User talk:Good Olfactory/Archive 3

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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Bemused

I do hope all the stuff about human death and executions etc are following some damned precedent across the whole of wikipedia - some of them are oddly contra logic was well - they are once again not tagged so its trawling through your stuff from early last month to align it to the appropriate projects - hope your holiday got wikipedia [out of the brain - it helps Satu Suro 01:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"Oddly contra logic". Interesting; but without an example, I've no idea what it may mean. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 19:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It comes clear at Moondynes talk page Satu Suro 02:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually that doesn't "clear" up much for me. I'm not sure why it's hard to understand conventions and policies, but I guess it is tricky for some. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually claims for 'conventions and policies' is a bit loose for my requirements - as is reverting a change on the basis of a claim for 'lack of discussion' - did you go to the Australian noticeboard at all? I dont think the wider wikipedia community can ever keep up with some of the more 'brilliant' aspects of category management - I think there is a need for much wider conversation than I have ever anywhere seen to date - claims to authority within the wikipedia sphere always for me immediately raise questions from my position as a foot soldier with no admin powers a little doubtful where such items come from. The late douglas adams notion of such items sitting in filing cabinets at the bottom of a stairwell behind a sign 'dont feed the leopard' in a locked filing cabinet behind a locked door make much more sense when i see such claims Satu Suro 03:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Too loose? Sorry, I thought you'd read the other talk page and was using shorthand to refer to what is discussed there in detail. For specifics, see WP:CFD. The other editor was the one that made the extra-process unilateral change, not me. The onus is on them to use the correct process and notify the noticeboard. Editors can't just change things at a whim without following the process, which in this case is outlined fairly clearly at WP:CFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies I have been on and off computer all morning and havent read the items at the other talk page - I now have - I can see your AGF is there - the big problem with the way category issues work is there are times when I think it seems the conversation should have been occurring at the australian noticeboard rather than an editors talk page - we had considerable angst in the australian project about the new demographics categories and the somewhat confusing booian and fooian issue - apologies for taking up your talk page space - Satu Suro 03:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem; I could tell we were talking across each other for a bit there. I understand the underlying concern and I appreciate you telling me. I agree it can be a problem. I wonder if we could somehow form a proposal to have discussions posted at relevant project boards. Something to consider, perhaps .... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

WPBYU Invite

Hello, I noticed you've made edits to Brigham Young University articles and thought you might want to become a member of the BYU WikiProject. We've recently revamped the project page and started a drive to improve BYU-related articles. We have a lot of articles under our project and would like assistance getting them to featured article status. Hope you'll join us. Go BYU!

--Eustress (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Would it

Be easy to explain what the hell with the Indonesian categories? a link to see why or what? Satu Suro 08:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry; you're going to have to be more explicit if you want me to understand what you are referring to. I've no idea based on what you wrote. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(cur) (last) 16:49, 4 July 2008 Good Olfactory (Talk | contribs) m (247 bytes) (Removed category "Indonesian criminals" (using HotCat)) (rollback | undo)
(cur) (last) 08:40, 24 June 2008 Good Olfactory (Talk | contribs) m (291 bytes) (Quick-adding category "Prisoners who died in Indonesian detention|E" (using HotCat)) (undo)
(cur) (last) 06:24, 12 June 2008 Good Olfactory (Talk | contribs) m (233 bytes) (Quick-adding category "Prisoners sentenced to death by Indonesia|Exe" (using HotCat)) (undo)
(cur) (last) 11:05, 26 May 2008 Good Olfactory (Talk | contribs) m (174 bytes) (Quick-adding category "Human death in Indonesia|Executio" (using HotCat)) (undo)
(cur) (last) 05:47, 14 May 2008 Good Olfactory (Talk | contribs) m (127 bytes) (Quick-adding category "Indonesian criminals|Execution" (using HotCat)) (undo)

Maybe I have not read the edit history more carefully enough - if thats the case my apologies Satu Suro 08:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

So ... what article or category are we referring to here? That would be the first point of reference (and perhaps the only one) I'd need. To me it looks like categories I've gradually altered to an article or category as the development of category structure has progressed over a period of weeks, but without more information I'm only guessing, really. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Indonesian_executions&action=edit It seems the range of indonesian deaths / criminals/ etc series of category creates by you must be following conventions from other projects yes? Satu Suro 09:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes; it's a long-term work in progress. The categories change as the structure develops, and it changes across all countries as we develop it. Anything in particular not looking right so far? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

thats fine - as the john clarke alter ego fred dagg used to say 'i'll get out of your way' - its fine if its simply an evolving process - but hey it keeps one on ones toes when trying to mintain tabs on more than one projects cats :( Satu Suro 09:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I imagine! Sorry for the frequent changes. They are likely coming to an end soon for that category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Dont apologise - just if there is gonna be a big series of change for whatever reasons in the indonesian project id appreciate a note - and the noticeboard at australia if its about to happen - we get very sensitive about such things in the oz project - cheers Satu Suro 09:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK; thanks. Nothing big (beyond what you've set out above) is planned by me for the Indonesia category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Categorisation Barnstar
		For an eagle eye in helping to improve new categories. Thank you! Eustress (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

South Port

Hello - you changed this redirect away from Bluff, New Zealand stating that "there actually was a south port, which is now named port pegasus; nothing in Bluff article says this was a name for it". If you would have read a little closer, you would have found (in that same article) that South Port is the company name for the Bluff Port. I have corrected South Port to be a disambig to point to both articles. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 09:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw that, but it's just the name of the company that runs the port there, so I thought a redirect to a place that was called that was more significant or took precedence. (It's not and was not the name for Bluff itself.) That said, I agree with your DAB page solution. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 19:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts on doctrine vs. adherents

I wonder if we should not stick to doctrine of a respective church rather than attempt to encompass all the beliefs of a respective church's adherents. We can more easily and describe what a church teaches, but when we then move forward and attempt to describe individual members' beliefs we can quickly exceed our ability to document.

As I read your recent edit on Mormon Cosmology and also a recent discussion on [[1]]. In the LDS church we read about gods and goddesses as we become more like God and joint-heirs with Christ. However, when I read goddess in the article it strikes me as "off". The common understanding of a "god" or even "goddess" in society has a connotation of independence, which is not an accurate understanding of the LDS position. To be one with the Father is to completely subsume our will for that of God's. I would recommend always sticking with a church's doctrine or at least a more judicious explanation of the term and/or different phrasing. Does that make sense to you?--Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and in general my thoughts on the matter are quite similar to yours, I think. On the Mormon cosmology article, I was simply adding a citation where one was requested for the unofficial Heavenly Mother belief of some members. I think perhaps the Heavenly Mother example may be a rare exception to the rule of only reporting the "official" doctrine of a church, since it is a fairly prominent "quasi-official" belief or teaching that is relatively unique to Mormonism, and one that has it's own page on WP. Similarly, the "Adam–God theory" is mentioned in Adam and Eve (LDS Church), even though it is clearly not LDS Church doctrine, simply because it is exceptional for holding a prominent place in LDS history and the history of the development of Mormon cosmology. Those are two significant exceptions to the general rule that I can think of, but as I said I don't think it's generally a good idea to delve into esoteric beliefs of individual adherents. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I would think that a better resource would be the Proclamation of the Family, which may be considered doctrine now. It discusses heavenly parents, which obviously infers a Heavenly Mother. It may be worthwhile to actually have another article that discusses LDS feminism, which could explore some of the fringe beliefs of a subset of Mormonism. Would you find it acceptable to change that reference to the P on the F, change to doctrine, and move forward in that manner? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think perhaps it should supplement the reference rather than replace it, i.e., we could have both. The reason why is that the Proclamation doesn't explicitly discuss the Mother in Heaven—it just says "heavenly parents", and I have heard some claim that this could be interpreted as meaning God the Father and Jehovah, who acted as "parental figures". I personally don't buy that interpretation, but because of its potential ambiguity in the eyes of some, I think we need a more solid reference for the H.M. belief of some members, which the reference I added is.

Perhaps we should move this discussion to the talk page there to see what others might think? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

German executions

Hello Good Olf, I'm trying to understand your edits. It would seem obvious to me that Peter Kurten was a German that was executed..so I'm wondering why he is removed from that category? Is there a thread somewhere that would help me understand? Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 10:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Placed in the subcategory of it: Category:People executed by the Weimar Republic. The executions categories seem to be sorted not be nationality of executed person, but by country or nationality of the executioning authority. The categories are really a mess in this respect, as some interpret them some way and some the other way. I've been trying to develop some sort of workable system, but it's incomplete and slow. If you'd like him to be in the parent category until we manage to get separate categories for nationality of executed and nationality of executer, I imagine that would be fine. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No, that's fine. I understand it is a work-in-progress and can now see that it makes sense. I apologize for the reversion. Good luck with the project. Btw, your "Please click here to leave me a new message" link above doesn't work for those of us using the secure server..it opens a new browser window on the regular server and we're not logged in. This would work however..

[{{SERVER}}{{SCRIPTPATH}}/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Good_Olfactory&action=edit&section=new Please click here to leave me a new message]

Please click here to leave me a new message

//en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Good_Olfactory&action=edit&section=new

Try switching between secure & non-secure logins and come back here and you will see it mirrors to you correctly the parsed link (i.e. if you are on the secure server, you will see https and only http if you are not). Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 12:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that tip! I'm fairly clueless when it comes to the secure/nonsecure differences, so I never would have figured that out! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 17:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That category works for me..more solid than before. Thanks for the good job, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 07:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Andrei Chikatilo

There has been what looks like rubbish added to this page by the editor after you. Refer to the Murder Spree section (addition of Matthew Durbin & Nick Quinn. I do not know how to roll back to your last edit/version. Are you able to fix? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.135.157 (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I've reverted it. See Help:Reverting on how to do this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 17:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

People executed by Australia

In 1844, Australia was the name of a geographic place, but not of a political entity. The continent of Australia at that time was home to three political entities, the British colony of New South Wales, the British colony of Van Diemen's Land, and the British Swan River Colony. Australia became a political entity in 1901, with the federation of its constituent colonies. I have to wonder then, how it is possible for someone to have been executed by Australia in 1844. Hesperian 03:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I realise all this and have accomodated it in bifurcating the category — read the new category definition. It includes "or by Australian authorities". It's no less "incorrect" than "Australian executions". "Australian" can mean "of or in Australia", which it certainly does here, since he was executed by authorities in Australia. If you'd like to create a subcategory (or more accurately, a parallel category) for people executed by British authorities in colonies located in Australia, by all means do it. Alternatively, remove the pre-1901 people from the category. I would add precision but right now am in the middle of the complete project across countries step-by-step, so it may have to wait. It's a work in progress, in other words, and is developing slowly due to the number of articles/states and their varying political status at different times. Anyway, using your same logic, these people couldn't even be called "Australian", and that certainly hasn't stopped their previous categorization into Australian categories. I think it's obviously done because of the alternate meanings of "Australia" and "Australian" where flexibility may be needed in order to bring consistency across similar categories for different places/nationalities/countries. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You're ready

Wizardman would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Wizardman to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Good Olfactory . If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

I didn't plan to bring this up May 10, June 10, and July 10, that was just very coincidental. Anyway, good luck, let me know if you have any further questions before beginning :) Wizardman 02:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the questions usually come early, so if you want to do it now that's fine. If you want to wait though, that's also not a problem. They shouldn't attack you for taking a couple days of at the end. Basically it's up to you, though if you do decide to transclude it now make sure you put a note that you'll be gone during that time. Wizardman 04:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

After I thought about it a bit more, it's probabl best for us to wait until the 18th, just to play it safe. Wizardman 04:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's fine with me. This week is all a bit wonky for me schedule-wise and something else could come up which could delay my responses to any questioning, so it may be better if I hold off until then. I'll prepare my answers to the optionals and then post everything then when my schedule gets back to normal. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

New Zealander Xs

We have Category:New Zealander Latter Day Saints, Category:New Zealander Malaysian, Category:New Zealander ambassadors to the United Nations, Category:New Zealander figure skaters, Category:New Zealander singer-songwriters (the first 2 are redirects). I suspect the other 3 should be changed to New Zealand. Should I leave these in your capable hands? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure; I'll nominate them. They definitely should be "New Zealand". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Cats

		The Categorisation Barnstar
		I'm speechless. You know your way around the category tree. — _Maggot^Syn 22:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Lebanese murderers of children

Category:Lebanese murderers of children, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.

Not to worry, GO -- it wasn't me. Another editor got his knickers in a twist. :) Cgingold (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice; conspiracies abound — who knew I had such oblique motives and could predict the future?

I'm very sorry

I just used your RfA (probably against my better reason) to totally blast your first opposer. If you are not aware, that particular user opposes the vast majority of RfA candidates (not all, just most). If you feel that I've been completely out of line and distracting to your bid for admin tools, I encourage you, even implore you, to either delete my commentary (about Kurt) completley, or move it to the talkpage. You can use this diff as your reasoning for removing it yourself. I sincerely don't mean to distract from your otherwise noble RfA, I simply snapped regarding this particular user's oppose rationale. Again, apologies to you, as you have absolutely nothing to do with my rant against another user. Happy editing, and good luck with your RfA. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 01:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem; I'm not upset by what you wrote. Another user has moved the discussion to the talk page. From previous RfAs, I was aware of Kurt's tendency to oppose based on answers to that question, but I was honest in my answer — while I realise that in theory something that is against policy may in fact be an appropriate solution, I personally wouldn't do a cool-down block unless the policy were changed. It sounds like he may have too much time on his hands, searching for reasons to cast opposing votes. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA

Best of luck for your RFA -- Tinu Cherian - 07:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Marat Safin

Hi Good Olfactory, Just letting you know that I've removed the Russian Muslims category from the page. According to WP:BLP:

Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met:

The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;
The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

Safin is a non-practicing Muslim, so I feel that neither criteria is met. Cheers. BanRay 11:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me; I didn't think it really belonged either, but someone had added the "Muslims" category, so I simply placed it in the subcategory. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I supported your RFA but...

While looking through your contributions, I noticed that you had made several reverts in Endowment (Latter Day Saints) on edits by User:Stevezdude. The reverts were justified because he was removing gobs of text without explanation. However, you shouldn't have used the rollback tool for these because rollback is only for blatant and obvious vandalism as it doesn't allow you to include an edit summary. You should instead use "undo" for these kind of reverts or a faster way is to use Twinkle's rollback function as it allows an edit summary.

In any case, good luck in your RFA, I supported but still felt I needed to mention this. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion at the time, what he was doing was a form of blatant and obvious vandalism, especially obvious because of its repeated nature (after he had been advised against doing so by another editor and by me) and the particular information that was targeted. Vandalism can be the removal of information, not just the addition of material: see WP:VANDALISM. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but many do consider it a gray area though. I have done it in Huggle with a note to the talk page a few times but am rethinking this practice. (except for page blankings of course.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice; you've made me re-think the practice, and you're right — it is a gray area. If I have to justify it, it's probably best not to do it that way. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:People executed by British Raj

I think this category will be more appropriate. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Do not add the previous category, add any new item to Category:People executed by British Raj. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, if you think it's more appropriate, then propose a CfD or something, but please don't just change the category I'm working on. I used the "British Foo" styling on purpose, to mirror other subcategories of Category:British rule in India and Category:People executed by British colonies. And even so, it should be "the British Raj", not just "British Raj". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

In India it is termed British Raj, not British India. The term Raj is officially used. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I realise that. I chose "British India" for other reasons, as mentioned above. You can propose a rename if you like, but pls don't try to rename a category this way. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I will take the category to CfD. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Good, thx. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:People executed by British India

I have nominated Category:People executed by British India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sheikh vs Shaikh

Hello, Good Olfactory. You have new messages at Leitmanp's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 22:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Bay

Noticed your edit on Bakenranef. You missed Chancellor Bay. Bay was also put to death.

PS: I think you should change your category title to just 'Executed Egyptians'. Its simple compared to 'Executed Egyptian People' which is very long and grammatically incorrect. Leoboudv (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Not all nationalities have a one word noun to describe them, like "Egyptians". Thus, for standardization across categories, WP tends to use "Foo people". The parent category is Category:Egyptian people, for instance. I don't think there's anything ungrammatical about it — it simply uses an adjective instead of a noun. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Mariana de Pineda Muñoz

Hi re Mariana de Pineda Muñoz, in diff your summary doesn't seem to me to quite match your actions. Was that change what you really intended? Jonathan Cardy (talk) 05:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this; I'm not sure exactly what happened there. Sometimes HotCat gets away and does strange things, as here. I've added the category, which is what I intended to do, not delete the page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought it would be something like that. I found her page whilst trying to disambiguate Liberal but I don't know enough about Spanish Politics of that era to fix that. Oh and btw, congrats for getting the mop. Jonathan Cardy (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA

Congratulations, I'm pleased to let you know that I've closed your RfA as successful, and you're now an administrator! May I suggest you visit the Wikipedia:New admin school to get a few ideas on the best way to start using your shiny new buttons? If in doubt, feel free to give me a shout! Well done and all the best (and sorry for the slight delay in your promotion!) The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! No worries about the dealy; I've been sleeping, frankly. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations...

...on getting the mop --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ditto! --Kbdank71 13:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, congrats! The "pedia" needs more sysops like you! --Meldshal (§peak to me) 19:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, Good Olf! Well done. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Good beans. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 20:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please be careful of what accounts you block, since Blocking an admins' alternate account isn't really the smart way to begin using the tools, try deleting stuff first :) ..--Comet styles 23:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing the Wikipedia:New admin school exercises. These are the accounts that are used to take new admins through practice blocking, which I definitely want to figure out before I ever do a real one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed! Congratulations! The overall quality of Wikipedia just went up a notch! And there are a lot of great people here already!!!!! John Park (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Three cheers and a tiger for you! Ecoleetage (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RFA... You may delete the main page now :) Best wishes -- Tinu Cherian - 04:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Don't indef block Jimbo, but it should be fine to nuke the Main Page for a few minutes... Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Enjoy the tools :) Lradrama 22:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on getting the tools. I see the backlog at CFD's pretty much gone already. :) Though due to other circumstances you may go down as my last nom, who knows (but probably not). Wizardman 12:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

RfB Thank You spam

Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Léonism

This article was deleted within a few minutes of being created, sufficient time was not given for sources to be given and for the article to be expanded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaiakajay (talk • contribs)

You can create it again if you have sources, but it should be at Léonism, should it not? The deleted one was at LÉONISM (inappropriate caps), and it was literally only about 10 words long, so I didn't hesitate to delete it after another user tagged it for deletion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

About your RfA

Congratulations on your successful request for adminship. I am glad you passed, and you are welcome for the support. For information on using your new tools, see the school for new admins; you will find it very useful. Good luck! Acalamari 16:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Good Olfactory. You have new messages at ChaoticReality's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

F Henry Edwarsds

See response on my Talkpage.

Mountdrayton (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Governor-General

Well.. the G-G is the de facto Head of State of Canada, inasmuch as that is the capacity in which she acts, albeit at the pleasure of the Monarch. Perhaps we could find a way to show that while still making her findable in category searches/browsing? What do you think? Prince of Canada^{t | c} 04:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

De facto, maybe, but de jure, definitely not. No one swears allegiance to the G-G, as far as I know. She represents the Queen, who is constitutionally the head of state. In Category:Heads of state of Canada there's a link to Category:Governors General of Canada, which seems to be enough to me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely not de jure. What about creation of a subcategory in Category:Female heads of state (and male, I'd guess) of de facto or Acting Heads of State? What would you think about that? Prince of Canada^{t | c} 05:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm, not sure. It works for Canadian ones, but the concept of "de facto head of state" becomes a bit fuzzy when applied to many other countries, since it's not always clear who's in charge. Is Vladimir Putin a de facto head of state right now, even though he's a head of government? Some would say yes, others no. To me it seems safest to limit the categories to what is de jure, since that is relatively indisputable. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent point. Hmm. Let's think on this and regroup. Prince of Canada^{t | c} 05:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Delay close?

Hi, I'm not sure if you were planning on closing debate on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_25#Unqualified_"Terrorism" but since I didn't manage to get all the involved categories tagged until today, it would probably be fair to give people a chance to come and discuss it first. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I agree. And I've already commented there so I won't be the one closing it. You may want to drop User:Kbdank71 a similar message since he closes the majority of them; or just place a notice on the discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Kbdank has also commented, so I'm not sure who'll close it. I'll add a comment in the discussion.- TheMightyQuill (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

occupations

No, I do not have a plan. In looking at occupations and moving some other weird arrangements around, logically it seemed that all of the members here (all three) were really rightly classified at the higher level. Next thing I knew Category:Science and engineering occupations was empty. I'm not sure if I should just leave it as empty and see what happens or nominate it for deletion and mention the three that were moved (actually only 2 since one was also a child of one of the others). Suggestions? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to just leave it for now and then delete after 4 days. If someone objects to what you've done, you'll probably hear about it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

NZ Xans

So what are you and hugo up to? I have seen the nz cats wander up and down my talk page this am Satu Suro 02:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You'd have to ask Hugo. Dunno why he placed all the supersubcategories of NZ Christians in the superparent "Christians" category — all were already in the subcategory "Protestants" category, which is how it's structured in almost all the other Fooian Christians categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok ta congrats on the mop - trust it doesn cause too much grief Satu Suro 02:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Zealous. Very. Too.

Seven minutes from speedy tag to speedy deletion on Cis-Neptunian object? Dude, that's... Zealous. Very. Too. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 12:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

...and two hours from creation. If I happened to see if shortly after tagging, it's coincidence or confluence. Hence the name, "speedy". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Nyet. "Speedy" means "screw all the redtape". It doesn't mean "screw the folks who created it, I'm blasting this sucker." Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 12:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Mmm. I'm glad you can read my mind. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow... your meaning is...? Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 12:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Not important. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) No offense, but you're being singularly uncommunicative for a brand-spanking new admin. Can you bring the silly article back? Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 12:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you'd want it: It's entire content was "See also Trans-Neptunian object" with the {TNO} template. "See also" pages with only a template tag are a valid criterion for speedy deletes: Wikipedia:CSD#A3. If you want the page back, you can easily just create it again with that content. And if you actually want something from an admin, it's usually easiest to just come out with it from the start, rather than making comments that could suggest an impugning of motives. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't make it. I didn't know what was on it. I just know User:Nergaal & I know what a cis-Neptunian object is. I'll ask someone or other to build an article in userpsace then move it over... but really. Seven minutes. "See also" or not, maybe the guy had to go pee or something. Don't you think.. it would be better to let speedies just breathe for say.. a day, perhaps.. twelve hours, even? But whatever. I've been around long enough to know that admins always justify themselves rather than reflecting. Good luck with the new role... Cheers. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 13:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That's why I included the edit summary that said "no substantive content." You also missed my first comment above. Two hours from creation. Not seven minutes from creation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw it. Seven minutes from editor notification. What's the point of having a {{hangon}}? Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 13:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to propose a mandatory buffer period. As of right now there is not one. Speedy often literally means speedy. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) You and I both know that speedy-delete admins don't give a damn about anyone's proposals. It's like walking into a convention of video-game players and proposing slower triggers on the joystick. Whatever. I'll go there. I'll propose. I normally would suggest that you buy some popcorn and watch the show, but there won't be a show. I'd be surprised if even two folks bother to reply.... I was just hoping i could get you to become reflective... But ... Cheers! Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 13:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The way to get someone to reflect is not to use sarcasm or to suggest an imputation of motives. Maybe the reason you always encounter admins who try to justify their actions is because of how you approach them. Yours certainly put me off, and made me not want to be particularly responsive or helpful or reflective. It puts people on the defensive. Just a thought. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No imputation of ulterior motives! Just an imputation of the existence of culture. Of course you have no ulterior motive for speedy-deleting cis-Neptunian object; no one even knows what they are ;-).
My weariness is because I've been around long enough to have been through similar discussions many times.. though on different issues. Sorry I made you unhappy. Good luck and all that. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 13:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

F Henry Edwards

See further comment on my talk page.

Mountdrayton (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Mass overcategorization question

Hello Good Ol- I saw your name on User_talk:Johnpacklambert and thought you might be interested in my post at User_talk:Daniel_Case#Mass_overcategorization_question and could maybe provide guidance as well. -Eric ^talk 21:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Single-named porn stars

Maybe you can copy the category contents and send them to your "friend" so your "friend" will have them for future reference? ;-) Otto4711 (talk) 01:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The friend will consider this. :D Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Cis-Neptunian object

thanks. sorry if I was world-weary or sarcastic. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 02:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it's OK. I was tired and surly, too. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Barton W. Stone is not a "B"

I just added the Category:Amercan Disciples of Christ to the article for Barton W. Stone. Then I noticed that Stone is listed in the "B" listings for the category. This is also true for some other categories, but not all. What gives? How can I fix it? John Park (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've answered on your talk page so you can have easy access to the info for future reference. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! simple when you know how. John Park (talk) 04:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA

Congratulations on your successful RfA! I'm pleased to have been a part of it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Congrats as well! Let me know if you have any CFD-related questions. --Kbdank71 20:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Cfd FYIs

Hi Good Ol- I've embarked on what could be a big job:

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_1#Category:Religious_organizations_established_in_the_1110s

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_1#Category:Religious_organizations_established_in_the_1100s -Eric ^talk 20:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

GoodOlfactory, regarding the Category:Religious_organizations_established_in_the_1100s My objection is not to the actions of the creator of the category. My Objection is to the fact that a casual reader, who happens upon that category, will expect it to be the entire century NOT the first decade of the Century. I guess that Wikipedia can, in the name of consistency define its own conventions, however, that does not change the reality for the rest of the world. Please, take a deep breath and go back to my comment in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_1#Category:Religious_organizations_established_in_the_1100s. You will see what I am saying about the math and the ambiguity. It is true that johnpacklambert is being consistent with the first decade and subsequent decades of a century. Does consistency that muddles things rather than making them clearer for the casual reader improve Wikipedia? I do not think so. I do NOT want to limit the number of categories that can be created. I note with concern that there is a point when people don't care about the category because it is too detailed.John Park (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand your concern about the ambiguity. My point was just that that is the convention WP has adopted to describe the first decade of a century, so it would make no sense and actually make things worse to change only this category. Of course, the entire system could theoretically be changed, but that would involve a much broader nomination. My other comments questioning people's questioning of Johnpacklambert's actions were not at all directed at you. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I like your spirit! No offense taken from any of your comments. Fixing an unclear "categories convention" is not a priority for me. The world will not end if it never gets fixed. 200 categories representing every decade of the last millenium can be ignored. The clarity problem is the reason for the Cfd. The editor who started it was convinced that "the 1100's" duplicated the "12th century." If a saavy Editor makes that mistake, how will the general public react? Thanks for all the time you have put in on this! I hope you won't let it drag you down. I moved this conversation to your talk page so it wouldn't add quite so much "public" pressure as the Cfd and could have a softer tone. The power of collaboration requires requires perspective. I find that taking a weekly "Sabbath" from Wikipedia is a good discipline for me to keep my perspective and not get caught up in the "Thick if Thin Things.". At some point you may want to consider it, yourself. You are on my watchlist for collaboration, encouragement and support, not for judgemental criticism. Peace, my friend. John Park (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Odaipatti/Comments

Could you have a look into this page. I think it should be deleted, but I am not sure which deletion criteria applies to this page. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

At a minimum I suppose it could be moved to the real talk page, but of course I agree that it should be deleted. Borderline patent nonsense? It is sort of intelligible. Maybe tag it with {db-g1} and see if it gets deleted; I haven't done one like that before so I wouldn't do it, but if another experienced admin sees it they might agree to delete it as nonsense. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh

When I saw the result of this edit of your's, I almost burst out laughing. At first, I thought it was a category for separating llamas by nationality. I was thinking to myself "Wtf. Next we will have monkeys by nationality." Then I figured out it is talking about Lamas. Not the animal. :) Rockfang (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought about putting some snide comment in there about something like that, but I resisted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy renaming of Category:Watch Brands

Thanks for pointing out to me that my capitalisation was wrong. I was not aware of that convention when I created the page. Go ahead Horology (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Genocides during World War I

Category:Genocides during World War I, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page.

Strictly speaking, you weren't the creator -- but it occurred to me that you might have an interest in this one, since you served as either the midwife or foster father, depending on how you look at it. :) Cgingold (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:German Communists opposed to the Third Reich

If it's allright with you, I would like to delist this one from Speedy and take it to full CFD for a better rename. It also has a sub-cat, Category:Red Orchestra, which I'd like to take to CFD at the same time, for either merging or renaming. Cgingold (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine with me. I never have a problem with anyone removing my speedies if a full CfD is desired by someone. For many categories, it's actually better. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Robot category CFDs

Would you be good enough to have a look at these CFDs? I'm feeling rather beleagered by the withering tone of the response, and I suspect the onslaught will continue as other members of WikiProject Robotics join the fray. I honestly have no idea what you might want to say about any of my proposals -- and obviously you are welcome to say whatever you like -- but I would appreciate having your calm and common-sensical voice in the discussion. Thanks. Cgingold (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been feeling too calm over at CfD lately with some of the insanity, but I'll comment there nonetheless. :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for lending a hand, GO -- much appreciated. I sincerely hope it didn't leave you with a case of heartburn -- especially coming on top of those delightful Georgian CFDs. :) PS - It could always be worse -- have a look at this little tea party that you had the good fortune to miss out on while you were off tending to business for a week! (Geez, don't I ever learn??) Cgingold (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeesh. I was sticking to doing some speedies for awhile there as I felt I couldn't go wrong doing that, then the Georgian ones came up. Blech. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like everybody's going to war over Georgia... It must be something in the water! Cgingold (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Demba Diop

Just have to note how much I enjoyed the edit summaries of Demba Diop -- that we can watch your thinking as you move through and weight the relative merits of contradictory sources should be extracted and used as a tutorial of a careful and critical editing process. Good one. (plus a good save on the spelling of Faye s name). Cheers, --T L Miles (talk) 01:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about the process of it all. I was taking the Amnesty Int'l sources at face value. Then I noticed the notice at the bottom of the page, so I figured out I probably had something screwed up. :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review requested

Please take note that a deletion review has been requested for the category Category:Mononymous persons which was recently decided to be deleted. You receive this notification because you took part in the preceding discussion. __meco (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

thank you. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Law enforcement in (State) categories

1. Unless the categories exist, please don't use them. 2. It is highly unlikely there will ever anything other then law enforcement agency articles created, so only create "Category:Law enforcement in (State)" if there are articles about law enforcement other then agency articles. Thanks! ninety:one 17:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

1. There's nothing wrong with adding a category parent prior to its creation. It avoids problems in the future (like people forgetting to add it when the category is actually created). Anyway, I just so happen to be creating some of these categories anyway, so it was part of a "project" I'm working on.

2. It is not "highly unlikely" to have other contents. The "Penal system in FOO" categories can be subcategories of the "Law enforcement in FOO" categories, as can articles about law enforcement workers from the state in question. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

yeah, penal system is a good example :p. ok, then please only add categories if they exist or if you are literally about to create them. i am constantly monitoring the entire US LE category, as i am re-catting every single article in accordance with guidelines we've just worked on at WP:LE. if and when LE in (State) categories are needed, they will be added. i suggest you propose some guidelines on the talk page at WP:LE, at the moment we've just got to agency categories. good luck. ninety:one 22:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"please only add categories if they exist or if you are literally about to create them''. Why? They are not always added when needed — that's the problem. I spend a good deal of my time adding parents that are missing to newly created categories. Those within this WikiProject are no exception. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

i guess that's a matter of policy that is far above our heads. we'll agree to differ. and i'll keep chasing any red linked cats i see ;) ninety:one 22:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean that's fine with me that you do that. It's true that they serve only a prophylactic purpose until they are created. I just see a lot of categories that when they are created they don't have any parents or at least not all relevant parents, so I feel it never hurts to give those creating a category a hand before the category is created. But I can certainly understand it when people delete them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

GeorgiaX2

I think you will rather enjoy the comment I just added at the end of the Georgian categories CFD, on the subject of "Georgia (country)–Georgia (U.S. state) relations". Cgingold (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's classic. Who knew there was even the slightest connection? Now I want to be the creator of Category:Georgian expatriates in Georgia (U.S. state). Har, har. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse, but shouldn't that actually be Category:Georgian (country) expatriates in Georgia (U.S. state)? Just sayin'... Cgingold (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to think so. Imagine if we tried to disambiguate all the subcategories of Category:Georgian people? What's the rationale to oppose?: Americans from the state of Georgia are not "Georgian people"; they are "Georgia people" or "People from Georgia". If I ever start my own country, I think I will call it "Idaho", just to maximize confusion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Redundancy

Good eye Thanks. I don't know why I nominated just the one before; I honestly don't even recall it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Jews by religion and Category:Converts from Judaism

Hi Good Olfactory: Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Category:Jews by religion and Category:Converts from Judaism. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Global warming skeptics

The Global warming and ozone hole skeptics categories were recently deleted. However, there was no notification of the discussion elsewhere on the project, where interested parties could have debated the merits of the categories, and talked about whether or not they had "decent inclusion criteria" (the stated reason for the deletion). Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't the stated reason for deletion. I said it was deleted without prejudice to an "activist-type" category (as discussed in the discussion) with decent inclusion criteria. I did not state that the current category was deleted because of the lack of decent inclusion criteria. It was deleted based on the consensus in the discussion.

The categories were appropriately tagged, which is all the notification that is required. In fact, they've been tagged and listed for deletion for over half a month, beginning on 31 July. There's no policy I'm aware of that requires notification to any "project", though of course it's courteous to let them know if you are a nominator with knowledge of such a project that might be interested in a particular nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Singulars/plurals in category names

Hi. Thanks for your message. If you feel you must revert the category names, then please don't reintroduce "navigational boxes" as yes, this naming is no longer a good idea.

However, looking at the CfD you mention, there's another possibility. Read my contribution as a vote in support of it, making a total of four in support vs. two against, and revert nothing. Sorry not to keep tabs on what happens there.

I imagine it does look like I regularly receive advice about discussion and process. That, however, is the more deceptive side of talkpages, where "squeaky wheel"s tend to accumulate. For every occasional one of those, there are dozens of other similar contributions I've made that have earned no comment. Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

To change "navigational boxes" to "templates" would require me to do more than a simple revert — I'd actually have to create new categories. A change like that could probably easily be made through a nomination if there's a good reason you say is no longer a good idea. As I said, I don't know much about it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've just noticed that Mammal species templates no longer existed, but I've recreated and repopulated it as its predecessor "Mammal species navigational boxes" already uses "Mammal" rather than "Mammals". As regards the other categories, I guess I'll start a déjà vu at CfD. Actually, on second thoughts, it's probably easier to wait a month or three and then reupdate them. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Tavix problem edits

A problem was pointed out to me, and i have reviewed User:Tavix recent edits, in which he was deleting disambiguation pages, moving articles, and otherwise messing up numerous articles involving U.S. NRHP sites. I posted to his talk page. Working back through his contribution history, i undid most of the damage done, and I find that you recently undid many of his edits to delete a church category in London. I am not an administrator, but see that you are. Can you provide some further review and perhaps intervene constructively? doncram (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to have a look. I posted a notice to him about the actions I was concerned about, but as you can see he didn't reply at all, so I'm unsure of what his intentions are. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Responded further on your page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Outside view

Bugger if I can figure out why I have your talkpage watchlisted, but I do, and the last few edit summaries piqued my curiousity. User:Nunh-huh (sp)'s first post here seemed to be a good faith inquiry, to which you replied, several times, as "filing under personal attacks (pa)". You are deleting, and/or refactoring/retitling another user's seemingly good faith requests to get a category correct, with edit summaries like "thanks" and "LOL", while you delete them and accuse of a personal attack? Huh? I know nothing of the category, or who's right, or whatever, but I assume that there would be a better, more responsive approach from a fellow admin, G.O. What's the beef? Can I help both of you move past this (seemingly) ridiculous back and forth so you can (both) get on with things? Keeper ǀ 76 20:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

PA does not mean "personal attack", at least in my own little world of abbreviations to myself. I can see how that would be troubling if you thought it did though, and it's understandable since WP:PA goes to WP:No personal attacks. I'll create more WP–personal differentiation in the future if I make my abbreviations public in an edit summary. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What does "pa" stand for then? It's pretty much universal, at least, on-wiki....Keeper ǀ 76 22:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"Please action". I'll use "PATS" now for "please action this soon". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Sorry for my assumption. I would hope that you and Nunh-huh (an admin, and editor since 2004) would be able to work out your differences. It is quite apparent that N-H also thought you meant "personal attack". I noticed that several of your edit summaries, when updating N-H's "reversions" of your mis-categorizations of women that died approximately 100 years before "America" existed, where a bit "less than ideal". No attacks, no swears. Likely just a misunderstanding between two excellent editors/admins. As a bit of friendly advice, the absolute worse thing I've ever done as an admin is delete someone else's message on my talkpage. Especially when I said I was "archiving" it, and never did. As a general rule, and for your own enjoyment of this site (I can say this as the subject of at least one ANI report and at least one WQA report), I would recommend you don't do that in the future. Happy editing, Keeper ǀ 76 22:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Keeper. I can see now that the misunderstanding was largely my fault because of my failure to clue in to the connection. I did archive the material, but your advice is well taken and I don't think I'll do that again. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sweet. Onwards and upwards! (because the opposite is dark and dreary...) Have a nice evening, Keeper ǀ 76 22:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention; I've apologized to User:Nunh-huh. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Jewish astronauts

Hi Good Olfactory: Thanks for mentioning the CfD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 9#Category:Jewish astronauts in our present discussions. I do not recall seeing this vote put on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism where other Judaic editors, including me, would have been made aware that this CFD was taking place. I am sorry to have missed it. In future, when you come across any nomination of an article or subject connected to Jews and Judaism please try to put that information on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism which is very simple to do, and extremely helpful to others. Thanks for your attention. IZAK (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Will do. I've added Category:Yahweh there, which is one I'm currently aware of. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

LEA cats

How are you adding categories with "|" in using HotCat? When I try, it fails. ninety:one 19:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? That's strange—I don't think I'm doing anything special in getting it to work, at least nothing that I'm aware of. I have noticed, however, that often when I do it an extra character is added onto the end, usually a repeat of the last letter or sometimes a space. I'm not sure why. It is a tempermental thing, I find. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for the the work I created, like a pouting child ... No, I've forgotten to watchlist the deletion progress. It was only by looking for something else in these categeries, to find the deletion opposed. I would've done the repopulating myself. My suggestion to delete and empty this cat came from compairing Hamburg with the Berlin categories, where the roads are in the streets cat (same word in German Straßen). Nevertheless I'm sorry. Sebastian scha. (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's no problem. I just figured you hadn't checked back. In total it was only around 10 articles, so it didn't take long. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Optimization

Hi Good Olfactory, now that the catgeory Optimization has been moved to Mathematical optimization, can we create a higher level category named Optimization and make Mathematical optimization a subcategory of it. I tried to create a new Optimization category but it won't let me. Thanks. Delaszk (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Responded at your talk page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

F Henry Edwards

See further comment on my talk page.

Mountdrayton (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Category moves

Thanks for trying to help out with the Virgin Island categories per my message on User:Kbdank71's talk page. However, I could easily have done that myself. I left those categories unfixed so that Kris could see exactly what the problem was. --Russ (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh, no need. The description you left on my talk page was sufficient. --Kbdank71 13:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You may have misconstrued...

my comment the other day. (I'm pretty sure Satori Son did.) So please take a quick look. Cgingold (talk) 01:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was OK with it; it wasn't bothering me or anything like that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:American murder victims

Is it possible to split this category into several subcategories? For example Category:Murdered American missionaries, Category:Murdered American businesspeople etc. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Could be. I just went through it to sort by place of murder, and I'm not about to go through it again, however. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, butting in. I hope you're not serious about the subcategories! Anyway, GO, I replied to your comment on my talk page despite your deleting it, if you wish to read it. Carry on. Note I haven't had any coffee yet... Katr67 (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I was wondering whether you can help me to decide if User:Cimbali can be speedy deleted per advertising. Another editor did this but an IP who has also edited that page removed it. I highly doubt they are here to contribute to the encyclopedia, just to promote their company. If it cant let me know so i can place it for MFD per wikipedia is not a webhost. Thanks Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 06:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be deleted. It's pretty blatant; it's an advertisement masquerading as a user page. That's not what user pages are for. Would you like me to speedily delete it? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response, looks like the editor has thought wisely and blanked the page. Thanks anyway Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 10:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Murder victims

"Murder" is a legal term. A homicide does not become a murder until a court or inquest determines that it is one. You can only include people in this category if someone was charged with their murder, or if a coroner or similar official ruled that they were murdered. So, for example, the Goebbels children cannot be included in the category of "murder victims," since no-one was ever charged with murdering them. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So take them out of the category. I'm not adding anyone in that already isn't in a "murdered" category; I'm strictly working on organisation by location: a nationality vs. location issue. I'm not sure about your analysis, though—remember WP:OR? "Murder" is used in far broader contexts than just the strict legal term, and if there are multiple reliable sources that say someone was "murdered", that's sufficient for a category in WP, not our own analysis of whether it meets legal requirements or not. It also overlooks the fact that Category:Assassinated people is (rightly or wrongly) a subcategory of Category:Murder victims consistently throughout all nationality categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Mahershal........................... ALi

Uh, just wondering. How do you know that he is an Ahmadi.

Saffi2k7 18:22 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I ever said I knew he was. I believe I restored the information to the article that was deleted without explanation, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

murder

Murdered is a legal term. You can't say someone was murdered just because he was speared by an indigenous Australian. There is the cultural question of whether this would have been considered murder under aboriginal tribal law at the time, and there is the legal question of whether or not a conviction was recorded. Hesperian 23:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

See discussion above; your analysis of "murder" is not determinative: what it says in multiple reliable sources is. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Re both this and the discussion above. The word "murder", like every word, has a definition. The briefest definition of "murder" is "unlawful homicide." Only a court can determine whether any given act of homicide was lawful or unlawful. Thus, someone can only be said to have been murdered when a court has found this to be so. This is not OR, it is a statement of legal fact. What is OR is to speculate that a person has been murdered when no court has found this to be so. This is clearly the case with the Goebbels children. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. If multiple reliable sources say a person was "murdered", it can be used in a category, whether or not it meets your personal definition. That completely avoids the problems inherent in your definition, such as the legal definition changing over time, being different in different jurisdictions, or being inconsistently applied in any particular jurisdiction. It doesn't take much to start verging on WP:OR when such questions are asked. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

So you agree to only tag someone into this category after you have checked the sources and determined that they use the word murder? Will you be reverting yourself at Johnston Drummond then? Hesperian 01:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm not adding anyone in that already isn't in a "murdered" category; I'm strictly working on organisation by location: a nationality vs. location issue. It looks like it was you who originally added Category:Murder victims, so I'm not sure why you are coming to me with the question. ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

[ec x 2] It's okay, I already reverted it. Yes, it was me, way back in the old days when I was stupid on this particular point.

I didn't realise you were only tagging people who were already in a "murdered" category. That's fine; you carry on; I do the same thing myself all the time (i.e. add new categories that are implied by the current set of categories). Sorry for bothering you. Hesperian 01:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I have no problem with people fixing pre-existing problems that I might perpetuate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sons Aumen Israel

Would you mind explaining your recent edit to this page? Skoojal (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Go to your preference screen. There you will see an option to format your dates that are linked—it can be MMM DD, YYYY, or DD MMM YYYY, or YYYY-MM-DD, etc. However, the preference only works if full dates are wikilinked, which is probably the only really good reason we wikilink full dates. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for explaining the reason. This really doesn't seem to fit with the manual of style for dates and numbers, however, so that's quite confusing. Skoojal (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm, that's strange, I thought it was in there somewhere. I'll look for it and if I find anything I'll let you know. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Froduald Karamira

On 29 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Froduald Karamira, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Note for you

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_1#Arab-Israeli_conflict I'm interested in getting your feedback. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

en-dash

How do you type en-dash as effortlessly as A? Occuli (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

On my keyboard it's "command-hyphen", which is no more difficult that typing "shift-a". Perhaps it's not universally that easy? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I won't speak for others, but no, I don't think it is. Keyboards a different all over. - jc37 23:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland cats

Why are you adding the Death by something in the Republic of Ireland categories to People who died before the Republic of Ireland existed? The RoI is a political entity not geographical. It came into being in 1949. If someone died in Ireland in 1927 (like Kevin O'Higgins) then they died in Ireland not the Republic of Ireland. Also the Name of the Irish state is Ireland not the Republic of Ireland, so technically these categories are misnamed but I assume this is to differentiate them from Northern Ireland. Snappy56 (talk) 10:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The "partitioned island" state came into existence in 1922 (Irish Free State), and its current constitution was approved in 1937, according to Republic of Ireland. 1949 is merely the date the description "Republic of Ireland" was adopted by the Republic of Ireland Act; this is NOT the date the ROI came into "existence", however. There was no real constitutional or regime change in 1949—it ceased to be a possession of the Crown, true, but it's the essentially the same as it was in 1937, which signals the real beginning of the "ROI", in my opinion. In WP parlance, Ireland is a geographical island which includes Northern Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is the name of the state used in WP terminology, regardless of what the "actual name" is. "Ireland" is, unfortunately, an ambiguous term, so it can't be used as the name of the state in all cases where it could also refer to the island.

Anyhow, if there is a miscategorization, then we need to upmerge them to the Foo Ireland category, as you've been doing. There may well be mistakes, since before in the firearms category only a ROI category existed; I created an Ireland one for people killed in Ireland prior to the ROI being established. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"ROS came into existence in 1922", what is ROS? The Irish Free State came into being in 1922, in 1937 the new Constitution of Ireland changed the name of the country to Ireland (or Eire) which it still is. In 1949 the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 declared that Ireland was a republic in state but not in name. So you are wrong when you state the RoI came into being in 1937. Ireland maybe an ambiguous name but you cannot use the description name of Ireland in relation to events which happen before it existed! A geographic term must be used like Ireland, like it or not! And what about those who died in 1920, technically that was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland? Snappy56 (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(Sigh) At the risk of sounding brusque, I do grow somewhat tired of Irish and British users on either "side" of the never-ending debates and battles complaining about other users' actions that don't agree with their own conceptions of reality. In other words, do what you like, but please spare me from becoming yet another victims of the pettiness. I think you've misinterpreted what I've said and done, and possibly my motives, but I've been through too many of these debates with too many editors to believe that any further explanation will be useful. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(Even bigger sigh) Your knowledge of modern Irish history is dubious. Claiming that the Republic of Ireland came into being in 1937 as you did shows your inaccuracies. In fact if you read the current Constitution of Ireland, you won't find the word republic in it at all! [2] And speaking of pettiness, reverting my corrections back to your erroneous version after I had pointed out your errors, now that's petty! Snappy56 (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said—please, spare me. I think I've explained what I meant. If you fail to understand, it's your problem, not mine. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Deaths by firearm

Hi Good Olfactory. I just wanted to let you know that you have listed four people killed with swords in sub-categories of Category:Firearm deaths by location - the articles in question are Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, Francis Talbot, 11th Earl of Shrewsbury, James Hamilton, 4th Duke of Hamilton and Sir Henry Hobart, 4th Baronet. I assume that you had just gone through Category:Duelling fatalities and listed them, but I wanted to check with you so I could make sure there aren't any more false positives. You're doing a great job with all of these categories, the amount of work you put in is truly exceptional. I'll see you around, Rje (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to mention that the addition of Alexander Hamilton to the death by firearem in New York is a little convoluted. He was shot in New Jersey, carried over the Hudson River, and died later in New York. The point of the category would seem to be more connected to *where* a victim was shot, not where they actually expired, so I suggest that Hamilton should either be moved to a category for New Jersey shootings, or some sort of notation made as to the place of his shooting in the New York category - though I think the former is the most useful. Shoreranger (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your attention to these! My mistakes, certainly. Perhaps Category:Duelling fatalities should not be a subcategory of Category:Deaths by firearm since there are sword deaths in there—that's certainly what caused the confusion for me. As for the Hamilton one, I suppose I've grown a bit brain-dead by it all, and it's nice to have people around to catch my errors! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move discussion that may be of interest

I'm leaving you this note because of your extensive work with many of the Fictional foo categories. I have initiated a request here to move Fictional film to Fiction film and I believe your input would be valuable. Otto4711 (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved Thomas Schall to Maryland road accident deaths

Because the accident took place in Maryland. It is rather irrelevant for purposes of categorization that he died in D.C. The key location is where the ~~death~~ accident occurred. That is not even a close call.Bellczar (talk) 07:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought the key location was where the accident occurred. I think that's what you've tried to say. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

LGBT Categories

Hi, Good Olfactory! I don't suppose you'd be interested in stopping by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Categories and taking a look around? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sean Taylor

The article seemed fine just the way it was, I see you have pending decisions on other fatalities in other states. But I do see where your coming from though and I will leave the article alone...Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HairyPerry (talk • contribs) 12:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Bhumihar Brahmin

I'm sorry but I didn't know what other tag to use. I guess I must've tagged the article for Blatant advertisement. The reason why I tagged the article is that the origins of the Bhumihar community are controversial. They have identified themselves as Brahmins and are mentioned as such in census results. But they are not universally regarded as Brahmins. And the British too did not regard them as Brahmins. The Imperial Gazetteer of India is one piece of evidence. This being the case, I fear that such designations as "Bhumihar Brahmin" may be regarded as propaganda. Also, Namboothiri, Iyer and Iyengar articles do not have the caste-name "Brahmin" appended. We don't have articles on Nair Kshatriya or something like that. Instead, the article is title Nair. This being the case, I don't think the redirect page is necessary. The articles where the term Bhumihar Brahmin is used shall be worked with and the term replaced with Bhumihar. I've have enough evidence to believe that articles as these are being used for propaganda in online forums where they are used to boast of the achievements of individual communities and belittle others. Hence, we ought to see that articles are not used for advertising or for POVs.Thanks-Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 07:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is not at Bhumihar Brahmin. It's just a redirect to Bhumihar. This appears to be proper usage, since the term "Bhumihar Brahmin" is used by some. That's what redirect pages are for. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Cinderella III and CSD decline

Um, you do realize that is a talk page redirect, right? No one is going to come here and search for "Talk:Cinderella III".:P It has already been deleted 3 times. One editor keeps recreating it to be annoying and disruptive (along with major refactoring of talk pages, adding personal views to articles despite numerous requests to stop, and sock puppetry). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with it. It's certainly not an implausible "mis-spelling". If it makes you feel good it can be deleted, but I hardly see it's existence as a case of "disruptive editing". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy WP:CFR

What's the procedure for removing requests from the speedy category rename queue if they don't qualify? Stepheng3 (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there really is one; the rule that says contested ones can be removed after 48 hours has only recently been added, and it hasn't really been applied much. It does suggest that the onus is on the original nominator to nominate for a full. I suppose it depends on how charitable you are feeling that day. Ideally, you should move the nomination to a full CfD, but that's by no means required. The instructions say they can simply be removed. If you do that, it would be helpful if you at least notified the nominator (but again, there's no requirement to do so). If you do remove them, you should also probably remove the speedy CFD tag from the category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I generally support these renames, I tried converting them by hand into regular CfD's. I'd be grateful if you'd check my work. Stepheng3 (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That looks fine; thanks for moving them. I've changed a couple that still had speedy templates to the full templates, and fixed up some of the redirect links to the CFD page for 15 September. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Mega thanks. I've studied your fixes and hope to do much better next time -- which may be as soon as tomorrow. Stepheng3 (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Scholars in nationalism

Hi there. I saw that you renamed Category:Researchers (nationalism studies) to Category:Scholars in nationalism but, if you take another look at the discussion, you'll see that the consensus was "Scholars of nationalism" rather than "in". – SJL 19:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, yes of course. I'll make the change. Thanks for letting me know. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help. – SJL 03:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Enrique R. Falabella

Just so you know, my edit to Enrique R. Falabella wasn't vandalism. I just changed the wrong "and" there. I corrected it. Sorry about that! -WarthogDemon 16:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I assumed it was just a mistake. I didn't even notice the real error in the sentence, otherwise I would have fixed it ... Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments on Victoria

Thanks for the apology, and I'm sorry too for my accusations of bias. I have retracted them on the debate and apologised. Thank you for being decent and asking to remove Parliament of Victoria - although it never actually got changed. I'm going on a wikibreak now, so if you want to reply you can do so here. JRG (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I see that the closer did revert it to Category:Parliament of Victoria after closing. He must have noticed the discussion about that afterwards. Good luck on break. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Category for discussion

Your contribution here to my rename category, I suggest changing your "Keep" to "Oppose", "Keep" is used mostly for deletion, so "oppose" is a better word to oppose my renaming suggestion. It's not a big deal if you don't change. Thanks! Ctjf83Talk 03:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

See John 19:22. I think what I said got my message across. I'm not too worried about being misunderstood in that sense. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Your nomination

Re your nomination here, which I closed—the old category contents won't all transfer to the new category by bot functioning because the category is applied by the action of the infobox templates in the articles. I assume they all need to be changed manually, i.e., that entry in the template deleted and the category manually added. Do you want to do that, or do you want me to do it? I'm not particularly keen on doing it, but since I'm the closer if you have no desire to do it as nominator, I will do it. Thanks! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice.

As you're "not particularly keen on doing it" (I was going to offer to let you do it : ) - I'll be happy to see what I can do : ) - jc37 09:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh — had I known it was that easy, I suppose I could have done it ... Thanks though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I honestly wasn't certain myself. I was waiting to see what (if anything) would be left following the depopulation due to the infobox change.

You want challenge? Try depopulating a category due to WP:UCFD. Everyone seems to have their own version of a userbox, and 2/3 of those have them subst-ed : ) - jc37 09:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yikes—I haven't gone there yet. I'm having a hard enough time just using the "proper language" when "voting" in CfDs (see section immediately above). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I mean no disrepect to anyone, but I must comment that your response above resulted in my first laugh-out-loud moment-of-the-day : ) - jc37 09:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

New Norcia

Places of worship? G*** what happening? do we really need it? New Norcia is a town/community and benedictine community - I would contest whether as a town it is a place of worship Satu Suro 02:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Then take it out of Category:Monasteries in Australia, which is a subcategory of Category:Places of worship in Australia. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Watching your unstoppable category work wander across my watch page does at times get quite disconcerting when you always seem to have a defense - I do hope you actually concede ground at times :) - keep up the good work Satu Suro 02:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A defence? What would I be defending or conceding? If you think there's a problem with my edits, then fix them or make a proposal that will somehow fix them (XfD, etc.). It's not a big deal. (But if change disconcerts you, you might be at the wrong website ...) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Bah your sense of humour - you must be american - irony has a low quotient in your culture :) - the last part was complementing you on your hard work in getting categories working in WP across projects - that is commendable.

The defense issue is no big deal I had misread your comment - apologies, however your added comment shows you up a bit :).

The issue that I would take is that when you are walking across projects - some projects have very few if any individuals watching how categories are made or what is done with them - once again you are creating new categories and leaving it to particular projects as whether they catch up with bots or individuals to apply project tags - have mentioned this before, but like the above its no big deal Satu Suro 02:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

American? Sacrilege!—no; Canadian. You must be a New Zealander, eh? It's situations like this that WP:SARCASM begins to be funnier. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As for the category tagging; I was doing that for Australian categories fairly consistently. But then I thought—"why am I doing this mind-numbing dirty work for the Australia WikiProject?" After all, I'm not a member of the project and I don't use the tags on the talk page myself ... So I think it makes sense for those who want/use the tags to add them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

G*** five threads

(1) cat tagging and new cats - its just that across the board cat work is great to see - its just when we get dumped with a large number of untagged cats - specially in under personed projects - as a cat tagger it can be stressful to see only part of the job done - (2) classic - wrong website? I cannot think that a 40,000 edit editor should even be asked that - think again before writing that you must be under 30 (3)nah my father was a graduate of Guelph before it was guelph, and his canadian ethnicity was never in question even though he was a scot :) (4)kiwi - bah your limitations are showing :) - got it wrong - a Javanese user name - and scottish father - was born in Australia :) (5)Australian categories - your last comment make you seem even younger - you trawl through the whole of wikipedia in your category changes and you revert to that level of reasoning - nah you need an american tag clearly :) - as I say once again keep up the good work - but expect outright challenges from me when you tread in the areas that I watch - with civility of course and irony and sarcasm thrown in for the kanuck sense of humour Satu Suro 03:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm Canadian and you thought I was American. I thought you were Australian, so I was trying to make a parallel "mistake" by calling you a NZer. Didn't work, obviously, b/c I was too smart by half .... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh well good to see we almost continually beg to differ I knew you were canadian, and if you bother to look at userpages of those you chat with - well you must be an academic if you think you are too smart - your sense of irony is not up to scratch :) Satu Suro 03:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Irony, sarcasm ... it's all covered by WP:SARCASM. The goings on in the mind just don't translate to a sterile computer screen... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm? - The pity she is such a whore (wikipedia and the net that is) - there should be smell too - Javanese (sic) talk about nafas or the smell of something as to its nature and disposition - And I think some of the cats might end up commented at the OZ noticeboard - I think some might not be happy with some - but hey I off to real life - so from a West Australian - i'll get out of your way (context: one of Australia's better comedians is a kiwi - and he used to say I'll get out of your way as his way of saying good-bye ) - cheers for the mo and enjoy :) Satu Suro 03:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Real life delayed :) - wtf? Tasmania law is not even english - Tasmanian law is what you should have created - sarcasm is too good for you - as the late douglas adams would have the vogon chief had you turfed out into the other direction from the improbability issues :) - Law in Tasmania perhaps - but Tasmanian law - please change Satu Suro 03:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Similarly - South Australian law - you must be in canada :( Satu Suro 03:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Ultimate bloody insult! Wetsern Australia law - that needs to be Western Australian law - where are ya? Satu Suro 03:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I generally don't invent my own or change existing conventions in naming categories by creating them. There seems to be a convention to use just simply the name of a sub-national entity when using it as an adjective in a category: see, e.g., Category:South Dakota law (not "South Dakotan"); Category:British Columbia law (not "British Columbian"), etc. Australia's could depart from this pattern, of course, but it's not gonna be me who implements the change. That's what WP:CFD is for. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, seems to be a convention is not very convincing - some other time - cheers Satu Suro 03:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Then look for yourself. Better yet, if you don't like them, then nominate them for renaming with evidence that demonstrates otherwise. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Im not gonna bother you any more cos i can see where you are coming from on this - South Australian courts and tribunals created by the well respected CJ (been and gone before you hit the scene i suspect) shows what the practice was before this usage oddity arrived Satu Suro 04:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmm. This stream-of-consciousness stuff is starting to bug anyways. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Summary of the bug from the bug and the end of it - (1) Your new norcia edit was valid no problem my bad and my apologies (2) Your usage of what you call 'seems to be a convention' - in the Australian project we do have earlier created category titles with the adjectival ending - you even worked on one - and no apologies - but you are obviously not standing by your usage and referring to other means of change (3) In view of your wandering the global wikipedia categories and doing good works - I genuinely meant that I am impressed by your hard work in the area - dont get me wrong (4) If I see you work in Australian, Indonesian or New Zealand categories that I might have on my watch lists in the future - that I disagree with - have no fear - I'll take it up somewhere else - obviously here is the wrong domain to complain :( Satu Suro 10:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Not following you here. If you want a name changed, it's quite easy to propose it and see what others think. I don't particularly care one way or the other; I just follow the general standards of the dominant conventions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Its not that I want to change it personally - there is an earlier precedent within the Australian project to have n at the end of Australia and the states names in some categories - which means a few of the ones you have created - might - who knows - may - get changed in time - but hey by everything that youve indicated here - its out of your hands - dont worry about it - so forget it -Satu Suro 11:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. I don't mind if categories I create get changed in time. It's to be expected, and I don't necessarily claim to have chosen an "ideal" name in every case. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

BYU Categories

I just wanted to say great idea in relation to the BYU alumni categories! You beat me to it! --JonRidinger (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw your discussion on the other user's talk page as I was adding some prod templates, and I thought that could reduce the conflict over what the proper parent/child structure (or lack thereof) is. That way, there's no parent/child relationship but there are links in the categories to easily find the others. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

George Davis' death

George Davis (baseball). I see you put in that he hung himself, could you find a reference for that for me? If not and you just remember hearing it somewhere then thats ok. I'm pretty sure he did, I just can't find a source that confirms it.--EchetusXe (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll see if I can find it. I know I was using a reference for that one, as I didn't know about that myself until I found it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing I saw it here. I'm not sure what they are using for a source, but likely the information is also in the webmaster's accompanying book. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. The book is searchable on amazon.com, and on p.50 of the book it says he died from "paresis due to tertiary syphilis". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh right, good job I asked you then. --EchetusXe (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed—serves me right for going by an uncited website. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

CFD notice

Category:Infectious disease deaths in South Carolina, which you created, has been nominated for a deletion discussion. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 22#Category:Infectious disease deaths in South Carolina. GRBerry 01:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this right?

([3])? We don't give a cause of death in the article - just note that he was discharged from hospital having suffered pneumonia some 2+ months beforehand. Do you know the offical cause of death? If you have RS, it'd be good to add a few words + cite to the article. --Dweller (talk) 10:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The article has been in Category:Deaths from pneumonia. Whether or not that's correct, I don't know. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Infectious disease deaths in Germany

I have nominated Category:Infectious disease deaths in Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 16:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

William Clark (Alberta politician)

Hello GO - you just made this edit to the above-named article. However, his place of death isn't provided in either of the two references currently in the article; where did you find it? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. Sorry, I'm looking at the wrong guy (!) on one of the reference pages. Thanks (and sorry). Let me regroup here. I've reverted the change. You know, I'm having a bad day mistake-wise. Perhaps it's time to give up. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Misao Lokeijak

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Misao Lokeijak, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Cheers, CP 02:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Misao Lokeijak

Hi. While we're on the topic, I also have similar notability concerns about Rodolfo N. Bodden, but I'd rather discuss it with you than PROD it... I think an eventual merge to the same place as Lokeijak (except substituting Dominican Republic for Marshall Islands of course) would be beneficial. Thoughts? By the way, I'm not trying to pick on the LDS, I've just been slowly going through Category:Possibly living people because there are many articles that need a little bit of clean up... I've probably found close to a dozen hoaxes, and I've only gone through A-F and U-Z! Cheers, CP 16:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I agree completely that a similar result to the one we discussed for Lokeijak should result. Actually, I think at the time I was thinking about doing the expanded articles on LDS Church in those countries, but I got kind of lazy and decided to just do the first or most prominent converts, which in retrospect was not a good idea because of WP:N issues. If I look around there may be another one I did. How should we approach it? Maybe we could move this discussion to the talk page there and flag it for merging with (the right now nonexistent) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Dominican Republic. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, we can do that... although it will be interesting to see a merge request to an inexistent article. Should we perhaps remove the PROD on Lokeijak, as the heat death of the universe won't be around for a bit yet, so it'll make it easier to access the information for a merge? Cheers, CP 17:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me. It wouldn't be a huge deal to me if the articles were deleted in the meantime, but I do think they need to be rewritten as a section of broader articles. Perhaps I'll move the articles to the broader names soon and then at least get started on expanding them. That may be better than letting them sit with a merge to a non-existent page. Thanks for your work on this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

LDS Temples

If not churches, what would they be then? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"Temples". They are a subcategory of Category:Temples. LDS Church "churches" are used for quite different purposes. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

In this context, what is the difference between a Temple and a Church, besides the name? In Reform Judaism, for example, the names are interchangeable. I also note that Hindu Temples are included in the Category:Temples, though that is just a naming convention, since one doesn't refer to Hindu places of worship as "Churches". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Churches are typically used for Sunday meetings, where a "communion"-type ceremony is held, as well as Sunday Schools, other classes, and activities during the week. Anyone can enter an LDS church. Temples are used for sealings, the "endowment" ritual, baptisms for the dead, etc. After dedication, entry to a temple is restricted to members of the LDS Church who meet certain standards, as verified by church leaders. See Temple (Latter Day Saints). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Those are all religious services or sacraments of some sort, correct? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Which ones? Some are classed as ordinances, which are essentially Mormon "sacraments". Others are just meetings or activities. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

A Christian religious building in which religious activities are regularly held is generically described as a "church". An LDS Temple may indeed be a special kind of "church", just as basilicas and cathedrals are, but I'm not yet seeing the reason for placing it at a higher level in the hierarchy. LDS Temples and LDS churches could both be sub-categories of Christian churches. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would the distinction I'm making mean temples are at a "higher" level? I don't think they are higher or lower in the category structure, they are just different. As far as I know, anyone can enter a Christian church of most denominations at any time, as long as the doors are unlocked. That's not the case with an LDS temple, which is probably the fundamental difference. That, and the fact that the same church has other buildings which have distinct purposes that they call "churches". I believe this issue was mooted at WP:LDS once upon a time. If you want to implement the change, it would probably be wise to get input there, as the collective editors there no doubt have more knowledge about the topic that me alone. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Watchlists for cats

Hi - in response to your comments about watchlists: following my post at DRV -
I have edited as of today 7171 distinct pages, Orderinchaos has edited 16,125 distinct pages, other active Australian editors have similar edit counts (this isn't a boast it is about practicalities) - it is difficult enough to keep track of the pages we have edited let alone those set up by other people. The Category:Coastal towns in Australia was set up by RedWolf (talk · contribs) following a CfD in April 2005 - not an Australian editor, apparently on an extended wikibreak according to his userpage though from his contributions seems be a currently active editor. Given he has had an extended wikibreak at least sometime, it is quite likely the page would no longer be on his watchlist and even if it was, given the manner of creation, I assume he is not going to be as interested as those that were actively using the category. RedWolf joined in 2003 and has edited 38,670 distinct pages - do you really think watchlists of more than 38,000 pages are the answer? Reliance on the use by individual editors of watchlists seems an inappropriate solution to this issue. Why should sensibly named, long established categories be treated this way. Articles I can understand, you have them on your watchlist, but categories used by many editors but which the page itself is not usually edited is a much more problematic page type and needs to be treated differently.
I would appreciate your comments. --Matilda ^talk 00:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Responded at DRV page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

CFD work

Hey, I wanted to thank you for your WP:CFDW work. Since you seem to be the most active category specialist at the moment, I just wanted to let you know that I rewrote Cydebot earlier today in a different language. If you notice it doing anything differently than before, or especially making any mistakes, please let me know. Also, you should see this section on my talk page. Apparently the attempt to move those categories from "in" to "of" was attempted once before and rejected. I guess you didn't know this time. I told them to confer with you but nobody seemed to bother, so I figured I'd at least notify you. Anyway, keep up the good work. --Cyde Weys 03:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks—I'll keep an eye on the new write and see how it works. No, no one did consult with me about that change. That was from the speedy rename section; there was some discussion on the page about whether or not it was speediable; those opposing made several inquiries to WikiProjects and then got back to us and said it was OK to rename them via speedy, so I'm not sure where the communication broke down there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing: Now that I've rewritten Cydebot, it's possible that we could change the WP:CFDW listing format to make it more easy for humans to use. Join the discussion here. I'm open to pretty much any suggestions on how we can make the listing format more useful. --Cyde Weys 03:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Notice

User talk:Kbdank71#WikiProjects don't own articles

The more I think about it, the more I think you should be notified.

At first I thought that it was best to not bother (since these seem groundless), and because this is a case where notification could potentially cause disruption. (Creating a mountain where one actually never was before.)

That said, the page where your name (among two others) has been mentioned is, I believe a fairly highly watched page.

So in hindsight, I don't believe it's a good idea for you to "not be notified".

I'll leave it up to your personal discernment as to whether commenting there would be appropriate at this stage.

My apologies for taking even this long to come to this conclusion. - jc37 23:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I appreciate it. I have sort of been keeping tabs on the discussion, and I agree with what you've set out there. There does seem to be some ill feelings towards me (possibly stemming from this nomination, over which I've received a ton of angry e-mail). Any comments from me might just inflame things further, as they did before, so for the time being I'll continue to observe. As far as I am concerned, the claim that editors are scared of commenting at CfD because they fear retribution from me is laughable. I almost hope they are referring to another editor's action, because I can't imagine what they might be referring to in reference to me. But I can't imagine Vegaswikian or anyone else from the "CfD cabal" doing something like that, either. I'll be interested to see what they come up with. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind if I pointed to your comments here? - jc37 23:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that would be fine. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Cancer deaths by country

Nice work on doing this! Lugnuts (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oy—it will be a long-term project. There's 1000s of them. :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

G'day mate; we'll have to leave John Forrest in the parent category, because he died at sea. He was off the coast of Sierra Leone, but there's no evidence to suggest that he was in their territorial waters. Hesperian 07:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

OK; we need to change the infobox place of death, too, then. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I remembered the outcome of my last visit here, and checked to see if I needed to remove Category:Deaths in Sierra Leone (or some such) from the version I was reverting to, but alas! I didn't think to check the infobox. Hesperian 07:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks—if I get any of these wrong, feel free to fix them or put them back in the parent if place of death is unknown. I'm pretty much just going by what I find in the article or the article references. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)