Jump to content

User talk:Good Olfactory/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

Danka

Thanks as always for making me look that much better. Thmazing (talk) 04:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Politics and categories - Taiwan/China and Serbia/Kosovo etc

Hi, I'm sure you'll spot this anyway when you're next here, but please see this thread. As noted in my comment there, there are also problems with some of your changes to Kosovar categories. N-HH talk/edits 15:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The Kosovo (not "Kosovar", well, not in English anyway) criticism is probably valid; not the Taiwanese one though; not from an ineligible one, who had himself been previously guilty of, and blocked for, edit-warring ([1]); and it seems that he has been at it again, now (Special:Contributions/Readin). I suspect that he might had been disrupting MY edits to the John Derbyshire articles in order to make a point, as well as vindictively, probably because I had reverted vandalism by a troll and a vandal from Taiwan (Special:Contributions/Nipponese Dog Calvero), who is also a Taiwanese nationalist of some sort; and he is also a Taiwanese nationalist, equally of some sort (continuing the edit-war started by the same blocked vandal and troll; I hope that he has a good explanation for this ([2])); and he has been making a pig's breakfast at things. (Although the same thing probably can be said about myself!) China claims Taiwan, and the claim is generally accepted. (According to him, the word "claim" is a loaded word, too!) What can you do? The man can't even speak English properly! "Taiwanese in FOO" [sic]? What in the world and upon this earth is he [alluding to (what is he on] about)? What is quote "FOO" [sic] unquote? -- KC9TV 09:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
This is nothing to do with Taiwanese nationalism, at least from my standpoint. It is just about common usage, which does not, in 2012, consider something "from Taiwan" or "Taiwanese" generally as being "from China" or "Chinese". China indeed claims Taiwan (as Taiwan - or the Republic of China as it sometimes styles itself - claims China), but that previous observation still stands about common usage and the way the world these days sees the situation. Your dispute with another editor also has nothing to do with this (and btw Kosovar and FOO are perfectly decent English - the former is the adjectival form derived from Kosovo, especially when applied to ethnic Albanians, while the latter is a common generic stand-in word akin to saying "in X". Also, you mean "alluding" not "alluring".) Good Olfactory, I have reverted several of your category changes, but do not see why I should have to trawl your contributions looking for further errors to correct. Perhaps you could go back and repair any Taiwan and Kosovo related changes you have made yourself. Thanks. N-HH talk/edits 10:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • His edits speak for themselves. What is wrong with being a "nationalist"? And how many times had YOU been "suspended" yourself, if I may be so bold and bold enough as to dare to ask?
  • "Common generic stand-in word", or rather, gibberish. We don't use the various American slang, Cockney rhyming slang or British regional dialects here on Wikipedia, duck!
  • I would kindly suggest that you and him cease your and his edit-warring; and I thank you. -- KC9TV 10:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Wow, that's a helpful response (since we're down on the sarcasm). And you're just going to ignore the basic point at issue, and refuse to participate in any discussion about it but instead resort to edit-warring over it? As you were notified in a perfectly courteous opening note from me, it's being discussed at Talk:Taiwan, where consensus to date is 100% against adding Chinese as a parent to Taiwanese in most cases. Thanks. N-HH talk/edits 09:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
It appeared to me that you did not think it appropriate to wait for my contribution before announcing that a decision had been made by consensus. Are you interesting in hearing any views that disagree with your own? Why so rushed to make a decision? (By the way, regarding your edit summary, puns are traditionally said to be the lowest form of wit, not sarcasm. At least in English.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually the point here was pretty simple. What you were doing - unilaterally and in rushed fashion yourself; at least there were two of us on the other side of any "decision" and we bothered to open talk threads about it - was a more or less obvious error (as you've implicitly acknowledged by your shifting justification for it, eventually reduced to "convenience"). That said, I'd have been happy to hear your views - had you bothered to offer them, which you didn't, which makes your question a little odd. On the secondary point, I think "in English" there's some competition for the crown. It depends who you ask (Oscar Wilde chose sarcasm, by some attributions). N-HH talk/edits 07:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
One the first point—always glad to meet editors for which everything is so clear and simple. Ambiguity and nuance are always so boring. On the second point—wtf? What happened to simplicity? Eat your heart out, Wilde. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Message

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement's talk page.

Category re-created

Hello. Seems like this Category:Islamophobia was created again. Checking the logs, it has been deleted four times already because it passed a CfD nomination as rename. I still quite don't see the point in it, because the same content is at Category:Anti-Islam. Just asking/notifying, because you were one of the admins that already deleted the re-created one once. --Pudeo' 14:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm here to ask about that too. I'm the one who re-created it most recently, with the specific purpose of making it a soft redirect to our existing category so that (given the fact that it's been deleted) no one tries to create it for purposes of using it. Deleting it just means we'll have to go through this over and over, while having a standing redirect to the appropriate existing category is a better solution. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
We could redirect it, but then there's the chance that someone will populate it. I've salted it for now, but I'll make it a redirect if that's what is wanted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
When was the decision to nuke the category taken? Can we do the same for Category:Antisemitism so the content is moved to Category:Anti-Judaism? // Liftarn (talk)
It's been a bit of crooked path, with renames followed by other renames, and so forth. Originally here; then here. There may be others I'm not aware of. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Obviously as I totally managed to miss it. Anyway, how should I go about to recreate the category as the name change obviously also changed the scope of the category as I mentioned above. // Liftarn (talk)

Away -- July 2012

If you're trying to get me to respond to something——I'm likely going to be away from WP for a little while, so probably won't be around to respond very promptly. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear Author/Good_Olfactory

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address recently edited an article on Dubin Johnson Syndrome. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain and if interested, please visit my Talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:B.A.P

You once deleted this category after the consensus that reached the conclusion of deleting it because it seemed 'premature' - mainly because - it parented only one category of B.A.P members, and not others like B.A.P songs and B.A.P albums. But now since there are more categories that it could parent, it would be better to recreate it. Farjad0322(talk|sign|contribs) 20:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Natural farming

An article that you have been involved in editing, Natural farming, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Nirvana2013 (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Nirvana2013 (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Cabal membership

Ahem, I believe the determined requirement was *cough* completed...

It's not like CfD has been backlogged over a month for the last several months, or anything...

So there should have been plenty of time to assess my candidacy : ) - jc37 04:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Awwwwww. You're away... So much for humour : ( - jc37 13:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Ibrahim Dabbashi

Why did you think that edit you reverted on Ibrahim Dabbashi was a copyright violation? Your removal was undone and I could not find any suggestion that it is copyrighted. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Problem

I am afraid that you have been mislead. Here i see your explanation, but thing is that although Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was not continuation of SFRY, Serbia and Montenegro also was not continuation of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Constitution was not changed slightly, but they proclaimed new state, as a union of two. Why we must merge those two? Is there any wiki rule that we must merge history states into single entity? --WhiteWriterspeaks 09:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Polygamy czar

I would appreciate your input on this talk thread, Talk:Polygamy_czar#Out_of_Date as someone who knows alot about Mormonism and as someone who has edited Mormon fundamentalism.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 18:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Username help

Hello. Please help. What should we do with the usernames that are just promoting some institute or company, I mean on Punjabi wiki, I've found users named "Shemaroo" and "Delhi Public School". Shemaroo is the name of a video cd company and other is of a noted school, so should they be deleted? Tari Buttar (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to workshops on Wikipedia editing

Dear Good Olfactory,

We are a team of researchers at the University of Oxford and AU Sharjah, researching the experiences of editors of content about the Arab world on Wikipedia. We are interested in your experiences of editing Wikipedia and are organising two events that we think you would be an excellent contributor to.

First, we are hosting an online wiki focus group about contributing to Wikipedia in Arabic and to articles about the Middle East and North Africa. We are interested in what barriers you perceive to exist in Wikipedia, how articles can be made better and generally what can be done to expand and improve Arabic Wikipedia and Wikipedia articles about the Arab world. This discussion will take place on a MediaWiki hosted at our institution and be available in English and Arabic. We will allow users to create their own discussion pages in addition to our discussions.

Second, we are hosting face-to-face workshops in Cairo from 21st-22nd October 2012. If you are interested in this we should be able to pay travel and accommodation costs for up to twenty participants. This workshop will cover similar themes to the online discussion but will allow participants to meet one another and benefit from being together.

We will take care of the organization and planning and all you have to do is show up and be ready to discuss. But if you would like to help shape some of the discussion themes in advance, please let us know. We have booked time in the workshops for Wikipedian-led discussions.

More details can be found by expanding our “Frequently Asked Questions” below.

We would be delighted to welcome you to either (or both) event. Please let us know (wikiproject@oii.ox.ac.uk) if you would like the opportunity to participate and we can send you more details.

Sincerely,

Mark, Bernie, Ilhem, Ali, Ahmed, and Heather

Dr. Mark Graham, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford; Dr. Bernie Hogan, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford; Dr. Ilhem Allagui, Department of Mass Communication, American University of Sharjah; Dr. Ali Frihida, National Engineering School of Tunis; Heather Ford, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford; Ahmed Medhat, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford;

OIIOxford (talk) 10:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC), tidied 10:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Clergy & religious leaders

Hi, I thought you would be interested in this. – Fayenatic London 09:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Concordia University

Sorry to bother you again, but someone's moved Concordia University, again. For some reason, I no longer see the talk page banner asking people not to. Has there been a discussion and new consensus since the last reverted move, would you know? thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Template:CoCfirstpresidency

An article that you have been involved in editing, Template:CoCfirstpresidency , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 19:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Ambassadors as Ex-pats

Hello Good: I submit that adding ambassadors from one country to another, as in this edit: [3] isn't appropriate. Per the dictionary [4] an ex-pat is someone who withdraws his or herself from residence or allegiance to their native country. Clearly this is not the case with ambassadors. The secondary usages of the word talk about leaving a country to live elsewhere, but ambassadors are in the vast majority of cases, living in the other country with the permission of both the home country and guest country. Expanding the definition to include anyone, let alone ambassadors, who's living outside of their country is overly broad. If you agree, I hope you'll revert the hotcat changes you made. Thanks. (I'll look for your response here.) --S. Rich (talk) 03:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Lake tributaries

Category:Lake tributaries, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger One ping only 02:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Gila_Valley_Arizona_Temple#Requested_move

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Gila_Valley_Arizona_Temple#Requested_move. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 21:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a note: Good Ol' has been on a vacation of sorts since mid-July, so he probably won't be responding here. (There's a part of me that suspects he didn't want to be around for American silly-season, for which I wouldn't blame him :-). He left a note a few sections above. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Category: Iraqi psychologists

I have a person, Ahmed ibn Sahl al-Balkhi, who is in the list "Psychologists" and so needs to be in the category too. Looks like he worked in ancient Baghdad, and the only category I could think of was Iraqi psychologists. He was born in modern-day Afghanistan, but that category doesn't exist either. I don't know much of the article's history; more interested in getting the list up to date.

I notice the deletion-log at the top of the category page. I realize the recreated category would have just a few people, but per WP:eventualism I think it is sensible to keep it. Not sure what the discussion was about the last time:

01:17, June 9, 2011 Good Olfactory (talk | contribs) deleted page Category:Iraqi psychologists (created in error per discussion at WP:CFDS). Churn and change (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

User bias - NPOV and consensus

Hi, I've picked you at random out of the active administrators list. I was wondering if you can help me with a question. I've stumbled into a discussion on Talk:Bradley Manning#Gender identity in which an IP user is demonstrating strong bias against both the aspect of discussion (transgender issues) and the subject of the article, and seems more interested in attacking these two things that actually discussing the issue. I have told the IP user that their personal beliefs on this matter must be put aside in order to discuss the issue, but they have continued in the same form. I feel the IP in question is very much pushing the boundary of civility, and I'm wondering what to do. I'm unsure whether the IP in question is being purposefully disruptive, and they appear to have some valid edits. My personal perspective is that, due to the extreme bias shown by the user and their inability to put it aside or be civil about it, that they should probably not be engaging on the issue and work on something less likely to enrage them. Could you provide insight on this issue? --Poppy Appletree (talk) 06:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, what is the appropriate response to a discussion being abruptly marked as "closed" by a user not involved in the current discussion, a handful of hours after the last time someone had responded? --Poppy Appletree (talk) 12:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The discussion has been closed and there has been enough drama over the issue. It has reached a point of being disruptive and I foresee RBI blocks the next time this comes up without new sources. Do you understand Poppy?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Pardon me? Are you an admin? Because that seems like a threat. I entered the issue to respond to the inflammatory conduct of 74.141.152.194, which was the only aspect of the discussion that was disruptive. The rest of the discussion had been civil despite it being apparent that the two sides on this issue hold their positions strongly; as such, I find your implied threat incredibly disingenuous. --Poppy Appletree (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I am an admin and one who has closed previous discussions just like that one that go nowhere except the escalation of drama. Check the archives at that talk page, ANI and numerous admin boards. We've had enough. I assure you that I'm not being disingenuous. I had thought to shut that thread down earlier and remove it and now I see that I should have as it would have averted more drama. That horse has been beaten to death.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Your previous post comes across as hostile, and I would like clarification on the issue, as it appears you are suggesting blocking me, which is a threat. My reason for requesting Good Olfactory's assistance was 74.141.152.194's conduct, as I was not sure what I should do regarding it, being that the user does not appear to be a troll account. Additionally, it was unclear that you were an administrator, as there is no userbox on your page or category, so I followed up with a question about that because you appeared to be closing the discussion without seeking input, which I was not sure how to respond to.
I have still not received a response regarding 74.141.152.194's conduct and how I should respond to it (though it's possible you were suggesting that conduct like 74.141.152.194's would result in a block, rather than directing it at me). I would like Good Olfactory's perspective on this issue, as you have noted your prior involvement, and from the archives it appears that you are invested in a particular outcome; I should reiterate that my complaint is not regarding 74.141.152.194's position on what course of action should be taken, but the fact that their posts are uncivil, insulting, and show a prejudice against transgender people which is out of step with what is standard Wikipedia procedure regarding transgender individuals (regardless of whether Manning is considered to be transgender, a comment like '[h]e isn't, no matter how he "feels" on the issue' would be a possible BLP violation when discussing someone who is confirmed to be transgender such as Caroline Cossey). This apparent prejudice harms their neutrality, and they appear unwilling to engage neutrally with transgender issues. 74.141.152.194 refers to the issue being used as a soapbox, however they were using the talk page as a soapbox for their own prejudice about both Manning and transgender people with comments like "as if he is being treated harshly because he has a penis but thinks he is a woman". My reiteration of the details (which have been posted before and are in the article) was largely in response to 74.141.152.194's comment, 'As for my supposed opposition, being "trans" is more than just waking up one day and saying "hey, I want people to call me Breanna"', as this misrepresents the evidence available. I don't have a problem with the discussion being closed, since it has been raised multiple times and there doesn't currently seem to be satisfactory evidence that we should change the subject's name or pronouns despite the evidence suggesting they are transgender, but I would like advice about 74.141.152.194's conduct and for some assessment to be made regarding it. --Poppy Appletree (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
At the present, I would ignore the IP; yes, their tone and civility could be improved but I don't think anything constructive will come from interacting with them further. Am I suggesting blocking you? For that implication to be true, it would mean that you intend to raise the issue again on the talk page without new sources..."I foresee RBI blocks the next time this comes up without new sources." Since you have given me assurance above that you don't intend to do this then there shouldn't be a problem.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:People from Bluffdale, Utah

Category:People from Bluffdale, Utah, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. ...William 22:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Good_Olfactory/Archive_19&oldid=1077884195"