement all the changes. probably some others would have to: See WT:UKGEO#A CfD that has been apparently agreed and which affects a lot of categories concerning parishes in England and WT:CFD#Enquiry about probable limited discussion leading to inappropriate closure and action. I think this definitely needs reconsidering and the changes implemented so far by the bot reversed until more comments are made.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If you believe it should be reversed or re-opened you can take it to WP:DRV, but based on what you have said I'm not willing to reverse it. From the discussion, there was consensus to change at least the English ones. Each category was individually and appropriately tagged with {{subst:cfr}}. The category page is the "appropriate place" to notify re: a nomination for category renaming per the procedures listed at WP:CFD. No other notice is currently required by the procedure, though of course courteous editors can always choose to do more than the minimum. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok. In which case, then since you add that the changes are done without prejudice, the taskforce on parishes that we have been discussing intermittently on WT:UKGEO (mostly in the archives) will just work through them and adjust them depending on outcome of any CfD at that time. The change to "civil parishes" is one I certainly endorse, though the problem mostly is the use of "in" in the changed name, because it would lead to some very clumsy wording in some cases, such as "Civil parishes in the Isle of Wight" which would be much better as "Civil Parishes of the Isle of Wight", and therefore, to have consistency within a category for a local government organisation within England would be, I think, better. Stil, if that is the way it currently is, then that may be it.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say those English ones were done without prejudice. I was referring to the ones that were not renamed for which no action was taken. But you can certainly nominate them for renaming; since the changes are unrelated to adding "civil", I don't think the former discussion would "prejudice" your proposal for wording change. Remember that you can't just change category names without going through the nomination process. Also note that I think using "in" is fairly standard when naming categories for geographical entities. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware that changes have to go through CfD, which is why I wanted the taskforce we have been discussing elsewhere to spend time discussing what a nomination should be about for any name changes before it went to CfD and wider discussion there. The use of "in" may be standard, but it can lead to clumsy wording.  DDStretch  (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, fine then—carry on. Look forward to a future nomination regarding this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I ve put Category:Xian Expatriate footballers in Y intersections up for deletion

Hi there. I noticed your comments on this but took the matter a step further and put it up for deletion. I would hope that the users against having these cat pages put them up for a mass upmerge nomination. (And I m with what you ve said before, that this is not a case of overcategorisation since they reduce very long lists in some cases and reduce cat links clutter on bio pages moreover - but I m against having all possible combinations exist as pages, that is pages with just one footballer populating a page, but) at any rate, regards Mayumashu (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your notice. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your comment about the entirety of the expatriates category trees, I almost completely agree; but, there are some expatriates who are noted for being a FOOian in BARistan. W. Edwards Deming and Shinpei Mykawa are two examples (ironically enough neither are currently tagged as such. I guess Deming didn't score enough goals?? :-) ). Neier (talk) 08:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there are exceptions to what I said, but as a general rule, probably not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Category rename

Now that the category rename of "Acne" to "Acne-related skin conditions" has been approved (see [2]), when and how does the actual renaming happen? Thanks again. kilbad (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Should be happening soon. There is a bot that performs the move; it's all completely automated and works really well. I've placed it in the work queue for the bot to move everything, but the bot seems to be stalled. You can check on it here. Sometimes the bot stalls for a few hours but then continues on as if nothing happened, so I'm hoping it will happen soon. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. kilbad (talk) 12:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Quick question

Were you planning on notifying the creator(s) of the drunk-driving cats about the CFD? I was about to do it myself, but I thought I'd ask first... Cgingold (talk) 13:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I was going to in the next 24 hours. I was going to turn in to bed right now and do it tomorrow, so feel free to go ahead and do it before then if you like. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll leave it for you then. Cgingold (talk) 14:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

D&D → Dungeons & Dragons

I'm responding to your question in CFD, since it was closed before I got the chance. The empty categories exist because they could become populated at any time as articles are assessed, and if they were deleted they'd need to be recreated again when an article is added to the cat. Article assessments are in a constant state of flux, so just having the categories created, even if they aren't currently being used, makes assessment easier to manage. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies; I couldn't tell whether you meant the Bottom-Class categories themselves or just lower-Class categories in general. The Bottom-Class was just recently created, so it hasn't had time to become more fully populated. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanations. That explains what I was wondering about. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Rmoval of "Christian philosophy" from "Latter Day Saints doctrines beliefs and practices".

I notice that you reverted my removal of this category from "Christian philosophy", noting that they are Christian. No disagreement there, the issue is that "doctrines, beliefs and practices" aren't philosophy. Thanks,--Editor2020 (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I see you've revised the categories somewhat, which is good. I think formerly this was the most applicable category, so I'm glad you've changed it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

British people of X descent

Hi. Regarding this discussion, I'm wondering how I might go about making a wider nomination. Presumably I need to nominate all the sub-categories of Category:English people by ethnic or national origin, Category:Welsh people by ethnic or national origin, Category:Scottish people by ethnic or national origin and Category:Northern Irish people by ethnic or national origin for a merger into Category:British people by ethnic or national origin? Do I need to list every category individually? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You could just list them all together under one large nomination; that would probably be the best approach rather than numerous individual nomination. That way people can make one comment and they can apply to all. Users that frequent CfD get upset if users nominate categories but don't list them there (and, to be fair, listing them there is part of the formal nomination process), so be sure to list them all that you nominate, even if it makes the nomination extremely long. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I might leave it a while because I don't have the time to be doing that right now. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10