User talk:Good Olfactory

Avoiding an edit war

Sir: I would ask that you look into a matter that is heading into an edit war which I don't want. User:Hoops gza reverted cats I added in good faith and we discussed them first on his talk page this morning and second on the cat talk page this morning, Category talk:Nazi leaders. Hoops can be a hard headed guy, who myself and others keep bumping into. You will see on his talk page, User talk:Hoops gza where mentorship was recommened to him and he wanted none of it. I will go with consensus on this matter but Hoops' editing is the bigger problem. Kierzek (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Have left a comment on his talk page. I think you're doing the right thing for now. Let me know if it continues to be a problem. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will let you know. Kierzek (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering also if an admin can do a forced archive of the user talk page. There are hundreds of entries and its very difficult to find active discussions. I suggested this to the user, but there was no response or any action taken. -OberRanks (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"Lao" is the more common adjective as verified by Google results.

Compare "Lao royalty" to "Laotian royalty" using Google, etc. Wikicentral (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Then propose a category rename per WP:CFD. The decision is for the community to make, not you or I unilaterally. Don't try to empty categories and rename them manually. It is done through community consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That only applies if the change is controversial. There is nothing controversial about using the more common and accepted term like "Lao". Search on Google for yourself. I'm simply making the categories consistent, but without even asking why I made those changes, you decided to undo all the work I've done for the past couple of hours.Wikicentral (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Show me where it says you can manually rename categories by emptying out old ones and creating new ones. Anyway, you can consider it controversial, so the point is moot. Proper process should be followed instead of you reversing the work that others before you have made. As far as consistencies go, you are in fact creating inconsistencies, since the parent category is now and always has been Category:Laotian people. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"When a category is renamed or merged with another category, it may be helpful to use the Category redirect." So why else would there be Category redirect?Wikicentral (talk) 07:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Because at categories for discussion a consensus decision is often made to rename or merge one category with another. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Often does not mean always. Sometimes it is not necessary to discuss something that is blatantly inconsistent. Using Google search, "Lao people" has 30,800,000 results, whereas "Laotian people" only has 57,100 results. We're talking about at least 30 million versus only roughly 57 thousand. You should not have undone my changes.Wikicentral (talk) 08:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Look, I'm not interested in debating which should be used outside of a formal discussion. I've asked you not to unilaterally make the changes, which is a reasonable request, so if you're convinced the changes should be made, you can nominate some categories for renaming. But it's certainly inappropriate to make the changes yourself once another user has objected to that route, which I have. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I should add that you should also take a look at WP:CFDS. Changes listed there are mostly non-controversial, but there is still a process that is followed and a 48-hour waiting period to allow input from interested editors. None of these changes are made unilaterally upon a whim, and the changes you were making don't even meet any of the speedy rename criteria. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you have objected to my edits and have provided additional reasons that are reasonable, I have submitted a proposal to change the category at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 1#Category:Laotian people as per your request. Please let me know if there is anything else you think I should do. Wikicentral (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I've gone ahead and blocked Portlandium (talk · contribs) as a sock of Tiramisoo. I imagine those baby name categories will have to go. I'm not so sure about the newly created ecoregion articles and I don't really have time and/or patience to clean up after him, so if you have time to help out, that would be great. I'll see what I can do this evening after I get some other stuff done. Valfontis (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Tiramisoo is one of the few editors for which I have reached the stage of simply deleting every new page his socks create, and rolling back every edit they make. I do this regardless of the perceived value of the edits in an attempt to communicate that continued sockpuppeting is futile. I don't know if it works at all, but it does make it a little bit easier to clean up after a block. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I just cleaned up what I think were the last three. I sent you an e-mail a day or two ago about a couple other socks, I think those pretty much got cleaned up after already. Valfontis (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh jeez, my email. There was some sort of problem with it awhile ago, and since it's been fixed I haven't checked it for awhile. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Good Olfactory. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Valfontis (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Armbrust has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a fresh pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appétit!†

Shakespeare categories

Thanks--I wondered about those names about 3/4 of the way into creating those categories, but figured I'd see if anyone else thought they should be renamed. Apologies! Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That's OK. If you agree they should be renamed, all the better. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and process those. I'd have done it manually myself, but I couldn't think of a quick way to do it.... Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll get a bot to do it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your thoughtful improvements to Oliver Cowdery. John Foxe (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks John, and thanks for your help/guidance there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Curious

What does the category you've added to Falklands War do? Wee Curry Monster talk 10:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I just added a sorting key which makes that article the first to appear in Category:Falklands War. That's done because it is the main article for that category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Category

Hi, why did you remove the Category:Flora of the Arab World? Thanks. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't categorize biota for being in the Arab world. These are two separate concepts. One is environmental/scientific, the other is an ethnic/political grouping. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Your input

Hay,

As a very thorough Wikipedia admin, I would like you input at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement#Marsh_and_Patten regarding some images of Marsh and Patten I found. Thanks.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan

Why did you delete Category:Populated places in South Sudan? Its Category:Populated places in Southern Sudan which is supposed to be deleted after renaming to Category:Populated places in South Sudan!♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You also nominated the landowners categories after some hard work. You're a joke.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

And where was it (the category) renamed? It looks like the new one was just created and the old category was manually emptied. They are duplicate, so the old one should be nominated for renaming. This is being done here, so you might be interested in that. I'm not clear on how making a formal nomination makes one a joke, but whatever. Laugh away at me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Landowners It is not supposed to be for anybody you can afford land. It is supposed to be for the landowners in British history in which "landowner" or "feudal lord" was their chief occupation. The wealthy landowners who held country estates. In those days a Landowner was a formal occupation and they were often very powerful people. I personally am interested in this subject and I find it very useful to organize and for navigation between estate holders and their properties. Otherwise I couldn't find them. I asked User:Charles Matthews why we had no categories on this as it is a must for me to find articles. What harm actually is there in this? A true landowner or feudal lord is radically different from a mere individual who may just happen to own a plot of land. As long as the category asserts that it is for the traditional landowner not just anybody who happens to own a plot of land.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The name of a category should reflect what it is for. Your comments as to your intent would probably be better placed in the discussion than here so others discussing the categories can see it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

There are now four South Sudan category rename discussions going on. I've recommended a speedy for all four. For instance, airports in South Sudan should be occupied with the airports in the area, counties is obvious, and state capitals is also obvious. Even the Populated places one is inevitable. I think WP:IAR applies to these four; otherwise, people will manually create categories not knowing they are already suggested from CfD. CycloneGU (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way to reopen a recent CfD?

I am asking you this because you seem to know a lot about wikipedia mechanics.

In the still open CfD of Category:Former Roman Catholic church buildings established in the 14th century, someone cited a precedent to change the names of articles to cat names like 1912 Church buildings as a CfD done on June 9th that had three participants. It seems to me to be too small a group to make such a momentous decision, especially since 1912 Church buildings just begs overcat of every church building used as such in 1912, and if a church was used for 50 years it could then be put in 50 cats. I think they are really going for "Church buildings completed in 1912", but I have a sense that if I open the CfD on these cats in the normal way I will be told "this was discussed last month and a consensus was reached, there is no reason to reopen the discussion." So is there a better way to approach this issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That is a tough situation and WP doesn't have a really good method for dealing with situations like this. There is WP:DRV which can review decisions, but generally that procedure just makes sure that the person who closed the discussion correctly interpreted the consensus. It's not intended to re-open the debate on a renaming or deletion, so I wouldn't use it.

I think the only real option available is to renominate the categories and explain in your nominating statement why you feel this needs to be re-opened so soon after the first discussion—that there were insufficient numbers to make such a change, and so forth. You will be told "we just discussed this", so you need to address those concerns from the start by explaining why you are re-opening it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, Jr

A User:GTBacchus changed the Joseph Smith, Jr page so that not only has the articl disapeared and redirects in an infinate loop. The history has also disapered. He seems to be on a Wikibrake (per his talk page). Can you fix it as an admin?--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 15:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The article's now at Joseph Smith, and the history is there now. I've fixed the link your provided to redirect to Joseph Smith. I guess there was a move discussion on the talk page where this was agreed to. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Catagory:Revolutionary

I, Krant M.L.Verma want to draw your kind attention towards the superfluous catagory of Revolutionary. There is already a page in en.wiki on this subject in which Ram Prasad Bismil has been catagorised under the alphabet R whereas on this page there is only one name (the same name) catagorised under the alphabet B. My suggestion is that this superfluous page must be deleted and the name of Ram Prasad Bismil should be indexed in the existing catagory of Revolutinary under the alphabet B as per language norms (Surnames comes first). With regards.Krantmlverma (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Alumni of Raffles College/National University of Singapore alumni

Hello, Good Olfactory. You have new messages at Talk:Goh Keng Swee.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Category:Versailles (band)

Hello Good olfactory, about de category, I separated -songs- from -singles- because in "singles" it is not a song, is as a maxi-single's or mini-albums that includes several songs, speak of "song" is not correct in this articles (specifically of Japanese artist). Pierrot de Lioncourt ^カバー!!!_カバー!!! 01:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I would guess it would go in Category:Versailles albums, then. But the article in question is Prince (song)—if that doesn't appropriately go in a "songs" category, then something is wrong with its name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Prince is a song, released as a digital download. Pierrot de Lioncourt ^カバー!!!_カバー!!! 14:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I kind of creeped over here, but songs would be correct. "Prince" isn't a single so you can't put it under that category, but then there is no point in making "Category:Versailles songs" for just 1 entry. However by titling it "Category:Versailles songs" that would encompass all of them (for instance see Category:The Beatles songs or Category:X Japan songs).

Also I just want to point out that even though "Philia" is a single the title of it's article is "Philia (song)", this is the correct disambiguation. So arguing between songs and singles really doesn't matter; songs should always be used. Xfansd (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, Philia (song) was the article in question, not Prince (song). I was confused. But I agree with what Xfansd has said. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Cat re-direct needed?

You are such more well versed than me in the mechanics of Cats and I wanted to run something by you. The article, Josef Dietrich has a redirect from the English spelling of his name, Joseph Dietrich, which is understandable, but it could use a redirect from "Sepp Dietrich". Sepp Dietrich was what he was often known by and many history books use that name to id. him. Is there anyway to add a second redirect? What do you think? PS, I know it doesn't come up as much as Josef or Joseph on Google search but I still believe it is substantial. Kierzek (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, and there is currently a redirect from Sepp Dietrich to the article, and has been since 2010. I just don't know what this has to do with categories? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I only saw the one redirect that was changed from Sepp to Joseph and was unaware of the "double redirect" apparently already in place. Well, thanks anyway. Now, I know. Kierzek (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

speedy cats

Did you really mean

• Category:Lincoln University, New Zealand faculty to Category:Lincoln University (New Zealand) alumni
• Category:Lincoln University, New Zealand faculty to Category:Lincoln University (New Zealand) alumni

? Rich Farmbrough, 22:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC).

No, I really didn't, of course. I'll fix it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

There. That's what I meant. Thanks for letting me know. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Countries vs. regions

Is the ottoman, roman and byzantine empires considered coutries or regions. What about the British empire? Chesdovi (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a great question. I usually see the first three treated as countries, whereas I've never really seen the British Empire categorized as a country. There's probably some double standard there, but it may have something to do with the fact that the first three were contiguous whereas the British Empire was spread around the globe. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If the ottoman empire is a country, what was palestine under ottoman rule? A country within a coutnry, or a region? Chesdovi (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Ottoman Empire divided up the Empire into administrative subdivisions, kind of like what we might call provinces. There was the District of Nablus, for example. I don't know much about the details, but I would hesitate to call Palestine under Ottoman rule a "country" as such. But at the same time it's not exactly a "region", since in my view "regions" usually tend to encompass more than one country's territory. (Though not always, I suppose.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Well Palestine for sure at present is not a country, right? On the list of soveregin states it appears as unrecognised or something. Also, do you mind checking over Category:Jews by region. I am not sure about the crimea, causicus, etc. Much obliged. Chesdovi (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not a UN member state, but Palestine is recognized as a state by a majority of other states in the world. But it also lacks some of the features that true states have, since Israel controls the territory to a large extent. It's definitely a controversial issue. I'll have a look. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

What is in Category:Jews by region now looks appropriate to me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

e== Catholic University of Leuven ==

I don't know what happened, but I seems that you initiated a large move and merge of different categories that don't belong together.

Before 1968 there was a bilingual university, Catholic University of Leuven in the city of Leuven

After 1968 the university split into two parts :

• Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, the current Dutch-speaking university in the city of Leuven
• Université catholique de Louvain, the French-speaking counterpart in Louvain-la-Neuve

You mixed everything up with your category renaming. Please revert. Donar Reiskoffer (talk) 07:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No, everything is still separate as it was before, they just have proper names now:

• Category:Katholieke Universiteit Leuven alumni
• Category:Université catholique de Louvain alumni
• Category:Alumni of the Université catholique de Louvain before 1968

Nothing has changed sorting-wise. Just the names. The latter category should, however, be Category:Alumni of the Catholic University of Leuven before 1968, as it was before; perhaps that's the mistake you were referring to. I'll make sure that change happens. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• The problem with the category scheme is that there is one category too many. There's the pre-1968 university, the post-1968 French uni, and the post-1968 Dutch uni. But there have been four categories. I'll also revert the Category:Université catholique de Louvain alumni to Category:Catholic University of Leuven alumni because it seems to be the problematic one which needn't exist. The contents of it should probably be sorted into one of the other three, as appropriate, and then this can be worked out. Category:Louvain alumni should be Category:Université catholique de Louvain alumni. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Current situation. OK, after the reverts, this is the current situation:
  • Pre-1968 alum category: Category:Alumni of the Catholic University of Leuven before 1968
  • Post-1968 Dutch alum category: Category:Katholieke Universiteit Leuven alumni
  • Post-1968 French alum category: Category:Louvain alumni (which is currently nominated to be renamed to Category:Université catholique de Louvain alumni)
• That leaves us with Category:Catholic University of Leuven alumni. I suppose it could be a container category for the other three, but that's not how it's currently being used, as articles are being added to it. Let me know if you have any other concerns. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• ok, I can agree with the 'Current siuation'. Perhaps write a header in Category:Catholic University of Leuven alumni explaining that it is a container category for the three other categories. Donar Reiskoffer (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• I also made the same sturcture for the parent categories (1 container for three sub-categories). The container-category might be useful to place articles hard to place in just one of the sub-categories. Donar Reiskoffer (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks good. Thanks for drawing my attention to this. I had thought I had gotten it right, but because of your note I recognized I hadn't quite. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

deletion of "Category:Solar Eclipse"

Why did you delete this? One is for the talk page to subcategorize in WikiProject Eclipses. The other is for the article. Did I pick to similar a name? Thanks. --TimL (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I just saw the name and figured in purpose it was a duplicate. I think for categorizing talk pages for WikiProjects, category names are meant to include the name of the WikiProject. It should be something like Category:WikiProject Eclipses solar eclipse articles so something similar. Anyway, I've restored the category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

agree about the category name. Thanks. --TimL (talk) 03:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Museum of Stuffed Insults

I thoroughly enjoyed reading thru your museum. A virtual museum for sure. I think Wikipedians often forget that everything they say is on the record permanently. Does Wikipedia bring out the worst in people? Or are people actually not all that? Some of the things on there are just bizarre and unfortunate. It's an interesting look at what I might have to face if I ever choose to become an admin. --TimL (talk) 10:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Er, yes, most of them do relate to an admin-related issue, so I must say if you ever take that route don't do anything unless you're prepared to put up with criticism—both the fair and the unfair. I do find it kind of funny that users get so upset over things in Wikipedia and that it seems to happen relatively frequently for some users. It reminds me of the cartoon of the guy on his computer who won't go to bed with his wife, because, as he says as he types, "I can't come right now. Someone on the Internet is wrong." Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That made me LOL, unlike these folks! --TimL (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Old Fart

Per CfD. Keep your insults to yourself. As an Admin, I would have hoped for more intelligent wordplay. Ephebi (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Comic relief often relieves tension and anxiety. I can't imagine that comment really offended you unless you are an "old fart". Certainly better than that trite bible quote you put on the edit summary. BTW, if you had used the "New Section" button up top, this would not look like a reply to my comment above. Thanks. --TimL (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• It was indeed intended to be slightly to moderately humorous; I'm glad there are editors who still have a sense of humor. I believe that the generic "Old Fartians" just has a nicer ring to it than the bland "Old Xians" or "Old FOOians". I think this gets filed under "taking things or oneself too seriously". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• The CfD process is tedious, terse and adversarial enough without the addition of schoolboy vulgarity. You might get away with it once, but repetitiously using insulting language to describe a group of people is not going to win you over to your side. Know any good Hooser jokes, eh? Yours, Ephebi (talk) 08:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC) (aka 'an Old Fart', I guess).

• I would have thought allowing oneself to have a laugh would help one deal with the tedium, and the terse, adversarial nature of the proceedings. Personally, I usually don't attempt to "win" anyone over, since those who comment at CFD have already made up their mind. Anyway, I suppose you can choose to be insulted or you can choose to take a joke. It's your decision, and I don't think it would be a good idea to shift the responsibility for that decision to anyone else. I certainly won't accept responsibility for your decision. "Hooser" jokes? No, I can't say that I'm familiar with that term. Did you mean "hoser"? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:19th-century Latter Day Saint temples

I noticed that you created this. I'll admit that I don't know the full classification of the various types of LDS religious buildings. They have temples, tabernacles, stake houses, meeting houses and so on. If any of these are also church buildings, then these should all be under Category:19th-century Latter Day Saint church buildings or some such with Category:19th-century Latter Day Saint temples being a subcategory. Do you know enough to create the correct categories in this tree? BTW, I'm not sure what missing denomination subcategories should be created under the parent tree here. So if you want to create some or make suggestions that would be appreciated. Once an example structure exists in one century, it can be expanded to the other centuries as needed. Thanks. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I would say tabernacles, stake centers, and meetinghouses could correctly be categorized as church buildings also. Temples—there's a bit of a dispute about that among editors—some say yes, they are analogous to churches, others say no—they are very different and similar to churches only in the same way that synagogues or mosques are like churches. I could take a stab at expanding the tree, though there are very few in Category:Tabernacles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Category:Meetinghouses of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Most LDS meetinghouses aren't terribly notable. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and free free to jump in. I hope that I did not misclassify any of the LDS meetinghouses as Quaker ones, articles are rather skimpy for a bunch. I'm sure that if I did, someone will correct me. I guess I'll create Category:19th-century Latter Day Saint church buildings and include all three of the above. If anyone objects about the temples being included, then that can go directly into Category:19th-century religious buildings. Right now it is in Category:19th-century church buildings. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Vegaswikian, I'm one of those people that see temples as a separate class of buildings from meetinghouses, so I made the changes you describe above. In doing so in noticed a chance to enhance our category structure for these buildings. Would either of you consider creating Category:Properties of the Latter Day Saint movement (or alternately Category:Properties related to the Latter Day Saint movement), with Category:Properties by religious organization and Category:Latter Day Saint movement as parent cats, and including as child cats Category:Properties of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Category:19th-century Latter Day Saint church buildings, Category:20th-century Latter Day Saint church buildings, Category:19th-century Latter Day Saint temples, Category:20th-century Latter Day Saint temples, & Category:21st-century Latter Day Saint temples? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced of the value of Category:Properties by religious organization. Category:Properties of the Holy See is kind of an odd ball here since the Holy See is considered a country. No part of the LDS movement is considered a country that I know of. So maybe the question is, in what way would the LDS proprieties be in some way unique like this? Are all of the buildings owned by some central authority? If not, then the existing categories used for all of the other religion/church based buildings seems best. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Southern Sudan politicians

Category:Southern Sudan politicians, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. Mike Selinker (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Mysipswitch

If you have a moment, can you take a look at these edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mysipswitch&action=historysubmit&diff=441457481&oldid=441457307 I have already warned this guy, but I see no sign that he's getting the message. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 02:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Somebody blocked him shortly after your message here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that later. Just as well. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 19:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Irish People of Jewish Descent

Hey, how come you deleted the page "as per deleted discussion". what?? I spent some time on that category, and I linked it in well with the 'Irish people by national or ethnic origin' categories, and 'People of Jewish descent by nationality'. I had two people in category, what more do you want to make it a legitimate page?? Colt .55 (talk) 07:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It was deleted after a discussion about it here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe it should be recreated

I recently re-created the category Category:Irish people of Jewish descent. You'll notice the link is red, because it was delted as per you discussion here. However, as you may notice there are many categories with the formula 'X people of Jewish descent'. And while you may disagree with labeling living people, or misuse of categories, being of Jewish descent can only be true or false. I agree 'sloppy application' of the 'X Jews' categories are given, but that is because of people who identify themselves as being (or not being) Jewish. With Jewish descent however, you cannot dispute the fact that one of your anncestors may have been Jewish, in the same way if your anncestor was African. Whatever a person says about themselves, giving that person a 'x of jewish descent' cat is true - because its true. You get what I mean.

More to the point - my re-creation of the Irish people of Jewish descent (if you click the red link above), is actually different from the version that was deleted July 9th. My version has a properly structured cat links (following standard cats of 'X people of Jewish descent'), it links to the 'Irish people by ethnic or national origin' and 'people of jewish descent by nationality', both of which are container categories. You will also notice that the category is no longer empty, and in fact has Bob Geldof in it.

I believe that all the points I have made above, counteract all of the arguements used by yourself and others to delete the (not so well maintained version) originally. Please will you allow the category to reopen in the way which was created by me? Colt .55 (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

DRV

I suppose you could propose that it be re-created using WP:DRV. That's probably the most usual route to take. 23:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wildrose Alliance Party of Alberta

Hello, I see that you are again working on the name of political parties. Would you like to weigh in on Talk:Wildrose Alliance Party#Name Change? Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and don't worry it will be quite easy to change the category names once the article is changed to Wildrose Party. Category names generally follow the article name so once the article name is changed we'll just speedily change Category:Wildrose Alliance Party and its subcategories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

new key for Category:[xx]: "*"

Some of your edits have popped up on my watchlist: is there some sort of consensus or guideline behind adding this key to the eponymous page in a category? I get that it will sort it to the top of the list in the category, but can't the same emphasis be given in the category by simply providing a wikilink in the text on the category page? (Category:Bloc Party is a simple example.) I think it may be better if we avoid weird (possibly non-intuitive) conventions like this. —Akrabbim^talk 13:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty standard, AFAIK, but not a big deal either way. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I took a look around and it looks like the guideline at WP:SORT suggests using a space instead of an asterisk. —Akrabbim^talk 15:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me. Either accomplishes essentially the same thing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

Hi. You reverted my paragraph with citing the reason. I've added a talk section on the matter, so you can respond there. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigiheri (talk • contribs) 14:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Treaties of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth

You've reverted my edit in the category writing unclear why this was done: the reason, however, was given in my edit summary: there was no political structure called Latvia or Estonia when PLC existed. They did not participate in concluding those treaties, they weren't given rights and duties according to them... What remains to be specified? 195.122.20.157 (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a grouping for convenience only since the PLC controlled the territory currently known as Latvia and Estonia at the time. It's not meant to communicate that they are successive political structures. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

One Vote Only

Only a younger brother, in my household knowledge, I'm only defending my user page thus is final.--Corusant (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. if sneaking around is the primary example, then of course yes, he does, forgive him as I'm trying to make some edits for a new article.--Corusant (talk) 04:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

What to do...What to do...

As a uninvolved admin, who I trusted and respect, I want to grip (not at you and I am sorry) and ask for some help. I am a bit confused at what I see as a blatant lack of caring that the WP:SPA Nottoohappy is constantly vandalizing Kevin Garn while using misleading summaries to hide isi it. I am hoping to get some direction from a trusted admin.

The Kevin Garn falls under the higher BLP standard, but even excluding that, Nottoohappy has used this page as a personal sounding board to accuses both Garn of Child Molestation and the LDS Church of actively teaching members that child molestation should be done, not tolerated, should be done. Nottoohappy actually has the highest number of edit, not even counting his sockpuppet IP edits, since every time he posts they are undone.

This has gone on for over 8 months. Several editor, myself included, have run the "give him warnings", the ANI route and the sockpuppet route (since he last switched to his IP to avoid using his username. In the end only the IP address was blocked for three days). Clearly Nottoohappy knows the system, so I'm convinced that the editor has a real account out there to do normal edit, but comes back to the Garn page using only Nottoohappy.

I hate to say that I, and other editor, are a bit annoyed at the lack of caring shown by the admins who are asked for help thew ANI and SP. All we hear is stuff like, "This isn't a fast enough edit war to really do much about it." and "The issue is not ripe for action until he edits again". In response to the "Fast enough" I say weather someone shot you with a gun or injects you with AIDS, your going to die. Sure one takes longer, but in the end your dead. If this guy vandalizes the page all at once or over 8 months, in the end it's vandalized. EVERY edit he make is vandalism, so speed should count. I understand that one of the Goals of Wikipedia is to allow everyone to edit, but what dose it take to get an admin to take a stand?

Now that I'm off my grip stand, again I'm sorry, am I not doing something that needs to be done to block this guy indefinitely? Am I not complaining enough, or to much, or in the wrong places? I'm just so tired seeing this guy doing what he is and no one is willing to "make the call", even though this is the most obvious case of repeated vandalism I have ever seen.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 05:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I see you've given him a "last warning". Let me know if it happens again. If it does, I will have no problem blocking the Nottoohappy account indefinitely. I would have no problem doing it immediately since he only seems to be involved in repeated vandalism, but I suppose to err on the side of caution we should give him the one last chance implied by the "last warning" template. But after the next time, then let me know. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I am very very sorry. My griping was not meant to get you to do anything, but honesty I would love to have you block him. I really wanted some help understanding the vandalism process. I really want to know if I doing it the wrong way, or not doing something that needs to be done, or going to the in the wrong places (ie WP:AN/I), or is this really the how the processes is oppose to go (so I better just get used to it)?

On a different but similar subject, five editors have an issue at No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith with [User:John Foxe]]. Can you direct me to the next step (Ie. WP:AN3 or WP:AN/I or elsewhere) if he is using a borderline prejudice view of editors (ie all the editors are Mormon (which is actually not correct) so they must be liars) to ignore the consensus and pushing his POV and violate BLP rules. There has already been a "Neutral point of view/Noticeboard", ironically opened by Fox, but then ignored since he didn't get the answer he wanted. I thought about WP:AN3, but it dose say "even egregious point of view edits" are not "Edit Waring" when it come to WP:AN3. Then I thought about Mediation, but what good is that going to do when 5 editor have come to the same consensus which he ignores justifying it on baseless accusations of the other editor pushing a combined POV. Even if we do Medication he's still going to ignore it, since he already did it on the NPV noticeboard. However, arbitration doesn't see likely to be accepted. As I see it this is case of "Slow edit waring" by Foxe.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 15:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• I can sympathize with your frustration over how we deal with vandalism. I don't think your approach has been missing anything—you seem to have used all the regular routes. There does seem to be a hesitancy to act in all but the most egregious cases, which I don't really understand. In many ways slow but persistent vandalism can be more disruptive than fast bursts of it, because it requires you to always be on your guard for problematic edits from the user. But most admins seem hesitant to do anything about the slow vandalism problems.
• John Foxe has a bit of a history of being intolerant of page changes. Someone else invited me to that dispute, but I steered clear of it because sometimes I find him frustrating to deal with. And I have been strongly criticized in the past for trying to act as a neutral admin in pages that have to do with the Latter Day Saint movement because I do some editing in that area, so I don't think I can intervene as an admin safely. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Facts, Facts, Facts

WOW.... just voting, factual argument opinions at an order of miniminum XD, anyway thank you for your factual listings, on the dangerous topic, always, smooth sailing & Carry on;). --Corusant (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

? I'm not sure what this means. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Re:Czechoslovakia

Hi GO - sounds like a good scheme. I get the feeling that there's pretty vague uses of the terms "Communist Czechoslovakia" and "Czeckoslovak Socialist Republic" in WP, so tidying those up would be A Good Thing (tm). Grutness...wha? 00:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Adding article cats. to files

Please explain This seems like a bad idea to me... why would these categories contain files rather than just the articles themselves? Only the album in question in the main namespace was recorded at this venue, not the cover art... If there's something I'm missing here, please respond on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is it a bad idea? Non-commons files are notoriously undercategorized. It makes sense for an albums category to contain files of the albums artwork. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Purpose The categories are about the albums themselves, not the album art. This is why (e.g.) we have schemes like Category:albums by artist separate from Category:Album covers by recording artist. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The album art is an integral part of the album. Album cover categories are routinely placed as subcategories of album categories. Same idea here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Consensus At the risk of sounding dismissive--I'm honestly not--I simply think this should be taken to WT:ALBUM, as this is a pretty radical change. Should album artwork be categorized by arranger, cover artist, date, conductor, sales certification, album type, format, genre, language, producer artist, year, decade, record label, artist nationality, and recording location? I'm not being facetious here... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)