User talk:Good Olfactory/Archive 25

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 20

←

Archive 23

→

Renaming

Please see my proposal to speedily rename Category:British migrants to Mandatory Palestine to Category:British emigrants to Mandatory Palestine and Category:Lebanese emigrants Mandatory Palestine to Category:Lebanese emigrants to Mandatory Palestine Hugo999 (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

¿Mentally unfit to stand trial in "Category:People acquitted by reason of insanity"?

Added Shūmei Ōkawa to Category:People acquitted by reason of insanity, even though, he was not, strictly speaking, acquitted. A psychiatrist found him unfit for trial and a judge of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East dropped charges. He then went to a mental hospital.

Does he fall into this category?

Thanks,

AndersW (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Invitation

Hi. I am conducting a survey of most active Wikipedians, regarding reasons they may reduce their activity. I would be very interested in having you participate in it. Would you be interested? (If you reply to me here, please WP:ECHO me). Thank you for your consideration, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, crap, if you got invited too, it can't be that exclusive. Damn. --Kbdank71 16:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Return to Zion

Hi GO

I have been cleaning up Category:Categories for discussion from November 2013, and have just reverted your tagging of Category:Return to Zion for speedy renaming to Category:The Return to Zion. The category appears not to have been listed at WP:CFD/S.

If you want to proceed with the proposal, feel free to tag and list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It was speedily tagged and listed when the article was at The Return to Zion. A user decided to start an RM to change it to Return to Zion. Since that proposal went through, the category nomination was withdrawn. Looks like whomever removed it from CFDS forgot to remove the tagging, so thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi, i noticed that you decided to remove most State of Palestine categories (like here) in favor of Palestinian territories or Palestinian Authority (which both refer to Palestinian administration established in 1993). I should however point out to you that following Palestine mission upgrade to UN to non-member state status in November 2012, officially UN ([1]) and all UN related organizations, ISO ([2]), as well as most media sources and Palestinian officials themselves (government websites [3]), began to refer to Palestinian entity as "State of Palestine". This is already implemented in most wiki articles, so can you explain why you decided to return to previous conventions? ThanksGreyShark (dibra) 18:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Because the change has not been proposed or discussed vis-a-vis categories at WP:CFD. I note that the articles are 2013 in the Palestinian territories and 2014 in the Palestinian territories, so it makes little sense to have the corresponding categories use a different name. Personally, I would suggest that "Palestinian territories" is still probably more NPOV than any other name at this stage of the game, but I don't have a strong opinion about the substantive issue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas Levi Whittle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Succession crisis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your help at Beyond the First Amendment, much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

bulk nomination coming

I moved this whole section to CANTALK; Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Power_station_-_.3E_Generating_station_bulk_CfD here. Skookum1 (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

what procedure when someone unilaterally overturns a CfD outcome?

Category:Squamish has been re-created despite the decision to not use that title in this CFD from last year, which you may remember....the editor who did this says she read the CfD but apparently she didn't understand it, i.e. that Category:Squamish people is meant for the ethnic group, not "people who are Skwxwu7mesh" and she doesn't care about the cvonfusion with "people from the town of Squamish", and she has been unapologetic about the disarray and ambiguities involved in that title and just says "If other editors have a problem with this action, please let them speak for themselves, which we are all capable of doing.". but "other editors" were part of that CfD. So what's next? I launch another CfD on the SAME topic? Strikes me that she disrespected all the discussions about this that came before her, and waded in with a bludgeon and did this rather wantonly. Myself, I'd wanted Category:Skwxwu7mesh as the outcome, in harmony with other endonyms in Category:First Nations in British Columbia, despite the lack of prevalence of this term unlike others (Nuxalk, Kwakwaka'wakw, St'at'imc, Sto:lo etc are common fare).; the original was Category:Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and I'd just wanted it simplified, now it's in a morass of anglicized ("colonialized") confusion. Shouldn't the CfD decision be "forcibly applied" by reverting her new category and the articles she's abused it on? I'm thinking t hat this is also a matter of discipline; an experienced editor shouldn't have done something so wantonly opposite to collective decision. Whether that's ARBCOM or ANI or what I don't know. But I don't think having to suffer/argue through another CfD is the appropriate path here. And in re what name to use, I'd rather see the original version come back rather than put up with this embarrassing confusion with the town of Squamish, and that a "lock" be put on the endonym category names before someone else with only partial, if any, knowledge of the subjects comes forward to screw around with them again. This is about article names, but ""the Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[1] If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." which is from here. My main irritation here is the waste of energy and time and goodwill that such arbitrary BULLSHIT creates, and the washing-of-hands attitude that accompanies such high-handed actions. The original creator of this category and its many articles, who is himself Skwxwu7mesh, has long since left Wikipedia because of the interloping by people who don't know the subject matter and are behaving colonialistically by deciding from outside how his people should be called and how they should be spoken of. So what to do? You're the categories guy? I invited Uysvidi to do the noble thing and change teh category to its more authentic form i.e. Category:Skwxwu7mesh but she has just thrown cold water in my face in response, over and over and gets glib about waiting for "other editors" to speak. I'll refer to an axiom at the head of my userpage, "A consensus of fools is only foolishness". The irony of a pro-indigenous editor taking actions which colonize the name of another indigenous people I find rather rich here, though quite lost on her....So if she can just go and create Category:Squamish by her lonesome, despite the CfD's decision to not use that, then why shouldn't I just go create Category:Skwxwu7mesh all by my lonesome? This all began with a nascent edit war on titles in Nevada reservation/tribe articles, which she seems to WP:OWN, in my opinion....Skookum1 (talk) 05:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess that a speedy G4 would be a valid request. Maybe add in the edit comment a request to salt? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

This is spiralling out of control (as if it were ever in control) as people bring forward the same erroneous logics and suggestions that were dispensed with last year; now Obiwankenobi is re-inforcing the new "illegal" category name, Category:Squamish by reverting my depopulation of it; which I've just done again, since the depopulation going on was the upcatting by Uysvidi by way of appropriating the ethno category for a category for individuals. The solution here is to recognize that (a) the RM was flawed, in fact tainted by obvious cultural bias and more and (b) the Category never did have to be speedied from its original state as Skwxwu7mesh-with-diacriticals just because of the main article title and [c) Uysvidi ignored the CfD and her creation of Category:Squamish was a violation of a not-so-long ago CfD. Vegaswikian's observation about this being a G4 issue has not yet been heard in the CfD, though lots of non sequiturs completely oblivious - and ignoring very pointedly - the geographic problems caused - and also suggestions for other titles already dispensed with or just misuses of terminology ("Squamish First Nations" where "First Nations=Indians" or the suggestion that the band government name Squamish Nation be used - in Canadian categories "First Nation(s)" in article titles refers to band governments, not to ethnic groups e.g. Seton Lake First Nation of the Category:St'at'imc. Before I branch off giving convoluted examples of why categories for ethno groups are not named "St'at'imc Nation" or "Nlaka'pamux Nation" (in those cases because those are tribal council names that do not take in the whole ethnic group), suffice to say that informed facts on this matter should decide it, not suggestions that because I'm long-winded I should be ignored (which is making me the issue and avoiding the facts); and that people fielding idea out of left field from far away, and ideas (and decisions) by people who haven't read up on the background of this name issue and who aren't really familiar with the geographic or cultural issues/ambiguites at hand should butt out. or I should just say WTF and go create Category:Skwxwu7mesh on my own, the same way Usyvidi has done with her action in re-creating Category:Squamish despite its previous very justified deletion. You think I like having to spend my days explaining all this again because people advance the same faulty logics/opinions again and again without ever understanding what they're told the first time??? See my comments on Obiwankenobi on my talkpage just now.Skookum1 (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thanks for clarification in a polite manor. David chamberlain (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to move a category page...

I'm trying to move the category page "American Theatre Hall of Fame inductees" into a new one called "American Theater Hall of Fame inductees." Do you or anyone else here on Wikipedia know how you can please help me out? Mr. Brain (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You've listed it at WP:CFDS, which was the right thing to do. I've tagged the old category for you, which is part of the process. After about 48 hours, if there are no issues that anyone raises, the change will be automatically processed by a bot. It looks like a sensible nomination to me, so I'm sure it will proceed after the wait time. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Way way way

Just a small wave from the way place - Western Australia Sesquicenterary Year of 1979 - was a bit of a mouthful, and the pedants of the time added the apostrophe for whatever their reason was, to create the logo and something as monosyllabic as possible (we have lots of flies here in Perth, multiple syllable words cause fly swallowing) if you try looking for anything written about the event since the apostrophe is dropped.

To resurrect the earlier usage is folly, and considering that probably over 70 percent of population of western australia either (a) didnt live in wa at the time (b) werent even born then (c) werent old enought to understand what it was about - it is my firm belief that the article is ok with apostrophe (disambigs are much easier to play with rather than cats), to introduce the apostrophe at the category is tantamount to paying obeiscance to pedants who have since died... cheers and trust your 2014 is as scintilating as your 2013. satusuro 03:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, we could have one way or the other for both. What's the use of having different forms in article and category? I could rename the article to WAY 79 if that's better. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Good point - doesnt really matter in the end - its just that I thought I would mention the apostrophe is not a common usage anymore - please feel free to go which ever way you feel comfortable with from your perspective. I just thought when i saw the speedy for a cat to have the apostrophe it seemed a bit retrograde in view of the distance in time and more recent usages that I have been aware of, cheers satusuro 03:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I think renaming the article is probably the way to go. We'll see if any upset pedants come out of the woodwork. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Any word yet on my nomination?

Sorry to bother you, but is there any word on my nomination to rename the American Theater Hall of Fame inductees category? If I'm not mistaken, I think the 48-hour time limit has passed, so the change should have been generated by a bot. Please let me know if I'm mistaken. Mr. Brain (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Right—but it looks like another user has opposed the renaming of the category at WP:CFDS, so it can't proceed via that route. It would have to be nominated for a "full discussion" using the process outlined at WP:CFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I took your advice and tried to nominate it manually. Hope it works. Mr. Brain (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Beyoncé

Hi, I wanted to let you know that as the main category for the WikiProject Beyoncé has already been moved, most of its sub-categories – also listed in the nomination – haven't. Should they be nominated at WP:CFDS again, or will one of the administrators move them, basing on that February 15 nomination? — Mayast (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. They have been renamed by a bot, we are just waiting for the articles to transfer from the old categories to the new ones. (The application of the category to the articles is done by a template, and we have to wait for the template application to be "reset", but sometimes there is a long queue for this process.) So this might take a few hours to a few days, but once all the articles have transferred over, we will delete the old categories. If you want to keep an eye on the list they are listed at WP:CFDWM right now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks for the explanation :) Mayast (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:American hymnwriters

I know little about church music but I was wondering why you were depopulating this category. As it is now, 50%+ of the American hymnwriters in the category are Mormon when that can not be the case given the rich history of American hymn music, especially in African-American churches. I'm really puzzled because this category is not very representative of all denominations. Are you in the middle of working on it and this is just Part 1? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm only removing those from the category who are already in the subcategory, Category:American Latter Day Saint hymnwriters. I haven't removed any other articles. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

RE Category:Candidate of technical Sciences

~~This was deleted per CFD but somehow was recreated; it's not even proper English, is it??. Just letting you know. (see [4]).~~

~~Yours, Quis separabit? 02:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)~~

OK now, I guess. Manually removed the population of the now-deleted category. Quis separabit? 13:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Anthem in the Slovak State article

This article is about the state which existed only during the WWII. After the war the state ceased to exist. The anthem of this state was Hey, Slovaks, composed by a Slovak priest Samo Tomášik on his trip to Prague. This sovereignty should not be confused with the modern Slovak Republic, which anthem is the "Nad Tatrou sa Blýska" which is mistakenly written also for the former article. That is why you should not revert this correction anymore.Jan Janikovic (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not confusing the states. Have you read this on the talk page? It's directly on point. "Hey, Slovaks" is often regarded as the anthem, but it was actually not the official anthem. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

CfD/working

I think you missed {{Species abbreviation}}. Obvious, right? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Doh. It's always obvious in retrospect. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Now I need you to figure out for me why Category:Recipients of the Médaille Militaire won't delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure. I did look at it with no success. I was going to try one of the other bots, but I think I'll ask Clyde. I suspect something with the bot. BTW, I found the first one by searching the site for the category name with template. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

He rarely checks his WP talk page anymore but he's quite responsive if you email him directly: cydeweys (at) gmail.com. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:To be deleted

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working#Move.2Fmerge_then_delete interesting target category! Vegaswikian (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Just experimenting: it seems that Cydebot will rename these categories, but for some reason won't delete them. I will delete Category:To be deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for shutting me up

..., ignoring me completely, and making sure that no one would have to respond to me. I had been editing lately, and I needed the "Go away, only Randies belong here reminder." Good-bye. --(AfadsBad (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC))

Um, I have no idea what you are referring to. Sure you have the correct user? If so, can you point me to the relevant issue? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Ghana region moves

Hello GO. Your Ghana region moves seem to have left behind a redirect at No discussion about move was held. I assume this was not intended. Do you want to delete it as G6? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yes, thanks. I mistakenly gave my rationale as the target name. I caught that, but then forgot to uncheck the box about keeping a redirect. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for the careful and appropriate changes made to Mark Hofmann. John Foxe (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

can't see flaw in this template

somewhere I'm not seeing a character that's keeping this from posting; see [[5]].Skookum1 (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Soviet deportees category

Ah, I see your point with Category:People deported from the Soviet Union: if it's to be parallel with other deportee categories, it should be a subcategory of "Expatriates in [country that did the deporting]". That's because usually countries deport only foreigners, i.e. expatriates from other countries. But in the Soviet case, none of the people currently in the category were expatriates in the Soviet Union in that sense, of being from elsewhere: they were all locals who were deported from their country of origin, and thereby became (involuntary) Soviet expatriates in other countries. Perhaps that should be a different category, though. Bit confusing; sorry for the intervention! --Delirium (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense; thank you. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Egyptian rapists

Category:Egyptian rapists, 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. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:New Zealand rapists

Category:New Zealand rapists, 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. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Saint Lucian rapists

Category:Saint Lucian rapists, 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. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Soviet rapists

Category:Soviet rapists, 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. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Thai rapists

Category:Thai rapists, 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. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Depictions of ....

Please remember to add Category:Christian iconography to biblical categories; in fact this is their main category. Thanks Johnbod (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI

It looks like you "lost" this [[:Category:Members of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland (1947–1952)]] to [[:Category:Members of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland (1947–52)]] between CFDS [6] and CFDW [7]. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Oops. Jeez, thanks for catching that. I'm not sure how that happened. It isn't the first time. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Three Witnesses, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James the Apostle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Another barnstar.

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for the careful, appropriate changes you've made to Three Witnesses and Eight Witnesses.--John Foxe (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, John. Every once in awhile these seldom-edited articles need a once-over. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You did a nice job with B. H. Roberts as well. I wish your sort of Wikipedia editing could be cloned. All the best, --John Foxe (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:High-rises in Christchurch

Any idea why this name instead of Category:Skyscrapers in Christchurch? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hm, not really. Unless the creator thought that it was an ENGVAR issue, which is might be. I have heard both terms used in NZ. I'm not a native speaker of NZ English so I couldn't say which is more common, but both appear in my NZ Oxford dictionary, and neither has any sort of notation that it is rare or used primarily outside of NZ. We do have Category:Skyscrapers in Auckland so I don't think it would be a problem renaming it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I see it's also Category:High-rises in Wellington‎. Maybe someone is thinking that these buildings in Wellington and Christchurch are not tall enough to be called "skyscrapers". They aren't that tall as compared to buildings in Australia and the U.S., but still—I think they are tall enough. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

PDF book of mormon

Hello Good Olfactory. I noticed your recent edit on the Book of Mormon article. I find it very unintelligent of you to remove the official copyrighted PDF of the Book of Mormon. This Book of Mormon PDF is released from the Latter Day Saint Website and thus is a reliable source! This PDF also does provide information about the article. If you even take your time to read the introduction of the Book of Mormon and read through the whole article and compare its information with the wikipedia article, then you would understand. So until then, I suggest you read it.--Micronationalist1999 (talk) 03:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Name calling is not the best way to make friends and influence people, and ldscdn.org is not easily identifiable as a domain actually belonging to the LDS Church, as the church normally uses the main LDS.org domain for this kind of thing: I had to do a Whois lookup to see who it was registered to, and was surprised to find it belongs to Intellectual Reserve. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

This Book of Mormon however is featured on the lds.org website, a link is: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm?lang=eng The PDF directly links it there.--Micronationalist1999 (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

If we want to link to the 2013 LDS edition, why isn't the link just to this website, then, which seems like the master LDS website for all things Book of Mormon? That way users could access the text in HTML, PDF, or audio. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Good idea!--Micronationalist1999 (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I found out something you didn't notice. Though the church normally uses LDS.org domain, the main site also uses Intellectual Reserve. Hence the "© 2014 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved." at the bottom of their website.--Micronationalist1999 (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)