User talk:Good Olfactory/Archive 14

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 10

←

Archive 12

→

Talkback

Hello, Good Olfactory. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working.
Message added 18:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nomination of Westboro Baptist Church (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Westboro Baptist Church (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westboro Baptist Church (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

MOS:LDS

ARTEST4ECHO, in a talkpage post today, desires to take mos:lds back to where it was in the first place. If you agree with him, at least in part, I hope you'll chime in, in support of his opinions.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

3RR Anonymous

Hi, my name is Good Olfactory and I violate 3RR. (Hi Good Olfactory.) I violate 3RR because it makes me feel good for a little while—especially while I'm doing it—and it takes away the pain of dealing with users with obvious agendas and fixing up their messes a week from now instead of immediately, when I have the time. Do I regret it—yes, but only in the sense that I regret being involved in Wikipedia at all. Obviously, the fact that my dad did 3RR all the time doesn't help me, but I can't blame him, or my genetics, or the WP society for mistreating me. Admins, please enter your informative block information below, and thanks for joining the crusade. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Block

Category:Uncredited remakes in Malayalam

Hello editor. You unpopulated the Category:Uncredited remakes in Malayalam. Can you please tell me why? I am not familiar with the wiki guidelines on categories. May be there is a genuine reason. If what you did is right, I wish to do a db-author on the category. But before that, I wish I knew what went wrong. Please dont take me on the offensive. Thanks. Austria156 (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

:~)

Thanks, Good Ol'factory!--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The Mormon Worker

With only 6 printings in 4 years of ~2000 copies each (and no publication at all since Summer 2009), how does this sub-sub-culture community newsletter (posing as a newspaper) have enough notability to merit it being added to Template:LDSChurchpubs? I just don't get it; it seems that The Mormon Worker should be AFD'ed instead. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be fine with me (the AFD, that is). I figure if something is notable enough to have an article, it's notable enough to go in the template, since on balance there are so few Latter Day Saint periodicals. But you are correct that it may not be notable enough to justify the article. I've really never heard of The Mormon Worker before until I saw the article, so I would have nothing much to contribute to an AFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It's notability apparently comes from it's online community, rather than the essentially dead news~~paper~~letter that brought together that community. After reading a recent comment added to that articles talk page, I don't think I could successfully AFD it, but since it's not notable as a printed publication, can we get it off the template? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Is the template intended to be limited to print publications? If so, then it probably should be removed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it is; the only part of the blogernacle that is mentioned is Mormon Times, which is also a print publication. I have removed The Mormon Worker from the template & the template from The Mormon Worker article. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, sounds fine. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking for an admin to check me on something

A couple of editors have questioned my actions on Talk:2011 Libyan civil war, and so I'm hoping to get a couple of unbiased admins to take a look at what I did and tell me if I did something wrong. There was a very long debate about changing the page's name here, which I closed in the way I did because 75% of the votes were in favor of some form of "civil war" name. Then the page was relisted for change here, and after a week in which the oppose votes significantly outnumbered the support votes, I closed that one as no consensus. Two editors objected that since I closed the first nomination, I shouldn't have closed the second. Since I don't want this to be about me, can you look at it and see if you would have come to the same conclusion on the secondnomination? Even if you wouldn't have, I'd like to know about it. Also, if there are other admins you know that might be willing to weigh in, I'd appreciate it. Thanks in advance.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

"Mormon Church"

Would you look at Talk:The Family: A Proclamation to the World, I have been attempting to implement the "New Consensus" regarding the MOS and these two users are still arguing about using "[[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint (known as the Mormon Church). It would be helpful to have someone else comment.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 18:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy criteria

Can you please explain why you reverted my edit to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy criteria? Your edit summary seemed pretty meaningless. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The proposed change was not discussed, as far as I could see. Proposed changes to the criteria should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Speedy criteria. You did raise the issue here, but it did not provoke a discussion. So you rightly implemented the proposal, but my reversion then acts as notice that I think the issue should be discussed. If you raised it again on the talk page, I would have something to add to the discussion. I don't necessarily disagree with the proposal as such, I just think it would be best if discussion did occur. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Horse breeds of Austria, Horse breeds of Italy

Hi! You've proposed speedily renaming these categories. I've left brief objections in the speedy candidates page. The history of the area is complex, the horses stayed in one place but the borders moved back and forth. There's a disclaimer on each category to explain that. Suggest leaving them alone. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Similar issues have been extensively discussed. Consensus has been to rename them for the sake of consistency in the category tree. Any caveats can be placed in the category definition. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been arguing this with you category people for quite some time now, and I know I've lost the battle in the past, but once again, you see my objections to this whole "originating in" problem -- national boundaries and even cultural boundries shift! But for now, at a minimum, can you just please NOT remove breeds from the parent category Horse breeds like you did with the "horse breeds originating in Australia" category that someone just randomly created? At WPEQ, we desperately need all the breed articles to be in the master "horse breeds" cat for organizational purposes. I know that this is not normally WP procedure, but it is almost impossible to review all the known breed articles so that we can compare the cats to our list of horse breeds any other way, especially once they get moved into a dozen different cats. I really am not a fan, personally, or "animals in (nation x)" in general for this, but if we can at least keep the organizational structure we need for the things we need it for, the people who must Balkanize everything can do so to their hearts content. Not my fight. (At least, until that Slovenian nationalist comes back and the Lipizzan article heats up again) Montanabw^(talk) 00:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest this issue be taken to CFD, where it belongs, not on my talk page. You are correct that it is not normal for every article to be placed in a subcategory as well as a parent category. I see no reason why these should be different. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Better if you just go ahead and delete the categories, then – preferable to having them misleadingly named. The same information is already included in lists and navboxes, so no great loss. I had an idea we were supposed to be improving navigability here, not making it worse? But no matter.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Categories are largely organizational and navigation tools; their names are not always definers of absolute truth. For that reason, consistency in naming within a category tree is almost always preferred over a hodge-podge of naming formats in order to promote accuracy. I cannot just delete the categories unless they are nominated for deletion. A category creator is able to request deletion by tagging them with the appropriate speedy deletion template. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ty. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

GOF, I see you are doing the same thing to the cattle breeds, there is a serious "it ain't broke, why are you fixing it?" problem here. Just because the animal breeds people want national categorization in the overall cat, this does not mean that the individual animal articles themselves in other wikiprojects want that type of organization imposed upon them without discussion. If the goal is to improve navigability, it's not working in this case. I personally have given up on the naming issue (fought that war, lost it) but to go and mess up a perfectly good categorization tree is really annoying. Can you at least have WikiProject Equine the courtesy of letting us discuss how we can manage the articles within the scope of our project? I'm sure you mean well, but this is creating a lot of work for other people. Montanabw^(talk) 20:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You and any Wikiproject can discuss whatever you want and then you can also nominate categories for deletion if you decide that you don't like them. There has never been a requirement for category structures to be discussed before being implemented. You might find the extension of the scheme to include cattle breeds to be annoying, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily wrong. Placing articles in subcategories is hardly "messing things up" from an objective standpoint, so it may in this case be worthwhile to consider the possibility that opinions may differ on the matter. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Wiltshire Horn

Just to let you know that when you added Category:Animal breeds originating in England to the Wiltshire Horn article, you forgot to remove Category:Animal breeds originating in the United Kingdom, which of course includes the former cat within it.

Incidentally, I realise there are lots of cattle breeds to be added to the England one – I'll try to do a few when I get the time. Also several chicken breeds which need to moved to the subordinate chicken cat. Regards, Richard New Forest (talk) 08:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the one you removed was Category:Sheep breeds originating in the United Kingdom — a different category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I see – sorry. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The entire tree has been a bit of a mess, but it's difficult to make any changes to the category system because some users get nervous when that starts to happen (see section above). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Brazilian Catholics

Category:Brazilian Catholics, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 08:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

General Authorities and OR.

I made the changes in birth year based upon ages given for new General Authorities in the Church News. So, technically, it was not OR. On the other hand, I see no source given for the birth months you entered. The user with only an IP address who claimed the May Ensign was online didn't cite a source to prove that either. This confuses me. Any clarification you can offer would be appreciated. Sorry to be a pest, but I feel sources need to be cited. Also, you accidentally erased the "i" in J. Devin Cornish's name, so it appeared as "J. Devn Cornish." I went ahead and fixed that. Sorry for troubling you, but I felt my confusion warranted a personal note. Hope all is well with you. Keep up the great work! --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The birth months are from the May 2011 Liahona or Ensign, both of which are available at liahona.lds.org and ensign.lds.org. Since the birth date doesn't appear as text on the page and only is used in calculating age and tenure length, I'm not sure we use a cite for them, but I guess we could. But calculating a birth year from a given age is OR, because it typically results in the wrong year being entered.

I purposefully erased the "i" in the name because his name is "J. Devn Cornish": see here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for spouting off the way I did. I had a full head of steam when I wrote my comment, and I took it out on you. I'm sorry. I felt stupid when I found out for myself about Elder Cornish. And I see what you mean by your comments about OR. As I said, with no exact date available, I made an estimate on the year based on what their ages were as given in the Church News. Sorry I was in error about that. I was wrong and made a foolish mistake. Please forgive me, and please keep up the good work. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I do agree that "Devn" is a very unusual name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, on another note, you and I had a rather lively discussion in the past about whether Emeritus General Authorities were still members of the First Quorum of the Seventy. One of the claims you made at that time was that quorum membership of seventies quorums could not exceed 70. You claimed that since the Presidency of the Seventy were members of the First Quorum of the Seventy, membership in that quorum could not and would not exceed 63 (63 in the First Quorum + 7 presidents = 70 members total). It might interest you to know that with the new members sustained in General Conference, the First Quorum now numbers 64. If you add the 7 presidents to that (agreeing as I do that the Presidency counts in the membership of the First Quorum since that's where they're all from) the total is 71. I have no desire to reopen that discussion. I just thought it was an interesting note. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess the LDS Church has well and truly just entered into apostasy. :)

Not re-opening as you say, but I'd also note in October 2010 G.C. it was stated: "It is proposed that we release Elders Spencer J. Condie, [and others] as members of the First Quorum of the Seventy and designate them as emeritus General Authorities." At least they finally have their terminology correct. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Confusing edit

Please explain Hutterites are a classic example of Christian communists--why the revert? Please respond on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Jewish economists

Hello,
I saw that you deleted the category mentioned above, and read the deletion discussion. I must say I strongly disagree with the decision that was made.
Perhaps you will be able to explain to me why categories such as Jewish architects, Jewish astronauts and Jewish fashion designers are acceptable, but not Jewish economists.
I would also thank you if you'll be kind enough to tell me how to start a discussion about putting the category back up.
Anibar E (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

When nominated for deletion, each category is considered individually, and the decision to delete or not is made through a consensus discussion. The discussion for the category you mention was quite clearly in favour of deletion. Challenges to deletion discussions are processed via the procedure outlined at WP:DRV. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Mathematicians with another doctoral degree

Hi!

Having 2 doctoral degrees from leading universities is not a major part of the identity of Graciela Chichilnisky or Svante Janson, so I suppose that this category should be deleted (or perhaps be redone as a list).

To see whether a list would be viable, I would like to see the history, but now I cannot. If additional names were listed, would you please copy them for me?

I would have created an archival copy, but I didn't get a notice that this category was being deleted. (Neither Chichilnisky nor Janson received their second degree as an honorary degree, and I am curious as to the motivation for another's comment about some of the degrees being honorary.)

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You can find the bot actions removing the category from articles here, at the 11:47, 24 March 2011 mark. They also go on to the next page. There are quite a few. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

EC

Thanks! Sorry that you replied before I could update my comments

I think that this category (or a list) has some use, because the 2nd earned doctorate was typically associated with individual's overcoming institutional impediments to advancement, e.g. anti-semitism for Bernstein ....

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the Bot's actions on 24 March 2011:

Yuri Matiyasevich * Svante Janson * Seymour Papert * Sergei Natanovich Bernstein * Marcel-Paul Schützenberger * Joel E. Cohen * Graciela Chichilnisky

New CFD tool

I'd like to point you to a new CFD tool that you might find useful. Let me know how well everything works. --Cyde Weys 14:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:ICC member states

Hi!

On 22 March, you edited the sentence "45 United Nations member states have neither signed nor ratified the Rome Statute; some of them, including China and India, are critical of the court." to "45 United Nations member states have neither signed nor ratified the Rome Statute; some of them, including China and India, are considered by some to be critical to the success of the court." As you seem to be a native English speaker I assume you realized that you did not only insert the qualification "considered by some" but also changed the meaning of the sentence. Before your edit, China and India were described as critics of the court (which they are); after your edit, China and India are important for the court to have success (which is debatable). While the new meaning might be true (due to the weakness of the statement), it does IMHO not fit into the context, i.e. as giving a reason for 45 UN member states not having ratified. I have therefore reverted your edit and, doing that, referenced the reasons for China and India to be critical of the court. --EBB (talk) 07:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember but must have misread the sentence as saying the two countries were "critical to the success of the court". I agree it's fine to just state that they are critical of the court. Though China hasn't really been terribly vocal about criticising the court over the past few years. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings

Hi, I don't quite understand your actions: the the action seemed to be contrary to close. In any event, it makes no sense to have Category:China – Hong Kong border crossings, as Hong Kong is part of China, and thus China cannot have a border with itself. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how I could have been clearer in the close. If you want Category:China – Hong Kong border crossings renamed or deleted, then nominate it for renaming or for deletion using the process outlined at WP:CFD. It has never been so nominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't parse the close correctly. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Brigham Young Article

I have placed a question on the Brigham Young discussion page.Mormography (talk) 08:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:New Zealand Conservative Party politicians

Normally these "politicians" cats reside in the "party" cat, e.g. "New Zealand Conservative Party." But that cat was deleted. Placing this cat directly in Category:Conservatism in New Zealand isn't good categorization. So, I propose placing this cat in Category:Conservative parties in New Zealand. True they aren't a party, but it's the best solution to maintain consistency with the other "politicians" cats. Lionel (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No, politicians are not parties. The article about the party should be added to the cat, not the category for politicians.

But at a more fundamental level, there is a problem with categorizing parties as being small-c "conservative" parties, since that phrase is fluid and applying it is a highly subjective exercise. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Raymond, Alberta

Good Olfactory, Thank you for your efforts to improve the state of the Raymond, Alberta article. In support of this edit, I think I copied the appropriate cite later in the article that you referred to in your edit summary. Please confirm this is correct. Meanwhile, I've discovered the url within the rodeo-related cite later in the article didn't confirm the rodeo-related content. Do you know of another source? The only thing relating to the history of the rodeo that I could find on the Town's website was this, which only confirms that a stampede was one of numerous events that celebrated the community's Golden Jubilee in 1951. Hwy43 (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The cite to the lds.org website could work for the claim of Raymond being notable for an LDS population, since by deduction having 9 LDS wards of about 300 people each in a town of about 4000 people obviously makes the majority of people in the town LDS. But the one cite that's probably a bit better in terms of actually directly stating that there are lots of Mormons in Raymond is the Brigham Y. Card entry on Mormons in the Encyclopedia of Canada's People.
The best source I know of for the stampede/rodeo claims would be the Lawrence Turner book Raymond Remembered (listed in the references). It's a massive tome and has a lot on the stampede, including what is written in the WP article right now. It's not a great source in terms of neutrality because it's published by the Town of Raymond as a bit of a "hagiographic" style reflection on how great the town is, but I think most of the historical facts it contains are accurate. The pages about the stampede are pages 12.154 to 12.157 if you want to add them as a reference. — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hi Good Olfactory. I recently created the Category:HŠK Građanski Zagreb managers only to find out that there was already Category:Građanski Zagreb managers. I've moved the handful of articles contained in the latter (to follow parent article title) to the former and now the older version is empty. Could you please delete it? This is as uncotroversial as it gets. Thanks. Timbouctou (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

OK; done. (I'm taking your word for it that it is uncontroversial) ... :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift response. I appreciate it :) Timbouctou (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"Move" category:Adelaide Families to category:Adelaide families

Is there some way to expedite this? (If "move" worked on categories, I'd have already done it.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Ideally, it's only supposed to take 48 hours, but yes, if you as the creator and sole editor agree to the rename, it can be processed immediately. I've added it to the process queue so it should be renamed shortly. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Australian External Territories

I just started to create this category, intending it to be a subcategory of Category:States and territories of Australia and Category:Dependent territories by country, only to find you had previously deleted a category by this name. What was the rationale for deletion? The category would include 7 articles and the corresponding 7 subcategories. I find the term used by Britannica.com and Infoplease.com. Goustien (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It was created by another user who then immediately requested that it be deleted. I don't know why they decided they didn't want to create it after all, but it was simply speedily deleted under criterion G7. You are free to create it. Thanks for checking, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the category help, at Category:Works by Dan Savage. Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Rachel Ray (novel)

Ouch. Ouch. Ouch. I can't believe that I did that. Thanks for catching and fixing it. Ammodramus (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It's OK. That's an easy mistake to have made. It's quite a nice article, incidentally. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's always easier to write an article when there's a story to tell, and the Good Words contretemps provided one. Of course, that makes my categorization error doubly inexplicable... Ammodramus (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

John Nicholas Brown II move to John N. Brown

Hi, please delete the move of John Nicholas Brown II to John N. Brown. Richard Arthur Norton was correct in his action to move the article to John Nicholas Brown II from John N. Brown. If you would like to discuss, I am available. Doc2234 (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I did some mass reverts of his moves because the vast majority were clearly wrong, but some appropriate ones may have been reverted. So thanks for catching this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please move the article back to John Nicholas Brown II. He was not known as John N. Brown. I can provide proof through Brown University records and local Rhode Island articles and books if needed. Thank you in advance for moving the article back to John Nicholas Brown II. Doc2234 (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It's been moved back. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Doc2234 (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

So you aren't actually doing any research, you are just reverting whatever charges I made. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I did 3 hours of research. After I found that about 95% of your moves were incorrect, I began mass reverting. There may have been the odd error made by me, but overall it's an improvement from what existed before. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

A wise course of action, IMO. Given the number of Mr. Norton's moves I've had to revert over the past couple of years, it's apparent he simply doesn't care a whit about page naming conventions, and simply moves any and every page he encounters to that person's full name, whether it's warranted or not. I rather wish there was some way we could simply prevent him from moving pages altogether. From his block history, it appears he's been doing the same thing for at least five years. -Dewelar (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Given the historic nature of this problem, I suppose a better course may have been to take this to ANI for some sort of community decision. At the time I didn't really fully understand its full scope. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

Hi. I am revieving the unblock request there and have serious concerns about the appropriateness of your block. A comment by you would be much appreciated. Regards, Sandstein 06:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Note on weekend

Hi, it's Queen's Birthday weekend here in NZ, so I'm going to be away for a time. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

America, eh?

In your mass categorization of horse breeds by nation, I'll not whine if you who care do so, but if an edit spat starts over the USA being called "America" (which periodically pisses off both Mexicans and Canadians, occasionally even those from South America) or people arguing over the UK versus England, Wales, Scotland, Ulster and the Republic of Ireland, that fight is all yours! (noogies and hope your changes reflect this week's consensus on such issues) Geography is a bigger deal than you'd think; if the Slovenian nationalists hit the Lipizzan article again, or the Karabakh horse article gets into another nationalistic spat, those two are all yours too! ;-) And it would have been polite to at least have dropped a note at WikiProject Equine to let us know what you're up to. Oh, and can you also kindly tag any of the new categories you've created with the WPEQ cat tag on the cat talk page? {{WPEQ|class=category}} Peace on earth, goodwill to all, and at least there do not appear to be any horse breeds tangled up in the Israeli/Palestine conflict! =;-O Montanabw^(talk) 03:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't create Category:Horse breeds originating in America, and its odd naming format is why I've nominated it for renaming. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, you're off the hook! Montanabw^(talk) 18:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You sort of started this...

Can you explain to User:Nirame that he/she is now in the process of screwing up several categories by recatting stuff on extinct horses without taking it to the WPEQ page for discussion? I tried to explain, I've asked to stop and go to talk, I seem to be failing. We have extinct breeds, types, landraces and subspecies, at the moment all are lumped into the same category (Extinct horse breeds) which may not be the greatest name, but it contains all varieties of horses that lived into the human era but are extinct today. The cat may need some work, but it needs to be done by those of us who understand the horse -- Nirame may be on the right track, but it needs some discussion. Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 04:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Since I'm not clear on what the "screwing up" relates to, you're probably in a better position to make that argument. I typically don't make the argument that WP editing of articles and categories are for "experts only", probably because I generally do not believe it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, he/she's ignoring me and refusing repeated requests to take the issue to WikiProject Equine for discussion. We have an imperfect categorization situation for extinct horse breeds, types and subspecies, but to fix it needs a group consensus on how to do so without making it worse. Nirame is making it worse because he/she is taking a scattered slapshot approach that doesn't discuss what is actually needed. We need things to be easy to find and to find what is a useful name for the category. Nirame is also now going in and changing things in articles (horse) in a way that is not correct and goes against a longstanding consensus of the editors who have been working on the article. I think Nirame is well-intentioned, but needs to slow down a bit. Montanabw^(talk) 18:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If he has created a category that is inappropriate, it could be nominated for deletion or merging. If he's making widespread problematic edits and ignoring inquiries and requests, you could take it to WP:ANI. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I could, I just hate going the admin route because I also have a day job and those things just eat online time like crazy. I was hoping there was someone this editor respected who could explain the rules of the road and tone them down informally. They really aren't doing anything blockable, just annoying, ill-informed, and time-consuming. Well, stay tuned. Montanabw^(talk) 03:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

HH

HH might be O4711, trying hard to sound different. The topics edited must be almost identical. (How do we get the comparison of edits to work without starting a checkuser? Eg Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#KoreanSentry has a 'user compare report' but the link [1] only mentions 1 of the users.) Occuli (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Every time I see a user show up in heavy rotation at CFD who hasn't been a "regular" there before I start to wonder ... I'm definitely no expert on comparing edits and other sockpuppet investigation procedures. I know how to file a checkuser request and that's about the extent of my ability. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

OK ... I'll wait and see. Occuli (talk) 10:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Here we are: [2], a self-explanatory way of comparing edits. I think HH looks like O: there are articles edited by all 6 of the O's. Or see 1900–49 in LGBT rights. Occuli (talk) 11:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

After looking at those and seeing a bit more of the editing style at CFD I have little doubt that it's him. Advice on what to do? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I am fairly content to find out who is who and then leave it. It's a bit surprising that others haven't jumped in before now. The compare facility above is a useful tool, should any other PWs turn up. (No sign of it.) Occuli (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey there

I don't think we've spoken in a while. How are things? :) Hope the weather isn't too hot where you are. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm just fine, thanks. It's just the start of winter where I live (southern hemisphere and all) so no, not too hot at all! A wee on the cold side, in fact. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I've drifted away from CfD recently - that must be why I'm not seeing you as much. I should head back. :D Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Good Olfactory. Thank you for your good idea. What do you think of this category. Takabeg (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, right now it seems to include both the ethnic Turks and the nationals of Turkey. The trick would be coming up with a better term for nationals of Turkey. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we use ethnic Turks and Turkish people to distinguish two categories ? But in this article, "Turkish people" is defined as ethnic Turks/ethnic Turkish people... Takabeg (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Category:Ethnic Turkish people would probably work. It's a bit of a tricky area at times. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's possible. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you suggest?

[3] hi, what name you think it would be more appropriate? I know that some of them hadn't been officially announced Saints and I also know that killed is not pretty accurate when it comes to the fact that some of them were executed and others were tortured to death but I wanted a category to include all of them and I couldn't figure out a proper name, so could you please help me? thanks --أبرهة العصبي (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure but will think about it. My suggestion for now was just to capitalize "Muslims" since that word is always capitalized in English. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Category links

Of course Thanks. I try to make sure that I do all the templates and interwiki links (which I just did), but sometimes, I forget. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, generally everything you do is good. Sometimes I worry about the commons links too if they just use the undifferentiated {{commons cat}}, but I think you fix those too usually. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for adding info about main article of Category:World Islamic Mission on the category page.

Coercorash^{Talk^Contr.} 12:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I've been doing a lot of organizing of various categories recently, and you always seem to be about 5 minutes behind me sweeping up the mess I didn't realize I had made. Thanks for correcting my mistakes and being patient with me!! Aristophanes68 (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not stalking you, I promise! I just see stuff at the new category log. You're doing fine—I'm a bit of a category gnome in just proposing small tweaks to polish stuff up. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Missing Aviators

Hi Good Olfactory, thanks for taking care of the speedy renaming of the Missing Aviators category. I hadn't really meant to use a capital, but I hadn't gotten around to changing it myself. Todowd (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Ethnic Azerbaijani people

Hi Good Olfactory. Could you control this my edit ? Now we have to use Category:Ethnic Azerbaijani people for the artilce Azerbaijani people. Because, on the one hand the article Azerbaijani people is related with the Ethnic Azerbaijani people, on the other hand Category:Azerbaijani people is related witt the citizens of Azerbaijan of all ethnic groups. Categories and articles are contradictory to each other. How can we solve them ? See you. Takabeg (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we can solve them with creating Category:Citizens of Azerbaijan. And then we can merge Category:Ethnic Azerbaijani people & Category:Azerbaijani people to use for Azerbaijani people (ethnic group). What do you think of this idea ? Takabeg (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It's possible, but I think such a major change would require the input of other users more familiar in the area than I am. I think there would be resistance to creating a "citizens of" category, because that would change the format of the subcategories of Category:People by nationality. Probably not a good idea. Good Ol’factory ^(talk)

I left a message, maybe someone will open a new proposal. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Greek people

Just curious... While I think I understand the sentiment of renaming the category for Greeks in Omaha, Nebraska to Greek people in Omaha, Nebraska, in addition to the preceding Danes in Omaha, Nebraska to Danish people in Omaha, Nebraska, I'm curious about the reasoning you may have. I'm concerned that the new name doesn't capture the fact that we're talking about places and events, too. Could you explain that a little bit to me? Thanks. • Freechildtalk 22:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure. The renaming only applies to the categories. The articles don't necessarily need to be renamed to match. For categories, there has been a long-standing consensus that we avoid the single-word collective nouns, such as Greeks, Danes, Britons, Americans, etc. Instead, we use an appropriate adjective followed by "people"—Greek people, Danish people, British people, American people. The reasons for this decision have been several, but to summarize I guess it's a combination of predictability, clarity, and consistency across the category tree. Since Category:Greek people is the ultimate parent category for all categories about Greeks, all the subcategories follow the naming format of that parent category. That's basically it. The same rationale has not been widely adopted for articles, as it has been thought that special considerations apply for categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks- I appreciate the explanation. I also abide by consensus here. After doing so much work on the categorization trees for a lot of these ethnic groups at the local level it's good to know what all the change is about. • Freechildtalk 02:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Potentially interestind CfD

Please see here Since you're an admin and you work with categories a lot, I figured I should let you know about this mess. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Chembai

Hi. You seem to have moved the article to here from where it was originally; it appears Chembai is actually the name of a village? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The article was actually originally at Chembai but was moved without discussion. The singer is known commonly as "Chembai", not as "Chembai Vaidyanatha Bhagavatar". I don't see an article for a village of that name, but yes, he was named after the village he came from. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kristaps Pukitis

The article Kristaps Pukitis has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me. It was just something I moved out of category space to article space awhile ago. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Category deletion

Since this discussion closed as delete, shouldn't the category be deleted? - 71.192.240.28 (talk) 06:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Looks like someone took care of it, since the bot must have failed to delete it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Immigrant/Emigrant

Hi, I just noticed the archived discussion on renaming the FOOian immigrants to FOOian emigrants. I don't really care which you use, but "Emigrants to..." is bad grammar. No one can be an emigrant to anywhere, only an emigrant from somewhere. For example, I emigrated from the United States. I immigrated to the Philippines. All the "to's" should be "from's" in those newly created categories. ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 15:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You're splicing the phrase differently. To change "to" to "from" in each category would completely change the meaning of each category. See my nominating statement and the discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Spanish immigrants to Canada

It seems like you entered the wrong category name in this edit, as the target category you entered doesn't currently exist, has no deletion log (so it probably never existed), and has no other incoming links. Please fix it to the correct target. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

An immigrant/emigrant–to is not the same as an expatriate–in, which is why I changed it—the redirect made no sense. But since the target category doesn't exist, I guess it can just be deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)