User talk:Good Olfactory

Categorisation of dependent territories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category rename

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

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

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

grammar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Death cats

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

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

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

WP:CFD Category:Rugby league governing bodies in Europe

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

Category:Central African airport stubs

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

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

Please help

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

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

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

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

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

Ahnoneemoos

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

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

CrimsonBot

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

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

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

AfD potentially of interest to you

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

Temple garment

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

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

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

Ernesto Inarkiev‎‎

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

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

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

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

Neoconservatives

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

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

Franco-British Union

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

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

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

Re:Question

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

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

UK MP cats

Why did you tell Cydebot to move to endash versions of the cat names when the discussion said No to endashes? [2]. DuncanHill (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category mass deletions

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

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

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

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

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

--dab (𒁳) 15:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

CfD nomination of Category:Musical groups from Yukon

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

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

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

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

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

Gof, I've just noticed another entry of his. It is at a completely different rename request: [3]. I was about to tell him per the guildeline to keep to the topic at hand. In this latest one he's telling me what to do. I'm not a child that has done BAD! lol. He must think he is an admin for your group. I saw a user swear at the CfD last week which you acted upon. I had a little laugh (first time seeing it on Wiki). This shawn guy is truely more offensive and imo something similar should happen. I'm trying to improve wikipedia; he posts comments crtitising everyone else? But hey, I'm not an admin: you are! Why does your group put up with this? Argolin (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:People from Stikine Regional District

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

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

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

Reining in a deletionist

I'm getting really, really tired of having people with more power than brains making more work for me, or trying to sneak things under my (extensive) radar....I've had complicated run-ins with template deleters/redesigners this week, and last week with one User:Fastilysock, who with another little deleter-helper, is on a campaign to delete everything he/she can find a picayune reason to delete; this had to do with {{PD-Canada}} images where, allegedly, no "source" was provided (even though in some cases, such as one donated from my own family collection - of my own grandfather, no less, which had a {{pd-self}} license); and told I had to prove they were public domain (as if my own testimony was not sufficient....maybe they wanted to know the photographer's name? This gets ridiculous when you see the same %&*(&^*( deleting 800-year old maps and pictures of sculptures because, allegedly, no permission was presented to prove the contributor had the right to photograph the sculpture.....so tonight, mixed in with all the Anomebot coord-missing tags that clutter my watchlist, and the "provide name for {{BCGNIS}}" made by User:Droll, ad nauseam, I see tucked five deletions, based on an alleged 7-day notice of "no evidence of permission". Two of these were maps I'd made myself, the other two were {{PD-Canada}}, and of the surviving one (maybe because it's still in the Commons I can still see it) File:Peace-x.jpg it says straight out the source is the BC Government; but "no source provided" or "no evidence of permission" were the reasons; but both were {{PD-Canada}}, i.e more than 50 years old so no permission is required. These were by User:Fastily, which is the non-sock version of User:Fastilysock]]. But get this - I got no notification of these deletions, and it's not like Fastily doesn't know who I am. I know this "isn't your department" but I'm getting tired of having to deal with procedure in order to deal with people who violate procedure. It's all very Kafka-esque - "here, I've destroyed this but if you don't like it, take this note and go down the hall to door X, fill in form Y, notify A,B,C, F and G, and then add templates M, N and O and it might get reinstated after lengthy, inane debate"..."and if you want to complain about perpetrator X, then it has to be in this kind of language, don't do it on this page, do it over here, fill in this, notify them with template Q, and while you're at it you should notify F, U, C, K and User:Off." I think a glance at my contributions history and the range and quality of material I've contributed wil show to you I'm not an amateur at either history or geography; or, as it happens, a photographer ignorant of copyright law (I was a photographer, and am also an author and composer). I went to WP:ANI to want to complain Fastily/Fastilysock, who I think - I know - should have their admin privileges pulled immediately, but other than being confronted with more proedure (GAAAAAH) I'm well aware that I don't have the same control over passive-aggressive language and regularly dish out pieces of my mind in the course of taking these hyper-nerds on; even now, before any rational response (as if there was one to be had...) about tonight's deletions was made, user:Skater chastised me for "attacking another editor" for calling Fastily on his/her bullshit in not notifying me....I'm getting ready to quit Wikipedia if this continues; how much else I could do if not constantly having to go to war to keep things from being deleted, or needlessly change so-as-to-make-more-work-for-me, as with the templates issue (see my talkpage, follow links from User:Plastikspork and re User:Droll....). I got at this CfR thing tonight, in fact, because I know I'll pretty much have to move on from Wikipedia soon, I"m having too many teenagers-with-admin-powers finding more and more ways to waste my time with inanity.....I'm sorry to throw all this one you right now, you're just the admin I've most recently had friendly discourse with - and meaningful action. I have to go to bed now, this b.s. about the deleted images has chewed up a lot of my time tonight, just as it did (from the same so-called "admin") last week.....Is there a "higher committee" of admins somewhere, some group that recognizes the damage that jejune admins are perpetrating against actual contributors? Even if I DID have the energy to start a WP:ANI process tongiht, I'm well aware that my language will get a counter-attack/ANI for wikiquette.....but, really, is there any justification for such picayune destructiveness as what overpowered deletionists and code-warriors are pulling on those of us who actually contribute material. and if "assume good faith" is a Wiki-standard, why the 7-day death sentences on images that have some minor detail of licensing (or may, in fact, not have any missing detail of licensing at all) since most ordinary contributors DON"T "live on Wikipedia" as these destructo-bots obviously do? Actually, tonight I asked him if he was a Darlek - "delete, delete, delete". I'm 54 years old, losing patience with all this crap, and being asked ot jump through too many friggin' hoops at once. There's times I wish, in fact, I could delete everything I've contributed, because who's "taking over" has no common sense, nor responsibility.....nor respect. See [[4]]. and the Talk:Hotel Vanouver (1916).Skookum1 (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Categories

Hello, I noticed you reverted me here [5]. I created that American nomads subcategory of the Nomads category and wasn't sure if I was catting and subcatting properly. Seems like American nomads should logically fit in with hobos somehow but I'm not sure how it should fit. Any ideas? Or just leave it alone entirely? Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Since one could be an American nomad without being a hobo—and vice versa, not all hoboes were Americans—I don't think we can have one be a parent category of the other, but I have linked the two in this way: [6], [7] ....., not quite sure if that's the kind of thing that you had in mind or not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That works nicely, thanks. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Cydebot deletion summary issues

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

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

Am I at the wrong talk page?

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

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

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

Untitled

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

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

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

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

wot no bot?

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

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

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

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

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

Hawaii Five-O category

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

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

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

Category:Wizards of Waverly Place

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

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

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

Gotta

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

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

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

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

re Igbo...

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

Deletion review for American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for your input at DRV

Hi Good Ol: There is now a DRV for 24 categories of Jews at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 28#Categories:American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent. As you mention above, the deletions were based on speedy delete nominations but an admin at DRV, User Stifle (talk · contribs) has requested [8], [9] more information and input from those involved in the deletions and what they based themselves on. Since you have been involved with deleting and discussing these, could you respond ASAP at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 28#Categories:American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent and help us out tracing who nominated and supported the Jews' categories in question for speedy renaming and why it was done so that the monitoring and closing admins at the DRV can know the starting point of the DRV in question. Thanks for helping us out here. IZAK (talk) 03:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

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

But who NOMINATED them for speedy renames? For example, when you went ahead and speedy deleted/renamed Category:Iraqi American Jews [10] what did you base yourself on and surely you must have noticed who nominated it for speedy deletion and renaming. Someone must have NOMINATED them all for speedy deletion and at least cited some sort of rationale or rule. IZAK (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Honestly Good Ol, I think that you and Mayumashu and a few others are causing havoc with your renames that seem utterly un-educated. Take a look at this as an example [11] (nothing to do with Jews) where you nominate "merge Category:Afro-Uruguayans to Category:Uruguayan people of Black African descent", same fore "Afro-Portuguese" [12] etc etc etc when the word "Afro" means "of or from the African continent" and that would include all the ARABS of North Africa who are NOT "Black African" but Arab Africans and not just as in the USA type of limited "Afro-American". I wish you would revert all the confusing changes you are making based on "speedies" when at least if you would take it to full CfD discussions and ask for input from various Wiki-project expert editors you would get INTELLIGENT feedback instead of setting up a horrendous humungous mass of nonsense. All you are proving is that haste makes waste! IZAK (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Maori teams

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

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

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

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

Offline

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

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

this

needs to be renamed [13] -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 00:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

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

sorry wrong link. [14] [15]-- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 00:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

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