User talk:Good Olfactory/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Programming categories

Happy New Year!

Following this edit on Opposed nominations, you may have overlooked bringing these forward to a full CfD nomination, or listing them at WP:CFDWR. I nearly re-listed them on the speedy page, as they are still tagged.

Extended content

Hope this helps. – Fayenatic London 21:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The opposing user wanted them nominated at full individually, so that's what I'm planning on doing, depending on how they go. The first discussion is still open here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, you tagged Category:Jangseong but didn't list it. I see you tagged and then un-tagged some others. I don't know whether you meant to un-tag that one or list it. (I was looking at what was left in Category:Categories for discussion from November 2014.) – Fayenatic London 21:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The ones I withdrew were already in the format I had proposed, but this one was not, so I will list it now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Category:Categories for discussion from November 2014 now just has 8 programming categories with a Speedy tag. Over to you. – Fayenatic London 11:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me about these again. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: Category Deletion of Category:User Talk:Melody Concerto Archive

Hi, I noticed you used a bot to knockout massive backlog at CfD pages and I thank you for your work; but I also feel like my discussion did not get the appropriate attention that was needed. I feel as if I pretty well disputed the deletion and would like you to review the discussion for undeletion; I don't believe the nominator's rationale was sound; and none of the reasons people voted for deletion were really all that solid per wikipedia policy. Please do review Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_29 and get back to me please. Melody Concertotalk 09:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, apart from you, the four users who participated in the discussion were in favour of deletion, and in reading the discussion I felt that there was a fairly strong consensus for having it deleted. I also think that the discussion was relatively focused on Wikipedia guidelines rather than personal opinion or preferences—specifically, WP:USERNOCAT. As one participant noted, although this guideline does not explicitly mention user talk pages, it seems to be within the spirit of the guideline not to have categories for user talk pages. If you disagree with how I closed the discussion, it can be reviewed by starting a discussion on the close at WP:DRV. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Part of my reason for messaging you was that I felt that deleting the category per the "Spirit" of the rules is problematic. The "spirit" of a rule is rather subjective and I'd rather feel much more fairly treated if there were some precedent linked or some policy found that unambiguously ruled against the deletion. Please do reconsider. Melody Concertotalk 09:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Ultimately, it is consensus that determines things on Wikipedia. I feel that the consensus was strongly in favour of deletion. As I reconsider the discussion, I don't see how I could possibly be fair in interpreting the consensus in this discussion as dictating anything but the deletion of the category. (No one cited any previous discussions, and I don't know for sure, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if a user talk category of this type had been deleted in the past. If you want me to, I could search the archives for such an example; although it wouldn't be terribly relevant to the discussion since it wasn't brought up, but it might make you feel better that you're at least not being singled out for unfair treatment. I don't remember a user category of any type having ever survived CFD, so it's not an uncommon thing.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, please do research that, I think evidence of precedent will quell my fears quite nicely. Particularly if it's relevant to my kind of case where the category was used for archival of user pages. If sufficient precedent exists, there may well be no grounds for a WP:DRV. Melody Concertotalk 09:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, I can have a look and see if there's anything on point. It's getting late where I am right now, but I should be able to have a look tomorrow when I'm on next. Certainly within the next 24 hours or so I should be able to let you know if I found anything. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I've had a look, and I must say that I can't find anything that is explicitly exactly on point. That is, I can't find a discussion of a category in which it's clear that the category has been used exclusively for talk page archives of a user. In most cases, though, it's not clear exactly what was being contained in the category, as usually the specific contents are not mentioned or discussed in the discussions. Typically, the point that it made is that it is a category being used to group content from a particular user's userspace, and that has generally been regarded as enough to justify deletion. This is kind of what I meant (and probably the other user) in saying that deletion was certainly within the "spirit" of the guideline and previous practice. There's an old archive (2007–10) of some of these discussions here that you can look at, and there have been a comparable number in the years since 2010. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Abbreviations in case names

Hi, I noticed you renamed a number of articles such as "Ong Ah Chuan v. Public Prosecutor" and "Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. Public Prosecutor" to "Ong Ah Chuan v PP" and "Chan Hiang Leng Colin v PP", giving the reason that this was in line with the Singapore Academy of Law Style Guide. I don't think there's anything wrong with removing the full stop after v (though I don't think it's necessary either), but where in the style guide does it say that terms like "Public Prosecutor" should be abbreviated, particularly in the title of the article? Even in the official Singapore Law Reports such terms are spelled in full. Can we please move the article titles back to forms like "Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor? — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind so much on this issue, but the guide does say Public Prosecutor is to be abbreviated as "PP" for Singaporean cases. See p 18 of this reference guide: [1]. (The previous full edition of the guide suggested that it should only be abbreviated after the first use, so there is some historical ambivalence about the issue.) It's fine with me if you want to move them to the form that spells it out. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I believe that refers to mentions of case names in texts (e.g., in journal articles and books), not in titles. Anyway, thanks for renaming the articles. Oh, you missed two: Eng Foong Ho v AG → Eng Foong Ho v Attorney-General, and Shadrake v AG → Shadrake v Attorney-General. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't know we were also talking about the AG ones. Yes, that's what the guide is talking about, but that is also the standard the Wikipedia Manual of Style suggests for article names about cases. Of course no legal citation guide has suggests for what to call Wikipedia articles—what they are concerned with is how they are named in books and articles, but WP adopts those suggestions and applies them to article names. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
These changes are not MOS nor Bluebook compliant. GregJackP Boomer! 03:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
10.2.2 rules apply to citations. Different rules apply otherwise to case names, where generally only the magic 8 words are abbreviated. The guideline does not specify which are to be used, so I assumed the ones more in line with general WP style guidelines would prevail, which are the non-citation rules, in my opinion. If this is an unresolved issue, I have no objection to them being moved back. From what I can see, the non-citation rules are overwhelmingly applied in most of the article names, but users may not have given this distinction much thought at this stage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Request assistance with talk page archive page move

Would you be willing to move Talk:1843 polygamy revelation to Talk:Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy/Archive 5? /Archive 5 currently just links back to that original location anyways, and doesn't have anything of value on the page history. Making this change cuts out the middleman, and helps the archives for this talk page to be more consistent. I've got a error message that I can't do the move myself, and that I need an Admin to do it. —Asterisk*Splat→ 22:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Also Talk:1831 polygamy revelation to Talk:Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy/Archive 4, please, for the same reason. —Asterisk*Splat→ 23:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Done—makes sense as a clean-up measure. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Country

Good evening,
I read you revert and I think that your interpretation is very subjective. Because the category country can have an infinite number of attached articles !
Sincerely
Nezdek (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

An infinite number? I don't think so. It's not at all subjective, as I use the definition in country: "a region identified as a distinct entity in political geography". One could just as well use one of the OED definitions: "a region constituting an independent state, or a region, province, etc., which was once independent and is still distinct in institutions, language, etc." Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Case name cleanup

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For all your recent and tireless work renaming law-related articles to conform to Bluebook or other applicative standards, I award you this Working Wikipedian's Barnstar. TJRC (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, and I appreciate the forbearance for the occasional screw-up or controversial change. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

CfD on far-left political parties

FYI,Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_10, thanks, --Soman (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Question

I have an odd ball question. I have never really found WP rule page regarding refusal to accept a consensus.

Every once in a while I will run across someone who repeatedly makes a chance, over and over again, over a long period of time that goes against the consensus of multiple editors (not just one editor against another). Often they even refuse to use the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle or, after not getting what they want, they simply ignore what was said on the talk page and do what they want anyway.

However, they aren't violating 3RR and they are making edits that they feel are appropriate (so I don't see it a WP:vandalism, but they simply refuse to accept that 4 or 5 different editors all agree that the changes they want to make are clearly incorrect, not backed up by sources, or only an opinion that they have.

Anyway, my question is, what is supposed to be done with those types of editor. I can be really frustrating to have to "keep and eye" on pages just because some editor simply refuses to accept a consensus and won't leave a page alone over a long period of time. Is this considered a from of WP:Vandalism or WP:Edit warring? Can these people be reported somewhere?--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I know what you mean and I agree that that can be really frustrating. I think it tends to happen more on pages about religion than elsewhere, simply because people's views are so entrenched (probably happens a lot on politics pages too). Sometimes I try to engage with them on their user talk page, but it rarely helps. But I think doing so would at least be a pre-requisite before anything else can be done. If you've approached them on their user page and they continue to be defiant (or just don't respond) and the edits continue, then I think it is worth bringing it to an uninvolved administrator's attention. If you can't find anyone specific to help, then I suppose the best place to report it would be at WP:ANI, which usually takes care of general problems that can't be categorized anywhere else. Reporting there can require a lot of legwork, though, as you generally will have to provide evidence (diffs) of a long-standing problem and your previous efforts to resolve things. So you sometimes have to track down a bunch of old edits, etc. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

cuisine/cuisines

actually re this my use of "cuisines" was intentional because, although there are common foods across native peoples, there are different "cuisines", not one cuisine.Skookum1 (talk) 05:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I will change it since it wasn't a mistake. Although—I'm pretty sure it's OK to use "cuisine" even when there are different cuisines that are being referred to. For instance, you could say "European cuisine" in referring to French, Italian, Spanish etc. cuisines. But "cuisines" works too.
In cleaning up, I was a little bit confused at why some of the changes had been made, though. For instance, the discussion created Category:Culture of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, but then I ran across Category:Indigenous culture of the Americas. Are you sure that this didn't create duplications? Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Politicians from Vancouver range/scope

Please see Category_talk:Politicians_from_Vancouver#Vancouver....or_Greater_Vancouver.3F. I'm unsure whether to go start creating "Politicians from West Vancouver", "Politicians from North Vancouver", "Politicians from Burnaby", "politicians from Surrey, British Columbia" etc. or to seek a rename of this category; the wording of the title also means people born there, not just serving there; a parent category has "in British Columbia" so maybe "from" should be "in"? Also the three "meaningful divisions" and usual regionalizations for politics in BC are the Interior, teh Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island (VI and the Lower Mainland are both subsets of the "Coast" part of the BC category systems/reality; but a parent category for all those alluded to above and in that linked cat talkpage comment is "cities" and the Lower Mainland is a region, not a city; likewise "Greater Vancouver" is a region-within-that-region and overlaps heavily with the Fraser Valley region. The use of "Vancouver" as a catch-all term in this way is too vague for encyclopedic use and is very often incorrectly used (even Squamish and Whistler are spoken of as if part of "Vancouver" though they're not even in the Greater Vancouver region; and Abbotsford is not part of Greater Vancouver though on its doorstep (i.e. in teh Lower Mainland).Skookum1 (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I've never been a big proponent of categorizing people by occupation and city (or by occupation and metro area). It gets us into issues like this that I just find insufferable. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

one other cat that seems....well....

Came across Category:Anti-Chinese activities in Canada and find that title more than a little POV/SOAP. The hierarchy grandparents seems to Anti-Chinese activities in North America and Category:Anti-Chinese sentiment in Canada; lately those are being populated by book titles and not actual events/sentiments and it's again only a certain kind of book/POV that is being created/obsessed upon. Anti-Canadian activities in China etc SFAIK does not existt, though anti-Western activities in China are rather mainstream for centuries. Found this wile looking into the activities or a certain editor about his POVism and WP:V claims re Chinese Canadians in British Columbia; you may have noticed the ANI and the OR board things about this; I've said my piece and am staying away, while continuing to research sources and issues while others are spending their days walls-of-texting and advancing AGF about me while conducting OR and makingr AGF/NPA attacks/board-wars to block me from contributing in the area of my own long-time experience and expertise....such is Wikipedia, more's the pity. but finding stuff like this, as with th "terrorism hierarchy" being used in more-than-somewhat propagandistic ways is beyond technical guideline and sources claims/debates....it's POVism IMO.Skookum1 (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

To me, Category:Anti-Chinese sentiment in Canada is more than enough. It could easily contain everything that is in category:Anti-Chinese activities in Canada. I don't see a need to break it down any further. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 30

First off I'm not trying to blame anybody for this and I'm not interested in starting a argument over it. Both the nomination and the closure were fine.

The closure of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 30#Category:Native American archeology has caused some additional problems. It extends through all the categories deleted I think, but for now I'll confine it to the art category. We have the newly created Category:Art of the indigenous peoples of the Americas but that is a duplicate of Category:Indigenous art of the Americas. Given the titles of those they should both include all art from North, Central and South America and should include such articles as Prehistoric art which has sections on early art throughout the Americas. There is also Category:Aboriginal art in Canada which if Category:Native American art is deleted should go as well because the title is very country specific. There is also Category:Inuit art and Category:Northwest Coast art and should they stay or go. As we don't have categories for Category:First Nations art, Category:Métis art or Category:Native American art the Inuit one should probably be deleted. I think that if a specific article, such as Northwest Coast art, covers both the US and Canada then rather than some overreaching category it should be in a First Nations/Aboriginal Canadians and a Native Americans one.

Like I said this, as far as I know, applies across all the new categories. What I'm asking for is for you to revert yourself for now. I can work with User:Skookum1 to sort these out and come back with a joint proposal. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

After closing it, I had a sense that something was not quite right with the results. See above. The more I look at this all, the more that I agree that there are some problems here that have resulted. Some of the nominated categories were clearly meant to be limited to Native American topics. I'm happy to revert the changes. I will leave the discussion on 30 Dec closed, and annotate it appropriately. Thanks for your assistance. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

indigenous cats redux

@CambridgeBayWeather: and I were discussing this last night off-wiki; note my last post about unentangling a tangled-up hierarchy; some things are grandparents of themselves etc; and now yes there is some cat-duplication/redundancies; the whole "tree" should be laid out so we can see what's where and know what to merge/fix or whatever. Where to do that, maybe a sandbox off WP:IPNA? There's also iffy titles like Category:Haida gods within them, about which more could be said. Getting the abuse of "Native American" as a term where it doesn't belong was a necessary step...but cleaning up what has become a tangled mess over time will take some discussion and examination of what's where and why. It would have helped, of course, if Canada and the US used the same terminology, but as with geography and history, there are two different "languages" in the North American anglosphere (e.g. the Rocky Mountains in the US include the Salish Mountains and Cabinet Mountains in the US Northwest, which are not part of the same system known as the Rockies in Canada but rather the southward extension of the Columbia Mountains; ecoregion names vary, Inuit/Eskimo etc). The true p.c./modern usage nowadays is emerging as referring to people by their actual "ethnicity" rather than by the race-classification taht both Native American and "First Nations person" really are.Skookum1 (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I have a few comments on this, and am posting here as there does not seem to be an on-wiki debate anywhere else since the CFD has been closed. I don't think this should be decided by an off-wiki conversation between two editors.
  • "Archaeology of the indigenous peoples of North America" is a real mangling of language. Surely we can have a more concise category name than that?
  • In my opinion, the names in any category tree should be consistent. This is more important than matching them to any one particular country's usage.
  • Before changing cat names yet again and making numerous articles pop up on people's watchlists again, this should be debated at a more visisble venue to ensure it actually has consensus. Relevant wikiprojects should be involved for instance.
  • Duplicate and related categories might be an issue, but they don't need to be discussed as part of this issue. Let's keep it focused. If there were duplicate categories after the renaming, then surely there must have been duplicate categories before renaming. They can be dealt with as a separate issue regardless of what renaming decisions are made. SpinningSpark 09:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Spinningspark, I'm not sure that this is the place for it but I think that User:Skookum1's comment may have given the wrong impression. It wasn't a discussion about what should be done to sort things out but a more general discussion. Skookum1 mentioned to me that the discussion was closed. Seven hours later I replied noting that I still wasn't sure that it was a good thing. I also pointed out the problems that the deletion caused with the removal of First Nation but leaving the Canadian category. Skookum1 said that the hierarchy needed sorting, similar to above. I pointed out that there were redundancies in the categories. Skookum1 agreed and said that he hoped it could get fixed without another CfD. The rest of the conversation had nothing to do with the categories and we never made any comments about deciding anythig.
As for the archaeology we already have Category:Archaeological cultures of North America, Category:Archaeology of the Americas and Category:Archaeological sites in the Americas. Ignoring the possible duplications is not really an option. Anyway I'm sure Good Olfactory has better things to do than read through our ramblings. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
My apologies to Good Olfactory for cluttering their talk page, but I did not start this thread here, and, as I said, the participants seem not to be discussing this anywhere else online. CambridgeBayWeather, I think that after having got a decision at CFD, and then persuaded the closer to amend it to your liking, there absolutely must, at the very least, be a further CFD before making another change. Broadening it out to an even more extensive set of categories needs a broader discussion still, not a backroom discussion between two editors that no one else is party to. SpinningSpark 11:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Spinningspark there is no backroom discussion. The discussion was at the CfD linked in the above section. That discussion was just closed and there has been no time to start another. Nobody said anything about not having a CfD of any sort, just that it was to be hoped that there wasn't a need for one. Perhaps categories don't need renaming/deleting who knows at this point. Seeing as we haven't taken a full look at how all the categories are laid out the idea of a CfD right now is not really useful. If you look at the original discussion at the CfD you can see that Skookum1 and I disagree on this subject. I just realised that the last sentence in the section above was badly phrased and I apologise for that. I didn't mean that Skookum1 and I would go off Wikipedia somewhere and come up with something but just that we could work together. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Which we do a lot of - work together, even when disagreeing; unlike so many others ready to hurl dung when not even knowing t he material at question. We've become friends in the real world and share many common interests.....and a shared concern for Canadian history and geography and indigenous content. Wikipedia doesn't own us, nor are we required to hold all our discussions in public view when discussing goings-on and issues here. The whole point of the sandbox-space suggested to Good Ol'Factory, which would spin off a wikiproject talkpage, nto a personal talkpage, is to lay out the tangles of the interconnected indigenous hierarchies and see where the gaps and redundancies are...and the remaining mis-uses of "Native American", fixing which was the point of the CfD; that redundacies have resulted was inevitable...partly because some categories have themselves as grandparents; per Zaphod Beeblebrox in the Hitchhiker'rs Guide, discussing being his own grandfather...."It's complicated...had to do with a time-machine and a contraceptive".

And noting re the above that the RM at Talk:Plains Indians#Requested move to move it to Indigenous peoples of the Great Plains has failed...for the third time. that name-formulation applies in other indigenous region-groupings in North America...almost, as Inuit and Metis do not require the "indigenous peoples" tag as with the Pacific Northwest Coast, Northwest Plateau, etc (with the ride that "indigenous people of the Great Plains" does have both US and Canadian Metis articles/cats as subsets, so that cat-name does have a reason to exist, even though teh article title doesn't (other than as a small dab page to the Plains Indians articles with the two Metis articles...).Skookum1 (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

(I've no problem with my talk page being used for this topic for the time being. However, the idea of eventually getting a dedicated talk spot for this subject is probably a good idea.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Katherine/Katharine

Re [2] - my bad. I should have read it more carefully :-) Optimist on the run (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

However, I think some of those pages should perhaps be combined. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Chart formatting templates

(... the moved-to category name is unusual: should probably propose this at WP:CFD)

What would you suggest..? (The rename was prompted by there being chart-related formatting/function templates other than {{Chart}}.)

Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The main issue I had was that the new name was Category:Template:Chart templates. It wasn't clear why "template" was in the name twice. Category:Chart templates would make more sense to me. I'm not sure if you intended that or not. In any case, really you can propose that it be moved to any name you prefer, I just think it should go through WP:CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your reply. I've just seen Category:Coord template, so how about Category:Chart template..? (Singular, as, like {{Coord}}'s category, it's a category for a single template.) If you think that's okay, does it really need other people's time/attention at CfD (even speedy CfD)..? Yours, Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I would think it would need to be pluralized, if only because Template:Brick chart is also in it, which is a separate template. It's really only the most obvious or uncontroversial renames that most users are OK avoiding CFD for. If I were you I would just make the proposal there that you think is best, since you have experience with the template and similar categories. (You could try speedy; users are pretty good at picking off ones that don't meet the criteria. I'm not sure if you can shoehorn it into any of the criteria there, but it's possible.) It's up to you, though—alternatively, you could just go ahead and rename it yourself; I won't revert the name again. But there's no guarantee that another user won't want to rename it later, and you won't have a CFD result to fall back on to preserve the name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your thoughts. I think the only pages categorized there now are all part of or directly related to {{Chart}}, so I'll "try a speedy" at CfD. If it's ejected from speedy, I'd be surprised if it didn't qualify for renaming in the standard queue. Best wishes, Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok, sounds good to me. I'm sorry for the hassle I've created. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Tortuga

Hi Good Olfactory, the talk page of Tortuga (Haiti) is currently held at Tortug (Haiti), it didn't transition with the article page in the move. Savvyjack23 (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. I will fix it. Do you want to have a discussion on the name? Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Mark Paredes

As an uninvolved admin with an interest in Latter Day Saint movement topics, could you review the current status of Mark Paredes, the edit history since at least the beginning of January, and the attempts at dialog on the talk page? 104.50.126.207 (talk · contribs) is doing SPA editing on that article, and appears to have some conection with the subject of the article: in this dif the IP claimed to be Paredes, but this is completely unconfirmed. I have tried to accommodate concerns expressed by the person editing at the IP where I felt it reasonably do so, but the IP persists with less than useful editing on the article. I'd like your advice on how to proceed. Has my editing caused any legitimate BLP concerns on the article, in it's current state? Have I been been unreasonable, or unrealistic in my interactions with that IP? Given the claim made by that IP, should that IP be not allowed to edit the article, based on the pattern of editing, and wp:COI restrictions? Is it appropriate to semi-protect the article (so IPs cannot edit it), given the circumstances? —Asterisk*Splat→ 16:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

There's definitely a problem there—you're trying to discuss the issue on the talk page, but the IPs are making no effort to participate. Some of the IP's previous edits I think have fairly removed some material that didn't belong, so not all of the edits have been a problem (though they certainly have been self-serving, if it is Paredes). The more recent edits are more questionable, I think, and are the type of thing to be discussed on the article talk page, as you've attempted. Before any action to semi-protect the page is taken, I think you should make an effort to engage with the person on the IP user talk page(s). I suggest that you bring the Wikipedia conflict of interest guidelines to their attention but also invite them to participate in resolving the outstanding issues on the article talk page rather than just editing back and forth. I would try that, and if nothing changes afterwards, then I think it would be appropriate to do something else, perhaps a page protection or a further message to the IP from an admin regarding the situation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The IP editor has made their initial comment on Talk:Mark Paredes, to which I have replied, Unfortunately I became a bit too wordy in my reply, so it's a coin-toss as to whether it gets read and responded to. Looks like we are on the right track, at least for now. Thanks for your suggestions! Your thoughts are also naturally welcome on that talk page. —Asterisk*Splat→ 19:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Keep me updated on this. If there is a breakdown or if things get hairy, I could try to mediate or intervene somehow. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk Back

Hello, Good Olfactory. You have new messages at ARTEST4ECHO's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Help creating Article in English

Hello Good Olfactory, Step over here for help. Well, I wonder if you can help me with the creation of this article in English. I honestly do not think I can work on this project, because my English is not very good. If you can not help me, I would like to apply will contact someone in the community who handles both languages. Can you leave me your comments on my talk page here. Well, of course thank you very much. A greeting, Deucaleon 16:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deucaleon (talk • contribs)

Outside opinion at LDS related article

It looks like I might be involved in a slow-burning edit war over on Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You've edited the article in the past but I don't believe are part of the current disagreement - would you mind taking a look and providing an outside opinion? The disagreement centers around including a Boyd Packer quote in a certain place. User:InfiLaw keeps pushing it while another editor and I have repeatedly removed it, and another editor has expressed disagreement with the edit on the talk page. I'm sure we could all use some outside eyes to help avert a full-blown edit war. Thanks. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the current edits of mine that are being deleted state exactly what Boyd Packer said from the pulpit during general conference (which talk was later published by the church in a pamphlet for decades). That is, Packer thanked a missionary for hitting his homosexual companion, and although he didn't "recommend" that course of action, he didn't "omit" it either - he concluded by saying "You must protect yourself." This is "condoning" and "gay-bashing" in my opinion, but I suppose not all see it that way. Accordingly, I've removed all language that suggests that the church condoned gay-bashing and simply state exactly what Packer said in his talk. Several users are now claiming that this was just Boyd's personal opinion and not an official church stance; however, many of the citations in the Wiki page refer to past talks given by general authorities during general conference, and such remarks are treated as the church's official position when it doesn't conflict with the church's current stance on an issue. Anyway, it is misleading to state only the current stance of the church on an issue and pretend that there have never been controversial statements about the issue in the past. All I am asking is that both sides be mentioned.

InfiLaw (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I've commented on the talk page there. I definitely think that prior to making the changes, a consensus should be established. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
This is to recognize all the work you've done to ensure that article names are McGill Guide-compliant! wia (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

IP Editor and Sock puppetry

I was wondering if you couldn't tell me how Wikipedia works with regards to IP editor and Sock puppetry. I have noticed a IP editor who used to log in and edit as a registered user. However, and I would assume it was so he couldn't be held accountable for bad editing, this editor is not using some kind of floating IP address. For example, one edit he was 2607:FB90:2903:2EEB:E7E3:ECAD:B8EF:48F8 the next he was 2607:FB90:2903:559D:2F78:15E8:5153:1B40. As you can see they always start with 2607:FB90: but it changes often. I've seen this editor on several Latter Day Saint pages, and I would bet you have also. 90% of the time his edits are reverted almost immediately.

Anyway, my question is two fold.

  1. 1 is this considered Sock puppetry? As the IP address changes constantly, it seems to me that, at least under the spirit of the policy, this is Sock puppetry.
  2. 2 Can anything be done if it's reported? I'm not sure how Wikipedia handles blocking of IP address, but since the IP address changes constantly (except for 2607:FB90), it seems to me that nothing can really be done. Unless Wikipedia has some why to stop this, reporting the editor to Sock puppetry seems pointless.

So what do you suggest.?--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 20:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, it even worst. I found several edits where the IP address changes from 2607 to 2605. I guess it really doesn't matter. It's clearly the same person, but even if is is Sock puppetry, I doubt anything can be done.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 20:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
It's for this reason that some editors support having a rule that only registered users should be able to edit. I think that in cases where it's obvious that it is the same person using different IP addresses, it's fair to treat them as the same. So if one IP got blocked for vandalism or disruptive behaviour, it would be fair to block the other one as well. I guess it's not strictly speaking "sock puppetry", since I think that usually presupposes that more than one registered account is being used, but it's very much akin to it, and when it's obvious I don't have a problem dealing with them together. When I block IPs for problematic behaviour, usually what I do is I don't block account creation, so that kind of encourages them to create an account. The block will prevent the IP from editing without an account, but with an account they are able to. For stuff like this that doesn't really fit into any of the usual reporting places, an WP:ANI usually works. Or, if it's vandalism, use Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree, but I don't think it would work in this case. Sock puppetry dose say that logging out in order to violate WP rules, so that your account isn't blocked, is a form of Sock puppetry. The problem I see is that this editor, and it's very clear it's the same person, is using some form of system that changes the compete IP address every time he edits. The only recourse would be to have a rule that only registered users should be able to edit. I admit I don't know how blocking works from an Admin point of view, but I don't think it would be possible to do anything, as his IP address changes so dramatically every time. Anyway, thanks for the help.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 13:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for taking the time to help another editor understand how things work. --- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 13:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Restores

Thanks! 333-blue 02:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem—sorry to be an inconvenience. I'm still not sure why that would happen. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for restore! 333-blue 02:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Christianity

I can't believe that I have to warn you for edit warring on Template:Christianity. You know WP:3RR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you do have to. 3RR wasn't violated by me or anyone else, unless I'm missing something. Koavf and I are users that are familiar with each other, we get along, and we both understand the limits of discussing through edit reversions. (Frankly, I find it difficult to get Koavf to discuss anything on talk pages, but he will engage and let me know what he's thinking via edit summaries.) I've no problem with you voicing your concern, though, and it's understandable. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

treaty cats: Sudans....

He Good Olfactory, I checked Category:Treaties of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, where only 2 conventions are placed. I think the Brussels convention (1924) does not belong there. The depositary lists Sudan, with a reservation, that this ratification was part of the extension of France to French West Africa (comprising French Sudan, now Mali). As the Brussels convention already lists Category:Treaties extended to French West Africa, I suppose the Category:Treaties of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan cat can simply be deleted from the Brussels convention page? L.tak (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I've had a look—I think you are right and that was my mistake. I must not have read the reservations very well. No excuse that they are in French—my French is good, not perfect—but the reservations are not worded very difficulty. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Well the excuse may be that the Belgian depositary pages are quite ... outdated. Anyway, I didn't dare to change it myself as I am not very familiar with the African colonial heritage. L.tak (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
One kind of weird thing about it though—as you say, "French Sudan" was in present-day Mali. That's a long way from Sudan, which was Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Why would an application of the treaty to French Sudan have any relevance whatsoever to present-day Sudan? I'm wondering if there is not some sort of error there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
It probably hasn't any bearing on present day Sudan. However, I can only assume that the Belgians, when they spoke (speak) about Soudan, they silently meant French Sudan (rather than UK/Egyptian Sudan); because of their cultural and geographic proximity to France. L.tak (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
It's possible ... though in context, you would think that they would list that under "Mali". Like you say though—who knows when this was last updated, so it might be a term they continued to use for Mali for some time. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Looking again, it seems they are just very afraid to do anything that goes beyond the formal depositary notifications (probably because they don't want to take a stand regarding state succession issues, so crossing a decolonization line will be very problematic). Note they also have listed still Upper Volta etc... L.tak (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I think you're right. (I can imagine that most Belgians find Belgium's whole African colonial experience to be reasonably regrettable in retrospect (maybe even moreso than the British or French experiences), so I can understand the reticence in making any post-deposit changes that aren't officially communicated to the government as depositary.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Desdemona Wadsworth Fullmer Smith

I could use the opinion of an uninvolved admin familiar with the Latter Day Saints movement regarding Desdemona Wadsworth Fullmer Smith, Talk:Desdemona Wadsworth Fullmer Smith, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ARTEST4ECHO, and User talk:AsteriskStarSplat#Desdemona Wadsworth Fullmer Smith. I'm done for the evening so there will be no more edits from me tonight. —Asterisk*Splat→ 03:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:LDS sects/Mormon fundamentalist

I've been thinking of doing a modification of Template talk:LDS sects/Mormon fundamentalist. However it being such a big change, I though I would seek some input before making the change. If your interested in commenting, I would love to here from you at Template_talk:LDS_sects/Mormon_fundamentalist#Unweildy--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 21:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Medical Research categorisation

I think there is a mess here. There are two separate lots of categories: Category:Medical researchers by nationality and Category:Medical research by country. Almost all of the subcategories seem to be identical and overlapping. I think one of them should be eliminated. Probably the nationality, because I suspect there will be better information about the country in which the research was conducted than about the subject's nationality. What do you think?Rathfelder (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

They're basically identical, aren't they? Categorizing people by nationality and occupation is the standard way to categorize people, so I think that at this stage, the "by country" one is redundant. It's not that it couldn't exist, it's just that it's not a useful category right now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I cleaned up Category:Medical research by country, so it is as it should be now. Doesn't have much, but it can definitely grow. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Gordon B. Hinckley. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

McGill Guide: Style of Cause Provided By Reporter Error

You've made many changes to articles, based on what I assume is your interpretation of McGill 3.3.9 (8th edition). You're ignoring the second (bolded) point of Rule 3.3 which holds that "when the style of cause is provided by the reporter, keep it as is. If the decision does not indicate the style of cause, follow the supplementary rules indicated in sections 3.3.1 to 3.3.18."

This affects many Supreme Court decisions, such as Canada (Attorney General) v Bedford. The style of causes for Supreme Court cases are provided by the SCRs (i.e., "indexed as"). You should not be abbreviating these decisions to Canada (AG). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thompsoni2 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

They can be moved. I've no attachment to any of the current names. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Florida v. Zimmerman Move Question

When you moved Florida v. Zimmerman, why didn't you move the talk page to match the new article title? -- Veggies (talk) 08:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably an oversight on my part as a result of the talk page move being blocked on first attempt. There was no intent for them to be different, and I see now that it has been moved. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Plan of salvation (Latter-day Saints) → Talk:Plan of salvation (Latter Day Saints)

Would you be willing to move the article named Talk:Plan of salvation (Latter-day Saints) over the existing redirect at Talk:Plan of salvation (Latter Day Saints)? I cannot do this as it requires admin rights. The current article name is Plan of salvation (Latter Day Saints), and not having the talk page the same is causing some issues related to automated evaluation tools (e.g. the "book report" at Book talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints didn't recognise the class assigned to that article). —Asterisk*Splat→

Done. (I made a classic freudian blunder and initially moved it to Talk:Plan of salvation (Latte Day Saints), but cleaned that up immediately ...) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Be careful with that Mormon coffee; it may be decaf, but it still really packs a punch...  ;-) —Asterisk*Splat→ 00:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Album categories

Who has been deleting the album categories without a proper discussion? - Bossanoven (talk) 05:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Those aren't umbrella nominations. - Bossanoven (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

And you didn't properly attribute the discussion, making it difficult to find and know if an actual discussion had taken place. - Bossanoven (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you'll need to specifically cite what category deletions you are referring to for me to be able to answer. (I'm not trying to be difficult here: I deal with a lot of different category issues/deletions in the course of a typical week, and it's impossible for me to always know which users are closely involved in or care about particular discussions.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

2013 CfD Close

Hi, Good Ol’factory,
I've been working a bit on the GamerGate controversy article and talk page which caused me to look at other articles on gender and video games and I came across this CfD case that you closed, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 2#Category:Video games featuring female protagonists. It was clearly a contentious and divided discussion and all of the "regular" editors at CfD were arguing for deletion but you weighed the articles to keep to be more significant. In light of what's been occurring over the past six months, it now looks like a sign of what was to come. Looking at the arguments with hindsight, I think you made the right call! Liz Read! Talk! 18:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: Central Hockey League

I notice you moved the 1992-2014 CHL to be the primary page for it...but I also notice you did it while gathering NO consensus on it whatsoever? Just because you're an admin doesn't mean that the guidelines of civility and reaching consensus don't apply...I think you should have discussed it on the talk page before you made the move. Tom Danson (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Tom Danson: There's a bit of pot calling the kettle black here. What I did was move the article back to where it was before it was moved without consensus (by you) to Central Hockey League (1992–2014). You made no efforts to gather a consensus for the new name. If you think it should be moved to the disambiguated name, that is the proposal that needs a consensus or a formal proposal to implement. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Magic categories to be merged back to block structure discussion

A nomination can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 16#Category:Magic: The Gathering blocks to merge Magic categories back to blocks from sets. Feel free to join in on the discussion. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


Article move

Hi, Thanks for moving about K3 Challengers League, Can you move one more article? Sriwijaya Official website is displaying Sriwijaya FC not F.C. Please move this article

Sriwijaya F.C. => Sriwijaya FC

ThanksFootwiks (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, done! Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Corruption

Thanks for the category help. Looks like New Jersey is winning the corruption race so far. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I thought that would be the best way to set it up. Knowing what I know of the place, NJ may be winning forever! Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Radio owners

Regarding your CFD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_17#Radio_owners, I just wanted to let you know that we actually do already have a category for companies which own radio stations — it's just named Category:Radio broadcasting companies of the United States rather than "radio station owners". Bearcat (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Backlogged categories

Good Olfactory, I've been working with red linked categories and orphaned categories and I came across the page Wikipedia:Database reports/Polluted categories. There was no explanation and I hope you can tell me what "polluted" means and how I can address any problems. It's recently been compiled so it's not a database page that is outdated. Thanks for any assistance you can provide. Liz Read! Talk! 19:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, for most regular categories, it means that there is a page in it that is in userspace; ie, the page name begins with "User:". Those pages should not appear in regular categories. Alternatively, it could be the opposite problem: it could be a category intended to be solely for user pages, but someone has added a non-userspace page to the category. In other words, "polluted categories" are those that contain a mixture of userspace pages and non-userspace pages. Categories should always contain one type or the other type, but never a mix of both. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I never would've guessed that, I appreciate the explanation. It might be worth trying to resolve some of these categories. I'll put it on my to do list! Liz Read! Talk! 00:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Puerto Rican athletes

My bad on the category move, got a bit overzealous. spiderjerky (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Church and state law

Category:Church and state law, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Editor2020, Talk 23:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Had to laugh

Since you commented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ARTEST4ECHO/Archive#03_February_2015, I just had to share a laugh I got when I read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kbabej/Archive. Apparently Kbabej was a sockpuppet account. Talk about irony, accusing AsteriskStarSplat and myself of being sockpuppets to "win" a content dispute, all the while being a sockpuppet account. Talk about irony. LOL--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 20:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Coincidences are often interesting. Apparently a...echo is less uncommon than I might have thought. - jc37 20:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I suppose it does make some sense in a weird way—they might be sensitized to sockpuppetry possibilities because they assume that everyone is like them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

PBP is clearly out of line

PBPs campaign against articles on Latter-day Saints has been carried out with clear signs of malice. He has advocated for exclusion of all LDS sources in ways that if applied to any other group would be unquestionably considered bigotted. He has on multiple occasions been told to stop hounding me but continues to do so. He maliciously seeks to disqualify any comment I make on these discussions. He has tried to get me banned from wikipedia on multiple occasions. His whole behavior on this issue has been anything other than neutral. I have tried to be patient, but all I get is more attacks and more insults.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You've tried this before - User_talk:NeilN/Archive_20#Please_reconsider_General_Authority_issue. If it's a question of neutrality, yours is definitely suspect ("works to restrict the groups ability to be presented as it sees itself in Wikipedia"). --NeilN talk to me 05:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Johnpacklambert, can you show me some evidence for your claims? I.e., can you provide some edits where PBP has showed "clear signs of malice" or bigoted attitudes? That's different than not being "neutral". He doesn't have to be neutral—he's allowed to have an opinion. But having an opinion does not automatically equal bigotry without some strong evidence. (I have read his comments relating to use of Church News, Ensign, and Deseret News as sources in bios of general authorities, and I find his approach to be not an unreasonable one, even if other users can disagree with it.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
@Johnpacklambert:, When you make 3-4 comments in a row defaming people who disagree with you, something you've done over and over in CfD and AfD discussions, can you really blame me for not liking you? (And that's hardly the only bad example of your misbehavior). Yes, I don't like articles that are solely sourced from LDS-related publications (articles written by anybody, not just you). I don't believe them to be reliable because a great many of them are sourced from primary sources I can never have access to because I am a non-Mormon. I think it's a particular problem with articles about people who are members or officials of the LDS church, because the sources are not independent of the topic. And it's even MORE of a problem when we're looking at people like Richards who are BLPs. But, instead of actually sourcing articles, you've gone around claiming the people are notable no matter how poorly sourced their articles are, and claiming that I'm a bigot, which is not really accurate and certainly a personal attack. And you've taken what I'm advocating way out of proportion. All I've ever said is I don't think LDS sources should be used to determine notability of LDS officials. They can still be used to cite facts in the articles, and they can still be used to determine the notability of non-Mormons. pbp 07:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The whole "Yes I don't like articles that are solely sourced to LDS-related publications. I don't believe them to be reliable." This is a statement that LDS-related is "unreliable". This is categorizing sources as unreliable based on the religion of the person writing them. If that is not bigoted

than nothing is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

    • And, as usual, you are mischaracterizing Purplebackpack89's views. Please provide diffs or stop as constant claims of bigotry are harassment. --NeilN talk to me 18:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Here is a quote of the type of rude comment he incessantly makes. "You do realize that merely saying "Person X is notable" ain't an actual argument, right? And that there's no policy or guideline saying that members of the 1st Quorum are automatically notable? This may very well be kept, but it shouldn't be kept on the basis of votes like yours," He consistently responds to comments by me with this level of rudeness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
    • It's not rude, it's correct. An argument saying, "Person X is notable because I say he's notable" should be discounted. --NeilN talk to me 18:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
      • The tone is rude. If you cannot see that, than there is little point in this discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
        • So now you're reducing malice and bigotry to having a blunt tone? --NeilN talk to me 19:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The claim that LDS-sources are based on "primary documents that some cannot have access to as a non-Mormon" is false. It is part of a false picture of the Church withholding access to non-members of certain reccords. At best it shows general ignorance of the topics under discussion. It is not a true presentation of the matter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Prove it. Prove that all of the LDS archives are accessible to anyone who wants to view them. Because there are reliable sources that indicate otherwise. My experience has been the latter. I can't even get a map of the ward in my town without having the LDS password. pbp 19:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I can't get a map of the ward in your town either, since I don't live there. The maps are limited to local people because of privacy considerations. The archives on the other hand are not limited to members in any sense. They are open to researchers of all faiths. Claims otherwise are part of the consistent rhetoric of anti-Mormons. Here we see PBP engaging in more anti-Mormon rhetoric. The type of rhetoric that resonates in the circles of those who work to actively attack the Church. He is finally showing his true colors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
        • @Johnpacklambert: As I and two other users have told you in this thread, being skeptical of Mormon sourcing in selected instances is not bigotry. You are FAR too cavalier in tossing around bigotry and other loaded words, words that are so loaded that using them for any reason is an automatic personal attack. Still waiting on the proof; instead of providing some you just claimed that I and the reliable sources are bigoted. pbp 07:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Johnpacklambert: I will grant you that some of PBP's comments have been rude to you. He could be more civil to you. I think that he has acknowledged that and has said that it largely stems from past bad interactions with you. But from what I have seen you say, JPL, is far, far worse in terms of rudeness and incivility. PBP is not saying (I don't think) that all LDS-related sources are unreliable in every context. He is saying that if an article about an LDS leader only has citations to LDS-related sources, then there is a problem using those sources to establish notability outside of the LDS Church. To me, this seems self-evident, and I am reasonably sympathetic to the existence of most LDS articles on Wikipedia. (Not all LDS Church documents are open to the public. Handbook 1 is not—I have a copy because someone provided me with one, but it's hard to get hold of. Even the Church Historian recently acknowledged that the church has not always been completely open with historical documents: he is quoted here as saying "I think in the past there was a tendency to keep a lot of the records closed or at least not give access to information. But the world has changed in the last generation—with the access to information on the Internet, we can’t continue that pattern; I think we need to continue to be more open.") Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

none diffusion of religion categories

The guidelines of diffusion and non diffusion say that religion categories are non-diffusing. Thus all people in category Category:American Latter Day Saint hymnwriters should also be in Category:American hymnwriters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert: Could you link to the guidelines for this diffusion principle? I never know what people are talking about when they refer to it. Anyway, doing this would apply the guideline it to a musical category (hymnwriters). Applying it to the religious aspect would simply mean that they need to be in Category:American Latter Day Saints, no? I suppose "hymnwriter" carries with it a religious aspect. But if we apply it strictly, that would also mean anyone in Category:American Latter Day Saint hymnwriters would have to also be in Category:American hymnwriters, Category:Christian hymnwriters, and Category:Latter Day Saint hymnwriters. It gets to be a bit excessive, which is why I'd be interested in reading and discussing this guideline. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:People excommunicated by the Church of Christ (Temple Lot)

Category:People excommunicated by the Church of Christ (Temple Lot), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. pbp 16:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Gas station attendants

I see you have deleted Category:Gas station attendants with this explanation: C1: Empty category: single article in it was deleted. Since only admins can see what article was deleted, I wonder if you would elaborate. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

See this category discussion here. The discussion contains a reference to the AFD for the article discussion, which was here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank for the speedy response. Can you also tell me who created those deleted pages? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Category was created by you; article was created by User:Squigglezap. Creation of the article appears to have been Squigglezap's only edit. It was in September 2008. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I checked to see who created Ronald Read and Category:Gas station attendants and it says I was the creator of both pages, yet I did not receive a notice of deletion nomination in either case? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
For the article, User:Squigglezap had an edit before yours, but I see it was just making the page a redirect to Ronald C. Read. You then converted the page from a redirect into an article. Notifying content creators of AFD/CFD discussions is optional. Because of that, and because I don't like to rely on other users for notifications, I keep pages I might be interested in on my watchlist. Tagging the article or category is mandatory, so watching the page is the only surefire way of finding out about deletion nominations. (The category can be re-created if populated—it was only deleted because the single article in it was deleted.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The [[ link I provided above says I am the creator of Ronald Read
  • The other editor whom you say created the article was also not notified
  • I am glad watching works for you, but it does not work for me. Does this mean my method is bad and yours is good? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • No, that's not what I am saying. All I'm saying is that your method relies on other editors deciding to take actions which are optional under Wikipedia practices. My method relies on other editors taking actions which are mandatory under Wikipedia practices. It's up to you how to approach the issue. If you want to complain about not being notified regarding the article deletion, you should speak with the editor that nominated the article. But you should be aware that they can simply respond with, "I chose not to notify you,", and that that decision doesn't delegitimize the discussion that was held.
  • To clarify what I said about the Read article, since it appears that you think I'm suggesting that you were not the "creator": the other editor initially created the article space Ronald Read as a redirect to Ronald C. Read; you converted the same space into an article seven years later.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Intergovernmental Agreement on Dry Ports

Saw your edit there. This is part of a campaign. I posted this to another editor: "For several years socks from Rio de Janeiro have been trying to add various terms from this videogame to articles, often (like the last few weeks) changing "autonomous republic" to "administrative republic". See [3] - now I'm not accusing you of being one of those, obviously, but you did add the wiki for Europa Universalis III to Administrative republic, which until mid February was Autonomous republic until a brand new editor came along and changed it. Since then a number of IP socks have been editing it. I'm not happy with that. It still contains a couple of country names which use 'autonomous' and not 'administrative', and although for Yugoslavia 'administrative' is sourced, most sources call them 'autonomous'. I generally don't like undiscussed name changed, and this one was immediately jumped on by obvious socks. I'm tempted to revert, any comments?" I've found several dozen similar changes from the past 2 months. Just a heads up really, not asking you to do anything or comment on the above article.

Dougweller (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Good to be aware of what's going on; thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Category redirects to itself

Hi. I'm guessing you didn't really mean to have Category:Open air museums be a redirect to itself, but I'm not sure what you meant to do. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I didn't. :) It was renamed to include a hyphen, so I meant to redirect it to the new hyphenated Category:Open-air museums. Thanks for letting me know. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Category redirect - why?

Why did you do redirect this category when the discussion was stlll in progress. Now that the discussion has closed as no consensus please restore all your changes. Thanks, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Because it's a duplicate category with exactly the same scope as a pre-existing (ie, older) category. Absent a consensus to rename, first in time takes precedence. You could nominate it for renaming, if you like. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
As you well know your so-called pre-existing category, was created a couple of weeks before the category you redirected to it. You also know I tried to initiate a discussion with the category creator who did not respond. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, how do you explain the edit you made while the discussion was taking place? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it was only a couple of weeks earlier—earlier is earlier, and the earlier one takes precedence. There's no "so-called pre-existing" about it—Category:American law by year was in existence before you created Category:United States law by year: that's the definition of pre-existing. I explain the edit you show with the same rationale—I was putting the relevant categories in the older of the two categories which have an identical scope. I understand that you don't like the name of the older category. That's fine, but pestering me here about it won't change it—only nominating it for renaming might change it, so I suggest you do that if you are concerned about it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Informing content creators when making proposals such as for deletion

In cases such as the proposal to delete Category:Islamic extremist groups restricting education would it be possible to inform the creator of the content? Many thanks. GregKaye 10:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I added Template:Cfd to the category. If you had the category on your watchlist, that would have served as notification. That is one of the purposes of requiring categories to be tagged when they go to CFD. (I previously notified users via a message on their talk page, but I received too much negative feedback about that practice from various editors—accusations of spamming, etc. So now, and because it's not a requirement, I don't bother.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:AFL–CIO litigation

Category:AFL–CIO litigation, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. 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. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Australian politicians categories

Hi, and thanks for your message. I suppose there could be a purpose for the state-based categories (only as parents, as I wouldn't think there would be anyone who would belong solely in a "Queensland politicians"-type category). I'm not sure they will have a purpose in the newly reorganised structure, but I have no particular problem with them sitting there for now. Frickeg (talk) 07:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Let me know when your clean up is largely done, and I'd be happy to have another look. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Will do. As I go, I'm more inclined to think the state-based categories might be useful after all, at least for state-based parties and maybe some of the categories-by-division. It'll probably be a few weeks until I'm done (it's a big job!) but I'll get back to you! Frickeg (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The bulk of these have now been done (certainly federally, and for the bigger parties for the states) if you want to have a look. Frickeg (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Looks pretty good. So what do you think--do we want the "STATE politicians by party" categories? I can see that they still might be useful in some respects. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Guidelines for categorization

At CfD, sometimes we have "similar" discussions in the sense that we're actually discussing the interpretation of a certain guideline. Especially the exception rule in WP:SMALLCAT and the concept of a defining characteristic are recurring themes. Is there any platform on which we can discuss to make the guidelines more explicit? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I think in the past, most discussions of that nature have been at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization. Like CFD, sometimes such discussions have a hard time attracting many editors, but if some leg-work is done in notifying those who participate regularly at CFD, sometimes some discussions can get healthy levels of participation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

sigh

suprised you hadnt weighed in at [4] I always claim it was your massive categorising in the area that inspired the Wikipedia:WikiProject Death project... sigh. satusuro 14:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to do what the consensus wants; no strong opinions about it. For the most part, I didn't start most of such categorizations, only filled the schemes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
my stringent apologies for alluding to such (sic) - the memory was of starts/fill ins goes back 5 years now, which for the state of the little grey cells is somewhat blurry and exceeding in its inexactitude or something like that... satusuro 11:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
No apology or sic necessary. :) Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Demographic history by country

I was trying to determine who created Category:Demographic history by country and all that shows up in the Revision history is you as the creator in 2014. I know this category existed way before this date, so why can't I see its history? Also where can I find the respective wp:CFD? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably the easiest way to find the CFD is to click on "what links here" from the category page. That shows a link to here, where it was renamed. Originally, it was created by User:Shyamsunder on 1-Jan-2010. In the CFD, it was renamed Category:Demographic history by country or region. After the bot did the rename, I re-created Category:Demographic history by country as a category redirect to the new category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Is there no way to preserve Revision History in such cases? Ottawahitech (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
There wasn't until recently, but now that categories are "movable", the history can be retained just as it is retained when an article page is moved. My understanding is that Cydebot (the bot that processes most category renames) has now been configured to "move" renamed categories rather than what was previously done, which is create a new category and delete the old one. So yes, in the future this shouldn't be a problem, or at least it will become less and less common of a problem as we go forward. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Christian_denominations_by_denominational_family

When you closed CFD on Category:Christian_denominations_by_denominational_family no one removed the page tag. tahc chat 15:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Luxembourgish rather than Luxembourgian

See Talk:Luxembourgers please. Sorry for not discussing earlier. – Kaihsu (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Good_Olfactory/Archive_29&oldid=1141785403"