User talk:Good Olfactory

Category: People executed by the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic

Hello, why have you reverted back to this previous category? As explained in my note 'Czechoslovak Socialist Republic' did not exist until July 1960. The list of persons include people prior to this date, hence it is incorrect. Please revert back to 'People executed by the Czechoslovak Republic' for people involved prior to 1960. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatraplan (talk • contribs)

It includes both pre-1960 executions and post-1960 executions. The key is that it is named after the article Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, which covers the history of the state from 1948 to 1990. If you think it should be renamed, you could nominate it for renaming via WP:CFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Well it obviously is wrong, date-wise, that article use in this context is clearly incorrect, there should be two categories for people prior to 1960 and after 1960. I am not that versed in wikipedia renaming discussion but perhaps you could do that on my behalf please? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatraplan (talk • contribs)

It's not unusual for things like this to occur in category space. I doubt that it would be a good idea to have two separate categories only because the name of the state changed in 1960. It's the same reason we don't have a separate article for the 1948–60 Czechoslovak Republic—it's just combined with Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and the article name that is used is the one that is most familiar or commonly used to refer to "communist Czechoslovakia". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

What a real muddle! Someone should sort this out, there used to exist an article 'Socialist Czechoslovakia' 1948-1960 which was wrongly combined with 'Czechoslovak Socialist Republic' 1960-1989, it is all wrong! Between 1948-60 it was just Czechoslovakia or the Republic of Czechoslovakia! But I'll leave it to you guys to sort out, it is misleading and should be corrected not just in the categories I am suggesting, but in the main articles. I hope someone will take it on. Thank you. Tatraplan

The main article should be renamed 'Communist Czechoslovakia' (similar to the CZ pages) and divided into 1948-60 and 1960-89 sections within, then it would make sense. Tatraplan

Adam Kelly Ward

Do you know if a code enforcement officer counts as a police officer? I know Adam Kelly Ward killed a code enforcement officer but I don't know if it's technically police.

AFAIK in Commerce, Texas code enforcement is separate from the police (it's under "community development" and not "police") http://commercetx.org/departments/community-development/code-enforcement/ WhisperToMe (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about the details of the law in Texas, but I thought it was close enough for a category, since even if they are not police strictly speaking, they are an officer of "law enforcement". Perhaps the category should be renamed to make it more broad in its language. Many "traffic cops" are not police in certain jurisdictions either, but people have been executed for killing them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

That may be a good idea. Anyhow Texas did execute Ward on the basis of "obstruction or retaliation" which could cover any official: "murder during the commission or attempted commission of kidnapping, burglary, robbery, aggravated sexual assault, arson, obstruction or retaliation, or terroristic threat;" - BTW I added the category to James Garrett Freeman since Texas Parks and Wildlife Department game wardens (Justin Hurst, the victim) are tasked with enforcing Texas penal code, and Texas law enforcement officers did show up to Garrett's execution out of solidarity (I didn't hear that any such thing occurred during Ward's execution) WhisperToMe (talk) 04:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good point—the reason it was aggravated murder warranting the death penalty was because the victim was an official. I'll have a think about getting a nomination to broaden this out; maybe "law enforcement officers" would be more appropriate than "police officers" in the category name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

It could also help making a cat about people who murder government officials in general - Jared Loughner would go into the same general category WhisperToMe (talk) 06:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Then maybe he should have put the comment some place sensible? Dicklyon (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: I've started a nomination here. I thought changing to "law enforcement officers" might be a good first step, and then we could have a think about what to do for the murder of government officials in general. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Dicklyon

This editor did not "mistakenly" remove my comment, it was quite deliberate, as seen by this comment he posted to my talk page immediately after. This, after I had just requested that he stay off my talk page (this was a repeat request, I have asked him to stay off my talk page before, more than once). There have been on-going behavioral issues with this editor ever since he accepted a standard offer and was allowed to rejoin the community from an indef block, only a couple months ago. How much more leeway are admins here going to give this person? - ^theWOLFchild 22:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that that doesn't look good. Removing another user's comments deliberately anywhere but one's own talk page almost always makes one look like a jerk, if nothing else, especially if the comment is a critical one. I don't know a thing about the background or the reason for the previous blocks of the user, so I'm probably ill-equipped to decide how much leeway to provide or how egregious this should be regarded. But it certainly made me raise my eyebrows. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, I understand your position. Perhaps if you were to give him a warning about the comment removal and the repeated unwanted visits to my talk page, hopefully that will suffice? If his behaviour continues, then the warning will serve to inform future admins. Thank you for your assistance. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 23:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I'm comfortable doing that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed warning. What you don't know is that theWOLFchild had been previously warned on his talk page by an admin about his disruptive comments on that talk page. This was just more of same. Dicklyon (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You're right that I was also unaware of that—I don't know much of anything about the background here. I don't think it would change any of my advice though and wouldn't think that it would justify removal of comments. Since there are issues on all sides, probably best to not do anything inflammatory. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. But sometimes I am weak, and fall for temptation. Dicklyon (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I hear you. None of us are completely innocent. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

An admin asked me to not "personalize" any comments, and since then, I haven't. Dicklyon was warned to leave other editor's comment alone, but then he does this. (wtf?) I'm just gonna shake my head and walk away now. I won't be going back to that page for awhile (as long as my posts are left alone). The behaviour there is mind-boggling. And appalling. - ^theWOLFchild 01:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Annnnd he's done it again. I said I'm not going back, and I'm not, so I would like you to enforce your warning. Dicklyon needs to leave other editors comments alone. (I don't care how "weak" he is) I don't want my post severed off to a different section under an inflammatory, off-topic heading. I would like it left where I left it, and he found it. Please and thank you. - ^theWOLFchild 01:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, he didn't remove the comment, just gave it a header. I would regard this as "refactoring", which I think often can be just a form of busybodying, but is kind of a lesser form. It is usually an attempt to be helpful to readers more than an attempt to censor or hide comments. It usually involves making changes that aren't necessary, but also do not really hurt and often are helpful. If I were him, I'd hesitate to do any of it, but I don't want to micromanage the page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Then you, or any other admin, won't mind if I move it back? I'd rather forget about the page, but I also want my comments left where I put them. He did this, despite your warning, and now he's 'thumbing his nose' at you. What's the point of an empty warning? Some admins need to start shutting all that nonsense down. - ^theWOLFchild 03:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I would not mind if you did. If you'd rather I do it and you ask me to, I can move it back. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Or, you could just give him the block he begging you for. But, yeah... I would like my comments un-collapsed, and the other one back in place. - ^theWOLFchild 03:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

When you walk away, you are basically giving the other person the 'last word' But here, that apparently isn't good enough. They want the 'last-last word'. I suppose next will be the 'last-last-last word'... - ^theWOLFchild 03:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::@ Good Olfactory and @Anna Frodesiak: - I clearly said I wasn't returning to that page for awhile... and I haven't. But despite that, I still have SMc pinging me with two separate, snippy, insulting comments in a single long post. I'm not sure why he's trying to provoke/continue some kind of battle but, it would be nice if some admin told him to wrap it up and move on, (as I have). Oh, and my last comment is still out place, moved by Dicklyon despite an admin warning him not to do so, only minutes earlier. Pfft! I'm going back to what I was working on. - ^theWOLFchild 03:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@ Good Olfactory and @Anna Frodesiak: And now this He's collapsed several more of my comments, with this edit summary; collapse some noise; anyone who objects can just revert this (except Thewold child)) .... . ....... .... - ^theWOLFchild 03:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. If Good Olfactory or Anna Frodesiak thinks that talk page would be more useful with my collapses reverted, they are invited to revert. Dicklyon (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: It might just be a good idea to revert them yourself as a show of good faith, since you are aware that it's making the user mad. I'm not saying you have to, but a little compassion here would go a long way even if you don't think it would result in ideal organization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind making him mad. He's mad already. Else why did he keep up the disruption after Spartaz's warning? Dicklyon (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he is already mad, and from what I can see he's not an innocent party, but if you could extend an olive branch of kindness—show some level of understanding, even if you continue to disagree with him on everything—it would, as I say, go a long way. I don't understand your indifference to another user's feelings, even if that user "deserves it". I'm going to revert it anyway, but if you were to do it, it would be an impressive show of forgiveness and would probably help to put a lot of this to bed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I better let you do it. If I reverted the collapses, it would be too obviously bogus. I may forgive him, tomorrow, but not today. His feelings have been a thorn in my side for a week. You do know he called me up on AN/I? Dicklyon (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you have to actually forgive him, but sometimes performing actions that don't jive with our feelings can be helpful for everyone. Just a suggestion; I know it has done wonders for me (and others) in the past, and at times I have wished that I had had the gumption to do it in circumstances where I didn't. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, you did it. You left one of his paragraphs in duplicate, so I removed the one whose placement made no sense. Put it back if you see a reason to. Dicklyon (talk) 05:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

He wanted the original placed where it was originally. If you want to copy it to another section, that's fine, but he didn't want the original position changed. He wants the tinkering with his comments to just stop completely—at least that's my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong @Thewolfchild:, but that's what I interpreted you as requesting. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

GoodO, can we clean up that talk page now that he has gone on wikibreak? Or do we have to leave all the rants fully visible in the middle of the conversation? Dicklyon (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Good heavens, just leave it be. Users will be smart enough to be able to read a conversation and separate what they view as the wheat from the chaff without refactoring. Why it would be OK to change it back just because the user is away for a period of time is not an approach I would adopt. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

History of Brazil categories (mea culpa)

I read the discussion but missed that part—mostly because it didn’t make sense to me at the time. I got it now. Sorry for the confusion. giso6150 (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

That's OK. I think it would still be OK to treat Category:Empire of Brazil as a distinct period as a subcategory of Category:History of Brazil by period, but it should also be a subcategory of the modern history cat given the timeframe of the empire. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Twc

Thewolfchild was already blocked once for editwarring against refactoring of the disruption he causes on talk pages, and he's about one hairspace away from a topic ban and block for his activities at and surrounding MOS. He received a DS warning [1] and a final more general warning about this last night [2], is subject to escalating blocks (and has already burned through the short ones, recently at that), yet went right back to it as soon as he got up in the morning.

I beg of you not to act as an administrative enabler of these antics. For one thing, it serves to undermine several others administrators trying to herd his behavior back into a constructive direction. He does not own every talk page he posts on and has no more right to determine where headings go, etc., than anyone else. I support all of Dick Lyon's refactoring at that page (other than the delete, which he conceded was a bad idea at User talk:Spartaz#Warning, a conversation you might want to look into regarding Twc).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the refactoring vs. not refactoring issue is that big of a deal. The user requested that the position of his editors not be changed and that his comments not be refactored. That's a "big whoop" if I have ever heard one. Instead of making everything into a federal case and doing what the user perceives as another poke in the eye (whether it is intended as such or not), I think it would be helpful for everyone to just move on and show some forbearance. The user has agreed to walk away from the issues on the page right now, so there's no real benefit in further pursuing a dispute over how to structure his past comments on the page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The position of the comments doesn't matter. The "I'm going to play one admin off another so I can stick it to Dicklyon if it's the last thing I do" behavior is the issue (well, one of a large number of them). Basically, you just got stuck to a tar baby by accident. The discussion above, about which I was unaware, is proof that the user is not walking away, but gaming. He's been saying he's walking away, but posting ranty demands for answers at WT:MOSBIO, and starting a new fight there, then revertwarring (to not refactor comments that are disruptive nonsense posted only to perpetuate the dispute he was told to drop), then saying again he's walking away from the dispute, but then coming to you to act as a proxy for him so he doesn't hit 3RR. Anyway, I didn't come here to criticize just to request and inform.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I just stopped by to thank Good Olfactory for their efforts last night, and I see all... this. You're still going on about this? I haven't posted to MOS (or any comma related debate) for over 10 hours now. In my last comment, I said I was done with that discussion, and I am, despite your repeated attempts to draw me back in, and all the messing around with my posts. In fact, I'm done with all this comma nonsense. SMc, if you and DL want to keep on arguing about this, you'll have to find someone else, I'm done with you guys as well. This has gotten ridiculous. (and surely you don't think you have clean hands in all of this?). I see that this page is now turning into another huge wall of text. I think you guys should give Good Olfactory a break, (and any other admins you're shopping around for). I'm going to stop posting on this page as well, so hopefully that helps. As some people have already advised, "disengagement" is the best way to go now (maybe I'll even take a few days off from WP) Anyways, I just stopped by to say 'thanks'.... so, thank you for the assistance, Good Olfactory, it was appreciated. Take care. - ^theWOLFchild 11:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome—I have tried to be helpful and fair. I have acknowledged a number of times that I am not familiar with all the background, and of course users party to the dispute will have varying views of things. But from what I have seen this is a good example of a situation that will definitely benefit by users moving forward. But that's usually good advice regardless! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review notice about non-governmental organizations

I started a deletion review on a category for which you closed a discussion. See it at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_April_14. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. I have no objection. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Mrstinson12

Mrstinson12 (talk · contribs) is another Europefan sock. If the SPI ever moves, then the sock will be blocked and then the whole mess can be reverted. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah! That makes sense. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:OWN

To me, you appear to be exhibiting a tendency of ownership on category-related content. Hawaan12 (talk) 10:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

To me, you appear to be exhibiting particularly poor judgment in edits of category-related content. So I guess we are even. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Given that you've never edited WP:Title before, it is possible you may have violated WP:HOUND. Hawaan12 (talk) 10:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear. Did I look at your edits? Yes I did. Sometimes, when a user is going around making particular bad edits, it's worthwhile to have a look at everything they are editing. In my judgment, your edits over the past few days display a pattern of poor judgment, out-of-process and undiscussed moves of articles and categories; undiscussed edits to core policies, and other problems. I don't apologise for worrying about this and rolling some of it back. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Note, however, that HOUND states that it is implicated when there is an "apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." That has not been my intention, and I apologise if it has caused you any of this. My intent has been to correct what I see as errors in judgment and facts. Good night, gotta go to bed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I hear you repeatedly using "I think" or "in my judgement" - I would prefer it if you quote (at least once in a while) policies or guidelines in the future. It is one of the job requirements of being an admin. Thank you. Hawaan12 (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

You can let me handle the job requirements and how I carry them out. You could worry more about the quality of your edits. It's interesting, though, that your comment came immediately after I quoted from a policy. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Just saw that you've been blocked as a sockpuppet. Well, that explains a lot. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Dato' Seri Ir Hj. Mohammad Nizar Bin Jamaluddin v. Dato' Dr. Zambry Bin Abd. Kadir listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dato' Seri Ir Hj. Mohammad Nizar Bin Jamaluddin v. Dato' Dr. Zambry Bin Abd. Kadir. Since you had some involvement with the Dato' Seri Ir Hj. Mohammad Nizar Bin Jamaluddin v. Dato' Dr. Zambry Bin Abd. Kadir redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 08:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Bistrița-Năsăud-geo-stub listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Bistrița-Năsăud-geo-stub. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Bistrița-Năsăud-geo-stub redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Potentially a new section in CFD

I started a proposal at village pump here for a new section in CFD called CFRc (Categories for recategorization) where users who like to change sub- or parent-categories, can ask the experienced community. I believe you will like to join the discussion and poll. CN1 (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:Indo-European peoples‎

This category was deleted last year after discussion, but i have some arguments for its restoring. There is Category:Ethnic groups by language family which is needed expansion or deletion. And latter will be sad, as there are plenty categories as Category:Ethnic groups based on language mostly. So where is it possible to discuss the recovery? Cathry (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It's kind of a grey area. WP:DRV could be used, but it might be objected to there as something that is not within the purposes of DRV. So perhaps just starting a new section in WP:CFD, proposing that it be re-created, and setting out the reasons. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Cathry (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

And what if I create "Indo-European-speaking peoples" category? Is discussion needed to create it? Cathry (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

If it serves substantially the same purpose as the category that was deleted, it would likely be regarded as a re-creation of the deleted category. Probably better to propose creating it somewhere—WP:CFD would be your best bet. It would be fair to notify those who participated in the deletion discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

OK Cathry (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Book of Abraham

Hi,

I reviewed your comments concerning this article and I did note that the discussion regarding Joseph Smith's impudent fraud and his fabrication of this book is well covered further down in the article. It's sad and unfortunate that so many people have been deceived by these writings. After reviewing your comments, I understand your concerns about adding that to the lead section.166.70.213.246 (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

If you're going to edit religion-related articles, it's always a good idea to keep in mind that not everyone necessarily agrees with your interpretation of what is a fraud vs. what is legitimately of divine origin. There are multiple ways of viewing the Book of Abraham. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

One of the big problems with religious texts, like the bible, is for the most part they were all written by anonymous authors. The book of Mark for example was the first gospel written and it was written around 70 AD, long after Jesus death. None of the gospels (Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John) were written by the people they are attributed to since these people had been dead for almost 100 years when these books first appeared (They were codexes and not scrolls). And the resurrection story was not in any of these early gospels -- it was added later. The sources of the bible are all dubious, and the sources of Smith's writings seems to be for the most part copied from the bible and Views of the Hebrews. The BOM and BOA are both of dubious origin but so it the bible and most religious texts. In fact, the bible is even more suspect due to being written by anonymous people. 166.70.213.246 (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

And there are many people and sources that would vigorously disagree with almost all of what you have written. Hence the need for a light touch and extreme care in religion articles. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni

Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni were executed for kidnapping and raping 13-year-old boy. Its disgrace for topic called "violence against LGBT people" because people may assume they include pedophile rapists. --MehrdadFR (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

But LGBT issues are part of the point of the controversy. As it states, "The British lesbian, gay and bisexual group OutRage!, alleged that the teenagers were executed for consensual homosexual acts and not rape." I suggest you propose removing the article on its talk page and see what other users think. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Please do not think it's my OR or something, there's quite long review about it which you can download (google: "Unbearable witness: how Western activists pdf"), written by American LGBT activist Scott Long. --MehrdadFR (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure, just propose removing it on the talk page. I'm not going to specifically object there to its removal, but I just would like to see that other editors would either agree or be indifferent to such a change before it is removed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI, peer-review article states that alleged "gay-case" has been denied by (1) Iranian judiciary, (2) World leading LGBT organizations, (3) HRW and AI. If we have case with Iran on one side and human rights group on other then we can be suspicious and balance, but this case is quite clear, and its widely published in many other academic works so user's opinions should be irrelevant. --MehrdadFR (talk) 01:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

OK I will (you're the boss). :( :) --MehrdadFR (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I can certainly see your point, but on Wikipedia users' opinions are never really irrelevant, since things are done by consensus. I'm OK if you want to remove it immediately now, so long as the explanation is provided on the talk page at the same time. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Daniel kenneth (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

What's the deal on category soft redirects?

In this edit you say "It's a reasonable redirect". I agree. But I made a whole ton of these (110 if I count correctly) as a side effect of moving categories to remove the commas, and I thought it would be good to follow up with deletion of these soft redirects as cleanup. Is this not a good thing? Dicklyon (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a little bit hard to know sometimes with category redirects. It's hard to know how useful they really are. The standard procedure to move a category speedily is almost always to go through the WP:CFDS process. Some users get very upset when categories are moved by editors outside of this process. When the bot moves a category, the default is the same, that soft redirects are created. When I clean up after the bot does the renaming, I usually leave most of the redirects, unless the redirect is for some reason a category that would be otherwise used for a different category or as a disambiguation category. I'm not sure what other editors usually do for these, but my sense is that more often than not the redirects are left. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. My impression was that these redirects were not generally good things except when there's a good reason. Anyway, I've got nearly 110 deletions pending. The main reason I did this was so that when I search Categories for "Jr." and then search for ", Jr." I don't see all these irrelevant hits to work around. No matter one way or the other. Dicklyon (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I think either approach would be OK, and there's no general recommended approach that I know of. I've heard some users take a "they don't hurt anything" approach, but I can see some drawbacks with search results. They can sometimes be helpful for editors who use HotCat, but I agree that they are not terribly helpful to general readers. I don't think anyone would object to deleting them if they all just resulted from a comma deletion. (Is no comma the standard now?) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I came here because of a note on a userpage on my watch list. Assuming we are only talking about Jr (with or without the comma), I would agree there is no benefit to keeping the soft directs. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I would say I feel the same way as Good Olfactory. Part of it is that I'm expecting to see category moves done using the speedy processing for category renames. This was not done, however, I do now see that there was discussion on this and a consensus was reached so I see why the moves were done manually. {{cfr-speedy}} is still the proper route to take for nearly all other instances to move a category, and that's what I was watching out for until I discovered the further discussion regarding the issue. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I was not aware of cfr-speedy. I'll use that in the future if I run into more of these (but I think I'm done). Dicklyon (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I nearly always use the cfr-speedy route and that generally leaves the soft redirect. In these instances I was never convinced the soft redirect was necessary or beneficial, although I did nothing about them. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Your edits to the General Authority group and individual pages

Thank you for your fine attention to detail on this article and the individual edits you have made, many for which I have publicly thanked you. But I take issue with your edit to Kevin W. Pearson. I fail to see why you felt a need to call the wording of my recent edit there "speculative". It seems to be commonly understood in the Church that if one is not serving abroad in an area presidency, he is serving at Church headquarters. I don't care one way or the other if this edit stays or goes. But I take issue with you labeling such edits "speculative" when they are commonly understood to be the way things are. You can reply to me on my talk page, on the talk page of the Pearson article, or here. Either way, I will look forward to hearing your take, because I have never, in all my years of working with you, had reason to doubt that your edits are relevant. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I suppose it's not "speculative" in fact because, as you say, it's fairly well understood in the real world that this is likely what will happen, but I really meant just the in the Wikipedia sense. That is, it is not a statement that is supported by reliable sources and just represents an editor's personal knowledge or belief. You've probably seen the policy WP:CRYSTAL before, that "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable .... It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included". That's all I meant. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand now and concur completely. The edit was disingenuous at best. As I said, I don't have any problem with my edits being undone due to a potentially detrimental policy violation. Thanks for keeping me in check. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Good Olfactory

I see that you have recently removed a category from this article. Is it because that particular category (Eastern Orthodox Christians) is not appropriate for ethnic group articles? Do you know if there is any related category which would be appropriate for such articles? The ethnic group at stake, to whom Christianity was first introduced in the 1st century, were predominantly Eastern Orthodox from the 3rd to early 19th century, and there are still Christian people (c. 50,000) amongst them who often live collectively. Despite this, I see only one religious category (Muslim communities of Russia) on that page. I suggest that we should keep or remove both categories together. Thank you. Listofpeople (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians is a category for biographical articles about individuals. It is not for articles about groups of people or ethnicities. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

hoaxes → forgeries?

Hi there,

I didn't see this discussion while it was happening, but saw a bot implementing the outcome. This looks like a really strange outcome. Now we have a category about "forgeries" that contains subcategories and pages that have nothing to do with forgeries (i.e. forgery is a subset of hoax, not the other way around). It looks like the hoaxes category simply shouldn't have given its main article as literary forgery and we might've avoided some confusion. So everybody who authored a hoax is now being accused of forgery, which is quite different and very confusing. I've not checked to see what, if any, BLP problems this creates, but I'd really urge you to revisit this. Not sure about procedure at this point, though... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hrm. I should've read the literary forgery and forgery articles before leaving this message. I've not ever heard the term used so inclusively (extended to the truth of the content rather than just the domain of authorship). How strange. Guess that should be sorted out before drawing lines with categories... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's a little bit unusual. If the article changes and the distinction between the two gets drawn more brightly in article space, then I think it could be fair to re-establish the distinction in category space. As it stands now, I think it is all a bit unclear and somewhat messy. Thanks for your concern, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

In no way is a hoax necessarily a forgery. Awien (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Have I suggested otherwise somewhere? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Apparently it's you who has cydebot changing category literary hoax to category forgery. Awien (talk) 09:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I was the closer of the discussion. Have you read the discussion? Have you read what I wrote in closing it? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't need to. The bottom line is that Cydebot is now miscategorising works as forgeries that aren't. Is it not you who can call it off? Awien (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you want to resolve the issue you need to. Please read the discussion and the close, as it suggests a way forward to begin to work on resolving these issues. If you have any follow-up questions, I can respond. If you want to appeal the CFD close, use WP:DRV. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:Communities on U.S. Route 66

G****t, I wish you would post notice of proposed deletion of a category on the articles affected. I could show you several communities whose publicity efforts are based around being on the former route 66.[3] [4] [5] [6] List of Route 66 museums It is the nature of their post cards. It was the nature of their economy and its absence caused the decline in the town's population (or in the case of the other category, its demise). I'll make that argument. You didn't give me a chance. You didn't give any other editor a chance because you do this in virtual secrecy. How many people monitor these categories for deletion? A microscopic handful vs the mainscape editors, or even broader the public. Most of them are simply delete clones. An echo chamber with little thought. You are a disservice to the members of the wikipedia community by deleting these things with so little debate. And don't blame it on the community. How many of of these Categories Nominated for Deletion fail? Virtually none. Its your fault for making the ill conceived nomination with so little information or research. I added some basic links, each one derivative to multiple additional communities. I didn't know all this before, I just knew it would exist. It didn't take me 5 minutes to google this. Did you spend the time? Obviously you failed to look. All the delete voters failed to look, they took your word for it. A cascade of failure. Read WP:BEFORE before you act thoughtlessly again. Trackinfo (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Look, before you reach out and bite someone, it might be worthwhile to figure out who is responsible for the action that you are upset about. I had nothing to do with starting the nomination. I was the closer of the nomination. I performed an administrative task based on the discussion. I have no opinion on the substance of the issue that was debated, but the discussion was unanimous. How would you suggest that an administrator proceed any differently in closing such a discussion?

However, I suggest that if you care about a particular category's existence, you add it to your watch list. The nominator is required to tag the category with Template:Cfd when it is nominated for deletion. If you use your watchlist, you will thereby be notified of any attempt to delete the categories on it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

My apologies for biting the wrong head. Bad layout to the discussion, you were listed at the top. However, even though you were acting as administrator, you were complicit in this. You too could have done a WP:BEFORE before closing. I've already got almost 9,000 items on my watch list. I cannot anticipate when some individual or a small subsection of editors will gang up to do something stupid. CFD is a badly designed system because it provides no notice to the articles it affects, event though categorization is the way to tie those articles together. With so little oversight, we need to depend on admins to stop allowing the mindless group of deletionists from doing stupid things. If you do not think, if you act thoughtlessly, you are just as bad as they are. And you have so much more power. The thoughtless damage you do has a much more devastating impact. I pull the trigger on a bunch of vandalism every day. But if I do not know the substance of what was added to an article, I google it first. And you know what, sometimes I learn something. Things that look like B.S. aren't always what they appear to be. You could use the same technique before you wipe out an entire article or category at the click of your all powerful mouse. Don't do stupid stuff. Trackinfo (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

But how do you know I did this "thoughtlessly" or that the editors who participated did what they did "mindlessly"? I think there's a very good argument that was presented that this information may not be defining for the places involved. That is not to say that it is not notable or that references cannot be found that support the characteristic or that a list article might not be appropriate. I don't think there was any suggestion that the category amounted to "B.S." That was not the basis of the nomination. You may feel that the decision was stupid, but other users obviously disagree with you, and that's fine—opinions can differ on these matters. I have well over 9000 items on my watchlist and I manage. It's not a good look to try to shift the burden of your own failure to monitor onto other users.

(Incidentally, how much do you know about how CFD works and what the standards/guidelines for categories are? How much do you know about the debates over what is "defining"? Based solely on your comments, it doesn't sound to me like you are familiar with these guidelines, though I could be wrong and don't want to presume. But those who encourage others to perform due diligence should be darn sure that they are doing their own before they criticize other users.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: no response? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm just getting prepared to take it to review. Trackinfo (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

OK; thanks for letting me know. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Today is a great day for Wikipedia categorization sanity, I do believe. Thank you so much for starting this ANI. I'll keep an eye out for more socks -- they're sure to crop up -- but this is great news, all the same. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

A good outcome, I agree. It's sad to me that things like this become necessary, but seriously—it had been pretty bad for a pretty long time. I had had enough with closing those discussions that resulted only from his peculiar categorization behaviour. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

As they are banned from CfD, I dunno if we should place CfD notices on their talk page. Just a thought. - jc37 11:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. To continue to notify him of CfDs could be interpreted as a bit of in-your-face-ism, since he can't participate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

More fun at Murten 'n' Morat

Hi Good Ol'- I tried to move Talk:Murten/Morat to Talk:Murten (which is just a redirect), but I don't have the rights. Back dealing with Daylon.murray/D.murray/Climatelover again... Can you verify that I'm following the correct procedure here: Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests#Uncontroversial_technical_requests? Thanks in advance. Eric ^talk 13:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It looks like it has been moved now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for taking a look. Eric ^talk 02:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Could you help out?

With starting the group nomination as you noted in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_30#Category:Judicial_system_of_Japan. I don't know/use automated tools that could make it easier, and I don't have the one or two hours to do it manually, listing/editing page by page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

How many categories are there that need to be nominated? I didn't think there were so many that it would take hours to do. Aren't we just talking about the ones named "Judicial system of..." in Category:Judiciaries by country? There are less than 20 of those. I never use automated tools to start nominations either. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I guess t is 20 or so, but I thought you may have some tools to make it faster. There is rough consensus to do so at Talk:Judiciary#Name_of_this_article that it is the good idea. I also wonder if it would be possible to have people vote on two choices (judiciary vs judicial system)? PS. If you reply here, can you echo me? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikilink in Voir dire

A bit tangled matter: you are not wrong, off course, but there is more to be taken care. I've explained in Talk:Oath of vengeance#Wikilink to Revenge. --5.170.16.65 (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Help

Hello, I was wondering if you would be able to edit through arch and tied arch bridges to appropriately credit Fausto Veranzio. Also on the page for suspension bridge, the image used for an example of Fausto Veranzio's bridge is his cable stayed. His suspension bridge image can be found on wikimedia and on his page. Creedie123 (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't really know much about these topics. Is there some aspect of the editing that you cannot do, or that you can only do with administrator assistance? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia and I am just trying to credit countries with proper inventions and edit layouts. I noticed you were correcting me on a few things and I appreciate it. These topics happen to be protected but I notice the mistakes. All of Fausto Veranzio's information is on his wiki but I cannot transfer it to the according pages. Creedie123 (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Page move

Hiya. Just wanted to note that I undid your edit at Category:Organizations based in Namibia because it will eventually be moved over the redirect at Category:Organisations based in Namibia to preserve the page history. Just waiting on a willing admin to action on the G6 CSD tag. Hint hint nudge nudge. ~ Rob^Talk 05:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh OK. I forgot that we needed to retain the edit history. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Socks

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Slayer of corrupt

Since you closed the digital games discussion, I thought you should probably know about this as well.

On the "bright" side, I suppose, it looks like we just apparently uncovered/discovered a sock farm over 8 years old... - jc37 09:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow. That's too bad. I had a suspicion that the votestacking by the IPs could be traced back to one or more of the registered users who participated in that discussion—some of the arguments were "too" similar. But I think I doubted my intuition because honestly I lacked the initiative to pursue it, so I'm glad you did. Occasionally when I get annoyed enough, I end up pursuing things (see Stefanomione). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I look at all the things which need doing, the cleanup, the messes, the haven't-been-started-but-should-be. And I'm torn between picking up my assigned tweezers and joining in moving the sea of sand one grain at a time, and, just letting others use theirs. After all, when others are using automated tools, what good is my single set of tweezers?  : ) - jc37 10:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

CentiJimbos

• Wikipedia:Centijimbos
• User:Theo's Little Bot/centijimbo

By my math, it appears you're a 7, if you were to add your name.

Though, if I were to hazard a guess, I think the current top 65 have no lives besides Wikipedia : ) - jc37 11:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

CFD discussion

So I just spent the last two hours or so filling out Category:People with acquired American citizenship, only to find out that Category:Naturalized American citizens was Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_17#Category:Naturalized_citizens_of_the_United_States CfD'd two years ago. I think most of the votes on he CFD are, although well meaning, biased. I was hoping we could work something out with the closing admin before all of it gets speedied.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• According to the US government, only 47% of immigrants to the United States are naturalized citizens,source, so I don't know if the "x immigrants to the united states" categories are enough to cover these.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I would be fine to see a fresh discussion on it rather than a speedy deletion based on the old discussion. I'm not sure I can stop anyone from nominating it for speedy deletion though. One way to stop it would be to nominate it for discussion, though you probably don't want to do that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
    • (talk page stalker) I'd recommend procedurally nominating it. Consensus can change, but as it stands, it's a speedy waiting to happen. ~ Rob^Talk 06:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Relevant CfD

You'll probably be interested in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_10#Category:Syracuse_Stars_.28minor_league.29_players. Turns out this was even more complicated than I thought, and I'd appreciate your input on what the outcome should be. I'm at a bit of a loss. ~ Rob^Talk 06:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I have commented there. It is a complex one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

cfd close

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_1#Category:Works_by_discipline

If you have a moment, would you check out the close and implementation of the above cfd? Thank you very much : ) - jc37 18:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Was it just that the contents had not been transferred? I implemented that now; was there another issue? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Page protection may be in order for Gordon B. Hinckley

I am currently involved in somewhat of an edit war on Gordon B. Hinckley. Several users, anonymous and registered, keep citing the MOS and saying that a comma is placed correctly when every rule of grammar says that is incorrect and unneeded. I don't want this to turn into a full-blown edit war, so I thought I'd ask you to take a look at it and determine who is right and who is wrong. I'm reasonably certain that my position of the issue is justified, in which case a request for page protection might be needed. But since I respect your work and opinion, I wanted to nip this thing in the bud before it's blown out of proportion. Any thoughts would be welcome. Thanks.--Jgstokes (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe that both of the commas are correct in "... from March 12, 1995, until his death." When dates are formed in the American-style "MONTH DAY, YEAR" format, a comma is placed after the year if the sentence continues. See MOS:COMMA. This is one of the benefits of the "DAY MONTH YEAR" format—you can avoid the double comma in running text. But the American system seems fairly entrenched, so it is generally used in articles about American people and topics. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Co-operative Party (UK) MEPs has been nominated for discussion

Category:Co-operative Party (UK) MEPs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Men sociologists

Hi GO

I see that in Sept 2013 you closed CfD 2013 July 30#Category:Men sociologists as "delete". But Category:Men sociologists still exists.

Any idea what happened? Your close seems to reflect the policy-based consensus of the discussion, and I would have supported the deletion if I had pitched in. So why won't it die? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

It went to DRV and was changed to "no consensus", so it was kept by default: see here. Might be worth a re-nomination; participation level in the discussion was not great. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the DRV link. That is a depressing DRV, which seems to take no account of the long-standing principle at WP:CATGENDER that such categories do not need to be balanced with one for each gender. So it ignored the fact that your weighing of the arguments against policy rightly attached less weight to those who insisted on taking the 2 categories together.

A new CFD may do better. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't contacted prior to the DRV about possibly expanding the rationale, and then I was criticized in the DRV for not providing a fuller rationale. I remember that I was so furious at the characterization of my close by one editor that I kind of lost it and failed to ever provide a further explanation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Canadian and South African law by year

Have added a navigation box to adjacent years, see e.g. Category:2016 in Canadian law or Category:2016 in South African law Hugo999 (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Email?

Hey. I was hoping to quickly email you about something, but you currently have things set up so users can't email you. If you don't mind, could you send me an email through Special:EmailUser? It has to do with the possibility of a forthcoming RfA. ~ Rob^Talk 00:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

There, I've enabled it. I can't even remember why I turned it off. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

You're up! I plan to transclude this on July 4th, most likely. I'll be on vacation from June 25th to July 1st, but feel free to email me with any questions. ~ Rob^Talk 08:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Done!—there's one sentence in my nominating statement that I've flagged that you can delete if you wish. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm indifferent about that sentence. I only ever bring up my status as a graduate student where directly relevant (i.e. economics categories) and I don't consider it terribly relevant to the RfA. At the same time, I don't object to it; it's a factually true statement, and I don't hide my educational status. Totally up to you. ~ Rob^Talk 00:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:German cities that share names with diseases or illnesses

That was quite a find. You were quite right to take it to CFD for deletion, but it really ought to be preserved for posterity in WP:BJAODN, or some such museum. I am a bit disappointed not to have seen its contents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't a very big category—you can get an idea of what was in it based on the some of the comments in the discussion. One user mentions a bunch of diseases/syndromes, and those correspond to the cities that were included. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Ivory Coast sub-prefecture

Hello Good Olfactory,

I am a phd student and came across your map of sub-prefectures of the Ivory Coast (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sub-prefectures_map_C%C3%B4te_d%27Ivoire.jpg). I was wondering if you might have the underlying shapefile for the sub prefectures and the coordinates of their headquarters. That would be a huge help. Let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesohoko (talk • contribs) 19:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It's my own creation based on a hardcopy map I have, obtained from the govt of Ivory Coast. For the electronic version, I used this pdf as a basis, though this version is somewhat out of date, being a map from 2011. It has only 498 sub-prefectures, whereas now there are 510. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Listing at CFD/W

Could you list Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_13#Category:Birds_of_Angola at WP:CFD/W for me? Thanks. ~ Rob^Talk 17:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

OK. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Politicians convicted of crimes

In Category:Politicians convicted of crimes you added a scope. Why did you define it so narrowly? Why has none of its children followed the same definition? A crime is a crime - why should Wiki introduce a statute of limitations? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: I can't see from the edit history that I added a scope or definition to this category. I'm guessing that you are mistaken? If not, can you provide a diff? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Albanian Logos

Why did you mess up my configuration in the Albanian Logos category? Logos of Albania should stay as a standalone category as it referring to the mother country. Kosovo and the albanian communities of Macedonia and Montenegro are all part of the inclusive category I created for that very reason. My configuration was perfect and I spend a lot of time arranging it only to be undone by you without reason??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kj1595 (talk • contribs)

@Kj1595: There are two reasons, basically: (1) the format for Category:Logos by country is "FOOian logos", thus it should be Category:Albanian logos. I've nominated Category:Albanian Logos to rename to that format. (2) There is no category tree for logos by ethnicity. I don't think we need to group all ethnically Albanian logos together. A by-country division is what we have now, and that's probably sufficient. I'd be happy to submit the issue to a community discussion, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the renaming part. However I separated the÷ categories because Kosovo, Macedonia and Montenegro are separate countries with separate systems. Them being grouped separately into a unified category makes sense and doesn't cause confusion to the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kj1595 (talk • contribs)

Couldn't they just be placed in a Category:Kosovan logos, Category:Macedonian logos, and Category:Montenegrin logos for those countries? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

They were but including them in one unified template is logical. Enthusiasts of albanian football have access to all teams logos in one place but separated in categories as I had done. I have spent many months producing those logos and now am putting them together in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kj1595 (talk • contribs)

Court cases by court

Hi. I'm trying to better understand edits such as this and this so that I can decide whether to categorize these articles and similar articles in Category:United States Supreme Court cases. As far as I can tell, these cases were not heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, so they should be removed from Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Vinson Court and Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Fuller Court, respectively. Am I missing anything? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. They look like careless errors by me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Cool, no worries. If you're curious/interested, Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases/Reports/A is what I've been trudging through. Thank you for all your work on these wiki pages! I feel like every time I look at a page history I spot your username. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I was thinking about this, and how I could have made these mistakes. I must have been going through a ton of articles about U.S. cases by topic, and there happened to be the odd non-scotus case that popped up, and for some reason I didn't catch it. I was probably too focused on the dates. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Children of Henry VIII of England

Hi, I was confused by this listing at CFDW, so reverted it.[7] It does not seem to be a re-creation of a category deleted per the old page that you linked to. – Fayenatic London 13:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: It's a re-creation of Category:Henry VIII's children, but the correct date is 2011 July 6, rather than June. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. – Fayenatic London 21:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Counterjihad

Hello. Regarding your revert at Counterjihad. Note that a discussion is not required for uncontroversial moves. I checked the academic literature, and "Counter-Jihad" with the dash is more commonly used. Hence my move. Al-Andalusi (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Al-Andalusi: I realize that uncontroversial moves don't require a discussion, but to me, it seems controversial. Even if we were to adopt the hyphenated version, I'm not convinced that "Jihad" should be capitalized. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Out-of-process category renames

Ready for a headache? Take a look at the July 3 contributions here. What's the process for undoing an out-of-process rename? Just smack it on WP:CFD/W to move all the pages back and delete the "new" categories? Probably also procedurally open a CfD, I imagine. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear; no, I'm never ready for these situations. There is no set process for these, it's pretty ad hoc and depends on the admin who takes it on. What I generally do is what you said—you just put them in the speedy section of WP:CFDW and delete the new ones, notify the user in question about why you did what you did, and go from there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:North Shore City

Category:North Shore City has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

Just moving it since it's not a city any more. Grutness...wha? 02:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

National Bank of New Zealand

Hi, Are you aware of this? "NBNZ was founded in 1872 in London as an overseas bank and shared many directors with Lloyds Bank. The next year it established branches in Wellington, Auckland, and Christchurch, and acquired 13 branches from ailing Bank of Otago (1863–73), see William Larnach. The National Bank of New Zealand (Ltd) Act gave NBNZ the right to issue banknotes redeemable (in specie or gold). Though the bank was technically domiciled in London (which provided certain advantages), the major portion of its shareholders were New Zealand resident or associated." I understand it remained so until quite recently. No, I do not have dates. regards, Eddaido (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I was going by the fact that it was purchased by ANZ in 2003 until it was discontinued and the branches adopted the ANZ name. If you think the category I recently added is inappropriate, I'm OK for it to be removed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how one solves the problem but it is a bit like implying Jaguar has always been an India-owned business (and it hasn't!). NBNZ held a special position in NZ, our Reserve Bank (equivalent to Bank of England) grew from it. Eddaido (talk) 05:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

It's true that categories are blunt tools, being all-or-none propositions. The only really good way to solve the problem one way or the other is to read the article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, its just er touching on a sensitive issue. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I'm OK for the category to be removed if you think it's better not on this article. I could go either way. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Wish there was a simple solution. Best leave it there. Eddaido (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Is this canvassing?

Would you call the latter a case of canvassing:

"== Octaviano Tenorio ==

There is a discussion a Article for deletion on the inclusion of the article on Octaviano Tenorio.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)"

I am trying to figure out how to respond to PBP's aggressive attacks in this case. Especially his line "your perverted interpretation of GNG." I have some thoughts, especially since he was previously told to stay off my talk page, so I really see no defense for his attacking me for 1 post to a clearly relevant Wikiproject. I also do not think just saying that the article is being discussed is in any way biased. I am thinking this might require clear appeals for help on my part, especially after the attack phrase I quoted, but maybe I should just ignore it.

John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• I stand 100% behind referring to JPL's interpretation of GNG as "perverted". He has created dozens, perhaps hundreds, of badly-sourced articles with either no sources at all, or else sources that are passing or not indepedent. When these articles are nominated for deletion, his keep rationales stray far from the confines of policy and guidelines. He has a long history of exaggerating comments made contrary to his opinions, considering observations "attacks" and deletion nominations "bigotry". He often attempts to bludgeon people who disagree with him on AfDs or CfDs with walls of comments and/or canvasses editors to try and get action taken against editors with whom he disagrees (like he is here). This occurs despite many people (including you, as I recall) telling him he was off-base. I consider JPL's recent actions to be the latest in a very, very long line of project disruption and lack of understanding of policies and guidelines that should have resulted in an indefinite block years ago. pbp 18:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with pbp. I suggest that you open an WP:RFCU on User:Johnpacklambert. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• Hi everyone; sorry I have been away. I'm not exactly sure what I'm being asked about here. Canvassing is a difficult issue for which views differ quite a bit, which is one reason why I generally never post notifications to anyone! (Which, in an of itself, probably makes me a bad person in the eyes of many.) In my experience, JPL does have a tendency to see things or assume things about other WP users that just aren't there. I've been subject to that more than once. But as for his interpretation of GNG, I'm not sure I'm familiar enough with it at this stage (or at least can't remember well enough) to judge it's level of perversion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• • What I'm seeing here is that I've personally found JPL to generally lean very strongly deletionist (like 90% according to his stats), but he has also created a couple articles on people in the Mormon church that others have nominated for deletion, and in my view, I think the articles, viewed neutrally, should be kept, but others feel differently, quite vehemently so, and I cannot determine if the debate is actually on the merits, or if it reflects an unexamined bias against Mormonism, or if it's people who have personalized issues with JPL. I've certainly tangled with him and some of his AfDs on articles about women have me wanting to rip my hair out (though some he has been right about), but on the two articles he created that I've commented on at AfD, I think he did create WP:N-compliant pieces, at least marginally so, but the vitriol at the discussion seems to go beyond the issue and is being personalized. Given that I am not in agreement with JPL often, the tone of the debate concerns me. (i.e. if I'm backing him, it says something because we frequently disagree). Montanabw^(talk) 07:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Vice presidents

Thanks and well done for catching the incorrect nominations (which I had processed). I'm glad there is still someone here for me to learn from! I trust that my refactoring of your re-nomination as a discussion is acceptable to you. – Fayenatic London 10:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Nope, that's fine. And thanks for doing those right away. I only noticed them once they had gone through, which is par for the course. I think there are more in Category:Vice presidents which need to be changed to the hyphenated form; I'll have a look. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Right, I see that you have tackled that issue with your customary thoroughness – thanks again. – Fayenatic London 09:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Was not meant to stir you

But in the end seeing the lack of the 'n' at the end of the state names re society just didnt ring true - the suggest from a current heavy tasmania edit to turn it around to do society in xxx, was something I thought might be worth considering as well, cheers JarrahTree 13:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: I understand, I've no problem with nominations to categories I've created. And I think it's better to tackle them all at once than piecemeal. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that JarrahTree 23:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Tasmania society has been nominated for discussion

Category:Tasmania society, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. JarrahTree 13:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Western Australia society has been nominated for discussion

Category:Western Australia society, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. JarrahTree 13:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:South Australia society has been nominated for discussion

Category:South Australia society, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. JarrahTree 13:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Victoria (Australia) society has been nominated for discussion

Category:Victoria (Australia) society, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. JarrahTree 13:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Question about closing procedure

While I'd be happy to close a few of about a dozen stub category nominations on July 5, I'd like to check one thing first just to be sure. When the nominator says "merge template" they actually mean "merge content and delete template page", just like with merger of categories, is that correct? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much, though with "merge template" I usually take that to mean that the template page itself is redirected to the template that populates the category that is being merged to, rather than outright deletion of it. That way, you don't have to change the template text on every article page it is on. Alternatively, you could have the template itself deleted, but then you'd have to edit every article page that that template appeared on. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, so now what's the solution?

So, if the horsewhips were upmerged into a diffusing category, and you won't permit me to spin them off into a category, then how do I get them out of the diffused cat? Seriously, we now have five whip articles in there and maybe 6-8 other random articles that simply cannot be diffused. And isn't there SOME way to do noncontroversial category moves? We also could have agreed to move to the new name and blank the other category so it would eventually be deleted. I am pretty frustrated at the problem you have created here. Also, "consensus" is certainly a ridiculous way to operate when "consensus" is basically mob rule. Montanabw^(talk) 02:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the solution is that it doesn't need to be a fully diffused category. It's not huge as it is; I don't see a problem with a handful of "loose" articles in this category. I pretty much set out my view on this in the discussion when it was evident that an upmerge was gaining more support than a rename. Your desire to "get them out of the diffused category" seems to just be a desire to somehow get around the basic result of the discussion. (Consensus/mob rule : Terrorist/freedom fighter : Antichoice/prolife. Such debates are not resolvable, at least not by me.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The point is that fully diffused categories should be that. Fully diffused, a category of categories. These disputes are resolvable, the problem is how to get knowledgeable people involved. Montanabw^(talk) 22:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I guess I'm just not clear why this particular category needs to be fully diffused. It wasn't even marked as a diffused category prior to the discussion, and it's not the type of category that I would look at and think to myself, "man, that category really needs to be a fully diffused category that contains only subcategories..." Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Ottoman people of Austro-Hungarian descent has been nominated for discussion

Category:Ottoman people of Austro-Hungarian descent, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Rathfelder (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:State of Palestine

Hi, Just wondering why you removed it from the Islamic Org cat? The article lists Palestine as a full member. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Because the article State of Palestine is already in the category and no other country categories are in Category:Member states of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. It's the kind of category that typically is applied to an article about a country, not a category about a country. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Cool Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:American high school dropouts

"American high school dropouts" has never been deleted in any sort of discussion, it was "Category:High school dropouts"--Prisencolin (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and American high school dropouts are a subtype of high school dropouts. You can't get around a previous deletion result by creating a category that is simply a smaller subtype of the broader group. If you really want to push the issue though, I can restore it and nominate it for a full discussion at CFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

What is going on with articles about the LDS Church and its leaders?

Hello, Good Olfactory! I was just noticing a deletion discussion for the Octaviano Tenorio article that apparently failed. I'm a bit fuzzy about what happened, but based on what I have gathered, it appears that the Deseret News, Church News, and Church Almanac content have been determined to make an individual mentioned therein in full compliance with notability guidelines. Am I understanding that correctly? If so, since it appears you are an admin, could we make the necessary requests to restore the articles about Second Quorum GA Seventies that have previously been nominated for deletion? Or is that option not on the table? If you could help me to better understand what happened and what it means going forward, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)