User talk:Good Olfactory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Relist request[edit]

Regarding this: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_August_25#Category:Roman_Catholic_cardinals_by_X. For convenience, would you mind simply giving it another shot at a relisting instead, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I've already processed the change at CFDW. But I have no objection to an immediate renomination started by you, and you can quote me on that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 13:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

welcome back[edit]

to real editing again - it was looking very thin on the ground for a while back there... JarrahTree 13:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm back – hopefully more regularly. Good to see everyone again. Good Ol’factory (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
some very strange admin losses recently - but hey - it seems to be the way these days... reality is on the blink in some parts of the planet JarrahTree 13:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
How are things where you are? Indonesia or Aus? Good Ol’factory (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I always wish I was in [1] for the libraries, but was in March in [2] May in [3] for a wikipedia conference and just last week was at in my home city [4] where I suspect this is enough info... JarrahTree 13:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
+1 on the welcome back. It's good to see you around again. ~Awilley (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes indeed, your return is most welcome! Hope all is well with you. – Fayenatic London 06:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
to have a watchlist flooded by your edits is a relief to think that there is something good in the world and wikipedia happening.... JarrahTree 06:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:S Protestants?[edit]

Hi Good Olfactory. I don't understand this edit. Is it an error? Greetings. Tajotep (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, yes – was an error with hotcat. Thanks for notifying me about it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

CfD updating[edit]

Welcome back! I notice you edited Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Discussions_awaiting_closure manually. That is no longer needed though, the list is being updated automatically every hour. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, very good. Thanks for letting me know. Progress! It's good to be back. Hopefully I can do a bit more than in months recent. Good to see you again, if only online. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Songs written by Jedward category[edit]

Hi I notice that you were the one who closed the CFD which had resulted in a keep. I just wanted to let you know that the person who nominated it now seems to have emptied the category? CallyMc (talk) 11:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I will restore it and keep an eye on it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I didn't want to get into an edit war and I thought it best that a neutral party deal with it. CallyMc (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Wise! I've reverted the change and notified the editor. It should be OK now but let me know if it escalates. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:People of Huguenot descent[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:People of Huguenot descent. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Alpha3031 (tc) 05:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:TPOC[edit]

Could you please explain this edit? [5] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm getting an error on that link you provided for the diff. If you are referring to this, see here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Sankethi[edit]

Hi, I'm not disputing that Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_October_6#Category:Sankethi_people was a no consensus situation but does CfD not work like AfD? Generally, at AfD I think a discussion would be kept open longer via the re-listing process in the hope that consensus would emerge, although obviously things can still end up NC. I see that not every discussion on that page has been closed.

I probably should have specifically notified the India wikiproject rather than rely on the central notification system, which I have long thought doesn't get watched by many people (and certainly not by me!). - Sitush (talk) 02:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes things get relisted if the closer thinks that there is hope of consensus emerging. I guess I just didn't see that the two positions (ethnicity vs. caste) was going to be reconciled. I'm OK with you re-nominating immediately if you feel a consensus could emerge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of L. Lionel Kendrick for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article L. Lionel Kendrick is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. Lionel Kendrick until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. North America1000 17:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Manual work done[edit]

Could you please have have the mergers and deletions of this discussion implemented by the bot? I just finished the manual pre-work. Thanks in advance! Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for the notice. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Classical Israel[edit]

In closing this category's CFD as "split", what were you intending to happen to the category itself once it was emptied? Should it be deleted, or converted into a disambiguation page, or something else? Someone tagged it for deletion based on the CFD, but I've declined it because I'm not clear about your intentions. If you'd express your intentions (or carry them out), I think it would make things a bit simpler; thank you. Nyttend (talk) 04:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted, thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Ministries and agencies of the Barbados government has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Ministries and agencies of the Barbados government, 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.

Sunanda Sharma[edit]

Could you please protect Sunanda Sharma because it is being repeatedly vandalized and it was reported to RFPP much earlier today. CLCStudent (talk) 02:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Withdraw cfd?[edit]

I'd like to withdraw this cfd as people seem not to have read/understood it properly. Perhaps rephrase it and re-present in a month or so. Or one by one. I had not thought it even slightly controversial. Is this possible? I can remove the tags easily enough with AWB. The companion one in the other direction on 5 Nov seems to be going better, or least more succinctly. Oculi (talk) 10:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you can just close it as withdrawn. Or, if you like, I can do so. Just write a comment at the bottom of the discussion saying that you'd like to withdraw the nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
On second thoughts I'll leave it up. Seems to have become quite amusing and one can probably live with a confusion of z and s in remote corners of a small fraction of the ephemera that is Wikipedia. Oculi (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
It was a noble attempt. It's interesting how heated people get about the izzue, I mean issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. There seems to be some perceived threat to something but it is not clear exactly what. Perhaps a consequence of Brexit. Bisarre. (WP:ISE says that 'ise' is due to French influence, and yet we have Category:Organizations based in France. Dark forces.) Oculi (talk) 08:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
You can all blame me for that… or the French institutions in London. – Fayenatic London 18:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
On yet further thoughts I wish to withdraw all 4 'pour mieux sauter'. I would be very grateful if you could do this on my behalf. Oculi (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Empty categories[edit]

Hello, Good Ol’factory,

I've been tagging a lot of empty categories this week. I noticed that you deleted a few LDS-related categories I tagged yesterday (and I've run into other admins who deleted some others I tagged) before the 7 day period is over when empty categories are moved from the holding category Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories where they are then deleted by an admin.

Am I missing something? Are you aware of the situation with these particular categories and knew they were safe to delete? You have been working on Wikipedia (and specifically with categories) for MUCH longer than I have so I thought actual practice might differ from the guidance on the empty category page. Let me know! Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Liz. The only reason I deleted those when tagged was because I created them and knew that the only articles that populated them previously had been deleted at AfD. Sorry for the confusion on jumping the gun. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Your help please, with my bad[edit]

Hi GO

Please could spare a moment to chime in at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Category:Men’s_in_freestyle_skiing_at_the_2014_Winter_Olympics on the next steps in fixing a batched CFD in which I botched a few entries?

You were the closer, so I don't want to implement the correction without your agreement.

Thanks, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

category move closure[edit]

Good Ol', is there is process for requesting a closing for a category move? I opened this long one [[6]] and based on the non-consensus I would like to request that the move from about a month back be overturned as no consensus once involved/concerned editors were informed. If the closing of the Oct 26th discussion isn't the correct way to challenge the previous move what is? Thanks! Springee (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: As I told you before at Mr Brown's talk page, you need to wait for an uninvolved administrator to close the CFD. You, as an involved party, do not determine whether there is consensus or not. RGloucester 01:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@RGloucester:, It has been 2 weeks and the discussion has been silent for at least one. Since Good Olfactory closed some of the other discussion I asked for their advice. Perhaps you can let them answer the question I asked of them. Springee (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
When one of the patrolling administrators deems it appropriate to close the discussion, they will do so. That's the answer Mr Brown gave you, as did I. No further action is required on your part. Please allow the process to conclude in its usual manner, and stop trying to influence it through back channel talk page communications. RGloucester 03:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, please understand that no further action is required on your part to ask questions that were not directed at you. Your accusations of bad faith aren't needed or productive. Springee (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I am not going to close the discussion, since I closed the previous one and have participated in the new discussion with a comment that I felt the matter should have gone to WP:DRV rather than a new CFD discussion. There is no way to force a closure; as stated by RGloucester, we just have to wait for an uninvolved admin to close the discussion. Those who participate in the discussion do not decide whether or not there is a consensus; the closer decides that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
The issue of if we revert to the stable name after a discussion has been enacted is at Wikipedia talk:Consensus#Enacted discussions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Good Olfactory, the discussion has been closed with no consensus which is basically what I would have expected. What is the appropriate forum to review the previous closing that resulted in the category name change? Thanks! Springee (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

It would be WP:DRV, I think. Unless there is a "rename review" forum out there I don't know about. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC) Try Wikipedia:Move review. That's probably more on point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jc37: Move review doesn't do categories. But, I'm not sure what Springee is asking for...the discussion was closed as "no consensus to rename" to automobiles. Unless he disagrees with that closure? This should be settled now. The category stays at cars. We can of course ask the closer for his opinion, so I've pinged him. RGloucester 02:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Please pardon the (semi-)pun, but that discussion was a near train wreck. There was no consensus to take any categorical action. (oh, the pun-ishment! : )
As for the comments above, not to speak for GO, but I think he was implying that going to MRV to address the previous Requested Move might be a better first step than DRV, since DRV deals with deletions, not moves. I hope this helps. - jc37 02:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
(ec) Yes, I believe they are asking for a review of the original discussion that I closed, which resulted in the change from "automobiles" to "cars". If move review doesn't do categories, then I suppose WP:DRV may be the best place. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
That doesn't really make any sense...are you saying that, after having had this new huge discussion at CFD, we're now going to go back and question the PRIOR close, rather than this close? That sounds like the definition of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. RGloucester 02:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, the user should have gone straight to DRV and never minded the second CFD. I don't know what exactly they have in mind; I won't speak for them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
OK, here is how I see it. The original move was based only on the views of 4 editors and was closed just days before the second one was opened (in response to category moves that made myself and others aware of the original move discussion) with wider participation. Based on the wider participation I would say the original move should be challenged because it's now clear there isn't community consensus for the move from automobiles to cars. The standard practice when there is no consensus is to undo the change. That is basically what I intend to argue. The only question is what is the correct venue. I got it wrong once so I want to make sure I get it right the second time. Springee (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Springee, have you actually read the closing statement of the recent CFD? There is no consensus to move the category from cars to automobiles, not from automobiles to cars. That means that there is a consensus that the category should remain at cars. You'd be wise to take Mr Bratland's advice. RGloucester 06:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I did read it. The consensus is clear that the community doesn't agree which category name is appropriate. Based on that we should use the long standing name. This would be simple if this were an article content discussion. It happens all the time. A local consensus of say 4 editors agrees to a change. The change is made. Another editor comes in and challenges the change. A RfC is opened. If that formal RfC closes with no-consensus for the change then then we revert to the long standing version. Why would we do something different here? Springee (talk) 13:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
That's not what the closure says. The closure says there is no consensus to move away from 'cars'. The previous consensus was not a 'local consensus'. Unlike what you did, there was no canvassing. It was simply a normal CfD. That doesn't get erased, nor does the closure of the second CfD, which is clearly in favour of the category remaining at 'cars'. Any action you take now will be seen as WP:FORUMSHOPPING and dealt with accordingly. RGloucester 14:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
RG, this will be my last reply on Good Olfactory's talk page to you regarding this line of discussion. The discussion was clear with, IIRC 12 editors about evenly split between those who think it should have stayed at Automobiles and those who think Cars is better. There was no "favored" side only a clear no consensus for one vs the other. Your claims of canvasing and forum shopping are both wrong and bad faith. Springee (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Carol F. McConkie for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carol F. McConkie is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol F. McConkie (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. North America1000 11:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Coeroeni River[edit]

Hi, you stated that the Coeroeni River starts in Brazil and then flows to Surinam, however, the boundary between Brazil and Surinam is in 1906 defined on the drainage divide so a Brazilian river by definition can never enter Surinam. Also TPC maps and Surinam topographic maps fron 1970 show the boundary on the divide. What is the source of this statement? Hans Erren (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Good question. I see I wrote it in 2009 and didn't include a reference, so I don't know what the reference was that I was using for that. Feel free to change it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Oh, and hi : ) - jc37 02:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Good Olfactory. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

You forgot tag messages![edit]

@Good Olfactory: Category:Seventh-day Adventist Church in Africa & Category:Adventist secondary schools in New Zealand are sharing the same talk page. Category:Seventh-day Adventist Church in Asia & Category:Adventist secondary schools in India are sharing the same talk page. I had renamed these categories for a reason. These categories that are making you confused were created illegally by User:Colin MacLaurin who is a Seventh-day AdventistCatfurball (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

"Illegally", okay... I created those categories in good faith. Also your claim about my personal affiliation may be mistaken, either way it does not affect the process of creating Wikipedia. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@Catfurball:, it looks to me like you don't really understand at this stage how the process of category renaming or deletion works. I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:CFD if you wish to rename or repurpose any further categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Conservative Jewish synagogues[edit]

Hi Good Ol’factory

Are you sure about your close of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_November_19#Category:Conservative_Jewish_synagogues?

Looks to me more like it was evenly divided between the 2 options, and that a relisting would be more appropriate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Eh, reasonably sure, given that I left open the possibility for a nomination to pursue the alternative. I think you should nominate them all for renaming and see what happens. The most a relisting will get you to is a no consensus result, which doesn't really benefit anything if consistency one the goals. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Growing backlog[edit]

Please consider closing another bunch of CfD discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Stassi D. Cramm for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stassi D. Cramm is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stassi D. Cramm until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. North America1000 15:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Gail E. Mengel for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gail E. Mengel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gail E. Mengel until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. North America1000 15:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of David D. Schaal for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David D. Schaal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David D. Schaal until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. North America1000 15:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Howard S. Sheehy Jr. for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Howard S. Sheehy Jr. is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard S. Sheehy Jr. until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. North America1000 15:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Mareva Arnaud Tchong for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mareva Arnaud Tchong is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mareva Arnaud Tchong until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. North America1000 16:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:France–Israel topics[edit]

Information.svg

Category:France–Israel topics has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. --Bsherr (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Jane M. Gardner for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jane M. Gardner is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane M. Gardner until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. North America1000 22:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Deleted Category:Fictional Detroit Police Department officers Recreated with Same Articles[edit]

Hello,

Back in 2016, you closed a CFD discussion here as delete because the category failed WP:SMALLCAT 2 articles with little room for growth. Recently, it was re-created with those same 2 articles. I'm not opposed to recreating previously small categories if they article count grows but, in this case, it seems like a waste of time to bring it back to CFD.

Is there another approach you would recommend in this case? RevelationDirect (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:Escorts by nationality has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Escorts by nationality, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. — JFG talk 07:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)