User talk:Good Olfactory/Archive 5

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Marijuana Party candidates

Your close on those Marijuana Party candidate categories was fine -- it reflected what the CFD had converged on. That huge cat structure for Canadian candidates really took me by surprise, and was way beyond the scope of that particular CFD.

PS - I've gone ahead and started the CFD for Category:Works by Francis Bacon. Cgingold (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

About those Canadian candidate categories: It's more than I would really want to take on myself, but I'd sure like to know what you think about all of that. I didn't come across anything else quite like them in terms of depth, breadth, and specificity. Only the US Presidential candidate cats even come close. Cgingold (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was quite surprised by that. I looked at the contents of some of the categories in the scheme, and it looks to me like there a ton of articles about people who are notable for nothing more than being failed House of Commons candidates for an established party. So the articles are out there and the categories have been created to correspond. Being a Canadian, I can't say that I think someone is notable for having run for the House of Commons and failed to be elected. In many constituencies, it's extremely easy to become a party's candidate if it's one of those ridings where the outcome is predictable—some of the parties practically beg people to run in certain areas just so they can say they ran a "full slate" of candidates across the country. University students regularly run for the Green Party and the NDP, for example.

I think there's been a fairly consistent consensus not to categorize by failed political candidacy, but because the articles exist, I'm not sure what to do. I would suggest that the first appropriate step would be to collapse all of the candidates-by-year categories into general categories for candidates by party, regardless of year. Perhaps after that CfD we could see what the general opinion of the scheme in general is. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Islamophobia

Please, when you want to undo the addition of [[Category:Islamophobia]] to different articles, explain your point of view, or I suppose you shown your islamophobia. Thanks to your understand.--Aboalbiss (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've received the answer, thank you. --Aboalbiss (talk) 09:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this is about, but the category has been deleted multiple times. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD which might be of interest to you

You contributed to the article so I'm letting you know: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008 Borock (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

As an occasional patroller of CfD/Speedy I want to thank you for your very hard work on that page. Category names is one of those things that gets neglected sometimes on the project (much like template cats, which I deal with alot). It's just great to know that there is someone out there working to make them better and more readable. I'm always impressed with the massive amount of work you put into it. Thank you. It means alot to detail oriented folks such as myself and to the project as a whole. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 10:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree it's a neglected area, so I try to add anything there when I see something that's not quite right, even if I'm not particularly interested in the topic. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Goat breeds

Yep you can do that. I thought I'd take care a couple of the subcats anyway. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 12:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

OK I've done my share. :-D --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 12:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You wrote

You wrote at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_28#Category:Lymphoid_skin_diseases "The result of the discussion was: rename (also in-line with other recent consensus changes to category disease names)." And I wanted to know where the "other recent consensus changes to category disease names" can be found so I can read about them? kilbad (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just referring to the ones you've recently proposed. I was specifically thinking of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_19#Category:Acne, but it seems to me that there was another one you proposed that was renamed. In any case, I wasn't referring to anything that you yourself weren't involved in proposing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Pharmacologic categorization

Also, I have started a discussion of categorizing pharmacology articles at WT:PHARM:CAT and would really appreciate your input. Also, could you please pass word of this discussion to any other editors you think might consider contribution to the conversation? kilbad (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll have a look. Though I don't know much about the area, I can contribute what I can. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, now that I've read the note, I guess you've just, shall we say, passively passed it on. Having worked as a pharmacy tech many years ago, I still have some interest in the area -- which is why I took a hand at sorting out the confused welter of sub-cats at Category:Drugs a while back by moving most of them into Category:Drugs by type. It's a start, anyway. PS - I'm also leaving a short note above re the Canadian politician cats. Cgingold (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(Dusting hands) ... my work here is done ... :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Categories question

Is there any way to search for red-linked categories in article space so they can be removed? Enigma msg 02:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean search for any red-linked category or a specific red-linked category? If you mean any one (which I think you do)—not that I know of. There may be a bot-generated list out there somewhere of articles with red-linked categories (that's certainly do-able, and I know it's done for templates)—but if there is one for categories I have never seen it before. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant any. If I knew the category, it would be easy. I'm talking about removing nonsense categories that people add to article space. Oh well. If there was a way, it would be a great bot task. Enigma msg 03:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure a bot could do it, and it may even exist. I'll let you know if I ever find anything like that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. One more thing: Could you delete John L. Sullivan (disambiguation). Pointless, because John L. Sullivan has an otheruses on it for that exact purpose, and there's a disambig for John Sullivan. Enigma msg 03:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that looks fine. But of course I can't guarantee that someone else won't re-create it! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Special:WantedCategories might work. --Kbdank71 03:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That's probably the type of thing he wants. Thanks, I'll let him know. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

American conservativism categories

I see what you mean. I think starting with WP:AGF applies here. I see this as a way to address the concerns raised in the discussion. The basic approach is moving in the direction I was suggesting. However, the current set of categories have, for me anyway, the same problem as the one that was deleted in that they are ambiguous. I don't believe that any action is needed outside of the CfD discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Cape Verdean American categories

Oh dear, I was ever so dismayed to come upon your comments vis-a-vis these categories, GO. I think, however, that you made a fundamental error in basing your comment squarely on the dreaded "triple-intersection", because they are, in fact, only double-intersections, as "Cape Verdean American" is their ethnicity, not a cross of ethnicity and nationality (though I can see how it might appear so at first glance). So I hope you'll take another look and reconsider. Cgingold (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"Cape Verdean American" is an ethnicity? Isn't the ethnicity being of "Cape Verdean descent". I would think a Cape Verdean Canadian and a Cape Verdean American are of the same ethnicity. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, Cape Verdean is a nationality. So their ethnicity is "Cape Verdean-American", just like Mexican-American or Cuban-American (I think the hyphen helps make it a tad clearer). It can be a bit confusing though, since "ethnicity" can refer to a range of things. As for the Canadian and American "flavors", they are very nearly the same ethnicity -- I guess you could say they're "first cousins". Cgingold (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't "get" this, though I'm following the reasoning. I'm going to ignore my own intuition and defer to your opinion on this, mostly because I trust your opinion on such matters. I've changed my votes to neutral/very weak delete (still on borderline "very weak delete" b/c I just don't understand ...). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Hackers

I'm not contesting your deletion, as you said, there were no current links to the category, (likely due to its deletion...) in any case you cited [WP:G4]]. "Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." Personally, I do not feel this was appropriate, as it was not an identical recreation, and it links to a valid category, that can be used by members of WP:CSEC, as the alternative, is long an difficult to remember. IMO, Category:People_associated_with_computer_security is a much broader category than Category:Hackers, and potential missuse of the Hackers category would be managable by the Computer Security wikiproject. Feel free to discuss on my talk page. :) Sephiroth storm (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, now that I hear your rationale, that sounds fine to me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, can that deletion be reversed? Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I reversed it on the 6th when you notified me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You're awesome. Can you do me a favor, take a look at the Kevin Mitnick article, tell me what you think? I just make lots of upgrades. Sephiroth storm (talk) 07:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The answer is yes

Yes, I am losing my mind. Why do you ask? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats nothing to worry about wikipedia is losing editors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-01-03/Editing_stats - the two cannot be all that bad - just relax, and take it easy Satu Suro 00:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha ha - had checked a whole range of death in australia catgeories that had not been tagged - was doing them - thought I would say hello for the new year - and the comments above and below show you are stuck in the same stuff as last year. I dont know if I would commiserate or feel sorry for you, you really do bring it on yourself. Have a good new year anyway Satu Suro 23:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(Half smile). Good to hear from you again—I haven't seen you around. Hope you had some nice holiday time—happy new year to you too. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Your sub pages are awesome, and somewhat imposing - I do hope you have a real life or something - I had a very healthy month break (which included Tasmania) thanks. Still pondering a death and dying portal/project sometime Satu Suro 23:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I had some time off and went to Europe for a week. One of these days I'm going to go to Tasmania; I hear it's almost as beautiful as NZ. :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

South Island NZ has it over Tas I think - even though I am a west coast Tasmania tragic. NZ has the added joy of dialect of english that does great things to vowels (ask grutness he should know) - oh well back to the grind - cheers Satu Suro 23:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes—that's where I'm living now—S Island NZ. There's a fine dialect down here that is even different from the main NZ one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Jealous - (I just love the west coast of south island, as much as the tassie west coast) - one of my uni mates from the old days had to got to prof level in one of the south island unis - I think he might have moved on by now - lost contact - oh well - to think I had thought you were still in northern america. Enjoy the weather - youre just a bit lower than tas - and more so than here. when i gaze at the bom maps http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/nmoc/latest_D.pl?IDCODE=IDX0533 - I notice you folks get it more than we do (westerly wet weather) cripes I gotta go - cheers Satu Suro 00:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ha

You said everything would be different now. You lied to me. --Kbdank71 19:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Yes I did. I think maybe you need to write a bot that can automatically respond to any statements on your talk page that contain the phrases, "you closed", "I don't see", "WikiProject wasn't notified". And maybe "shitstorm" should be added to that list as well. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That certainly would make for an empty talk page... Oh, wait, you said "respond to"? Why did I read that as "delete"? --Kbdank71 21:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It would need to respond, just so they feel validated. Platitudes to include, no doubt, would be: "the categories were properly tagged"; "discussions are not a vote"; "I've re-read the discussion and can/can't see a consensus"; "the arguments for keeping/deleting/merging were particular weak"; something about WP:DRV; and, of course—"don't call me a retard". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:UK Retailers that went bust after the financial crisis of 2007-8

Hello Good Olfactory, I think a mistake has been made in the adding of the listify template to Category:UK Retailers that went bust after the financial crisis of 2007-8 which from the history was added by you. At present the template links to this discussion and not the correct discussion. I'm sure this just a slip of the mouse (I think I've done the same kind of thing, used clone and paste for a number of items needing the same kind of edit and forgot to amend each version). If you can remember where the correct discussion is, could you either fix the template or tell me where it is so I can fix it. Thanks.KTo288 (talk) 08:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed; thanks for letting me know. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Songs by Edward Elgar

You're undoubtedly catching some z's right about now, but when you have a moment could you look into the deletion/renaming of Category:Songs by Edward Elgar. It was done as part of that group nom on the 5th for "Songs by X". But the Elgar cat wasn't properly tagged, and a separate CFD (started on Jan.9) was/is under way, which has been thrown into uproar upon learning of the deletion! It probably wouldn't matter, except that there is clear support for separating out the song cats for classical composers from the generic super-category, in order to maintain the classical naming convention. Cgingold (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm reversing the change for now. Obviously the change shouldn't have been made on the 5 JAN CfD, and I take responsibility for the misunderstanding. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, not to worry -- I'm sure nobody thinks the worse of you. It was obviously a freakishly inadvertent mistake -- as I said, you "(understandably) assumed that it was tagged for that CFD". No real harm done. Cgingold (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Films stub templates

Just wondering why you've moved this discussion. WP:SFD does not appear to be the correct venue for this. PC78 (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought it would be, but I've apparently misunderstood the header explanation there (as in this case there's no template that applies the category). I've reverted the change. Thanks for letting me know. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yay, barnstar!

		The Original Barnstar
		For your excellent continuing work on Categories for discussion, and above all, a willingness to put in extra work to fix any resultant mistakes. Cyde Weys 23:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks—and boy, have I made a lot lately. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't hate me because I'm beautiful

Or because I use Pantene. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You ok? --Kbdank71 03:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No, just my daily descent further into insanity. ... I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that I can't participate in CfDs anymore. It's just too mind blowing—perhaps I'll close them, and only occasionally participate. Or maybe not. We'll see. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrr, maybe I'll just go over to WP:UCFD and see what's cookin' with the real lunatics. Yeah, that's the ticket .... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, dear. I was afraid something like this might happen... (As you may remember, I was concerned that you would burn out as so many others have.) I really just dropped by to let you know that I've posted a reply to your remarks on sports team and journalist categories. (I also posted a short comment above re the Elgar cat.) A nice, steaming cup of chamomile tea might be just the thing, GO. Is it too soon for another holiday? :) Cgingold (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I went through that as well, although for different reasons, I suppose. Just stopped participating in them and concentrated on closing them. And even then I get stressed out on occasion and need a break. I usually stick to fighting vandalism when that happens. I'll agree with Cgingold, though, we've lost too many good people to burnout, if you want to talk you know how to get in touch with me. --Kbdank71 14:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I'll be fine. (A good night sleep cures many ills.) I'm going to slow down and I might start holding off on some of the ones that really shock me, but I don't intend to abandon CfD altogether. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems you suffer the same sort of thing at CfD that I do at WP:SFD. I'm not surprised - a lot of behind-the-scenes Wiki work's a mug's game. But you're a pretty important part of CfD, so hopefully a break, a cup of coffee, if the weather's OK a walk... and back to normal? Grutness...wha? 00:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks—as I said, I do intend to stick around and just want to try to just slow down a bit more, as you say. Not take the weirdness personally. I didn't know you had problems over at WP:SFD; I've thought about participating there occasionally, but then I always find CfD to be more than enough to occupy my WP time. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm the member of WP:WikiProject Stub sorting who checks the new templates at WP:Newpages daily to see what new problem stub templates have been made. Which means I make a lot of the deletion nominations - which in turn means I'm not always popular with other editors :/ Grutness...wha? 00:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

So funny seeing two kiwi residents talking like they are on diff planets - and the gnashing of teeth in OZ cricket circles at same time - garn the oz cricketers - we'll swamp you with arts regardless whether ya got the cart or the horse round the right way or not - breaks indeed - get back in there keep the ball rolling - heheheh Satu Suro 10:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you speaking Tasmanian again, or are you just drunk? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Funny you should mention the first - I cannot believe it but there is a planned meetup in Hobart in a week or so - I missed it by about 5 weeks - I would have definitely been so (drunk) if I had been able to get to it - nothing like sitting in a Tassie pub utilising the local brews whether it is wikipedians or whatever gathering - and as for south islander speak - I used to know a retired helicopter pilot from there - he gave the sense of squelching his accent for favour of clear radio work Satu Suro 11:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help in the reorganizing! --Eustress (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem—a good idea to separate those out, I think. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ping

Ping. --Cyde Weys 02:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

??

Were you aware that was my category? Cgingold (talk) 11:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I can't say that it really registered, though I probably saw the creator name. (I have been a bit ill lately and spending some of my "bedrest" time on WP, and I think I've been a bit out of sorts here...) In retrospect, I regret the action and think it was somewhat unfair. (See User:Cyde's talk page where I commented on this some more.) As a compromise, I would be willing to restore it and its contents if we can agree to bring it to CfD for a new discussion, where I think there would be a reasonable chance it would be kept. Actually, I'm not even that keen to nominate it. I'd have to tell my "friend" that either he nominate it or get someone to do it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ordinarily, I wouldn't be glad to hear that you've been unwell, GO -- but under the circumstances... well, let's just say that I'm relieved. The whole strange sequence of events left me feeling stunned. (Rather than elaborate here, I'll drop you an email in the next day or two.) As for the category, I basically don't think it's wise to Speedy Delete on the basis of a 3-year old CFD, so I'd certainly appreciate having it restored. Obviously, your "friend" is free to open a CFD for it if he wants to... but I gotta say, I think he should screw up his courage and do it under his own user name. (Did I really just say, "screw up his courage"? <sigh>) Anyway, I hope you return to good health soon -- that's something I can really sympathize about... Cgingold (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem; I'll restore it today and let you know when it's done. I'm not going to nominate the category but of course anyone else could. I've sent an email to the other user and directed him to this discussion to let him know the situation. He'll need to nominate it or get someone else to for further action on this category. (Incidentally, I've been feeling a lot better the past couple of days and this is my last official day of ordered "rest", so hopefully this is the end of an unpleasant (and quite boring, frankly) experience...) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I see another editor has put a lot of work into adding to the category -- it's now up to 42 articles. Btw, you might be interested in this discussion on its sibling category, which establishes the rationale for both. Cgingold (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's helpful. Had I been aware/remembered that one, my decision upon receiving the request would have been a lot clearer. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:People from Fooia for people by country (ie. citizenship & non-citizen residents [ie. expats])

Where I put that comment probably seemed out of place as the various rename nominations for nationalities and pseudo-nationalities, as a whole, have had me thinking if we shouldn t rename according to this pattern which I ve put in the subject/headline space. Or there could be a push, eventually, for going back to Category:Northern Ireland people, which is what it was prior to April 2006 actually, but, given that it was just renamed, this would not be right, really. The state and provinicial cat pgs for people by occupation look to be about to follow this pattern, under User:Neier's iniative. I can be a rather impatient person so I am tempted to put together a nomination for this, but don t want to bother of course if there is a good reason for not doing so that is not occurring to me. At any rate. Glad to see your support too btw for use of the disambiguates '(city)', '(U.S. state)' etc. - they seem to be just the right thing for overall clarity Mayumashu (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea, but before supporting the change of all nationality categories to "people from foo" I would need to think through all of the implications a bit more. I suppose one downside of it would be it might exclude people who are of a particular nationality but not really "from" the place of nationality (e.g., people who gained citizenship solely due to citizenship of parents but never really lived in that country). But I suppose that would affect few and you could argue that for such people having that nationality is not really defining for them anyway. Just nominating the top-level nationality ones would be a huge job, but then all of the subcategories would have to follow if it were accepted—all in all, a gargantuan effort would be required with (I suspect) multiple committed editors doing the nominating.

I actually suggested Category:Northern Ireland people late in the N.I. discussion as a compromise, but I wasn't very hopeful that it would get much support, because I think it might be a bit too nuanced for people who like to argue strongly for their preferred name. Users like that usually don't like to compromise.

For the time being, I think the system that's being implemented is a relatively good one, though: For people from places that confer actual citizenship, it should be "Fooian people". For people from places that don't confer true citizenship (N.I., U.S. states, etc.), "people from Foo" works best. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Category:Other complete problems

After longer thinking, I see that the whole category:Computational problems are poorly devised and chaotically populated. I agree with your tighter clarification that it is not very good if "the category is being defined by what it is not". I will spend more time thinking about better hierarchy of categories here. Twri (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

OK; thanks for getting back to me. I wasn't sure if you were around or not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

1920–2009 R.I.P

(Sniff). He was good to the last drop. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

deleting vs creation of content

I appreciate that the Category:Bahá'í Faith by country was not following norms and deleting the article-like content does follow the norms. But it's a lot of work to write articles - I've been turning through the countries. Eventually there would be an pure article and a pure category. I'd welcome any effort to add to the content of these articles even if simply deleting mis-aligned content is at least minimally appropriate. The topic has been discussed among a few interested parties over time. If you have an abiding interest there is a great deal of work to do. Smkolins (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Work Tracker Lite: why?

Hello I would like to know why you deleted Work Tracker Lite page. Now: I know it's only a Software product; but I changed the presentation text to be "neutral" and, more than this, I can understand "no commercial software" but can you please find the differences with Work Tracker Lite and:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24SevenOffice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actitime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journyx http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAir_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SwipeClock http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teamwork_(software) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baralga http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Track ... And so on? I can't find any difference... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grifosdf1977 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. TrackerLite was tagged for deletion; these apparently have not been. Maybe they could be. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

it was tagged for deletion because I used a text that is on another site. Then I changed the text and you deleted the entry! Well, no problem, just to be clear! Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.21.122.200 (talk) 10:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Fictional time travellers

Please read the talk page at the category:fictional time travellers. I have the blessing of the previous CfD's closing admin to recreate the category, and I've laid out my plan to help this category be useful. -- AvatarMN (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I did read it. Re-creation proposals go to WP:DRV. A closing admin can't single-handedly override consensus decisions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I got the impression from him that he could. I offered to go through the process, he said he'd just ~~undelete~~ unblock it, and help me if it was speedy deleted. -- AvatarMN (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

OK—Who was it? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Angusmclellen. I laid out a history and argument on the talk page I created for the category seconds after I created the category, but it appears it went unread. I misspoke that he undeleted it, he unblocked it. -- AvatarMN (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said I did read it, but generally to re-create you make a proposal at DRV or CfD and get a consensus to re-create it. I'll restore it and let the proposed CfD go forward. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Just 2¢ from the poor fool that was sending the cat to CfD for review... Mind undeleting it and letting it go through the review at the CfD? - J Greb (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure. That forum's just as good as WP:DRV for that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Blowhards

Preparing to create ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Must ... resist ..'.. populating ....... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Monosurround

Hello from Berlin. The Monosurround (German DJs) page was deleted 12:22, 16 January 2009. Can I get some feedback on the reasons for its deletion? Thanks very much. Lady feuerhertz (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes; responded at your talk page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Confusion this end. Thanks for the response. All cleared up now. Lady feuerhertz (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Simpsons Guest Stars

Fine with me if it's within policy. I didn't see any Speedy Delete Criteria, so that's why I went with a renomination. I haven't even had time to inform the creator of the cats yet. I've been digging through my contribs to find the old discussions. Dismas|^(talk) 03:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I see where they are now. I was at WP:CFD and the speedy criteria are at WP:CSD. Dismas|^(talk) 03:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Dismas|^(talk) 04:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I probably created the firestorm by refereeing to the Tamil terrorist category as racist. It was a mistake, it was simply feeding into the destructive nature. I have been around wikipedia for few years and come across from time to time those who edit with their emotions and with a lack of thorough understanding of verifiability, reliability, and neutrality requirements. I have learnt to let these drive by’s go by because at the end it is just a drive by not any determined effort to improve or destroy a set of articles. U live and learn again, will do my best not to let it happen again. You are welcome to visit us WP:SLR, which was put together to work harmoniously. This too shall pass. Taprobanus (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I was more concerned about the fallout that resulted than the actual comment you made, because I felt that in the abstract there's nothing wrong with calling a category racist, just so long as you're not calling the user who created it racist. I don't think your intent was to call him racist, but I think the user did take it as an attack against him. If you didn't mean it that way, it wouldn't hurt to apologize to him, either on his talk page or via email or in the discussion itself. You could retract the comment in the discussion if you feel it would help. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In the discussion itself, I said very clearly that I called the category racist not the person. I have no idea as to the who the editor is and really don’t care about it. Whether he/she is Tamil, black, white or what ever. Actually his/her knowledge of Tamil related matters would make people assume that the person is of that ethinicity or knows very well about those people. Anyway he/she has been kind of uncivil calling people meat puppets, terrorist loving cabalists, pov pushers etc. I can provide the diff but I really don’t care unless this becomes an issue. I rather concentrate on creating articles. Taprobanus (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Good to hear you can walk away from it and not let it escalate more. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Really we could use some sane voices like you in the WP:SLR, do visit us. We need neutral admins around to keep it straight and narrow. :)))Taprobanus (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I will remove that comment. You are right about it, that was a little bit caustic.Pectore^talk 22:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

name

BTW, throughout our discussion - I kept smiling about your user name - good one! --David Shankbone 06:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

re:Tamil - That was a great result. Please feel free to drop by and give me advice any time you'd like. --David Shankbone 23:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Likewise; hope to see you around some more. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

AKCs

Thanks for your patience with this: the fiddliness is in inverse proportion to the importance, as usual. I have no idea how you cope so well on a staple diet of CfD's, but I'm very glad you do! HeartofaDog (talk) 13:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The thanks are all mine; was very glad to hear from someone knowledgeable. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Please hold

Please review the results of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_10#Category:Diseases_of_skin_appendages. I don't think the result was what anyone wanted: Category:Diseases of skin appendages renamed to Category:Medical conditions of the skin? That does not make much sense to me. Perhaps you could hold the change and open the discussion back up? kilbad (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't close that one since I participated. Contact User:Vegaswikian, the closer. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Vegaswikian changed it to no consensus. --Kbdank71 22:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, fine then. I see Kilbad has notified most of the participants, so I guess he was just covering his bases. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

ANI: User:Tabletop unnecessary white-space changes

Hello, Good Olfactory. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Tabletop unnecessary white-space changes regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Sladen (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't feel bad

I'm sure that Alansohn considers me to be part of the Cabal and I never get invited to the meetings. Otto4711 (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but it's so hard not to feel left out. It's no doubt because I don't fully understand the qualifications. Hmains said to be in the claque you have to "act in a 'vacuum of interest'". Since I can't understand what it means, I can't do it. I'm so sub-par. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Pfft, I didn't even know what claque was until I just looked it up. I thought you typo'd "clique". --Kbdank71 14:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now I see. He wrote "clack". That's much clearer. --Kbdank71 15:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You're so American. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the deletion.

I accidentally created Category:San Diego state Aztecs instead of Category:San Diego State Aztecs (note capitalization). I was just going to move/rename it, but the option seemed to be missing. Perhaps that doesn't work for categories?

Anyway, I redirected in the meantime and was going to ask for a deletion today. Looks like you saved me the trouble. Thanks! DeFaultRyan (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

OK; glad it was fine with you. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Large family car

Dear Good Olfactory,

Could you please look at User talk:Kbdank71#Large family car and contribute to the discussion? Your opinion would be appreciated.

Kind regards,

PrinceGloria (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

PS. It would be most advisable to notify WP:CARS whenever you'd feel like nominating another automobile-related article/category for deletion.

Contributed there. I don't usually notify WikiProjects of category nominations anymore because there are so many Projects now I never know who would and who wouldn't be interested in nominations, and when I notify one I then get yelled at because I didn't notify another one. I suggest if a Project cares about a category they get a user to watch the category in their watchlist. (And no, I'm not interested in debating that point, since it's just my suggestion.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I admit we probably didn't watchlist any of those "obvious" categories, perhaps because we never thought somebody would actually nominate them for deletion (or do anything awful to them anyway). And no, mid-size car is different from large family car, as the designations are being applied by different bodies. Some European large family cars became compact cars under EPA standards, but to most the American classification was never applied because they have never been marketed in the US or Canada. In short, this is a different classification system. I will as the WikiProject to post an deletion review since you don't seem to find it appropriate yourself. Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Aw, deletion's not that awful, is it? :) See my latest comments on the closer's talk page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 80 support, 2 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the community has placed in me. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

State fooers

Yes, it is all quite a mess. In my mind, a "State fooer" is like a state song, or a state flower. It took Mayumashu quite awhile to get all the nationality/ethnicity categories sorted out. At my recent edit rate, this will probably be finished around the time Wikipedia is complete. :-) Neier (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, your big-a** barnstar should be ready by then. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Uruguay categories

Hi. Just at the moment I can't quite be bothered to nominate all these individually, but could I by any chance circumvent that and ask you to consider a few category moves? They're at Category:Government of Uruguay, the ministers -- they need to be plural and in proper English, so Economy and Finance Minister of Uruguay -> Economics and Finance Ministers of Uruguay; Education and Culture Minister of Uruguay -> Education and Culture Ministers of Uruguay; Ministers of Cattle ranch, Agriculture and Fishes of Uruguay -> Ministers of Livestock, Agriculture, and Fisheries of Uruguay, etc. If I do need to request these individually, no problem; just let me know. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind nominating the ones that qualify for speedy renaming, but it looks like some (finance minister; livestock minister) would require full CfDs. I can sympathize with your lack of bother for full nominations, though—I get that way too even though I see problematic categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There. Actually, I just went ahead and nominated them all, even the ones that required full discussions. Now never say I don't love you again!! :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful, thank you! - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

hi

just thought i'd drop you a note to say hang in there. you and i might not be in agreement on the issue, but i don't think you deserve to be taking such strong heat. shirulashem (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. It does take a mature editor to realise that there can be content disagreements that don't have to get personal. The majority of editors in the discussion there have also done fine, I think. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Resp

Agreed. How does that quote from Hamlet go again? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes, it is right now. 2. no 3. if you want to 4. yes. 5. probably 6. (laugh) yyyeeeeesssss. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If it would help you

Alansohn, if it would help in any way at all with your WP life, you should know that I'm sorry that you were offended by some of my comments at CfD. As I've also told User:Historicist, it hasn't been my intent to offend you or anyone else. I think if you knew me you'd recognise that, but of course it's always relatively easy to be misunderstood in print form. Thanks, ol' buddy. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciated the note, but I was still a bit hot under the collar from dealing with the block you pushed for. I thought I'd wait a day or two to cool off a bit and see what your actions were, which speak louder than words, as always. Waking up this morning to a sockpuppet investigation that couldn't possibly have been successful, filed less than 24 hours after leaving what could pass for an apology, didn't convince me that your words pasted above were sincere. I'm still not sure what it is that you're trying to accomplish, or why you're pushing the admin who found your sockpuppet expedition to be unfounded to find something that isn't there. Since you filed this sockpuppet investigation, I've made a thousand edits, started three or four articles and nominated two or three of them for DYK. I'm more than willing to move on. It's well past time that you did. Alansohn (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I want you to know I am not pushing the admin to "find" anything, nor did I earlier push for a block against you. If my sole goal or purpose was to have you blocked, it would be quite simple for me to just block you for incivility per the restriction. But because in each case I was otherwise involved, it was appropriate for me to seek a neutral appraisal of the appropriateness of the comments that concern me. It's clear the CU was "inconclusive" (leaning more to negative) and I personally take your word on the matter. The CU result combined with your word led me to have considered the issue closed, which then left me scratching my head about the need for the points you set out there (which I feel are more examples of incivility, but I understand you may disagree). Honestly, I would have approached you personally about the issue rather than filing a CU request if I had not felt you were in a state of perpetual attack mode against everything I post on WP. My view is quite simple: regardless of how many or what type of edits anyone does—if the user can't be civil to other editors in comments and disagreements with them, the user's being disruptive. You don't have to agree with me about any substantive content issues at all—you just need to be polite about it and not assume the worst. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, Lar just posted a message on his page where he told us to calm down and he mentioned mediation in passing. That's not something I would invite you into, but if you really want to address some sincere concerns you have about me, I would have no problem addressing any issues about myself before a neutral third party. It does little good to "put new wine in old bottles" by bringing up historic concerns every time there is a new disagreement, so if you need to air those concerns to someone, I can agree to be there to present my POV. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Companies linked to Holocaust

I thought I'd write briefly on this to elaborate on the category, especially since I see categories are your area, and since you were the person who proposed deletion or change and I was the one who created the category, I thought I would explain a bit and see if something could be worked out.

I started getting interested in this when I was looking at the Wikicommons Bundesarchiv upload, and there were numerous photos of the Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp, quarry, etc., all being inspected by dear old chicken-farming mass-murdering Heinrich Himmler. I started looking into this a little be further and it turns out that a huge part of the Austrian economy was tied into the Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp system. There were a 150 satellite camps (this is an very small country!), with camps set up right next to the factory, mine or whatever. The owners would get contracts, typically for war materials, from the Nazi government, then keep their labor costs down by hiring cheap slave labor. I think the SS got some kind of cut for shopping out the labor of their prisoners, but this could be ^{[citation needed]}. And Mauthausen-Gusen was just part of a much broader pattern of course.

Anyway, in looking at the existing categorization of The Holocaust (which by the way was a mess) I saw not much if anything that would allow access into the subject from the economic point of view, and certainly the Nazis viewed the economic value concentration camp labor as an major excuse for having them. (Some of them even swung for it, but that was so pre-Cold War.) So my way of coming at the problem was by setting up Category:Companies linked to Holocaust. Now it may be that a broader approach such as category:Economics of the Holocaust might be a better approach, with subcategories such as category:War contractors using slave labor (that would be the Mauthausen-Gusen outfits for example, and category:Companies involved in concentration camp construction would cover I.G. Farben and Topf & Sons, etc..Mtsmallwood (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I do understand the point of the category I think. My nomination was primarily made to get a slightly less ambiguous name. The way the discussion is going I'm not sure that there will be a consensus for any of the suggested renames. The suggests you give here are good ones, though—you should bring those up at the discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm still hoping to formulate a comment about the substance of the debate, but for the moment please see my response about use of the word "the", which is just below the courtesy break that I've added. Cgingold (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

PastorWayne/EstherLois

Southleroy looks like another - timing, limited interests etc (every edit is category-related). Also this page (which according to page views has been viewed 3 times in all - I am supposing I am the lucky 3rd - surprising that a new editor made a beeline for it). Occuli (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed—it's hard to see how this couldn't be him. I'll action it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Pregnancy's under the age of 13

I was wondering who would have created such an questionable category, so I took a look at the user page. Turns out she's a 15-year old girl -- so I think perhaps a short note from you as nominator would be good. Meanwhile, I will take on the delicate task of explaining why it's really not such a good idea for her to have a user box advertising herself as an "experienced editor... seeking to adopt new users." (oh dear) Cgingold (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I was about to notify; in light of your message though instead of the standard template I've personalized my message a bit more. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Category help

I'm not doing the categories in any particular order. If someone does some and nominates them, it will make the job go faster and not slow me down. I'm holding off on the AD categories until Friday so that someone else can gather some data. So if you see anything in the BC area, it is fair game. Thanks. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I did nominate a bunch of AD ones; hopefully that doesn't mess things up. We can delay processing those if necessary. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sweetwater rescue

Please give a reason for your proposed deletion. --TrustTruth (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I did; it's posted at the 4 FEB 2009 CfD page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Category: Egyptian Monks

Regarding this category, there are no articles at all relating to any non-Christian Egyptian monks. If there were any pages about non-Christian Egyptian monks then it would be a good idea to have a regular Egyptian monks category, but there aren't, so it is an unnecessary category. I mean, this is why we don't have any categories for Brazilian Shinto priests. Sure, there could certainly be some out there, but at the moment there are no wikipedia articles about them. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It does contain a subcategory, however. The undifferentiated "monks" categories are typically only used as holder categories for the subcategories of monks of different religions—Christian monks, Buddhist monks, etc. Right now there is only a Christian monks subcategory. You can nominate it for deletion if you think it's inappropriate or unneeded. But right now it contains a subcategory, as do all the other "Fooian monks" categories, so you can't unilaterally neuter it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Your "speedy" category renamings

Please point me to the consensus justifying the "speedy" introduction of a hyphen in all of these. There is no way such a mass renaming of long-standing categorization is a "speedy" unless there is already a consensus this should be done. If there is such a consensus, you should link to it so as to save everyone time. Personally, I am completely unaware of any convention hyphenating "20th-century", "1st-millennium" etc., and I fail to see any justification for your actions. Thanks, --dab (𒁳) 16:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

[1], [2], [3]. --Kbdank71 17:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

As noted above (thanks). I suppose we could send each one through a full CfD, but I imagine the results would be the same and it would likely start to annoy everyone at CfD very, very quickly. Mass speedies seem to be the best approach here to get it done. I've brought up your concern at the CFD talk page, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying you should send each to CfD separately. But it would have been a nice gesture to provide a link to the "existing consensus" to save people time. As it happens, I think this is a terrible idea, and there hasn't nearly been enough discussion to justify mass renames of thousands of categories. It would appear that this is a "consensus" based on all of two votes, one of them yours, in some random CfD a few weeks ago. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_21#Category:16th_century_Spanish_people. Seeing that you advertise on your user page that you think that "process matters", don't you think it would be worth your time to put this on VP and base your consensus on a two-figure number of supporters (if you do, you can auto-add me under oppose). --dab (𒁳) 09:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(1) there were 3 separate CfDs resulting in the same result each time; (2) there were more than just two votes cast in all of the CfDs; (3) the CfD was anything but "random", it was directly on point; (4) it's a pretty basic spelling/punctuation correction—threre's no viable argument that I can see that adjectivals aren't hyphenated; (5) category changes are proposed at CfD, so as far as I can see process has been followed; (6) so far, you are the only user to have complained to me, and hundreds of categories have already been tagged and listed for changing; (7) you're welcome to propose another full CfD proposing that any or all of these be changed back—if you can present a consensus for the incorrect spelling, I'd be happy to personally perform speedy reversals of all of the categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Also most of the ones that I tagged at the end included the pointer in the edit comments. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's perfect

Hmm... You aren't by chance my roommate from college days, are you? ;)

A truly priceless collection! –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I am. (Your former roommate, that is. I do think I am perfect.) Of course, I don't know who you really are though, so maybe I am. Give me some memes that connects you to your room mate, and maybe we'll both be awkwardly surprised. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This rules out that possibility. However, your parenthetical comment reminds of a certain quote: "I am superior because I'm humble." :)

Anyway, thanks for keeping the list. It was a welcome distraction from more stressful things. Cheers, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

PastorWayne/EstherLois

Protostan might be another - timing, limited interests again. Occuli (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll check it out. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Another - User:Westfieldme (User:WestfieldIns was a PW sock). Interesting that Protostan stopped as soon as I commented. Occuli (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Might I draw your attention to Category:Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion Methodists, populated by User:Westfieldme? (This was a PW ploy.) Occuli (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've seen enough as far as User:Westfieldme goes. I'll block it and inform user of right to appeal. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Rdr._Michael is not PW but seems only to be adding adverts. Occuli (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That's kind of funny. I've rolled back the changes and issued a spam warning to the editor. Hopefully that will be enough to put a stop to it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

70.104.123.20 - pretty sure (all edits in 2009). See i.p. list on User:Jc37/Tracking/Pastorwayne; or this. Occuli (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting, because I was looking at those edits too and wondering if it was PW. Now that I look at it again, I'm pretty sure it's him too. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverts/undo/rollbacks, etc.

You may want to pay closer attention when you do one of the above. Here for example. The engine category was separate, and was already processed.--Rockfang (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I know, I know. I was about to delete that one. The reason I didn't immediately is because the original category was not yet deleted, and I was leaving it there to remind me to do it. Not a big deal. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. That is one reason why I wish i had the delete button. :) After I was done moving it, I coulda just deleted it myself. Would help with my work at UCFD as well. Oh well. :) Rockfang (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

For the old categories you can just leave the speedy rename tag on them and tag them for speedy deletion once they are empty and they will get done relatively quickly. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

catagory renames

Dear Olfactory , I will ask you as I have asked Vegaswikian.

I have a friend doing a searching catagories by name with a Bot for a project of ours but it only works if the catagory names do not change. What do you think of not changing the anymore of the catagories on this list of say a week I can look into getting you a more exacet time-frame. Once we are done-- or at least done with the current sort-- you can even use the list to change them all at once.

Vegaswikian did also agree (but since you have put a bunch more in the process I might need to ask him for a couple more days to match up with the week you may stop). What do you think? --Carlaude ^(talk) 23:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Vegaswikian told me about that with respect to the AD categories and said he was holding off on them until this Friday. From what I gathered, it sounded like you had told him it would be about a week, but that was almost a week ago, so he's probably expecting to begin processing them soon. I got some of them tagged and listed, but we don't necessarily need to process them right away within the 48 hour time frame, though I also don't think we can indefinitely suspend progress on account of one user's request. Another user has objected to the very principle of the speedy process being used to change these, so the renaming is in a bit of a suspension now anyway until we reach a consensus on how to proceed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm just looking for ones that are not in your list right now. However, dragging this out will be a pain since we have categories in various category structures in both forms. This is rather confusing. Call me stupid, but why is the bot task so slow? I would have guessed that you set it up with the categories as they are at a point in time, then run the bot to collect your data and then analyze it. Not understanding why the bot needs so much time. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, the templates need to be changed. I've already changed a number of them, and we shouldn't have some changed but some not for any extended period of time. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I was leaving the templates to the end so that they would work in majority of cases, only fixing when everything was done. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, probably wise, but I wasn't thinking this was going to be dragged out over more than a week. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a list in two sections. The top one might be OK to do by topic across centuries now. I'll check these later against the list of categories that have been placed on a short term hold. The second half of the list is the ones that are holding for the other project to complete. These lists are not complete, but are a starting place. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Good gravy. This is far too complex for me. I wish we could just do 'em and get it over with. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm doing these manually. If you have a bot to run through all of these, let it loose based on the below. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm bot-less. I was doing them manually too. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

please rename

I cannot get a reply from my bot user on how it is going or what delay may be going on. Just go ahead with renames.
Please consider renaming these categories on my list ASAP. Also let me know if I can do some thing to help-- and I may have time. For example I can sort out all the ones still needed renaming and list them somewhere for you and Vegaswikian.--Carlaude ^(talk) 21:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Have these paused for any reason? Should we continue? --Kbdank71 17:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  - Are there missing ones? I thought they were done. If there are more, they need to be nominated. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
    - Yeah, I only stopped because I thought we were done. I haven't run into any that haven't been renamed for a while. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

Regarding the reverts of my edits: Do you have any clue about German history? I dare to say no.-- Matthead Discuß 00:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

As you've been told by other users, that's not really the point. Your (or my) interpretation of German history is not in question. The point is you can't make these sweeping changes of deleting every mention of "West Germany" without consensus, and it's certainly inappropriate to blank entire categories because you disagree with their existence. You can use WP:CFD for the categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

But you can make sweeping changes? Can you explain this? Why should this person named Ryan Christopher Clark, born in 1984 in an undisclosed place, and killed in 2007 in a massacre, be listed in Category:West German people? Just because someone had created and added this category before, and you feel entitled to revert all my edits? -- Matthead Discuß 00:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear what sweeping changes you are referring to. Reverting edits of a user who is systematically going through articles and deleting all mention of "West Germany" or "West German" and manually emptying and blanking all similar categories is not a "sweeping change". It's possible you could have made some edits that would otherwise be appropriate, but that does not excuse the general pattern of your edits. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for removing all doubts. -- Matthead Discuß 00:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't really care less about the merits of the content dispute, but I do care about how editors act in discussing it and I do take notice if there are attempts to unilaterally implement one view while discussion of the very issue is ongoing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

User:202.77.91.26

I know you blocked this one, something got through somehow today. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I see the last block period expired. We generally don't like to do indefinite blocks on IP addresses, so I've just added another 2 weeks to it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Power Category Tidy up

hello Good Olfactory, Thankyou for finishing my tidy up of Category:Power stations in Australia by state. I am a little concerned about the wind power, gas power etc being put into this section, as i created the power stations by state for any power station (not sub-categorys). FOR EXAMPLE If you click on Musselroe Wind Farm, Tasmania and its already under Category:Power stations in Tasmania as well as Category:Wind farms in Tasmania. but if you click on the wind farms in tassie category, you still come up with the category "power stations in tas"..... hope that makes sense. I'm not fussed by the outcome, just feel the way it is now is a bit unorganised (the reason i started fixing the power categorys). Cheers Wiki ian 06:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't exactly sure how you wanted it structured. I could see that maybe the wind farm ones may not fit exactly. Maybe we need some sort of category like Category:Energy in New South Wales to hold all the NSW ones, for example. I agree that it has been a bit of a mess. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think some of the other states (like us here in the west) already have such a beast in action - thanks both of you guys for fixing stuff up (in a typical back hander note one of my tag adding edit summaries says ole factory has been here or words to the effect - the day you actually put a project tag inside a talk page on a category we will have to send you a bottle of bubbly :) or tasmanian or margaret river wine or something) Satu Suro 08:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Deal! So ..... about that bottle .... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Being a sometime canuk you probably but the BC victoria there :) Poste restante in an isolated south island post office or do you send yr postal by gmail? (Marg river 1st option, Tasmanian second) Satu Suro 08:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC) There is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Power_stations_in_Australia thats sits in an energy category context - maybe the spearate states could exist in that one? Satu Suro 08:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Wowo how did you do that? wp australia on a cat page and the cat and na came up - has somebody been tweaking the template for it to reacto to cat pages like that? Satu Suro 08:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, of course you're asking the wrong person if the template has been tweaked with. I just put {WP Australia} on and that's what's happened. Maybe I will start putting it on now if it's that easy, cos I always forgot exactly what I had to write. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Apo0logies

RE:Bushfires in Victoria

In the height of the victorian fires last night I forgot the eternal issues about the BC locality by the same name :) - please make sure the speedy goes with curses in my direction (maybe another bottle of plonk on line?) - so much for damned australia vs canada again :) Satu Suro 12:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Or the city in Texas; or the city in Seychelles; or the section of Hong Kong; or the area in Antarctica; ... You never know, the category could be for bushfires in Antarctica ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 19:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah good to think you arent geographically challenged - that must help - as for bushfires - and your continual work on death, murder in cats - I refrain from further...Satu Suro 11:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC) oops first time in a long time no signed starit away

Hi

The work of Satwant Pasricha has nothing to do with SIkh religion or any religion for that purpose. I am going to remove all references to religion, also it should not be a Sikh biography stub...what do you think ? Please reply on my talk page...thanks Jon Ascton (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Orthodox Christianity articles

Dear Good Olfactory,

I made several corrections of the factual errors in several articles (Orarion, Mantle, etc.) and also added links to good quality pictures of the related items. You recently reverted my edits, as I understand, because I'm related to the website to which the links go. There are several reasons why I thought it was appropriate to includes links to quality imagery. One of them is of course the ability of the site in question to provide detailed and quality pictures. There have been several occasions when some picture that I linked appeared in Wikipedia without indication of their source, explicitly violating the copyright issue. When accessing articles Sticharion and Skufia, I also noticed linking to sites that sell these products: namely www.nikitatailor.com and www.sestry.com. So, these links were and are present I naturally assumed that this type of linking is appropriate, especially because the links do not point to any commercial section of the site. I thought, that uploading images would be probably a better way of illustration, but, again, the above mentioned links led me to believe that there would be no problem. Please clarify what would be the best way to illustrate the articles and whether it is appropriate to leave errors and misstatements in the texts which I had corrected. In Christ, Reader Michael Parish of Holy New Martyrs of Russia Rdr. Michael (talk) 07:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC) • contribs) 07:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course you may correct errors in the text. The problem was linking to a commercial site, which appeared to be a kind of "spamming" of the Wikipedia site. As for pictures, see Wikipedia:Images, which provides an introduction to Wikipedia's use of images. There are links there about how to upload images. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So, a) what should be done in order to return corrected text? b) what's the difference between the deleted links and the other two commercial sites? c) should I simply upload these pictures (since I have permission) to Wiki and then incorporate them in the articles? I just want to understand more correctly the guidelines. Rdr. Michael —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC).

(a) I have returned the changes to the text that you made. I'm sorry that I didn't notice those before, and I should not have reverted them back along with reverting the additions of the picture links. You could have added them again yourself, but I have saved you the trouble. Feel free to make any changes that you see are necessary or that I have missed.

(b) If there are other commercial sites that are linked to, they should probably not be included in the articles. There are a lot of inconsistencies in Wikipedia, because we can't catch all of the "problems", but you could certainly help in that regard by removing them.

(c) You may upload the images for use in the articles if you have the right to use the images. When you upload them you are required to provide source and copyright/use permission information. If you don't include the information, the images can be deleted.

Hopefully this helps; thanks for inquiring. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Another

Category:Indonesian prisoners and detainees
Category:Prisoners and detainees of Indonesia

Just found this at a bio of an indonesian military man - suspect you might be able to help here? If you feel so inclined - thanks If you do - otherwise tell me to b off - no harm :) Satu Suro 14:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What was it you wanted done? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it was the case of your experience you would know the more appropriate one (or more common usage) - and either let me know which one, so i change the cats so we get a speedy on the one which wasnt appropriate - I havent looked into it and was hoping your experience would be a good guide Satu Suro 11:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this (similar issue with different categories) came up in a discussion a little while ago, and it was decided they are both appropriate, since one is a "by nationality" category (the prisoner is Indonesian) and the other is a "by detaining authority" category (he was imprisoned by Indonesia). Obviously, the two categories will overlap somewhat, and in many cases the nationality and country will be the same (as here), but someone can be Indonesian and imprisoned by another country or someone of a non-Indonesian nationality can be imprisoned by Indonesia. So there's no need to merge the categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that - you see i bet no one else could repy like that - thanks for the time and effort to explain - Satu Suro 00:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Lists of music students by teacher

Thanks for your efforts here. All looks fine. --RichardVeryard (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:State cabinet secretaries of Puerto Rico

As the creator of Category:State cabinet secretaries of Puerto Rico, I have responded to your renaming proposal, which I do not object to, however I have proposed solutions for the issue of which parent category it should be included in. Please see the CfD page for further details. --TommyBoy (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Train

Hi, I was wondering if I could ask your opinion about something. On New Year's Day you nominated a category I had created, Seduction songs, for deletion or renaming, stating that it could wind up being used for songs about seduction instead of for my intended use of songs by the girl group Seduction. It wound up being renamed "Category:Seduction (band) songs", and I agree with that. You seem to be quite experienced in this area, so I thought of you when I recently added a song by the rock group Train to the already-existing "Category:Train songs". Is this a similar situation...might that category be improperly used for, say, "Chattanooga Choo-Choo" or something like that? Maybe renaming it "Train (band) songs" would be appropriate here. Or maybe not, I don't really know. Any thoughts? Thanks. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, in my opinion that's another good example of a category that should probably be renamed, since the same sort of confusions could theoretically occur. The article about the band is Train (band), so it would also make sense to match the category name to the article name. Would you like to nominate it for a discussion, or would you rather I did? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've never done that before and I'm not sure how. Would you mind? The reason I participated in the discussion about Seduction is because you tagged my talk page, otherwise I wouldn't have known. I thought there might exist the same confusion regarding Train, but I wasn't sure (and there are probably dozens of other bands with short names that have similar categories, but I can't think of one off the top of my head). I also need to figure out how to get all the Lenny Kravitz songs off the "what links here" for the Train article "Calling All Angels", since I guess he had a song by that name too. I edited the template, but they are still listed there. Anyway, thanks for your input. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I will do it later today and also look at the "Calling All Angels" link issue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance, I appreciate it. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Islamic shrines in Tamil Nadu

Wasifwasif‎ has recreated Category:Islamic shrines in Tamil Nadu for the third or fourth time. I am not necessarily against the category, but this user does seem to have an issue with disregarding consensus and reverting/recreating things. I am only messaging you because I saw that you were the last admin to delete the category. Thanks!WackoJacko (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I've noticed several of the re-creations as I was the admin who closed the discussion and originally deleted the category. If it keeps up something needs to be done; maybe I'll have a word with the user. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he seems to have an issue with ownership of articles as well. ThanksWackoJacko (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, the one he has recreated now is slightly different than the one you deleted. It has different capitalization : Category:Islamic_shrines_in_Tamilnadu. As such, the one you deleted is still deleted, but his new one is not. The one you deleted is Islamic Shrines in Tamil Nadu. I think both have been deleted twice.WackoJacko (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I've posted a warning on his talk page about this. It's getting a bit ridiculous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculousness

As for ridiculousness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Former_settlements_in_Asia - I am sure I have never seen such a broad scope on that one - maybe its because its friday the 13th? Satu Suro 00:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be placed in the parent category Category:Former settlements in Eurasia. :D Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Serbian regicides

I notice that this category you created is unpopulated (empty). In other words, no Wikipedia pages belong to it. If it remains unpopulated for four days, it may be deleted, without discussion, in accordance with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#C1. I'm notifying you in case you wish to (re-)populate it by adding [[Category:Serbian regicides]] to articles/categories that belong in it.

I blanked the category page. This will not, in itself, cause the category to be deleted. It serves to document (in the page history) that the category was empty at the time of blanking and also to alert other watchers that the category is in jeopardy. You are welcome to revert the blanking if you wish. However, doing so will not prevent deletion if the category remains empty.

If you created the category in error, or it is no longer needed, you can speed up the deletion process by tagging it with {{db-author}}.

Best regards,--Stepheng3 (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Islamic shrines in Tamilnadu, wasifwasif is at it again

Wasifwasif‎ has recreated Category:Islamic shrines in Tamilnadu again. He seems to be totally disregarding any consensus or input from other editors/admins. Also, his other edits in articles seem to be poor English contain unsourced, POV material, but I guess that is neither here nor there. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that he has completely disregarded your warning and recreated the page. Thanks.WackoJacko (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've given him one last chance. If it happens again, he should be blocked. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Glen L. Pace

Yeah...that's why I should read the policy on article naming before moving a page. Sorry. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It's OK; not a problem. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Austalasia (ecozone) fauna

Shouldn't this be spelt "Australasia"? -- Longhair\^talk 23:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

y. in process of correcting. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Anglicans by nationality

See Category talk:Anglicans by nationality. This has grown beyond my talk page. -- Secisek (talk) 10:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied -- 21:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You cannot revert a cited POV - I will correct it again later today if you cannot explain why you did this. If there is another POV, add it and cite it. There are serious ownership isssues coming in to play here - there were from the start. When you mass revert cited changes to Wikipedia, you are edit waring - plain and simple.-- Secisek (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't "revert" them, your citations remain. Look, I'm trying to find out what the consensus is. I'm not trying to enforce anything, but I've implemented a "compromise" position pending discussion. I haven't reverted your changes—they remain. Why are you hostile towards further discussion on the category structure? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have demonstrated consensus in anumber of articles and backed it with WP:RS. - see my talk. -- Secisek (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to start a discussion to gauge consensus on the issue re: categories. To my knowledge it's never been discussed with respect to categories before. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not intrested in playing games - everything I have done was to correct what is really a rather small error that I happened to see while working through the tree. I do feel that you have behaved in a less than constructive manner from the moment of my first edit, and undeniably encouraged escalation of the dispute, but I don't want to argue about this as it is has been a huge distraction. I will accept the compromise in full right now and when the Holy See announces the reunion with TAC (word is next Easter) it will bee beyond question that tree will need to be corected. I will accept the compromise and we can revisit this in a few months when a couple hundred thousand Anglicans are double cat-ed as Roman Catholic and Protestant. -- Secisek (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd encourage you to have your say now in the discussion. Putting the issue off until Easter's probably not a good solution, since I've started the discussion already. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Okey dokey. I had no idea this would be so contentious. I have been attempting to avoid doing anything that would suck me into a debate the last few months. What is frustrating is I can cite source after source that supports my position and the response seems to be "don't be silly everybody 'knows they are protestants". Really? Who? Not Oxford University Press. Not Encyclopaedia Britannica. Again, this should not even be contentious. -- Secisek (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

In my time at Wikipedia, I've learned that whenever I find myself saying to myself, "this shouldn't be controversial ...," it usually means that it no doubt will be controversial to someone. :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It never fails. Thank you for you dis-intrest in this process. I think the case has been made as best at it can be made and we will see if people are convinced. It is difficult because many people incorrectly assume Anglicans are Protestants and overcoming people's assumption - even with published fact - is not always easy. People think they are "right" and are slow to accept that their assumption is "wrong". In another debate over a different Christian Church, I again cited the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church and an editor acknowledged that, while the book was a WP:RS for some subjects, he felt it was not reliable for subjects relating to Christain Churches. WP is unreal sometimes. --Secisek (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The debate is collapsing into rhetorical games, and as I said elsewhere, I don't play game here. I will drop my objection to the current compromise until there is another shift in the communion later this year. Sheesh. -- Secisek (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this so, Secisek? --Carlaude ^(talk) 06:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This is so. Too much time has already spent on such an insignificant error and it was clear by the end of the first day Good Olfactory's compromise was going to stand. --Secisek (talk) 07:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Paris Hilton

Personally, I wish Paris Hilton wasn't notable. But she is, so I support having an article about her. I figure the philosophy underlying WP:NOTABILITY is that Wikipedia objectively reflects the values of society, rather than the values of its editors. And society has rendered Paris Hilton notable, whether we like it or not.

I see this flora-by-country category issue as strongly analogous. People in general really care about the flora of their country. Botanists write floras by country. Governments manage and legislate on biota conservation by country. Wildflower enthusiasts write coffee-table books about flowers by country. The fact is, in the real world, public interest, scientific research and government intervention are all very heavily aligned along political (and nationalistic) lines. I know these boundaries are biogeographically meaningless. But that doesn't mean we can turf out a system of categorisation commonly used in the real world, and replace it with a better one that people don't use. It is better to objectively reflect what people do in the real world, even if it is stupid; than to impose our own values.

You needn't reply that WP:NOTABILITY does't apply to categories; I know that. I am expressing my opinion, not quoting policy. Hesperian 23:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; a quite apt analogy, I would say. I think you are probably right. Paris Hilton is so often a unifying figure among Wikipedians, isn't she? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Not necessearily Satu Suro 00:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Lol—I somehow knew I could rely on you to disagree with that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh? - I was going to but but... in with a lengthy comment about how even 'notability' in itself is in the end an insufficient criteria of inclusion in this... but thought the better of it - cheers gentlemen Satu Suro 01:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were disputing the binding force of Paris Hilton. ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

:-D Hesperian 01:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Damn I knew there were at least three threads coming from all of this - my younger teenagers watch too much foxtel at the moment - and there she is - she is like wallpaper (do we have articles on individual wallpaper designs?) - seems to be on different channels but always on the screen - as for binding force - give me supa glue or chewing gum any day Satu Suro 01:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Strawberry Thief (William Morris). Hesperian 02:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm just stunned with the disambiguation on that article. Do we actually have an article or DAB page for Strawberry Thief? No, we don't, thank Bartholomew (Catholic patron saint of plasterers and wallpaperers). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Categorization of pharmacology articles

I have added an updated draft at WT:PHARM:CAT, and, if avaliable, would appreciate your feedback. kilbad (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Jewish American actors

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Jewish American actors. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kbdank71 16:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Pro Indoor

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. These subcategories can be disposed of immediately; they will not be populated. Totalinarian (talk) 11:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Category "Famous Australians" deleted

Would you please explain why you have deleted this category? There are other categories of other countries that have famous people. Why delete this one? Mstroh (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a duplicate category because it's redundant to Category:Australian people. If there's an article about an Australian on WP, it goes without saying that they are notable, or "famous," as the category name suggested. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah give us/them an inch and they'd outdo the canucks and kiwis anytime for self importance :)

Oh and btw thanks for the lead to St Bartholomew - considering the amorous state between Cfd and many of us Australians - the part of his article that made me think about WP:UNDUE - St. Bartholomew is credited with many other miracles having to do with the weight of objects - how apt. :) Satu Suro 01:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

But since you objected, Mstroh, it's only fair that I restore the category and formally nominate it for deletion. I agree that it should be deleted within process and not just because I think it should be. I just thought it was an obvious case, that's all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see you re-created it, so I don't need to do so. I will formally nominate it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Category "Fad diet" deleted

This discuss took place without the involvement of all significant parties. This discussion was not brought to the attention of WP:MED . or WP:SKEPTICS . A number of use see this as an important concept and have found good evidence to justify it's existence. Therefore would appreciate it if you would reopen the discussion.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't re-open it myself, but you could ask that it be done by lodging an application at WP:DRV. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 19:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Fad diet

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Fad diet. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Xasodfuih (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Spelling of "behaviorist" or "behaviourist" or U.K. versus U.S. English

Many thanks for declaring the category "behaviourist psychologists" should be kept. I see that you have raised the issue of whether it should be "behaviorist" or "behaviourist" and noted that I consistently use the latter term. I should say that, as any one who has followed my edits and read my userpage will work out, I live in the United Kingdom, and so I use U.K. spelling. As Wikipedia is edited by users on both sides of the Atlantic, there are bound to be disputes over spelling - for example, read the article Diabetic diet, and you will not that "fibre" sometimes gets typed as "fiber", while the article Ageing would be Aging in U.S. English. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't think it should be changed without a consensus to do so. (I too generally use the UK English, having been born in Canada and having lived in the UK and New Zealand. But I've also lived in the U.S., so I'm a bit of a hybrid speller at times.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Wikiproject United States courts and judges

Greetings! Your support for the creation of this project would be most welcome. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

CSD

I was just wondering, why does it take so long for CSD articles to get deleted? Also, here are 3 articles I tagged that clearly should be deleted JATamaqua, Brandon_Sterk, Kevin_fung Lets drink Tea 23:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it only can happen when an admin decides to work on some at CAT:SD. So if no one's working on it, it may take a little while. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, with 1600+ admins here I would think that it would take less time. I have tagged like 20+ articles today and some are still here. Heres some more Boxspring_Hog Jweb Bintuk (please block the maker of the 3rd one) Lets drink Tea 23:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like an admin has blocked the user. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Maurits van Nierop

Just wondering what your reference is for his death being a suicide? Andrew nixon (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I was wrong. I was thinking of Glen Hall (cricketer), I think. I get my S.A. cricketers confused at times. Thanks for fixing my mistake.. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Mark Ashurst-McGee

I believe you deleted the page for Mark Ashurst-McGee yesterday because it didn't indicate how it "may meet guidelines for inclusion." I wouldn't be surprised if the article was hastily put together and didn't explain its notability very well. However, the article was deleted on the same day it was created, and I don't know of any discussion to fix or improve its problems. Ashurst-McGee is somewhat newer to Mormon history, but I believe he is notable for two reasons:

On Grant Palmer's 2002 book, Ashurst-McGee wrote one of the five controversial critiques published in the FARMS Review, although Palmer felt Ashurst-McGee's arguments were the least ad-hominem. The other critics were James B. Allen, Davis Bitton, Steven C. Harper, and Louis Midgley, all notable names in Mormon studies, or at least Mormon apologetics.
Ashurst-McGee is one of the three volume editors of the first volume of the Joseph Smith Papers series, along with only Richard L. Jensen and Dean C. Jessee, who are very significant Mormon history scholars. This volume was sold high quantities and received lots of press. Ashurst-McGee is also to co-edit other journals series volumes.

I see him as an up-and-coming LDS historian, and while he is definitely orthodox/conservative, the little I've heard from him seems to show him as refreshingly open and unflinching. I vote to restore the article and fix its flaws. Rich jj (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Responded on your page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Problematic non-admin closings

I assume you've already seen my little colloquy with Erik9 on his talk page, thought you might find this of interest as well. Are you thinking about commenting in the DRV? Cgingold (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks; I did see the discussion on the user's talk page but didn't know it had spilled over elsewhere. I had forgotten that he had started a DRV, so I have commented there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I got interrupted half way through, so you posted your comment ahead of me. I'm hopeful that he will take this sort of thing more seriously in the future, now that he's hearing about it from multiple editors. Cgingold (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

PS - In case you missed it, I think you'll find this CFD nomination I posted yesterday amusing. Cgingold (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Totally amusing, mostly for its revealing the Mormon sex in chains case to me, which is a true gem. But what a mess! Helpful editors always wreaking havoc mid-CfD! Not unlike that other Cgingold fellow I know .... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I knew you'd love that - the title alone is worth the price of admission! Hey, sounds like a possible candidate for Category:Oxymorons, don't you think? Cgingold (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ha, yes—there's another one we could add to it. Category:OxyMormons? Those crazy Brits with their humour ... Mind you, it's telling that the abductor and abductee were both Americans .... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Reversion [4] on WP:CFD/W

Since Category:Evolutionists is empty (I just removed all 10 articles from it), why shouldn't it be deleted? Erik9 (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It will be (was). Placing it at that position in the queue will result in the bot deleting it once it is empty. If you're not sure how that page works, I suggest you don't edit it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Your claim that I am "not sure how that page works" is grossly and gratuitously insulting. Since I had emptied the category of its ten constituent articles [5] [6] [7]... prior to placing it in the "ready for deletion" section, it was empty when I placed it there. Your reversion with the summary "leaving it there will delete it" [8] suggests that you didn't even bother to check whether the category was actually emptied, and simply assumed that I was incompetent (which casts your recent opposition to my CFD and TFD closures in a rather bad light, to be sure.) Erik9 (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note the if that preceded the phrase "you're not sure how that page works." I have no idea whether you understand it or not, but your actions tend to suggest not. I did check and saw that it was empty, but not yet deleted. There is no sense placing it in a manual deletion queue and making an editor manually delete it when the bot does it fine when left in the "empty then delete" queue. There's just no reason at all to move it, that's all. No reason to create make-work projects for anybody. If you do understand how it works, then why are you creating work for other real-life (non-bot) editors? Anyway, at the end of the day, it was me who closed the discussion and so I am the editor responsible for seeing that it gets emptied and deleted per consensus. It's just a little annoying when other editors interfere with the implementation of a process that is generally relied on not just by me, but by most editors that close CfDs. "Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately for our overworked administration, Cydebot does check the "ready for deletion" section. Thus, we have the category moved there at 2:17 [9], deleted at 2:19 [10], and only moved back to the "empty then delete" section at 2:22 [11]. The "manual deletion queue" is actually located at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working/Manual#Ready_for_deletion. I had hoped you would be more familiar with this process, since it is how the category involved in the CFD closure you criticize met its end [12] [13]. On the other hand, putting an emptied category back in the "empty then delete" section surely creates work for other real-life (non-bot) editors, who have to check to see that the category has actually been emptied (and not just deleted without emptying, even if it is a red-link) before removing it from the section. If you don't understand how Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working works, then you're in no position to edit it at all (or close CFDs), much less to lecture anyone else with uninformed condescension. Erik9 (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is a bit of a bug in the bot that makes picking up those in the "manual" queue a bit hit-and-miss at times. It has not worked in the past, but it's possible it has now been worked out, but I don't rely on it because of the past problems. I don't know of any admin who does. For most intents and purposes, it has in the past been a manual delete queue. Anyway, bottom line (which you seem to not want to address): don't interfere with an admin's process of closing/emptying/deleting a category. Most have routines that are followed, and it is annoying when someone interrupts the routine and we have to figure out what exactly an editor otherwise unrelated to the process is doing.

As for your level of understanding, I didn't raise this issue here—you did—and your initial suggestion both here and in the WP:CFD/W edit summary that I was somehow avoiding or backing out of deletion of the category by keeping it in the empty-then-delete queue suggested to me that you didn't understand how the page worked. (I believe you suggested I was attempting to "repudiate (my) own closure"—that's awesome.) If you do understand despite your comment, that's good, but it doesn't really matter to me two figs one way or the other so there's really no need to refight the civil war over it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

When you stated "leaving it there will delete it", I believed that your vague reference "there" referred to the "ready for deletion" section (wouldn't the location you were moving the description of the template to be "here", not "there"?), thus suggesting an attempted avoidance of the deletion. Unfortunately, venturing into linguistic traps of ambiguities is a perilous business, from which I should have refrained in engaging. Now, if non-admins aren't supposed to edit Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working at all (which seems to be your claim, since you don't support non-admin CFD closures: if non-admins aren't supposed to "interfere" with administrative CFD closures placed there, what reason could a non-administrator possibly have to edit the page at all?), then why on earth is Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working not fully protected, especially since it presents a spectacular security hazard: the bot will apparently do anything it is instructed to on the page, within minutes. So, if Cydebot will delete any category in the "ready to delete" section (its not readily apparent if there's a safeguard against the deletion of non-empty categories marked as "ready to delete"), then a vandal could cause a database lock by placing Category:Living people in the "ready to delete" section, resulting in a cache invalidation of the 344,867 pages that would have links turn red as a result. Is it really so important to be able to scold non-admins who edit Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working for any reason whatsoever that it's worth leaving a major security hole in place? Erik9 (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. The page was fully protected until just a few months ago (per this discussion), when it was temporarily downgraded in security per a specific request from a non-admin. I suppose it should be bumped up again to prevent the scenario you suggest.

But my point is not really about a generic non-admin editing any old thing on the page, as much as my comments might be read as a generalised comment about how non-admins and admins should act and relate. Above, I tended to state things in a more general way in order to soften the edges of my comment—mainly in the hope that you would understand. But their real intent was to attempt to transmit a specific request that the information relating to CfD closes that I am in the midst of processing by adding information to that page not be edited or changed in any way by you. Thanks for your cooperation, I will appreciate it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk page revert

While I did appreciate the promotion to administrator, I guess it would be better to do that through the regular channels rather than by a vandal. Thanks for the revert. Alansohn (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Your talk page gets more action (both good and bad) than I've ever seen before on a user talk page. It is on my watch list from a time when we were discussing something there. I may need to remove it as it's driving me to distraction! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

your assistance please...

I just noticed that Category:Casio digital watch detainees was deleted. I noticed that you were the administrator who made the ruling that the category should be deleted. I hope you won't mind a few questions.

Back when I first started using categories User:GRBerry gave me some advice. He told me that one of the stronger arguments for having a category was when there was an article that supported it. The way GRBerry explained it to me made sense.

Now that was a few years ago, and I realize that consensus can change. One of the arguments the nominator advanced for the deletion of this category was: "No need to upmerge as the sole article is already well-categorized." I am not sure what this meant. Did you interpret this as a criticism that the article and category overlapped? If GRBerry was correct, wouldn't that erode the argument that an article covered the same territory?

FWIW although the nominator said he or she informed the article creator I don't see any record of this in their contribution history. Can you tell me whether I started this category?

I see that particular contributor and I had a pleasant, collegial interaction thirteen months ago, so I am sure it was an oversight. But I do like to be advised when an article, or category I started is nominated for deletion. Sometimes I am going to weigh in with a defense. Other times reading others concerns may help me learn from my mistakes.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Geo Swan asked me to comment if I had thoughts about his memory or consensus having changed. While I myself can't recall or locate now the specific advice I gave him, I do think I know what I'd have meant. I'll update Geo Swan at his talk page, noting here just that what I believe I would have said is not relevant to this discussion. GRBerry 17:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the category was created on 4-Nov-2006 by User:Yonmei, and Cgingold notified that user on his or her talk page (it's still posted there if you want to see it). Cgingold is quite conscientious about notifying the creator a category that he nominates, and I see this was no different.

As for what Cgingold meant—it's probably safest to ask him what he meant—but what I interpreted it as meaning was that we didn't need to upmerge the sole article that was in the category because the article was not only in Category:Casio digital watch detainees, but also in another appropriate subcategory of Category:Extrajudicial prisoners of the United States. (The sole parent category of Category:Casio digital watch detainees was Category:Extrajudicial prisoners of the United States.) Hopefully this info helps you, but you could discuss it with Cgingold if you want more detail on his meaning. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That was helpful. But I still don't know what an "upmerge" is. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's just taking an article in Category 1 out of Category 1, placing the article in Category 2, and deleting Category 1. (Category 2 is the parent category of Category 1. Thus, the contents of Category 1 have been merged "up" to Category 2, its parent.) I think Cgingold meant we don't need to take the article that was in Category:Casio digital watch detainees (Category 1) and place it in Category:Extrajudicial prisoners of the United States (Category 2), because it was already in another subcategory of Category:Extrajudicial prisoners of the United States (Category 2), probably a by-nationality one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Boyd K. Packer

Please check out Boyd K. Packer's talk page. I think an edit needs to be made and you recently undid my reversion. Ejnogarb (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I just did a more substantive reversion, to the form that it was originally in before it was changed to a completely POV form by a different editor, which you then adjusted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For helping out with implementing this. Kbdank71 13:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it was a big job—good to see it's (almost) all done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sibeam

Hi - I think your deletion of Sibeam was not appropriate. The original deleted article was unreferenced and did not assert notability. The article I helped revive was a start-level article and asserted notability. Furthermore, the approach you took in deleting the article without notice or discussion was not appropriate. You should have added a prod, nominated for AfD or made some other indication for further discussion so that contributors have an opportunity to comment. I came into this situation after the first article had been deleted already and helped improve the article you just deleted. I would propose you restore the article and propose for AfD if you think it merits deletion. The last AfD discussion was not substantial in any way and does not particularly relate to the article that you just deleted. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 14:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Or, you could just go to WP:DRV, which is a forum designed to hear complaints like this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I will put a request for review as suggested. As I am sure you are aware, Deletion Review is not intended as a first course however and would not be necessary if you were performing your admin function properly. Under your suggestion, admins could go around and delete articles without discussion and force reviews. This is not a desirable outcome.|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 15:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Not intended as a first course? Lol—the article has been deleted 4 times. How many more times do different admins have to do it before an AfD can occur then? It seems like an entirely reasonable solution so we can stop the endless cycle of deletion and re-creation once and for all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Sibeam

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sibeam. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 15:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Rumanian ballet dancers vs. Category:Romanian ballet dancers

Thank you for correcting my typo. — Robert Greer (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Categories for Sydney Selwyn

Thanks for adding categories to the Sydney Selwyn article - much appreciated! -- Kind Regards Barryz1 (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Good Olfactory. I noticed you replaced 'Category:British scientists' with 'Category:British microbiologists' however I think both are valid so I've reinstated the first. I've also added a few more that seem relevant; 'Category:Scientists', 'Category:History of medicine', 'Category:Medical_historians'.

Thanks again, Barryz1 (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome; glad to help. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you CSD these?

Can you delete all the mages that have been closed here? [14] I closed them per WP:SNOW and marked them with CSD-G6 §hawn poo 00:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not following you. I don't see anything that was closed on that date at RfD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Notifying category creators

First, let me thank you for your work on wikipedia. I appreciate all your help in the past, and the effort you put into the CfD process. I just happen to see your comment on Cgingold's page, and I understand were you are coming from. However, I would encourage you to continue notifying category creators of CfD's because I feel category discussions often occur without all the affected parties being aware that a discussion is happening. kilbad (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement; I agree with what you've said here. In 99% of cases, things work out well and I'm glad that I've chosen to notify. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately it happens rarely enough that it doesn't really factor into my outlook -- especially since the more usual outcome by far is a note of thanks on my talk page. Cgingold (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think I just had a very bad experience. It was far more severe than the current one, and involved email harassment, etc. I'm sure I'll get over it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible IP Block

I've never gotten into asking that someone be blocked but I feel that this user could present some serious issue. IP 216.145.246.130 created Leonard Kwit which is an exact copy of another article with the name changed throughout the article. The user has been warned numerous times but only at low levels. I went through the edit history and only found 1 edit that could possibly be constructive in the first 20 edits. It seems that people just revert the changes and go on their way. I don't know the policies on banning an IP adress editor but common sense tells me that this IP needs blocked indefinitely. It looks like for everyone 1 productive edit they make, they make 10 others that are pure vandalism. Their latest act of vandalism scares me because, had it not been for a missed name change, this could have slipped through very easily, IMO. Thoughts? OlYeller^Talktome 23:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we keep an eye on the IP address over the next little while. If we remember that blocks need to occur as protection for WP and not just as punishment for those who cause disruption, right now the edits don't look like they are consistent enough to be a huge problem. But I agree that if what just happened keeps up the address should perhaps get a few higher level warnings and then be blocked. In general we don't indefinitely block IP addresses, but I'd have no problem in blocking the IP for some period of time if the problems continue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'll keep an eye on it and let you know if it is making consistently bad edits. OlYeller^Talktome 01:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Films shot with 70 mm film

I wonder if you might consider altering the CFD close slightly to rename to Category:Films shot in 70mm? Every other similar category in Category:Films by technology is in this format. Otto4711 (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I actually wondered about that at the time. The nominator said it just sounded better, and there were no comments disputing this, but I did wonder about consistency with the other categories. I'll change it; hopefully no one will have a yam over it. By the way Otto, I know that you weep bitter tears every time a category is deleted, so don't be ashamed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

My mistake! I see that you did mention this. I'm not sure what I did there to miss that, but obviously your comment was the reason I did think about this issue. I think I just closed it rather mindlessly, and I'm glad you caught me on this one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries mate, if someone has a yam I got your back (although your shoulders might end up soggy from my bitter tears). Otto4711 (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hidden digression

Say, I just want to let you know that I decided to use the "hidden" template to turn the middle part of the Malmedy CFD into a sidebar under the heading of Digression re WP:OCAT & civility, so as not to scare other editors off of joining the discussion. If you feel this isn't appropriate, feel free to restore to the status quo ante. PS - thanks for your note. Cgingold (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a good idea. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Conservative Female Commentators

Today I created a category Conservative Female Commentators, which was a subcategory of Commentators. You deleted this category using a script. Many of those people who were categorized as Conservative Female Commentators were not recategorized as Commentators as would be proper. For instance, see Melanie Morgan. Could you use your script to restore this status? Also, could you point to the policy prohibiting categorization of people by the term "conservative"? Greg Comlish (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll just restore the category and nominate it for a full discussion, where I'll explain my position. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

See here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you show the policy/guidelines concerning categories that you use to justify your position? Greg Comlish (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

See the linked to previous discussions at the full discussion. There is not really a specific "WP policy" on this very specific issue—we have discussions like this to deal with specific issues that arise under the broader guidelines. In the case of categorizing Americans as "conservatives", previous discussions set out the approach that has been adopted via consensus in the past. The broader guidelines that would be implicated would be WP:NPOV and WP:OR, I suppose. See also WP:OCAT#OPINION, WP:OCAT#SUBJECTIVE, etc. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be generally thought of as inappropriate to have a category of people by the opinions they hold. However, WP:OCAT#OPINION specifically distinguishes between people who have an opinion and people who are known for advancing opinions, such as activists. I see no reason why right-wing commentators would not likewise qualify. I think distinguishes these categories from previous categories containing conservatives. WP:NPOV and WP:OR are relevant to what would qualify for membership in the category, but not the category itself. If you feel 'conservative commentator' doesn't have enough of an objective definition for WP:OCAT#SUBJECTIVE, it seems like it one could make a related category "Republican Commentator" which would meet that criteria easily. Greg Comlish (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Every category is considered on its own merits. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Your Church of Israel hatchet job.

Knowing what we know about the legendary egoism and irrationality of some Wikipedia editors when it comes to editing articles with religious or political themes, I'm pretty sure you'll go in gangbusters and try and justify and repeat your hatchet job on the article Church of Israel. Just be aware than any "edit war" will attract many more editors to the article, and they can decide if your chop job was unbiased or appropriate. What it looks like is that you did a pretty reasonable job of editing there for awhile, but then couldn't resist taking out the specific information about just which "Latter-Day Saint" factions the Church of Israel hearkens from. Be prepared to defend and explain any further such edits to LDS editors who won't appreciate you associating them with not one but three pointedly non-LDS, anti-LDS factions. 70.246.75.15 (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are very vague. I actually made the article far more specific and accurate, since I laid out which church in particular the church emerged from. It came from the Church of Christ at Halley's Bluff, formerly the Church of Christ at Zion's Retreat, and that article is clear where that church came from—the Church of Christ (Temple Lot). WP is not a collection of quotes, nor is it necessary to re-cap the entire history of the Latter Day Saint movement in an article about a particular church. Anyway, all the quoted information is still available in the cited articles. I suggest rather than making opaque comments about edit warring you try to productively improve the article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

oops...you're right. I hadn't clicked on the links to Church of Christ at Halley's Bluff and mistakenly thought information about it had been summarily removed from any Wikipedia mention. Good job, and Church of Israel needn't be edit- protected so far as I'm concerned. 70.246.75.15 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC).

Problem with a user

I dont know if I am writing to right person but there is a Wikipedian that constantly changes names, descriptions and other contents of the articles. He usually delets Polish names and changes them into German ones. He uses phrases as Wersal dictate, Polish government (administration) over Silesia even to describe the current situation. He cannot accept that some territories were part of Poland even before 1945 and constantly deletes such information. Becouse of that users have to put references even into the Categories descriptions in order to make him stop. see here.

He edits Wikipedia for at least a year but usually changes his IP adres after a week or two. Those are some of his previous IP's:

That's his present IP: 70.133.65.117. He was also cloesly tied with Matthead who often backed him up in numerous disagreements with other Wikipedians. Can something be done with him?

Best Wishes 213.238.122.164 (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You could report this at WP:ANB, but after looking at his recent edits it doesn't seem to be too bad right now. If the problem continues, I would take it there, or drop me another note here and I could try to help. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, if it continues I'll ask for further assistance. Maybe the mere fact that the Admins are keeping their eyes on him will calm him down a little. :) Best Wishes 213.238.122.164 (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

patriarch (Latter Day Saint)

Hello, I noticed you are an admin and happen to be involved with Latter Day Saint articles, so I came here for a question. In patriarch (Latter Day Saint), it lists the roles of patriarchs in all the LDS breakaway churches. Since those churches are not legitimately LDS, it would confuse people looking for the role of an LDS patriarch. Perhaps make another article with the roles of patriarchs in the breakaway churches. Please respond at my talk page. Thanks Griffinofwales (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at Eldred G. Smith's article, and I noticed that it lists him as holding the calling of emeritus patriarch. Is emeritus technically a calling? I always thought it was another word for retirement that was used in the LDS church. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that explained my question. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 19

on the 'shot dead by police': somehow it looks like I overlaid something you wrote here (looking at history). I did not mean to; don't know how I did. Perhaps you would want to re-insert your comments. Sorry. Hmains (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No, that's OK—I did it. I posted, then tried to change my comment--had an edit conflict with your edit, and then I decided to move it and change it entirely, so there is stuff there that I deleted. No worries. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Words to the concerned

Yes, I'm currently away. Yes, I'll be back. No, I'm not sure exactly when. No, it won't be long. — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:International Criminal Court judges

Hi Ol’factory, I just saw this discussion. I didn't know about the rule that categories are supposed to be timeless, sorry about that! Polemarchus (talk) 12:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm very lazy today

So I'll just link to this: User_talk:Vegaswikian#Script_for_closing_CFD.27s --Kbdank71 20:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

WP Night of Long Knives

Can I borrow your whetstone? Otto4711 (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Intead of that, all you need to do is get a reeeeaaaallllyyyy uptight editor, and then ... well, you know the rest. I have a few names I could suggest ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Another Tiramisoo sock?

I followed a bit of this saga on ANI and I noticed someone created a misnamed/probably useless NW-related category again. Quack quack? Katr67 (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like it to me too—same focus on Oregon, forests, and "indie" terminologies. I'll block the user and instruct him how he could appeal the block. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Fox News Channel people

I notice you just deleted this category as a 're-creation'. I had no way of knowing it was similar in name to a deleted category since the name I used is different from what you found on the deletion list. I created this category completely from content found in the Category:Fox News Channel people. Should all these people be moved back there? I just checked other Fox channels and other TV networks and they also include many people in their categories. Such categorization seems to be the rule, not the exception. In at least some cases, the only category of note for the person's article is their 'network people' category. Might you want to re-consider this deletion (of which I have no special interest) and have a new discussion on this type of categorizing? Thanks. Hmains (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Somebody might want to; if so, it can be brought to WP:DRV for discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

DRV

I have opened a DRV on the wrangler categories, on which you opined. Occuli (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

My TP revert

Thank you. 5 minutes ago that would have been needed as at first his edit to my page was vandalism. However I think he's legitimately trying to learn how to send messages. Angelus Delapsus^Talk 00:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why Huggle keeps redirecting me from another users page to here. But I'll assume your the user I'm trying to talk to. If not, I apologize. --Angelus Delapsus^Talk 00:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's me you want. Strange that it's doing that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Circumvent ridiculous process

Don't you just love when the people who complain that process wasn't followed at CFD are the same ones who circumvent the process at DRV? --Kbdank71 03:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's one of those "pick your poison" situations. They are the same type of editors who say, "I don't care if I get blocked", and then they scream bloody murder when they get blocked. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I go away for a day and look what happened. Maybe I should have linked "people" to a different word... --Kbdank71 02:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As usual, this is all your fault. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see you got the memo: "Anything that has to do with CFD is Kbdank's fault". I'm sure Black Falcon and Bencherlite will be relieved. --Kbdank71 02:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to create a banner for the top of WP:CFD with that phrase on it. We also need to carve off categories from the general WP:DRV process, call it WP:CDRV (or perhaps WP:CWTF)—which of course should just redirect to your talk page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought it already was...? CWTF? Of course, if you keep up your, um, what you're doing, I may need to create a double redirect to here. --Kbdank71 12:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Temple Lot and definition of a Temple

I'm okay with your edit/correction because the reader still has the option of reading Wikipedia articles on Latter-Day Saint Temples and also the generic description of a Temple (Wikipedia's definition, not a dictionary definition), and the reader--whether Latter-Day Saint or not--can decide whether the Temple Lot membership is accurate in their own opinion as to what a temple is, or not. Thank you for your 'eagle eye' in this and elsewhere. 70.246.73.201 (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I spoke too soon: I see you've un-linked to wikipedia's own article on Temple. Now that's just weird. You're wanting the reader of an article on a church called "Temple Lot" to be unaware of Wikipedia's own article about what a Temple is? Do you have ulterior motives? Are you a member or sympathizer of the Temple Lot sect? 70.246.73.201 (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No and no. It's not necessary to link to temple, since the only kind of temple that matters at all for the article is Temple (Latter Day Saints). We're not talking about Greek temples, Jewish temples, Buddhist temples, Jain temples, etc. We're talking about Latter Day Saint movement temples. Incidentally, I suggest you tread lightly with that article--it has resulted in some strange stuff going down in the past. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Friend: "We" are talking about religious temples, which are called temples. The article should ideally link to both articles about Latter-Day-Saint definitions of a Temple, and more widespread definitions/opinions about a Temple. I mean, really now. Are you suggesting that the Latter Day Saint view of a Temple has nothing to do with Jewish, Christian and Greek or Hindu or Buddhist or generic concepts of a Temple? As for your advice to tread lightly with the article, I understand and agree with your caution. But recently I met with a member of the Temple Lot church and for three or more hours we had a great discussion about the church's own disparate beliefs about things. I'm convinced that the average member of that church wouldn't mind a discussion of what the definition of a temple is, or not. There is no set or official dogma the church expresses in that regard. 70.246.73.201 (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's just not how intra-WP linking is typically done. Since there is a more specific article at Temple (Latter Day Saints), it's unnecessary to link to the more general one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Archive copy of DRV-related posts at User talk:C S (includes material deleted by User:C S)

material in bold and italics not included in original text
I have opened a DRV on the wrangler categories, on which you opined. Occuli (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

At 09:51, 25 March 2009, you re-created Category:Senior wranglers, despite (presumably) knowing that the category had been deleted in a CfD. The reasons I am presuming you knew that it had been deleted via a deletion discussion are: (1) you participated in the discussion on the "second wranglers" category, where the entire reason for the nomination was the senior wrangler category had been deleted, and (2) you were notified above of the deletion review process for both of these categories. Anyway, it's inappropriate to re-create a category when it's being discussed at a deletion review. If there is consensus there to re-create it, it will be re-created, but you don't need to pre-empt the process. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There's never been any consensus to remove those categories, despite how strenuously you argue otherwise. I made an attempt to circumvent ridiculous process, e.g. "delete to be consistent", and to let people go on with working on the encyclopedia. --C S (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

We wait for the results of the DRV: if consensus agrees with your opinion, then it will be re-created. (Mind you, the senior one was deleted first, so there was no logic of "delete to be consistent" for that one.) Your wilful approach to circumventing WP process is a good way to go about getting blocked as being disruptive. Nobody wants to get blocked. As for my opinion, I have an opinion on the "keep or delete" issue and have expressed it, but I don't care too dearly about the results—not as much as you seem to, anyway. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't much care if I get blocked. Not my loss. If 'caring dearly' is measured by time spent on this matter, I think we know who's spent much more time on this. I don't have the patience like you to argue this forever with the same people. --C S (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Since it's no loss to you if you get blocked, do you mind if I just block you for the heck of it? :) I'd measure "caring dearly" not initially by the amount of time spent on a discussion, but on whether a user is actually unable or unwilling to respect the consensus result and the process while it's ongoing. If they get past that hurdle, then we could look at time spent. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to fill up my talk page with extraneous commentary and threats of blocking (smiley notwithstanding), please don't bother, because it's just a distraction. I'm actually working on adding stuff. --C S (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if you could provide some reassurance that you won't do something like this again, I might stop "distracting" you. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC) (comment deleted at 04:07 26 March 2009 by User:C S with edit summary of "remove harassment")

Should I take your reversion of my question as a "no"—you can't reassure me that you will not pre-empt or subvert WP process in the future? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC) (comment deleted at 04:10 26 March 2009 by User:C S with edit summary of "last warning, go away or a report will follow")

Look, I'm not trying to harass you, I'm just trying to get some sort of acknowledgement from you that you're willing to respect (i.e., not pre-empt or subvert) the WP process on these and other categories in the future. If you think that warrants some sort of "report" of my asking, then go ahead, but really all you need to do is give me a straight answer so I know where you stand from here on out. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC) (comment deleted at 04:20 26 March 2009 by User:C S with edit summary of "i have no obligation to reassure those who feel they have a right to demand such. Your harassment is being reported now.")

Note

First, recreating the category can indeed get you blocked, per WP:BLOCK.

Second, the note you dropped at User talk:David Eppstein would appear to be forum shopping.

Since you have concerns about the category in question, please feel free to positively contribute to the currently ongoing DRV (as I see David Eppstein already has).

I hope this helps. - jc37 05:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If asking an admin I trust, like David, for help on a harassment matter is forum shopping, I don't know what you call what you're doing....someone involved on the "other" side of the debate coming to warn me on my talk page. I don't know what your comment is intended to do (other than annoy me), but don't bother leaving me any more warnings. Get an uninvolved admin if you feel the need for further "helpful" remarks; since you are quick to see "sides" in everything, I'm sure you an appreciate why I might see you as on the "other" side and will not welcome any further comments here. --C S (talk) 05:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There was not a single "warning" in my comments. Everything above was intended to be informative.

As for what I'm doing... I'm reading several discussions, noting that your name had come up, and thought I'd try to help clarify for you, in the hopes you might understand before someone else might decide to apply further sanction.

This isn't about "sides", and I'm not "out to get you". One can actually collegiately disagree with another's opinion on something, and still be willing to try to help them. Everything doesn't have to be adversarial.

But the tone and tenor of your comments would seem to indicate that you're not receiving my offer of help in the vein in which it's being offered.

So, for now at least, I suppose I'll leave this at that. - jc37 06:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC) (comment deleted at 06:38 26 March 2009 by User:C S with edit summary of "remove attempt to save face"; comment re-added at 06.46 26 March 2009 by User:Jc37 with edit summary of "Removing 'some' comments from a thread seems disingenuous, to say the least."; comment re-deleted at 06:51 26 March 2006 by User:C S with edit summary of "you were already told to go away, so do so")

Your past two edit summaries are "fascinating" to say the least.

Persistently removing "some" of my comments is simply inappropriate. See Wikipedia:TALK#Editing_comments.

I have not restored them (again) as yet, choosing to instead leave this note, for now.

But I will say that with this you have lost my good faith, per the evidence of these actions and your actions above.

Please feel free to ask User:David Eppstein for his advice on this as well. - jc37 06:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC) (comment deleted at 7:00 26 March 2009 by User:C S with edit summary of "delete unread")

Attempted removal of comments

All comments above were deleted at 18.43 26 March 2009 by User:David Eppstein with the edit summary of "remove comments to de-escalate the situation, per request on my talk"
This action was undone at 18:45 26 March 2009 by User:C S with the edit summary of "sorry but you don't get to do that"
User:Jc37's remaining comments were deleted at 00.59 27 March 2009 by User:Jc37 with the edit summary of "removing the rest of my comments, as the user has made it clear that they have read them."
This action was undone at 01.00 27 March 2009 by User:C S with the edit summary of "keep it up if you want a block"

Copy of discussion at User talk:David Eppstein

harassment on my talkpage

Apparently admin User:Good Olfactory has gotten a bee in his/her bonnet due to my recent recreation of the senior wrangler category. S/he is demanding "reassurances" on my future behavior, as if I was obligated to do so, and has not so subtly implied that blocks are contingent on my remarks. I don't think this is very serious, otherwise I would report it on a noticeboard, but I hope you can make a comment in his/her direction that repeated attempts to demand "reassurances" on my talk page are not welcome or in line with acceptable wiki-etiquette. --C S (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. User:jc37 is now accusing me of "forum shopping" for asking for your assistance on getting Good Olfactory to stop leaving me messages on my talk page. --C S (talk) 05:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably best just to work on other things, wait for the fuss to die down, and stop trying to make a point by recreating the category while there's still an ongoing DRV. There's no hurry, is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

They seemed to have stopped, so no intervention is needed probably. But this is not about the DRV or category which I don't much care about. This is about somebody (Good Olfactory) coming to harass me on my talk page by making repeated demands for "reassurance". I don't believe this is right or that s/he has the authority to demand promises of my future behavior. Nor do I appreciate jc37 accusing me of "forum shopping" (I have no idea how that even applies here) because I will not put up with the harassment. If they continue harassing me, I'll find another admin who will take appropriate action. Thanks for your time. --C S (talk) 06:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, jc37 is now repeatedly trying to post to my talk page after having been told s/he is not welcome. Since you seem unwillingly to do anything, I will be posting to AN/I. --C S (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I initially dropped User:C S a note to let him know why I deleted the category and that it wasn't a good idea to pre-empt the process, because it could result in getting blocked. I assumed it was done in ignorance, but he said he did it deliberately to circumvent the process, so I sought some sort of reassurance that he understood that doing so again in the future would not be acceptable (which has apparently been misunderstood as a threat). He obviously found my comments annoying so he deleted my comments from his page, alleged I was harassing him, etc. I see another admin has recently got the same treatment from him. Apparently he's been offended that his actions have been criticised, but I see no real need to spread the issue beyond those directly involved. Unless of course you want to be involved, David. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Not especially. I continue to think that the best course of action for all three of you would be to take a step back and stop escalating the pointless drama. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Atm, I'm contemplating AN/I myself.

Right now, I'm not thrilled with "some" of my comments being removed. Either they remove them all from their talk page, or none.

That said, I'd rather not escalate this either, since I'd like to think that this is merely a case of despondence, and not an actual attempt to disrupt. (Though, as I noted on their talk page, my good faith is evaporating rapidly.)

You help in resolving this would be welcome. - jc37 07:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Would having three admins leaving comments on his talk page asking him to calm down work any better than two? Anyway, C S is most of the time a valuable mathematics editor; my trust in his good faith is unshaken. But we've all been through times when the Wikipedia bureaucracy makes a decision that seems stupid and we wish we could just be bold and unilaterally fix it; I think that's all that's going on here, and that adding more warnings and more demands for contrition is just counterproductive. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) - I have to say that it's simply no fair for you to make me laugh when "This iz serious bizniz" (as they say at AN/I).

I could almost see you raising one eyebrow as you said that : )

Anyway, no. My suggested resolution would be for someone to simply remove all my comments. (As restoring them would seem more likely to exacerbate the situation.) I'd just rather prefer to see someone else do it, merely because of trying to avoid the "appearance" of fostering more seeming petulence.

Having said that, perhaps AN/I is the next best course, since this really does involve more than just editing other editors comments (the recreation, etc.)

I dunno. I tend to prefer to inform and suggest caution than take action/effect sanction.

Anyway, your thoughts would be most welcome. - jc37 07:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(Second response, since you expanded beyond the first sentence.) - I weakly agree, while merely pointing at my concerns noted above. Your further thoughts still welcome. - jc37 07:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it goes beyond the re-creation issue, which is really a spent issue and merely the incident that began the real problems. I mean, had he simply just said, "OK, thanks for letting me know," in response to my first posting, there would have been no drama at all. But he posted a very confrontational response to my initial posting—basically he said he didn't care about the WP process and that he was glad he subverted it—which does tend to make one sit up and take notice and wonder else the user has in mind. I tried to make a joke with him about his not caring about being banned, and he apparently interpreted it as a threat. Of course, everyone can respond negatively from time to time when you run into an editor that rubs you the wrong way (I certainly have), and perhaps I did to him. So I was willing to let the matter drop after he deleted my comments for the third time. But then he essentially treated jc37 the same way—with complete disrespect and without any recognition that an inquring editor might have a valid point. And it it's terribly bad form for him to be removing parts of our respective thread discussions on his page. I've no problem if he wants to delete them all—I'll simply archive it at my page. I don't doubt his good faith to want to improve WP, but in my opinion he's demonstrating little that can support an assumption of good faith in his desire to be nice and treat other users and their opinions with respect. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw your effort at User talk:C S and that you were rebuffed as well. Thanks for the attempt, David. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(De-dent) - I have removed my comments from the talk page there. (As it is clear that the user has read them by now.)

If he restores only part of the thread (part of my comments in total), which would (once again) place him contrary to policy, then I will indeed be escalating this. WP:AN/I looking for another WP:3PO, being the first step of the WP:DR. - jc37 01:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(Added to this archive) - An/I thread. - jc37 10:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Deletion of NCAA Tournament Sites category

I noticed you deleted my category...would it be acceptable if the list was an article as opposed to a category? That would solve the "clutter" problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplebackpack89 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a list would be great. I can't believe that one doesn't already exist, though. By the way, I thought that you have wanted it to be deleted, since you blanked the category page after creating it. But it had also been formerly deleted under a slightly different name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Pre-emptive response re ‎Category:Footballers who died in World War I and Category:Footballers who fought in World War I

See here and here. If you still think the footballers/World War I categories should not have been deleted, explain to me how these categories are any different, apart from being more specific as to sportsperson and more specific as to war. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:FPMT

08:22, 28 March 2009 Good Olfactory (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:FPMT" ‎ (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_25#Category:FPMT; unneeded; nothing links here)

The category was renamed as Category:Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition. Since other users have used Category:FPMT why is a category redirect not needed? You said in your edit summary that nothing links here. But, just yesterday, something did link there, and I removed the deleted category[15] and added a category redirect. So, by deleting this category redirect which other editors keep using,[16] you are helping to do what exactly? I generally edit here to help people find information. Should I change my behavior and make it more difficult? The category redirect helps prevent other editors from creating it again but allows them to find the correct category. Can you think of another use for a category named FPMT? Just to save you the trouble, I checked the acronym dictionary. There is only one entry: Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition. I'm getting the sense that you didn't even know it was a category redirect, and you deleted it without even bothering to check the page. If this was an article, it would be redirected. Since it is a category, due to software limitations a category redirect is acceptable, and FPMT has only one published meaning. Before you delete a page again, please actually look at it, first. Viriditas (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for not assuming good faith. Of course I looked at it. I just don't think such a redirect is necessary, and there was consensus to delete it in the discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I assumed good faith. You originally nominated the category for renaming on Feb. 25. The discussion did not touch upon or refer to a category redirect in any way, and as both the original nominator and now the person who has deleted the redirect, you don't appear to be neutral. I explained above why I created the redirect yet you claimed in the deletion summary that the category was recreated; you didn't say that you disagreed with a redirect or why. So, I have assumed good faith all along, as I have not restored the category redirect after your unwarranted deletion, preferring to hear your reasoning. After reading your reply above, it seems that I have to remind you that "I don't like it" is not a good reason. Please respond to my rationale above. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"I'm getting the sense that you didn't even know it was a category redirect, and you deleted it without even bothering to check the page. ... Before you delete a page again, please actually look at it, first.". If that's assuming good faith, the definition has changed. The reason (that was provided) is that there was consensus to delete the abbreviated category in a formal discussion. Deletion of the original category is the default result if a category is renamed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I just finished explaining above that that your edit summary led me to believe that you either did not understand what you were deleting or you did not take a closer look. I chose the latter, and assumed good faith by not restoring the category, preferring to wait for your response. "Assuming good faith" does not mean ignoring evidence or glossing over strange edits. I assumed you made a mistake and waited for your reply. Now, I can see how you might interpret this as "bad faith", but I still maintain my position. You were the nominator and you were also the one who deleted the redirect without providing a good reason in the edit summary. More below... Viriditas (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Other meanings of FPMT

Forest Park Miniature Train (tourist attraction)
French PMT software for Palms (software)
Fries Politie Museum Terherne (Dutch) (tourist attraction)
FEDERAÇÃO PAULISTA DE MUAY THAI (Portuguese (Brazil)) (sport organization)
feedback plasma monitoring technique (medical technique)
formidable pre-menstrual tension? :)

Are any of these entries notable enough that they are actually in use? Why don't they appear listed in the acronym dictionary like the Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition? Could it be because FPMT has a primary usage? Do you forsee or predict that categories will be created for any of the entries on the list you have provided, and if so, which ones? Viriditas (talk) 01:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know the answer to most of your questions, but in making a list they weren't my concern. (I'm not sure what "notable enough that they are actually in use" means. Except for the last one, they are all "in use", which is a question completely independent of notability.) You asked me if I was aware of another use for the abbreviation that was originally used in the category, so I had some fun and dug some up. I've no doubt that oustide of Brazil "Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition" is the primary usage, but this is a concern that is typically relevant to article space, not category space. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"In use" refers to how the term is used on Wikipedia, which you have already figured out refers to the Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition and close to nothing else. And, it most certainly is relevant to category space, and I can explain that more in depth with examples. FPMT is an appropriate redirect just as Category:FPMT was an appropriate redirect before you deleted it. This is no different than USA and Category:USA and many other examples. Since FPMT is used on Wikipedia to refer only to the Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition, there was no good reason for your deletion. Viriditas (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment. Category redirects are not equivalent to article redirects, nor do they work the same way. Because of that, different considerations apply. You've advanced a convincing argument for FPMT redirecting to Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition, which it does. But different considerations apply when considering category space. I suggest that if you really want to challenge the deletion of the category, posting multiple times to my talk page is of little utility, since the decision to delete was made in a formal CfD, and not just by me personally. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The decision was made to rename, and it was a good decision. There was no decision to delete a category redirect. I think I've said this several times now. Since editors have tried to add FMPT as a category, there is nothing wrong with adding a soft redirect, and is best practice on Wikipedia. You have not presented a good argument for deleting the category redirect, so why should I not restore it? Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

See the discussion above—because deletion of the old category is the default result when a category is renamed. You're sending us in circles over this. And yes, there may be something "wrong" with such a soft redirect in the circumstances. They are not universally regarded as "good things". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The old category was deleted. I created the category redirect. You deleted it for no good reason, and you still can't provide one. I just wanted to set the record straight. There are many examples of soft redirects like this one, and they exist to help editors. How does deleting the soft redirect help? Why have you deleted it? Simple questions. You are welcome to take some time to think about them. Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason I have not gone into the detailed explanation of why it may be problematic is not because I don't know what I think, but because your general approach of assuming bad faith has suggested to me that you won't much care what the reasons given are. In any case, are you familiar with how HotCat operates? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of how HotCat operates, and I am also aware that not all users use it, nor do anons as it is a preference. I've asked for reasons for your deletion, and I've received none. Please do not be in a rush to come up with an answer. Take some time to think about it. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Right—if you understand how HotCat operates you'll be able to understand a portion of what I write. I don't have time to do it right now, but I will get around to it eventually, and post it here. (Perhaps I'll make it a "user essay".) Anyway, you have received a reason, and at the end of the day it's the only reason for deletion you really are "entitled" to—and it is the one I gave before: previously deleted in a CfD discussion. As I mentioned above, I'm not in too much of a hurry to produce the essay because of your general approach here, which you may want to rethink for the future if you like getting results that you prefer. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Appealing to a custom gadget that needs to be activated by a registered account that is logged in is not a good reason. Wikipedia is used by many different types of editors and every edit needs to take this into consideration. HotCat is a gadget that is used by a very small minority of our editors. My general approach is to look for good reasons as to why things are deleted. When I don't find them in the edit summary of the deleting admin, I ask why that is and make repeated inquiries until I get them. Viriditas (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a relatively minor part of my essay, which hasn't been written yet, so I would suggest you hold your fire on the essay until (if) you read it. I was just making sure you knew what it was so you weren't perplexed if I referred to it. As to your general approach, compare the hypotheticals below: — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Will I be able to find your deletion rationale in your forthcoming essay? You keep telling me the category isn't needed but you won't tell me why. I don't see any reason why a category redirect isn't needed, as it helps people find the correct category. Is there something wrong with helping people? Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(1) I hope so. (2) I have given you one rationale (twice). (3) No, but the question is whether on balance an action helps more or hurts more. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see an actual rationale anywhere. Can you repeat it for me like you would for an old grandfather who is losing his hearing? Viriditas (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If grandpa had a hard time hearing, I'd write it down for him and have him re-read it again. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful! Now, all you have to do is present your deletion rationale here, in writing...for the first time. I'm looking forward to reading it. Or do you think you can just delete things because you feel like it? Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You may have missed that one. I already have written it above. Twice. To discover it, re-read the above. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have missed nothing. Your deletion rationale doesn't exist on this page and it looks like you deleted the category redirect I added for no reason. If you think your rationale appears above, please use the {{highlight}} template so that I can see it. Failure to do so, will prove my point. Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

one reason for deletion (not the only one) : deletion of material deleted in a deletion discussion (default result for categories being renamed is to delete the original category, not the convert them into a redirect). Since I'm "working" on my essay, I won't respond to further inquiries on this matter, since I can't provide the full reasons until I finish the essay. For now, though, this suffices. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Category wasn't recreated for use as a category but as a category redirect pointing to the newly renamed category, so that rationale isn't valid. If, however, the category was recreated for use, then you would have a point. But, it wasn't. Your insistence on this point after I have already discussed it above tells me you didn't look at it before you deleted it, and your edit summary seems to reflect that, IMO. As for your other reasons, I suppose I will have to wait, but I would like to know how long I should wait. Will it be a few days or longer than a week? Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  - As you no doubt noticed, I temporarily restored the category—only to get you to at least temporarily stop pestering me and assuming bad faith with every action I take. And you just did it again: "Your insistence on this point after I have already discussed it above tells me you didn't look at it before you deleted it, and your edit summary seems to reflect that, IMO." Well, sorry, but you're just wrong on this point. I did look at it and I knew what it was. I've told you that several times, and I would appreciate it if you would take my word on the matter. (In fact, as far as I know, it's impossible to delete a category without looking at what the category is. I have never deleted a category without looking at its content just prior to deletion.) As for how long my essay-writing will take: I'm not sure at this point. Your approach has made me not really want to spend much time pursuing that avenue vigorously, but I will be working on it, both the substance and my motivation to actually do it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  - For the record, I agree with the deletion of the category and re-deletion of it (regardless if it's a soft redirect or not). In fact, had it not been re-deleted, I was going to delete it myself for being a recreation of a deleted category. So please stop the pestering, Viriditas. You're obviously looking for something that Good Olfactory isn't going to or can't provide to your liking. --Kbdank71 10:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
    - Kbdank71, can you point me in the direction of any soft category redirects that have been previously deleted for the same reason as the one Good Olfactory gives above? I'll be happy to take the answer on my talk page if you like. Viriditas (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
      - Note: Soft redirects only exist where there is a need for such navigation. As User:Good Olfactory noted above, one might make the case for FPMT redirecting to the article, but category redirects for abbreviations? Especially when the abbreviation could actually be more than just this specific category? Requiring then to create a series of Hatnotes/disambiguation as well? AFAIK, we don't do category soft disambiguation pages. This was rightly deleted due to vagueness, lack of clarity, and previous consensus. At this point, since both the nominator and the closer seem to have made their positions on this clear, if you still feel strongly about this, perhaps you should bring this up at DRV. If you do, please drop me a note informing of the discussion. Thank you. - jc37 18:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
        Jc37, soft category redirects are used for abbreviations and there is nothing to dab as FPMT is only used by one topic on Wikipedia. None of my reasonable questions have been addressed, and all I see above is an appeal to authority, forthcoming evidence, and a change of venue. I have asked others to move this discussion to my talk page to avoid lending weight to the false accusation of "pestering". As a sign of good faith, Mr. Olfactory is welcome to copy and paste this entire discussion to my talk page, but I am well within my right to request simple answers to simple questions, answers that have not yet been given. Viriditas (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC) ["As a sign of good faith, Mr. Olfactory is welcome to copy and paste this entire discussion to my talk page..." No, no—no need. Discussion may continue here. "Mr. Olfactory"—that's great. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)]
        Actually, first, there are very few category redirects, especially when compared to redirets in other namespaces. And following that, there are therefore, very few redirects for abbreviations. Indeed, except that perhaps you personally wanted it as a shortcut to lessen the amount of typing you had to do, I simply don't see a "need" for the redirect. That said, In reading the above, I see several attempts to address your questions. There's quite a bit on this page. And if you consider the "appeal to authority" to be the previous consensual discussion, then I think you're misplacing your logical fallacies...
        
        But ok, let me ask you directly: Why do you want this redirect? - jc37 05:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
        Let me reply to all your points in order: 1) There are around 7194 category redirects. Why are we comparing them to redirects in other namespaces? You're comparing apples and oranges. Category redirects are used for entirely different reasons. So there are few category redirects for abbreviations, but each candidate is treated on its own merits, so their rarity is inconsequential. We use them when they are needed, for example redirects such as Category:USA, Category:USERA, Category:HRM, Category:WNBA, Category:P2, Category:CSD, and Category:CIA. Why do these category redirects exist? Because people use them. More on that below. 2) You have said that I "personally wanted it as a shortcut" but as I said in the above discussion, I created it to help people. Recently, I was reviewing my watchlist, and saw this accidental removal of categories and reverted to the last good version here. My revert restored the missing categories, along with Category:FPMT which was added by User:Dakinijones. At that point, I saw the redlink and noticed that the category had been deleted, so I then proceeded to create the redirect. 4) The appeal to authority refers to Mr. Olfactory's contention that he "just [doesn't] think such a redirect is necessary" and that contrary to WP:DGFA, he deleted a category of a discussion he had previously participated in as the nominator. But no process was bypassed with the category redirect; The rename was successful and any article placed into the recreated category redirect would find their way to the new category. There was no pressing need for a heavy hand or immediate deletion; Mr. Olfactory could easily have contacted me to talk about it and I would have gladly participated in a discussion. But alas, I was not contacted, and no good faith was extended my way. Does good faith only work one way here? 5) I don't want anything other than to allow an editor, any editor, to be able to add the correct categories to an article without worrying about whether they are doing it right. The transparent nature of the category redirect makes this possible and the end-user, our most valued member of the community, does not have to concern themselves with the correct category name in any situation, since all category names would, in an ideal encyclopedia, eventually redirect their members into the appropriate categories which are maintained on the back-end. Frequently, editors like Mr. Olfactory are all too busy with esoteric and narrow tasks involving category maintenance on the back-end to stop for a minute and think what the end-user is actually doing on the front-end. And anyone who has been here for any length of time knows that articles are constantly being added to categories that don't exist, and categories are often created with alternate names, and all the other variations that one would expect to find when category redirects aren't used. Category redirects temporarily solve this problem and allow the system to self-regulate itself as long as RussBot is actively checking the categories or until a software fix is found to work. My guess is that Mr. Olfactory and others are more concerned with people bypassing process and using category redirects to avoid going through renames, but obviously people are watching User:RussBot/category_redirect_log for this kind of thing. In conclusion, I want nothing but to help our end-users make the best decisions. This means giving them the ability to add the most common version of the category name if they are unable to find the full name or do not know the exact target. Simply put, there is no good reason to use Category:FPMT except to aid accidental categorization and allow the user to experience a seamless editing experience. Streamlining the process from the time the editor clicks "edit this page" to the time they save the page is one of our most important tasks if Wikipedia is truly going to remain "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Viriditas (talk) 11:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(de-dent) - Thanks for the examples of other current soft-redirects. But even if other stuff exists, that doesn't necessarily mean that this example should. (And I have a feeling if we were to analyse most category redirects which are abbreviations, many of them may be be good candidates for deletion too.)

And I didn't say that that was your reason, I said that except for that as a possibility, I didn't see much of a purpose to the category redirect in this case.

There are several reasons why we tend to prefer to not have many category redirects. The first and foremost is that it creates a bluelink. And in my experience at least, having a bluelink for a non-category can create navigation problems and hinder navigation rather than help.

And while russbot may be great, we shouldn't rely on it to fix something that shouldn't be a problem in the first place if there is no need.

And the problem with presuming that this is a navigation issue evaporates when one considers that the full name of the category is what will show at the bottom of the articles. So readers already have a direct link to the category that they may be interested in.

So if they type in FPMT, they'll end up at Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition.

And guess what category lies at the bottom of that page?

Why it's Category:Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition.

So there is absolutely no need whatsoever for this category redirect "to help our readers navigate".

At the moment the only reasons I can see that anyone might want this is that: they're confused about categories; they want it for vanity reasons; or they want it for their own personal shortcut.

I'm not seeing much else. If you're seeing something you think I'm missing, I'd be interested in that new concept which has yet to be presented. - jc37 15:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You're missing a lot. To begin with, you took an incredibly cheap shot at my comments, which were made in direct response to your points. You observed that there are very few redirects for abbreviations, and I addressed the issue in my response. You then cheerfully pointed to WP:OSE, as if that was my justification for creating the category redirect, when I clearly stated in the next part of my reply what was my justification, that it was being used by other editors to categorize related articles. You then say, I didn't say that that was your reason to cover yourself, knowing I would call you on it, but the damage is done, and anyone reading this is of course now free to blow me off. Nice job. I don't presume that the category is used for navigation, I know it is, as I have spent years fixing bad categories and pointing them to the correct ones. And your example doesn't even begin to address my point, a point I can illustrate with dozens of examples. Here's just one: A new editor interested in Buddhist topics decides to create an article on the Liberation Prison Project. They find it is a redirect to Robina Courtin, not FPMT. They then create a new article and tag it with the most common name for the organization, Category:FPMT. Edits like this happen every single day, and yet you are here honestly telling me it never happens? This is the kind of closed thinking we get from editors who specialize in niche deletion projects which should never have been removed from the general deletion queues. By doing so, this isolation has created a specialization that fails to take into account the big picture, and how the subsystem (in this case categories) fits into the other pieces that compose the encyclopedia. I have seen this time and time again, and it seems to be getting worse. You say that the only reasons that someone would want to use the most common name for the organization, a name that is used multiple times in at least 43 articles on Wikipedia and has almost five dozen links in current use, is that they are "confused", they want it for "vanity" or as a "personal shortcut". Many editors are confused, which is why it is our job to help alleviate their confusion with services such as redirects and help new articles maintain their categorization through redirects when necessary. And since the category was accurately named FPMT in the first place, anyone adding a category for this organization is again, going to try and add Category:FPMT. You are trying to tell me that they are going to go to the main FPMT article first and find the correct category to add to their article? I'm not going to address "vanity" (by whom or what?) or "personal shortcut" (for a category?) because they are absurd. But, I'm convinced you haven't thought this through, and you are possibly out of touch with how the average editor uses Wikipedia, which is not necessarily your problem, but a problem faced by many editors who confine themselves to specialized subprojects without understanding how and why people use the site. Accessibility is our number one goal, and everything else is secondary. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow.

You read a lot more into my comments than was placed there.

But let me see if I can address your statements in order.

Before I begin, I suppose I should point out that I've been doing the same with categories for years as well. And as an aside, I do remember you, or at least your username.

And, ignoring the generality of your assertions about those who specialise in a certain XfD process, I'll simply address how that might or might not apply to myself (not speaking for others).

If you were to check my contributions of late, you may find that I do quite a bit more than CfD. As a matter of fact, I have been less than active there of late. Something that some of those whom I respect have been chiding me for.

My watchlist is in the thousands (There's an AN/I link discussing it actually, which I'll find if you doubt it) and I show that clearly by my edits everywhere. Including being one of the first to wish Rlevse good health, and Jimbo Wales too (though each with different semantics).

The world isn't out to get you.

And seriously, logical arguments are the best way to convince not only me, but most of those who regularly close at CfD.

And thus far, most of your comments haven't been due to logic, but rather all over the place. Begging the question and ad hominem being chief amongst your comments.

I won't go further into that unless further examples bring us there, but I'll note that Good Olfactory showed this fairly clearly in the hypotheticals below.

Anyway, as for your points.

First, my comments weren't a "cheap shot" at you (at least at that point). They were addressing the issue in general. And since I presume good faith, I take it on faith that perhaps whomever I am discussing with doesn't have as rounded a discipline in Wikipedia policy and process as me. And further, I know that I am human, and can be prone to mistakes, so both both reasons, it's usually a good idea to inform who I'm discussing with the reasons for my stance on whatever is being discussed. That's also called laying a foundation for communication, if you've studied such.

And as for how useful categories are for navigation. We're all presuming. Technically, the encyclopedia could work just fine without them. That's the wonder of hyperlinking.

As for your example, you have a real problem, or at least that category does.

In violation of WP:CAT, there are articles in the cat which do not assert whatsoever how they are related to the category. And that includes Robina Courtin. So without references to back them up, any editor would be welcome to prune out the very category which you're promoting.

But that aside, if the editor came to a redlink at CAT:FPMT, you don't think that they would just type in FPMT in the search box? If they're savvy enough to know about categories, I would presume that they're savvy enough to know how to search for the main topic?

(By the way, your argument on that is called a "red herring", among other things, in case you're keeping track.)

As for the reasons that one might want this soft redirect, I'll address each example.

They're confused about categories: Things like: "I think I need to add a category for anything and everything barely even remotely related to the topic." (Also known as overcategorisation.) Or they use categories as "bottom of the page notices", instead of just linking to the related articles directly. (Which would be building the web. Which is what we're directed to do by policy.)

They want it for vanity reasons: Things like: "If they get theirs, I want mine." Or: "My topic is important, it should have what I want, because topics which I feel are less important than mine have them. It's a status symbol, and IWANTMINE." Or: "I'm somehow related or attached to the topic in someway, and though I don't feel I have a bias or COI, I strongly feel that we should have whatever I want in relation to the topic, because it makes me feel better." Etc. All IWANTMINE, ILIKEIT or COI personal reasons.

They want it for their own personal shortcut: This is rather common amongst experienced WIkipedia editors. After all, look at all the abbreviations we have for project space pages. So it's a natural tendency to want them for other pages which have a lengthy name. And while that may (or in some cases, not) be acceptable in mainspace, it's not in category space due to the several technical restrictions and relationships that categories have. And incidentally, that's one of the reasons why soft redirects are to be kept at a minimum.

And finally as for "out of touch", thank you for your opinion, but I introduce people to Wikipedia all the time, and if you're suggesting that the help I provide them doesn't keep me in touch with what newbies encounter, I'll call that assertion more than absurd.

And finally, our readers not our editors, is our #1 goal.

Oh, and I mentioned above that that wasn't a cheap shot, it wasn't, though going trhough and explaining how redirects work, in the face of your rather clear incivilities, lack of good faith, and so on, led me to use a tone which wasn't quite as civil as I might have used with a less experienced editor. YMMV. Shrugs.

As they say at BRD, now that it's been removed, even by a single editor, the onus is now on the one wanting inclusion to show why it should.

And at this point, other than the points I note above, which aren't valid reasons for inclusion, I'm just not seeing it. I welcome comments from the nominator and the closer on this, if perhaps your further comments have convinced them. But they haven't me as of yet. Though I dare say if you convince me, I think it's highly likely you will have convinced them as well.

SO anyway as I noted above, if you see something in the logic, or attribution to policy/guidelines which you think I'm missing in this. (Something stronger than just your or my or anyone else's personal opinion.) Please feel free to note it. - jc37 01:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I read your reply much earlier, but decided to let it sit and come back to it many hours later, hoping that I could see it again in a new, fresh light, perhaps with a different take than before. But, having read it now for the second, third, and fourth time, I am convinced of two things: You don't understand what I have written, and it's also possible that I must share that blame, because I am assuming a great deal of background information, information that you may not have or comprehend. Nevertheless, your answers are telling. My opinion is that you are not interested in the topic of this discussion (whether category redirects are useful) and you are only here to defend Mr. Olfactory. That is of course, exactly what you are doing. So, for me to keep beating my head against the wall would be immensely silly, as you would of course agree. Therefore, I will restate my offer above once again, in a different way: Anyone is welcome to come to my talk page and ask me direct questions about the usefulness of category redirects, and I will answer them. I will not, however, continue to play games here, as the playing field has grown too muddy for my tastes. A discussion must have an implicit agreement from participants such that they will 1) make an effort to understand what is being said, and 2) ask questions when something is not understood. I don't see you engaging in this discussion in good faith, or rather, I don't see the benefit of discussing something with someone whose mind is made up and can't be bothered with the facts (and is only interested in defending his friend) so this will be my last comment here on the matter. Again, anyone is welcome to ask me targeted (and preferably thoughtful) questions about this subject on my talk page. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I thought that the topic of discussion was whether Category:FPMT should exist (and of course, anything else which you deemed to bring up, which causes me or someone else to respond to that as well).

Incidentally, if you don't want the answers, don't ask the questions. And if you don't like the tone, perhaps you should consider setting a different tone from the outset.

Anyway, enjoy whatever discussion you may have on your talk page. And please let me know how it turns out. - jc37 09:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, you haven't provided any answers, which is why I have ended this discussion. The topic of discussion is whether the FPMT category should exist, which depends on an argument favoring the usefulness of category redirects. Like I said, you either don't understand what you read, or you don't care. Either way, please understand that I am more than willing to continue this discussion with someone who does. Viriditas (talk) 10:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It can be very frustrating to "provide answers" to someone and then have them tell you that you haven't done so, mostly because of a disagreement over whether or not it is a valid reason. It's a subtle distinction, but probably one that needs to be recognised when communicating through writing only. Jc37 has provided reasons, as have I. Viriditas obviously disagrees with the provided rationales; but that is no reason to claim we haven't provided any answers. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hypothetical approaches

A good approach: friendly, assumes good faith

Hi Good Olfactory. I noticed that you recently deleted Category:FPMT, which I re-created as a redirect to Category:Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition. I saw the discussion that resulted in the rename of the category, and I agree with that result. However, I do believe that it would be helpful to have a redirect on Category:FPMT. Recently, an editor categorized something in Category:FPMT when it should have been categorized under Category:Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition. Also, the Foundation is commonly referred to "FPMT", and it seems to be an abbreviation that is used pretty much exclusively for this organization. Would you consider restoring the category and allowing it to remain as a soft redirect in this case?

A not-so-good approach: confrontational, does not assume good faith (problematic parts bolded)

The category was renamed as Category:Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition. Since other users have used Category:FPMT why is a category redirect not needed? You said in your edit summary that nothing links here. But, just yesterday, something did link there, and I removed the deleted category and added a category redirect. So, by deleting this category redirect which other editors keep using, you are helping to do what exactly? I generally edit here to help people find information. Should I change my behavior and make it more difficult? The category redirect helps prevent other editors from creating it again but allows them to find the correct category. Can you think of another use for a category named FPMT? Just to save you the trouble, I checked the acronym dictionary. There is only one entry: Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition. I'm getting the sense that you didn't even know it was a category redirect, and you deleted it without even bothering to check the page. If this was an article, it would be redirected. Since it is a category, due to software limitations a category redirect is acceptable, and FPMT has only one published meaning. Before you delete a page again, please actually look at it, first.

Observation

The timing of User:Bobmarket [17] creating an account and editing only one article is highly suspicious to me, considering that it came right after the warnings that were given at User talk:Andyknelson; could this possibly be a sockpuppet ? :) Duke53 | ^Talk 06:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that looks highly probable at this point. I'm trying to decide whether they should both be indef. blocked. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Bobmarket indefinitely and User:Andyknelson for 55 hours. For the sake of WP:AGF, I'm going to assume that as an inexperienced editor User:Andyknelson was unaware of the policies on sockpuppetry, but it was a blatantly disruptive scheme. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:People currently in space

Hello! In this discussion you wrote, "If my comments were to "vague" for you I'm willing to make them more clear. Let me know where it gets too cloudy. I don't think being thought of as "useful" by someone is a helpful standard, though, since anyone else can just as easily claim that it's "useless"."

Yes, please make your comments more clear by citing specific policies that support your proposal for deletion of this category. The essay you cite is not compelling in general, and it certainly isn't compelling as regards this category which is not only "useful" but also valued by those who are using it. Thanks! (sdsds - talk) 02:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I responded there. I cited an essay, though? Where was that? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! By "cite" I meant only your reference to WP:USELESS, which is a sub-section of the essay at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. No ill intent; sorry if it came across that way. By the way, there hasn't been any difficulty in maintaining the category in question -- quite the contrary! There seem to be dozens of editors vying for the priviledge of updating astronaut bio pages with the template within moments of launch! (sdsds - talk) 03:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, of course. Thanks, I forgot about that one. I was just looking at my initial nominating statement! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

SSDD?

So, how are you doing? --Kbdank71 02:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm coming to NJ. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, how cryptic. ;) Too bad there isn't a support group for this sort of thing. I know quite a few that would join. --Kbdank71 02:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it though? See, you have to cross-compare our edit histories to have any clue about what I'm on about ... Ah, but I have one small (chuckle) request to make of you, which I've posted on your talk page (muffled laughter) ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Under normal circumstances, I would have done what was asked without being asked. Believe it falls under something called "recreation". However, these are not normal circumstances. I've gone into more detail at WP:CWTF. BTW, how fast can you get to Jersey? --Kbdank71 03:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Nu uh. You two do too good work here to get away "that" easy : p - jc37 04:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Travel to New Jersey .... factoring in time required for me to get me off my island ... then U.S. customs .... transfer time at LAX ...... time required to make enough money for airfare ...... how does October 2011-ish sound? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I know Newark International is part of the Axis of Evil when it comes to US air traffic delays, but 2011 is a bit too far off. I may just need to find me a number of household or kitchen implements, a swinging, weighted light fitting, some very precise timing, and a Japanese record turntable. Eh, I suppose Jc is right. Again. --Kbdank71 13:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Anticipatory archive angst

C'mon—just over two hours until March UTC ends and I get to perform my regular monthly archive of this page .... goody goody gumdrops..... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)