![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
G.O. - I don't interact with a lot of administrators, but I remember communicating with you in the past. There has been a lot of back and forth between me and some other editors on the George Wythe University and Oliver DeMille articles. It appears one of these editors has a clear conflict of interest. This edit alone [1] appears to be near-conclusive evidence that User:Ibinthinkin is none other than the subject of the article himself, Oliver DeMille. Note the extremely detailed narrative of his high school years, complete with references to obscure newspaper clippings of the time. But the damning evidence comes in footnote 19, where he adds a deep link to a scanned image of his own college transcript, complete with social security number and everything. This transcript is not linked anywhere at the hosted website, and appears to have been added for the sole purpose of being referenced in the Wikipedia article. The site hosting the transcript is owned and run by Oliver DeMille (see http://www.tjedonline.com/about). I really don't know what the next step would be, or how to make a formal accusation. I've already accused Ibinthinkin of being a sockpuppet of User:4by40, but this is something different. Could you point me in the right direction? -- TrustTruth ( talk) 14:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
In your close of the Vegas category, where do you come down on the Las Vegas Strip? I favor including items on The Strip and McCarran Airport in Las Vegas, Nevada (as they are in unincorporated areas next to Las Vegas), and Vegaswikian doesn't. So which way should we go on this?-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 04:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your help on this. -- TrustTruth ( talk) 15:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
"On the other hand, if you are in fact Oliver DeMille but you declare now that you are not, it is possible that there will be negative consequences in the future if it is later determined that you are in fact Oliver DeMille."--from Ibinthinkin's talk page
You're not getting my point, and I persist because it concerns your future behavior as an admin. Let me try to put it bluntly again: I think it is inappropriate for an admin to warn a user of "negative consequences" for lying about whether he is or is not a certain real-life person. Do you disagree? 160.39.213.97 ( talk) 23:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
It's clear I'm not going to convince you, so I'll let this drop now too. I only hope that going forward, you would refrain from issuing warnings like this again. Policy, as I read it, never sanctions an admin to coerce a declaration of COI, let alone of a confirmation or denial of being a certain RL person. As I said, I will drop this now, but I hope experienced users or admins who are watching this page will weigh in on whether your warning was appropriate--again, not to protract this particular dispute involving Ibinthinkin, but to guide your behavior as an admin in the future. 160.39.213.97 ( talk) 13:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, regarding
"I'm more concerned here that the closer was the same user as the nominator!":
If that's also breaking a rule, I apologize for that as well. I thought I was correctly following the recipe in
WP:CDP, linked from
WP:CFD, which appear to imply that it's the nominator's responsibility to close off the case they began.
As I mentioned, it seems some CDP clarification is called for... Thanks, —
EqualRights (
talk)
22:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
For future reference. I also updated your archived notes. - jc37 10:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Why did you delete this category? There was NO MENTION of a previous vategory being deleted called "American Neoconservatives". You have just ruined hours of good faith work. Please tell me where I can appeal against this. Vexorg ( talk) 23:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Category:American conservatives has also been deleted multiple times. Postdlf ( talk) 23:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to continue to butt in, Vexorg, but while we're on the subject, a good general consideration regarding characterizations of political orientations is that they are just that—characterizations. These can never be considered objective fact; there's no way to identify a neocon under a microscope. Instead, it's all a matter of self-identification or applied labels, so you can state within an article that someone identifies as a neoconservative or is regarded as one by others. It is just simply never a matter of "is" or "is not". And that's one of the reasons why political characterizations are not used for categories. Postdlf ( talk) 23:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
You recently closed a number of CfD discussions ( here's one) where consensus was not reached. 2 in support of the nomination and 2 opposed does not constitute consensus. In support of your decision, you put up a note to say that this has been discussed elsewhere and so you're in essense disregarding the discussion of the category at hand. The discussion you direct people to is here, where the result of THAT discussion was 2 in support and 2 against. I fail to see where you justify any of those discussions resulted in a consensus to rename.-- ABIJXY ( talk) 20:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
There's never been a very strong consensus either way as to whether categories should be named "Northwest Territories" or "the Northwest Territories", to the best of my knowledge. I don't particularly believe the word "the" is necessary, though I suppose YMMV. Bearcat ( talk) 12:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Touché Are all these country categories inclusive of ancient kingdoms? It's not like we have Category:Cancer deaths in the Abyssinian Empire in addition to ...in Ethiopia, ...in Eritrea, ...in Djibouti, etc. I don't see why Korea gets a pass. That having been said, your point is well taken, as Korea has been a country. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Thankfully this talk page is no longer on my watchlist, btw the Indonesian states created in XXXX i notice they are red cats - I do hope you are going to actually make them valid categories before you are off line :) Satu Suro 03:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC) also Principality of Hutt River was never a valid legal entity either - as far as I can remember - so what it has as categories are indeed open to question Satu Suro 03:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I see you've been on the receiving end of a little prick. Otto4711 ( talk) 17:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Why exactly don't you leave them as is, or at the very least leave the old one? The new one is ridiculously limited; what good are all of these categories when most only have 1 entry? -- Human.v2.0 ( talk) 23:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I did a bit more reading, and was about to revert myself. Thanks anyway. :) TheAE talk/ sign 03:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Could I ask you to keep an eye on List of fictional religions where there's been repeated adding of Mormonism by an ip user from internet.co.nz, please? Here's the history. I'm off on rl holiday until early May.-- Cavrdg ( talk) 05:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Is back: Supergeekfreak ( talk · contribs). Cheers, Katr67 ( talk) 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I removed the category 'territories established in 1713' as it does not really fit. Although that was the date of the Treaty of Utrecht, British Gibraltar predates that considerably, and the territory was identified as Gibraltar prior to its capture in 1704. So its rather complicated ! The ToU was simply the legitimisation of a previous conquest, although the Spanish still argue they never did any such thing. -- Gibnews ( talk) 17:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
My first edit was about Helsinki. I see that Cayman Islands has had page protection for a year. It's a nice article with little edit warring or vandalism. It may be good to end page protection. It doesn't affect me but if Helsinki were page protected, I would have given up and not edited. But it wasn't. Since then, I've corrected a few errors in other articles that wouldn't have been done had Helsinki been padlocked. Do what you think is best; this is just a suggestion. User F203 ( talk) 22:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
To pull some of your remarks from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 17: "(5) how do you know I or any other editor "routinely overlooks" Otto's incivility? For all you know, I've already dealt with the issue over email, or I'm dealing with the issue right now over e-mail, or I'm prepping some on-WP comments/actions as we speak, or, or, or .... It's kind of a pointless game to try to guess at how others regard certain behaviour. (6) All I can suggest for your personal feelings is that if another editor is rude to you personally, ignore him."
Every time a cop pulls me over, I get a ticket; The cop looks at my driving record and sees I've gotten previous tickets and won't cut me any slack the next time I have a police car with its lights on behind mine. My wife gets pulled over just as often, but every time she gets pulled over, the cop checks her record and sends her off with a warning, and the same thing happens the next time around.
We have the same problem here with Otto. I have no idea what you've done, if anything, to deal with one of the worst incivility problems I've ever seen on Wikipedia, one that makes anything I've ever said or done pale in comparison. You have seen the clearest examples of incivility from Otto -- calling me and others an "asshole", their views as "bullshit" and most recently telling me to "shut up" and calling me "arrogant" -- but have never, to my knowledge, left any public warning of incivility on his user page. While I'm sure that the possibility exists that you've sent a warning by email, the warning is worthless. Any other admin looking at his record then gets the false and misleading impression that his record is clean. Yet you have had no problem whatsoever in finding mere trivialities in comparison to Otto's to justify a block.
I find it extremely difficult to accept the ILIKEIT / IHATEIT approach that leads to wildly varying results at CfD, based on justifications that have no relevance to each other. The "rules" (such as they exist) appear to be applied with near complete randomness, based on the personal biases of editors. Unfortunately, Wikipedia "justice" appears to be applied with no more consistency. By failing to publicly address Otto's blatant incivility, it appears to me that you only encourage it. I assume you suggested that Otto lay low for a few days and make a greater effort to control himself, but he only jumps back in with more of the same incivility and personal attacks; Nothing has been solved, and Otto is only emboldened for some more incivility. And if you truly believe that the only response to incivility is to turn the other cheek (or as you state, "if another editor is rude to you personally, ignore him"), I fail to understand why you can't abide by your own adage when it comes to those who disagree with you.
As an attorney in academia and as a Wikipedia officer of the court, I am sure that you can understand that any system -- whether it be a legal system, Categories for Discussion or administrative blocks in Wikipedia -- can only have any measure of community acceptance if there exists a consistent set of rules and regulations that is applied on a consistent basis. The evidence, as I see it, is that CfD has little credibility as a consistent system, and the administrative approach to incivility is not much better. In both cases, you are the person best suited to achieving some much-needed balance. Alansohn ( talk) 05:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Where to start on this? You're really talking about two different issues here, though I see you've tied them together somewhat in your comment. I'll address the CfD issues first, then the Otto issue.
I think you're right to find it difficult to accept many editors' approaches in CfD. Most editors that I've talked to about it do as well; I do too. As you know, Wikipedia is ultimately ruled by people, not by rules. A consensus of users can pretty much overrule any WP guideline, and there are very few policies that are non-negotiable. In CfD, there are not really any "non-negotiables": everything is up for grabs. That can lead to problematic results, of course, particularly if (as you say) participants are basing their comments simply on whether they like a category, or don't like it, or other biases, etc. But at the end of the day, any editor can express their opinion and give the reasons that they want. Sometimes the reasons are based on the guidelines; sometimes not. But if enough people want to keep (or delete) a category, the category will be kept (or deleted), regardless of the strength of the arguments used. I'm not saying vote counting is or should be used—but it's just a recognition of the reality that ultimately there comes a point where overwhelming numbers will carry the day, whether it occurs at CfD or DRV.
I'm sure you know all this, but it's worth being reminded of it. CfD does not operate like a court of law, with strict rules that are not deviated from. (I track CfD cases for my own use in helping me remember what consensus decisions have been made in the past. I've never claimed that my lists at User:Good Olfactory/CFD and User:Good Olfactory/CFR are anything other than personal lists. (The CFR ones should make that clear, since I track only the rename subjects of particular interest to me.) They are not official WP guideline lists, which is why they are in my personal space and not in a WP space. But I use them because they help organize my thoughts as I approach CfDs. It's also true that others are free to use them for any purpose they wish to use them for, but no one is ever compelled to use them or acknowledge that they are somehow authoritative. It's just part of my approach; it doesn't mean it's the one and only correct approach.)
Thus, if you or anyone else is concerned that the CfD "system" (such as it is) "little credibility as a consistent system", I say—"Welcome to Wikipedia!—I'm glad you've recognized how it all works!". This is not a perfect system. It is probably not as effective or efficient as a court of law, and courts of law in many jurisdictions are not very effective or efficient. But at the heart of your complaint is a dissatisfaction with the underlying principle of rule by consensus—it's nothing inherent in CfD that doesn't also exist elsewhere in WP. (Why do you think so many people have sincerely suggested at various times that there are different types of "cabals" that control certain aspects of or topics in Wikipedia? CfD is not unique in this regard.)
What can be done, then? One person can only do so much, of course; I just try to contribute my part. All my contributions at CfD are done as good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia, as are (I believe) the vast majority of editors' efforts there. I can't name a single editor who regularly participates there who I would ever accuse of having any ultimate motive other than to improve WP. The fact that editors differ in their approaches in how to achieve the betterment of WP is unavoidable, though. That's the rub. And it will continue to rub, so I wouldn't hold your breath for any great meeting of the minds to suddenly occur there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
First of all, my comment that you should ignore Otto were prefaced by the following phrase: "All I can suggest for your personal feelings is that if another editor is rude to you personally ...". You left out this part of my comment, and thereby attempted to use it against me by stating, "I fail to understand why you can't abide by your own adage when it comes to those who disagree with you." I don't always ignore comments that conflict with my own opinions, but in general I'm also not personally hurt by the comments! The whole point of what I said was not to simply ignore all other editors and what they say, and that you shouldn't have any dialogue with anyone—rather, it was that if another user says something that upsets you or hurts you, ignore it. That's just my advice, though. You don't have to take it. I've been upset by others' comments about me in the past. Sometimes I have ignored it, sometimes not. But just because an advice giver is not perfect doesn't mean it's not good advice. And maybe it's not even "good" advice. It's just advice. If you don't like it, just don't do it. No need to tell me it's bad advice.
But on to the substance of your comment—my reading of your message as a whole is that you are, essentially, advocating for a block to be imposed on User:Otto4711. You're concerned that as compared to him you've been treated more harshly and there has not been equitable treatment. You've been blocked; you think he should be blocked.
Generally, I give very little heed to any user who approaches me to advocate for a block of another user. I find that almost invariably such requests are motivated by the tit-for-tat approach of "equal WP justice". You're free to advocate for a block all you want to whomever you want, but doing so will not be the motivation for me to impose a block. You called me a "a Wikipedia officer of the court". I reject that designation, because there is no standardized Wikipedia "justice system" or "penal system". "Equal WP justice" is a fable. I don't know who made it up, and I have no idea why. I suppose it's an admirable ideal to strive for, but I'm not going to strive for it by handing out my blocks for "balance" or "consistency".
After my spectacular failure several months ago when I tried to "help" both you and Otto, only to have my good faith effort thrown back into my face for its lack of "equal justice", I have given up on trying to bring any sort of resolution between you and Otto. I don't care if you get along or not. I hardly ever block users for reasons related to incivility, but when a user is on an officially-imposed editing restriction, as you are, I am far more likely to act. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
In which case Religions such as Jedi, Sith from starwars, Origin from stargate, And many other Fictional religions should not be in the list as there are people who sincerly practice them. Scientology as everyone knows, and scientologists acknoledge, was made up as fiction, The creator declaired himself that he simply made it up. Just because some whackos wish to play a fool and practice it, does not change the fact it is fiction. Okay, Ill give you mormonism. But to remove scientology, means removing most of them, as I guarentee, most of them are practiced by someone. 210.185.5.18 ( talk) 11:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments regarding those called as counselors in the presiding bishopric. It does make for an interesting thought or discussion, one that I can see a couple ways. So, this comment is intended to get your discussion thoughts.
I guess it might depend on how "called by" is to be interpreted. As you implied, the Presiding Bishop has opportunity to recommend who might serve with him as counselors. That recommendation is then approved by the First Presidency, with the call then extended by a member of the First Presidency. So, who really "called" them? The one that recommended them to serve or the one who has the authority to extend the call?
The Presiding Bishop also doesn't function in a role - or more directly - doesn't have authority to call someone as a general authority. Since the bishopric serves as such, does there service there begin by a call from the president of the church?
I agree that linking to who a man served with as a counselor in the presiding bishopric has lots of merit in tying that bishopric together.
Just wondered what your thoughts might be. I am just throwing a few ought there as I wondered about them this evening. Thanks! ChristensenMJ ( talk) 04:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm hoping you will see this, and I'm anticipating that you will—but just in case you don't for some reason, I want to make sure that this request has been brought to your attention again: [4]. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I assume that you will be demanding that User:Otto4711 revise his patently offensive and blatantly false remark here in response to mine that he is "unlike some I could name who have a kneejerk desire to keep practically anything and everything". Otto's response to me at the time was "I mentioned no names. If you choose to believe that the descriptor applies to you, either in reality or in how you are perceived by others, that is a matter for you and your therapist." In this case, you are certainly not the only one that was covered in the statement as I was referring to all of the editors involved in the 25 previous cases cited as "precedent", but there is some merit to the issues you raise and I will reflect your concerns. I revise my remarks to read "As those pushing for deletion throughout the process have not indicated that there is a single ethnicity category within the Category:American actors that justifies retention and have offered no guidelines to distinguish between those that should be retained and those that should be deleted, the choice of dealing with this issue one category at a time just ends up wasting community resources for no beneficial purpose." Alansohn ( talk) 00:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
(originally posted at CfD)
(not posted at CfD)
Ok, this is getting tiring, and all I'm doing is watching this unfold. Alan, if you have such a problem with Otto, please assume responsibility and take it to dispute resolution. Your constant demands that GO handle it when he is under no obligation to do so is quickly turning into harassment, and is very clearly a waste of everyone's time. -- Kbdank71 02:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Your grotesque paraphrases at Wikipedia:List of cabals severely misrepresent the statements I have made about the dysfunctional nature of CfD, including the lack of any mention of a "cabal or coordination. Posting a blatant personal attack of this nature after demanding changes of your own is in rather bad taste. I look forward to your corrections. The double standard is alive and well. Alansohn ( talk) 05:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
First, not being totally sure if I did it right to give you notification, but wanted to be sure you saw the message I threw into our discussion thread about the presiding bishopric.
When I first began participating in efforts to "help" and contribute to Wikipedia, you were quite patient with me when it came to my efforts to update text and style usage for BYU-Hawaii. So, I thank you for that. I hadn't fully realized they were not using text guidelines that would have them be consistent with that of BYU-Idaho, which would be the desired intent. I believe they have completed making the necessary adjustments in that regard. An updated copy of their identity guidelines is now available through one of the sites you helped steer me to: http://webmasters.byuh.edu/node/19 or http://ur.byuh.edu/communications/identity_guidelines.
So, with you being far more accomplished in use of Wikipedia, my question to you is what is the most effective way to update the primary Wikipedia page and resulting links throughout? Is it use of a move function? Also, {maybe this is actually the first question} would it be necessary or appropriate to have opportunity for discussion before making that change? Just seeking your counsel on the best way to proceed. Thanks for thoughts you would have. ChristensenMJ ( talk) 16:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Have a good weekend. -- Kbdank71 18:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
100,000 Edits | |
I, Bugboy52.4, award you for reaching 100,000 edits according to the List of Wikipedians by number of edits generated 11:45 pm, 24 February 2009. Keep up the good work!________________________________________________________________ |
Hi, I noticed that you've been adding many articles to categories named States and territories established in yyyy. That's well and good, except that articles about counties in U.S. states do not really belong in that category as they are neither states nor territories. I'm really not sure what would be a more meaningful category, but that one is pretty clearly inappropriate. older ≠ wiser 12:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Olfactory. In March, you speedily deleted the categories, Category:Number-one albums in the United Kingdom and Category:Billboard 200 number-one albums, per G4 as recreations of previously deleted material per a CFD ( Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 15#Number-one album categories. While these have not been allowed to be recreated, there are more and more and more number-one song categories being created (see Category:Number-one singles), in which lists are available for most of these as well. My question to you is: How can I re-open up a discussion of a CFD from nearly three years ago that could allow new discussion of recreating the number-one album categories? Thanks for your help. -- Wolfer68 ( talk) 00:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
re this: can you maybe tell me what the correct format is for music categories? -- Ludwigs2 01:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Re your post "Just nominate Category:Songs written by Johnny Mercer and have at it there." How to do that; I'm not proposing deletion of that category but splitting it up. -- BRG ( talk) 01:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Good Olfactory. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alansohn ( talk) 14:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Just because you found a source for something doesn't make it defining. How many times do I have to tell you that? -- Kbdank71 14:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this will be a speedy. However this is one of those cases that seems to keep coming up and most of the regulars would probably support as a new speedy criteria. The tricky part will be the wording so that it does not get abused. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You've moved the various List of individuals executed in Texas pages - i.e. the 1870-1879, 1920-1929, etc. I don't see any particularly reason why the short dash "-" page names were changed to the long dash "–". I, and imagine any other editors, would use the short dash of the keyboard, and wouldn't go to the trouble to find the code for the long dash. Could you please explain on moving these pages? I see them as unneccesary moves. As things as it is now, the wikilinks on the main page List of individuals executed in Texas and the succession boxes at the bottom of each of those pages have not been redirected. Please reply here on your talk page to keep thread together. JRH.uk ( talk) 00:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
All I can say is wow! Over 200 edits of changing a few silly little letters! You're amazing! I just feel like you totally deserve this... so, here you go! Thanks for all the work you do to make the wiki a better place!
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
Given to Good Olfactory for his amazing work in changing links on over 200 pages to keep the wiki running smoothly, not to mention all the other wiki-gnomery that goes on! Thanks for all you do! You rock! Intothewoods29 ( talk) 05:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks! And there are still more to do—Fun, fun! Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
You appear to have missed a joint nominated cat at [6]. I can relist if you wnat. Thanks. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 16:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I keep seeing this acronym and I can't figure it out. I think it's something-of-origin but that's as far as I can get. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you please check the Mormonism section in the article Fall of Man? Remember it's the simple wikipedia so use simple words. Thanks. Griffinofwales ( talk) 00:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to guess you fit into the hierarchy as a Magic User. -- Kbdank71 16:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't have an issue about it. Smkolins ( talk) 01:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that the category of "Camp Rising Sun Alumni" was deleted; however, I believe this was in error as the programme's name does not indicate accurately either its content or its nature.
In fact, the programme is more aptly termed an international scholarship programme dating from the early 1930s and has grown to become one of the most prestigious in the United States. Sponsored by the Louis August Jonas Foundation, the programme has a large array of prominent alumni and is frequented by university admission officers from some of the most prestigious universities in the United States.
I believe that those who first thought that the category should be removed were unaware of this fact and I trust that this information should explain why the category should be revived.
I was unsure of the process of reviving the discussion on this, though thought that this was the place... At least, I'd be interested in hearing from others who are aware of the program, its nature, and its status over the last 75+ years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angkorgo2 ( talk • contribs)
Can you G4 and salt Category:Billboard 200 number-one albums plz? It just got re-created again. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 04:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Taking up your invitation to comment, I'm entirely happy with your call on this, which as far as I'm concerned sorts the problem - thanks! HeartofaDog ( talk) 23:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I have ditched the idea of a category called Actors-singers or Singers-actors, but the reason why we don't categorize people for being Actors-singers or Singers-actors is still completely unclear. Why don't we categorize those people for being such? Like i said, i've ditched the idea for eternity, but i still need to know why we don't categorize people like that? Ryanbstevens ( talk) 02:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 11#European Americans, instead of
would you support swapping them the other way?
Just trying to find some agreement.... somehow.
See response at User talk:Hmains#Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 11.
Created it, put a couple of entries in it, then I got bored. And then I returned to it... Whoa! Great job... GregorB ( talk) 22:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to bring this up again, but although all the "xth century" cats have indeed been renamed, the overcat, named as above, has not, although it was included in the CfD nomination - could you fix it if you get a minute? Thanks, HeartofaDog ( talk) 00:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Good Olfactory, please delete any reference to hoax, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:House_of_Lopez_de_Prado. These articles were deleted at my own request (G7, not G3), and I do not want them re-published. Besides, hoax accusations have been proven wrong, see User_talk:Qqtacpn#Accusations_of_hoax_must_be_withdrawn. Thanks! ( Qqtacpn ( talk) 18:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC))
Good Ol’factory, thanks for correcting this. I have received some unfair treatment in the last 48 hours, but you have done the right thing, and I appreciate it. ( Qqtacpn ( talk) 22:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)).
I see that you closed this category for deletion discussion but only deleted one of the two categories that were nominated. Was there a reason for that? - ¢Spender1983 ( talk) 03:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Given your interest both with WP Cats, as well as with Mormonism, I'd like to hear you thoughts about this. -- 208.81.184.4 ( talk) 17:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Mimzy1990 ( talk · contribs) Katr67 ( talk) 17:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Good Olfactory, I see you've deleted the Category:Max Schreck I just recreated. Yes, it was deleted " per 2009 MAY 7 CfD". I then posted Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Inform editors please. There I pointed out I did not get any notification of any discussion taking place. And then I recreated it again. After (now) looking at Wikipedia:CSD#G4 and WP:OC#SMALL and the comment by User:Occuli, I think I would have supported a renaming as Category:Max Schreck images instead. Could this be done?
Please move this wherever it seems best for discussion. I could not understand how to open an undelete request but what I really want is a new "disposition discussion". I don't want to post on Category talk:Images of actors and actresses because that itself might get merged and the talk lost. Meanwhile I wonder if there are better ways than categories for these wikipedia-hosted images? Gallery pages? There are several that cannot be hosted on Commons but that fit the English wikipedia public domain criteria (eg. those PD in the USA only). I'll drop a note that links here on User:Occuli's and User:Otto4711's talk pages. 84user ( talk) 04:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
When I was most active 3-5 years ago, I turned down folks that suggested I become an administrator. It wasn't a big deal. Now, I'm finding that many tasks and templates that I'm accustomed to doing (including many that I created and/or extensively re-worked) now require being an administrator. I suppose it's mostly an increase in *pedia size, but still disconcerting.
Mostly, I've assisted at CfD and TfD these days, but they're still far behind. Do you think that I should apply for administrator?
--
William Allen Simpson (
talk)
05:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
When the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 18#Category:Songs with lyrics by Johnny Mercer was closed, a whole bunch of pages were recategorized. It's clear that only Richhoncho wanted this recategorization, considering all the discussions that have taken place. Yet the question on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 9#Category:Songs with lyrics by Johnny Mercer is still open, and when I asked King of Hearts about this he said that because he was the one who put the question there, it is not appropriate for him to close it. Until the question is closed, I don't think people can go ahead and undo those recategorizations. Can you close it? or is there someone else I need to contact? -- BRG ( talk) 20:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
There is (was) a dispute over the inclusion of material that said that some Mormons (LDS members) did not follow (practice) the LDS doctrine concerning masturbation. Since you are an admin and you work with these types of articles could you please look over it? Thanks. Griffinofwales ( talk) 03:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Category:Hare Krishnas ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Wikid as© 00:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Category:Christianity in Vatican City - its probably my monday morning eyes maligned by the weekend but it looks like a dan brown inspired joke - but seeing you seem to spend your life embedded in the stuff - does it make sense to you? Satu Suro 01:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to do anything with it (Islamic religion in Mecca would be a good one)- I am trying to 'keep up' on the swine flu in my hometown of west oz, perth - trust it hasnt hit the idyllic kiwi islands yet Satu Suro 02:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear Good Olfactory,
The last thing I want to do is get into a pissing match with an administrator here. However, I am absolutely astonished and disappointed with the callousness displayed by the decision to deem Grammy Award Nominees as trivial. Let me start by giving you the anatomy of a music recording. The artist starts out at a tremendous disadvantage. Just getting someone in the industry to listen to their material is very hard. They have to self finance for sometimes years before they're even in a position to send out a demo. If and when they get a demo, the rejection begins. One after another. Christopher Cross was rejected dozens of times before Warner Bros. Records finally picked up "Sailing," which went on to sell millions. Do you have any idea of the heartache that he went through before he realized any success? Once an artist actually releases a product, he or she is faced with unbelievable competition. There are literally hundreds of thousands of products released every month.
If an artist finally has a modicum of success, only a record label or a voting member of the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences can "submit" that recording for first round voting to determine the nominees. The lists in each category are voluminous, since every label submits nearly their entire roster. Out of the long list of submissions, the voting members eliminate all but about five for each category. Those five have been selected by voting members of the academy (the artists' peers) and they are the nominees. At that point those artists each "won" a nomination. I'm not the one who coined it as a win... it's the academy who calls it a win, and it's the academy that issues certificates acknowledging the win, and it's the academy who holds a special ceremony several days before the telecast to honor those winning nominees.
The vast majority of musicians go an entire career without a single nomination. Your actions here tonight say that Wikipedia considers the hard work and years of struggle that accompany a nomination, to be nothing more than "trivia" and not worthy of being recognized with a category on Wikipedia.
Shame on you and shame on Wikipedia for becoming what Wikipedia fought against for years. The fellow who nominated that category for deletion is Explicit. I tried to post my view everywhere I could, but the instructions as to where to post it are anything but clear. I believe I read in the rules that "debate" would go on for seven days before deletion took place. "Debate" didn't last seven hours, much less seven days. I tried to join the "debate" but apparently didn't post my response in the proper place. Nonetheless, I posted a message on Explicit's talk page and on the talk page for the category itself. Apparently no one saw my messages or ignored them. I told Explicit, who himself hopes to be in the music business some day, that if he is lucky enough to ever be nominated for a Grammy, he will certainly not consider that nomination to be trivial.
I tried to do something good for Wikipedia and musicians by providing recognition for those who had actually won a Grammy Nomination. You have a category for "Garment districts" that breaks down into minutia, but find Grammy Nominees to be trivial. Shame on you and everyone else who has no appreciation or consideration for the hard work and accomplishments of others.
Todd -- Warriorboy85 ( talk) 07:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I had no idea the category was there before or that it was previously deleted. Nothing ever told me that when I created it. However, that means that at least one other person agrees that there should be a category for Grammy Award Nominees. Although I spent quite some time explaining why there should be such a category, I notice you basically just ignored my entire point and made light of it all. I won't bother you any more, but you've confirmed in my mind exactly what's wrong with Wikipedia.-- Warriorboy85 ( talk) 18:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I would have liked to have seen more discussion on this before it was closed, particularly how OC#SMALL does or does not apply, there was no decisive argumentation on that point. I'm a little annoyed it was you who closed the discussion when you're someone who has nominated the same type of category for deletion yourself. And now if someone is looking for articles on e.g. sci-fi film series by genre, they won't find the Class of Nuke 'Em High film series, because the category was deleted and there's no Class of Nuke 'Em High film series article. One could create an article for it, but I don't suppose it would have much content unless someone were really motivated; the categories didn't require anyone to create good articles, just links. Grumble. What would you suggest? Creating a film series article? Putting just the first article in the series in Category:Science fiction films by series? Шизомби ( talk) 14:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Hm, almost immediately after I re-opened it and restored the categories another admin closed it as delete, so I hope this does help you realise that I wasn't deciding to delete out of biased motives. It was an honest assessment of the discussion on my part, and this assessment has been confirmed by the closing admin, at least. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the improvements you made to my edit, but not the disprovements, if there is such a word. Bear with me if you will, I plan to add more and more documentation, such as a photocopy of that September 5, 1898 Kansas City Star article. There was a good deal of coverage of Mr. Pattison's trial in other Jackson County newspapers--including a full transcript of his testimony transcribed and published in some now-defunct newspaper. Who Framed Roger Rabbit? ( talk) 01:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Because of previous conflicts over the page, it was agreed by consensus to not include an in-depth discussion of the motives of the 1990 arsonist in the articles Temple Lot or Church of Christ (Temple Lot). Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this removal of Category:American Catholics from Farrah Fawcett, was that because of the article or the category, both, or neither? Thanks - Frank | talk 11:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
See here for a discussion about an editor who has turned to you in connection with a possible adminship. Debresser ( talk) 18:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Just do it. I created all four categories (after discussion with other people who edit on synagogues) We didn't discuss naming style. I didn't even think about naming style. If this is the standard format, please do just go ahead and make the changes. It's hardly significant enough to warrant discussion. Historicist ( talk) 12:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For wisdom and courage in dealing with bully whose threats go well beyond mere heated words. Americasroof ( talk) 16:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks—all I can say is: what is the DEAL with that guy? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Another day, another 2 MPs - Julie Kirkbride and Margaret Moran forced to say they wont stand again for election because of the expenses scandal, and as the category got more relevant, as the expenses scandal became defining in the lives of more and more British politicians, you went from tepid to firm, shouldn't that be tepid to hot?? in your opposition, more convinced the category should be removed. Brilliant. If I could offer you a shadow barnstar, a negative barnstar for aiding in a miniscule way corrupt and corrupting politicians I would Sayerslle ( talk) 17:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
WTF? -- Kbdank71 14:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
This CfD reeks of bad faith on the part of the nominator. the nominator, TenPoundHammer, nominated this for deletion in August of 2008; the creator of the category made a case for its inclusion, and it was kept. In this AfD, TPH nominated it again with the thinnest of reasoning (is that even a valid rationale for deletion?) and without any notice of the prior CfD, and the category was deleted on the basis of one !vote. Based on the results of the last CfD, there is no consensus to delete this category, and one new !vote (" per nom") shouldn't have changed that. Can you please restore it? Chubbles ( talk) 14:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
You posted a diff (now at User talk:Jimbo Wales) of your favorite legal threat. I'm not sure who he was calling an idiot as I was not aware of the diff until it was pointed out. What is the background on this vandal (if that is a proper term)? Griffinofwales ( talk) 16:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I see that you've already archived my previous note.
You haven't !voted on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 11#European Americans. For awhile, the !voters wanted "... descent", 2 more after 2 weeks want plural (as originally nominated).
Likewise, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 16#American people and topics.
Need some experienced commenters (assuming that KBDank will close it eventually). You'll be one of those regularly enforcing the decision, so it would help to know your preferences.
-- watching here --
William Allen Simpson (
talk)
10:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed this on Jimbo's talk today. [8] Can I do anything about this? I've left a remark. Cool Hand Luke 14:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
His latest attack on a commentator ("your prejudice is showing") pushed me over the edge to posting on ANI. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Unfrayed. Cool Hand Luke 15:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Taken care of. If you find others in the future, it's probably best to e-mail them to me, this way I'm the only one seeing the diff as opposed to non-oversighters browsing through my talk page. Thanks. Wizardman 16:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Did a leap of idiocy (always you say?) last night into the US project categories (my recent eds might show it up more clearly) and was intrigued by the incidence of American within the rather neglected and labyrinthinan USA category tree - does your precedence memory bank have any incidents where such a word is used with impunity or with sufficient prescience allow it to occur amongst more specifically tighter cats (I ask one with canuck tendencies I suppose is asking for trouble :) - or should I suggest changes to some categories? - your circumspection and or judicious comments are awaited Satu Suro 00:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it's pretty much a mixed bag, of course with the proviso that if it's a noun, it's "the United States" and if it's an adjective (modifying a noun) it's "American". Always "FOO of [or in] the United States" or "American FOO", but never "FOO of [or in] America" or "United States FOO". The type that uses "United States" are generally called "by country" categories and the type that use "American" are generally called "by nationality" categories. The impossible part is deciding which form to use. Categories for people almost always use the "by nationality" form (though I'm sure there are exceptions). But so too do a lot of cultural topics, like music, films, literature, etc. I can't figure out any real rhyme or reason for the differences. But at least there is a list of some that have been somewhat settled on one way or the other: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the thorough response - appreciated Satu Suro 08:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Should the 2nd, 3rd and 4th levels of the Category:Drugs by target organ system mirror the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System exactly, or be consolidated when possible?
Please read the more thorough description of this issue at WT:PHARM:CAT and post your comments there. You're comments would be much appreciated! Thanks --- kilbad ( talk) 00:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. The decision was delete all, but I think that the cat for Hebrew names was supposed to be an exception? -- Dweller ( talk) 09:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll re-list the Hebrew one to try to get some clarity. The nominator's intent wasn't very clear—if he didn't want it included in the nomination, I'm not sure why he listed it (it also wasn't tagged). No one singled it out for comment, so I think we'd benefit from a discussion centred just on it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Good Olfactory, I just have some questions about the CFD process that I think you may be able to help with, but no obligation to. Basically I've moved two of the categories in the speedy renaming section on which the time stamp had expired and then redirected the old categories to the new ones, is anyone allowed to move categories in that way? And should I have nommed the old category for deletion as opposed to redirecting it? All I did was remove the requests, is this the correct action, I have a feeling its not? If you could just talk me through the process that would be incredible helpful and appreciated.
And finally, how does one move a category into full CfD discussion?
Thank you for your time, all the best
Spitfire
Tally-ho!
09:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Probably the latter. -- Kbdank71 13:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I saw your most recent edit to Mormon and had a question about it, which I posted on the talk page. Boccobrock• T• C 22:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response. I have responded on my talk page. -- Cyde Weys 02:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Good Olfactory. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alansohn ( talk) 02:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Could you speedy the Indonesian poliical party item at Speedy? It would be appreciated- thanks Satu Suro 04:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For responding with resounding positivity to the ANI post about West Ridge Academy. Props to you! Exxolon ( talk) 16:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks. Very odd, I did find it. Though at the same time perhaps not surprising. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Would you care to share an opinion here on my talk page on
Someone recreated and repopulated Category:Fictional Jews. Since you've been deleting it, I guess you have some bot to empty it. Can you delete it and salt? - Altenmann >t 17:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
You recently closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 1#Category:Jewish bankers as delete. Despite arguments from several editors that there is a distinct connection between being a banker and being Jewish, including taking note of the House of Rothschild, your close takes no notice of these arguments nor offers any explanation for your actions other than a single word. The arguments for deletion all relied on what is essentially "is not" in rebuttal. Any additional information to explain your close or consideration of reversal will be appreciated before any further action is taken. Alansohn ( talk) 18:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia might be a nicer place if you didn't enjoy peoples' dissagreements with you so much. Not many Wikipedians save up insults against themselves as if they are badges of honor. -- Carlaude talk 04:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I do not miss the irony nor am I offended by the collection. If you think I should encourage Wikipedians to be nicer to each other instead of talking to you, then obviously you have missed the point of my comment. I do not think User:Alansohn was rude in the first place. -- Carlaude talk 05:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, wouldn't the world be a better place if women who were raped wouldn't be so touchy and write books about it? Those darn victims, always making it uncomfortable for the rest of us. I'm with you, Carlaude, we shouldn't have to be reminded of blatant incivility, especially by the target. I certainly disagree with GO's actions by reminding us, how about we become grossly incivil to him? You go first. -- Kbdank71 12:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
“ | Carlaude you stated above, "Yada yada yada yada yada" Actually, I'm following Johnbod's general position etc. etc. etc. --Good Olfactory | ” |
And your point is ... ? You believe you were taken out of context and made to look illiterate. But an equally likely possibility is that you just maybe weren't as clear in your comments to others as you understood yourself to be, and the quote happened to highlight that fact. You can look at things from more than one perspective; it doesn't make the other view "wrong". That's why it's always best to leave others' comments alone and in the same format as they post them. You are technically free to do as you like on your own talk page, but if you ever do that elsewhere, you could run into some serious trouble with some editors. (Cool font colours, though. I'm more mesmerised by these than anything...) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
user:70.104.123.20 and user:70.104.102.120 are quacking (see eg history of Category:Dutch Reformed Christians from the United States). See User:Jc37/Tracking/Pastorwayne for previous quacking ips. (You have an interesting talk page, BTW. This must be the dullest post on it ... must try harder.) Occuli ( talk) 19:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey Good Olfactory, would you be willing to weigh in on Talk:Avraham Gileadi? There's no war, I just feel the issue is complicated and it would be good to have some more editors opine. Carneadiiz ( talk) 23:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Why wasn't i notified of these deletions? You nominated two of my categories for deletion without telling me about it! I would really like to be notified of these deletions please if that's not too much to ask. Ryanbstevens ( talk) 04:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Take a gander a few noms up on the same date. He's actually citing a Mel Brooks film as a reason to keep a category. Otto4711 ( talk) 13:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
At the West Ridge Academy article, the edits have been taken over by some very biased COI/POV Mormon editors. I am new to Wikipedia and could really use some assistance adding levity to the article. The way that it is being controlled by Storm Rider, an admittedly biased editor, is appalling. Please help. -- 66.74.10.34 ( talk) 16:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to the club! Took you long enough to get here. -- Kbdank71 16:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I love some of the responses. -- Kbdank71 19:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Randal Simmons was on my watchlist for some reason and has just been recreated. Doubtless you can check whether the present version has any resemblance to the deleted one. (Apologies again for the unmitigated dullness of my contributions to your talk page.) Occuli ( talk) 20:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a proposed merge that I think would interest you at Talk:Limited geography model#Several merge proposals - my take. I am posting this notice because I saw that you were a recent editor at one of the pages listed below:
-- Descartes1979 ( talk) 17:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I've just noticed this category I made has been nominated for deletion; thanks for letting me know! Do you not think it would have been a courtesy to talk to me about it? Moonraker12 ( talk) 14:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Category:Murdered Iraqi children ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ryan4314 ( talk) 14:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Could you stop removing the Nakba category without discussion, please? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 05:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your offer. If you could close and relist, that would be much appreciated. best, Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. It seems (since I have been checking) that no one else is contributing to the WP:CFD for the category "Atheist and agnostic politicians". I created the WP:CFD on June 10th. Can we close it out? There are 6 votes in favor of deleting (including yours and mine) and 4 against deleting. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com ( talk) 19:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I can't recall any specific noms, but I think kdbank or jc or one of the other long-time closers said, when someone raised it, it wasn't their practice to do the list. I have some sympathy with this position. Johnbod ( talk) 01:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I hope you guys aren't listifying manually. For what it's worth, PyWikipediaBot has a listify capability. I know because I wrote it :-D Cyde Weys 03:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
python category.py listify -from:Evolution -to:'List of evolution articles'
-overwrite
, -showimages
, and -talkpages
. One final option that is not listify-specific, but that you might want to use nonetheless, is -recurse
. Further documentation is contained within the source code to category.py
itself. That pretty much covers everything there is to know about listify. --
Cyde Weys
03:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Category:Telecommunication companies of Yemen needs an 's'. In fact there are quite a few - Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Telecommunication companies. Occuli ( talk) 14:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you really think that these are churches? While you need to have a congregation to officiate at marriages, as I understand it, you don't need to conduct services at the chapel for a congregation. So maybe the question is, if a building is only used to perform marriages, does that make it a church? Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
You have amended the text of this category. However both BMI and AMG confirm he is the writer of these songs. Those that want to add this kind of wording have not been able to verify the accusation that Robey stole songwriter credits. As it is unverfied which songs, assuming the general accusation is correct, Robey wrote. I feel very strongly that WP:V should be applied to these statements. Care to reconsider?
BTW The nomination for deletion was withdrawn by the nominator. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 08:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks like we're crossing wires on the Chinese surnames category. Do you want it deleted or kept? If kept, it can be nominated for renaming, or I can delete it and you can just repopulate the Chinese-language one right now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've a favor to ask. {{
Surname}} needs to either be semi-protected, so I can edit, or swap in the code in the sandbox. I've asked politely at
WP:RUP, and was denied; then tried {{
editprotect}} on the Talk, and the next guy wants more information. (heavy sigh) Too slow. It needs to be done before the job queue load increases today, so the pseudo-categories propagate, and the old parameters (now red-link categories) can be found and removed.
--
William Allen Simpson (
talk)
09:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
BTW, it appears to me that somebody (who shall remain nameless for now unless they complain) created
Category:Surnames by culture and emptied
Category:Surnames by language out-of-process, and the latter was db-c1. Are you able to undelete the complete history at
Category:Surnames by language?
--
William Allen Simpson (
talk)
16:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
as someone who has dealt with the above user in the past, I was hoping you could look at the comment he left on my IP talk page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:119.173.81.176
119.173.81.176 ( talk) 20:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Did you read the manual of style? You are incorrect in your usage of "(Mormon)".
I will leave it up to you to change it back to "(Latter Day Saints)" per MOS. If you feel there is a MOS referring to individuals as Mormons, then I don't see it in the MOS. Perhaps it needs to be updated, but I see nothing in the MOS to warrant your revert. If I am in error, please let me know. I may just be missing something. Bytebear ( talk) 04:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I don't understand it, and think that something else should be chosen, because when you wiki Mormon it says that that title applies to all sects to split off from the Church after the succession crisis, so it would make it confusing if there was a John Taylor as head of the FLDS for example. But, thanks anyways. LDS-SPA1000 ( talk) 04:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Jewish surnames. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Alansohn ( talk) 05:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Your this edit of Kyle Broflovski that removed the Category:Fictional Jews with the explanation that its is "probably not defining--not even mentioned in lede" is clearly contradicted by the first sentence in the second paragraph which states that "Kyle is distinctive as one of the few Jewish children on the show", in addition to extensive discussion of his Jewishness and its function in defining his character later in the article. The justification you cited for the removal, that it was "mentioned in lede" is not a legitimate argument for removal of any category, nor is it a standard that is met in the majority of articles for most of the categories included. Despite the fact that you restored the category in your subsequent edit, the fact that you allowed your preconceived notions to involve your efforts at WP:STALKing my edits only demonstrates the extent of the clear problem that exists here. I'd love to have a conversation about these issues, but far too often it appears to me that your mind is already made up, even before discussion (or voting) starts, and the result preordained. Please convince me otherwise. Alansohn ( talk) 15:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, that was funny. But yes, after the laughter—I agree. Something to laugh about rather than worry about. (Sorry, my email won't send messages today for some reason. Hopefully you'll see my response here.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick work. Much appreciated. :) Benkenobi18 ( talk) 00:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
When you change the article from list of notable Parsis to list of Parsis, it doesn't make sense. You are saying this is a list of Parsis, which this isn't. A complete list of Parsis would include upto 110,000 to 210,000 adherents. It is a list of notable Parsis. Warrior4321 talk Contribs 02:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
G.O. - I don't interact with a lot of administrators, but I remember communicating with you in the past. There has been a lot of back and forth between me and some other editors on the George Wythe University and Oliver DeMille articles. It appears one of these editors has a clear conflict of interest. This edit alone [1] appears to be near-conclusive evidence that User:Ibinthinkin is none other than the subject of the article himself, Oliver DeMille. Note the extremely detailed narrative of his high school years, complete with references to obscure newspaper clippings of the time. But the damning evidence comes in footnote 19, where he adds a deep link to a scanned image of his own college transcript, complete with social security number and everything. This transcript is not linked anywhere at the hosted website, and appears to have been added for the sole purpose of being referenced in the Wikipedia article. The site hosting the transcript is owned and run by Oliver DeMille (see http://www.tjedonline.com/about). I really don't know what the next step would be, or how to make a formal accusation. I've already accused Ibinthinkin of being a sockpuppet of User:4by40, but this is something different. Could you point me in the right direction? -- TrustTruth ( talk) 14:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
In your close of the Vegas category, where do you come down on the Las Vegas Strip? I favor including items on The Strip and McCarran Airport in Las Vegas, Nevada (as they are in unincorporated areas next to Las Vegas), and Vegaswikian doesn't. So which way should we go on this?-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 04:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your help on this. -- TrustTruth ( talk) 15:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
"On the other hand, if you are in fact Oliver DeMille but you declare now that you are not, it is possible that there will be negative consequences in the future if it is later determined that you are in fact Oliver DeMille."--from Ibinthinkin's talk page
You're not getting my point, and I persist because it concerns your future behavior as an admin. Let me try to put it bluntly again: I think it is inappropriate for an admin to warn a user of "negative consequences" for lying about whether he is or is not a certain real-life person. Do you disagree? 160.39.213.97 ( talk) 23:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
It's clear I'm not going to convince you, so I'll let this drop now too. I only hope that going forward, you would refrain from issuing warnings like this again. Policy, as I read it, never sanctions an admin to coerce a declaration of COI, let alone of a confirmation or denial of being a certain RL person. As I said, I will drop this now, but I hope experienced users or admins who are watching this page will weigh in on whether your warning was appropriate--again, not to protract this particular dispute involving Ibinthinkin, but to guide your behavior as an admin in the future. 160.39.213.97 ( talk) 13:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, regarding
"I'm more concerned here that the closer was the same user as the nominator!":
If that's also breaking a rule, I apologize for that as well. I thought I was correctly following the recipe in
WP:CDP, linked from
WP:CFD, which appear to imply that it's the nominator's responsibility to close off the case they began.
As I mentioned, it seems some CDP clarification is called for... Thanks, —
EqualRights (
talk)
22:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
For future reference. I also updated your archived notes. - jc37 10:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Why did you delete this category? There was NO MENTION of a previous vategory being deleted called "American Neoconservatives". You have just ruined hours of good faith work. Please tell me where I can appeal against this. Vexorg ( talk) 23:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Category:American conservatives has also been deleted multiple times. Postdlf ( talk) 23:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to continue to butt in, Vexorg, but while we're on the subject, a good general consideration regarding characterizations of political orientations is that they are just that—characterizations. These can never be considered objective fact; there's no way to identify a neocon under a microscope. Instead, it's all a matter of self-identification or applied labels, so you can state within an article that someone identifies as a neoconservative or is regarded as one by others. It is just simply never a matter of "is" or "is not". And that's one of the reasons why political characterizations are not used for categories. Postdlf ( talk) 23:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
You recently closed a number of CfD discussions ( here's one) where consensus was not reached. 2 in support of the nomination and 2 opposed does not constitute consensus. In support of your decision, you put up a note to say that this has been discussed elsewhere and so you're in essense disregarding the discussion of the category at hand. The discussion you direct people to is here, where the result of THAT discussion was 2 in support and 2 against. I fail to see where you justify any of those discussions resulted in a consensus to rename.-- ABIJXY ( talk) 20:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
There's never been a very strong consensus either way as to whether categories should be named "Northwest Territories" or "the Northwest Territories", to the best of my knowledge. I don't particularly believe the word "the" is necessary, though I suppose YMMV. Bearcat ( talk) 12:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Touché Are all these country categories inclusive of ancient kingdoms? It's not like we have Category:Cancer deaths in the Abyssinian Empire in addition to ...in Ethiopia, ...in Eritrea, ...in Djibouti, etc. I don't see why Korea gets a pass. That having been said, your point is well taken, as Korea has been a country. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Thankfully this talk page is no longer on my watchlist, btw the Indonesian states created in XXXX i notice they are red cats - I do hope you are going to actually make them valid categories before you are off line :) Satu Suro 03:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC) also Principality of Hutt River was never a valid legal entity either - as far as I can remember - so what it has as categories are indeed open to question Satu Suro 03:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I see you've been on the receiving end of a little prick. Otto4711 ( talk) 17:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Why exactly don't you leave them as is, or at the very least leave the old one? The new one is ridiculously limited; what good are all of these categories when most only have 1 entry? -- Human.v2.0 ( talk) 23:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I did a bit more reading, and was about to revert myself. Thanks anyway. :) TheAE talk/ sign 03:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Could I ask you to keep an eye on List of fictional religions where there's been repeated adding of Mormonism by an ip user from internet.co.nz, please? Here's the history. I'm off on rl holiday until early May.-- Cavrdg ( talk) 05:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Is back: Supergeekfreak ( talk · contribs). Cheers, Katr67 ( talk) 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I removed the category 'territories established in 1713' as it does not really fit. Although that was the date of the Treaty of Utrecht, British Gibraltar predates that considerably, and the territory was identified as Gibraltar prior to its capture in 1704. So its rather complicated ! The ToU was simply the legitimisation of a previous conquest, although the Spanish still argue they never did any such thing. -- Gibnews ( talk) 17:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
My first edit was about Helsinki. I see that Cayman Islands has had page protection for a year. It's a nice article with little edit warring or vandalism. It may be good to end page protection. It doesn't affect me but if Helsinki were page protected, I would have given up and not edited. But it wasn't. Since then, I've corrected a few errors in other articles that wouldn't have been done had Helsinki been padlocked. Do what you think is best; this is just a suggestion. User F203 ( talk) 22:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
To pull some of your remarks from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 17: "(5) how do you know I or any other editor "routinely overlooks" Otto's incivility? For all you know, I've already dealt with the issue over email, or I'm dealing with the issue right now over e-mail, or I'm prepping some on-WP comments/actions as we speak, or, or, or .... It's kind of a pointless game to try to guess at how others regard certain behaviour. (6) All I can suggest for your personal feelings is that if another editor is rude to you personally, ignore him."
Every time a cop pulls me over, I get a ticket; The cop looks at my driving record and sees I've gotten previous tickets and won't cut me any slack the next time I have a police car with its lights on behind mine. My wife gets pulled over just as often, but every time she gets pulled over, the cop checks her record and sends her off with a warning, and the same thing happens the next time around.
We have the same problem here with Otto. I have no idea what you've done, if anything, to deal with one of the worst incivility problems I've ever seen on Wikipedia, one that makes anything I've ever said or done pale in comparison. You have seen the clearest examples of incivility from Otto -- calling me and others an "asshole", their views as "bullshit" and most recently telling me to "shut up" and calling me "arrogant" -- but have never, to my knowledge, left any public warning of incivility on his user page. While I'm sure that the possibility exists that you've sent a warning by email, the warning is worthless. Any other admin looking at his record then gets the false and misleading impression that his record is clean. Yet you have had no problem whatsoever in finding mere trivialities in comparison to Otto's to justify a block.
I find it extremely difficult to accept the ILIKEIT / IHATEIT approach that leads to wildly varying results at CfD, based on justifications that have no relevance to each other. The "rules" (such as they exist) appear to be applied with near complete randomness, based on the personal biases of editors. Unfortunately, Wikipedia "justice" appears to be applied with no more consistency. By failing to publicly address Otto's blatant incivility, it appears to me that you only encourage it. I assume you suggested that Otto lay low for a few days and make a greater effort to control himself, but he only jumps back in with more of the same incivility and personal attacks; Nothing has been solved, and Otto is only emboldened for some more incivility. And if you truly believe that the only response to incivility is to turn the other cheek (or as you state, "if another editor is rude to you personally, ignore him"), I fail to understand why you can't abide by your own adage when it comes to those who disagree with you.
As an attorney in academia and as a Wikipedia officer of the court, I am sure that you can understand that any system -- whether it be a legal system, Categories for Discussion or administrative blocks in Wikipedia -- can only have any measure of community acceptance if there exists a consistent set of rules and regulations that is applied on a consistent basis. The evidence, as I see it, is that CfD has little credibility as a consistent system, and the administrative approach to incivility is not much better. In both cases, you are the person best suited to achieving some much-needed balance. Alansohn ( talk) 05:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Where to start on this? You're really talking about two different issues here, though I see you've tied them together somewhat in your comment. I'll address the CfD issues first, then the Otto issue.
I think you're right to find it difficult to accept many editors' approaches in CfD. Most editors that I've talked to about it do as well; I do too. As you know, Wikipedia is ultimately ruled by people, not by rules. A consensus of users can pretty much overrule any WP guideline, and there are very few policies that are non-negotiable. In CfD, there are not really any "non-negotiables": everything is up for grabs. That can lead to problematic results, of course, particularly if (as you say) participants are basing their comments simply on whether they like a category, or don't like it, or other biases, etc. But at the end of the day, any editor can express their opinion and give the reasons that they want. Sometimes the reasons are based on the guidelines; sometimes not. But if enough people want to keep (or delete) a category, the category will be kept (or deleted), regardless of the strength of the arguments used. I'm not saying vote counting is or should be used—but it's just a recognition of the reality that ultimately there comes a point where overwhelming numbers will carry the day, whether it occurs at CfD or DRV.
I'm sure you know all this, but it's worth being reminded of it. CfD does not operate like a court of law, with strict rules that are not deviated from. (I track CfD cases for my own use in helping me remember what consensus decisions have been made in the past. I've never claimed that my lists at User:Good Olfactory/CFD and User:Good Olfactory/CFR are anything other than personal lists. (The CFR ones should make that clear, since I track only the rename subjects of particular interest to me.) They are not official WP guideline lists, which is why they are in my personal space and not in a WP space. But I use them because they help organize my thoughts as I approach CfDs. It's also true that others are free to use them for any purpose they wish to use them for, but no one is ever compelled to use them or acknowledge that they are somehow authoritative. It's just part of my approach; it doesn't mean it's the one and only correct approach.)
Thus, if you or anyone else is concerned that the CfD "system" (such as it is) "little credibility as a consistent system", I say—"Welcome to Wikipedia!—I'm glad you've recognized how it all works!". This is not a perfect system. It is probably not as effective or efficient as a court of law, and courts of law in many jurisdictions are not very effective or efficient. But at the heart of your complaint is a dissatisfaction with the underlying principle of rule by consensus—it's nothing inherent in CfD that doesn't also exist elsewhere in WP. (Why do you think so many people have sincerely suggested at various times that there are different types of "cabals" that control certain aspects of or topics in Wikipedia? CfD is not unique in this regard.)
What can be done, then? One person can only do so much, of course; I just try to contribute my part. All my contributions at CfD are done as good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia, as are (I believe) the vast majority of editors' efforts there. I can't name a single editor who regularly participates there who I would ever accuse of having any ultimate motive other than to improve WP. The fact that editors differ in their approaches in how to achieve the betterment of WP is unavoidable, though. That's the rub. And it will continue to rub, so I wouldn't hold your breath for any great meeting of the minds to suddenly occur there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
First of all, my comment that you should ignore Otto were prefaced by the following phrase: "All I can suggest for your personal feelings is that if another editor is rude to you personally ...". You left out this part of my comment, and thereby attempted to use it against me by stating, "I fail to understand why you can't abide by your own adage when it comes to those who disagree with you." I don't always ignore comments that conflict with my own opinions, but in general I'm also not personally hurt by the comments! The whole point of what I said was not to simply ignore all other editors and what they say, and that you shouldn't have any dialogue with anyone—rather, it was that if another user says something that upsets you or hurts you, ignore it. That's just my advice, though. You don't have to take it. I've been upset by others' comments about me in the past. Sometimes I have ignored it, sometimes not. But just because an advice giver is not perfect doesn't mean it's not good advice. And maybe it's not even "good" advice. It's just advice. If you don't like it, just don't do it. No need to tell me it's bad advice.
But on to the substance of your comment—my reading of your message as a whole is that you are, essentially, advocating for a block to be imposed on User:Otto4711. You're concerned that as compared to him you've been treated more harshly and there has not been equitable treatment. You've been blocked; you think he should be blocked.
Generally, I give very little heed to any user who approaches me to advocate for a block of another user. I find that almost invariably such requests are motivated by the tit-for-tat approach of "equal WP justice". You're free to advocate for a block all you want to whomever you want, but doing so will not be the motivation for me to impose a block. You called me a "a Wikipedia officer of the court". I reject that designation, because there is no standardized Wikipedia "justice system" or "penal system". "Equal WP justice" is a fable. I don't know who made it up, and I have no idea why. I suppose it's an admirable ideal to strive for, but I'm not going to strive for it by handing out my blocks for "balance" or "consistency".
After my spectacular failure several months ago when I tried to "help" both you and Otto, only to have my good faith effort thrown back into my face for its lack of "equal justice", I have given up on trying to bring any sort of resolution between you and Otto. I don't care if you get along or not. I hardly ever block users for reasons related to incivility, but when a user is on an officially-imposed editing restriction, as you are, I am far more likely to act. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
In which case Religions such as Jedi, Sith from starwars, Origin from stargate, And many other Fictional religions should not be in the list as there are people who sincerly practice them. Scientology as everyone knows, and scientologists acknoledge, was made up as fiction, The creator declaired himself that he simply made it up. Just because some whackos wish to play a fool and practice it, does not change the fact it is fiction. Okay, Ill give you mormonism. But to remove scientology, means removing most of them, as I guarentee, most of them are practiced by someone. 210.185.5.18 ( talk) 11:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments regarding those called as counselors in the presiding bishopric. It does make for an interesting thought or discussion, one that I can see a couple ways. So, this comment is intended to get your discussion thoughts.
I guess it might depend on how "called by" is to be interpreted. As you implied, the Presiding Bishop has opportunity to recommend who might serve with him as counselors. That recommendation is then approved by the First Presidency, with the call then extended by a member of the First Presidency. So, who really "called" them? The one that recommended them to serve or the one who has the authority to extend the call?
The Presiding Bishop also doesn't function in a role - or more directly - doesn't have authority to call someone as a general authority. Since the bishopric serves as such, does there service there begin by a call from the president of the church?
I agree that linking to who a man served with as a counselor in the presiding bishopric has lots of merit in tying that bishopric together.
Just wondered what your thoughts might be. I am just throwing a few ought there as I wondered about them this evening. Thanks! ChristensenMJ ( talk) 04:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm hoping you will see this, and I'm anticipating that you will—but just in case you don't for some reason, I want to make sure that this request has been brought to your attention again: [4]. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I assume that you will be demanding that User:Otto4711 revise his patently offensive and blatantly false remark here in response to mine that he is "unlike some I could name who have a kneejerk desire to keep practically anything and everything". Otto's response to me at the time was "I mentioned no names. If you choose to believe that the descriptor applies to you, either in reality or in how you are perceived by others, that is a matter for you and your therapist." In this case, you are certainly not the only one that was covered in the statement as I was referring to all of the editors involved in the 25 previous cases cited as "precedent", but there is some merit to the issues you raise and I will reflect your concerns. I revise my remarks to read "As those pushing for deletion throughout the process have not indicated that there is a single ethnicity category within the Category:American actors that justifies retention and have offered no guidelines to distinguish between those that should be retained and those that should be deleted, the choice of dealing with this issue one category at a time just ends up wasting community resources for no beneficial purpose." Alansohn ( talk) 00:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
(originally posted at CfD)
(not posted at CfD)
Ok, this is getting tiring, and all I'm doing is watching this unfold. Alan, if you have such a problem with Otto, please assume responsibility and take it to dispute resolution. Your constant demands that GO handle it when he is under no obligation to do so is quickly turning into harassment, and is very clearly a waste of everyone's time. -- Kbdank71 02:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Your grotesque paraphrases at Wikipedia:List of cabals severely misrepresent the statements I have made about the dysfunctional nature of CfD, including the lack of any mention of a "cabal or coordination. Posting a blatant personal attack of this nature after demanding changes of your own is in rather bad taste. I look forward to your corrections. The double standard is alive and well. Alansohn ( talk) 05:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
First, not being totally sure if I did it right to give you notification, but wanted to be sure you saw the message I threw into our discussion thread about the presiding bishopric.
When I first began participating in efforts to "help" and contribute to Wikipedia, you were quite patient with me when it came to my efforts to update text and style usage for BYU-Hawaii. So, I thank you for that. I hadn't fully realized they were not using text guidelines that would have them be consistent with that of BYU-Idaho, which would be the desired intent. I believe they have completed making the necessary adjustments in that regard. An updated copy of their identity guidelines is now available through one of the sites you helped steer me to: http://webmasters.byuh.edu/node/19 or http://ur.byuh.edu/communications/identity_guidelines.
So, with you being far more accomplished in use of Wikipedia, my question to you is what is the most effective way to update the primary Wikipedia page and resulting links throughout? Is it use of a move function? Also, {maybe this is actually the first question} would it be necessary or appropriate to have opportunity for discussion before making that change? Just seeking your counsel on the best way to proceed. Thanks for thoughts you would have. ChristensenMJ ( talk) 16:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Have a good weekend. -- Kbdank71 18:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
100,000 Edits | |
I, Bugboy52.4, award you for reaching 100,000 edits according to the List of Wikipedians by number of edits generated 11:45 pm, 24 February 2009. Keep up the good work!________________________________________________________________ |
Hi, I noticed that you've been adding many articles to categories named States and territories established in yyyy. That's well and good, except that articles about counties in U.S. states do not really belong in that category as they are neither states nor territories. I'm really not sure what would be a more meaningful category, but that one is pretty clearly inappropriate. older ≠ wiser 12:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Olfactory. In March, you speedily deleted the categories, Category:Number-one albums in the United Kingdom and Category:Billboard 200 number-one albums, per G4 as recreations of previously deleted material per a CFD ( Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 15#Number-one album categories. While these have not been allowed to be recreated, there are more and more and more number-one song categories being created (see Category:Number-one singles), in which lists are available for most of these as well. My question to you is: How can I re-open up a discussion of a CFD from nearly three years ago that could allow new discussion of recreating the number-one album categories? Thanks for your help. -- Wolfer68 ( talk) 00:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
re this: can you maybe tell me what the correct format is for music categories? -- Ludwigs2 01:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Re your post "Just nominate Category:Songs written by Johnny Mercer and have at it there." How to do that; I'm not proposing deletion of that category but splitting it up. -- BRG ( talk) 01:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Good Olfactory. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alansohn ( talk) 14:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Just because you found a source for something doesn't make it defining. How many times do I have to tell you that? -- Kbdank71 14:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this will be a speedy. However this is one of those cases that seems to keep coming up and most of the regulars would probably support as a new speedy criteria. The tricky part will be the wording so that it does not get abused. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You've moved the various List of individuals executed in Texas pages - i.e. the 1870-1879, 1920-1929, etc. I don't see any particularly reason why the short dash "-" page names were changed to the long dash "–". I, and imagine any other editors, would use the short dash of the keyboard, and wouldn't go to the trouble to find the code for the long dash. Could you please explain on moving these pages? I see them as unneccesary moves. As things as it is now, the wikilinks on the main page List of individuals executed in Texas and the succession boxes at the bottom of each of those pages have not been redirected. Please reply here on your talk page to keep thread together. JRH.uk ( talk) 00:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
All I can say is wow! Over 200 edits of changing a few silly little letters! You're amazing! I just feel like you totally deserve this... so, here you go! Thanks for all the work you do to make the wiki a better place!
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
Given to Good Olfactory for his amazing work in changing links on over 200 pages to keep the wiki running smoothly, not to mention all the other wiki-gnomery that goes on! Thanks for all you do! You rock! Intothewoods29 ( talk) 05:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks! And there are still more to do—Fun, fun! Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
You appear to have missed a joint nominated cat at [6]. I can relist if you wnat. Thanks. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 16:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I keep seeing this acronym and I can't figure it out. I think it's something-of-origin but that's as far as I can get. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you please check the Mormonism section in the article Fall of Man? Remember it's the simple wikipedia so use simple words. Thanks. Griffinofwales ( talk) 00:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to guess you fit into the hierarchy as a Magic User. -- Kbdank71 16:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't have an issue about it. Smkolins ( talk) 01:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that the category of "Camp Rising Sun Alumni" was deleted; however, I believe this was in error as the programme's name does not indicate accurately either its content or its nature.
In fact, the programme is more aptly termed an international scholarship programme dating from the early 1930s and has grown to become one of the most prestigious in the United States. Sponsored by the Louis August Jonas Foundation, the programme has a large array of prominent alumni and is frequented by university admission officers from some of the most prestigious universities in the United States.
I believe that those who first thought that the category should be removed were unaware of this fact and I trust that this information should explain why the category should be revived.
I was unsure of the process of reviving the discussion on this, though thought that this was the place... At least, I'd be interested in hearing from others who are aware of the program, its nature, and its status over the last 75+ years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angkorgo2 ( talk • contribs)
Can you G4 and salt Category:Billboard 200 number-one albums plz? It just got re-created again. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 04:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Taking up your invitation to comment, I'm entirely happy with your call on this, which as far as I'm concerned sorts the problem - thanks! HeartofaDog ( talk) 23:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I have ditched the idea of a category called Actors-singers or Singers-actors, but the reason why we don't categorize people for being Actors-singers or Singers-actors is still completely unclear. Why don't we categorize those people for being such? Like i said, i've ditched the idea for eternity, but i still need to know why we don't categorize people like that? Ryanbstevens ( talk) 02:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 11#European Americans, instead of
would you support swapping them the other way?
Just trying to find some agreement.... somehow.
See response at User talk:Hmains#Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 11.
Created it, put a couple of entries in it, then I got bored. And then I returned to it... Whoa! Great job... GregorB ( talk) 22:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to bring this up again, but although all the "xth century" cats have indeed been renamed, the overcat, named as above, has not, although it was included in the CfD nomination - could you fix it if you get a minute? Thanks, HeartofaDog ( talk) 00:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Good Olfactory, please delete any reference to hoax, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:House_of_Lopez_de_Prado. These articles were deleted at my own request (G7, not G3), and I do not want them re-published. Besides, hoax accusations have been proven wrong, see User_talk:Qqtacpn#Accusations_of_hoax_must_be_withdrawn. Thanks! ( Qqtacpn ( talk) 18:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC))
Good Ol’factory, thanks for correcting this. I have received some unfair treatment in the last 48 hours, but you have done the right thing, and I appreciate it. ( Qqtacpn ( talk) 22:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)).
I see that you closed this category for deletion discussion but only deleted one of the two categories that were nominated. Was there a reason for that? - ¢Spender1983 ( talk) 03:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Given your interest both with WP Cats, as well as with Mormonism, I'd like to hear you thoughts about this. -- 208.81.184.4 ( talk) 17:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Mimzy1990 ( talk · contribs) Katr67 ( talk) 17:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Good Olfactory, I see you've deleted the Category:Max Schreck I just recreated. Yes, it was deleted " per 2009 MAY 7 CfD". I then posted Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Inform editors please. There I pointed out I did not get any notification of any discussion taking place. And then I recreated it again. After (now) looking at Wikipedia:CSD#G4 and WP:OC#SMALL and the comment by User:Occuli, I think I would have supported a renaming as Category:Max Schreck images instead. Could this be done?
Please move this wherever it seems best for discussion. I could not understand how to open an undelete request but what I really want is a new "disposition discussion". I don't want to post on Category talk:Images of actors and actresses because that itself might get merged and the talk lost. Meanwhile I wonder if there are better ways than categories for these wikipedia-hosted images? Gallery pages? There are several that cannot be hosted on Commons but that fit the English wikipedia public domain criteria (eg. those PD in the USA only). I'll drop a note that links here on User:Occuli's and User:Otto4711's talk pages. 84user ( talk) 04:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
When I was most active 3-5 years ago, I turned down folks that suggested I become an administrator. It wasn't a big deal. Now, I'm finding that many tasks and templates that I'm accustomed to doing (including many that I created and/or extensively re-worked) now require being an administrator. I suppose it's mostly an increase in *pedia size, but still disconcerting.
Mostly, I've assisted at CfD and TfD these days, but they're still far behind. Do you think that I should apply for administrator?
--
William Allen Simpson (
talk)
05:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
When the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 18#Category:Songs with lyrics by Johnny Mercer was closed, a whole bunch of pages were recategorized. It's clear that only Richhoncho wanted this recategorization, considering all the discussions that have taken place. Yet the question on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 9#Category:Songs with lyrics by Johnny Mercer is still open, and when I asked King of Hearts about this he said that because he was the one who put the question there, it is not appropriate for him to close it. Until the question is closed, I don't think people can go ahead and undo those recategorizations. Can you close it? or is there someone else I need to contact? -- BRG ( talk) 20:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
There is (was) a dispute over the inclusion of material that said that some Mormons (LDS members) did not follow (practice) the LDS doctrine concerning masturbation. Since you are an admin and you work with these types of articles could you please look over it? Thanks. Griffinofwales ( talk) 03:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Category:Hare Krishnas ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Wikid as© 00:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Category:Christianity in Vatican City - its probably my monday morning eyes maligned by the weekend but it looks like a dan brown inspired joke - but seeing you seem to spend your life embedded in the stuff - does it make sense to you? Satu Suro 01:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to do anything with it (Islamic religion in Mecca would be a good one)- I am trying to 'keep up' on the swine flu in my hometown of west oz, perth - trust it hasnt hit the idyllic kiwi islands yet Satu Suro 02:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear Good Olfactory,
The last thing I want to do is get into a pissing match with an administrator here. However, I am absolutely astonished and disappointed with the callousness displayed by the decision to deem Grammy Award Nominees as trivial. Let me start by giving you the anatomy of a music recording. The artist starts out at a tremendous disadvantage. Just getting someone in the industry to listen to their material is very hard. They have to self finance for sometimes years before they're even in a position to send out a demo. If and when they get a demo, the rejection begins. One after another. Christopher Cross was rejected dozens of times before Warner Bros. Records finally picked up "Sailing," which went on to sell millions. Do you have any idea of the heartache that he went through before he realized any success? Once an artist actually releases a product, he or she is faced with unbelievable competition. There are literally hundreds of thousands of products released every month.
If an artist finally has a modicum of success, only a record label or a voting member of the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences can "submit" that recording for first round voting to determine the nominees. The lists in each category are voluminous, since every label submits nearly their entire roster. Out of the long list of submissions, the voting members eliminate all but about five for each category. Those five have been selected by voting members of the academy (the artists' peers) and they are the nominees. At that point those artists each "won" a nomination. I'm not the one who coined it as a win... it's the academy who calls it a win, and it's the academy that issues certificates acknowledging the win, and it's the academy who holds a special ceremony several days before the telecast to honor those winning nominees.
The vast majority of musicians go an entire career without a single nomination. Your actions here tonight say that Wikipedia considers the hard work and years of struggle that accompany a nomination, to be nothing more than "trivia" and not worthy of being recognized with a category on Wikipedia.
Shame on you and shame on Wikipedia for becoming what Wikipedia fought against for years. The fellow who nominated that category for deletion is Explicit. I tried to post my view everywhere I could, but the instructions as to where to post it are anything but clear. I believe I read in the rules that "debate" would go on for seven days before deletion took place. "Debate" didn't last seven hours, much less seven days. I tried to join the "debate" but apparently didn't post my response in the proper place. Nonetheless, I posted a message on Explicit's talk page and on the talk page for the category itself. Apparently no one saw my messages or ignored them. I told Explicit, who himself hopes to be in the music business some day, that if he is lucky enough to ever be nominated for a Grammy, he will certainly not consider that nomination to be trivial.
I tried to do something good for Wikipedia and musicians by providing recognition for those who had actually won a Grammy Nomination. You have a category for "Garment districts" that breaks down into minutia, but find Grammy Nominees to be trivial. Shame on you and everyone else who has no appreciation or consideration for the hard work and accomplishments of others.
Todd -- Warriorboy85 ( talk) 07:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I had no idea the category was there before or that it was previously deleted. Nothing ever told me that when I created it. However, that means that at least one other person agrees that there should be a category for Grammy Award Nominees. Although I spent quite some time explaining why there should be such a category, I notice you basically just ignored my entire point and made light of it all. I won't bother you any more, but you've confirmed in my mind exactly what's wrong with Wikipedia.-- Warriorboy85 ( talk) 18:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I would have liked to have seen more discussion on this before it was closed, particularly how OC#SMALL does or does not apply, there was no decisive argumentation on that point. I'm a little annoyed it was you who closed the discussion when you're someone who has nominated the same type of category for deletion yourself. And now if someone is looking for articles on e.g. sci-fi film series by genre, they won't find the Class of Nuke 'Em High film series, because the category was deleted and there's no Class of Nuke 'Em High film series article. One could create an article for it, but I don't suppose it would have much content unless someone were really motivated; the categories didn't require anyone to create good articles, just links. Grumble. What would you suggest? Creating a film series article? Putting just the first article in the series in Category:Science fiction films by series? Шизомби ( talk) 14:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Hm, almost immediately after I re-opened it and restored the categories another admin closed it as delete, so I hope this does help you realise that I wasn't deciding to delete out of biased motives. It was an honest assessment of the discussion on my part, and this assessment has been confirmed by the closing admin, at least. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the improvements you made to my edit, but not the disprovements, if there is such a word. Bear with me if you will, I plan to add more and more documentation, such as a photocopy of that September 5, 1898 Kansas City Star article. There was a good deal of coverage of Mr. Pattison's trial in other Jackson County newspapers--including a full transcript of his testimony transcribed and published in some now-defunct newspaper. Who Framed Roger Rabbit? ( talk) 01:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Because of previous conflicts over the page, it was agreed by consensus to not include an in-depth discussion of the motives of the 1990 arsonist in the articles Temple Lot or Church of Christ (Temple Lot). Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this removal of Category:American Catholics from Farrah Fawcett, was that because of the article or the category, both, or neither? Thanks - Frank | talk 11:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
See here for a discussion about an editor who has turned to you in connection with a possible adminship. Debresser ( talk) 18:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Just do it. I created all four categories (after discussion with other people who edit on synagogues) We didn't discuss naming style. I didn't even think about naming style. If this is the standard format, please do just go ahead and make the changes. It's hardly significant enough to warrant discussion. Historicist ( talk) 12:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For wisdom and courage in dealing with bully whose threats go well beyond mere heated words. Americasroof ( talk) 16:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks—all I can say is: what is the DEAL with that guy? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Another day, another 2 MPs - Julie Kirkbride and Margaret Moran forced to say they wont stand again for election because of the expenses scandal, and as the category got more relevant, as the expenses scandal became defining in the lives of more and more British politicians, you went from tepid to firm, shouldn't that be tepid to hot?? in your opposition, more convinced the category should be removed. Brilliant. If I could offer you a shadow barnstar, a negative barnstar for aiding in a miniscule way corrupt and corrupting politicians I would Sayerslle ( talk) 17:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
WTF? -- Kbdank71 14:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
This CfD reeks of bad faith on the part of the nominator. the nominator, TenPoundHammer, nominated this for deletion in August of 2008; the creator of the category made a case for its inclusion, and it was kept. In this AfD, TPH nominated it again with the thinnest of reasoning (is that even a valid rationale for deletion?) and without any notice of the prior CfD, and the category was deleted on the basis of one !vote. Based on the results of the last CfD, there is no consensus to delete this category, and one new !vote (" per nom") shouldn't have changed that. Can you please restore it? Chubbles ( talk) 14:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
You posted a diff (now at User talk:Jimbo Wales) of your favorite legal threat. I'm not sure who he was calling an idiot as I was not aware of the diff until it was pointed out. What is the background on this vandal (if that is a proper term)? Griffinofwales ( talk) 16:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I see that you've already archived my previous note.
You haven't !voted on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 11#European Americans. For awhile, the !voters wanted "... descent", 2 more after 2 weeks want plural (as originally nominated).
Likewise, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 16#American people and topics.
Need some experienced commenters (assuming that KBDank will close it eventually). You'll be one of those regularly enforcing the decision, so it would help to know your preferences.
-- watching here --
William Allen Simpson (
talk)
10:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed this on Jimbo's talk today. [8] Can I do anything about this? I've left a remark. Cool Hand Luke 14:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
His latest attack on a commentator ("your prejudice is showing") pushed me over the edge to posting on ANI. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Unfrayed. Cool Hand Luke 15:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Taken care of. If you find others in the future, it's probably best to e-mail them to me, this way I'm the only one seeing the diff as opposed to non-oversighters browsing through my talk page. Thanks. Wizardman 16:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Did a leap of idiocy (always you say?) last night into the US project categories (my recent eds might show it up more clearly) and was intrigued by the incidence of American within the rather neglected and labyrinthinan USA category tree - does your precedence memory bank have any incidents where such a word is used with impunity or with sufficient prescience allow it to occur amongst more specifically tighter cats (I ask one with canuck tendencies I suppose is asking for trouble :) - or should I suggest changes to some categories? - your circumspection and or judicious comments are awaited Satu Suro 00:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it's pretty much a mixed bag, of course with the proviso that if it's a noun, it's "the United States" and if it's an adjective (modifying a noun) it's "American". Always "FOO of [or in] the United States" or "American FOO", but never "FOO of [or in] America" or "United States FOO". The type that uses "United States" are generally called "by country" categories and the type that use "American" are generally called "by nationality" categories. The impossible part is deciding which form to use. Categories for people almost always use the "by nationality" form (though I'm sure there are exceptions). But so too do a lot of cultural topics, like music, films, literature, etc. I can't figure out any real rhyme or reason for the differences. But at least there is a list of some that have been somewhat settled on one way or the other: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the thorough response - appreciated Satu Suro 08:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Should the 2nd, 3rd and 4th levels of the Category:Drugs by target organ system mirror the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System exactly, or be consolidated when possible?
Please read the more thorough description of this issue at WT:PHARM:CAT and post your comments there. You're comments would be much appreciated! Thanks --- kilbad ( talk) 00:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. The decision was delete all, but I think that the cat for Hebrew names was supposed to be an exception? -- Dweller ( talk) 09:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll re-list the Hebrew one to try to get some clarity. The nominator's intent wasn't very clear—if he didn't want it included in the nomination, I'm not sure why he listed it (it also wasn't tagged). No one singled it out for comment, so I think we'd benefit from a discussion centred just on it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Good Olfactory, I just have some questions about the CFD process that I think you may be able to help with, but no obligation to. Basically I've moved two of the categories in the speedy renaming section on which the time stamp had expired and then redirected the old categories to the new ones, is anyone allowed to move categories in that way? And should I have nommed the old category for deletion as opposed to redirecting it? All I did was remove the requests, is this the correct action, I have a feeling its not? If you could just talk me through the process that would be incredible helpful and appreciated.
And finally, how does one move a category into full CfD discussion?
Thank you for your time, all the best
Spitfire
Tally-ho!
09:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Probably the latter. -- Kbdank71 13:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I saw your most recent edit to Mormon and had a question about it, which I posted on the talk page. Boccobrock• T• C 22:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response. I have responded on my talk page. -- Cyde Weys 02:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Good Olfactory. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alansohn ( talk) 02:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Could you speedy the Indonesian poliical party item at Speedy? It would be appreciated- thanks Satu Suro 04:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For responding with resounding positivity to the ANI post about West Ridge Academy. Props to you! Exxolon ( talk) 16:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks. Very odd, I did find it. Though at the same time perhaps not surprising. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Would you care to share an opinion here on my talk page on
Someone recreated and repopulated Category:Fictional Jews. Since you've been deleting it, I guess you have some bot to empty it. Can you delete it and salt? - Altenmann >t 17:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
You recently closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 1#Category:Jewish bankers as delete. Despite arguments from several editors that there is a distinct connection between being a banker and being Jewish, including taking note of the House of Rothschild, your close takes no notice of these arguments nor offers any explanation for your actions other than a single word. The arguments for deletion all relied on what is essentially "is not" in rebuttal. Any additional information to explain your close or consideration of reversal will be appreciated before any further action is taken. Alansohn ( talk) 18:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia might be a nicer place if you didn't enjoy peoples' dissagreements with you so much. Not many Wikipedians save up insults against themselves as if they are badges of honor. -- Carlaude talk 04:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I do not miss the irony nor am I offended by the collection. If you think I should encourage Wikipedians to be nicer to each other instead of talking to you, then obviously you have missed the point of my comment. I do not think User:Alansohn was rude in the first place. -- Carlaude talk 05:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, wouldn't the world be a better place if women who were raped wouldn't be so touchy and write books about it? Those darn victims, always making it uncomfortable for the rest of us. I'm with you, Carlaude, we shouldn't have to be reminded of blatant incivility, especially by the target. I certainly disagree with GO's actions by reminding us, how about we become grossly incivil to him? You go first. -- Kbdank71 12:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
“ | Carlaude you stated above, "Yada yada yada yada yada" Actually, I'm following Johnbod's general position etc. etc. etc. --Good Olfactory | ” |
And your point is ... ? You believe you were taken out of context and made to look illiterate. But an equally likely possibility is that you just maybe weren't as clear in your comments to others as you understood yourself to be, and the quote happened to highlight that fact. You can look at things from more than one perspective; it doesn't make the other view "wrong". That's why it's always best to leave others' comments alone and in the same format as they post them. You are technically free to do as you like on your own talk page, but if you ever do that elsewhere, you could run into some serious trouble with some editors. (Cool font colours, though. I'm more mesmerised by these than anything...) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
user:70.104.123.20 and user:70.104.102.120 are quacking (see eg history of Category:Dutch Reformed Christians from the United States). See User:Jc37/Tracking/Pastorwayne for previous quacking ips. (You have an interesting talk page, BTW. This must be the dullest post on it ... must try harder.) Occuli ( talk) 19:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey Good Olfactory, would you be willing to weigh in on Talk:Avraham Gileadi? There's no war, I just feel the issue is complicated and it would be good to have some more editors opine. Carneadiiz ( talk) 23:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Why wasn't i notified of these deletions? You nominated two of my categories for deletion without telling me about it! I would really like to be notified of these deletions please if that's not too much to ask. Ryanbstevens ( talk) 04:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Take a gander a few noms up on the same date. He's actually citing a Mel Brooks film as a reason to keep a category. Otto4711 ( talk) 13:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
At the West Ridge Academy article, the edits have been taken over by some very biased COI/POV Mormon editors. I am new to Wikipedia and could really use some assistance adding levity to the article. The way that it is being controlled by Storm Rider, an admittedly biased editor, is appalling. Please help. -- 66.74.10.34 ( talk) 16:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to the club! Took you long enough to get here. -- Kbdank71 16:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I love some of the responses. -- Kbdank71 19:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Randal Simmons was on my watchlist for some reason and has just been recreated. Doubtless you can check whether the present version has any resemblance to the deleted one. (Apologies again for the unmitigated dullness of my contributions to your talk page.) Occuli ( talk) 20:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a proposed merge that I think would interest you at Talk:Limited geography model#Several merge proposals - my take. I am posting this notice because I saw that you were a recent editor at one of the pages listed below:
-- Descartes1979 ( talk) 17:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I've just noticed this category I made has been nominated for deletion; thanks for letting me know! Do you not think it would have been a courtesy to talk to me about it? Moonraker12 ( talk) 14:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Category:Murdered Iraqi children ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ryan4314 ( talk) 14:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Could you stop removing the Nakba category without discussion, please? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 05:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your offer. If you could close and relist, that would be much appreciated. best, Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. It seems (since I have been checking) that no one else is contributing to the WP:CFD for the category "Atheist and agnostic politicians". I created the WP:CFD on June 10th. Can we close it out? There are 6 votes in favor of deleting (including yours and mine) and 4 against deleting. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com ( talk) 19:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I can't recall any specific noms, but I think kdbank or jc or one of the other long-time closers said, when someone raised it, it wasn't their practice to do the list. I have some sympathy with this position. Johnbod ( talk) 01:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I hope you guys aren't listifying manually. For what it's worth, PyWikipediaBot has a listify capability. I know because I wrote it :-D Cyde Weys 03:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
python category.py listify -from:Evolution -to:'List of evolution articles'
-overwrite
, -showimages
, and -talkpages
. One final option that is not listify-specific, but that you might want to use nonetheless, is -recurse
. Further documentation is contained within the source code to category.py
itself. That pretty much covers everything there is to know about listify. --
Cyde Weys
03:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Category:Telecommunication companies of Yemen needs an 's'. In fact there are quite a few - Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Telecommunication companies. Occuli ( talk) 14:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you really think that these are churches? While you need to have a congregation to officiate at marriages, as I understand it, you don't need to conduct services at the chapel for a congregation. So maybe the question is, if a building is only used to perform marriages, does that make it a church? Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
You have amended the text of this category. However both BMI and AMG confirm he is the writer of these songs. Those that want to add this kind of wording have not been able to verify the accusation that Robey stole songwriter credits. As it is unverfied which songs, assuming the general accusation is correct, Robey wrote. I feel very strongly that WP:V should be applied to these statements. Care to reconsider?
BTW The nomination for deletion was withdrawn by the nominator. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 08:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks like we're crossing wires on the Chinese surnames category. Do you want it deleted or kept? If kept, it can be nominated for renaming, or I can delete it and you can just repopulate the Chinese-language one right now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've a favor to ask. {{
Surname}} needs to either be semi-protected, so I can edit, or swap in the code in the sandbox. I've asked politely at
WP:RUP, and was denied; then tried {{
editprotect}} on the Talk, and the next guy wants more information. (heavy sigh) Too slow. It needs to be done before the job queue load increases today, so the pseudo-categories propagate, and the old parameters (now red-link categories) can be found and removed.
--
William Allen Simpson (
talk)
09:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
BTW, it appears to me that somebody (who shall remain nameless for now unless they complain) created
Category:Surnames by culture and emptied
Category:Surnames by language out-of-process, and the latter was db-c1. Are you able to undelete the complete history at
Category:Surnames by language?
--
William Allen Simpson (
talk)
16:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
as someone who has dealt with the above user in the past, I was hoping you could look at the comment he left on my IP talk page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:119.173.81.176
119.173.81.176 ( talk) 20:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Did you read the manual of style? You are incorrect in your usage of "(Mormon)".
I will leave it up to you to change it back to "(Latter Day Saints)" per MOS. If you feel there is a MOS referring to individuals as Mormons, then I don't see it in the MOS. Perhaps it needs to be updated, but I see nothing in the MOS to warrant your revert. If I am in error, please let me know. I may just be missing something. Bytebear ( talk) 04:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I don't understand it, and think that something else should be chosen, because when you wiki Mormon it says that that title applies to all sects to split off from the Church after the succession crisis, so it would make it confusing if there was a John Taylor as head of the FLDS for example. But, thanks anyways. LDS-SPA1000 ( talk) 04:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Jewish surnames. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Alansohn ( talk) 05:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Your this edit of Kyle Broflovski that removed the Category:Fictional Jews with the explanation that its is "probably not defining--not even mentioned in lede" is clearly contradicted by the first sentence in the second paragraph which states that "Kyle is distinctive as one of the few Jewish children on the show", in addition to extensive discussion of his Jewishness and its function in defining his character later in the article. The justification you cited for the removal, that it was "mentioned in lede" is not a legitimate argument for removal of any category, nor is it a standard that is met in the majority of articles for most of the categories included. Despite the fact that you restored the category in your subsequent edit, the fact that you allowed your preconceived notions to involve your efforts at WP:STALKing my edits only demonstrates the extent of the clear problem that exists here. I'd love to have a conversation about these issues, but far too often it appears to me that your mind is already made up, even before discussion (or voting) starts, and the result preordained. Please convince me otherwise. Alansohn ( talk) 15:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, that was funny. But yes, after the laughter—I agree. Something to laugh about rather than worry about. (Sorry, my email won't send messages today for some reason. Hopefully you'll see my response here.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick work. Much appreciated. :) Benkenobi18 ( talk) 00:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
When you change the article from list of notable Parsis to list of Parsis, it doesn't make sense. You are saying this is a list of Parsis, which this isn't. A complete list of Parsis would include upto 110,000 to 210,000 adherents. It is a list of notable Parsis. Warrior4321 talk Contribs 02:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |