Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cirt (talk | contribs) at 07:16, 23 April 2014 (→Moving pages: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Archive box collapsible

Renaming

Please see my proposal to speedily rename Category:British migrants to Mandatory Palestine to Category:British emigrants to Mandatory Palestine and Category:Lebanese emigrants Mandatory Palestine to Category:Lebanese emigrants to Mandatory Palestine Hugo999 (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

¿Mentally unfit to stand trial in "Category:People acquitted by reason of insanity"?

Added Shūmei Ōkawa to Category:People acquitted by reason of insanity, even though, he was not, strictly speaking, acquitted. A psychiatrist found him unfit for trial and a judge of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East dropped charges. He then went to a mental hospital.

Does he fall into this category?

Thanks,

AndersW (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Invitation

Hi. I am conducting a survey of most active Wikipedians, regarding reasons they may reduce their activity. I would be very interested in having you participate in it. Would you be interested? (If you reply to me here, please WP:ECHO me). Thank you for your consideration, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, crap, if you got invited too, it can't be that exclusive. Damn. --Kbdank71 16:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Return to Zion

Hi GO

I have been cleaning up Category:Categories for discussion from November 2013, and have just reverted your tagging of Category:Return to Zion for speedy renaming to Category:The Return to Zion. The category appears not to have been listed at WP:CFD/S.

If you want to proceed with the proposal, feel free to tag and list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It was speedily tagged and listed when the article was at The Return to Zion. A user decided to start an RM to change it to Return to Zion. Since that proposal went through, the category nomination was withdrawn. Looks like whomever removed it from CFDS forgot to remove the tagging, so thanks. Good Ol’factory 22:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi, i noticed that you decided to remove most State of Palestine categories (like here) in favor of Palestinian territories or Palestinian Authority (which both refer to Palestinian administration established in 1993). I should however point out to you that following Palestine mission upgrade to UN to non-member state status in November 2012, officially UN () and all UN related organizations, ISO (), as well as most media sources and Palestinian officials themselves (government websites ), began to refer to Palestinian entity as "State of Palestine". This is already implemented in most wiki articles, so can you explain why you decided to return to previous conventions? ThanksGreyShark (dibra) 18:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Because the change has not been proposed or discussed vis-a-vis categories at WP:CFD. I note that the articles are 2013 in the Palestinian territories and 2014 in the Palestinian territories, so it makes little sense to have the corresponding categories use a different name. Personally, I would suggest that "Palestinian territories" is still probably more NPOV than any other name at this stage of the game, but I don't have a strong opinion about the substantive issue. Good Ol’factory 00:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas Levi Whittle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Succession crisis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your help at Beyond the First Amendment, much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

bulk nomination coming

I moved this whole section to CANTALK; Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Power_station_-_.3E_Generating_station_bulk_CfD here. Skookum1 (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

what procedure when someone unilaterally overturns a CfD outcome?

Category:Squamish has been re-created despite the decision to not use that title in this CFD from last year, which you may remember....the editor who did this says she read the CfD but apparently she didn't understand it, i.e. that Category:Squamish people is meant for the ethnic group, not "people who are Skwxwu7mesh" and she doesn't care about the cvonfusion with "people from the town of Squamish", and she has been unapologetic about the disarray and ambiguities involved in that title and just says "If other editors have a problem with this action, please let them speak for themselves, which we are all capable of doing.". but "other editors" were part of that CfD. So what's next? I launch another CfD on the SAME topic? Strikes me that she disrespected all the discussions about this that came before her, and waded in with a bludgeon and did this rather wantonly. Myself, I'd wanted Category:Skwxwu7mesh as the outcome, in harmony with other endonyms in Category:First Nations in British Columbia, despite the lack of prevalence of this term unlike others (Nuxalk, Kwakwaka'wakw, St'at'imc, Sto:lo etc are common fare).; the original was Category:Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and I'd just wanted it simplified, now it's in a morass of anglicized ("colonialized") confusion. Shouldn't the CfD decision be "forcibly applied" by reverting her new category and the articles she's abused it on? I'm thinking t hat this is also a matter of discipline; an experienced editor shouldn't have done something so wantonly opposite to collective decision. Whether that's ARBCOM or ANI or what I don't know. But I don't think having to suffer/argue through another CfD is the appropriate path here. And in re what name to use, I'd rather see the original version come back rather than put up with this embarrassing confusion with the town of Squamish, and that a "lock" be put on the endonym category names before someone else with only partial, if any, knowledge of the subjects comes forward to screw around with them again. This is about article names, but ""the Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." which is from here. My main irritation here is the waste of energy and time and goodwill that such arbitrary BULLSHIT creates, and the washing-of-hands attitude that accompanies such high-handed actions. The original creator of this category and its many articles, who is himself Skwxwu7mesh, has long since left Misplaced Pages because of the interloping by people who don't know the subject matter and are behaving colonialistically by deciding from outside how his people should be called and how they should be spoken of. So what to do? You're the categories guy? I invited Uysvidi to do the noble thing and change teh category to its more authentic form i.e. Category:Skwxwu7mesh but she has just thrown cold water in my face in response, over and over and gets glib about waiting for "other editors" to speak. I'll refer to an axiom at the head of my userpage, "A consensus of fools is only foolishness". The irony of a pro-indigenous editor taking actions which colonize the name of another indigenous people I find rather rich here, though quite lost on her....So if she can just go and create Category:Squamish by her lonesome, despite the CfD's decision to not use that, then why shouldn't I just go create Category:Skwxwu7mesh all by my lonesome? This all began with a nascent edit war on titles in Nevada reservation/tribe articles, which she seems to WP:OWN, in my opinion....Skookum1 (talk) 05:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess that a speedy G4 would be a valid request. Maybe add in the edit comment a request to salt? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

This is spiralling out of control (as if it were ever in control) as people bring forward the same erroneous logics and suggestions that were dispensed with last year; now Obiwankenobi is re-inforcing the new "illegal" category name, Category:Squamish by reverting my depopulation of it; which I've just done again, since the depopulation going on was the upcatting by Uysvidi by way of appropriating the ethno category for a category for individuals. The solution here is to recognize that (a) the RM was flawed, in fact tainted by obvious cultural bias and more and (b) the Category never did have to be speedied from its original state as Skwxwu7mesh-with-diacriticals just because of the main article title and

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thanks for clarification in a polite manor. David chamberlain (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to move a category page...

I'm trying to move the category page "American Theatre Hall of Fame inductees" into a new one called "American Theater Hall of Fame inductees." Do you or anyone else here on Misplaced Pages know how you can please help me out? Mr. Brain (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You've listed it at WP:CFDS, which was the right thing to do. I've tagged the old category for you, which is part of the process. After about 48 hours, if there are no issues that anyone raises, the change will be automatically processed by a bot. It looks like a sensible nomination to me, so I'm sure it will proceed after the wait time. Good Ol’factory 02:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Way way way

Just a small wave from the way place - Western Australia Sesquicenterary Year of 1979 - was a bit of a mouthful, and the pedants of the time added the apostrophe for whatever their reason was, to create the logo and something as monosyllabic as possible (we have lots of flies here in Perth, multiple syllable words cause fly swallowing) if you try looking for anything written about the event since the apostrophe is dropped.

To resurrect the earlier usage is folly, and considering that probably over 70 percent of population of western australia either (a) didnt live in wa at the time (b) werent even born then (c) werent old enought to understand what it was about - it is my firm belief that the article is ok with apostrophe (disambigs are much easier to play with rather than cats), to introduce the apostrophe at the category is tantamount to paying obeiscance to pedants who have since died... cheers and trust your 2014 is as scintilating as your 2013. satusuro 03:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, we could have one way or the other for both. What's the use of having different forms in article and category? I could rename the article to WAY 79 if that's better. Good Ol’factory 03:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Good point - doesnt really matter in the end - its just that I thought I would mention the apostrophe is not a common usage anymore - please feel free to go which ever way you feel comfortable with from your perspective. I just thought when i saw the speedy for a cat to have the apostrophe it seemed a bit retrograde in view of the distance in time and more recent usages that I have been aware of, cheers satusuro 03:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I think renaming the article is probably the way to go. We'll see if any upset pedants come out of the woodwork. Good Ol’factory 03:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Any word yet on my nomination?

Sorry to bother you, but is there any word on my nomination to rename the American Theater Hall of Fame inductees category? If I'm not mistaken, I think the 48-hour time limit has passed, so the change should have been generated by a bot. Please let me know if I'm mistaken. Mr. Brain (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Right—but it looks like another user has opposed the renaming of the category at WP:CFDS, so it can't proceed via that route. It would have to be nominated for a "full discussion" using the process outlined at WP:CFD. Good Ol’factory 00:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I took your advice and tried to nominate it manually. Hope it works. Mr. Brain (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Beyoncé

Hi, I wanted to let you know that as the main category for the WikiProject Beyoncé has already been moved, most of its sub-categories – also listed in the nomination – haven't. Should they be nominated at WP:CFDS again, or will one of the administrators move them, basing on that February 15 nomination? — Mayast (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. They have been renamed by a bot, we are just waiting for the articles to transfer from the old categories to the new ones. (The application of the category to the articles is done by a template, and we have to wait for the template application to be "reset", but sometimes there is a long queue for this process.) So this might take a few hours to a few days, but once all the articles have transferred over, we will delete the old categories. If you want to keep an eye on the list they are listed at WP:CFDWM right now. Good Ol’factory 00:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks for the explanation :) Mayast (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:American hymnwriters

I know little about church music but I was wondering why you were depopulating this category. As it is now, 50%+ of the American hymnwriters in the category are Mormon when that can not be the case given the rich history of American hymn music, especially in African-American churches. I'm really puzzled because this category is not very representative of all denominations. Are you in the middle of working on it and this is just Part 1? Liz 22:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm only removing those from the category who are already in the subcategory, Category:American Latter Day Saint hymnwriters. I haven't removed any other articles. Good Ol’factory 09:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

RE Category:Candidate of technical Sciences

This was deleted per CFD but somehow was recreated; it's not even proper English, is it??. Just letting you know. (see ).

Yours, Quis separabit? 02:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

OK now, I guess. Manually removed the population of the now-deleted category. Quis separabit? 13:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Anthem in the Slovak State article

This article is about the state which existed only during the WWII. After the war the state ceased to exist. The anthem of this state was Hey, Slovaks, composed by a Slovak priest Samo Tomášik on his trip to Prague. This sovereignty should not be confused with the modern Slovak Republic, which anthem is the "Nad Tatrou sa Blýska" which is mistakenly written also for the former article. That is why you should not revert this correction anymore.Jan Janikovic (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not confusing the states. Have you read this on the talk page? It's directly on point. "Hey, Slovaks" is often regarded as the anthem, but it was actually not the official anthem. Good Ol’factory 00:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

CfD/working

I think you missed {{Species abbreviation}}. Obvious, right? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Doh. It's always obvious in retrospect. Good Ol’factory 20:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Now I need you to figure out for me why Category:Recipients of the Médaille Militaire won't delete. Good Ol’factory 21:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure. I did look at it with no success. I was going to try one of the other bots, but I think I'll ask Clyde. I suspect something with the bot. BTW, I found the first one by searching the site for the category name with template. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

He rarely checks his WP talk page anymore but he's quite responsive if you email him directly: cydeweys (at) gmail.com. Good Ol’factory 22:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:To be deleted

Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Working#Move.2Fmerge_then_delete interesting target category! Vegaswikian (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Just experimenting: it seems that Cydebot will rename these categories, but for some reason won't delete them. I will delete Category:To be deleted. Good Ol’factory 00:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for shutting me up

..., ignoring me completely, and making sure that no one would have to respond to me. I had been editing lately, and I needed the "Go away, only Randies belong here reminder." Good-bye. --(AfadsBad (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC))

Um, I have no idea what you are referring to. Sure you have the correct user? If so, can you point me to the relevant issue? Good Ol’factory 01:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Ghana region moves

Hello GO. Your Ghana region moves seem to have left behind a redirect at No discussion about move was held. I assume this was not intended. Do you want to delete it as G6? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yes, thanks. I mistakenly gave my rationale as the target name. I caught that, but then forgot to uncheck the box about keeping a redirect. Good Ol’factory 02:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for the careful and appropriate changes made to Mark Hofmann. John Foxe (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

can't see flaw in this template

somewhere I'm not seeing a character that's keeping this from posting; see ].Skookum1 (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Soviet deportees category

Ah, I see your point with Category:People deported from the Soviet Union: if it's to be parallel with other deportee categories, it should be a subcategory of "Expatriates in ". That's because usually countries deport only foreigners, i.e. expatriates from other countries. But in the Soviet case, none of the people currently in the category were expatriates in the Soviet Union in that sense, of being from elsewhere: they were all locals who were deported from their country of origin, and thereby became (involuntary) Soviet expatriates in other countries. Perhaps that should be a different category, though. Bit confusing; sorry for the intervention! --Delirium (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense; thank you. Good Ol’factory 22:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Egyptian rapists

Category:Egyptian rapists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:New Zealand rapists

Category:New Zealand rapists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Saint Lucian rapists

Category:Saint Lucian rapists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Soviet rapists

Category:Soviet rapists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Thai rapists

Category:Thai rapists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Depictions of ....

Please remember to add Category:Christian iconography to biblical categories; in fact this is their main category. Thanks Johnbod (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Good Ol’factory 20:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI

It looks like you "lost" this ] to ] between CFDS and CFDW . Armbrust 07:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Oops. Jeez, thanks for catching that. I'm not sure how that happened. It isn't the first time. Good Ol’factory 20:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Three Witnesses, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James the Apostle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Another barnstar.

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for the careful, appropriate changes you've made to Three Witnesses and Eight Witnesses.--John Foxe (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, John. Every once in awhile these seldom-edited articles need a once-over. Good Ol’factory 20:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You did a nice job with B. H. Roberts as well. I wish your sort of Misplaced Pages editing could be cloned. All the best, --John Foxe (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:High-rises in Christchurch

Any idea why this name instead of Category:Skyscrapers in Christchurch? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hm, not really. Unless the creator thought that it was an ENGVAR issue, which is might be. I have heard both terms used in NZ. I'm not a native speaker of NZ English so I couldn't say which is more common, but both appear in my NZ Oxford dictionary, and neither has any sort of notation that it is rare or used primarily outside of NZ. We do have Category:Skyscrapers in Auckland so I don't think it would be a problem renaming it. Good Ol’factory 02:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I see it's also Category:High-rises in Wellington‎. Maybe someone is thinking that these buildings in Wellington and Christchurch are not tall enough to be called "skyscrapers". They aren't that tall as compared to buildings in Australia and the U.S., but still—I think they are tall enough. Good Ol’factory 02:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

PDF book of mormon

Hello Good Olfactory. I noticed your recent edit on the Book of Mormon article. I find it very unintelligent of you to remove the official copyrighted PDF of the Book of Mormon. This Book of Mormon PDF is released from the Latter Day Saint Website and thus is a reliable source! This PDF also does provide information about the article. If you even take your time to read the introduction of the Book of Mormon and read through the whole article and compare its information with the wikipedia article, then you would understand. So until then, I suggest you read it.--Micronationalist1999 (talk) 03:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Name calling is not the best way to make friends and influence people, and ldscdn.org is not easily identifiable as a domain actually belonging to the LDS Church, as the church normally uses the main LDS.org domain for this kind of thing: I had to do a Whois lookup to see who it was registered to, and was surprised to find it belongs to Intellectual Reserve. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

This Book of Mormon however is featured on the lds.org website, a link is: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm?lang=eng The PDF directly links it there.--Micronationalist1999 (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

If we want to link to the 2013 LDS edition, why isn't the link just to this website, then, which seems like the master LDS website for all things Book of Mormon? That way users could access the text in HTML, PDF, or audio. Good Ol’factory 02:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Good idea!--Micronationalist1999 (talk) YOUR PROUD BANANA 21:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I found out something you didn't notice. Though the church normally uses LDS.org domain, the main site also uses Intellectual Reserve. Hence the "© 2014 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved." at the bottom of their website.--Micronationalist1999 (talk) YOUR PROUD BANANA 23:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Category merge

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

Sure. Good Ol’factory 22:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Debresser (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Accession of Macedonia to the European Union

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

I don't think you missed anything. If you disagree with an article move, I suggest you move it back. If you cannot or need assistance, you can let me know. Good Ol’factory 07:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, no problem, I've moved it back. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the inconvenience and my impulsive action. Good Ol’factory 08:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Holy Land during Byzantine rule

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

Aaronic priesthood (Latter Day Saints)

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

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

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

The other change I felt hurt the article was

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

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

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

The article is supposed to be about the Aaronic priesthood in the entire Latter Day Saint movement. Ideally, it would have historical information on the topic from not only the LDS Church perspective but also from the Community of Christ perspective and that of other Latter Day Saint denominations. The reason I removed that paragraph was because its placement in the lead of the article seemed too LDS Church-centric in article that should ideally be broader than just the LDS Church, and everything it says was pretty much repeated in the sections on the LDS Church history in any case. I think the amount of detail that was there on the LDS Church history comes close to overwhelming the article with minutiae, but I tried to reduce it and summarize it to a fair level. Good Ol’factory 06:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

My mistake, I was under the mistaken assumption that Latter Day Saints referred to the Original Church, main church, Brigham Young's Church, whichever way I should say to not offend those members of one of the others. I figured, again mistakenly, that there would have been other "Aaronic Priesthood"s for each of the churches that has a version of it. Thanks again for your hard work. speednat (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:1917 in the Palestinian territories

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

I invite you because of your participation on Syrian categories discussion in 2013.GreyShark (dibra) 17:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Please also see the merge proposal of category:1920s in Syria -> category:1920s in Mandatory Syria.GreyShark (dibra) 20:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!

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

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

Going to be away for a bit

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

OK. I noticed that you trimmed WP:CFDW. I think you normally check backlinks and Wikidata, but I've done it for you after this cleardown. Note that this one needed updating manually at Wikidata. – Fayenatic London 11:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that. And as it turned out I was not away for as long as planned due to weather issues. Good Ol’factory 22:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Watercolor Impressions

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

I'll take your word for it, but note that there is no separate Misplaced Pages article that we have for a book called The Art of Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind, so right now the addition of the subtitle appears to be unnecessary disambiguation. Good Ol’factory 22:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting the moves. There is no Misplaced Pages article for the other book, The Art of Nausicaä, yet. My apologies for not including links with information about the two books to illustrate the request in my comment above. The Art of Nausicaä is a Japanese language book, published in 1984, which remains in print and has so far been translated into Korean and French. The Art of Nausicaä Watercolor Impressions came out in Japanese in 1995 and has been translated into French and English. Both books are briefly described in the Nausicaä manga and animated film articles but only one of the books has its own article at the moment. I understand your reasoning, and agree that the current situation is not ideal but I think it is the least confusing of the possible alternatives and therefore appreciate that you've reverted the moves. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Heads of government of Russia

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

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

Mormon Folklore

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

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

Category:Works by John Mellencamp

Category:Works by John Mellencamp, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Categories - in categories or in articles

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

What I meant was it is usual to have the vast majority of categories that apply to a subject on the article for that subject. It is also usual to have far fewer categories on the corresponding article page. The reason for this is that some users say that all of the categories that are being added to the topic don't apply to all the contents of the category, but they do apply to the article. I suppose one place this could be raised is at Talk:Categorization. Good Ol’factory 04:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Usual it is. But i don't see how "Category:YYYY births" is not suitable for "Category:ABC person" but suitable only for article "ABC person". See how Commons does it. And that talk page would hardly be useful. It was last edited in Dec 2013. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, just for instance—Swami Anand is an article in Category:Mahatma Gandhi. Category:1869 births applies to Mahatma Gandhi, but not to Swami Anand, so the category should go on the article for Gandhi rather than the category for Gandhi. That's the rationale. I don't entirely agree with the approach in every way, but that's the usual reasoning that has been given, and it seems to be the accepted approach now, at least for biographical articles/categories. Good Ol’factory 05:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Well... having the article of Anand under Category:Mahatma Gandhi is itself wrong. He is included in Category:Gandhians and thats all thats needed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It's just an example. The same principle applies to India 10 Rupees Mahatma Gandhi postage stamp or Gandhi's Three Monkeys or anything else in the category. Good Ol’factory 05:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm

<Looks around>

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

Take what you came for, just don't hurt me! Good Ol’factory 04:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

(roflmao)

If you saw my day (it's there dispersed in my edit history, I spose), you'd know how much funnier that was or least the amount of irony I felt reading that. (You comments, with the weight of today, read as: "Looks like I'm next... take &tc..")

Remind me again why I keep coming back to editing and not staying in reading mode? - jc37 04:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I was aware of your latest forays, at least peripherally. More than you bargained for, I would bet. That's why I have mostly closed the low-hanging fruit as of late. Good Ol’factory 04:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, the closes are what they are. It's not so much that.

I tried to comment, follow some simple guidelines, help out others, and so on and was like "what the- ?!". It's been one surprise after another today (though I guess by Wiki-time, "today" started the 22nd). - jc37 04:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Once I had a bout of editing like that. I swear, everything I touched that day somehow became controversial. I had about a dozen new sections on my talk page all going at the same time. I hated that day. Luckily, now people just shut up and respect me. Good Ol’factory 04:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Was that day yesterday? or today? (smile) - jc37 04:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Respect you? (looks around for a really bad Rodney Dangerfield impersonation...) - jc37 04:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Here you go. Found completely by mistake. Good Ol’factory 05:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I enjoy that one : )

Saw a version of it on tv before reading the book, and just enjoyed the cadence (repetitive sound) of the title. Still do : ) - jc37 05:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, after I wrote this, I thought about a few of the discussions you and I have had in the past. What are your thoughts? - jc37 05:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I would say, yeah—it's definitely on the rise. Like you say, at times it can be too intuitive to resist. I've been guilty of it myself once in awhile for exactly the reasons you mention, though I like to think that in those cases there wasn't a major conflict with guidelines/policy that resulted. Dollars to donuts, though, if you close a discussion in a way that goes against the straight-up vote count, you will get guff for it (or at minimum--an "inquiry") on your talk page, even if it is not ultimately reversed at review. Good Ol’factory 05:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Nod, I've closed my share of those I suppose. I think the Star Wars one was the most recent. And it looks like it was re-created again anyway. lol People want what they want I guess. I keep meaning to write an IWANTIT/IDONTWANTIT page. I should do that sometime... - jc37 05:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Moving pages

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

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

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

Thank you,

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

What page in particular are you referring to? I typically do move talk page subpages, but may have made a mistake with one. (Interestingly, I note that Czar's move suggestion, which was implemented, appears to go against the current wording of WP:SUBTITLE, which he cited in support of the move, and the lead section of Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (books). That's one of the troubles with user discussions: they don't seem to read the guidelines they cite.) Good Ol’factory 06:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You moved Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy, without moving its talk page archives. I strongly suggest, please, that you stop moving pages unilaterally, especially pages that are actively maintained and are quality pages like WP:GA, without at least trying to have polite discussion on the article talk pages about it. Thank you for your consideration, — Cirt (talk) 06:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

(I apologize for the error on that one; thanks for taking care of it.) The naming guidelines are meant to obviate the need to have formal discussions for every instance that presents a particular issue. If you have concerns about a particular move, I don't have a problem with you raising it, or in you asking me to reverse it in favour of a formal RM. But no, in general I won't stop implementing an existing guideline when I see an issue. Good Ol’factory 06:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

No one is asking you to stop. Just to start having discussions on talk pages about established pages that have been the subject of quality improvement projects, for example WP:GA. I don't think that's a lot to ask out of your day. — Cirt (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I have a pretty good sense of when discussion is appropriate and when neglected guidelines can/should simply be implemented. And I think I've made the right judgments in these cases. If you disagree, simply move the article back (or ask me to), and the formal discussion can go from there. Good Ol’factory 06:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I've left notices on several talk pages asking not to have them moved to a page without the subtitle. Please check, first, to see if there's been discussion or such a request on the article talk pages, before moving such pages. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I do check such things. But ... why would one user's request to disregard a guideline be a good reason to do so? Good Ol’factory 06:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

No one asked to disregard a guideline. I explained on such talk pages why the pages should not be moved. Per Misplaced Pages:Requested moves, unilateral page moves are inappropriate without discussion, for page moves that could be controversial. Page moves that already might have disagreement could therefore be controversial. Please respect that. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 06:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me like you're adding the note on cases where the unsubtitled title would be ambiguous. That's a case where the guideline would say use the subtitle for disambiguation purposes, so your note doesn't conflict with the guidelines, and therefore I'm not going to be moving articles in that class. So I don't think you have anything to worry about. If you have any specific instances you'd like to discuss or have me revert—as I said, happy to. Good Ol’factory 06:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Good. Please check talk pages in the future for such notifications. I again urge you to notify editors and have talk page discussion, before taking unilateral action to move pages. I respectfully request that you at least take some time to consider giving a courtesy talk page notification before taking unilateral action. I don't think anything evil will come out of talk page notification as a courtesy. The world won't stop spinning on its axis if a simple talk page notification is given as a courtesy. :) Preemptive talk page discussion and notification is a good thing. It may help prevent disagreement and conflict in the future, and even encourage positive discussion among editors -- and encourage future collaboration instead of risking discouraging it. Thank you! — Cirt (talk) 07:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

We all have only so much time in the day for editing. I appreciate your desire for discussion on issues like this, which I regard as "clean-up", but I believe that there's a purpose in guidelines obviating the need for these repeated kinds of discussions, so I won't be making such notificaitons. If users want to discuss a particular case, they can always notify me, and I'd be happy to oblige. Good Ol’factory 07:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I thank you again for stating you will at least do so for pages that already have notices about this potential disturbing unilateral behavior, on their article talk pages. I again urge you to reconsider and give talk page notifications in all cases. But I cannot force you to do so, of course, so I hope you will take some time to think about it -- before going on and continuing your unilateral behavior pattern. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Cirt, if you're going to use loaded language like "distrurbing unilateral behavior" you'd better be ready to present some evidence about what exactly is disturbing about the moves that have been done. What particular instances are you concerned about? If you can't identify anything, then you just need to get over yourself and accept that others may have different editing styles. Good Ol’factory 07:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Moving pages, over existing redirects, is potentially controversial. Controversial page moves should not be made unilaterally, per WP:Requested moves. — Cirt (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you're wrong that every page move is "potentially contoversial". Moves that implement naming guidelines rarely are. I see you haven't produced any particular problems with the "unilateral" moves I've already performed, so I guess this is where I tell you to "put up or shut up", as it's said. Good Ol’factory 07:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel the need to degrade the tone of the discussion and say, "shut up", that's most unfortunate. Clearly I'm not the only one that has concerns with your rapid unilateral page moves without discussion individually, per http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28books%29&oldid=605418340#WP:SUBTITLE_vs._WP:NATURAL. — Cirt (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

1. ^ Hartley 1996, p. 83 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHartley1996 (help)
2. Hartley 1996, p. 89 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHartley1996 (help)