User talk:Good Olfactory/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about 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 5

←

Archive 8

→

Depopulating a category while being considered for deletion.

Hi, Please revert your edit to I contest the notion that the Profundo report prepared for the University of London is not an RS. Regardless, the information is trivially verifiable see Haaretz. Please also note the deletion box contents Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress.. Thank you! Unomi (talk) 09:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about. RS is not an issue when it comes to categorization. Just because something is verifiable doesn't make it something that should be categorized. I removed two articles which didn't say anything about the topic at all. Not sure who removed the rest, but perhaps it's a sign that something about the way you're applying the category might not be quite right. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you accept that policy intends users to not depopulate categories while they are considered for deletion? Unomi (talk) 10:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but exceptions are made for blatant miscategorizations. If there is nothing in an article that could support the categorization, it may be removed as it normally could be at any other time. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Blatant miscategorizations, perhaps, but then it wouldn't take a cursory inspection of media outlets to confirm it. Please honor WP:PRESERVE. Unomi (talk) 10:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to care about this too much. You can put the articles back in if you want, but you might find yourself getting some pushback from other editors if there's nothing in the article that supports the category. Blatant miscategorization means nothing in the article supports the category. You can't categorize based on information that is verifiable but can only be found outside the WP article. This is basic stuff. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, you are right, I went about it slightly backwards. The category was created for and used by editor agreement on a separate article and since I had the cat I figured it would be best to populate it. I don't see the statement of fact implied by the category as being contentious, that is, the verifiability of the matter was not one that I saw as much more than WP:ASF. The problem was that on the initial article the editors took offence to mentioning the matter in the article proper, but found it a suitable compromise to categorize it as such. Unomi (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:People executed by Ancient Rome

Thx for the notification Koavf, you diligent notifier. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

PGM-11 Redstone

Hi, noticed your removal of PGM-11 Redstone from 'Category:Nuclear weapons'. Since the Redstone rocket had at least two thermonuclear warheads and there are other rockets and delivery methods in that category, I can't see why you want to remove it. Cheers. Stepho (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It's also in Category:Nuclear weapons of the United States, which makes its presence in the more general Category:Nuclear weapons redundant. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's sounds fair enough. But it would have been easier if you had removed it by normal edits with an explanation in the summary instead of an unexplained hotcat. Cheers. Stepho (talk) 06:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Easier for whom? :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Easier for both of us. I saw a removal from a category for no obvious reason. Which meant I spent time putting it back in, you spent time removing it again and then we both spent time chatting about it. Cheers. Stepho (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I did the same thing in probably three dozen or so articles, yet this was the only inquiry I had. It would have taken me considerably longer to do it manually in all of those articles, and other users seem to have understood why I did what I did—at least no one else has asked me about it. It would have been easier for you, which I appreciate, but I'm not sure if we all need to adjust our editing practices to the lowest common denominator, as it were. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Re-creation

Category:Clint Eastwood has been recreated by Dr Blofeld (who is Himalayan Explorer, I think, and as HE irritated BHG beyond endurance with Pastorwayne-like activity, to do with settlement categories). Occuli (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Really, Dr. Blofeld is Himalayan Explorer? Dr. Blofeld has nearly 300,000 edits. And now he's editing with other accounts too? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Try looking at user:Himalayan Explorer (I thought I had some evidence). Occuli (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see. Obvious. Unusual, but obvious. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a quick note to say thanks for helping to and/or creating new categories for the Security Council resolution articles, it's a big help! Midway (talk) 01:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help. There is a lot of work to be done in this area, I see. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Honorary citizenship

May I know why did you remove the Honorary citizens of the United States category? Kowalmistrz (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You may. It was decided in a discussion to discontinue it as a category: see here. There was a related discussion for similar categories here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Actors from Wicked

You do realize that if you delete a category, you also have to depopulate it? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Although I prefer to allow the bot to do the drudgery: [1]. Of course, I can't help it if third party editors remove it from the bot's work queue before it is finished: [2]. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Slate

I have not heard of this. I have just started listening to the 4/5/10 show. It is more than a 51 minute show. What exactly are you talking about.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, you are talking about another show or something else. Ping me if you have more information.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Pinged. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the FYI.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

J.T. Williamson

Can you please delete J.T. Williamson. There is already a redirect page, but it's a little bit different than this. 96.19.212.239 (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, looks like J. T. Williamson is the one used. Oh, I see—I moved it there. I should clean up what I left behind, so thx for the notice. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Mayors in New Zealand

He, thanks for your tidy up work on these categories. That's much appreciated. I don't know whether you watchlist those, but if not, I thought I'd let you know that I am reverting the Rotorua edit. As List of cities in New Zealand shows, Rotorua lost its city status in 1979. Let me know if you wish to be told when I undo your edits (you can reply here). Schwede 66 03:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, OK, I didn't know that. It's OK if you undo my errors—I accept that you know what you're talking about. I also changed "Gisborne" to the city category—I thought it was a city but if memory serves me correctly now that I think of it, isn't it actually a district or something? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The info on Gisborne is a bit vague on that particular page. It is a district these days, but apparently "its status as a city is not generally disputed". Until I find something a bit more authoritative, I'll leave it as a city. Schwede 66 04:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Current spaceflights

I noticed you deleted this under CSD G4 despite the exemption I noted on the talk page. Please could you explain how and why you decided to act in this way. Thanks --G W… 08:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

See my deletion comment at Category talk:Current spaceflights. Your objections sounded like reasons to start a WP:DRV. Absent a community decision at DRV, they are not a good reason to expect others to ignore the discussion that resulted in deletion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw the generic deletion message, and didn't read any further, so I didn't see your comment. I have raised the new issue with the original deleting administrator. --G W… 10:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Mormon Arsonists

The Independence Missouri Temple Lot fire on January 1, 1990 and the Independence Missouri "Planned Parenthood" fire on December 29, 1989 are closely associated in court records about both fires: the January 1, 1990 arsonist stated in his explanation to police during the protest that he was "possibly involved with" the "recent firebombing in Englewood" yet that statement was never mentioned in local or national news reports about either incident. If a tree falls in the forest, and newspapers don't report it, doesn't mean the tree didn't fall in the forest. It evidently violates Wikipedia policy to even link to copyrighted news reports, otherwise, I could link the Wikipedia article to more than one Independence Examiner and Kansas City Star published report which clearly state that Mr. Spohr and Mr. Filley were members of the LDS church, and their religious beliefs inspired their attacks on abortion clinics and/or abortion guidance clinics. Zadokiah (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I'll go ahead and withdraw my edits about both the 1989 and 1999 incidents, pending more information compatible with Wikipedia policies. For now, you and I and other interested editors can consult with the archived material as appropriate. Thank you for having a look, and keeping up on things. Zadokiah (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh good heavens, please not Jordan Smith again. I've had enough of the issue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

CSD#A3

Yep, my bad, I missed that. I think this is the first time I've removed an A3 tag except after an expansion in which case it's clearly not eligible and I must have missed the images bit when I checked the criteria. That said I still don't feel it was an A3 due to there being context and that was my original reason for removing the tag - the comment on images not being included was an attempt to justify it as easily as possible after I decided that I thought it was ineligible. I realise that all images convey information but in this case the image along with the title clearly had "context" and so was not deletable under A3. Dpmuk (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with what you did. I would have done it myself had I known the info was available elsewhere. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

No bots?

I can't exactly figure out why the categories you added to CFDW here can't be processed by a bot? From a cursory examination, it just looks like all of those pages in the categories to be renamed (which just happen to be categories themselves, but that doesn't matter) need to be edited. Which is what the bot does. Am I missing something? Thanks. --Cyde Weys 00:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

For the ones I looked at, the category in question that needs to be changed is applied in a template. It looks like this:

{{year by category |m=1 |c=9 |d=1 |y=5 |cat= in multi-sport events |sortkey= multi-sport events |parent=multi-sport events by year |subcat=1915 in sports }}

and we need to change it to this:

{{year by category |m=1 |c=9 |d=1 |y=5 |cat= in multi-sport events |sortkey= multi-sport events |parent=Years in multi-sport events |subcat=1915 in sports }}
Like zis. I didn't think your bot could do that kind of change. — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yup, you're right, I wasn't investigating the issue closely enough. It can be handled by PyWikipediaBot's replace.py, but that would be a one-off job, not just something that the CFD bot automatically knows how to do. If I have some free time I'll look at doing it. --Cyde Weys 16:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I've asked User:R'n'B if his bot could do it—he said he might be able to get to it in the next few days. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Give it time

So other people can respond, those who have responded so far are mostly the same group of editors with the same view.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Pardon? What are you referring to? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

[3] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The original discussion was "given time"—over three weeks to be precise. Your attempt at an end-run should have been speedily deleted on sight; there's no need for another extended discussion since it's essentially the same thing, with the caveat that it would be a subcategory of the one deleted. I've already explained this to you. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

links on disambiguation pages

This is the first time I have tried to use "talk" -- not sure I have it right...

Thanks for correcting my edit -- I had checked the Help pages relating to links, but I didn't look for Help topics relating to disambiguation pages, so I appreciate your pointing out that there should only be one link per entry. I'll keep that in mind. NameIsRon (talk) 03:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems you are using the talk page like a professional! Schwede 66 03:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries, NameIsRon—and welcome to the wonderful world of talk pages. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Mayor of Wanganui

Sorry about the confusion on Category:Mayors of Wanganui. Looking at my edit summary, I could have been much more transparent in what I was doing.

Given that you appear to be an expert with respect to work on categories, I thought I'd let you know that Help:Category#Moving_and_redirecting_category_pages wasn't very helpful. I had no idea what I was supposed to do, but given that the desired name already existed as a redirect, I just copied and pasted things. I have no idea whether that is what the help page suggests to do or not. Can the help pages be made clearer? Schwede 66 17:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion on my part. It's good to hear some feedback on that help page; it sounds like it could really be improved. This issue probably should have gone to the categories for discussion process, but you attracted enough participation on the talk page that I'm not worried about this particular case. But you're right that things need to be made clearer. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Naval engagements of the Mexican-American War

Is there a reason why the "Naval engagements of the Mexican-American War" category should be renamed to the same thing, did I spell it wrong or something? --Az81964444 (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Just an en-dash instead of a hyphen. It's a very minor issue, and a redirect will be retained on the hyphen version. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Aaronic Order

Nice work re-wording a few things today at Aaronic Order. There is some surprising and controversial material I'm debating whether to add to the article, info well-known among the Aaronic Order and students of it, but not otherwise. I may post it w/sources on the Discussion Page and let others have at it before it is worded acceptably to the article. #1 James E. Talmage and Joseph Fielding Smith both denounced Maurice Glendenning at the April 1931 church conference, both their denunciations are available in full online, and both dramatically affected the whole church's discourse about who could receive any divine revelation....to this day, when Mormon missionaries unknowingly tell potential converts what Talmage and Joseph Fielding Smith said about Mr. Glendenning at the April 1931 conference. #2 The Levitical Writings contains mention of Book of Mormon and D&C concepts and words, such as Moroni, Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods, and... 3. Celestial Marriage. At least two sections of Levitical Writings (154 & 223) echo themes and injunctions in LDS D&C 132, not in a way which screams 'plagiarism,' but in a way which argues Glendenning received from the same spirit-world source as Joseph Smith a century earlier. While neither LW section appears to condone or encourage polygamy, D&C 132 does appear to be condoned by LW as being much more than a concoction of Joseph Smith or of Brigham Young. Aaronic Order (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Any of those could be useful additions, I think. I wasn't aware of #1 but is very interesting given that apparently Glendenning wasn't promoting this as revelation for the church as a whole? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

your CFD closure for Orlando

Thanks for handling the CFD and recognizing that there appeared to be some sort of unresolved conflict. Hopefully, you noted that there had been the exact same discussion ("Orlando, Florida" city limits vs "Orlando, Florida" area) per Category talk:Visitor attractions in Orlando, Florida#To Delete or Not To Delete, and that there appears to be, from a casual observer viewpoint, some similarities in the arguments and edit history by the banned user/sockpuppet Miamiboyzinhere and the editor who raised this particular CFD. Not saying that they are the same, just that there are enough similarities in discussion points to make editors familiar with the former to raise an eyebrow a little bit. SpikeJones (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly possible, but at least you have the comfort of knowing it's not just you against him. The discussions got a reasonable amount of participation from other editors, so hopefully the arguments are being assessed on their merits rather than just on who is making them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Help please: How to withdraw a CfD?

Hope you don't mind my asking, but I tend to see your user id all over the place when it comes to WP Categories. How can I remove, withdraw, whatever my request for a CfD? There is nothing in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion? You seem to be an expert user at this WP Categorising thing. Reply here please. Thanks again. Argolin (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Just make a comment in the discussion—identify yourself as the original nominator, and state that you wish to withdraw the nomination and ask that an administrator please close it. If you want, you can also strike through the original nominating statement, but that's not necessary. The main thing is just to make it clear that you want to withdraw it, and sooner or later the discussion will be closed by an uninvolved administrator. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh my lol! Can you hear it? That is so easy. Why isn't it in the documentation? Is that part of your bailiwick? Thanks for the help. Argolin (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Do I remove the CfD at the page Category:Juno Awards? It says not to while the discussion is in progress. I have posted the withdrawl request as above. Does my withdrawl request mean the discussion is over? Maybe it can be spelled out on the template? Please advise here. Thanks again. Argolin (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can if you want to, but again you don't have to. The closing admin will do it if you don't. I don't think there's any harm if you want to do it though since you are the nominator. Maybe we need to create a section on "how to withdraw" a nomination—you're correct that it's not explained anywhere that I know of. As you can see, there's not really a set method. Usually nominators just announce in the discussion that they are withdrawing the nomination, and then the withdrawal pretty much kills off the active discussion (if any) and it is eventually closes. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

My two cents: Yes please create a section. The process for adding a CfD says the nominator must place the template. It seems entirely reasonable therefore after the nominator has posted the withdrawal notice on the discussion page to have the nominator remove the template from the category page. Also, there may be too much of a time lag between the admin actually closing the discussion and the template removed? I acually thought there was another WP document out there somewhere dealing with how to withdraw. Thanks. Argolin (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

My last CfD

Good Olfactory, I don't really think I set the CfD properly. Please go toCategory:East Coast Music Awards. The link 'speedy renaming section does not point to the actual discussion. I think I realise what I did wrong. I added it myself to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy first then posted the template on the cat page. I thought I followed the procedure outlined in the document. Or maybe its not supposed to link? Did I set it up properly? Please reply here. Argolin (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to rename a category speedily, you use Template:Cfr-speedy. If you want to rename it using the normal procedure, you use Template:Cfr. The speedy procedure can only be used in a limited number of circumstances, so if you're questioning which to use, you should use the normal one. It looks like with that category you used the speedy template, when you should use the regular one—Template:Cfr. But, you did everything correct for a speedy nomination. It just doesn't link directly—you have to scroll down and you will see Category:East Coast Music Awards listed in the list. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm completely lost now. The section it points to is the add section not the discussion section (on a different page). I added the request on the request page. Then I added a section on the discussion page. Was I supposed to do both? I never got around to starting a discussion on the discussion page for the other 4, 5 (can't remember now how many). Thanks Argolin (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you never do both. First, you choose whether you are going to do a speedy rename or a regular rename. Then you choose the appropriate template. Then the template (either Template:Cfr-speedy or Template:Cfr) will give you a link to click on which will take you to the correct page where you add what the template tells you to copy and add. You might want to play around with the templates in the Sandbox for a few minutes to figure out exactly how they work. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's back up a little.

Step 1: Pick the appropriate template (got that)
Step 2: Place the template on the category page
Step 3: Follow the link from the newly placed template on the category page
Step 4: Add your request.

Easy. The documentation didn't really spell it out. I did not do it in the above order. Is there any hope of adding something like a summary or checklist to the documentation. Otherwise, I'll have to remember to come back here. Yeah, I realise pro's like you don't need the doc's. Thanks very much for your time. Argolin (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at what it says in the instructions and see if it can be simplified somehow. It's true that these instruction pages are often difficult to decipher. When I try to start a non-category-related nomination for something, I too am often lost in the process, so I wouldn't feel bad. It seems that often the only way to really figure it out is to do it a number of times. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I feel better. Yeah, I sort of thought let's dive in see how it works. I have another one in mind (I'll do later). We have music groups by location and a musicians by province categories (sorry no link) can't remember which way round it is. Inconsistencies like this drive me bannans. Thanks Argolin (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:French Canadians

I noticed that you added 'Category:French Canadians → Category:French Canadian people' to the working queue a few moments ago. In light of the recent renaming of Category:People of French-Canadian descent and its subcategories (from an unhyphenated form to a hyphenated form), I was thinking that the new name should be hyphenated, i.e., Category:French-Canadian people. Do you think it's a change that can be made on the CFD/W page or would you suggest another 48-hour CFD/S listing? Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we can probably change it right away. I can do it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

as Canadian as possible

Nice to see someone else remembers Peter Gzowski. CBC has never bee the same since he left. Bellagio99 (talk) 12:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If only the SOB wouldn't have smoked so much, he'd probably still be around, and now I could podcast him to boot ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Croatian SK Sub Cat

Hi. I noticed you changed the way the Sub category I created (Croatian serial killers) was linked. At first I had thought you way was how it was done but checking in another page the "Fooian fooers" template was used. What's the difference ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zubrowka74 (talk • contribs)

Either can be used, but the template you used made the immediate parent category Category:Croatian people by occupation whereas I changed it to category:Croatian murderers. I thought it made more sense to make serial killers a subtype of murderers rather than making serial killers an "occupation". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is an "occupation", just not a good one :). But indeed, you sorting is the right one, I hadn't noticed. Thanks! Zubrowka74 (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat

Could you help take a look at what User:SchmuckyTheCat has been doing around? [4] Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.118.162.88 (talk • contribs)

WP:RBI. User:Instantnood. All the look you need. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Deleting Category:Canadian musical recordings

Good Olfactory, I submitted a request 1 May 2010 for a Category to be deleted Category:Canadian musical recordings. Guess what: I got it wrong!!! I think I used the wrong template: the one that uses the ObsoleteCategory {{subst:Cfd2|ObsoleteCategory|text='''Delete'''.}} I was going to use {{ subst:cfd2|Cfd|text='''Delete'''.}} but at the last minute changed to the obs one: I thought that was a more correct category for deletion. It is on the documentation: so I used it. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 1. It has a bad smell :) Argolin (talk) 06:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems to have been fixed OK in the interim. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Should your group ever get around to updating the doc's, I'll help. Does it happen in 7 days if it is unopposed (including no comments from anyone)? Can't remember if that is in your doc's or someone told me that? Argolin (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it stays open for 7 days minimum. If no one opposes it and it seems like a reasonable suggestion to the closer, he can choose to proceed with it. Or an administrator may relist it to ensure that someone contributes. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I'm picking up the lingo: Me: nominator. Closer: an administrator (someone with the wiki tools processing the requests, doing the work). Another administrator (also working may see my request) and relist. lol Argolin (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That's right, you got it. I voted in your nomination, btw. It seems like a good idea. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind answering what some might call my inane questions. Isn't there a notice sent to the discussion page of affected projects (or sub work groups) that "Hey, one of your category items is being considered for deletion"? Join the discussion here... It was on User talk:Moxy's page but has mysteriously vanished. btw, thanks for the vote. I did the homework on who created it and when, other similar named items in the tree, what hole would it leave if deleted. Argolin (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I subscribed our project to the ArticleAlertbotSubscription. Thanks again for your help! Argolin (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Jewish people

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Jewish people. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. IZAK (talk) 08:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I don't have a particular interest on the merits, but I will keep an eye on what happens. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

UNSC resolutions

Thanks for that, I noticed there was a problem but I thought it was just down to my internet settings. Will go back and fix them. Midway (talk) 11:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that earlier, it worked a couple of times but doesn't anymore. For now I'm still including external links to the resolutions at UNHCR because of this reason. If you can let me know when you come across a fix I'll be very grateful! Thanks for your barnstar comment too. Midway (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Centrist political parties

[Category:Centrist political parties] - hi, please undelete this category that you deleted out of process. This is as valid a category as Category:Nordic_Agrarian_parties is. There was no consensus for deletion, just a few persons - none of them active in contributing to politics topics here- voted delete, with me, the original creator of one of the categories, not even being notified of the discussion. Remember, Wikipedia is not about voting, but about finding consensus and good arguments. In addition, the argument that 'centrism is difficult to define, hence let us delete the category' is one of the most incredible arguments I have seen here. There might be difficulties in defining, which party is centrist, soc dem or conservative, this does not mean we should delete the relevant categories, no? IMNSHO opinions of the people who really contribute to Wikiproject:Politics should have some weight here, not some random people who check each XfD process. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog | woof! 16:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Check his category here, to get some background information on which political categories are helpful here on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Political_parties_by_ideology. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog | woof! 16:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't—nor can you—unilaterally override the consensus that the closer said existed here. I suggest you take this issue up with the closer of the discussion. I did not delete the category "out of process", because it was deleted completely within CFD process in the first place, and re-creation of a category that was deleted within process may lead to speedy deletion, which is what I did. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

May lead to - you say, hence, it needn't. Why were you wasting my and your time. I think it is enough of my examples and arguments here to show that the category was valid. It is just a matter of time the vote for undeletion takes, as I'm convinced my colleagues who edit political topics would agree with me (none of them happened to vote last time, that only some XfD trainspotters really spotted). --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog | woof! 00:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was speedily deleted, and rightfully so—so dwelling on that is itself a time waster. If you want to avoid wasting time, I suggest again that you approach the closer of the CFD discussion, since there's nothing at this stage I can do to override the consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Categorisation of dependent territories

[5] I'm afraid I'm unable to respond to the discussion up there. What can I do? 18:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.153.52 (talk)

I'm not sure what you mean when you say you are "unable". Do you mean you are technically not able to, or that you can't rebut the accusation that you are an IP incarnation of a banned user? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatever I posted, the posts will be reverted by User:SchmuckyTheCat. The same is happening across several talk pages and Wikipedia policy pages. 04:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.153.52 (talk)

I suggest you provide some examples of this behaviour (with diffs) and make a posting on WP:ANI. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've posted a notice on the SchmuckyTheCat's talk page requesting that he not do this without first demonstrating that you are a banned user. I think you should take it to ANI if it keeps up. Why is he saying you are a banned user, and more to the point—are you? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This is User:Instantnood, a long term POV warrior and abuser of socks, editing as an IP. His edit warring has already brought other people's attention to his talk in my absence. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Thanks—how do we know it is User:Instantnood? Is is a WP:DUCK situation, or is there something more? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Category rename

Hi, Category:New Zealand female football (soccer) players was recently renamed to Category:New Zealand female soccer players by Cydebot but I can't seem to find any discussion on the matter anywhere. If it was tagged for CfD it should have come up on my watchlist, but it never did, and if speedy changed shouldn't it show somewhere, but I can't locate where. The reason I raise it is I feel it should have been Category:New Zealand female international footballers in line with it's partner category Category:New Zealand international footballers and consistent with other sub-cats of Category:Female association football players. I fully realise it was probably nothing to do with you, but you do seem wise in the way of categories, so just thought maybe you could shed some light as to why. I blame me, of course...I think I made the original category when I was young and stupid and thought I could avoid the football/soccer argument by following the Australian example--ClubOranje^T 08:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's see—from what I can find, it was tagged for a speedy renaming by User:Black Falcon at 02:35, 29 April 2010. It was renamed at 04:37, 3 May 2010. I assume the rationale for the name was to conform a subcategory of Category:Soccer in New Zealand with the use of the "soccer" terminology, but you can check with User:Black Falcon to be sure. I suppose if the proposal to change to Category:Association football in New Zealand goes forward, this category will get renamed again to Category:New Zealand female association football players. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I'll await the results of that category rename then have a chat with the Black Falcon about next steps. Cheers.--ClubOranje^T 11:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

grammar

Reynolds v. United States: "See X for Y" and "For Y, see X" is a correct grammar. I agree that "See X for further information on Y" is better, but this has nothing to do with grammar. Anyway, grammar bickering aside, what is your opinion on copying the relevant text from Poland Act to Reynolds v. United States#Prior history instead? I thought of doing this first, but then hesitated whether text duplication is a good idea. 71.146.87.61 (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking more of "Don't assume other people stupuid"; it was unclear if you meant "don't assume other people [are] stupid" or if you were calling me stupid—"Don't assume other people [something], stupid". Combine that with the assumption of bad faith that I hadn't actually read Poland Act, and you can perhaps start to see what the problem is ....

I see. My bad. 71.146.87.61 (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Copying the text would be fine with me, though you would probably want to make it a section in the article (called "Background" or something) rather than just pasting it into the lead. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I have already mentioned an existing one: Reynolds v. United States#Prior history. 71.146.87.61 (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"Prior history" in legal terminology means the judicial proceedings of the case before it reached the supreme court. That section could discuss the prior findings of the lower courts, but it probably shouldn't contain the information from Poland_Act#Immediate_effects about the negotiations which led to the start of the test case, for example. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I was wondering whether it makes sense to have Prior history article in wikipedia, since this meaning of a seemingly common collocation was a surprize for me. I run google for it in wikipedia, and as a byproduct, I have found an article with section structure "Background/Prior history/etc.". This confirmed your opinion and resolved my doubts whether it was good or bad to have a "joint section", "Background and prior history". 71.146.87.61 (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Combining them—sounds good to me! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Death cats

Hope you know a very nice friendly and understanding bot - Category:Death_by_country - there are few there - ask us at the death project about trying to keep up with that lot :| Satu Suro 04:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it is DoireallyhavetotageverysingleoneofthesestupidcategoriesBot. Still tagging these. If you could inform the Death Project of this nomination, I would be grateful. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure - and as to the bot - I owe you at least 3 rounds of inebriates of your choice if I ever get to your part of the planet in the forseeable future (hmm counts spare coins, calculates air fair, thinks, 2020?) - it feels less wp and more like a real online encyc to have death, rather than human death...Satu Suro 04:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:CFD Category:Rugby league governing bodies in Europe

Category:Rugby league governing bodies in Europe is proposed to be merged with Category:Rugby league governing bodies. You were involved in a related WP:CFD discussion (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 9) and may wish to comment here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 6. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Central African airport stubs

You nominated that for deletion January 2009, Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/January/13 along with a few other stub types. Was it still to be done? Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 15:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Holy smokes, I remember those! So the renaming was never done .... yes, I think we should still do it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Please help

Sorry to bother you with trivial issuers, but you seem to be a resonable man. Please explain the User:JamesBWatson that his reverts without discussion and while ignoring my repeated edit summaries is detrimental to the image of wikipedia and deterrent to new editors. See User_talk:71.146.87.61. 71.146.87.61 (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure why this user doesn't address me directly. I shall invite him/her to do so on his/her talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not talking to this user, because he/she has already demonstrated lack of paying attention to my explanations and unwillingess to engage in a civilized discussion without arm-twisting. 71.146.87.61 (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary. I have looked at the edits in question, thought hard about them, and reverted my edit. The anonymous editor has a point: it could have been expressed in a different way, but the idea that I am not willing to consider his/her opinion is mistaken. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Anon, everybody—even reasonable people—can at times seem unreasonable when you have a disagreement with them. But I do find that when the users start communicating directly with one another rather than just in edit summaries, for the most part things can be worked out. I think it's usually best to go to someone's talk page before seeking intervention. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahnoneemoos

After seeing his behavior on the CFDS page, I checked his edit history. It seems that just categories weren't targeted by him: he moved List of companies of Puerto Rico to List of companies based in Puerto Rico...and even moved the Puerto Rico stub template! Thought you might want to know there's this stuff in there that might need fixing by somebody with the power. :) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that too—I was wondering if I should just revert a bunch of that, or what. I'll maybe hold back until the block expires, and see where he goes from there. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

CrimsonBot

I am unable to see the CFD tags, after the category is deleted, so I looked at deletion logs, and saw that you are still having to go behind the bot, and delete.. I will disable the bot until I can figure out someway so CydeBot can still delete..Sorry 'bout that CrimsonBlue (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok I think I have it worked out... The robot shouldn't handle anything that needs to be deleted. For now it should only handle moves, and when it moves the category, it won't leave the redirect. I enabled the bot, and I will check it's edits, probably on the 9th, because my birthday is on the 8th. CrimsonBlue (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

So will it delete the old category once everything is transferred? That's what Cydebot does and it is much more convenient. No one wants to go back and manually delete the old category once it's done. As you know, categories aren't really "moved" per se, a new one is just created and the old one is deleted. (Happy birthday.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD potentially of interest to you

Because you took part in the CfD on the associated category, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curly bracket programming language may interest you. Pcap ping 13:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Temple garment

Thanks for the reversion. Your feeling about it being contrary to WP:NOTCENSORED was correct. I warned this user, who has amassed quite a bit of censorship related edits to articles about the LDS church. His rationale? "It was offensive to me."

Regards, --Manway (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I try to be relatively gentle with such people. They mean well, and they probably do actually take offence, so I try to break it to them kindly, at least. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ernesto Inarkiev‎‎

You're wrong about Ernesto Inarkiev‎‎. I think you did not read my edit summary, or else you did not understand it. FIDE classifies its players by its member federation. Inarkiev's FIDE federation from 1998 through 2000 was KGZ, which if I'm not mistaken is Kyrgyzstan. He was a Kyrgyz chess player as he played under that flag. His chess play in those years was not insignificant either, as he was awarded the International Master title in 2000, when his federation was KGZ. See http://www.olimpbase.org/players/hh3tdb9h.html for his record playing on the Kyrgyzstan team in the 1998 Chess Olympiad and the 2000 Chess Olympiad. See also http://www.olimpbase.org/Elo/player/Inarkiev,%20Ernesto.html for some details from the published FIDE rating lists 1998–2001. Quale (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The demonym used for people from Kyrgyzstan is "Kyrgyzstani"—see Category:Kyrgyzstani people. "Kyrgyz" is only used for the ethnic group—see Category:Kyrgyz people. It sounds like what you are looking to do is create Category:Kyrgyzstani chess players. Category:Kyrgyz people is not yet populated well and is not broken down by occupation at this stage due to its small size. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll clean it up. I didn't add the cat originally and I failed to check to make sure that it was named correctly :( Quale (talk) 05:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking—I really should have approached you about it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Neoconservatives

Where is the consensus of which you speak? Agha Nader (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Initially it was here. More recently, it was reassessed here. There have been a handful of others that have resulted in the deletion of more general terms, like Category:Conservatives or Category:Liberals, for instance. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Franco-British Union

Hi, could you please fix the article.. u seem to have made two moves to itself using the same name and you put in a 'tail-eating' redirect. Consequently there is no artcile. What happened to it? --maxrspct ping me 16:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That was very bizarre. I think I've managed to fix it now, though it also acted a bit strangely in the restoration process, and it wasn't until I cut-and-pasted the text back in that the restored edits showed up in the history. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that, quite interesting.. --maxrspct ping me 14:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:Question

That's a good point actually. I didn't realise that when I had created it, I had just assumed the terms were used interchangeably. As for the 1997 cut-off point, I did intend to recategorise the pre-1997 resolutions under Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia etc. (as in the Netherlands Wikipedia) so it was only going to be temporary - I thought I would just continue with the new categories then go back at a later date but please feel free to make any changes and I will continue that from now on. Midway (talk) 12:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll give it some thought. It does have the potential at least to be a bit confusing in its application, but there are so many that apply to "Yugoslavia", I do think subdividing them will be useful. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

UK MP cats

Why did you tell Cydebot to move to endash versions of the cat names when the discussion said No to endashes? [6]. DuncanHill (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That particular discussion was over 3 years ago. There have been developments since then. There has been general consensus since that en-dashes should be used in category names when appropriate, and that leaving a category redirect on the incorrect hyphenated version should be created. Changing hyphen to en-dash is now explicitly a speedy rename criterion. These categories were nominated and listed under that criterion without objection.

Is there some principled reason that these should be an exception to the rule that is now being widely applied? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes - endashes make editing harder with no benefit to the reader. They represent a nett loss of functionality. For further reasons not to use endashes, see the CfD. DuncanHill (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not a principled reason to make this an exception to the rule that has already otherwise been debated. That's a reason not to prefer the general rule in the first place. Those issues you raise were discussed in the general discussions when users were considering whether to do this generally or not, but the decision was made to use them despite this. (FYI, if a user prefers not to figure out how to use them (or to cut and paste), a bot takes care of all articles placed in category redirects. HotCat is also designed to replace the hyphen version with the directed-to endash version if a user is using that.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a principled reason not to use them. IAR says we should ignore rules if doing so is of benefit. There is no usability benefit from using endashes, and clear usability benefits from using hyphens. We shouldn't have to rely on bots to tidy up the effects of a counter-intuitive and unhelpful artificial rule. DuncanHill (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to pursue this line of thinking, I suggest then you start a proposal to change the speedy criterion. I'm sorry you were absent from the earlier debates on this (and there were a number of them over the course of years; I'm assuming you were absent from them, I haven't actually checked). But if you do make such a proposal, it's entirely possible the suggestion might get shouted down with laments of "NOT THIS AGAIN!!??"

As an incidental point only, I disagree with some of the conclusions you draw. There are in fact benefits to using them. For one, it makes Wikipedia appear as if it's actually familiar with a style guide. I could get into some of the other benefits, but like many other users, I have no desire to go through the debates yet again. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of any previous discussions - just the one I linked to above. Endashes don't look any better than hyphens on a screen. DuncanHill (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

They certainly do on my screen. It's difficult to make a generalised statement on appearance since screens/operating systems/fonts used differ so much. But as I said, I'm not really interested in having the debate again. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Then could you say where the previous debates can be found? DuncanHill (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to dig them up; I don't have them archived at my fingertips. They were held in a variety of locations. I remember one was a village pump discussion; one was at WT:CFD; it seems like there was perhaps a combination of both at one point. If you're anxious to find them, you may be able to find them by searching as quickly as I could. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Digging. This discussion was supplemented I think by a village pump notice, which I would need to find. As Black Falcon noted, he also solicited input by posting notices at Wikipedia talk:Categorization, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories), and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories. There were also discussions being held pretty much simultaneously as to whether we could use hard redirects on categories vs. soft category redirects, so that issue cropped up in the discussion from time to time.

As I mentioned in the discussion, I don't really have super strong views one way or the other, though on balance I favour having a manual of style that can be applied uniformally across WP. My main desire is to have the issue settled so I can be involved in implementing it one way or the other. Which is what I'm trying to do now. I'm not trying to force my preferences down anyone's throat—I'm just trying to help with universally implementing what I can only assume has been a legitimately made community decision. And I'm a little tired of being criticised for that, that's all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for digging out that discussion, I'll have a read. DuncanHill (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of one's view about the relative merits of hyphens versus en-dashes, the edit summary of Cydebot's edits such as this reads "Robot - Speedily moving category UK MPs 1997-2001 to UK MPs 1997–2001 per CFD." Yet I can't find any CFD on this topic since those in 2007. Is there one? If not, then the edit summary is wildly inaccurate, even if the change was within policy. --RFBailey (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

See recent entry below on this issue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There wasn't one. Because those wanting endashes could not get agreement to the change through CfD they used the MoS to justify speedy renaming without discussion. DuncanHill (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Duncan, your framing of my motivations is patently false. If you cannot assume good faith and be civil on this talk page, you are not welcome here. As you know by now, the conversion of hyphen to endashes in category names was made a speedy rename criterion after extensive debate. The fact that you disagree with the decision does not give you a right to attack those who implement it as trying to do something on the sly or contrary to consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe in conspiracy theories; however, the text of the edit summaries suggested that there had been a CFD debate (which there wasn't) rather than a speedy renaming (in line with WP:CFD/S, C2A, second part). This inaccuracy appears to be what has led to this debate. --RFBailey (talk) 05:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The bot says that it was done "speedily": "Speedily moving category UK MPs 1997-2001 to UK MPs 1997–2001 per CFD". That is, through speedy CFD. It probably could be clearer. But, I am not the programmer of the bot. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Category mass deletions

re Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_28#Category:Fooian_names,

You have deleted literally dozens of category, and done great damage to Category:Onomastics subcategorization system, based on a whim and five delete votes (vs. three keep votes).

I follow your argument that e.g. "Asian names" is a nonsensical category, since Asia is a continent but a name is a linguistic entity. But name, being linguistic, have an etymology, and it is perfectly straightforward to talk of "Armenian names", by "Armenian" of course not meaning the Armenian Republic, but the Armenian language. An Armenian name is a name with an Armenian etymology. Same goes for Germanic, Celtic, Greek, Arabic (not "Arab", which would be the ethnicity, but "Arabic", as in, Arabic etymology).

You may have had a "consensus" to delete "ethnic names", but you certainly never did have a consensus to delete the categorization of names according to their etymology.

"Let's delete Fooian names" is an extremely cavalier attitude to deletion, and extremely ill-advised. "Fooian" indeed. Deletion is on a case-by-case basis, and you should at least look at each item on its own merit before deleting it. It may be very well argued that categories like "European names" or "Asian names" are worthless. But this is because "Europe" or "Asia" aren't linguistic categories, while names are.

--dab (𒁳) 15:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I was the closer of the discussion, not the nominator. I count six votes for delete, including the nominator's. I won't reverse my decision based on one complaint received almost a year later. But there is always WP:DRV, but if I remember correctly, it's already gone there and my close was confirmed by a greater consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

if you are not going to be reasonable about this, I will indeed take it to DRV. I will also take to AN what I think is abuse of your deletion privileges. You cannot delete dozens of long-standing categories based on a half-dozen votes. If there had been an AfD for each category individually, your action would have been correct. But you took a deletion discussion of "Fooian names" as an incentive to delete all "* names" categories. This was irresponsible. The damage that can be done by this sort of thing is simply too great. It effectively means that I could go and delete substantial portions of the categorization tree if I just found a handful of editors that thought it was a good idea.

That you should go after the categories on languages that I re-created in good faith I take to be a declaration of edit-war. It is rather telling that you should delete Category:Germanic names, a category affected by the letter but not the rationale of your AfD, but leave untouched the dubious Category:European given names, a category affected by the rationale but not the letter of your AfD. If you must go on mass-deletion rampages unilaterally, at least try to WP:UCS. --dab (𒁳) 11:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry—you're incorrect and in making such wild claims you lose some credibility. Nothing was done "unilaterally". I deleted the categories that were nominated in the nominations in question. I didn't take "a deletion discussion of 'Fooian names' as an incentive to delete all '* names' categories". That's just blatantly wrong. If you look you will see that there were two separate discussions, and you have only referred to one so far, which may indicate that you are confused about the basis for the deletions. You may wish to refer to this. It would be nice if you researched this out before approaching me and accusing me of misbehaviour. You'll note that Category:Germanic names was deleted as a result of this later discussion, not by the one you have referred to. Category:European given names was nominated in neither, which is why it remains. Also note that these were held at CFD, not AFD, and that they were not "mine". I was the closer, not the nominator. Finally, I'll restate that these discussions were already assessed at DRV. It's nice to see someone so zealous about WP, you just need to channel it away from jumping to conclusions and attacking others. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Musical groups from Yukon

Can I get your opinion on the Category:Musical groups from Yukon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) deletion nomination? The link to the discussion page. I was asking for the nominator's advice/help on categories. I informed him that the placement of the {{empty category}} banner template was not meant to side-step any WP guidelines or the guidelines of the CfD. Argolin (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

A further point this nominator seems to want to put me in my place. He continually points out that I'm new and "still learning how things work around here". I find his statements quite objectionable. This nom and I were having a discussion on my talk page and all of a sudden moved it to the CfD. I won't post anymore to the discussion becasue the discussion is not conforming to WP:GOODARG. Thanks for your time. Argolin (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't take offence--I read his comments as meaning he is just being sympathetic to you that you may not realize that on WP we typically don't keep empty categories around if there's no articles to go in them yet. I think what he has said is an accurate reflection of how things typically work. If a category like this is empty for 4 days+, it can be deleted with no questions asked. If there's something to go in the category, it can be re-created no problem. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, we were discussing it on my talk page. Why go to such a public forum and post comments like that? I told him about empty cats being deleted no questions asked which he did not know. Should I go back to post a follow-up that he has things to learn? Argolin (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I would try to just walk away if it were me. There's no use escalating something like that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Gof, I've just noticed another entry of his. It is at a completely different rename request: [7]. I was about to tell him per the guildeline to keep to the topic at hand. In this latest one he's telling me what to do. I'm not a child that has done BAD! lol. He must think he is an admin for your group. I saw a user swear at the CfD last week which you acted upon. I had a little laugh (first time seeing it on Wiki). This shawn guy is truely more offensive and imo something similar should happen. I'm trying to improve wikipedia; he posts comments crtitising everyone else? But hey, I'm not an admin: you are! Why does your group put up with this? Argolin (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

At times, one does need a fairly thick skin to deal with CFD. I guess based on the history of what I've seen at CFD, what he's doing now appears relatively minor in comparison. There have been some pretty horrible attacks there before from some editors. I don't think his comments so far are anything that a neutral observer would think he should be blocked over. If you wanted, I could leave a comment on his talk page—just suggest that you're feeling a bit pushed around by his comments. On balance he seems like the kind of editor who would change his ways if he knew he was upsetting someone. But I'll only approach him if it's something you would like me to do. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess its a case of vogon poetry? :) He has started to cyber-stalk me. All of a sudden, a category I created [Category:Canadian football history]] is up for renaming. And an article I created Jane Downs in March (not the best edit ever), has been flagged with {{BLP IMDB-only}} getting it ready for deletion. Look at his contributions. It's fact. He did these two edits right after one another. I was going back today becasue I forgot to assign an article to it. I'm at a complete loss. Argolin (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I will reply on Argolin's talk page. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

GOF, I don't believe Shawn in Montreal understood my point. The article he tagged is one of two I created. Argolin (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You can tell him that—you don't have to tell me. He seems like a mature editor and is able to handle it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

template placement delays on my "people by regional district" bulk nomination

Hi GoF, just wanted to let you know I'm running on really crappy (pirated) WIFI and so it's gonna take me a while to add the subst template to all the categories just nominated for CfRs; I'm starting at 'a' and working forwards, if you're around and feel like it could you start from T and S and work backwards? Otherwise it might literally be a couple of hours before they're done (I'm very patient with my WIFI, but my experience of some editors/admins is they have no patience at all; not everybody's on high-speed....). Also the Category:People from Stikine Regional District is entirely misnamed; there is no such place, though there is a Stikine Region, but the "people from" category, as misnamed, is now also vacant; someone had Rob Niedermayer in it, I think because his family had lived in Cassiar long ago, but I moved him to Category:People from Cranbrook, British Columbia (where he was raised). I should stress I don't like these categories one bit - it's an inappropriate way to categorize people from BC, none of us talk that way ("people from the Cariboo", "people from the Okanagan", "People from the Bulkley Valley" etc) and it's entirely inappropriate for anyone who's from an Indian Reserve (which aren't part fo regional district governance); so I've made various subcats on the usual regions when possible; but if these categories are going to exist at all, like the corresponding "settlements by regional district" group, then the RD names take "the" and look really odd without it; many had their names reversed, e.g. Regional District of Bulkley-Nechako is t he correct form , not Bulkley-Nechako Regional District.Skookum1 (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Also please note that in cases including ", British Columbia" this is an unneeded disambiguation in all cases (even though the parent category in most cases still has it, but doesn't need it).Skookum1 (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, got 'em done, thanks anyway; WIFI has been working, more or less; think I made no errors on the templates, but caught two in the CfR list....now I have to find a no.wikipedia.org Norwegian administrator because I've noticed the parallel categories in Norwegian Wikipedia are similarly misnamed; in various ways too...which reflect my aversion to RD categories; some use a simplified "Region" name which isn't the same thing, or shouldn't be.....sigh; the propagation of mis-categorization across global Wikipedia is, in fact, why I oppose RD categories altogether.....Skookum1 (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I too wonder about these "people from region" categories. Unless they mean something in the real world, there's not a whole lot of sense having them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL, gee, I wish you were part of WP:Canada. I've tried to raise the issue of their irrelevance before but got shot down, rather patronizingly too. They're supposed to be parallel to "People from Whatcom County" or "People from Oxfordshire" but the reality is that regional districts are not anything like counties are, especially not in terms of any self-referential "this is where I'm from sense". Unless you mean all "people from XXX" categories....in the case of regional districts, which have only existed since 1867-1968 and also do not include Indian Reserves in their governance, and have extremely limited powers (sewer, zoning, some planning and disaster management), they're not relevant to historical figures or anything to do with Indian Reserves or people from them; some users, like User:Backspace, and I, got into something like edit wars over his/her labelling objects like mountains, lakes, etc with them, and similarly provincial parks are not managed or classified by them in any way (different branch of the governance system, namely Ministry of Environment); there's also, y'see, Forest Districts and Forest Regions, Land Districts (which are the legal subdivisions but without governmental relevance of any kind), Ministry of Environment Regions (for parks theoretically but BC Parks, has its own system within MoE), Health Regions (hospitals, etc), School Districts, "Counties" (which are for the court system but largely irrelevant to daily life), Development Regions (which ARE relevant to daily life and provincially-kept statistics, though tey're formed from aglloomerations/boundaries of regional districts but separate from them administratively), and BC Tourism (http://www.hellobc.com) has its OWN system of regions. The rationale provided by the regional district categories-defenders is that because it's the system that StatsCan uses to divvy up BC for the census, i.e. counting people, then it "makes sense" to use them as geographic subdivisions for "where people are from". But it just doesn't make sense....the problem now is that there's all kinds of mirrored wiki-clones which ahve statments like "XXX Mountain is a mountain in the such-and-so regional district", though the more relevant reference is "in the such-and-so mountain range" or "in the xxx Country/Valley" (in BC there's lots of historical region-references of the "Nicola Country", "Shuswap Country", "Omineca Country" type, sometimes capitalized, though often not, and often just "the Shuswap", "the Okanagan", "the Omineca" etc, and regional district names, and also electoral district names, are often "built out of them", e.g. Columbia-Shuswap, Okanagan-Similkameen; but I've also seen translated categories/articles saying "Fraser Valley" when meaning the Fraser Valley Regional District; the problem is that only half of the Fraser Valley is even IN the regional district of that name (the rest is in the Greater Vancouver one), and similarly the Cariboo Regional District doesn't include all of the Cariboo, and itself includes a region known as the Chilcotin. I've created categories for most of those areas, and a parallel hierachy for same, but have been challenged about that because their precise boundaries can't be cited easily; even though they're what people actually use and historically pre-date even the province itself.......there's some subcategories using that format e.g. Category:People from the Similkameen (where "the Similkameen" = "the Similkameen Country" and also Category:Cariboo people, although that's largely intended for historical figures from that region's glory days during the Cariboo Gold Rush and since. In the way British Columbians actually talk, "so-and-so is from the Thompson-Nicola Regional District" would mean that "that person WORKS for the Thompson-Nicola Regional District", most likely an official or bylaw enforcement person. Myself, I'd like to ditch this particular group of categories entirely but have yet to garner consensus for that; the rationale is that some other long-ago Wikipedian created the hierarchy "and so we should respect that", even though that person, to me, was utterly clueless and shouldn't have created them at all. The only thing the main RD categories should be used for is the component municipalities; though there are some Electoral Areas that have articles; but ti's when those start getting used as geographic descriptors, it's entirely offbase; it's all over Googlemaps and Wikimaps, too, and it's really annoying to see; similarly the use of the French-form of Indian Reserve names has similarly been borrowed and pasted all over hell's half digital acreage because it's what StatsCan (wrongly) uses. As if StatsCan were the only classification system and as if real people talked like bureaucrats in Ottawa do....anyway sorry for the rant, it's been rare for me to find an administrator who actually talks common sense ;=|.Skookum1 (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ranting is (almost) always welcome on my page. (In fact, it's more rare for a post here not to include a rant!) Especially when targeted at StatsCan. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:People from Stikine Regional District

Not sure where to put this on the CfD page - it needs outright deletion; I only just emptied it (of Rob Niedermayer) but it's entirely misnamed anyway; anybody from places covered by it (which doesn't even include anything but a small sliver of the actual Stikine River basin now) would ultimately go in Category:Atlin Country or Category:Cassiar Country, or corresponding "people from" subcategories. But there is no "Stikine Regional District" - the Stikine Region is not a regional district, it's the "rump" area of the province not covered by any such beastie; it's too complicated to explain but suffice to say the "people from" category" has no further reason to exist, and nothing to be renamed to (and nobody in it).Skookum1 (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I've just gone ahead and deleted that one. If there's no such place and it is otherwise empty, we may as well. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.Skookum1 (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Reining in a deletionist

I'm getting really, really tired of having people with more power than brains making more work for me, or trying to sneak things under my (extensive) radar....I've had complicated run-ins with template deleters/redesigners this week, and last week with one User:Fastilysock, who with another little deleter-helper, is on a campaign to delete everything he/she can find a picayune reason to delete; this had to do with {{PD-Canada}} images where, allegedly, no "source" was provided (even though in some cases, such as one donated from my own family collection - of my own grandfather, no less, which had a {{pd-self}} license); and told I had to prove they were public domain (as if my own testimony was not sufficient....maybe they wanted to know the photographer's name? This gets ridiculous when you see the same %&*(&^*( deleting 800-year old maps and pictures of sculptures because, allegedly, no permission was presented to prove the contributor had the right to photograph the sculpture.....so tonight, mixed in with all the Anomebot coord-missing tags that clutter my watchlist, and the "provide name for {{BCGNIS}}" made by User:Droll, ad nauseam, I see tucked five deletions, based on an alleged 7-day notice of "no evidence of permission". Two of these were maps I'd made myself, the other two were {{PD-Canada}}, and of the surviving one (maybe because it's still in the Commons I can still see it) File:Peace-x.jpg it says straight out the source is the BC Government; but "no source provided" or "no evidence of permission" were the reasons; but both were {{PD-Canada}}, i.e more than 50 years old so no permission is required. These were by User:Fastily, which is the non-sock version of User:Fastilysock]]. But get this - I got no notification of these deletions, and it's not like Fastily doesn't know who I am. I know this "isn't your department" but I'm getting tired of having to deal with procedure in order to deal with people who violate procedure. It's all very Kafka-esque - "here, I've destroyed this but if you don't like it, take this note and go down the hall to door X, fill in form Y, notify A,B,C, F and G, and then add templates M, N and O and it might get reinstated after lengthy, inane debate"..."and if you want to complain about perpetrator X, then it has to be in this kind of language, don't do it on this page, do it over here, fill in this, notify them with template Q, and while you're at it you should notify F, U, C, K and User:Off." I think a glance at my contributions history and the range and quality of material I've contributed wil show to you I'm not an amateur at either history or geography; or, as it happens, a photographer ignorant of copyright law (I was a photographer, and am also an author and composer). I went to WP:ANI to want to complain Fastily/Fastilysock, who I think - I know - should have their admin privileges pulled immediately, but other than being confronted with more proedure (GAAAAAH) I'm well aware that I don't have the same control over passive-aggressive language and regularly dish out pieces of my mind in the course of taking these hyper-nerds on; even now, before any rational response (as if there was one to be had...) about tonight's deletions was made, user:Skater chastised me for "attacking another editor" for calling Fastily on his/her bullshit in not notifying me....I'm getting ready to quit Wikipedia if this continues; how much else I could do if not constantly having to go to war to keep things from being deleted, or needlessly change so-as-to-make-more-work-for-me, as with the templates issue (see my talkpage, follow links from User:Plastikspork and re User:Droll....). I got at this CfR thing tonight, in fact, because I know I'll pretty much have to move on from Wikipedia soon, I"m having too many teenagers-with-admin-powers finding more and more ways to waste my time with inanity.....I'm sorry to throw all this one you right now, you're just the admin I've most recently had friendly discourse with - and meaningful action. I have to go to bed now, this b.s. about the deleted images has chewed up a lot of my time tonight, just as it did (from the same so-called "admin") last week.....Is there a "higher committee" of admins somewhere, some group that recognizes the damage that jejune admins are perpetrating against actual contributors? Even if I DID have the energy to start a WP:ANI process tongiht, I'm well aware that my language will get a counter-attack/ANI for wikiquette.....but, really, is there any justification for such picayune destructiveness as what overpowered deletionists and code-warriors are pulling on those of us who actually contribute material. and if "assume good faith" is a Wiki-standard, why the 7-day death sentences on images that have some minor detail of licensing (or may, in fact, not have any missing detail of licensing at all) since most ordinary contributors DON"T "live on Wikipedia" as these destructo-bots obviously do? Actually, tonight I asked him if he was a Darlek - "delete, delete, delete". I'm 54 years old, losing patience with all this crap, and being asked ot jump through too many friggin' hoops at once. There's times I wish, in fact, I could delete everything I've contributed, because who's "taking over" has no common sense, nor responsibility.....nor respect. See [[8]]. and the Talk:Hotel Vanouver (1916).Skookum1 (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

True to form, another editor who I've crossed swords with before (on political articles, on political disagreements), has taken sides against me, claiming that Crown Copyright doesn't apply to provincial governments or to the provincial Crown; that's nonsense, provincial governments have no jurisdiction over copyright law....User:Resolute is a contrarian and little more.Skookum1 (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Your complaints are familiar refrains—probably ones that everybody (except the perpetrators, of course) has experienced from time to time on WP. There is the "arbitration committee", which is kind of like the "higher committee" that can oversee admin behaviour. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. They hear cases and have the power to pretty much do what they feel is best for WP, including permanently blocking users, taking away admin privileges, putting people of types of probation, etc. Unfortunately, I personally have never found access to ArbCom that "easy"—as in it takes some doing to figure out exactly how to start a case and then it takes a while for cases to be decided, and at the end of the day ArbCom is not terribly transparent in all that it does. So it's definitely an imperfect solution, but it is out there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Cydebot deletion summary issues

I've made some changes to Cydebot that should address the deletion summary issue (specifically, the lack of a correct link to the per-day discussion page in some instances). Please keep your eyes peeled for any remaining issues. More information is here. --Cyde Weys 21:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check it out and let you know if there are any concerns. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Am I at the wrong talk page?

Because based on the amount of complaining I see here, I'd swear I'm looking at my talk page from a few years ago. --Kbdank71 02:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

And ironically, I haven't even been closing that many discussions lately. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, you're getting grief because you're getting real work done in a way that is highly visible across Wikipedia, so it comes with the territory. Most people should be so lucky :-P Cyde Weys 14:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

I have created an article about a company who has served India for so many years with cross border help to international companies who have set up operations here and it has globally helped both the companies and people of India.

I cant understand how this is treated as an advert.Pls explain Rimika Sharma (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The article looked like an advertisement to me. It was re-deleted by another user because the article didn't indicate the importance of the subject. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Rimika Sharma (talk) 12:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)I changed the content to look like a non advert since i am new to wikipedia.now someone else has deleted it.The content on the other page is totally history about how a particular org has helped in developing and bringing new companies to india.I am unable to put a comment on that guys post.Can you pls help

wot no bot?

Human death change.... want some help? if its the manual thingo - might have a day to spare (sic) in the next week or so (hic) - or do you know any nice friendly bots Satu Suro 15:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be helpful, though I haven't yet figured out when I am going to do this. It takes a spare chunk of time which I may not have for a bit. I'll let you know though. (I think other users have asked for bots to do this kind of thing, but have come up empty. I'm not sure what the barrier would be.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Just drop a note at my talk when or what - I cannot ever keep up with my threads away from there - too many, too little time :( Satu Suro 00:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Okelydokely - can allow myself an hour on it now in a few minutes - hehehe - thanks for the headsup - cheers Satu Suro 02:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Stage one - lets hope it goes ok Satu Suro 03:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hawaii Five-O category

As I was doing some edit cleanups on the Jack Lord page, I noticed your May 3 edit that "...we don't categorize performers by performance..."

Maybe not, but we do have an actual Category:Hawaii Five-O , which I personally think is odd in itself. Maile66 (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a little odd to have an eponymous category for a TV series. We certainly don't categorize people who appeared in the TV series in a category named after the TV series. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Wizards of Waverly Place

I know you deleted the category 3 times already but I am currently working on separating the content on the Wizards episode list by seasons and the series having it's on category would be a big help on finding all content related to the show per Category:Hannah Montana. Please consider letting the category exist with me presiding over it. QuasyBoy (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Go crazy. If circumstances have substantially changed, that's a good reason to not delete it again based on the old discussion. If someone still thinks it should be deleted, they can re-nominate it and have a fresh discussion based on the new circumstances. I won't delete it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank You. I was actually the person that originally created the category when the series first premiered and seeing how the consensus was at the time, there wasn't really an adequate reason to keep it then. QuasyBoy (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Gotta

Get off - I might be back on in about 4 hours time - any part to double check (presume we do all the us states?) hope my intermittent bit took the strain of the whole job by yourself :\ - I tend to get diverted easily Satu Suro 03:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; it's almost done—just 30 more U.S. states to go or so. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didnt do more - kept finding project tags undone, and real time vandalism on my watch list :| - oh well there are surely more hidden somewhere? Satu Suro 03:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What you did was a big help; thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

re Igbo...

Thanks for your concern, since there was more than one person expressing concern I responded on my own talk page. Herostratus (talk) 05:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent

An editor has asked for a deletion review see Categories:American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent. Because you evidently closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. IZAK (talk) 06:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, these were speedy rename changes so I'm pretty sure I didn't close any discussions related to any of these. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe you, but this template is all-inclusive and also says if you "otherwise were interested in the page" and you have edited many of the pages in the past and have been aware of what's been happening with them lately. IZAK (talk) 08:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I was thrown off by the italicized evidently, which doesn't appear in the generic template. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Just found this one that you speedied and moved Iraqi American Jews. IZAK (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, just because I deleted the old category doesn't necessarily mean that I actually processed it—I could have just been cleaning up WP:CFDW by deleting old empty categories that weren't auto deleted by a bot. Anything that is unopposed at the speedy rename section does get processed after 48 hours, though. There is no formal discussion that is closed. Prima facie they seem to meet the requirements so you may want to just nominate them for renaming back. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for your input at DRV

Hi Good Ol: There is now a DRV for 24 categories of Jews at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 28#Categories:American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent. As you mention above, the deletions were based on speedy delete nominations but an admin at DRV, User Stifle (talk · contribs) has requested [12], [13] more information and input from those involved in the deletions and what they based themselves on. Since you have been involved with deleting and discussing these, could you respond ASAP at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 28#Categories:American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent and help us out tracing who nominated and supported the Jews' categories in question for speedy renaming and why it was done so that the monitoring and closing admins at the DRV can know the starting point of the DRV in question. Thanks for helping us out here. IZAK (talk) 03:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing much I can add. They were processed as speedy renames. That's all I know about it. There is usually no discussion at speedy rename and I haven't otherwise discussed these with anyone. If he wants more information, you should just say the were processed as speedy renames. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

But who NOMINATED them for speedy renames? For example, when you went ahead and speedy deleted/renamed Category:Iraqi American Jews [14] what did you base yourself on and surely you must have noticed who nominated it for speedy deletion and renaming. Someone must have NOMINATED them all for speedy deletion and at least cited some sort of rationale or rule. IZAK (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought on Cyde's page I pointed you to User:Mayumashu as the nominator. But no, just because I deleted a category doesn't mean I know who nominated it. As I mentioned above, I could have just been cleaning up WP:CFDW, and once categories are listed there, the information on who the nominator was is not included. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Honestly Good Ol, I think that you and Mayumashu and a few others are causing havoc with your renames that seem utterly un-educated. Take a look at this as an example [15] (nothing to do with Jews) where you nominate "merge Category:Afro-Uruguayans to Category:Uruguayan people of Black African descent", same fore "Afro-Portuguese" [16] etc etc etc when the word "Afro" means "of or from the African continent" and that would include all the ARABS of North Africa who are NOT "Black African" but Arab Africans and not just as in the USA type of limited "Afro-American". I wish you would revert all the confusing changes you are making based on "speedies" when at least if you would take it to full CfD discussions and ask for input from various Wiki-project expert editors you would get INTELLIGENT feedback instead of setting up a horrendous humungous mass of nonsense. All you are proving is that haste makes waste! IZAK (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Implying that a user is not INTELLIGENT is uncivil, and users are not welcome here if they can't maintain civility. That applies to you. If you disagree with any category that is named according to convention, then nominate it for renaming back. It's not a big deal. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

DELETED UNCIVIL COMMENT BY User:IZAK AT THIS POINT

I added a comment re: what I know about this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- OK, thanks, now seems that at least the background information will be there. Others have responded too. Sorry for the hassles. IZAK (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  - No hassle would have been had if you just acted nicely. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Maori teams

I think you worked this one out alright... but anyway.

There are three Maori national teams that I know of, one for cricket, and one for each rugby code. One actually doesn't have to have much Maori ancestry (1/16 I think) to get in them. The original NZ native football team even had people in it who were just swarthy rather than Maori, but I think they're stricter now.

There are of course plenty of Maori who don't get into any of these teams who play the sport at a high level. The Maori cricket team hasn't played much at all, so that there aren't many Maori cricketers who fit into the category, particularly if they were playing, say fifty years ago when the team didn't exist.--MacRusgail (talk) 08:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I live in NZ right now, and I now that I think about it, I knew about the rugby union team, but I had no idea there was also a rugby league team, let along a cricket team. Thanks, and sorry to jump the gun on asking you. With a little digging I figured it out. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Offline

FYI, in case you're expecting a quick response to an inquiry, I'm going to be offline for the next few days. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Nuts, I wanted to ask you the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow. Guess I'll just have to wait. --Kbdank71 17:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

this

needs to be renamed [17] -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 00:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

sorry wrong link. [18] [19]-- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 00:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What are wrong with these 2? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Should there be spacing before and after the dash? -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 11:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. The answer is "yes". It's kind of a funny guideline that relates to WP:ENDASH. If the two things being connected are composed of just one word each, you don't space it, as in "Croatia–Serbia". But if one or both of the two things being connected has more than one word, the en dash is spaced, as in "Croatia – United States". This is because we're connecting "Croatia" to "United States", and not just connecting "Croatia" to "United". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The More You Know %%%%%%%%%%%☆ -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 22:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Rape by country

I noticed that you have reverted some of my edits where is was moving articles for Category:Rape to Category:Rape by country. When categorising I always shift articles that apply to a particular country to a "by country" or country specific category. It prevents cluttering up the main category. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that that's a good idea, because it amounts to incorrect categorization. The articles are not general ones about rape a particular country. They either need to be in the parent category or placed in a specific "by country" subcategory. Category:Rape by country is really only for subcategories or articles of a general nature about rape in a particular country. That's usually how the categories are applied, anyway. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Category: Herman Wold

Hi Good Olfactory! In response to the criterion frowning on eponymous categories, I suggested simply renaming the category Herman Wold to the category "Scientific work associated with Herman Wold" (e.g. PLS, Wold's theorem, Wold decomposition, Cramer-Wold theorem, etc.). This name change avoids the problem with eponymy, and nobody has mentioned another problem (since inappropriate members of the category were dropped, e.g. advisor and 2 students). Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, June—where inquiries will dry up and talk page abuse will abate

Ah, June. I'm going to be offline for much of this month. Just sayin'. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Anglo-Saxon England

Category:Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms was removed from this Category by your Hot Bot. This has been undone as there is a hierarchy of categories in place of which Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms sits at the top.Metabaronic (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms can't be both a parent category for and a subcategory of Category:Anglo-Saxon England--it needs to be one or the other; IMO, it makes more sense as a subcategory. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for you input

user:Angrybeerman created a very nice page on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Kingdom of God page (the Naylor group). I have been attempting to help expand it with him. Angrybeerman found a reference to Frank Naylor having died. However, we both agree that this reference is very vague and very dubious. It is a Wikipedia type website where anyone can make updates to the information. However, unlike Wikipedia there are no sources required.

Naylor's death, as a founding leader, would be an important thing to mention, along with the name of his replacement (circumstantial evidence points to Ivan Nielsen). Nether one of us wants to leave out that information, but we just don’t have a verifiable source.

Therefore I thought of asking you for your input. I know you have done a lot of research on the various LDS sects and are very knowable on this subject. You may know if Frank Naylor has died. As you know these groups are very secretive it can be hard to get good citations. Nether of us would be surprised that he was or wasn’t dead, but we just can't find proof of it on way or the other or that Ivan Nielsen has taken over as official leader.

Anyway, even if you can't help, thank again for your input (in advance). Our discussion had been taking place at Talk: Naylor deceased

Fielding Garr Ranch article

Hello. I am developing an article for the Fielding Garr Ranch, located on Antelope Island. I was wondering if you would like to drop by my sandbox and help me develop this article? I would very much appreciate it. Thank you. The Utahraptor ^Talk 14:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Category for Renaming:Category:Southern rock groups

Heya I see you're offline now a lot but I'll tell you anyway. I just put a category up for discussion that you started. To join the discussion go here. The guy who created the other category, User:Sortior hasn't edited since 2005. 11:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The change is fine with me. I only started it because I was the closer of this discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Catsorting

Quick question You do a lot of work with categorization, so maybe you know something that I don't. Why is it that you sort with asterisks rather than spaces--e.g.? Please respond on my talk. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Swedish People of Black African decent

Dear Sir, It is quite sad that you have gone through all that trouble of removing the category “Swedish people of Black African decent”. As someone who defines my self as just that I have to ask why you did this. I currently live in the US (and I have lived in other countries as well) and I get asked where I am from ALL THE TIME. (I know I speak for other as well) So many people around the world think of Swedish people as all being blond and blue eyed. Swedish people come in all sizes and colors. That Wikipedia category was something I actually referred people to. Mainly that it displayed the great diversity that us Swedes, with “black skin” represents. Ghana, Colombia, Ethiopia, Jamaica etc, etc. I understand you hold no ill will, but now it is as if you CANNOT be Swedish AND have dark skin WITHOT explaining were your parents were born. (…something that is not always easy).

I can see how having to state skin colour and nationality might be stupid, since this will single people out. It is not as if someone has to say “Swedish person with ginger hair”.

However, not too long ago Swedish people form Finnish speaking regions (mostly by people looking at their names) used to have to explain if they were Swedish or not. Quite silly. Today no one does.

My kids get the question were they are from. They say Sweden. Then people ask were their dad is from…and they say Sweden. (Yes, both my parents are born outside Europe, my father in Brazil and who came to Europe as a sailor and became an engineer and my mother in Tanzania and adopted at the age of 2 by Swedish missionaries). I am sure that no one will ask my grandchildren were they are from, no matter what their skin looks like.

I am not sure how you think. Now you know how I think. I am not angry, insulted or such. I just think it is a shame as it sort of proves that “but you are black, how can you be Swedish” is something that will hang around for AT LEAST a few more weeks :- )

All the best, Vsanoj - Jonas Vest — —Preceding unsigned comment added by VsanoJ (talk • contribs)

I do not know what article you are referring to. I moved some of these to subcategories and removed others when the category was not supported by the text of the article. Categories need to be supported by the text of the article. This is especially the case for living people because of WP:BLP. Don't add categories to an article unless the text of the article supports the article's inclusion in the category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sir,As much as I would like to believe you (or maybe I just do not understand you, perfectly plausible) you more or less taken almost all people included in the "Swedish People of Black African decent" category and replaced this with brand new categories relating to nationality. Let’s take the case with Jean-Paul Vonderburg, the text specifically says that he is (among other things) first black player ever in Sweden national football team. So says the source. I fail to see the issue. If I create a category called Swedish people of White Caucasian decent, will that be a problem too??

I am confused. Sorry. VsanoJ (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If a category is included in a subcategory, the general practice is not to also include it in the immediate parent category. If CATEGORY B (Category:Swedish people of Democratic Republic of the Congo descent) is a natural subcategory of CATEGORY A (Category:Swedish people of Black African descent) and the article fits within CATEGORY B, the article goes in CATEGORY B but not in CATEGORY A, because it's already in CATEGORY A because it's in the subcategory, that being CATEGORY B. Hope that helps. (I overlooked the statement in Jean-Paul Vondenburg, so you are correct that it can be in the category. Thanks.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, now I understand better. So basically the text and the source HAS to say “Mr. X” is a black person, in order to use that category AND it only includes people with their ethnic roots in sub-Sahara Africa? A Swedish person with Jamaican roots is ruled out. Sorry for being annoying, I am just trying to avoid looking stupid in the future. VsanoJ (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Yeah, just make sure that if you add the category that the text of the article talks about it. Preferably, it should be cited to a source, but oftentimes it will not be. In cases of living people, if it is not cited to a source, a user can legitimately remove the uncited information and the category without discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Policy

Everyone knows policies are de factooptional. You are living proof; all the arbs and CUs know you are a banned user YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes tinfoil actually attracts microwaves, you know. After awhile, it stoorts to mook yoo toolk foony. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Where do you find these people? --Kbdank71 10:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

They seem to congregate at Wikiproject Cricket, Wikiproject Richard Wagner, and around articles about Swedish long jumpers. All of which really makes a lot of sense, if you think about it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what's all that about? It's not like YM to be so blunt. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 22:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Presumably it's derived from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket#Category: Borsetshire cricket captains. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sambo's Grave‎

Hi. Wondered why you removed Category:Burials in unconsecrated ground from [:Sambo's Grave‎]]? Wanted to put it under Category:Burials by place, and no other sub-cat applied, so this seemed a reasonable new cat. Rwendland (talk) 12:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Haven't the bodies of most people been deposited in unconsecrated ground? I suppose it depends on what "unconsecrated" means. It seemed to me like an unwieldy category which, if populated, could be enormously large, but if you think it's a good idea I'm fine if you want to put the article back in the category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Thinking about it more clearly, it is an ill-conceived category going way beyond isolated graves. Thanks. I'll get it deleted. Rwendland (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, this is a notification that there is currently a discussion at WP:ANI that involves you, which can be found here. Your comments are welcomed and appreciated. Thank you. — ξ ^xplicit 03:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Clint Eastwood

Early life and work of Clint Eastwood, Clint Eastwood in the 1960s, Clint Eastwood in the 1970s, Clint Eastwood filmography, Clint Eastwood in popular culture. You lied when you claimed that Category:Clint Eastwood would be empty with only films directed by Clint Eastwood. How else do we connect these articles? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Early life and career of Barack Obama is categorised sensibly as Category:Barack Obama. Early life of Rabindranath Tagore similar is categorised as Category:Rabindranath Tagore. Now why is Clint Eastwood not enough of a being to have a category when multiple articles exist. It makes perfect sense to me to categorise it as Clint Eastwood rather than "Living people". Another clumsy deletion. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

If it were that the category was empty other than films directed by, then it would be redundant. But the category is intended to connect together the sub articles on him which were split from the main article. This is what categories are for. No I wouldn't normally recommend we have categories for people but when there is enough articles to constitute a category and in this case makes sense I don't see why he shouldn't have a category. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I was the nominator of the category, not the closer. Per WP:DRV, I think you should take this up with the closer of the deletion discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

YellowMonkey was 100% right about you wasn't he. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am a sockpuppet of a blocked user. (Eye roll.) It's funny how that is trotted out whenever someone disagrees with me on a substantive issue and never at any other time. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Brazil – French Guiana border‎

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Cfd-notify ...}} with {{subst:Cfd-notify ...}}. --Soman (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

wine categories

Hi!

Can you explain why you reverted all my efforts to clean up some of the wine makers categories? As far as I know the guideline I use should apply, there have been some talk in the WP:WINE project to clean up the whole category tree, please discuss and explain why you reverted. See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wine/Category tree and see guideline at WP:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Categories by country. --Stefan ^talk 00:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposals to rename categories are processed through WP:CFD, no? You were emptying categories manually and creating new ones to take their place. (There is a good argument to be made that the changes contradict the naming guidelines if the categories primarily apply to people, but that's the kind of thing that would be discussed at WP:CFD.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, never used CFD for changes that is reasonably within policies, only when the changes are questionable. Maybe it would have been more efficient for you side to point that out, take it up here and talk to me, than just revert, sometimes WP:IAR is a good policy..... --Stefan ^talk 01:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, the changes are questionable under the naming conventions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Without entering the discussion about what the categories should be named, when you restore previous categories, could you be so kind as to restore their project tagging as well? Tomas e (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

By what right do you ask...

..."permission" in violation of WP:OWN of another user (User Mayumashu (talk · contribs)) to "skip" normal Wikipedia guidelines and procedures and not follow normal Wikipedia deletion procedures and policies as you recently did here: User talk:Mayumashu/Archives/2009/September#Ethnic/nationality descent categories? Please explain CLEARLY on what basis you requested your "permission" from User:Mayumashu and why you assumed that he has "been authorized" to GIVE YOU the power to delete or speedy categories based purely on HIS say-so alone without the normal recourse to WP:CFD? Are there ANY other such cases or precedents that you know of, of an admin asking a user for "permission" to delete his categories without going thru all the normal channels as you indicate you don't want to do in the message you left Mayumashu. Evidently, this is an open and shut example of usurpation of admin powers. Please explain the policies and guidelines you followed clearly because this needs to be clarified at ANI as well quite soon. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"Archives/2009/September" ... "recently" ...Does not compute. Rich Farmbrough, 16:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC).

Incidentally it is a reasonable use of CSD criteria - G7 I think. Rich Farmbrough, 16:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC).

Hi there Rich: Two points, something that happened way less than a year ago is definitely recent and no amount of reliance on mumbo jumbo techno jargon can evade or avoid that. Secondly, an "I think" sort of vague defense is just WP:LAWYERing than any clear-cut presentation of a solid defense. If Good Olfactory "thought" that he had any Wikipedia rule behind him then he did not require Mayumashu's "permission", while if he was relying on Mayumashu's "permission" as is obvious from his direct request, he was not relying on any Wikipedia policies and guidelines and was in effect in violation of and flouting the normal rules for WP:CFD, and acting as a law unto himself and violating WP:MADEUP rules of his own, a most serious situation for an admin yet. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

As suggested by Rich, it was a case of the possible use of CSD G7 being mooted, combined with a courtesy note to the creator and sole editor of the categories in question. (Mayumashu was the creator and sole editor of the categories being referred to, thus he was the person who could formally invoke CSD G7.) If I recall correctly (no guarantee there, given the fact that it was 9 months ago, which is not terribly "recent" in my brain) none of them were processed this way anyway—they were all subjected to full CFDs. Because it seems in this case you were ignorant of a legitimate possible use G7, I suggest you refrain from jumping to conclusions about others' past comments until you have a handle on what was going on. You managed to throw out allegations of wrongdoing over a half dozen times in about as many sentences, which is impressive—in a jerky kind of way. Any further hyperbolic postings here will be removed. The same goes for postic hyperboles. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mac

Do you mind clarifying what you are referring to by this comment? Feel free to email me if necessary. Thanks. T. Canens (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure—User:Mac had a habit of creating improbable redirects that ended up getting deleted. These tended to be about "alternative energy" topics. Some of the last ones the user created on 10 November 2008 were All-back-contact solar cell, Silicon solar cells, Carbon dioxide emissions reduction, etc.

After that, nothing is deleted from either account until 1 December 2008, when User:Nopetro's creation of Solar Roadways is deleted, which was also a redirect. Later in 2009, Nopetro's redirects of Green garage and Lithium-ion phosphate are deleted.

I perhaps overstated in my offhand comments when I said that this alone is enough to convince me. I should clarify—I personally wouldn't be comfortable blocking the users for sockpuppetry based on this evidence alone. I guess what I really meant to say was that this is further evidence that they may be the same, and that a checkuser could probably be justified, because this evidence, combined with the other points initially made in the CU regarding improbable energy-related redirects, is enough to raise my suspicions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for your comments

Hello, Good Olfactory,
Since I value your input, I am requesting your expert comments at Featured list candidates:List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement. Thank you in advance for your comments.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 17:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Category: Converts to Rastafari

The whole reason for and point of that CFD was to eliminate the offensive name "Rastafarianism" which is taken as pejorative by the subjects concerned. You may have missed that there was agreement to do this. Please rename the category per the actual consensus. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 07:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Please ignore the above, I was being too hasty to realise you were effecting it in two stages. Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 07:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Curious Question

In Whale Wars, when the Captain of the Steve Irwin first encounters the Japanese ship Nisshin Maru, he claims to have gotten shot in the chest. Now personally I don't buy this at all, but I was wondering what you thought about it? Thanks, --Suplemental (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a clue. I haven't even seen the programme. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

CFD tags

Having dipped a toe back into the CFD waters, I'm wondering if there's a different tagging system in place? Every time I use the old {{subst:cfd}} I get that messed up version that doesn't link to the CFD entry. Otto4711 (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it has changed. I'm still just using {{subst:cfd}} for deletions. Strange that it is not working for you .... ? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

States established cats

Hi. Category:States and territories established in 1472 and Category:States and territories established in 1554 showed up again (third time this month) in the list of empty categories. I see that you re-populated them both of the previous times. Evidently there must be some user trying to empty them out of process; I don't know exactly what's going on but I removed the speedy delete requests from both of them since I'm sure the result will be the same again. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned if you want to mark them as empty. If they get deleted I can chase down the contents via google cache and restore them. More often than not it's just vandalism that has taken place, so it's good way to track vandalism that isn't otherwise detected. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Opinion for a requested move of WP:Ownership of articles

Hello! I have requested a move for WP:Ownership of articles → WP:Page ownership. As you participated in the previous discussion, could you please voice your opinion again regarding this move, as it is my intention to restart the discussion with a clean slate. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 23:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you please comment....

Can you please bop over to Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#New category and comment regarding the title of a category you have propogated? Thanks in advance, PK T(alk) 02:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sigh

An enthusiast of recent has created a whole lot of categories with incorrect spacing - do you think they would be non controversial speedies that any admin could do without having to go through strangulating process? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Heri+Zaelani almost all the categories created have the problem Satu Suro 04:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think they could be speedied as a spelling/spacing error. I'll have a look when I get a chance. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Very kind - its just that I have been thin on the ground so to speak recently and to pop up and find a few days of such enthusiasm is quite bothering when it shows such volume, and a lack of care or checking against possible categories with correct spacing :( - cheers Satu Suro 04:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - trust your locale isnt as damned cold as this one is brrr Satu Suro 05:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Holy crap—I've never seen such serial negligence with the categories before! Anyway, I listed them at WP:CFDS—I decided to just propose taking out the stuff after the comma altogether. Would this be in conformity with what would be expected for Indonesian categories? I'm assuming so since none of the articles about cities in Indonesia are disambiguated with a province name. I did them pretty quick—maybe you should look through them and make sure I didn't make any errors—I'm not exactly up on my Indonesian spelling .... They should get through speedy rename after 48 hrs; they are usually done pretty quick. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It is beyond me - I have been ignored - I have made a request - and the serial one article categories are still being made at a furious rate - and the spacing is still incorrect - I leave it to you or other admins - I give up Satu Suro 14:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That's very sporting of you. :) I too have asked him to respond. We'll see what happens. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work and time to put the CFD list in - it is appreciated - we have a spate of recent rapid edit newbies wandering through Indonesia project space at the moment - enough to make me feel quite old Satu Suro 10:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Not too sure about the language barrier - some editors from that part of the world are literally mute on wp - I can think of one who repeatedly refused to respond to anything - in either langauge Satu Suro 00:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

A voice from the past...

Hi GO - good to see from the recent changes in NZ region categories that you remember me! :) I'm still here, but only occasionally. Just a reminder that some of the subcategories at Category:New Zealand geography stubs will also need to be taken to WP:SFD. I'd suggest the Nelson/Tasman one is changed to "Nelson and Tasman Region..." - Nelson's officially a region but it's so small (basically just the city) that it'll probably only ever have a handful of stubs. Grutness...wha? 08:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It's good to hear from you; thanks for the advice. We will have to do those too. If you're able, you might want to comment at this discussion. I remember you knew a lot about the Cook Island(s) adjective. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that User:Od Mishehu has added the geo-stub categories to SFD, so there's no need to worry about that. I'll have a look at the CkI discussion. cheers, Grutness...wha? 23:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Transplant Organisations

I see you noticed my mistake as well! I just went back to delete that category as I have made a new one, but notice you put a speedy rename on it. Do we have to follow a procedure now, or can one of us just delete it? SilkTork *^YES! 22:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

We can just delete it since you are the sole editor. I will do that and withdraw the nomination. Thanks! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)