User talk:Good Olfactory/Archive 26

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


Category merge

A non-admin closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 20#Rebbes of Chabad and made soft redirects. The categories were already replaced in the articles. Could you delete the categories? Debresser (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Debresser (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Accession of Macedonia to the European Union

Sorry, was there some consensus for this move somewhere? I'm not sure if you are aware of the detailed rules at WP:NCMAC, and I think your move doesn't really conform to those. The guidline says that simple "Macedonia" is to be used "where this is practically unambiguous", which typically includes articles "dealing with international politics, economy or similar topics, where the context makes it clear that present-day countries are referred to". The EU accession article would seem to be a textbook example of such a case, since by the very nature of the topic only a present-day independent country could possibly become a member of the EU, so there is no possible ambiguity with other Macedonias. Moreover, the section "Other page titles" in that guideline explicitly says that titles involving a reference to the country should use plain "Macedonia" unless they conflict with the name of another, existing article referring to one of the other Macedonias. Fut.Perf. 07:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you missed anything. If you disagree with an article move, I suggest you move it back. If you cannot or need assistance, you can let me know. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, no problem, I've moved it back. Fut.Perf. 08:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the inconvenience and my impulsive action. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Holy Land during Byzantine rule


Category:Holy Land during Byzantine rule has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. GreyShark (dibra) 17:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Aaronic priesthood (Latter Day Saints)

First thanks for helping clean and copy edit the article. I added a lot of that information and I tend to be overly verbose. Rather than just changing back a couple of pieces that you did change I would rather open a dialog, to avoid any problems. First on one edit you removed this section

Over the next 180 years, the administration of the priesthood has changed with the needs of the church. Between 1829 and 1846 only adults held the Aaronic priesthood.[1] Then from 1847 until 1877, Melchizedek priesthood holders were tasked with the roles of the teachers and priests as "acting members" of the Aaronic priesthood.[1] From 1877 to 1908, the men of the church continued to "act" as priests and teachers with the tasks of teaching in the homes and the administration of the sacrament, while boys age 12 to 20 were ordained to the Aaronic priesthood and given typically the office of deacon.[1] From 1908 to 1922, the evolution sped up as now the youth were assigned one of the three offices based on age similar to the current style. They were then tasked with the administration of the sacrament and also teaching within the wards.[1] Through the 1950s, this use of the younger males became institutionalized.[1] Finally, from the 1960s through the present, ward teaching changed to home teaching and the youth became the junior companions of the older Melchizedek priesthood holders.[1]

Stating that it was too LDS-centric and was unnecessary. First, isn't the article about the LDS version of the Aaronic priesthood. Second, I liked how the summary at the beginning of the history section sums it up first then goes into detail.

The other change I felt hurt the article was

Change in the LDS Church resulted from two factors. First, the creation of the ward; and second, the Melchizedek priesthood became a requirement to receive the temple endowment.[2]

was again a nice summary of why the changes were occurring in a short to the point sentence.

In going over the changes I may not have noticed if you did re-add some or all of the missing sections, so if this occurred please forgive. Again, I do appreciate the work you did,as I kept meaning to go back and try to clean it up a bit and cut it down, but I have been stuck on List of Alvar Aalto's works. speednat (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is supposed to be about the Aaronic priesthood in the entire Latter Day Saint movement. Ideally, it would have historical information on the topic from not only the LDS Church perspective but also from the Community of Christ perspective and that of other Latter Day Saint denominations. The reason I removed that paragraph was because its placement in the lead of the article seemed too LDS Church-centric in article that should ideally be broader than just the LDS Church, and everything it says was pretty much repeated in the sections on the LDS Church history in any case. I think the amount of detail that was there on the LDS Church history comes close to overwhelming the article with minutiae, but I tried to reduce it and summarize it to a fair level. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
My mistake, I was under the mistaken assumption that Latter Day Saints referred to the Original Church, main church, Brigham Young's Church, whichever way I should say to not offend those members of one of the others. I figured, again mistakenly, that there would have been other "Aaronic Priesthood"s for each of the churches that has a version of it. Thanks again for your hard work. speednat (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:1917 in the Palestinian territories


Category:1917 in the Palestinian territories has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. GreyShark (dibra) 17:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I invite you because of your participation on Syrian categories discussion in 2013.GreyShark (dibra) 17:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Please also see the merge proposal of category:1920s in Syria -> category:1920s in Mandatory Syria.GreyShark (dibra) 20:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your work in renaming pages about books based on WP:SUBTITLE. I hadn't been familiar with this policy, so thank you for bringing it to my attention! Safehaven86 (talk) 06:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think it's overlooked relatively often, but I've been working to clean some of the titles up. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Going to be away for a bit

Just so you know. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. I noticed that you trimmed WP:CFDW. I think you normally check backlinks and Wikidata, but I've done it for you after this cleardown. Note that this one needed updating manually at Wikidata. – Fayenatic London 11:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for catching that. And as it turned out I was not away for as long as planned due to weather issues. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Watercolor Impressions

The Art of Nausicaa Watercolor Impressions is a different book than The Art of Nausciaa. Can you revert your moves or change the titles of the redirects and article to reflect that. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it, but note that there is no separate Wikipedia article that we have for a book called The Art of Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind, so right now the addition of the subtitle appears to be unnecessary disambiguation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the moves. There is no Wikipedia article for the other book, The Art of Nausicaä, yet. My apologies for not including links with information about the two books to illustrate the request in my comment above. The Art of Nausicaä is a Japanese language book, published in 1984, which remains in print and has so far been translated into Korean and French. The Art of Nausicaä Watercolor Impressions came out in Japanese in 1995 and has been translated into French and English. Both books are briefly described in the Nausicaä manga and animated film articles but only one of the books has its own article at the moment. I understand your reasoning, and agree that the current situation is not ideal but I think it is the least confusing of the possible alternatives and therefore appreciate that you've reverted the moves. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Heads of government of Russia

Please move other categories starting with "Prime Ministers..." to "Heads of government..." in Category:Heads of government of Russia. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 15:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

They would need to be nominated for renaming. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Mormon Folklore

A large section of Mormon folklore was removed by an editor who has no other contributions. It might be vandalism. Could you please see if the edit was legit. Thank you. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe not vandalism, but I would say misplaced concern or at least a certain POV about what is and what is not folklore. Sources do cite these examples as folklore. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Works by John Mellencamp

Category:Works by John Mellencamp, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Categories - in categories or in articles

Hi! This is with reference to your revert on MG's and IG's articles. I don't quite understand what "many" and "few" in your edit summary means. Btw, this recetly started at User_talk:Sitush#Categories_on_Aam_Aadmi_Party.27s_page. Could you suggest a proper venue for this discussion? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

What I meant was it is usual to have the vast majority of categories that apply to a subject on the article for that subject. It is also usual to have far fewer categories on the corresponding article page. The reason for this is that some users say that all of the categories that are being added to the topic don't apply to all the contents of the category, but they do apply to the article. I suppose one place this could be raised is at Talk:Categorization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Usual it is. But i don't see how "Category:YYYY births" is not suitable for "Category:ABC person" but suitable only for article "ABC person". See how Commons does it. And that talk page would hardly be useful. It was last edited in Dec 2013. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, just for instance—Swami Anand is an article in Category:Mahatma Gandhi. Category:1869 births applies to Mahatma Gandhi, but not to Swami Anand, so the category should go on the article for Gandhi rather than the category for Gandhi. That's the rationale. I don't entirely agree with the approach in every way, but that's the usual reasoning that has been given, and it seems to be the accepted approach now, at least for biographical articles/categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Well... having the article of Anand under Category:Mahatma Gandhi is itself wrong. He is included in Category:Gandhians and thats all thats needed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
It's just an example. The same principle applies to India 10 Rupees Mahatma Gandhi postage stamp or Gandhi's Three Monkeys or anything else in the category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


<Looks around>

Haven't been here in awhile. Wonder if anyone's home... - jc37 04:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Take what you came for, just don't hurt me! Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
If you saw my day (it's there dispersed in my edit history, I spose), you'd know how much funnier that was or least the amount of irony I felt reading that. (You comments, with the weight of today, read as: "Looks like I'm next... take &tc..")
Remind me again why I keep coming back to editing and not staying in reading mode? - jc37 04:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I was aware of your latest forays, at least peripherally. More than you bargained for, I would bet. That's why I have mostly closed the low-hanging fruit as of late. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, the closes are what they are. It's not so much that.
I tried to comment, follow some simple guidelines, help out others, and so on and was like "what the- ?!". It's been one surprise after another today (though I guess by Wiki-time, "today" started the 22nd). - jc37 04:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Once I had a bout of editing like that. I swear, everything I touched that day somehow became controversial. I had about a dozen new sections on my talk page all going at the same time. I hated that day. Luckily, now people just shut up and respect me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Was that day yesterday? or today? (smile) - jc37 04:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Respect you? (looks around for a really bad Rodney Dangerfield impersonation...) - jc37 04:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Here you go. Found completely by mistake. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I enjoy that one : )
Saw a version of it on tv before reading the book, and just enjoyed the cadence (repetitive sound) of the title. Still do : ) - jc37 05:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
By the way, after I wrote this, I thought about a few of the discussions you and I have had in the past. What are your thoughts? - jc37 05:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I would say, yeah—it's definitely on the rise. Like you say, at times it can be too intuitive to resist. I've been guilty of it myself once in awhile for exactly the reasons you mention, though I like to think that in those cases there wasn't a major conflict with guidelines/policy that resulted. Dollars to donuts, though, if you close a discussion in a way that goes against the straight-up vote count, you will get guff for it (or at minimum--an "inquiry") on your talk page, even if it is not ultimately reversed at review. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Nod, I've closed my share of those I suppose. I think the Star Wars one was the most recent. And it looks like it was re-created again anyway. lol People want what they want I guess. I keep meaning to write an IWANTIT/IDONTWANTIT page. I should do that sometime... - jc37 05:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Moving pages

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more issues. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: thanks for the input. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

When you move pages, please take care to also move the talk page archives to the same new location, or they may be lost and difficult to find in the future.

Also, it'd be nice as a courtesy to discuss, first, on the talk pages of the relevant article discussion pages, before moving.

For example, this was done as a courtesy by Czar, at Talk:Cutting_the_Mustard_(book)#Subtitle.

Thank you,

Cirt (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

What page in particular are you referring to? I typically do move talk page subpages, but may have made a mistake with one. (Interestingly, I note that Czar's move suggestion, which was implemented, appears to go against the current wording of WP:SUBTITLE, which he cited in support of the move, and the lead section of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books). That's one of the troubles with user discussions: they don't seem to read the guidelines they cite.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
You moved Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy, without moving its talk page archives. I strongly suggest, please, that you stop moving pages unilaterally, especially pages that are actively maintained and are quality pages like WP:GA, without at least trying to have polite discussion on the article talk pages about it. Thank you for your consideration, — Cirt (talk) 06:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
(I apologize for the error on that one; thanks for taking care of it.) The naming guidelines are meant to obviate the need to have formal discussions for every instance that presents a particular issue. If you have concerns about a particular move, I don't have a problem with you raising it, or in you asking me to reverse it in favour of a formal RM. But no, in general I won't stop implementing an existing guideline when I see an issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
No one is asking you to stop. Just to start having discussions on talk pages about established pages that have been the subject of quality improvement projects, for example WP:GA. I don't think that's a lot to ask out of your day. — Cirt (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I think I have a pretty good sense of when discussion is appropriate and when neglected guidelines can/should simply be implemented. And I think I've made the right judgments in these cases. If you disagree, simply move the article back (or ask me to), and the formal discussion can go from there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I've left notices on several talk pages asking not to have them moved to a page without the subtitle. Please check, first, to see if there's been discussion or such a request on the article talk pages, before moving such pages. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I do check such things. But ... why would one user's request to disregard a guideline be a good reason to do so? Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
No one asked to disregard a guideline. I explained on such talk pages why the pages should not be moved. Per Wikipedia:Requested moves, unilateral page moves are inappropriate without discussion, for page moves that could be controversial. Page moves that already might have disagreement could therefore be controversial. Please respect that. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 06:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
It looks to me like you're adding the note on cases where the unsubtitled title would be ambiguous. That's a case where the guideline would say use the subtitle for disambiguation purposes, so your note doesn't conflict with the guidelines, and therefore I'm not going to be moving articles in that class. So I don't think you have anything to worry about. If you have any specific instances you'd like to discuss or have me revert—as I said, happy to. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Good. Please check talk pages in the future for such notifications. I again urge you to notify editors and have talk page discussion, before taking unilateral action to move pages. I respectfully request that you at least take some time to consider giving a courtesy talk page notification before taking unilateral action. I don't think anything evil will come out of talk page notification as a courtesy. The world won't stop spinning on its axis if a simple talk page notification is given as a courtesy. :) Preemptive talk page discussion and notification is a good thing. It may help prevent disagreement and conflict in the future, and even encourage positive discussion among editors -- and encourage future collaboration instead of risking discouraging it. Thank you! — Cirt (talk) 07:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
We all have only so much time in the day for editing. I appreciate your desire for discussion on issues like this, which I regard as "clean-up", but I believe that there's a purpose in guidelines obviating the need for these repeated kinds of discussions, so I won't be making such notificaitons. If users want to discuss a particular case, they can always notify me, and I'd be happy to oblige. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I thank you again for stating you will at least do so for pages that already have notices about this potential disturbing unilateral behavior, on their article talk pages. I again urge you to reconsider and give talk page notifications in all cases. But I cannot force you to do so, of course, so I hope you will take some time to think about it -- before going on and continuing your unilateral behavior pattern. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Cirt, if you're going to use loaded language like "distrurbing unilateral behavior" you'd better be ready to present some evidence about what exactly is disturbing about the moves that have been done. What particular instances are you concerned about? If you can't identify anything, then you just need to get over yourself and accept that others may have different editing styles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Moving pages, over existing redirects, is potentially controversial. Controversial page moves should not be made unilaterally, per WP:Requested moves. — Cirt (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, you're wrong that every such page move is "potentially contoversial". Moves that implement naming guidelines rarely are. I see you haven't produced any particular problems with the "unilateral" moves I've already performed, so I guess this is where I tell you to "put up or shut up", as it's said. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please move this page back to full subtitle

Please move this page back, per request at Talk:See No Evil (book).

Thank you,

Cirt (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

On 15 April, I moved See No Evil (book) to the subtitled form because doing so was an implementation of the guideline. Since that time, the use of the guideline to move articles from the disambiguated "(book)" to the subtitled version has been drawn into question. Because of users questioning this, I reverted the move, restoring the status quo ante. I'm withdrawing from any participation in that particular article or any others moved under the previous incarnation of the guideline. I will restore the status quo ante when asked, but I'm not changing the disambiguation in this way now. 08:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your polite response, it's most appreciated!
How should I proceed to get the page moved back to the full subtitled version? — Cirt (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
However you like—I generally don't tell editors how to edit, but there are options which you probably know about already. Options: (1) move it yourself; (2) if you can't do (1), convince another admin to move it; (3) start a formal move discussion; (4) list it at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_technical_moves if you think that section applies. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good. Thanks again for this recent polite response, it's most appreciated! — Cirt (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi GOF, I'm curious what you meant by calling me out above. What part of the subtitles guideline did I not read? If it was the first part about the disambiguation, it was my understanding that Orlando: A Biography would not be useful as the disambiguated Orlando (novel) and as such, kept its relatively short subtitle as that disambiguation. I don't think "Cutting the Mustard (book)" has the same situation as "Orlando (novel)", and I don't think the solution would be to keep the long non-common name, Cutting the Mustard: Affirmative Action and the Nature of Excellence, instead of the shorter name (as it's known) with the parenthetical disambiguation. But I'd be curious to see your logic and why you'd be so quick to peg me. czar  12:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello—I didn't mean to peg you and wasn't intending to call you out for doing anything inappropriate. If I had intended that, I think I would have notified you. I was rather making more of a rhetorical point regarding how users refer to guidelines, which was this—The particular guideline has been modified recently as a result of a discussion. This happened after you suggested the change to the Cut the Mustard book article. I think that the change you suggested/implemented is entirely appropriate for the way the guideline currently reads. However, the guideline has changed, and as it read when your proposal was made, the guideline when read as a whole suggested that subtitles should be used for disambiguation before any parenthetical is used. My point was that you appeared to base your suggested change on what you thought should be the correct disambiguation; it appeared to me that you didn't base it on the actual text of what the guideline stated. Because the guideline has now been changed (so that it is in fact now much closer to the sort of thing you thought should be correct in this case), I think the issue is moot, because your position has essentially been retroactively validated. If you felt attacked by my example—apologies. That wasn't what I meant to do and only referenced it because it was handy because the other user has raised the situation as an example on another issue. In retrospect, you shouldn't have been brought into the discussion at all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Prime Ministers of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic

Category:Prime Ministers of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Tomcat (7) 13:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For their tireless contributions to the articles they nudge, tidy, expand, copyedit and otherwise generally improve on Wikipedia, I award Good Olfactory this barnstar. Congratulations, Good Olfactory! — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Kolob#Overuse/misuse of the term "Mormon."

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Kolob#Overuse/misuse of the term "Mormon.". (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Bill Wilson (judge)

Hey there,

I was just hoping to have a chat about the content you re-added in the Wilson article. I don't really think the fact that he rejected a previous offer is notable for the article. What substantive information do you think it imparts to the reader? When I first removed it, I thought the context gave the innuendo that he had rejected an offer of a larger sum of money. Now though, I feel it sits awkwardly and without purpose, given the lack of more important details that aren't included for the sake of brevity. (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC) > Now that I think about it though, I shouldn't have removed it without consulting you, given that the innuendo is no longer present. Sorry about that! Just a little concerned about the status of the coverage, Mr Wilson has received significant undeserved criticism over the whole saga. (talk) 04:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

"Mr Wilson", eh? Lol. Anyway, it's a cited statement to a reliable source and its neutrally worded, so I don't see why it shouldn't be included. Surely if it is reported that a judge offered to resign but the government rejected the initial offer, it is a relevant detail to include in the article. I've opened a thread on the article talk page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality

Hey, Good Olfactory,
Some edits were made to this policy that, while minor, could influence how CfDs are decided in the future so I reverted them. I was hoping you could look over the changes and weigh in on their appropriateness or neutrality. Since the majority of decisions at CfD are decided based on policy, changing the wording of such a controversial policy as WP:EGRS can change the outcome of deletion discussions that touch on ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 20:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

After NZ "Region" articles - then "District" articles?

Hi Good Olfactory. After the NZ "Region" articles have been renamed, are you planning to propose similar rename/moves for the "District" articles, and/or the "Province" and "County" articles? Nurg (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't even thought that far ahead, so no—I can't say that I was planning on it. It's been hard enough to get any sort of consensus on these region ones. But it probably is a logical next step if things progress well. I'm not speaking for them in advance or anything like that, so if you want to pursue them, you're welcome to. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Your work on the references I added.

I appreciate you trying to clean up the references I added to the articles for members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy. However, you're doing something that troubles me a little, so I thought I'd drop you a note and discuss it. You change all the Deseret News references to Church News references, and you change all Church News archive references to Church News references. My problem with this is that the Church News doesn't exist anymore. As I explained on its Wikipedia article, the website has moved to Deseret All the links for this year's assignments were obtained from the Deseret News website, so that's where they should be listed from. The archives of the Church News are going to be on the archives site until they get them moved over to, so those links should be listed as Church News Archives, just as I had them. I am going to revert your edits but wanted to explain this to you first. Please do not change these reference sources again without discussing it first. That discussion should take place on the Church News talk page. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The Church News does still exist in paper form. The only thing that is changing is where the articles reside on the Internet. They are just migrating stuff that appeared in Church News to the Deseret News's main website. The print situation is unchanged, so we should be providing references that work for print sources as well as the link to the Internet source. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Part of sourcing is credibility. If something comes from a certain internet site, it ought to be attributed to that site. It is made clear in the Church News article that it is only a website change, not a newspaper change. When taking a link from online, we should attribute it to the correct source, in this case, the Deseret News. I notice also you failed to comment on the Church News Archive links which you also changed. If something came from the Church News Archive, it should be listed as coming from the Archive, rather than the regular news. If we cannot come to an agreement on this, we will have to ask for further input on the talk page of the Church News article since that is where the change is taking place. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The "Archive site" is just that—an archive site. It doesn't change the fact that the item was printed in the Church News on a specific date. Adding "Archive" to the site is redundant and unnecessary. It is not done for other newspaper sources that are linked to archive websites. I have some experience with the way WP references work. And as I stated above, we should be citing to the print copy it appeared in, with an Internet link added, if available. These items are printed in the Church News, which is distributed worldwide without the Deseret News. It's really only in Utah that it's a section of a larger paper. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I see your point. With that in mind, I have no objection to the references as they now stand. I did have a favor to ask of you, though. I have created a subpage to hold the changes in Area Leadership that will be effective August 1, 2014. That page could use some attention too in light of the insight you just shared. You can find the page here and I would appreciate it if you would change all the links on that page like you did for the main List of general authorities page. Also, if you happen to know of any other general authority assignments that are current that we don't have on there, if you could put them on there as well, that would be great! Thanks for your help, thanks for the insight, and sorry if I was being disagreeable. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I can have a look. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Similar changes made here. For the most part, it's usually just a matter of changing "" to "", and then the link works again. For the church magazine links, it's unfortunately more complicated to fix old ones. I've been spending a fair amount of time fixing broken links to church magazine articles. There are still several hundred to go on Wikipedia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

don't know where to take this problem; strangenesssss....

I wind up at Talk:City_Of after clicking on the "talk" tab at the top of a diff. This happened a few times last night, also in regard to the same discussion page, and also for clicking on the "article" tab to the left of the "talk" tab I get the City_Of article from the same discussion; I think last night it also happened from diffs within the guideline's article page itself. I haven't noticed this happen re any other page; not so far anyway. @Fayenatic london: is this is of the same category of strangeness as edits that show up as my doing, when I was nowhere near the parts of the pages in question. Sounds like a job for a code warrior, whoever that might be; figured you guys would know.Skookum1 (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Huh, that is weird. I don't know enough about code to guess why that's happening. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
what department should this be "kicked upstairs" to? Given what's going on at that guideline ( see here for starters concerning the filibuster against needed changes that's ongoing, if you follow comments there by JHunterJ, Uysvdi, Cuchullain, CBW and myself), that it doesn't seem to be happening anywhere else is also "strange" but probably coincidental.Skookum1 (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure; I've never really gotten in to the "technical" side of things. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
well, I pinged Fayenatic as you can see, maybe he will know. Very odd.Skookum1 (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Moving categories

There is a discussion about having the option to move categories (like articles are moved) happening at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive262#Category pages will be movable soon. I think since you have closed many CFDs, I think your opinion would be valuable to hear. Liz Read! Talk! 19:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Kevin S. Hamilton nominated for deletion.

I am posting here to inform you, if you don't already know, that the article I started on Kevin S. Hamilton has been nominated for deletion. I have made my case for keeping the article on the relevant page, but was criticized for my comments. So while I will keep an eye on the way this develops, I don't intend to say more than I've already said. I wondered if you might be able to look over that AfD discussion and add your thoughts. If this page is deleted, I will have to question the notability of other articles written about current or former members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy. Anyways, just wanted to alert you to what was going on with that so you could comment if you choose. Perhaps you see this situation differently from me and have a better understanding of the policies and procedures involved. If you have any feedback on this comment, please leave it on my talk page, as I don't habitually check other users' talk pages for replies. On another note, I'm sorry if I've been difficult or unduly unreasonable in my interactions with you the last little while. I'm working through many personal issues that have me stressed out, so when your comments appeared to be criticism of work I had done wor am doing, I got a little defensive. Sorry about that. Just going through a rough patch. Thanks for any help you may be able to give. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about that discussion, I wasn't aware of it. I hope you're feeling better soon or that you get through your difficulties OK. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Films shot in...

Just wanted to take a moment to thank you for closing the CFD! Greatly appreciated! DonIago (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Pronounciation of Ether

You seem to know a lot about LDS, so I thought I would ask you, how do you pronounce "Ether"? Is it eth-er, or ee-ther? Thanks.Editor2020

I think most people pronounce it ee-ther, just like the chemical type, with the emphasis on the first syllable. There is a Book of Mormon pronunciation guide that the LDS Church publishes, which says it is ē´ther. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Mormon Folklore

A possible edit war is going on at Mormon folklore. It needs an intervention. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

edit you made

An edit you made got me thinking that you had a really good point that should apply to all WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement pages. I would apprecate your thoughts on it if your not busy. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement#A different "parenthetical" question.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks—I made a couple of comments. And after some looking around the MOS, it looks like your idea is right on the money. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Not all texts are books

Dear Good Olfactory, I saw your revert, and you're right that not all texts are books. However, I find it even more strange to categorize (ancient) Christian texts via Christian media under Christian popular culture.

On the talk page I suggested, as an alternative, moving the 'Christian texts' category up, to become a direct subcategory of Christianity. Is that okay with you? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Aren't texts a form of media? Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
They're not Media in the current way of categorization, since Media has been defined as a subcategory of Popular culture. (Ancient) texts are definitely not a grandchild of Popular culture. Kind regards, Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, then. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Bantu vs Category:Bantu people

It seems that some people are determined to keep the waters muddied as to the norms usually used for ethno categories, or just completely unaware of the norms across ethno categories globally.... please see Talk:Northern_Ndebele_people#Bantu_category_edit_war. I weary of such obstinacy in face of the obvious; in some areas the category trees are jumbled this way; Europe is especially knotty, seems Africa is as well. I haven't looked at the provenance of the subcats of Category:Bantu people, which are in the "FOO people" format but are functioning as main ethno cats; I suspect they were either CFDSd after undiscussed moves to add the people disambiguation, or were just never organized or titled properly; I'm sure you're well aware of titles in the Category:Indigenous peoples of North America and Category:Indigenous peoples of Australia hierarchies....why should Africa be different?Skookum1 (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

By now you've seen the CfD, which IMO is a waste of time; all that was needed was to make Category:Bantu peoples and deprecate/depopulate Category:Bantu people since it apparently shouldn't exist at all. The various "FOO people"-titled subcats of it which belong in Category:Bantu peoples instead are the usual problematic of titles categoried like that; nearly all could use a "FOO" parent, I'd have made them by now if not for.....edit warring by my usual opponent who believes in "all things FOO people" and continues to reassert dab pages, including using misleading dabs e.g. see where Kavango language goes (to "not a dab")..Skookum1 (talk) 06:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Mormon Church of Tonga


A tag has been placed on Mormon Church of Tonga, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo, or other unlikely search term.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

That's fine—the only reason the redirect existed was because it's the original name that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Tonga used. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

I need some help. User:Beyond My Ken has just reverted 30 insistence where pages have incorrectly used the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when "THE" is per MOS:LDS, "The" is part of the Name and capitalized. I could uses some help convincing him he is wrong.ARTEST4ECHO (talk)

The discussion is now here--ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
That is little more than a project style guide, unless I am mistaken and therefore is not obligatory. Although the dispute seems a tad...simple. We should do whatever the consensus of editors is.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Why are comments being made here when a discussion is open? I think the comments would be valuable there; here, not so much. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Mormonism and violence

To answer your question "has anyone editing actually read Alma 51" I have not. I only reverted what was clearly original research. The section really needs some further context and inline citations however.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thumbs up. I agree. I wasn't actually thinking of you when I made that comment, since the "executions" text existed before your edits. I agreed with your edits and what you did there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Terence M. Vinson and Gregory A. Schwitzer nominated for deletion.

Hey, I thought you'd like to know that the articles about Terence M. Vinson and Gregory A. Schwitzer have been nominated for deletion. I have made my case for keeping them and will leave it to the consensus to decide. If you'd care to comment, I'm sure your perspective, whatever it might be, would be welcome. Thanks for all your great work on Wikipedia! --Jgstokes (talk) 05:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Zahara (South African musician)

Why did you remove Category:Zahara (South African musician) from its parent article? You didn't leave an explanation in the edit summary. Versace1608 (Talk) 00:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The category was deleted at CFD. I thought it was self-explanatory since the category that was removed is now red-linked. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification! Versace1608 (Talk) 00:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I will try to remember to link to the discussion that deleted it when removing them in the future. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Closing CFDs

Hi, when closing a CFD, please make sure that you put the {{subst:cfd bottom}} on a new line, otherwise the four hyphens are displayed verbatim (see this edit), and are not shown as the intended horizontal rule. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

OK; thanks for letting me know that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Protection for Eric Cantor

Hi Good Ol - I see you're on - could you add temporary semi protection on Eric Cantor - his primary defeat being a big news story, we're being inundated with IPs, many making crap edits, and it's impossible to keep up. Probably only need for a day or two, but it would be a big help. There's such a backlog at WP:RFPP that I thought it made sense to go to an admin directly, lucky you. Thanks - if you can. Tvoz/talk 01:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I had a look—it looks like a good idea to me. I put a 7-day protection on it, autoconfirmed users only. Let me know if it needs adjusting or reinstated after the week. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks so much! Will do. Tvoz/talk 01:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Of the twenty-two unregistered edits to the article in the past month, only three of them were clearly disruptive. Is that really enough to warrant protection? Evan (talk|contribs) 01:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Another editor requested this, so I suppose some have a different interpretation of what is disruptive. I note that the three "in the past month" all occurred in the past few hours and are obviously related to Cantor's election defeat, so it's a little bit deceptive to say there were only three in a month. We could just as accurately say there have been three in the past three hours. Anyway, it's only for a week and it only restricts non-autoconfirmed users, so I don't think it's a big deal. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. Evan (talk|contribs) 03:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria politicians

Category:Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria politicians, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


Hi! Following your closure of this CFD, you appear to have missed off Category:Igbo volleyball players. Any chance you could delete this? Thanks SFB 18:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for catching this. I'm not sure how I missed that one, I will delete it now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

ICJ case names

Since you've shown an interest, can I ask for your opinion with the public international law case names? You see there are pretty much three options, and the 35 odd case pages for the ICJ don't have an consistency: it's

  • follow the report exactly, eg Case concerning maritime delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v Ukraine) [2009] ICJ 3 --- the trouble is these names tend to be long, and they are repetitive, but accurate following the reports;
  • take the first part, which contains the subject name, eg Case concerning maritime delimitation in the Black Sea - the trouble here is that they are still long, but not accurate;
  • take the second part, Romania v Ukraine, which has the virtue of being short and neat, although there can be duplicates (though surprisingly few, given 200 countries, but only 160 ICJ judgments).

My preference, as you saw, was the country names, but whatever we go for there has to be some consistency. Wikidea 16:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the principles of WP:COMMONNAME should govern the individual cases. This may or may not lead to consistency across articles. But if they are going to be changed at all, I think we need WP:RM discussions on them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmmmm, I suppose that must mean following the reports - most textbooks would usually do the same. Thanks for your input. Wikidea 09:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I think in a lot of cases the common name will be the first part only, without the countries in parentheses. In some cases, the countries in parentheses may need to be added as disambiguation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Presidents of the United Nations Security Council

Category:Presidents of the United Nations Security Council, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


It wasnt specifically you as such, more the generic nature of how I perceive the process, and I must say your persistence over the years in maintaining the rage/discipline is commendable and impressive. I like to dive in and make my unhelpful point that the notification part of the categories area still imho leaves a lot to be desired. I have commented there, and apologise here as well if needed. I am but a pinprick within the process when it comes to providing the elements of the arguments, and could not possibly even stand let alone crawl in the boots of the ... but such allusions are more deserving offline. Trust the ice has started showing up down your way, oz apparently has snow. satusuro 00:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

That's OK ... I appreciate your words. I can understand the possibilities of being frustrated with the process or system—I think we've all been there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change to Consensus for a unified approach to bias categories at Category:Antisemitism

Due to your involvement in the 2011 CFD that decided on a unified approach to bias categories, you may be interested in a current proposal to change that approach with regard to the Category:Antisemitism. Dlv999 (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


I've noticed that we have a number of 'wives' categories, but not 'husbands'. Should we create them, so as to balance? Or merge into "spouses"?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Who did you have in mind? Are there many people who have had enough husbands to justify having a list article about the husbands? Polygyny has been common throughout history; polyandry is has been much more rare. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. It's a good point. It's just a bit weird to only have a wives category. There must be an example no? It doesn't have to be polyandry, it could for example be a ruler who had multiple husbands in serial fashion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I've thought about it—I can't really think of anyone except the old classic of Elizabeth Tayor, but she only had seven serially, I think. There might be someone, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Mary Stuart and Catherine Parr are two examples I've found, they each had 4 or so husbands.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Category Paul's helpers and converts

Dear Good Olfactory, I noticed your decision in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_25#Category:Paul.27s_helpers_and_converts. I started my activity here in this category business merely as a reader who was utterly amazed to find so many related articles in one category. This way it is impossible for me to decide which articles could be the most related to the article that I was reading originally. Meanwhile I got to understand that many more categories contain a huge amount of articles, but I'm still amazed. It seems like categorization is being done for the sake itself rather than for the sake of helping readers towards related articles. You know, at my work the perceived "ideal" number of articles in a category is as low as five...

Having said that, here's my question, would there be any formal objection in subcategorizing New Testament people in:

  1. People in the Gospels
  2. People in Acts of the Apostles
  3. People in the Epistles

I wouldn't expect so, but this time I'd better check before putting any effort in it. Thanks for your answer, Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I just closed the discussion; I didn't really have an opinion on the categorization as such. For an opinion it might be better if you checked with those that opposed the creation of the other category and assess whether the same guidelines would support or discourage such categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Lynn G. Robbins

Hey there Good Olfactory.

I understand that you have a contention with my edit to the article on a member of the Presidency of the Seventy, Lynn G. Robbins. As an active member of the Church, I hope you can understand my necessary effort instilled into research and deciphering facts as they pertain to the biographical elements of general authorities. The evidence that Will is a) his son and b) openly gay is sufficient to cross the threshold of plausibility so much so that it may be contained in a Wikipedia article.

Please accept my gratitude for your participation in this great open source knowledge project, for "the glory of God is intelligence" (D&C 93:36). Tkfy7cf (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I've opened a thread on this at Talk:Lynn G. Robbins. In a nutshell, twitter, facebook, and personal profiles on do not constitute reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes. The standard is not plausibility, it's verifiability. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the initiative. Let's try to solve this question. Tkfy7cf (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your understanding. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Have you been able to locate anything reliable that would indicate that Will is Lynn's son? Tkfy7cf (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
No, I can't even find many sources about Lynn that aren't associated with the LDS Church (i.e., not, Ensign, Liahona, Church News, etc.). Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, I found this (a photo of Will, on the right, with President Hinckley and Lynn to the right of Pres. Hinckley. This photo can be accessed by clicking on Will's profile, clicking on his Facebook link on the profile, and then going to the photos section. There is also a photo of Elder Scott and Lynn, along with Will Do you think we've made some headway? Tkfy7cf (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


I had some sort of page at User:Oculi/observe but someone objected to it. Could you perhaps retrieve it? Oculi (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

As you were, I see there is User:An76/test which is no doubt a copy. This is quite nice. And Tridia does show up on Check 13. Oculi (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
As I was going through all the edits I had no doubt it was him. He was editing tons of pages that no one else had edited but EstherLois. All reverted now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
My test page flags up this. I would say it's not PW but I might have missed something. Oculi (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I would agree with you—probably not. Have you seen the goings on at User talk:TridiaChaplain? Looks like PW is starting some efforts to come clean and get unblocked. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Help needed for an uncontroversial move

Hi Good Olfactory! Could you help me move Zhang Yi (Warring States Period) to Zhang Yi (Warring States period), please? The main article is Warring States period, so the same format should apply to the disambiguation. I tried to move it myself, but the move failed. Keep up the good work! Madalibi (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure, done! Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Giovanni di Cosimo de' Medici

You reverted Tridi's addition of a category. I can't imagine why. It seemed appropriate. Is there a reason for the reversion? Amandajm (talk) 05:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The user was a sockpuppet being used to evade a block and thus all of the edits made by the user were mass reverted. If there are appropriate edits that was made, they can be restored by any user. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Edits by User:TridiaChaplain

I see the principle on which have these have been deleted, but they were actually useful edits and also v numerous - is there a chance of restoring them? cutting off the nose to spite the face otherwise. Jsmith1000 (talk) 09:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Some users may see some of the edits as useful and productive, but I can also see the a possible argument that much of the edits were not. To completely avoid making such judgments (by me), everything was reverted. This doesn't prevent any user from re-instating the edits that they thought were good ones or re-creating the categories that are thought to be good by someone. With this particular user, it's a long term issue and we really are at the stage where the consensus has been that it's best to revert all contributions that are made by his sockpuppets. It's not a matter of spite against the user, it's just because so many of his category creations have been deemed to be problematic in the past, it has been thought best to just wipe the slate clean and start over whenever one of his sockpuppets pops up. (This is such a long-standing problem now that it may be worthwhile to re-raise it for a general discussion just to make sure we have continuing consensus for what we're doing.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
OK - thanks for a helpful reply.Jsmith1000 (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c d e f Hartley 1996, p. 83
  2. ^ Hartley 1996, p. 89