User talk:Good Olfactory

Listing countries

From this discussion in which you've taken part, you may also want to join here. 61.18.170.109 (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Edits

Yes, you are right! I will add categories by hand! :) and agreement is here

All templates are neutral, with no flag, Talk:Kosovo-stub and Talk:Politics_of_Kosovo

No flag of Kosovo should be used per this. Sorry, i was editing in a hurry today, so had mistake. All best. --Tadija^speaks 23:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that answers my q's. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

But there are no borders between Serbia and Kosovo, per Serbian government. That category is very POV. And you were only creator. I would ask for delete. That category is not helpful. What do you say? --Tadija^speaks 23:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You can use WP:CFD to nominate a category for deletion, not manual emptying. That way the community gets a chance to decide by consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I know you! You had that marvelous large signature! Do you? :) --Tadija^speaks 23:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. I've always had the same signature—it's not too fancy. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ooo, too bad. I was searching for that, but never again seen it... Thanks, man, please, be careful, i suppose that you are aware of WP:ARBMAC, and further decisions about it. Kosovo subjects are very disputed, and it should be edited with care. For majority of the world, there are no Kosovo-Serbia border. --Tadija^speaks 23:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware. Whether or not its an official "international" border is disputed, but no one disputes that there is a defined border. The question is just who recognises it and who does not. Most of Europe does; most of the rest of the world doesn't. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Walloon culture and not Culture

Category:Walloon culture instead of Category:Walloon Culture: you are right. I thought the name in the titles in English must have capital letters... José Fontaine (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Future elections in Australia

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Future elections in Australia. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. (Note: I am not the initiator of the DRV, I'm simply doing the notification part.) — ξ^xplicit 18:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite possibly the dumbest thing I've read today.

But because people around here like to toss around TLA's, like IAR and NPA, I'll email you the link. --Kbdank71 03:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Only "quite possibly"? Your standards are slipping. Or you're reading too much crap lately. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure if I were editing more regularly this would be further down the list. Yesterday was pretty tame, overall, so that one topped it. --Kbdank71 13:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Isle of Man

Re the cat for proposed countries, please see the talk page, where your comments are welcome. Mjroots (talk) 08:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Cfd of Category:Proposed countries

Hey, You recently created categories Category:Proposed countries in North America and the related categories and I thought you would be interested in the cfd someone else has created on the supercategory Category:Proposed countries (see here:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 9#Category:Proposed countries. Munci (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The previous Christianity of Converts to Mormonism is not relevant in the placement of the category

The previous Christianity of converts to Mormonism is not relevant in the placement of the category. If you look at all the other sub-categories in "Converts to Christianity" that involve sub-branches of Christianity you will find that a large portion of the people there were previously Christian, and you will find places where categories like "Converts to Roman Catholicism from Anglicanism" are part of the sub-categories of "Converts to Roman Catholicism from Protestantism" which is a sub-category of "Converts to Roman Catholicism" which is a sub-Category of "Converts to Catholicism" which is a sub-category of "Converts to Christianity". If there clearly all previously Christian categories can be put under "Converts to Christianity" there is no reason why "Converts to Mormonism" with Sagwitch, Chief Tuba, Vicki F. Matsumori, Jason Chaffetz and other not previously Christian converts should be excluded.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, well, it's wrong. Sometimes the majority is. 99% of people in Category:Converts to Mormonism converted from another form of Christianity, so it really makes little sense to make it a subcategory of Category:Converts to Christianity. (The ones you mention are the very few exceptions to the overwhelming majority of cases.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Descent categories

Hi. Just a query, I'm not sure that categories such as Category:Sierra Leonean people of Guinean descent is such a good idea. The West African states are relatively modern constructs and ethnic boundaries doesn't follow national state borders at all. Many families are spread across nation state borders and, whilst citizenship/modern nationality is an important identity marker not to be underestimated, 'descent' is not. --Soman (talk) 04:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any of them are a good idea. So there you go. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Temple Lot Suit

I accept the changes you made, no problem that you excised the "foreshadowing the American Civil War" stuff, I basically put that in there for your review, only...the material might be added elsewhere in the Latter-day Saint Movement Project, or modified and included in the article at your discretion or the discretion of other admins who either know the "big picture" or are curious to learn it. In the near future I may add more dates and details (such as the exact date the lawsuit was filed, the exact date the trial/hearing began in February 1894, but other than that the article is quite nice really...thank you for creating it.Southern Climes (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

OK; sorry my edits were made rather awkwardly; I could have gone about it better. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes (3rd nomination)#Mass killings under Communist regimes exists

neutral notification Collect (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

close these CfDs?

We have a couple leftover CfDs from June, none of which I can close. Feel like closing this one or that one or this other one?--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I did one of them. May consider doing either or the others later on. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:States and territories established in the 0s BC

Re this pair of edits; it was puzzling me for ages last night why the wikicode "[[Category:States and territories established in the 1st century BC|]]" was showing up in the visible text and not being converted to a category link. Last night, I was going through my new template {{StateestdecadeBC}} (which worked fine on all decades from 10s BC backwards) to see what I'd done wrong in converting from {{Stateestdecade}}, but spent too long at it; and when I eventually noticed that Category:States and territories established in the 0s exhibits exactly the same problem, I went to bed, intending to look at both of them today. Unfortunately, late nights cause {{User:Moonriddengirl/Userboxes/Migraine}}, so nothing done this morning. Am OK now.

Anyway, my new template {{StateestdecadeBC}}. I've used this to create all the redlinked categories for decades back to 600 BC (but only where there was at least one page in the decade concerned). I shall continue back in time either today or tomorrow. Next to do: the redlinked Category:States and territories established in the 620s BC within Category:States and territories established in 625 BC. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It is looking great—the 0s one was a bit of a mystery to me too—sorry for fiddling with it without much success. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've now gone back to 2333 BC; but I've stopped there because I've come across an anomaly. See Category:States and territories established in the 3rd millennium BC where 24th century is listed twice. The one without the hyphen was created by me; the one with the hyphen was already there. Which is correct, and what is the suggested action? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe without the hyphen is correct. They are only hyphenated when the year is acting as a compound adjective, as with "24th-century BC texts", for example. If it's just being used as a noun, as here, there is no hyphen. So you are correct. I suggest we just nominate the one with the hyphen for a speedy merge to the one you created. I can do that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, surprise, surprise—look who created the category! I didn't realise it was me ... I'll just delete that one since I was the creator and sole editor. Obviously I made a mistake with that one—thanks! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For catching my error in creating Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Georgia. Forgot about the "(U.S. state)" part. — MrDolomite • Talk 04:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Israelis or Israeli people of Fooian descent

Good Olfactory. I note your comments on my Talk Page and had already assumed that the issue would be required to move to a full CFD, although I had hoped to avoid expending additional time (of which I have precious little) and effort on this matter, but had already advised that, if need be, I would take the issue to CFD. I had also wished to avoid having two sets of changes, one following the other. (It still seems illigical that one change (from "Israelis" to "Israeli people") can be justified under the C2C criteria, whether another (from "descent" to "original") cannot, although, the change in both cases is based upon the name of the parent category and that the latter proposed changed is also justified for other reasons.) However, I am dumbfounded to discover that, despite my objections to the Speedy change (of "Israelis" to "Israeli people"), such change has nevertheless been implemented. You, youself, have in the past pointed out (to me and to others) that, notwithstanding how justified a proposed Speedy change is, once it encounters opposition it has to proceed to CFD or be withdrawn, unless the objection is withdrawn. The implementation of the change, without the matter even being placed "below the line", appears to be a complete abuse of the Speedy procedure. Whilst I appreciate that you did not actually implement the change (it having been made by the, so to speak, Cydebot "robot"), I feel sure that you are aware of what steps should be taken to rectify this abuse. Davshul (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion about what the speedy section is for, and what it is not for, and what kind of opposition should prevent a change from happening:

1. The two changes you have been comparing are not comparable. All the other categories use "Fooian people"; none of the others use "origin". The former qualifies for C2C, the latter does not.

2. Your opposition was not based on an argument that the criteria did not apply. It was an argument that you wanted to add another change. Such a change can't piggy back on the other change, and you can't hold up a legitimate change by opposing it on spurious grounds. Your opposition said absolutely nothing about the "Israelis" to "Israeli people" issue, which is what the nomination's point was, so I assumed you were misunderstanding how the section worked with opposition, etc.

3. I did what I did mainly for convenience and to add clarity to your fresh nomination—so you can start with a fresh slate and it will be clear what you are proposing. You can now nominate the categories to make the suggestion you were advancing.

4. This doesn't have to be a "big deal". One way or the other, it was apparently going to go to CFD, so all you need to do is start your nomination and you can propose that the categories be phrased however you choose.

5. I am going to bed now and won't be around for awhile, so sorry if I'm not able to respond to any follow ups you have immediately. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Good Olfactory. First, may I first state that I totally reject, and consider insulting, the claim that I was holding up a change "on spurious grounds". I stated clearly my reasons for favoring the additional change, which are certainly not "spurious" and that I intended to proceed to full CFD if it could not be dealt with by the Speedy process. I maintain that it is not in the best interest of Wikipedia or its users, that a change of the nature proposed, affecting possibly hundreds of articles, is followed a short time afterwards by another change of the same category. I had even understood that you were in agreement with me on this point when you stated a couple of days ago on my Talk page that, you would proceed with the change unless I "intend on starting a CFD right away". I had, clearly incorrectly, assumed that "right away" meant even before I had an opportunity of deal with the matter or responding to the discussions taking place on the Speedy discussion page. I had no, or very limited, Wikipedia access since my initial response to your query, advising you that I would proceed to full CFD, if necessary, but had assumed that this was sufficient notice to you not to take any unilateral action. Davshul (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see that stoicism is alive and well. It's not spurious in and of itself, but it was spurious with respect to the specific nomination, since it had absolutely nothing to do with the proposed change. It was perhaps a good suggestion, just not one that could be dealt with by speedy renaming. You didn't even respond directly to my notice on your talk page, so there didn't seem to be much concern about the situation. Anyway, there's little use fighting about it or having an extended back and forth. Obviously I misunderstood what you understood, or perhaps I understood but you just disagree. Just nominate the categories and let's move on, then. The articles can handle another change in a week, if it comes to that. They're tough. The world will not end. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry

I should have realized there was already a category dedicated to Kosovo's international relations. I'm glad you caught my mistake and corrected it.--*Kat* (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That's OK; a small job to fix. I changed the names on the articles too to standardize—hope that was OK. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that. Sorry to make so much work for you, but for what its worth, I am paying attention and will try not to repeat my mistakes.--*Kat* (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. Everyone has to learn stuff sometime, so I'm not upset. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I won't be doing much more with Eastern Europe tonight anyway. I need to (try) to clear the air with another editor who reverted my changes to the International recognition of Kosovo on the grounds of vandalism. (Yeah, I know, I forgot to put in a descriptive edit summary but saying my changes constituted vandalism? C'mon....)--*Kat* (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a touchy topic and can be frustrating. Some are a little over-reactive at times. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Relevance

This discussion might be it to you. — ξ^xplicit 02:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, my boo boo. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Due to all the editing you help with,it become possible to move List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement to Featured List Status. Without your help this wouldn’t have happen. The edit made between Ecjmartin, Surv1v4l1st, yourself, and myself account for 70.5% of edit made on that page.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 13:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see this went through. It's been a long work in progress. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Achim-Helge von Beust

Hallo Good Olfactory,

please restore this article at User:Eingangskontrolle/Achim-Helge von Beust. I understand that it was deleted for reason of missing references, but I cannot find any reference to him in the discussion about the deletion. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

And please send me a note at my german userpage. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Kang Kek Iew

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Museums of the Dominican Republic

Thanks for cleaning up the category. I completely missed it.--El Mayimbe (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Apure

Hi there. I just wanted to highlight that although you have just moved Apure (state in Venezuela) to Apure (Venezuelan state), there is in fact a move discussion still taking place on the talkpage as well as move discussions on several other Venezuelan state articles. The general consensus seems to be towards moving most of them to just the state names e.g. Apure. Green Giant (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Resp on your page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Assassinated Surinam politicians

Right on. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Hey Olfactory, I've never dealt with something like this before--for now, I just wait, right, before I start correcting the spelling on the pages where I placed it? Can you drop me a line if I can start cleaning up and placing the category on other pages? Sorry again for that misspelling. Drmies (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, after 48 hours it just happens when an administrator asks a bot to make the move. You don't have to do anything further, just be patient and it will happen. Really, because you are the creator and think it's a good idea, we can proceed at any time, so I'll go ahead and activate the bot right away. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
    • And done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Former members of Volksunie -> Category:Members of Volksunie

Why did you re-categorise all politicians? Volksunie doesn't exist anymore, those politicians are now member of other parties. (btw, I commented on the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 29#Belgian politicians by party) Regards, SPQRobin (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The consensus has been in a number of past discussions not to categorize politicians based on former membership in a political party. For categories, we take the position that they just group everyone that was in the party ever, and then the article clarifies former status, withdrawal or expulsion from the party, etc. So I thought it would be best if they were just combined. If you'd rather I formally nominate these for merging based on these past discussions, I can do that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Renaming to "one-room schoolhouses"

I agree with you that the category "one room schoolhouses" should be renamed to "one-room schoolhouses" with a hyphen. As the one who created this category I would like to make you aware that in hundreds of articles on Wikipedia many are with the hyphen and many without it. We would probably need to correct them all. Thanks for your input, but I just wonder if category name changes need to be submitted, or it can be done just like that by an administrator? Mountain top habitat (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)