User talk:Good Olfactory/Archive 18

Guatemala in the ICC?

Hello Good Olfactory, today you added Guatemala to the list of states parties to the ICC: [1]. Can I ask you what your source is for this? There does not seem to be any announcement on this on the ICC`s website. Regards, Paul K. (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Official ratification status in the UN Treaty Collection: [2]. See also here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. By now the announcement is on the ICC`s website as well. Paul K. (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikiquette help

Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) I think you've seen his belligerent posts. I warned him on his talk to stop being so incessantly rude, and I happened to notice these edits: here, here, and here and these are just from his last 30 edits. I was explicit that if I saw one more rude post from him, I would contact an admin, so... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been meaning for awhile now to do something about this, so thanks for reminding me. I'll start with a post on his talk page and we'll go from there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Once again

You make a sloppyish new article of mine a little bit better. Thmazing (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

KW

I think it's a nice gesture, and I understand you're trying to extend an olive branch, but copying and pasting all of KW's comments into various CfD's and other forums is essentially allowing him an end run around his block. One purpose of the block is to demonstrate to KW that he will no longer have the ability to influence CfD's and other discussions if he cannot remain civil. Copying defensive statements into ANI is one thing, but I don't think it's necessary/appropriate to copy his statements into content discussions that are unrelated to his block, particularly since his behavior has appeared to worsen since the block (i.e. I've lost count of how many times he's called you an idiot and a dimwit on his talk page, all while you're helping him). I think what KW needs right now is a full week away from WP to think about his role here, without anyone responding to his rants. Just an observation. —SW— ^babble 13:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

While I'm not sure if I disagree, what GO is doing is commonly done for blocked editors, due to the time limits imposed on XFD discussions.

I think that what GO is doing is admirable. (Leading by example.) However, the example seems to unfortunately falling on deaf ears, s it were (as you note).

Which is sad, because if KW continues to exhibit that he doesn't understand how uncivil and disruptive he is being, it's not difficult to foresee a ban around the corner. - jc37 18:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

So much for my attempt to try to give him an opportunity to positively express himself. (here.) He merely removed it all. C'est la vie, I suppose. - jc37 19:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you; I've taken in and thought about what both of you have written. I did the copying of the comments because I thought it was a bit unfair for Koavf to nominate two categories created by KW as soon as KW was blocked. That said, my level of sympathy for KW has decreased quite a bit given the way he has responded to some of my attempts to be nice to him. I think Scotty is right that it would probably be best if he was just ignored on his talk page during this week. I'm not terribly optimistic about the future for KW on WP; I see zero humility and no desire to change anything. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Gondola lifts subcategory proposal

Hello, you recently participated in a CFD relating to Gondola lifts in Hong Kong. The close rationale at that discussion suggested there may be consensus to merge each country subcategory into Category:Gondola lifts, however that outcome was outside the scope of that CFD and would require a new discussion. As such, WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 7#Subcategories of Category:Gondola lifts by country has been created. Since you participated in the previous CFD, you're invited to leave your comments at the new CFD. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Help moving categories

Hello, would you be able to help me move Category:Ghanaian MPs 2009– to Category:Ghanaian MPs 2009–2012 ? I am not sure whether to just create a new category outright and edit all files to change their categories or whether it could be done with a move. I notice you did a move using Template:Ghanaian MPs by Parliament header which affects these categories some time ago. Thanks--Natsubee (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Did the Parliament end this year? Has a new one begun? I don't know if we have to add the end date until a new one begins. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

cfd nom

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_5#Roman_Catholic_Religious_Sisters

I have an alternate proposal (similar to something someone else proposed), if you'd like to check it out there. - jc37 18:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

Hi. When you recently edited List of most recent executions by jurisdiction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dmitri Konovalov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Help changing title of "Park-han yong"

Hi, thank you for reading my text "Park-han yong". However, I think there is some misapprehension. Park Han Yong is Korean name. Park is family name, and Han Yong is first name. Therefore, "Park, Han-yong" is right. The reason why family name "Park" comes first with comma is that Koreans write their family name first like "Kim, Yunna". Please modify "Park-han yong" to "Park Han-yong". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.246.187.134 (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Intiutively I knew what you said was right; when I made the change last night it was late and I was quite tired—obviously not thinking straight. I've made the change; thank you. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

talkback - Yahoo!

Hello, Good Olfactory. You have new messages at Ottawahitech's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Category_names#Supranational_.2F_historical_country_categories

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Category_names#Supranational_.2F_historical_country_categories. KarlB (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Corrective rape

Hi,

A while back you made some comments on the corrective rape talk page, and since then the page appears to have gotten worse. About 5-6 accounts with nary a thousand edits between them appear to have expanded the page, using a fair degree of original research to do so. I'm planning, over the next couple days, to review the sources, trim out the OR and generally do what I can to fix the page. Any assistance would be appreciated, but I'm also thinking, based on comments like this, that there may be pushback on the talk page. Assistance there would be even more appreciated. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Colony of New Zealand

Thanks for this useful addition. Good work! Schwede66 06:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

More for you

Check out Template:History of Burma and Template:History of Burma. There are still a lot of articles that you need to rename to un-capitalized the word "dynasty". ༆ (talk) 06:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

move request

Hello Good Ol'.

I'd just like to notify you of a move request I posted for discussion at WP:RM (here). You have previously moved the article in the opposite direction, but the RM posting is a good faith one just to see what the consensus is. Your input is welcome.

Cheers.

HandsomeFella (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Categorisation of Slovene people

Hello, Good Olfactory! Per what reasoning - hereby I mean reasoning written in the Wikipedia policies and guidelines - have you replaced the category Slovene painters with Slovenian painters in the article about Franz Caucig. It's clear from the article that his nationality was Gorizian and not Slovenian; whereas his ethnicity was Slovene. There's no need to use conflicting categorisation in articles. Similar applies to other articles about the Slovenes, the nationality of which was not Slovenian, but Carniolan, Gorizian, Italian etc. If you wish to discuss this, I'm always willing to talk to you, but please don't try to impose a categorisation disregarding the sources. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

In addition, the deletion of categories that have not been empty for at least four days is not warranted per WP:CSD#Categories. Please, use your admin tools in a regular manner and delete categories in accordance with the rules or propose them for deletion, especially when there are disagreements. You as administrator should put even more emphasis on following the correct procedure. I'm completely willing to respect the consensus as soon as you prove there is such a consensus, but until then, the categories should remain because they are in accordance with WP:CAT: defining, verifiable and non-controversial. Per Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, general categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexuality is permitted, as long as these characteristics are relevant to the topic. And they evidently are, like for example in the mentioned article, where the relevance is mentioned in the lead. Please, also consider that for example "Similarly, an "(ethnicity) politicians" category should [only] be created if politicians of that ethnic background constitute a distinct and identifiable group with a specific cultural and political context." The same applies to other categories by occupation and ethnicity, like 'Slovene painters' and 'Slovene drawers' used in the article mentioned above. -Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It's apparent there is some duplication going on here. In examples such as Category:Slovenian civilians killed in World War II, "Slovenian" is obviously acting as the equivalent meaning of "Slovene", as it often does. So you can't just empty out Category:Slovenian civilians killed in World War II and move all the articles to Category:Slovene civilians killed in World War II. If you think the name should be changed, then it should be nominated for renaming, not done unilaterally. As for the occupational groups, generally the nationality categories are broken down by occupation, but not the ethnic groups. There may be exceptions, but duplication of the entire scheme starts to look like overkill. To me, it looks like a ton of overcategorization, and I got that sense from the comments at WP:CFDS as well, so nominations will follow, I imagine. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This can help get the ball rolling on the issue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Query in regards to your revision of Ramesses II

I kindly request your justification to your undoing of my requested corrections to the page Ramesses II, which were done by User:A._Parrot on 02:29, 1 February 2012‎ (see revision history on said date for Ramesses II).

Your changes, made on 04:12, 15 February 2012‎, asserted by you as only meant to "reverse name spelling of article", have also reversed the deletion of 4 chronologically and geographically incorrect referrals to Canaan as Palestine, presumably inadvertently. For details on the specific corrections that were undone by you, please see Talk:Ramesses_II#Correction_details:.

If these deletions and corrections were indeed reversed by you unintentionally, I ask of you to please redo them.

Sincerely and truely appreciative of your efforts to perfect the data on that page. Fastidipedia (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It was just an oversight. I've changed them back to how they were after A. Parrot's edits: [3]. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick restoration, but you neglected to delete the words "and Palestine" at the end of the first sentence in section First Syrian campaign.

Once again, thank you for your contributions and assistance.

Fastidipedia (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think that's got it now. Are you not able to make these edits because the page is semi-protected? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Image deletion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mindcraft.png I got an email from the old president. The company is gone and its software is abandonware. Do I just cut and paste one of the license I think most matches my situation? Do I need to cut and paste the email?Pizzamancer (talk) 08:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but whatever you do with that should be done at wikimedia commons, not on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia page is just a mirror page of the Wikimedia page and shouldn't be created. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Assignment dates

As always, thanks for all the excellent work you do within Wikipedia. Depending on how things I attempt generally work out, this may not feel like a good thing, but I have tried to pattern much of the contributions I make after what I have seen you do.  :) I understand your point on how to deal with current assignments of general authorities. I have made some attempts today to update the text more consistent with a starting date of current assigments, where known. While I fully recognize that any changes in seniority among the apostles is easier to maintain when changes occur, I actually had in mind those statements included with each of the 15 of them, which I attributed to your good work - meaning: "...... is currently the ??? most senior....." when I started trying to update. But as you noted, far too many still showed assignments from 2-3 years ago that had not had someone go back and update. Couple that with the fact that the general authorities are all now aware of what their new assignments will be when the annual changes occur in August.....does lend itself to a lot of updating! So, this is mostly just a thanks for all you do and appreciation for your wise counsel. Have a great day! ChristensenMJ (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I think dates are always ideal, especially with the members of the Seventy, since those articles seem to receive much less attention than the apostle ones. I think you are doing a great job with what you are doing and haven't meant my changes to be any criticism of your work. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. It is kind of you to note, but no concern about having your wise counsel be felt, or taken, as criticism. I didn't start with any plan or intention to go through "the list" - just kind of got started & snowballed. Sorry it took your time as it did to go back through, but thanks for doing it. Keep up the great work! ChristensenMJ (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Keep up the work! --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 19:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Kianp2002

Thanks for catching this guy on Kian. I've got to say that this is one of the most thoroughgoing spam attempts that I've ever seen, aside from creating a new article; how many spammers attempt to change around the categories and the babel links like that? Nyttend (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Curious

Hi Good Olfactory, how are you? I noticed that you have removed some categories from some Puerto Rican related articles. Knowing your good working ethics, I know that you must have some sound reason for doing so. I am a little curious though as to the reasons. Can you fill me in? Thanks Tony the Marine (talk) 03:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The ones I removed look like redundant overcategorization to me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for the response. Tony the Marine (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Yes (band) Yessongs album covers

No consensus or precedent You are correct that I'm familiar with album categorization here (I've made over 3,000 album categories) and there are no other instances of a category simply for the album art to a single release. Not also that it has the unnecessary "Yes (band)" disambiguation at the beginning purely for WP:POINT reasons--it's just belligerence. I'll nominate it for CfD now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Note In my nomination, I didn't mention KW's blocks and recent history of fighting with other editors, nor all of the other categories he has created that have been deleted. If you think any of that is germane, feel free to discuss it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I think those who frequent CFD will recognise the source of the category—we've had two or three similar categories very recently, so it will probably be seen in a similar light. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

executions cat delete

sorry i flubbed that one - thanks for catching it.--KarlB (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to revert that guy too

I see his edits on Mormonism to be very POV-inclined. -- Avanu (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

List of families

Dear sir, thank you very much for your kind help. I am most grateful.AsadUK200 (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200

Using a bot to move sub-categories without deleting the old one

Hi GOF, is it possible to feed a task to a bot, for it to move the furniture without destroying the building? I have in mind Category:Transport infrastructure by location, where everything apart from "by continent" should be moved into a new "by country". The "by location" could still be kept as a supercategory. Is it best simply to observe the normal process i.e. nominate it for a speedy CfD, and then unwind the deletion of "by location" and revert the move of "by continent"? – Fayenatic London (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand. If I am understanding correctly, you are wanting to create Category:Transport infrastructure by country, place the specific country subcategories in it, and then place Category:Transport infrastructure by country in Category:Transport infrastructure by location? But maybe I'm not understanding at all. If what I say above is accurate, I think you asking if it's possible to get a bot to place the specific country subcategories in a new category? I think it could be possible, but it would be messy. In the long run, it may be easier to just do it all manually. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes that is exactly what I want to do.

I know how to use the CfD/Working page, but I'm interested in the mechanics. Does CydeBot read that page, or does somebody else takes the requirements from there and program them into the bot? in the latter case I thought there might be scope to use it for heavy lifting.

I'll just take it to CfD. That's probably better in the interests of transparency anyway. – Fayenatic London (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Iba N'Diaye

Hi Good Olfactory, I noticed that you removed a cat I added to Iba N'Diaye [4]. In Senegambia (i.e. Senegal and the Gambia) the surname determines the tribe someone belongs. N'Diaye (variations : Njie, Ndiaye, etc) is a Serer surname just as Joof (variation : Diouf, Juuf, Juf) is Serer. See Joof family. You are right, the article did not mention he is Serer, but the article did not say much about his early life either, only focused on his painting side. Thanks. Best regards.Tamsier (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

On WP we don't categorize people by ethnicity when knowledge about their ethnicity is based solely on their name. That constitutes original research. We only categorize someone as a specific ethnicity if there are sources that say the person is of that particular ethnicity. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk: List of general officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Please see and respond to my comments at Talk: List of general officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for an explanation as to why your most recent revision was undone. Thanks for all your great work! --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_29#Works_about_race

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_29#Works_about_race. KarlB (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I award you this barnstar for your indefatigable work on Wikipedia. 400,000 quality edits is a milestone most will never reach. Thank you for your consistently good contributions. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, for a long time I've been extremely embarrassed that I started my Wikipedia career by edit warring with you. Please accept this as my humble apology. I've appreciated your guidance in the past, and I continue to learn new things by watching you. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar recognition—and regarding the edit warring, I confess that I didn't even remember that! Now that I look back on it, it was a minor issue, wasn't it? You have made many positive contributions since then! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The edit war was over a link in a See Also section. I think I reverted you about 4 times over the course of a week or two. I was pretty slow back then because I didn't know how to use a watchlist, so I don't think I ever got over 1RR, but it certainly wasn't model wiki-behavior. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Lingeer Ndoye Demba : Joos maternal dynasty

Hello Good Olfactory, Would you be so kind to tell me why you have removed Category: Joos maternal dynasty from Lingeer Ndoye Demba[5]? She was the founder of this maternal dynasty of Waalo which reigned for 600 years and counted several kings from this maternal dynasty. As her article clearly states, there were three maternal dynasties. All the kings of Waalo belonged to either of these with Joos being one of them. I would have thought that was encyclopedic and quite useful for categorization purposes especially when creating articles for the kings of Waalo, unless I am mistaken. Many of the Serer cats have also been removed and some are now pending deletion. Some of these I cannot locate anymore for improvement. If there are problems with the Serer cats, it would be immensely appreciate if one of the cat editors take a look at Category:Serer people (the general cat page), and remove any cats/sub cats that they deemed breaches English Wiki categorization policy. This will save me and other editors enough trouble from having cats deleted in the future. I will reserve creating or translating new articles from French to English Wikipedia for few days in order to give the cat editors/team some time, because I need to know where Serer related articles are stored for the purposes of improvement, etc. For the time being, I will work in French Wikipedia, and fix some problems in English Wiki, before I start or translate new articles to English. Thank you very much for your help. Best regards.Tamsier (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It was a small category with only two articles that could be added to it. For a family or dynasty category, we'd typically require more than that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Executed Greek women

Category:Executed Greek women, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. LeSnail (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Ancient Indian playwrights

Since both playwrights and dramatists means the same thing, wouldn't it be redundant to have "playwrights and dramatists" in the title? We can add a category redirect to the page "Category:Ancient Indian dramatists" to "Category:Ancient Indian playwrights" to avoid confusion. I think it looks better to have a short name. Though, I don't have any objections to the renaming if the new name is more suitable. Aravind V R (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"Dramatists and playwrights" is the terminology used throughout the category system. See Category:Dramatists and playwrights and its subcategories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Should all of them be modified, in that case? Is this naming a result of any valid discussion or just because the first one who made the category did this way and everyone followed the suite? Aravind V R (talk) 07:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Also, if there is any move required, please do it in such a manner that the credit remains with me. For example, I created Category:IMF_terminology which you moved to Category:International_Monetary_Fund_terminology. But in the process I lost the credit for this category as you can see here. There are a few more pages like this. If the page should be moved and I need to move it myself in order to retain its credit please let me know. Aravind V R (talk) 07:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know all of the subcategories are already in the form "dramatists and playwrights". I do not know the ultimate source of that naming convention. Categories are a bit funny in that they cannot be moved as other pages are moved. To rename them they must be deleted and re-created under the new name, so it is true that a renamed category you created will not show up in the toolserver.org list of categories that you created. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but if there are more demands to have a shorter term please initiate a discussion to rename all such categories. Aravind V R (talk) 04:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Whew! I don't want to nominate all the categories for renaming. I don't even know what the argument would be to justify shortening the name. I suppose there are some playwrights who are not dramatists; I'm not sure if there are dramatists who are not playwrights, but if there are, that would be the reason. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

New CfD

Since you participated in earlier CfDs about related categories, I want to make sure you know about Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 12#Category:Church buildings in the United States by state. --Orlady (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:George Constantinescu

Hi, could you please explain your edit here, where you stripped the categorization from a category? Is there now a policy that categories can't be categorized, except through the pseudo sub-namespace of Category:Wikipedia categories named after ... ?

This policy, if it exists, would be a very bad one. There is no reason at all why MediaWiki should be used in such a way. Categories, like mainspace pages, benefit from categorization. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a perpetually debated issue. The underlying point (as I understand it) is that since not everything in the category applies to the categories that would be applied to the article, it should be removed from those categories. That's the general practice, as far as I know, but I don't have a strong view about it either way. User:Oculi and User:Vegaswikian may be able to fill you in more as they have been more involved with the issue. I'm not sure what the official guidelines say about it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Vladimír Podzimek article

Hello,

I noticed that you placed the "Sportspeople Who Committed Suicide" Category on the Vladimír Podzimek article. I did a full Google search on Vladimír Podzimek and could find no collaborating material that supports his "suicide". In fact, I can find no verification (other than sites that copy Wikipedia) that he is even dead. Also, the 1st External Link in the article states that he is "retired". The person who added the "Suicide" to his article on March 24, 2011 is identified only as "78.128.205.166". Could this be a stupid prank? Thanks, - Michael David (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It could be. I don't have any inside information—I was just going by the article text in adding the category. Feel free to remove the category if it can't be substantiated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Open side conversation

I won't kick all that hard if the category rename is to horse bits. Montanabw^(talk) 22:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with either option. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Whips (horse)

Good Olfactory, since you are involved with the Category:Bits discussion I thought I would ask your opinion on another related matter. While adding some sub categories to Category:Horse tack I added the sub category Category:Whips (horse) into which I put three articles Crop (implement), Quirt, and Whip. User:Montanabw emptied the category without any discussion, leaving this comment ("No need for this"). When looking at Category:Horse tack I felt that anyone with little knowledge of horse related items would not necessarily know what a "quirt" or "Crop (implement)" were or that they were related to "whip". Would you take a look at all of this and see what you think, I feel that at the minimum this category should have been discussed but it might be best if a non involved third party like yourself would weigh in on this matter. I do not want to start another controversy with User:Montanabw over this and if you also feel that there is no need for the category I will just drop the matter, thanks Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, regardless of what I think the value of the category to be, Montanabw should not have unilaterally emptied the category. If he thinks there is no need for it, he should nominate the category for deletion. I think it's usefulness if probably a debateable issue—one that should be discussed if we need to make a decision about it. So I am going to reverse the unilateral emptying and restore the contents. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking a look.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 04:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Stirrups

Good Olfactory, I add the sub category Category:Stirrups to the Category:Horse tack and I moved Stirrups into the new category along with Abumi (stirrup) and Tapadero, soon after I moved these articles User:Montanabw emptied the category leaving this comment "(Not needed)". Can you take a look, I think the necessity of this category should be discussed and not decided by one individual, thanks.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yup, same deal. If he doesn't like these categories, he should be nominating them for deletion or merging so they can be discussed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks again. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 01:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Tom Cruise

Does Mission Impossible Series not belong to Tom Cruise category ? Look what you've done to this article . Please add all Tom's movie and articles related to him to the category Tom Cruise because as I saw there is a category named Michael Jackson, In this category all the albums related to him are included. --Napsync (talk) 09:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

By many, many consensus decisions over the years, we have agreed that we do not categorize movies by what actors appear in it. Albums generally only have one artist; films typically have many actors, so it's a recipe for category clutter. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Horseshoes

Good Olfactory, one more Category:Horse tack related question. I created a sub category to Category:Horse tack called Category:Horseshoes and I moved several horseshoe related articles into it including Horseshoe. User:Montanabw removed the sub category Category:Horseshoes from Category:Horse tack and put it into Category:Horses with this comment "(Not really tack)". I did some research on exactly what items are considered to be "horse tack" and I found descriptions ranging from a very few items to almost every horse related item including equestrian clothing depending on the source. I checked the history of the main article Horseshoe and it seems that it was added to Category:Horse tack on January 2nd 2008 [[6]] and it seems to have been stable since then as far as I can tell. I also noted that User:Montanabw along with other members of WikiProject Equine have edited it without changing the category. I have no problem with a category change if it is proper but my question is how do we figure out what items are actually designated as horse tack and what are not without some kind of discussion. What is the recommended course of action in this situation? Thanks, Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

If I were you, I would move it back to Category:Horse tack. If Montanabw then moves it out again, then it would be a good time to raise the issue on the category talk page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise, I will move it back and see what happens. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 03:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Classic case of WP:ASK. In this case, WPEQ would be the place to ask this. The miscategorization was an oversight which was remedied. Horseshoes are not really "horse tack". This is also a classic case of Green Cheese. Montanabw^(talk) 23:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Please don't play out the disagreement on my talk page. The user asked my advice, and I gave it. You don't have to agree with the advice I gave, but please don't come and take pot shots in response. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The whole issue of naming these categories is really an issue for WikiProject Equine. If everyone wants to go there, that would not be problematic. Montanabw^(talk) 20:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Place of birth Detroit Michigan USA (living people)

Speedy and XFD can overlap. I see no reason for a completely empty category to slog through CFD for a week or longer. It qualifies for C1, and for G6. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If it's empty, I don't think there's any rush. It certainly does not qualify under C1 until it is empty for at least 4 days. You can try tagging it again under G6 if you think it applies, but I'm not sure anyone will be keen to delete it speedily if it's in a full discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Israeli_people_of_Portuguese_descent

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_7#Category:Israeli_people_of_Portuguese_descent

Closed. Letting you know per your comments there. - jc37 00:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think there is somewhat of a backlog. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

lol@ "somewhat" : )

I've been trying to make a dent. But as I've commented in several myself, I can't clear it alone. If you have time, any help would be welcome. - jc37 00:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look. I did a bunch a few days ago but I found that most were ones I had commented in. I'll see if there's any others I could do. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Struck me funny

• This diff

(Though of course noting for anyone watching that I (and I'm sure GO) mean nothing uncivil by it.) - jc37 02:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It reminded me of the time years ago now that I had to pinch myself as I wrote a vote of "Keep, per Alansohn". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Lol nod, been there myself.

You know, just occurred to me..... By admitting this here, we may be forced to turn in our double secret probationary membership cards to/of the CfD Cabal... Deny everything! (chuckle) - jc37 10:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I think I have have let my membership expire anyway. (The subscription renewal form landed in the swimming pool that we built from the embezzlement scheme where we siphoned off 10 cents for each "delete" vote that is cast.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a subscription renewal form? Wait.. There's a swimming pool? - jc37 22:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

So, your're NOT really a member! I suspected as much. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

But but.. so I have to put up with being accused of it without any of the benefits? (and what about the hourly dues?...) - jc37 22:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to make an appeal at the next general meeting, which is due to be held in ... let's see (shuffles through some papers) ... —not until all the alumni categories are deleted as overcategorization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Why does that sound like "The second Tuesday of next week"...

I've seen your talk page, from everything I've seen here, you're obviously a higher up in the cabal. Think you can put in a word? - jc37 23:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Nothing simpler! I'll start directing all inquiries to your talk page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

(k - ya finally got me, couldn't keep a straight face any longer : ) - jc37 23:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I just re-read. and am still laughing. You might just give Kbdank or Hiding (et al) a run for their money : )

And thanks. some days it really just feels good to laugh : ) - jc37 01:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Some days, I think about leaving Wikipedia behind me, but I enjoy myself here too much to go! I do find it helps to remember not to take the work here too seriously; otherwise it is way too easy to get worked up about things that probably have little impact in the big scheme of things. :) Kbdank (Dreamy sigh.) Where has he gone? "Arkansas" he said. Hrumpf. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Very good advice. (and timely : ) - But hmm, where have i heard that before?...

Hey wait! that sounds like something I might say... (shakes head from side to side) get out of my head! (lol) - jc37 02:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You know, if you guys are going to have a cfd cabal meetings without me, I may have to turn in my membership card. --Kbdank71 21:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Ohhh, you're a member too? (Sigh it looks like I'm fated to be on the outside looking in.) - jc37 22:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Re your edit summary, Jc37: ... uh, I don't know how to put this—I'm not sure how much you know about the CFDC, but we don't really do things based on "votes". We make a decision (which itself is usually pulled out of the ass of one of the veteran members) and then we implement it in a dictatorial fashion. Ideally, the decision will contradict the majority's subjective belief about what is the right thing to do, but that's not a must and we do what we can in this regard. So if you'd like a decision in your favour, I suggest you convince Kbdank to start taking his iron pills again. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so he can help fuel the likely consensus? I think I'm starting to gain a rough understanding. - jc37 22:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

(Ho, ho ho, ho.) wikilink humor is the best ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

(lol - Nod, I was laughing as I typed it. The multiple puns (in and out of context) on understanding alone...) - jc37 23:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Streisand Effect on The Spear

Wanted to get your feedback re: your decisions around the removal of the Streisand Effect category on The Spear. As I understand it, the Streisand Effect is essentially bringing unwitting and unwanted attention to a subject through attempted censorship. In the case of Zuma's painting, the ANC are actively attempting to censor the image through the FPB and their court application. These acts have brought worldwide notoriety to a painting that otherwise would have been largely out of the public eye. Your thoughts? --Stuart Steedman (talk) 06:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Just dropping in with a thought: Perhaps Good Olfactory is not familiar with the article Streisand effect. The term is afaik mostly used in American media and might not be a globally relevant name for the phenomenon. Roger (talk) 07:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I am familiar with the concept. However, I don't think it works as a category. How much attention has to be brought to something through the attempted "censorship"? What qualifies as "censorship"? It's just too much of a judgment call in each individual case. It's not an appropriate thing to categorize by—it would be far better to have a list in the article Streisand effect where citations can be provided that claim the effect as applying to each item. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Category nominated for deletion here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Retired chief executives

Hello, Good Olfactory. You have new messages at Ottawahitech's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

• I'm not sure what you are asking me about this, but categories that are speedily deleted as empty can be re-created and re-populated if desired. However, I would note that there have been consistent consensus decisions at WP:CFD that we don't subcategories people by occupation into "former" or "retired" categories, so I imagine if the category were re-created, it would be nominated for deletion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Joan of Arc WWI lithograph2.jpg

I see you reverted it, but...

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

it was still on the main page as a featured picture... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Lol—awesome. Of course, deleting the mirror page does not affect whether or not the image shows up on the main page, so it's not quite as awesome as it could have been. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Could be worse. Could delete the main page (if you were a developer, at least) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• ... but smackworthy nonetheless. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Saddle

Good Olfactory, can you take a look at 7 edits I made on Saddle, User talk:Montanabw reverted these edits as "vandalism", I believe they are all valid edits, and at the least not "vandalism" in ANY way, here is the message left on my talk page ("Please do not remove sources as you did on the article saddle. In a longterm stable article such as this, it is more helpful to tag problematic links and allow them to be fixed. Please respect the process. Montanabw"). This has been on ongoing problem with many horse related articles and categories and it is having a negative effect on the development of this type of article as editors just give up on editing having been worn down from constant reverts. I am open to the possibility that I may be wrong and seek the input of someone with more knowledge of the Wikipedia process as far as this goes. saddle revision history, any help or advice would be appreciated, thanks.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• As a side note, I did get an opinion as tp the validity of the type of references that I removed as being invalid for use on Wikipedia articles here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 123 and listed it in my edit and now I am being accused of being some kind of vandal or trouble maker here also, User talk:Nyttend Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I would bring up the specific issues about the links on the article talk page. It looks like there are some issues of page ownership possibly at play. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, I will try that and the "ownership" issue has been noticed by other editors of the horse related articles, User talk:Joefromrandb Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk page discussion would be preferable to the forum-shopping that is going on, where a user with a known block history and pattern of edit-warring drags in the unwitting because he's being called on his unilateral editing. There are issues, Olfactory, of this individual engaging in repeated edit wars. His accusations of "Ownership" is a red herring, the real issue is quality control and having someone, without any real knowledge or background (but a POV to push, notable in his user name) coming in and screwing things up instead of improving them. A collaborative process would be very helpful, instead, we have another round of non-collaborative things akin to this and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk%3AHorse_tack&diff=494772561&oldid=494682025 this] and especially this behavior, which is not helping improve wikipedia, and I am particularly concerned about this attack on an article with which I have minimal involvement. Montanabw^(talk) 16:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I've have seen some problematic editing from both users involved in this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Every time I am left to deal singlehandedly with yet another troll or bully with a POV to push and get tired enough to ask for help, I get the playground aide saying "I don't know who started it so I'm giving you both detention." I have 3000 articles on my watchlist, trust me, I review dozens of good edits a day and revert twice as many IP kiddie vandals. I really do not call people on their crap because I have nothing better to do. I run into about one or at the most two people per year who do this nonsense and I really am getting tired of good editors who jump in with a generalized smackdown without a review of the broader situation. You are a solid editor, your response really surprised and disappointed me. Yes, I sometimes get baited and lose my temper. But when you have a user (the other party in this case) who has even managed to tick off User:Pesky, you should acknowledge there was a problem here. Montanabw^(talk) 22:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The other user is apparently making good faith edits, so it's out of bounds for you to refer to what he is doing as "crap", "nonsense", and so forth. If you can't work with other editors without characterizing their edits in this way, then it's not surprising that you get smacked-down by outside editors. Play nicely regardless of how others play and you won't get detention. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The other user unilaterally removed six references without understanding that WP:LINKROT outlines that dead links should be marked and examined for salvage, not peremptorily removed. Montanabw objected to that and replaced the references. Why did SAW come running here for your help? Do you really support the removal of references without discussion? Do you really find the replacement of references "problematic editing"? I'm about to mention you at WP:ANI#user:samuraiantiqueworld and false claims of outing, so please take this as notification. --RexxS (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It isn't simply the edits, though they are problematic (and note Sword, where I have never edited. Same problem), it is the response I - and others - get when I revert or disagree or ask to go to talk. SAW has a habit since he got here of not taking advice from anyone (see his talk page and block history), attacking anyone who disagrees with him (not only me) and really, well, see the ANI]. Montanabw^(talk) 17:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

My comments were not intended to be limited to the one incident/encounter you have referred to. Examining my talk page and archives will demonstrate that the back-and-forth between the two is long-running. Yes, I have seen problematic editing from both SAW and Montanabw, but no, with reference to Montanabw my comment relates to editing that you have not referred to specifically. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Now that I've looked back at the role you've played in the interactions between SAW and Montanabw, I'm even more concerned. What on earth were you thinking when you encouraged SAW to repeat his edit to the categories? He made a BOLD edit, Montana REVERTed it, and next step must be DISCUSSion. Otherwise we go back and forth with one editor claiming that "horseshoes are tack" and the other contradicting it, until somebody blocks both of them for edit-warring - and you put them on that collision course. I know you think you're only defending the right of anyone to edit, but you've gone a long way in enabling a disruptive editor to impose their own opinions on a range of topics where a settled consensus had existed for some time. If you want to be of use in resolving these problems, rather than exacerbating them, I'd strongly suggest that future advice to both parties needs to be to take it the talk pages and involve as many other editors as possible in building a consensus. --RexxS (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I did advise them to discuss it. I think you're exaggerating the nature of my advice in which I said what I would do if I were in his shoes. Relax; no need be so overly "concerned" about everything. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to learn precisely what your problem is here because the way I view it, I add content and work to keep up the quality of many articles, dealing with people who don't know what they are doing, people with inaccurage POV's to push, and frankly I really lack the patience to deal with trolls and bullies. (Yes. I think SAW is a troll and a bully.) I have been editing here six years, have never had so much as a single block. I sometimes piss a few people off because I call them on things and am blunt, and a few people sometimes piss me off because they call me on things and are blunt. That's often a part of collaboration, when we come to an understanding, I have often become friends with many good folks. When I am not correct about something, I eventually come around once I am presented with a cogent argument and suitable evidence instead of personal attacks and ad hominem commentary. In the case of the saddle article, some good new links were eventually located and added, which was helpful; but to tag the links was the proper approach, not to unilaterally just dump them. I suppose I do sometimes rise to the bait from trolls and bullies and then I snark back. But for good reason: If you don't stand up to bullies, they just get worse: For example, it was, in large part, my refusal to back down from such attacks that brought down the ItsLassieTime sock, which consisted of dozens of accounts. I am proud to have been a part of that even though I was accused of "ownership" and all sorts of other nasty things by this sock when I first confronted that individual about their problematic edits too. Montanabw^(talk) 17:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, since you asked——For one, I have seen you throw around the word "vandalism" far too loosely. Vandalism has a pretty specific definition on WP, and the stuff I have seen you call vandalism is definitely not vandalism. If you revert multiple edits made by an editor and call it "vandalism" in the edit summary, you have to expect that your edits will be looked at fairly skeptically by outsiders not familiar with you or with the dispute. Secondly, I have seen you take unilateral action multiple times in sidestepping process. When SAW created categories you don't like, you have manually emptied the category of articles and blanked the category pages. That's not cool. Diffs can be provided on request, but really—I wish users would stop posting here about this, because I'm not really interested, frankly. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

X athiests categories

Okay I'm not sure where to discuss this, but as you pointed out, the reasoning is straightforward. If anything, adding {{for}} to "X people by religion" might be appropriate, but the problem is even more endemic than the fact that atheism isn't a religion--persons of religious backgrounds can be (and some even are) atheists. E.g. Mordechai Kaplan or Don Cuppitt. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe could try WT:CFD. I know things there sometimes don't get noticed, and if it does not I suppose we could somehow have a specific CFD nomination just to discuss parent categories for them. I regard it as a similar situation to including the "Jews" categories in the religion tree—sometimes it accurately reflects a "religion" for the person, but sometimes the person is of another religion and the "Jews" just acts as an ethnicity marker. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Jews That's a poor example as Jews are an ethnoreligious group (and are subcategorized by way of religion and ethnicity), whereas atheists are neither a people nor a religious communion--they just have a common lack of belief. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I know—I didn't intend it as a 1:1 comparison—I just meant that it is another example of where we include categories in the "religion" tree even when everyone in those categories may not be properly regarded as of the "Jewish religion". We include it for navigation convenience, not because the parent–subcategory relationship works perfectly. The same would apply to atheists. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Vindhya Pradesh MLAs 1951-1956, Speedy renaming removal

Respected Sir, I generated a category named as Category:Vindhya Pradesh MLAs 1951-1956 which is nominated for speedy renaming, but the hyphen used in this is all the same as in other similar categories like Category:Madhya Pradesh MLAs 1957-1962, Category:Madhya Pradesh MLAs 1962-1967, Category:Madhya Pradesh MLAs 1967-1972, Category:Madhya Pradesh MLAs 1980-1985, Category:Madhya Pradesh MLAs 1985-1990, Category:Madhya Pradesh MLAs 1993-1998

please remove the notice, Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by RKS4444 (talk • contribs)

Yes, I think the hyphen needs to be changed to an endash in all of them. In each case, a redirect will be placed on the version with the hyphen. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

RfB

• This diff

First, thank you for the first part. that was kind of you to say. But though I will admit that you surprised me with the second part (maybe because of the tone of the discussion we're having above), I just wanted to say (more seriously) that most of thee bureaucrats I've interacted with were actually some really cool editors who earned my respect long ago. If anything, I'm empathetic. Though so deserving of thanks for their long painstaking work, they have some of the most thankless (and even sometimes garnering the opposite of thanks) responsibilities in the community this side of the arbs. - Oh, or maybe that's what you were referring to? The "title" rather than any particular individual? (And why do I feel like I also just defined "Cfd closer" as well. lol) - jc37 23:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I meant it not in the WP sense—just in English to say someone would be a good bureaucrat is to say they are bureacratic, and that's not usually regarded as a compliment. I will adjust my comment as I can see how it could be misconstrued. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I could keep going on, but I think that will do ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Nod, I had no doubt whatsoever that you meant nothing untoward towards any individual.

As for the comment itself (as I hinted at above), the severe dryness of humour (as I read it) as it stood in the first edit, made me laugh quite a bit.

Anyway thanks again for your comments. I know I already said this, but it was kind of you to say. - jc37 23:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it looks like it's got an hour left. In the meantime, I'm open to suggestions, anything you think I could help with for the next hour or so? - jc37 07:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Try to look bureaucratic. That's all I got. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

As things appears right now, "looking" bureaucratic is apparently all I'll be doing in the near future, lol.

I just feel bad for Mbisanz. The whole point of this was to try to help him out.

Anyway, if you spot something (and not just in the immediate future), let me know - you know I welcome friendly notices : ) - jc37 08:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I do wish there was more participation at WT:CFD on this whole C2D criterion issue. I feel like it's me and BHG and not much potential for others to care or get involved. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Lol, just commented there. Next?- jc37 08:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

one minute to midnight : ) - jc37 08:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

(Did it really take me three minutes to type that? lol) - jc37 08:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's over. On to the next thing : ) - jc37 09:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Bummer. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Question

Please forgive me if this is (to paraphrase someone else) badgering as supporter : )

"I have not agreed with his approach in every encounter I have had with the user, but that would be a terrible reason to oppose here." - The self-conscious part of me just begs to ask: For example? - jc37 09:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I hate it when people ask me to back up what I say with actual evidence. ... This part of my comment was intended to point out that I'm not just a toady from CFD—fellow members of the cabal, if you will—who work in tandem on everything. I specifically had in mind some past CFDs from a few years back where we probably disagreed on a keep vs. delete issue, or something of that nature. The precise details escape me. And recently there was the issue of whether or not we need the disclaimer appearing on every category that there may be a delay in the population of the category, etc. I thought having the disclaimer is overkill, you wanted to keep it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I was hoping it was just the normal day-to-day of each of us expressing opinion in various discussions.

In the typewritten format, there are times one cannot be entirely sure, and I just wanted to make sure there wasn't sometime that I had been unspeakable to you in some way.

Part of it was that in the not-too-distant past, you and MS were in a CfD discussion. I came late to the discussion and tried to wade through it. Somewhere along the way I apparently missed that it was becoming rather stressful for MS. and at some point you pointed that out (well it didn't sink in immediately even then). well once I better understood. I felt terrible about it.

I realise that we all, while collegiate, don't often take the opportunity to be friendly (Cabal accusation nonsense and all that... Meh) - But I think I can honestly and fairly say that I have respected and have been friendly with/towards most of the regular CfD closers. (Shame so many have moved on. For example, I noticed the other day that David Kernow had his adminship removed due to inactivity.) And I miss Kbdank's humour. Regardless of the situation he could comment and have me in stitches : )

Anyway, thanks for clarifying. - jc37 04:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember that, and if I said something mildly aggressive it was probably just out of general frustration. (In fact, I'm not even sure who "MS" is. I'm sure I'll kick myself when you tell me.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, User:Mike Selinker, of course .... I still don't remember the event, though :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

cfd; associated discussion; your comments; my attempt at an apology. (Which though sincere, and heartfelt, really looks weak as I re-read it now.) - jc37 10:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes—Portuguese maritime history. How could I forget that one? Most of the action took place pre-CFD on Mike's talkpage, and it was the most protracted complaint I have ever seen. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

categoryTOC

There is no point having {{categoryTOC}} if there is less that 400 pages in a category. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Why the arbitrary 400? I have found them useful whenever the category contents spans more than one page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

And are you really only removing it from ones that contain less than 400 articles? What about this? 2,217 pages and no TOC? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like that was a slip up. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Another slip-up, no doubt (403 pages). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Another (406 pages). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Another (465 pages). Were you really applying a 400-page cut-off for removal of the template? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Another (952 pages). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The value of four hundred is two category pages. Whether you personally find categoryTOC useful is not relevant. It is what the community want is what's important. And ideally what the community want should be what is best for the reader. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You can have two pages without reaching 400—it's more like 220. 400 is roughly equivalent to two full pages, but I don't see why whether the second page is full or not would make any difference. Where is your evidence of community consensus on the 400 mark? Given the related discussion on your talk page, I trust that there is none, so it's a bit rich for you to be citing consensus-based arguments for your own personal preferences. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You're mentioned and quoted on ANI

• ANI:user:samuraiantiqueworld and false claims of outing

Samuraiantiqueworld has mentioned you in a wall of text towards the (hopefully) bottom. FYI. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Depictions_of_the_Virgin_Mary

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_21#Category:Depictions_of_the_Virgin_Mary

...has been closed. Obviously feel free to implement the split. - jc37 20:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Bangalore_Metro

I have reverted your edit to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bangalore_Metro&redirect=no and added the page to the list of entries under rapid transit in India. This will get a person seeking information on Bangalore metro to the Namma_Metro page. I request you to keep this entry. My opinion is that practicality should take priority over any colloquial considerations into a category entry. Every other Metro system in India except for Bangalore shows up under the actual city name in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rapid_transit_in_India. So instead of highlighting the existence of a Bangalore metro, we are hiding it by removing category entries to Bangalore_Metro. Regards. Xwas (talk) 07:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I have NOT re-created a category called Bangalore_Metro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Bangalore_Metro). That is still redirecting to category:Namma_Metro. I just added the categories Category:Transport in Bangalore Category:Public transport in India and Category:Rapid transit in India to the Bangalore_metro redirect page. Thanks. Xwas (talk) 07:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. We don't categorize a redirect in a category unless the target article is not categorized in that same category. See Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects. Since Namma Metro is in the categories Category:Transport in Bangalore Category:Public transport in India and Category:Rapid transit in India, we don't need to categorize the redirect Bangalore Metro in the same categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorizing_redirects. It makes the precise point that I was trying to make. While the article suggests that in general most redirects should not be placed in article categories. Is also says "There are some situations where placing a redirect in an article category is acceptable and can be helpful to users browsing through categories. The following are examples of some of these situations:". It gives a good example relevant to this "The category system is often used like an alphabetical index. It is sometimes helpful for redirects from common alternative names to appear in the index list." The example of a redirect bridge listed in a category is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lift_bridge&redirect=no. Similarly Bangalore Metro is a common alternative name for Namma Metro and it is good to place it in the categories Category:Transport in Bangalore Category:Public transport in India and Category:Rapid transit in India. The point I am making is about practicality and ease of access of information. Wikipedia users seeking information on a metro system in Bangalore or on public transit systems in India, are unlikely to be aware of the name Namma Metro and more likely to look for "Bangalore Metro". Xwas (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Then the article should be at Bangalore Metro. The article should be at the most common name. We don't use an official name and then get the common name into the category system via redirects. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article should have been at Bangalore Metro and mentioned that the alternative name is Namma Metro. A web search reveals the massive preference for Bangalore Metro and even the BMRCL website mostly uses it. But that move seems like a high mountain to cross and I am not sure how to (get the consensus to) do that . There have been sporadic discussions on that talk page which are not being encouraged by the "Namma" crowd ;-) Xwas (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Files

Please make yourself familiar with Wikipedia:Categorization#Files. I will be rolling back the cases where you have undone my removal of images from non-image categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 12:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Rather than simply removing them from the category, it seems to me that to best implement the guidelines, it would be better to create categories to contain the files where there is a signficant number of files. In cases where there is not a sufficient number, there is nothing in the guidelines which prohibit the files from being contained in categories. For that reason, I'm going to roll these back with an eye towards creating some file categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the guidelines and your vision of what WP shoupd be differ to mine. Please stop the edit warring until it is sorted out. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page, where the main discussion on this appears to be. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Good_Olfactory_and_image_categories -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Uh, thanks. But I'm pretty sure that's not the best way to canvass for third party opinions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "User:Good Olfactory, User:Alan Liefting". Thank you. ---- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Books about feces

So what use are the three images links (i.e. not displayed as images) in Category:Books about feces? Think about The Reader. What use is it to the The Reader? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

How about I answer this after you respond to my inquiries in the section above. If there aren't going to be responses, we can quit asking them. I won't hold my breath, though, so here's the answer—it restores the status quo ante until the issue gets "resolved", since you are apparently of the opinion that it has not yet been. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I have no suitable reply for that discussion. Or maybe you have convinced me with you replies. Also, a lack of reply by me does not mean I have not read it. Anyway, it is your prerogative as to whether you reply or not. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I already did. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Please review you reverts

On this edit you removed an important template. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I had noted it and was about to delete the page, so keeping the template becomes irrelevant at that point. As long as we are nit-picking, however, I would point out that you removed Category:Images of John McCain from an image of John McCain here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Albumchart

Please consult on the talk page before editing a template in the way you did. Templates with a high amount of articles using it must have a category to track them for maintenance purposes. the {{Albumchart}} template is not the only one doing this, so please be carefull, as you may harm the template and lead to a waste of resources. Regards. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 02:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

If you would rather have the category nominated for deletion or renaming—fine, I will do it that way. In my opinion, it's a horrible name for a category, and a dubious way to use one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a maintenance category, its only purpose is to, as i explained above, track articles using the template, not to be used to locate other information. And also, remember WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 02:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

That's what the "what links here" button is for. It's a solution in search of a problem. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Then I recommend another solution than just removing parts of the template, since many templates uses a category instead of the what links here button. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 02:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are suggesting. I don't know of any other categories that simply group together articles that use the template unless it groups them in a meaningful category that is used in non-administrative areas. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

{{singlechart}} uses both. I've already tagged Category:Albumchart as hidden, so it won't appear on articles. This categories are better and more manageable than the WLH button when you have 1000s of articles using it... --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 02:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it that is useful—though I can't see how—but I'm pretty sure it needs to be renamed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

How is a fixed limit of 200 articles on a category page better then a fixed limit of 2400 articles per page? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Categories

Unnecessary I don't see any point in these tracking categories and if the creator refuses to explain himself, they should be nominated for CfD (in fact, they should be anyway, as they have no apparent use.) It's completely legitimate to have tracking categories, but as pointed out on my talk, this feature is redundant to WhatLinksHere, so I can't understand why it's needed. Imagine if we had tracking categories for {{!}} or {{Navbox}}... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Late-Roman-era people

Hi, what do you think about a container category for people within category:Late Antiquity? Category:Late Antique people (like Category:Late Antique writers)? Category:Late-Roman-era people (like Category:Late Roman era students in Athens)? or not desirable? – Fayenatic London 15:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that, I chuckled thinking about tardy centenarians : ) - jc37 15:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Or dead ones ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to offer an opinion on these categories, mainly because it's all pretty much beyond my ken (as I'm sure dozens of other editors will be happy to remind me)—apart from saying that scheme is rather loose at the moment. I'm not sure if the solution is to gather them together through some sort of container categories, as you propose, or to tighten up the categories that exist somehow. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'll stick in Category:Late-Roman-era people and we'll see what happens. – Fayenatic London 12:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hiding

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics#User:Hiding

Speaking of people who we haven't seen for some time...

Besides what I said there, he was a cfd regular, and was involved in helping write (and contributed in the MANY related consensual discussions) many (if not most) of the policies and guidelines that we all take for granted every day editing Wikipedia.

Not that the current set of editors are bad, mind you, but once upon a time we had some excellent people working on this project, and it's just a shame they're gone. - jc37 11:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Surely I know you are not saying that the current set of editors at CFD are sometimes erratic, capricious, arbitrary, overly pedantic, or incomprehensible. You're not saying that at all. Who would ever suggest such a thing? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Some things...

• User_talk:Black_Falcon#Some_things_to_consider

Your thoughts would be welcome. - jc37 16:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Image

thumb|150px|"Hi" Can you tell me why this image should be in Category:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and Category:Images of Columbus, Ohio? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't know about the Columbus, Ohio one—someone must be suggesting the photo was taken in Columbus, but I don't have any knowledge of this as I wasn't the one who originally added the categories. They are "PETA Lettuce Ladies", so apparently they are representatives of PETA, or it was taken at a public PETA campaign stand, or similar. But again with that one, it might be best to ask the person who originally applied the category. Rather than the specifics of individuals cases, however, for which I restored the categories you deleted, I would be far more interested in hearing what you have to say regarding the broader issue with respect to which I recently posted on your talk page. I have no problem with users fixing category problems as they are currently applied; but I do have a problem with users removing all categories based on a dubious convention that images are not categorized. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

James Douglas

What did this poor chap do to deserve being removed from the list of British Midwives? Shipsview (talk) 09:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought overall he was better classified in Category:Scottish obstetricians, but the article does identify him as a man-midwife, so it was probably a mistake to remove him completely. What might have happened is I may have intended to place him in Category:Scottish midwives rather than the general British category. I removed the British category but didn't add the Scottish one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Opinion on something

Can I ask for your opinion on a category issue? I've been looking at the by-nationality subcategories of both Category:Religious leaders and Category:Clergy. Man, are they a mess. "Religious leader" is probably slightly broader than "clergy", and in each case the "clergy" category is a subcategory of the "religious leaders" category. But there seems to be no rhyme or reason as to which of the two categories various subcategories and articles will go in. Often, categories like "FOOian Roman Catholic bishops" will be in both FOOian clergy and FOOian religious leaders, or sometimes just in one of the two. In most cases, there are hardly any subcategories or articles in one that could not just as easily go in the other. Further, many of the "clergy" categories were being treated as exclusively Christian categories, with rabbis and imams being relegated to the "religious leaders" parent. I've tried to fix up some of this, but it remains higgledly-piggledly.

Anyway, what I've been thinking is that perhaps the clergy-by-nationality categories should just be merged into the religious-leaders-by-nationality categories, with redirects being placed on the clergy categories. I think just putting this proposal out there as a bald proposal would probably be opposed strongly by some editors, and I don't think I would have supported such a proposal prior to looking at the categories. But now that I look at them, I can't see that we're accomplishing anything useful by having the dual layer of categorization. Is there any hope for progress on this? Or is this a case where no one will want to either change it or do the massive undertaking of attempting to clean it up and try to distinguish when a religious leader is not a member of the clergy? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Ugh.

While there is no difference in some religions, it would seem that there is a difference between cleric and clergy. (Part of the problem is that these are international terms, and various languages are involved.) It seems to me that all these categories are, as you note, a mess. I think that as it stands, cleric and clergy are ambiguous terms, and either need disambiguation or deletion. - jc37 18:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I also spotted this recently and agree. The comparable categories at Commons are messy too, perhaps even more so. I suggest starting by dropping a note at WT:WikiProject Islam to ask if there is a clear difference in meaning between Category:Islamic clergy and Category:Islamic religious leaders. – Fayenatic London 08:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

On further thought, I think that the categories for Shi'a clerics and Sunni clerics should be kept, but every category with "clergy" should be merged/renamed to "religious leaders". – Fayenatic London 07:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, maybe I will pluck up my courage and nominate the clergy ones for merging. I expect a blowback, though—I'm thinking of a few specific editors in particular.... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Why revert to redlinked categories?

Why did you add redlinked categories to File:Flipped Sunspot Trace.PNG? Twice! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 13:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably because it's pretty tough to weed out your "bad" edits (those removing ALL categories from images) from your "good" edits (those removing redlinked categories). With the mass of them we're dealing with, often one gets lost in all the weeds, so to speak. You know, I'm pretty good about answering the questions you post here—I don't thnk I've ever ignored one from you—but it would certainly be nice if there was reciprocity in that regard. You haven't responded to my most recent inquiry there. My question was not rhetorical, if you interpreted it as such. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Alexia (acquired dyslexia or condtion)

Hi WE have had exchanges about this before. I have been doing more intensive research as part of editing the many acquired issues which are the result of a stroke or progressive illness. The cause of the stroke or progressive illness (such as Alzheimer's disease) are the conditions that have symptoms such as [[aphasia], problems with speech and language which also includes a subgroup of agnosiaswhich is where most of the Alexias belong as a sub category. As you can see Alexia is an acquired variation of dyslexia, different from developmental dyslexia which has a geneti origin and various cognitive subtypes. There is a with a . Researchers refer to Acquired Dyslexia as Alexia and thi has problems on Wikipedia as there are other issues sharing the same name. However Alexia is not a condition it is a shared symptom of many underlying conditions, so to call the category Alexia (condition) is medically and technically incorrect. Some possible options are Alexia (acquired dyslexia), Acquired dyslexia (alexia),or Acquired Dyslexia. There are also a number of redirects which could be better served on a disambiguity page. Due to my own communication disability which is the cause of my developmental dyslexia I am not very good at processing the content and following Wikipedia technical areas such as request forms etc, so I was wondering if you could help sort this out. dolfrog (talk) 06:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I simply don't know enough about this area to be much help. Apart from the barest theoretical level, I don't really understand the distinction you are making and why it is important to make; that's not your fault—it is more a result of my lack of background in the medical sciences. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

If Alexia was a condition it would not have any underlying medical causes. A condition is the cause and has symptoms. Alexia is a symptom of more than one condition, a shared symptom. And Alexia is the acquired version of dyslexia which is a man made problem, about having problems using a man made communication system, the visual notation of speech or text. So Alexia (acquired dyslexia) is not a condition, but a shared symptom of more than one condition. Which means that for those who think they may have Alexia late in life and read these articles, may need to investigate the early stages of dementia or may be they may not be fully aware of the effects of having a stroke. If they believe that Alexia is a condition then they may not look any further for more related information. I am not always good at explaining these issues lol. Part of the problem in this area of disabilities is the use of different names for the same or similar issues, and I still trying to work out some of the multiples of names, even in the research papers. Thank you for trying to understand dolfrog (talk) 00:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

What i was trying to ask you to do is the change the Category name from "Alexia (condition)" to "Alexia (acquired Dyslexia)" OR "Acquired dyslexia (Alexia)" OR "Acquired dyslexia" and to have main article to have the matching name. So that the category name is inline with the related issues and the correct title or name of the main article is correct when being linked to from other related articles. So if you could rename the category with matching named main article it would be very much appreciated. dolfrog (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

We would need to start with the article name, since by convention the category name usually matches the relevant article name. Changing an article name can be proposed using the process at WP:RM. You could do that if you were comfortable doing so. I would do it if I really believed in this rename, but honestly I'm not sure I have the ability to justify it. As I said I'm not medically trained and I don't know the scientific definition for "condition" that doctors and other medical specialists typically use. However, as a layman, I interpret the word as simply referring to a generic "state of being", which could gather in a broad spectrum of things. As I said, though, this may not be appropriate from a medical/scientific standpoint. It might be worthwhile to try to find an user with more medical expertise, perhaps at Wikiproject Medicine. But if you are going through all the trouble, it might just be better to follow the instructions at WP:RM and propose that the article be renamed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts

I'm not comfortable with how things are going for Alan L.

I do think he can be a good editor. But his self-assertions and related bold edits are problematic to say the least.

From what I'm seeing, it's possible that all it's going to take is someone linking to all these discussions which indicate that consensus is not what he says it is, then linking him performing such edits contrary to the discussions anyway, and we'll be seeing AN/I discussions to ban him for repeated disruption.

I'd really rather not see that.

I'm considering trying to discuss this with him directly (instead of in the middle of this or that RfC), but I was wondering if you think it would be a waste of time.

I remember in the pastorwayne situation everyone was looking to see him blocked, and I tried and tried to discuss and help him understand.

I'd like to try to help Alan. I think I see where the confusions and misunderstandings are, and still have some hope.

But if this is turning out to be another situation similar to PW, then I might be wasting the community's time, when (as I've been reading) the community's patience is nearing an end.

I sincerely welcome your thoughts on this. - jc37 01:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your general assessment of the overall situation—it's not looking good, and one gets that I've-seen-this-movie-before feeling, and it always ends the same way. I've been expecting someone to send the issue to AN/I any day now, but like you I haven't wanted to encourage that or promote it as I don't think we're at the point of a ban being inevitable yet. I pretty much became involved later than some—immediately after I blocked him for the previous incidents, and from what I have seen since then, I'm not too hopeful. However, that said, I think we (meaning you, or at least someone) need to attempt a blunt discussion with him prior to things going to AN/I, which, as I mentioned, could probably happen at any point, so the sooner the better. I would not pursue it to the point of pounding your head against the wall, but I think Alan does need some clearly set out "fair notice" as to the seriousness of the situation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I had forgotten you were who had blocked him.

And ok.

I'll try to assemble my thoughts on this then. (The assembling of which may take some time, since, at this point, what is needed to be avoided is more confusion.)

I just hope he "hears" the sincerity.

Thank you for your thoughts. - jc37 02:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Made the attempt (here. We'll see how it goes. In the meantime, please look over my comments. I welcome your comments (especially if there's anything which you think I may be mistaken, or at least, unclear on). - jc37 16:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Slept on it, and I think I have a better idea. And one that may be perceived as less confrontational.

Expect an notice/invite in the near future : ) - jc37 13:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Invite is below : ) - jc37 16:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks buddy!

Hey there, and thanks for moving the process forward on the CfR for Category:Defunct American movie studios. Can you give me any tips on what to do in the future, when different people are discussing essentially different topics? That is, the discussion can sometimes get derailed when the original topic is about renaming but someone opposes renaming because they favor deletion. And then we have two different proposals, as we had in the American movie studios case. Ultimately you can't compare a vote for renaming with a vote for deletion because they're unrelated, but of course it's not up to any of us to say which votes are "valid" or not. So do you have any tips in that regard? CaseyPenk (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It's relatively unavoidable, from what I have seen, and I don't think there is much use trying to persuade editors to "focus", as it were, since they never really do when asked. All a closing admin can do in such an instance is try to measure if there is consensus for either competing proposal. When I close discussions where a rename has been proposed and someone has suggested deletion, if I can't see a consensus for deletion, I kind of try to wipe that portion of the discussion away and then see if there is a consensus for a rename. When I comment on a proposal, I try to address the proposal itself even if I want to present what I think is a better idea. I would generally say, "delete (give reasons)" but at some point I would try to say "rename if kept". Unfortunately, not all editors will do that. I guess maybe the best thing to do is try to lead by example in that regard and hopefully editors will be more likely to do it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I just found this -- thanks for the tips. I'm learning to become more patient with these discussions.. CaseyPenk (talk) 08:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorting "X by Y" categories

Please explain Do you know where you got the impression that these are not to be sorted with a blank sort key...? This is a big change. Please respond on my talk. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I think a more important question might be why this was ever done in the first place. It's not in a guideline and it doesn't make much sense to prioritize only "FOOian people by religion" and "FOOian people by occupation" on the "FOOian people" category listing. I've seen it done on and off for years now, but less and less more recently. It seems that some users are slowly but surely departing from it. That's just my intuitive sense, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy note

I mentioned your name at User talk:Zhorgoev#Kyrgyzstani / Kyrgyz. – Wdchk (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Sincere Request

• User:Black Falcon
• User:BrownHairedGirl
• User:The Bushranger
• User:Fayenatic london
• User:Good Olfactory
• User:Jc37
• User:Mike Selinker
• User:Timrollpickering
• User:Vegaswikian

Hi. I'm dropping you this note as a request to help.

I just looked at 30 random CfD pages, and based upon that we seem the be the most common closers (those who determine consensus of discussions) at CfD. (If I have overlooked anyone, it is obviously purely an oversight.)

I think we've all been seeing the difficulties that some editors has been having lately concerning some self-asserted bold edits. And how they may be seen by others as disruptive.

I think that at least some of the trouble could be that while most of use are aware of common practice regarding category pages, we really do not have a unified MoS regarding what a category page should look like or include. And so when someone attempts to edit contrary to that understood common practice, it is seen as disruptive.

I'd like to prevent this from happening now or in the future.

So I'm asking you to join in and help edit Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Category pages to a point where it reflects consensus and common practice as we understand it. And perhaps finding any new consensus as necessary.

This is obviously not exclusive to only us to discuss (so any lurkers out there would be welcome), I merely thought inviting you all would be a good start : )

(This is not because I think we'll all agree. Honestly, I expect that on some things we'll likely disagree. And that - as I think we all expect - will just help make the results of the discussion better and more useful for everyone, and therefore, more reflective of the greater consensus at Wikipedia.)

I sincerely hope that you will be able to find the time to help out.

Regardless, thank you for your time, and your continued contributions at CfD - jc37 14:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:River tributaries

Hi GOF, I've no objections in renaming the Category:Tributaries of the Po River as Category:Tributaries of the Po (river). When I chosed its name I looked at Category:River tributaries and noticed that many sub-cats had river in upper case and without brackets. Shouldn't they be renamed too?--F Ceragioli (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi and thanks. Usually the name of the river we use in the category is whatever the article name about the river is. So if the article name is "FOO River" we would use that phrasing in the category. If it's "FOO (river)" then we would use that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks a lot for the explanation!--F Ceragioli (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Expatriates issue

See discussion at WP:BLP/N about all of this strange categorization. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC) See also WP:AN since you did this to hundreds of people in a massive edit spree. Collect (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Please STOP. You clearly do not understand the definition of Expatriate. Arzel (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Expatriate—a person temporarily or permanently residing in a country and culture other than that of the person's upbringing. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Please do not use the WP definition which is equally clueless.

Merriam-Webster Definition. Expatriate transitive verb 1: banish, exile 2: to withdraw (oneself) from residence in or allegiance to one's native country

Arzel (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks GOF was using it as a noun, not a transitive verb. M-W doesn't have the noun, but the intransitive verb (i.e. to expatriate oneself) has a definition "to leave one's native country to live elsewhere". See also: thefreedictionary.com, dictionary.com, and Google. It looks like there are many definitions of "expatriate", with "exile" being one of them, and "a person who lives outside their native county" being another. ~Adjwilley (talk)

@Good Olfactory: From stalking Arzel's contributions, it looks like there's a parallel discussion going on here where some points are made about overlap between Category: Mormon missionaries in (Country) and Category: American expatriates in (Country). I thought you might be interested in that discussion. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't be a dick. I did not stalk GO. I commented here because of GO's missuse of the CAT. Arzel (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't mean to imply that you were the stalker. I was saying that I had looked at your contributions and found the parallel discussion there. "Stalking" was an attempt at humor. My apologies for the misunderstanding. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Appology accepted, I can see how your wording could be seen as an adjective or a verb, which in the context of this discussion is extremely ironic. Arzel (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

And of course, the, "requisite" in any dispute, posting to WP:AN... - jc37 19:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I won't be commenting as I don't have any opinion on any of this atm, except to say that I hope you (GO) understood the droll tone intended in my note above : ) - jc37 21:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, I did—the fact that it was rushed off to AN is par for the course, in many ways. Sometimes users can't handle that my timezone is UTC+12 and that I'm sleeping (dammit) when they want me to reply! Everything is a crisis, and nothing can wait. Perhaps I should be given a short, sharpt block for living somewhere inconvenient. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

If it wouldn't affect a deservedly pristine block log - and likely gain me a school of salmon (the former more importantly than the latter, of course), I was tempted to give you a 1 second block, just cause : ) - jc37 22:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

From what I have seen, the categories are indeed applied in the noun sense, not in the transitive verb sense. Many of the Mormon missionary articles were already in expatriate categories, so I was trying to bring some consistency to the way they are applied. If we're happier with the inconsistency or to remove them all, that is fine. Users are free to comment here on the issue but it would be helpful if you gave me a chance to respond before sending the issue to AN. I won't be participating there, since I don't feel that it's an appropriate forum to use prior to even allowing me the chance to respond here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec)AN != AN/I and I do not have a list of everypne's time zones. I rather think when you make several thousand automated or semi-automated edits of that sort that you might well expect someone to question them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I welcome the questioning, but from my view you could give me a damn chance to respond before you run off to AN! If I'm not making edits, chances are I'm not online. I have posted my time zone on my user page for anyone who looks there, and my history of edits will reveal quite clearly the hours I am typically edit-active. A little investigation could have gone a long way, but of course it's easier to post to a notice board. That's fine, if that's what you want to do. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been thinking about the problem, and I think I might have an idea. I had noticed an overlap between Category:Mormon missionaries in Country X and Category:American expatriates in Country X, and I was thinking, "Wouldn't it be nice if we could just make the missionaries category a sub-category of the expatriates category..." I realized pretty quickly that this would create a problem for the Mormon missionaries to Country X who weren't American. Then I noticed that the American missionaries are also in Category:American Mormon Missionaries.

So my idea is: Create a category called Category:American Mormon missionaries in Country X, and make it a subcategory of both American Mormon missionaries and American expatriates in Country X. This avoids adding any extra categories (one removed, one added) and clears up the inconsistency without offending anybody over the use of the term "expatriate".

This, of course, assumes that you can have a subcategory of two different parent categories. I have limited experience with categories, so I don't know if this is the case. I also don't know how much work this would require. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a creative solution that could work. I am a little concerned that it would create categories (Category:American Mormon missionaries in Country X) that would be regarded as triple or quadruple intersections (American+missionaries+Mormons+in Country X). On the other hand, Category:American Mormon missionaries is quite large and subdivision/combining with the Mormon missionaries by location could perhaps be helpful. My intent wasn't to offend anyone by referring to a Mormon missionary somewhere as an expatriate there—I just saw that many of the Mormon missionary articles were already so categorized but that many were not, so I started to fill out the "scheme". (Of course, when the Mitt Romney article gets edited by the unwashed gravel, hell generally breaks loose in one way or the other.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed that (very large AMm category, and super-sensitivity surrounding political articles). I remember seeing 208.81.184.4 getting bitten for making minor fixes to citation templates at George Romney. I try to keep keep these politics articles at arm's length. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Me too. Had I made edits to virtually all of the articles in Category:Mormon missionaries except Romney, the issue probably would have gone unnoticed, so in the end it's probably a good thing I edited that one so users could discuss the issue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ha! Well let me know what you decide, and if there's anything I can do to help...I've been dipping my toes into categorization for a bit, and if it's going to be a lot of work I'd be happy to chip in. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oddly enough LINK, Brits seem to term their citizens who are students abroad "expats." (So, when Jack Kennedy was in London in 1935 and visited a pub frequented by Yank expats, if someone had referred to Jack in that fashion, he would likely not have quibbled with such a designation--thus: "Um, 'expat'? I think not. I'm just a student. And, Pops is but here as the Yank ambassador to the Court of St. James, so--- ")--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, interesting. I think, from this and what I have seen elsewhere, that there may be a difference between U.S. and UK usage in the word; American usage seems to be more restrictive. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I've tried out the above idea on a few pages, if you'd like to have a look at my edit history to see what you think. If you like it, I think I could whip through a lot of these pretty fast using AWB or something like that. (I started with France...heh.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure still. I remember there was a CFD sometime in the past where the categories were "FOOian expatriate footballers in GOO", where FOOian was a nationality and GOO was a particular country. There was consensus to delete these and upmerge them all to "FOOian expatriate footballers" and "Expatriate footballers in GOO" and "FOOian expatriates in GOO" even though it was exchanging one category for three. These seem similar—but on the other hand, most of the Mormon missionaries that are categorized are Americans, so ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I again ask you politely to remove those dang duplicated categories where every Mormon missionary anywhere is also deemed by you to be an "expatriate" where others have made clear that such is not the usual meaning thereof. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Potential ways of resolving the issue are being discussed (see immediately above). I'd like to see that come to a resolution before I act, but feel free to do so if you want them changed right away. As a side point, I'm not sure it's as clear cut as you've made it out to be (see HSG's comment above, etc.) Different users (as well as dictionaries and other sources) certainly seem to have different senses about how the word may be used. It's possible that an ideal solution would be to abandon the use of the word altogether in categories in favour of something else, but we're far from that being proposed at this stage. Personally, I am unclear why it's OK to classify footballers who play in another country as "Expatriate footballers in X" (very common in categories), but it's not OK to classify a missionary as an expatriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been poking around the expatriates tree, and been doing a bit of definitional research. OED defines "expatriate" as "An expatriated person. In modern usage, a person who lives in a foreign country." A person who lives in a foreign country is quite broad and from what I can see it seems to be how the categories are being applied in practice. I am wondering how are missionaries not categorizable as people "who live in a foreign country"? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

In my (American) experience, the word is frequently associated with exiles in common usage, though I still agree that the broader definition is correct. I think my initial reaction when I saw the category on some of the pages was wondering why the person was an expatriate, but then noticing that they were also in the missionaries category, and then connecting the two. I would favor replacing expat with a less astonishing word, but I can't seem to find a good replacement word in the thesaurus. American citizens living in France or something like that might also work. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have wondered if perhaps renaming to "American people in France" might be the best solution. There are so many of these, however, that it would take quite a mammoth effort to nominate them all. In the meantime, no one has spoken out in opposition to the Category:American Mormon missionaries in France solution, so perhaps it would be worthwhile to start pursuing the creation of these to subdivide Category:American Mormon missionaries. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

For the latter, I suppose you could try adding it to Mitt's page as a final test. If it passes that, it will probably work anywhere else :-) For the "American people in France" idea...that would work too, I think. What do you mean by "nominate" and where would the nominating take place? ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

To rename a category that already exists, you have to nominate it for discussion via categories for discussion. As a part of the hertofore mentioned unwashed gravel, I hesitate to edit the Mitt Romney page for any purpose. But maybe I will, just to see what happens, as he seems to be the last American Mormon missionary in France who is not in the category you created. :) I've created Category:American Mormon missionaries in Mexico as well. I may slowly develop this scheme—slowly, as I don't want to tread too heavily on the toes of those who like everything kept "just so", if you know what I mean. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I see it was done a few hours ago by another editor. No blowback from what I can see, so ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I just checked the edit history at Mitt Romney, and it looks like somebody already made the change. Looks like you're off the hook. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

If you don't think it's too controversial, I'd like to try another myself. I'm curious to see if I can do it in AWB. I'm thinking of doing Argentina (it's the 1st alphabetically, and largest in South America, with 25 pages that would have the categories replaced) ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. I've been leaving the articles in Category:American Mormon missionaries if they served missions in other countries that are not yet subdivided this way. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Just curious why this discussion is hidden on this user talk page and is not out in the open at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion? Ottawahitech (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anybody was trying to hide the discussion. It got advertized pretty well at WP:BLP/N and WP:AN, and I think most interested parties have commented already and reached a consensus. If you think it best, I could create a section at WP:CFD, pointing to here, but I imagine the consensus would be about the same. The changes currently being made are non-controversial, and I have seen no opposition to any edits made after about June 20. Also, as far as I can tell, no categories are being deleted, renamed, or merged. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

George W. Fuller jpg

You recently created a Wikipedia page for the GW Fuller jpg that I posted on WikiCommons. I was under the impression from all of the WP:Images pages that I reviewed that if a photo was in the Public Domain that the wiki community preferred that the image be uploaded to WikiCommons and not to Wikipedia. I am a new guy so I could have read it wrong. Also, do you know why the text [[File: |frameless|alt=]] is noted at the top of the photo on the George W. Fuller article? Is there any way to get rid of it? Thanks. Drinkingwaterdoc (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't create File:GW Fuller 1917.jpg—it's just a mirror page of what exists on Wikicommons. All Wikicommons files have such mirror pages on WP. You did the right thing in uploading it to Wikicommons. I'm not sure what's going on with the "File: |frameless|alt=" text but I will try to tinker with it and figure it out. (I'm not great with the process of placing images on articles.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

That's got it. Another user fixed it just as I realized what the problem was. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Mystery solved. Thank you. Drinkingwaterdoc (talk) 01:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Over categorization

Note that you now have "(country1) expatriates in (country2)" as "(country2) people of (country1) descent" 2hich does not logically follow. I suggest you go and remove the "categories from people to whom they do not correctly apply per discussions here. Note also that I still regard the categorization of people as being :expatriates" in up to 8 countries as absurd in normal Englsih usage. See [7]. Now kindly remove the "expat" nonsense from all those people you added them to using automated or semi-automated means. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually it does logically follow, for a number of reasons that have been discussed previously over the years. How in depth do you want me to go in the explanation of why these categories are set up this way? The other issue is being discussed and dealt with in the section above. I acknowledge your feelings about the categories but apparently some users and some sources have varying views. I'd be interested in users responding to the questions I have posed there before I move forward too quickly on it. You'd probably find other users more likely to work collaboratively with you if you didn't refer to issues in dispute as "nonsense", "absurd", and so forth. I also find it is best to avoid mocking others' contributions. You must be mistaken about automated or semi-automated means, as I use none apart from hotcat. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh my, just saw this. I think all in all, it might be best if you didn't post on my talk page. I don't like getting involved in extended discussions or confrontations with editors that seem to track around trouble wherever they go. Thanks for understanding, and I don't intend offence, I can just do without the drama for the time being. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read my posts instead of making such aspersions. I try to make them as simple as possible, and responses such as above do not actually benefit anyone trying to figure out why all Mormon missionaries in any foreign land are instantly "expatriates". Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I read it; several times, and I acknowledge and understand your simple position. I believe it's more complicated than you have made it out to be, however. It appears you may not have understood the central messages of my responses: (1) I have addressed both issues you have expressed concern about. I don't think I have answered in the ways that you would have preferred that I do, hence the concept of "a disagreement"; I would have liked to work more with you on the underlying ideas involved with both issues, but from the get-go you have been impatient and unpleasant to work with; and (2) I don't want you to post here anymore. I admit it, I'm "blockist", but there you are. As for "aspersions", I'll gladly take my lead and advice from users more qualified to lecture on the matter. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a question related to this...to continue the French example from above, it looks like you have made "American expatriates in France" a sub category of "French people of American descent". This seems backwards to me, since you can have American expats who are not "French people". Shouldn't it be the other way around? ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This issue is a bit confusing, but it was hammered out some time ago, and the basic rationale is thus: "French people" does not necessarily mean "people with French citizenship" or even "French nationals", though it can mean both. It can also mean simply "people from France". So American expats in France are one subtype of people from France who are of American descent. Other subtypes include American people who have emigrated to France and people with French citizenship who were formerly or originally from the United States. It wouldn't work to reverse the relationship between a person could be a French citizen of American descent (with no American citizenship) and therefore would not be an American expatriate in France. Another reason we keep the relationship between the two types of category is browsing convenience. People who are interested in finding a category for American expatriates in France may also be interested in finding a broader category for French people of American descent. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Myth (series)

Category:Myth (series), which was renamed to this name per your nomination, has been nominated for 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

antagonists of the united states

Why the removal of this category without any justification? There are categories for anti-semitism, why not nations / persons against the United States? Redhanker (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

My reasoning is here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)