User talk:Good Olfactory/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Good Olfactory. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Thanks

Didn't have time to check the source, just trying to de-orphan new article Richard and Joan Ostling and found a recently deleted reference. ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It looked of fairly questionable relevance to me for that article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

evangelical

Hello,

I noticed that you have been removing this category on a number of individuals. I'm not sure if I understand you rationale. Which denominations or self-described individuals qualify?Brian0324 (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The ones I removed seemed to be "evangelicals" in the sense of being "missionaries", but not members of a self-identified "Evangelical" faith. Missionaries are better placed in Category:Christian missionaries. The ones I removed I seem to remember seeing that they belonged more centrally to another denomination — Baptist, Presbyterian, etc. If you ask me about a specific article I may be able to speak more specifically; I've been doing quite a few edits lately so I'm not sure exactly which one you might be referring to. It is possible I made a mistake. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen this? (List of evangelical Christians). You might have your work cut out for you if the definition is too narrow.Brian0324 (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing small "e" evangelical with captial "E" Evangelical. "evangelical" Christians are missionary Christians; "Evangelical" Christians are denominational, or at least pseudo-denominational. You can be Presbyterian and evangelical but you can't really be Presbyterian and Evangelical (at least in most cases). I'm sorting these into nationality by Evangelical. If they are evangelical, it seems to me that they are better served by Category:Christian missionaries in order to avoid confusion. Again, it would help if I knew what article you are referring to; it's possible I made a mistake. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

How about Jonathan Edwards (theologian)?Brian0324 (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

He seems more Calvinist/Congregationalist in orientation to me. He certainly was an evangelical missionary, but I personally wouldn't include him in Category:American Evangelicals but would include him in Category:American missionaries. Feel free to place him in it though if you disagree. It's possible you could get away with classifying him as an early prototype Evangelical. As I class these by nationality I won't remove any others — I'll leave that to another day when I can take more time to think them out individually. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Garrison Keillor

Category:Plymouth Brethren people should be removed too: Be my guest.
- I did already, thanks, as it hardly seems defining for him. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

hardly qualifies as "original research": But it does qualify as unsourced. Ward3001 (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, see your talk page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Yes it is unsourced. What is your source that he considers himself evangelical or Evangelical, or any other religious persuasion besides Episcopal? It's unsourced. I am officially Catholic, but that doesn't make me a Papist. Ward3001 (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    - What I mean is if (hypothetically) the Category:Plymouth Brethren people applies to an article, so too can an "Evangelical" by nationality category, because Plymouth Brethren is an Evangelical faith. In this case, the point is moot because obviously the Plymouth Brethren category was misapplied. You're got the analogy backwards — what you should really say is you are Catholic and therefore you are Christian. Plymouth Brethren is the more narrow category, Evangelical is the broader, just as Papist is more narrow than Catholic. Thanks for your input, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
      - Where you are making a false assumption is in the personal beliefs of any individual if those beliefs have not been espoused by the person. Even if he were still officially Plymouth Brethren, simply because someone grew up in a certain denomination and happens to still belong doesn't mean that person has any particular personal belief. My Catholicism doesn't make me a transubstantiationist, and to say that I am assumes that you (or anyone) can get inside my head and know what I believe. Now if Keillor has written or spoken about his religious beliefs and that can be documented, fine. But if he (or any other person you may have assigned to that category) has not spoken about his/her personal beliefs, leave it out. Ward3001 (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
        Sorry, but you're confusing the broad and narrow categories again. All Catholics are Christians, but not all Catholics are transsubstantiationists. Whether it's true that a particular Catholic believes in Jesus and is therefore a Christian is another issue, but nevertheless if they are included in a Catholics category they are by default included in a Christians category as well. To argue that every person placed in a narrow category needs independent sourcing to also be a part of the broader category brings the entire WP categorization scheme into question, which is beyong the scope of what can be solved here on my talk page. Thanks for your efforts, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

categorization (2)

Although I'm sure you meant well, I have undone your sub-categorization of Zoroastrians by citizenship. Besides the fact that its not generally useful (religion and citizenship are not interrelated), its particularly not useful in this case as there are altogether less than 200,000 Zoroastrians worldwide and the category is already sub-categorized along the lines of meaningful factors. For instance (and a very prominent example), there will probably only ever be one notably Swedish Zoroastrian and it really does not make sense to create a category for one person alone. On the other hand, 99% of all the biographies of Zoroastrians of the Indian subcontinent, but which is incidentally not only more than just Indian nationality, but also that nationality might not be unambiguously assigned to people who lived before 1947. Thank you for taking the trouble though. -- Fullstop (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In light of Category:People by nationality and religion, why would it not be useful? It could be useful if you were navigating through categories by nationality. It's a debatable point, is it not? Rather than simply undoing my edits, I think you need to propose a WP:CFD and make your arguments there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In light of the fact that category Zoroastrians is already more-or-less organized by geographic origin, you might have recognized that what you were doing was pointless (and as your undos demonstrate, also erroneous) if you had read the relevant articles and category headers.

That notwithstanding, I must admit to being quite surprised by your supposition that you know what the RightThing(TM) is but someone who deals with the topic every day doesn't. My initial talk comment to you was a courtesy, but evidently not an approach you are familiar with. I would have filed the CfDs anyway. Ah well.

-- Fullstop (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

?? No discourtesy was intended by me in my comments or actions — I think I am just of a differing opinion than you, that's all. I was under the understanding that the proper method when there is a category dispute is through a CFD, not through manual emptying of categories. I didn't say there was a "right" decision on the issue or that your opinion was invalid, but I do think there is a correct WP procedure to be followed in this case, is there not? I didn't take any offence at your initial courtesy notification to me and I am surprised that you are offended seemingly because we simply disagree. I'm sorry if you've been offended by this.

Incidentally, I did see the explanations at the headers of Category:Iranis and Category:Parsis, but I thought those were more enthnic designations than anything else now. In other words, a person can be a Parsi or an Irani and not self identify as a Zoroastrian. A person can abandon Zoroastrianism as a religion and still "be" a Parsi or a Irani. That's my understanding of the difference, anyway. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

it takes 5 seconds to create a category, it takes at least 5 minutes to file a CfD.
have you given any thought to who is going to maintain those categories?
if someone tells you that sub-categorization is pointless, then the least you could do is pay attention and *check*!
this is not a category dispute. I don't really care if you feel some primordial urge to categorize religion by citizenship. Last thing I heard was that passports no longer had that kind of useless information, but if you are convinced otherwise then thats your affair.
I'm sure some people categorize their underwear by the day-of-the-week, but that does not by itself indicate that it is useful to do so.
you are not sub-categorizing by addition, you are sub-categorizing by *reassignment*. In other words, you are enforcing your categorization scheme on everyone else, with no thought as to existing use/purpose.
you don't know what you are doing, but insist on doing it anyway. Fantastic.
evidently you've never had to deal with nationalist agendas. Well, I do. Every mind-blowing day. No thanks to you, it will now be worse.

Well, I've decided that you can hang on to your categories since they evidently give you great joy, and because its too much trouble for me to file a CfD for your lack of circumspection and common sense. I will unfortunately have to compensate for these lapses of yours, and if you have a problem with that, take it to AN/I or Arb or whatever. Read: I'm invoking IAR; common sense has to prevail somewhere.

-- Fullstop (talk) 05:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me as if you are bringing baggage to this issue that go well beyond the edits and categories in question. I'm sorry you are frustrated. I disagree with your assessment of a number of your points above, but I get the impression that you're not interested in a civil discussion of the issues at hand, so thank you for your concern regarding my edits and I hope you can find a way to deal with your issues in and out of WP. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite so. I am indeed bringing baggage to this issue. This is baggage I have to lug around every day, and it is baggage that you are piling up upon.

A couple of simple examples to help you recognize the real world: 1) Neville Wadia married the daughter of the founder of Pakistan. If you were reasonably aware of the wars that play out on WP, you would not have filed him under 'Indian'. 2) Freddy Mercury is already at WP:LAME for the edit wars that play out over his heritage, and -- as the talk page and edit history clearly indicate -- the subject is still not dead.

I should not have to be explaining these things. If an editor comes to you and says DON'T, then don't. There is no benefit whatsoever to what you are doing. All you are doing is raising the specter of nationalism, issues that WP has more than enough of already.

In any case, you are disrupting the 'pedia to make a WP:POINT, and given your insistence on being "right", I will be subsequently reverting on that basis. Like I said, you have a problem with it, take it to AN/I or Arb or whatever. There is no practical use for your sub-categorization and there is a great deal of damage you are doing with it.

While you are free to meander off into the sunset with nary a care for the debris you leave behind, I have to live with your shortsightedness if I let it stay.

-- Fullstop (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I would have appreciated a bit of civility to this discussion. You have come across, rightly or wrongly, as very pompous and angry. I'm sorry you are frustrated, but I would appreciate a stop to the accusations against me and an end to your aggressive and domineering style. I don't think this is at all a matter of me trying to make a WP:POINT — it sounds like you are projecting on to me some of the motivations and emotions brought to some of your old nationalistic battles. All I'm asking is that proper procedure be followed and that you not blank categories and manually empty them. You seem to have time to complain on this page, and it's not that much more effort to start a WP:CFD. We have a disagreement of opinion on whether or not something is useful. It's really that simple, and I find it in extremely bad form for you to assume that you are "right" (or assume that I think I am "right"!) when in reality there is no "right" or "wrong", just different opinions on the question at hand. Perhaps it's an issue of WP:OWNERSHIP over the Zoroastrian articles/categories — whatever — but please, be nice. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand you correctly...

1. First, you are bold and run through a bunch of edits, which is fine by itself. After all, thats all part of the bold, revert, discuss cycle.
2. Then, after having been bold with your arbitrary definition and methodology, and having being reverted (step #2 of the bold, revert, discuss cycle), you now me want to follow your CfD procedure...
- 2.1 for which I would have to first accept that your bold edits were at all meaningful
- 2.2 and which is not the procedure you began when you began your bold edits
- 2.3 but that is purportedly the justification for your undoing my reverts
3. And the reason why my original reverts are not justified is because I am not following your procedure...
- 3.1 which is also a bureaucratic hurdle for everyone but you
- 3.2 but you want me to take your hurdle even though I don't care if those categories exist or not
- 3.3 and take it even though it only takes common sense to recognize that assignment to those categories is problematic.

Is that summary correct?

And somehow ties into a supercilious "[w]e have a disagreement of opinion on whether or not something is useful"?
And somehow explains how you can revoke BRD twice, but still be able to use the word "opinion" without blushing?
And somehow explains a not-underhanded-enough assertion of WP:OWNing while simultaneously "asking" me to be nice.

Please correct me if I have missed something, or do not have it spot on. -- Fullstop (talk) 12:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Good Olfactory is fully entitled, as any editor is, to create and populate Category:Zoroastrians by nationality. The populating merely uses the info already in the articles/categories and could be done by a bot - eg an earlier version of Freddie mercury was in Zoroastrians, English and Indian categories, so it follows that he goes into the 2 cats that GO has used (regardless of any previous controversy - I myself would say that he is British, not English, as he is clearly naturalised British, and there is no such thing to date as naturalised English). Certainly complaints should be via cfd rather than ad hoc; and I can't imagine there would be any objection to Category:Zoroastrians by nationality as it follows the well-established scheme of Category:People by nationality and religion. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

See my comment of 07:49, 21 February 2008 (above).

Evidently (and lucky for you), neither of you actually have to deal with the foaming-at-the-mouth nationalists that I do, and if anything I'd expect people to say "thanks", and not instead make things more difficult.

Needless to say, an 'I don't care whether I foment discord or not' approach, which is the tack that Good Olfactory is taking, is the least desirable of all attitudes when dealing with questions of nationality, ethnicity and religion.

Now iff the world were a perfect place, and I actually had the strong backs to lean up against, that would be one thing. But those strong backs don't exist. The Field Marshal with his handbooks and charts might rightly claim that the "map" says there is no such thing as the Maginot Line. But to the grunt in the trench its a rather different picture.

That said, a demand for adherence to procedure is null and void when the all other procedures are not followed either. There is a) WP:CONSENSUS, b) WP:BRD, c) WP:EDITWAR, d) WP:DISRUPT, e) WP:POINT to include wikilawyering, playing policies against each other, and relying upon the letter of policy as a defense when breaking the spirit of policy. "Being entitled" to do something happens within the boundaries of common sense and social responsibility; ideally with some reflection on (if not gracious/grudging respect for) whoever it is that is actually going to have to live with the broken cutlery when the bull has left the china shop. -- Fullstop (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think your viewpoint has been made clear. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

umm. Meaning what? -- Fullstop (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Meaning, "Thank you; I understand your viewpoint through your above comments.". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

yes, I got that bit. But what is the consequence of your having understood it? :) -- Fullstop (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

can I expect an answer anytime soon? -- Fullstop (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Of what is the consequence? I understand your position — hopefully you understand mine. What happens next, i.e. whether or not you choose to put forward a nomination to formally discuss the categories, is up to you, I think. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Like I said before, I don't care about whether the categories exist or not. They are not on anyone's radar and they'll waste away eventually anyway.

And no, I don't understand the "I don't care whether I foment discord or not" position, nor the "I'll set up the hoops that everyone else must jump through" position, or the "Wikipedia rules are what I define them to be" position.

But (like the lack of familiarity with the subject matter, or basic history or basic geography) those "positions" are not relevant to the question of whether you intend to clean up the article space mess yourself, or whether you expect someone else to clean up after you. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to see any of the "discord" that has been "fomented". If it were an issue for anyone in addition to you, it might be an issue to me, but as it stands, not one other user has made a comment about it to me. So to me, the matter is closed. You may act as you see fit. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints)

Thanks for fixing the reference section. I tried fixing one of the references and I was about to self-revert because I made it worse. I appreciate you fixing it so quickly. Alanraywiki (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't even noticed that you recently made that change! I was just adding a reference for the unreferenced thing you deleted, and then I noticed there was a problem with the ref so I fixed it too. I'm not trying to step on your toes, honest! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Creation and population of Category:SubGenii by nationality and subcategories

Hi, I noticed that several articles I watch were placed in Category:American SubGenii today. Looking through a number of other articles in the category, I do not see any mentions or references connecting the subjects of the articles to the Church of the SubGenius. In several cases I seriously doubt whether the subject of the article is even aware the Church of the SubGenius exists. What criteria are you using to populate the category?

Since there seem to be no verifiable and sourced connections between many or most of the subjects of the articles and the religion, I intend to propose deletion of the category. Assigning membership to a religion which is, in fact, primarily a pop-culture phenomenon and Internet meme without verifiable sourced information violates Wikipedia's policies on the biographies of living people. Please do not continue to do so. --MCB (talk) 07:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I merely took individuals already in Category:SubGenii and divided into "by nationality" categories, and so in that respect I performed more of an administrative division than an application of wholly new categories. I take no position on whether the original category was correctly applied in each case. I suggest you simply delete the category from articles where membership is not sourced. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I saw that you created the nationality subcategory and its parent and thought you had created the original classification. Cheers, MCB (talk) 08:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like it's been around for a good long time. I'm surprised no one else has looked into the appropriateness of the category before. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Only children

Thank you for letting me know. I just figured it might be interesting (but true) trivia. I really have no comments about what you'd like to do with the section, so whatever you decide to do with it is just fine with me. Thank you, jpete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpete (talk • contribs) 20:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Naming Conventions - LDS movement

In regard to your recent changes in categories, you might want to refer to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints). Best wishes. WBardwin (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific, pls? I've been making subcategories of Category:Mormon missionaries, but those merely mirror the name of the parent category. I'm familiar with the Latter Day Saint naming guidelines and don't see that these violate them in any way. "Mormon" missionary here is used to distinguish from "Latter Day Saint" missionary, which is its own parent category at Category:Latter Day Saint missionaries. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No real concerns -- often people confuse "Mormon missionaries" with those who spread the "good news" during the early LDS movement, or those involved in RLDS missionary efforts. In those early years, in some cases, these were actually the same individuals at different points in their lives. I just thought you might want to review the distinctions in terminology used for the various sects in the movement as you select articles for these changes. Appreciate your efforts. Best.........WBardwin (talk) 04:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, OK, thanks. Yes, I'm keeping the distinction in mind. Obviously, those in Category:Latter Day Saint missionaries should not appear in any of the subcategories of Category:Mormon missionaries. If they were a missionary at any time for the LDS Church, they automatically go in the a Mormon missionary category and are no longer included in Category:Latter Day Saint missionaries. That's what the definition directs, anyhow. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This one would be a good example: John Taylor (Latter Day Saints). He was a missionary for the LDS movement, and later a Mormon missionary. So should we set up a separate category for LDS movement missionaries? WBardwin (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There already is one — Category:Latter Day Saint missionaries. But the current defn says to sort by specific church if possible, so he goes in the Mormon category. I suppose this system could be changed, if wanted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Even though the Wiki definitions make fair sense, they can be very awkward from a historic viewpoint. I'd personally like to see these early people in both categories (in a few cases, even three categories), but don't think our current category "tree" would accomodate the idea. WBardwin (talk) 04:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that could get interesting. It probably could be done without too much tweaking, though. All it would really take is a new category for pre-1844 Latter Day Saint missionaries. I'm not sure what you would call it, though. Then Category:Latter Day Saint missionaries could be emptied and just serve as a super-parent for all the categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Renaming

No problem! It's a perfect idea to bring these cats in line! I was only surprised that I have created so much Yugoslavian cats... :) King regards and thanks for your work Doma-w (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Go away

There is absolutely nothing wrong with my categories for NCAA head football coaches. Compare them to others already created. Leave them alone and find something else to do before I start snooping around your creations and edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guru Greek (talk • contribs) 17:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already nominated them for renaming, which is why you got the notices. I did compare them to other similar ones before I nominated them, which is what prompted me to make the nomination. My notices were intended to be a courtesy and were not meant to annoy you. Best wishes, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 19:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your contributions on the categories and articles for LDS and Mormon schools. I appreciate it. I wasn't quite sure what to do, as I'm just working on subcategorizing the Christian universities and colleges category for now. Take care, Good Olfactory! In the words of William Smith, "smell ya later!" Aepoutre (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Notes and References section

Here is the applicable text from WP:layout. Please note section 2.

Quotations (deprecated)

See also

Notes

References (or combined with Notes into Notes and references)

Bibliography (or Books or Further reading)

External links

Note:
1. Although the preferred order is as above, it is permissible to change the sequence of these ending sections. However, if an article has both "Notes" and "References" sections, "Notes" should immediately precede "References".

2. "Notes" is only for footnotes (explanations or comments on any part of the main text). "References" is only for referenced materials (books, websites etc. cited in the main text). Otherwise "Notes and references" should be combined.

Um, yes. That's why we had a Notes section and a References section on that page. Nothing you've written justifies changing anything. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

2. "Notes" is only for footnotes (explanations or comments on any part of the main text). "References" is only for referenced materials (books, websites etc. cited in the main text).

[Bold added by Editor2020]

This means that "reflist" does not belong under "Notes", it belongs under "References". --Editor2020 (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's where it is. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

From the page:

Notes

reflist

Curly brackets removed so it would display.
Is it?--Editor2020 (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you must have been looking at an older page version. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually if you look closer at Wikipedia:Layout#Notes_2 you will see:

This is an example footnote. The "Notes" section generally only requires a <references/> tag or {{reflist}} template. This is automatically populated with <ref> notes made throughout the article.

This explicitly states that the Notes section is where reflist belongs. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; yeah, I saw that, but I just wasn't interested in pressing the point with the other editor. Maybe you could bring it to his/her attention. Thanks, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 19:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert.--Editor2020 (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait up, please!

Hi, and plase take a closer look at what you are doing. In the Category:Romanian Eastern Orthodox Christians, you will see a subcategory for people belonging to the Romanian Orthodox Church. Having included the whole category, there is no need to include individual members, so please stop adding articles to both categories. Dahn (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Not all members of the Romanian Orthodox Church were, by nationality, Romanian. One of the categories is for membership in the church, the other for Romanians of any Orthodox church (not all Romanian Eastern Orthodox Christians are members of the Romanian Orthodox Church, either.) The definitions of the categories set all this out; just examine them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

First, could you please stop adding them as we're having this discussion? Second: both categories are for nationality or ethnicity. The narrower one covers people belonging to the national church - most of them will also be Romanian nationals, and it is absolutely senseless to start including individuals on several levels just because some may happen not to have been Romanian (or Moldavian, or Wallachian). The circumstances of this case make this a complex problem, so please give this more thought before jumping at it and giving other editors a whole lot of changes they may have to revert. Dahn (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Before you jump in and criticise, I would encourage you to examine the category definitions and the entire category tree structure. I'm categorising people by nationality and religion, not by a particular orthodox church. There's a huge difference. There can be members of the ROC who are Canadian, American, Dutch, whatever. That's what the new category is for and it's part of the overall Category:People by nationality and religion. Please also examine Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians by nationality and compare with Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians by jurisdiction. It's two parallel streams, but they don't perfectly overlap. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I would encourage this solution to be applied in all cases (if indeed it ain't). The distinction between "Romanian Orthodox Christians in America" and "other Romanian Orthodox Chrisitans" is not made by a special category, but by including the former in a category for "American Orthodox people". The category you created is actually only useful for people who are Romanian, but not Romanian Orthodox (being Armenian Orthodox or Russian Orthodox or whatnot). Dahn (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And it would seem that the present categorization, with its obscure criteria and artificial separations, is mostly your creation! Just how many of those categories were created by you? Dahn (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

See Category:American Eastern Orthodox Christians. To be comprehensive for Category:Romanian people by religion, we need the parallel category for people of Romanian citizenship. You can't have Americans and Canadians etc. as a subcategory of Romanian people by religion. I have to run now. Sorry, but if you disagree with any category, please take it to WP:CFDs rather than commenting here. The boat's already left the dock and that would be the next stop. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not? All categories meet on some level, and, in may cases, categorization is inexact that way (a notorious example is the category for Jews, where people are understood as Jews under the national definition, the religious definition, or both - an example where people may be "incorrectly" placed in a category where they do not belong). Don't tell me about CfD: if you didn't get me the first time, I'm telling you again that the categories are fine, but how you categorize is redundant and leads to articles being lost. I am also telling you that you manifestly have no idea about what the logic is in the Romanian case, and have approached no one to discuss it before you started operating your criteria (which may work for religions in the Western world): the Romanian Church is a national church (does America have one?); although, like Romania itself, it was created in the late 19th century, it would be impossible to categorize people before that date by any other criterion; and, finally, the Romanian Orthodox Church is not the only orthodox church in Romania. Dahn (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We must be talking past each other, because we're both claiming the same thing will result, and if I'm understanding your position correctly your position cannot support what you say; in fact, it adds strength to what I'm claiming (i.e. the fact that there are multiple orthodox churches in Romania only strengthens my argument that we need a category for Romanian nationals to be classed as part of an orthodox church and not limit it to a category for one specific church). Perhaps you're not understanding the exact distinction between the categories and their definitions in the way I am understanding them. In any case there appears to be a bit of a misunderstanding somewhere along the line, which is why CFD would be preferable to this (i.e., other editors could be involved).

Not categorizing with a parallel system will cause articles to be "lost" within the schemes. What do you do with a Romanian national who is a member of the Serbian Orthodox Church? — without Category:Romanian Eastern Orthodox Christians they are left out of Category:People by nationality and religion. That may be fine with you, but there's nothing wrong with other editors wanting the system to be more comprehensive and intuitive, either. Similarly, an American national who is a member of the Romanian Orthodox Church will be mischaracterized as a Romanian national if the distinction is not made. That is not OK, in my opinion, but if I understand you correctly you've said such "inexactitudes" should be overlooked. If you compare the contents of Category:Greek Eastern Orthodox Christians with Category:Greek Orthodox Christians, though, it will illustrate the divergent results that are made by categorizing by jurisdiction or by nationality. If you don't like the way I categorize, bring it up in CFD, that's what it's for, I believe, and I say that with sincerity and with a belief in its utility and not with the desire to brush you off. There's no rule that says every category addition needs to be discussed beforehand and I have as much a right as any other editor to create categories and new schemes. The community can discuss the appropriateness of them at CFD if another editor has a problem with it, and it tends to work very well from what I've seen. The "D" is for "discussion", not just "deletion".

Anyway, I realise it's disturbing to have an editor making edits to pages you are familiar with that you may not understand, but unfortunately for all of us (I know it happens to me), that's the nature of WP!

I'm not terribly interested in continuing the discussion here, but feel free to deal with the category in the way you see fit according to your understanding. Best wishes, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Using Template:Cfd-notify

Hey there! I just came across another CFD notice you posted, and discovered that there was a slight problem (which I've already taken care of) due to not "substituting" the template -- which causes the newly created section to link to Template:Cfd-notify! (yikes) Anyhow, I've clarified the instructions for using the template, so hopefully future users won't run into that problem -- you weren't the first! :) Regards, Cgingold (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for catching this and letting me know. I'll be more careful of things like that in the future. "subst:" will be my new friend. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Malyali writers

I agree with you in changing the name of the category Malayali Writers in to Malayali writers but not Malayali wrtiers as you mentioned in name changing proposal. Kuzhinapurath (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course you're right. My typo. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Greek Orthodox Christians or Greek Eastern Orthodox Christians?

Hi, do you think the intersections of the various Greek Orthodox categories is currently working properly? I'm looking at the Category:Greek Orthodox Christians, and I would have thought this would automatically make you a member of the relevant Eastern Orthodox Christian category. For an example, look at a British Greek Orthodox person like the co-founder of London's St Sophia Cathedral, Michel Emmanuel Rodocanachi. As a result of the latest categorisations he is now a member of categories for:

British Greeks
Greek Orthodox Christians
Greek Eastern Orthodox Christians
British Eastern Orthodox Christians

This proliferation leaves me somewhat confused! Ephebi (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Refer to the definitions at the top of the categories. The ones that end in "...Eastern Orthodox Christians" are nationality categories. The other ones are by jurisdiction categories. I included him in both nationality categories b/c it wasn't clear from the article whether he was Greek or British, or both. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Località of Italy

Cheers - yes, a redirect was the effect I was wanting, I just wasn't sure whether they worked with cats so I did it the cautious way rather than break something. ;-/ FlagSteward (talk) 11:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

private

please check your email, thx. Jeh akuse (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand, thanks. I'm just not sure that's the proper way to go about things. You should go through the proper channels, otherwise it just seems strange and can appear to be vandalism to outsiders who don't know what's going on. That's what I thought it was, at least. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please check your email again, thx. Granted, I might have done the same thing as you, under similar circumstances. It is a complicated and and difficult situation, but doesn't appear to be at first glance. Jeh akuse (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Even so, I'll take my chances with following proper procedure. Personally, I don't think it's really my place to be trying to police that kind of thing or predict what might happen. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And now that I see you've been blocked, I'm glad I followed my intuition on the issue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Sex and the Law

When I made that category I thought I was doing something useful. But now I realize that the categories are repeated elsewhere under the parent category. I could not figure out a good way to organize the differenct categories. Maybe you could take a look and have better luck. Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 02:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'll look at is more closely. I was just nominating it for a speedy rename to make the caps the same as the article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it because that's what we do after a speedy rename. :) It was moved to Category:Sex and the law per the request. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. It's just that is was only listed a few hours earlier, and usually it takes at least 48 hours so I was surprised at the speed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well. I have no life. :) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I know the feeling. :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Children's Museums in New York City

thanks for your help (and the previous edits) with this one. It's my first category and I'm still trying to figure out exactly how categories work. If I don't object to the speedy rename, do I have to do anything? TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope; it will sit there for about 2 days or so and then the change will be made unless someone objects there. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 14:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! That's one area of WP I don't really understand since I don't deal in categories much TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

UCC Members

Hi again, I think my comment went awry - here it is again:

You moved Gabriel Fackre from the United Church Members to American Protestants and to American Congregationalists categories. I would ask that you undo that, for a couple of reasons. The UCC is a denomination comprised of several denominations, including Congregationalism, but it is intentionally more than that one denomination. Gabriel Fackre came to the UCC from the Evangelical and Reformed tradition, and not the Congregationalists, but is neither - he is a member of the United Church of Christ. For that reason, he does not belong in the Congregationalist subcategory. And for that reason he could be in an American Protestant category, but more specifically should be in the UCC membership category again. Staying in the UCC is a loyal choice of his, as he remains a clarion voice for its theology and doctrine. He is the foremost theologian in the denomination, speaking as he does to the UCC's ecumenism and orthodoxy. I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia to know the protocol and nuances of the "undo" edit feature, so wanted to write to you directly first to explain his categorization and ask that you put him back under the UCC Members page.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brastedian (talk • contribs) 17:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have made zero edits to the Gabriel Fackre page, as you can see from the edit history. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

AQ

Hah, I didn't realise how many terrorists' articles I'd crated until you completely SPAMMED my watched-articles list with hundreds of changes, thanks for the work :) Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 04:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol, sorry about that. Just doing some sorting by nationality. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

question...

I too noticed you made a lot of effort changing categories, as in this instance.

Sorry, I have a problem with this addition. Should Slahi have been in a category that asserted he was a terrorist in the first place -- or merely in one that categorized him as an alleged terrorist?

I don't think there was any meaningful proof he was a terrorist. I don't think there is any meaningful proof he was a member of al Qaeda.

I have discussed similar efforts, by other wikipedians, who said, (paraphrasing): "I am not making a judgment call on whether the subject is or is not a terrorist. I am merely reorganizing the category."

Well, I don't think that is a wise approach. I don't think we should change how an article is categorized, unless we understand why it was in original category, and unless we can defend why it belongs in the new category. Deferring to the judgment of someone else, that a subject belong in some category, and assuming it belongs in a similar category, is a mistake. The person who placed it in the original category could have been mistaken. Or new information may have come to light that changed whether its placement in the original category was appropriate. Or they may be something subtle that meant it the article really did belong in the original category, but doesn't belong in the new category -- that can only be appreciated if one understands why it was placed in the original category.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 05:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Make any changes you see fit. My judgment is far from infallible and I'm just doing my best, but I'm happy to see input/changes from others. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Islamic University in Uganda, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified. If it has not been already, it may be removed if the category has not been deemed correct for the subject matter. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you'd care to inform me why it would not fit in Category:Islam in Uganda. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you are right. The category is Ok. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Renames

Thanks I appreciate the heads-up; I'm only choosing categories that are clearly a violation of some well-established rule - obviously, one needs to have some pretty sharp judgement about what should and should not be renamed and what constitutes controversial renaming. Again, I appreciate your kind intervention. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, much thanks I noticed you fixed some of my "Islands" errors, and I am presently cleaning up some sloppiness due to a move I just did. Clearly, I need to be more judicious as I will not always have someone else looking over my shoulder. Your criticism is well-placed and well-taken. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your taking my comments in the spirit they are given. I don't mean to be critical of your efforts, I just think observing the time rule is a good idea 100% of the time. It's not a big hassle to wait 48 hours. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure Can you give me an example of a rename with which you disagree and why? If you are referencing the DR Congo moves, that's why I stopped; I too was a bit hesitant about how I was moving them and recognized that it probably wasn't wise. I realize that process is important, but at the same time WP:Be bold, right? If there is already a standard and a category is clearly breaking it, I don't see the point of waiting for a CfD. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The "São Tomé and Príncipe" ==> São Toméan ones. Why? Because it's not clear if it's proper to use "São Tomén" or "Santomean" or just use the full name of the country as the adjective has been the consensus in the past from some CFDs. Really, it shouldn't matter which ones I personally disagree with. The point is that CFDs, either speedy or full as appropriate, should be proposed for changes like this. Even minor spelling errors are supposed to be proposed and sit for 48 hours. WP:BOLD does not mean you skirt accepted procedures that are there for a number of reasons. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay Your example is germane, but I don't see any "Santomean" categories, whereas there were "São Tomén" as I recall. That having been said, even if there weren't, you could propose to change the "São Tomén"s to "Santomean"s; either way, they definitely shouldn't be at "São Tomé and Príncipe," right? -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

See, this is the whole point. This debate should be undertaken in a CFD, not between me and you. It's not right. In the past, CFDs have decided that the full name of the country should be used as the adjective to avoid confusion! That's the issue that would be discussed in a CFD. It's not for you or me or anyone else to change them unilaterally when they already exist. Please stop migrations now. I also suggest you help me reverse your changes. I'm not sure I understand why it's such a burden to follow the procedures. They are there for a reason! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay In an effort of conciliation, I'll reverse the ones related to São Tomé and Príncipe, and I'll make some listings on CfD. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I wish it were done in a new spirit of desiring to follow the rules, though and not just because you got called on it and want to be conciliatory. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome Well, I'm willing to agree to disagree, but your point is legitimate in this case; these are mostly done and I'm going to CfD with them. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please also reverse the "Bosnia and Herzegovina" ==> "Bosnian and Herzegovinian" and the "Trinidad and Tobago" ==> "Trinidadian and Tobagonian" examples. The principle is the same for these combined-word nationalities — it's not indisputable that you've chosen the one that consensus will agree to. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

See my post At Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy#Add_requests_for_speedy_renaming_here; I will abide by any kind of consensus and assist in moving however is necessary. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And again See the above link; discussion is there now, unless you need to contact me personally and directly. I hope this is acceptable and clear. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Responding from my talk

Can do Your suggestion is taken in a spirit of good-faith. I won't do it immediately, as it's 5:30 in the morning for me and, as you said, I have something else going on Wikipedia-wise, but I will list them in short order. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Cassandra Latham

I know Cassandra personally and I can assure you she isn't Wiccan. A witch, yes, not Wiccan though. -- Roleplayer (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Neopagan over Wiccan category is appropriate then, as you've done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Gibraltar

I see you have created a category for Gibraltarian Roman Catholics I would question the validity of this as its the majority religion here and there are only two listed, so its rather like black presidential candidates In the case of Peter Caruana his main claim to fame is as a politican and although he attends church, he is not prominent as such. Gibraltarian people is a more important classification and I have restored that reference.

As you are an ading and know about categories, can you help me on another matter, there is a category of American and Iberian Britons which seems to have been applied to all Gibraltarian people. Although Gibraltarians are British Citizens, I take the word 'Briton' to mean someone from Great Britain, which is inappropriate as they are of Gibraltar not Britain.

How can this category be removed easily to correct this? Maybe you have a tool to do that as otherwise its a lot of work !

--Gibnews (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

With respect to the first issue, it's just one part of Category:Roman Catholics by nationality and Category:People by nationality and religion; it's quite normal to have such categories for the majority religion in nationalities: see, e.g., Category:Indian Hindus; Category:American Christians; Category:English Anglicans; Category:Israeli Jews; Category:Pakistani Muslims; etc. As part of an overall categorisation scheme it matters not if there are few entries in it; with time it could certainly grow. You may be right that its not defining for Caruana, though — if not, I wonder why it's mentioned in the article about him. Many people argue that religion is defining for politicians in the eyes of some who base voting patterns on it. He doesn't need to be in Category:Gibraltarian people, though, because he's already in two subcategories for something that is defining for him — being a Gibraltarian politician. It's normal to divide the general "people" categories down into the subcategories and not leave them in the more general category.

As for the second issue, I'll have to look more closely. I'm not sure how "Briton" is typically used in WP — I agree that it could be interpreted as someone from "Britain" but I wonder if editors use it to mean British subjects. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Rollback

No problem. I reviewed most of your credentials and you were a good candidate for the tool. Contact me if there are any problems. Regards, Rudget . 12:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Christian Anarchists

I'll grant you that Utah Phillips, Dorothy Day, and Ammon Hennacy can be considered to be Christian anarchists, but why did you remove them from the anarchists category? Pustelnik (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Because Christian anarchists is a subcategory of the anarchists. If you feel they belong in both — i.e., they were active in the anarchist movement in the non-Christian anarchist area, by all means that would be OK too. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar'd!

		The Barnstar of Good Humour
		For having one of the more unusual and amusing usernames I've come across. Oh how I love double entendres. faithless (^speak) 17:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If you ever want a good username, just look to the cranial nerves ... some good comedy gold possibilities with all of those. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Greetings! May I ask a favor?

I noted that you had added a World Council of churches category to the page I have been editing the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). Thanks! My Goal is to bring that article up to Feature article standards. Would you take a look at it and make any suggestions which you may have? Again, Thanks! John Park (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I get a chance. Thanks for inviting me! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Great!John Park (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions posted on my talk page! I wanted a knowlegable perspective and I obviously got it. From my POV, it is a plus that you are not totally familiar with The Christian Church (Disciples). It helps assure that the article is adequately descriptive. Thanks for the affirmation that I am on the right track! I would have totally missed the lead sentence issue. The current beliefs suggestion will need some thought, but I agree it needs to be there. Perhaps I can find a Disciples Theologian or two to help write it for us. Again, thanks! I'll let you know when I think I am ready for the article to be nominated for review.John Park (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Rename: Category:African Cinema to Category:African cinema

Thanks for catching this, don't know what I was doing at that point. T L Miles (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:People from Salt Lake City, Utah

WP has, it appears, made the decision to use Category:People from Salt Lake City, Utah to classify everyone who is from Salt Lake County, Utah. This may not be 100% accurate in your mind, which is fine. But until this changes and you or someone else goes through the category and re-classifies people as belonging in Category:People from Salt Lake County, Utah, there is no point having the empty category that does not redirect. It should redirect because now those who could be placed in that category are in Category:People from Salt Lake City, Utah. Hope this helps explain the situation. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not fine, because it's less than 20% accurate (that is the proportion of people from Salt Lake County that are also from Salt Lake City). Schiptuin (talk)

It's used in the colloquial sense, not in the technical sense. You are technically right, but if someone is from Salt Lake County it's still widely acceptable to say they are from "Salt Lake City". The only people who this upsets are the people from the area who have local pride in their own little communities. In WP, I think it's a non-issue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"Widely accepted" colloquialisms are often used in conversation, even if they are inaccurate. However, this isn't casual conversation -- it's an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Schiptuin (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you from the area? I suspect people from the area are the only ones who don't refer to a "greater" SLC area in this way. Encyclopedias can reflect common usages and understandings, and the overwhelmingly common usage is to refer to "people from SLC" if they are from SL County. This is an encyclopedia for anyone in the world, not just for those from SL County. Your technical point could be added to the article about Salt Lake County or Salt Lake City, though, where such details would be appropriate. We generally don't try to deal with such minutiae in categories, though.

In any case, the category's been speedily deleted since it was empty for 4+ days. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Grikor Suni

You added the category Armenian Apostolic Christians to the article Grikor Suni, which already had category Armenian Oriental Orthodox Christians and a stub {{OrientalOrthodoxy-stub}}. Do you have any evidence for this? As far as I know, Grikor Suni was a communist, a believer in the Soviet system, and therefore probably not very religious. --Lambiam 01:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope. I was just organising Category:Oriental Orthodox Christians by nationality. Feel free to delete the religion categories if they are unjustified. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

José Dimas Cedeño Delgado

About the speedy tagging, sorry I saw the archdiocese and missed the panama bit. I've detagged it. BigHairRef | Talk 03:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Civility Award

		Civility Award
		Awarded for your courtesy at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 25#Category:Iowa secretaries of state. One of the nicest "arguments" I've had in a while. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 09:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tim! I've enjoyed that debate too and I think you made some great points and I'm glad things could remain civil and no one took any of the comments "personally". Best wishes, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Cardinals created by Pope Pius XII

Yes, please go ahead! Thank's --Ambrosius007 (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Cats

Category:Jewish Christians was restored, so there should be no reason why you cannot start Category:Jewish Buddhists. -- Avi (talk) 05:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

But I would counsel extreme care as to whom you put in, and ensure that there is proper sourcing, as there is bound to be WP:BLP and WP:NPOV issues with some potential members. -- Avi (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I wasn't really intending on starting it; I just thought it may have been deleted before and I couldn't find the discussion. Thanks for responding. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

A pleasure :) -- Avi (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Good Olfactory. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→