User:Good Olfactory

User:Good Olfactory [ edit ]

A picture which may or may not be the user in question.
Not GOF.

Or is it?

I am User:Good Olfactory. What you are looking to find out about me can be found embedded within the source code of the userboxes on this page. The hidden meaning can be revealed using a delicate combination of sudoku and banburismus implemented on an original Polish Enigma double (check eBay). (Hint: "U"s are treated as "V"s and the value of any "Z"s and "Q"s are carried over every third pass and combined with the corresponding pass value of "K".)

Memberships [ edit ]

I'm not a member of any WikiProjects, but I think I'm a member of the CfD Cabal. I'm not 100% sure, though, because no one invites me to any of the meetings and I don't get the newsletter. I can't join any WikiProjects because the string in my leg is gone.

WikiProjects and categories [ edit ]

My Wikipedia "philosophy" [ edit ]

If I was uninteresting enough to be able to condense all of my opinions about things on WP by categorizing myself as some sort of "-ist" or a believer in an "-ism", I would still not do it out of pure shame.

Miscellanea [ edit ]

Barnstars [ edit ]

Barnstar of Humour3.png The Barnstar of Good Humour
For having one of the more unusual and amusing usernames I've come across. Oh how I love double entendres. faithless (speak) 17:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Civility barnstar.png Civility Award
Awarded for your courtesy at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 25#Category:Iowa secretaries of state. One of the nicest "arguments" I've had in a while. --Tim4christ17 talk 09:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
is hereby awarded to Good Ol’factory for immense amounts of work at WP:CFD. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Categorystar.png The Category Barnstar
I award User:Good Olfactory this barnstar for his work on fixing categories.--Lenticel (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Man's Barnstar
This is for your efforts on categorizing articles. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Category Barnstar.png The Categorisation Barnstar
For an eagle eye in helping to improve new categories. Thank you! Eustress (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Category Barnstar.png The Categorisation Barnstar
I'm speechless. You know your way around the category tree. — MaggotSyn 22:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Socratic Barnstar.gif The Socratic Barnstar
Excellent closing statement on the non-violent fps CFD, very well-thought out and delivered. cheers, –xeno (talk) 13:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For your excellent continuing work on Categories for discussion, and above all, a willingness to put in extra work to fix any resultant mistakes. Cyde Weys 23:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Admin Barnstar.png The Admin's Barnstar
For helping out with implementing this. Kbdank71 13:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Bästa nyskrivna.svg 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!________________________________________________________________

Barnstar of Diligence.png 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)

WikiDefender Barnstar.png 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)

Admin Barnstar.png 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)

Opinion Barnstar.png Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
For being an editor whose opinion about complex and difficult topics can be trusted to be accurate and clear-cut, allowing others to improve their own edits.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 16:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Editors Barnstar.png The Editor's Barnstar
For your diligent and outstanding contribution in editing the Mormonism_and_evolution article. I congratulate you on your hard and endless work. Thank you for the great article, and for improving Wikipedia. CABEGOD 23:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Team Barnstar.png The Teamwork Barnstar
Due to all the editing you help with,it become possible to move List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement to Featured List Status. Without your help this wouldn’t have happen. The edit made between Ecjmartin, Surv1v4l1st, yourself, and myself account for 70.5% of edit made on that page.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 13:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Indiana barnstar.png The Indiana Barnstar
Thank you for your effort categorizing Indiana politicians. Its a tedious task and I am glad someone has done it! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ukraine Barnstar.png Ukraine Barnstar
I give you this Ukraine Barnstar for making tons of small Ukrainian related edits!

Mariah-Yulia  • Talk to me! 19:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For your thoughtful improvements to Oliver Cowdery. John Foxe (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
of unsung templates, categories and moves. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Hard Worker's Barnstar
Pretty busy day at the CSD corral. I noticed you helping a lot.SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
I thereby award you with this Admin's Barnstar for all of your work at the Categories for discussion process. Keep up the good work. Armbrust TheHomunculus 23:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Museum of Stuffed Insults: the only price of admission is not complaining to me on my talk page that the museum exists [ edit ]

Museum of Stuffed Insults
  1. "I don't know if the nominator is offering a rather demented joke, but the description that 'we don't know if the person's primary sexual interest is in children or if it's just an "on the side" thing', perhaps because 'the sexual molestation is often done for "non-sexual" reasons' has to be one of the more grotesque trivializations of child molestation I have ever seen, anywhere."
  2. "... the disturbingly aggressive User:Good Olfactory ... dismisses the rea;itiy of pedophilia and minimizes and jokes about the Hoocaust .... At the very least, User:Good Olfactory gives indications of having a bizarrely twisted mind that renders him of questionable use as an editor of Wikipedia."
  3. "It is truly disturbing that you cannot realize just how insensitive your grotesque trivialization of the experience of Holocaust survivors are. ... It is clear that I am not the only one repulsed by your distasteful tactics here."
  4. "Unfortunately, this is not the first example of a CfD where this nominator has used despicably offensive rationalizations to demand deletion of categories. While I think this more likely comes from plain ignorance than anti-Semitism, there is no excuse for this disgusting trivialization of a genuine life-and-death struggle for those Holocaust survivors".
  5. "It is possible that Good Olefactory is merely ignorant. ... If Good Olefactory is an educated person with some awareness of that the Holocaust, the Nazi regime, and conditions in Europe for Jews in the Second World War were like, then his soul is in need of our prayers."
  6. "But I would like to add that User:Good Olfactory's extreme enthusiasm for trivializing the Holocaust and his practice of going to personal pages and attacking editors who perceive the Holocaust and its survivors with respect do indeed give the appearance of a mild form of Hlocaust denial."
  7. "I think Good Olfactory could use some good old fashioned 'neutral adjudication' in light of the ongoing pattern of problematic nominations which would hopefully lead to the type of 'editing restrictions'".
  8. "Holocaust minimization, lies (you did not notify the category creators,) defense of pedophilia, insensitive jokes about the Holocauset, obsessive attacks of people who ctiticize you, and now threats. Have you no shame?".
  9. "Do you have any clue about German history? I dare to say no."
  10. "I would have used stronger terms to describe editors who make a living out of disruptive deletion of categories, but 'crappy sycophants' is an excellent start at self-awareness of the issue. Is the mirror helping in your search for squashing targets?".
  11. "Christopher Cross was rejected dozens of times before Warner Bros. Records finally picked up 'Sailing,' .... Do you have any idea of the heartache that he went through before he realized any success? ... Shame on you and everyone else who has no appreciation or consideration for the hard work and accomplishments of others."
  12. "If I could offer you a shadow barnstar, a negative barnstar for aiding in a miniscule way corrupt and corrupting politicians I would".
  13. "... in a miniscule way, in a symbolic way, you sided with corruption. Can't I remove my quote from your list of 'nutter quotes'?".)
  14. "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.".
  15. Accusations of making "death threats": [2], [3], [4], [5], [6].
  16. "What is the case here is that a close was made strongly against consensus ... by an admin who should not have closed due to his/her well-known biases in regard to ethnicity, and Jewish identity in particular."
  17. "Charges that people 'throw around' the word 'genocide' not knowing what it means (per Good Ol’factory) are quite frankly degrading, offensive, and insulting."
  18. "Good Olfactory is the same as disgraced Administrator-wannabe Snocrates, and since December 1, 2007 he has been cyberstalking, cyberharassing anyone associated with the Church of Christ Temple Lot, he is motivated by medieval hatred and malice towards anyone who actually believes what Joseph Smith, Jr. taught, Good Olfactory is a vicious criminal and anyone at Wikipedia who assists him, is also. Please unblock my account and investigate GoodOlfactory=Snocrates, if you don't, it is because you're an anti-Mormon jerk like he is."
  19. "It is certainly time to move on. It is you that embalms quotes and mounts them on your user page, a pointless museum of stuffed sentences."
  20. "If I had pulled half the crap you've gotten away with I'dve been banned long ago. It was pathetic to see your grovelling pleases for mercy. Power corrupts, and unfortunately you have absolute power and have no qualms of abusing it. For God's sake, learn your lesson once and for all and stop believing that you're God."
  21. "Everyone knows policies are de factooptional. You are living proof; all the arbs and CUs know you are a banned user".
  22. "If it could possibly make your gigantic ego and sense of self-worth even bigger, then go right ahead son. You might think that you are a very important person being able to control categories, but it is all very pathetic, the activity of a pawn."
  23. "Evidently, this is an open and shut example of usurpation of admin powers."
  24. "... it is my impression that Olfactory's remarks and proposal imply a flippant disregard for the sensibilities and differences of the group and groups in question."
  25. "you've chosen to not assume good faith, stalk my contributions for petty, unrelated items ostensibly to score cheap points, and worst of all, misuse the very administrative tools that have been granted to you in a dispute that you yourself are the other principal party in."
  26. "Indeed it's a slur, an intended one. As opposed to your insidious guise of innocence. But as you obviously are completely incapable of seeing yourself in any light that would call for any inkling of self-insight, or indeed self-criticism, to arise, I end my discussion of this subject here."
  27. "With my recent experience of your obvious childlike pleasure in getting personal or pushing people's buttons, the ultimate testimony to which is the gaudy trophy gallery on your user page, I am saddened to realize my first impression of you was quite wrong. No, I'm not upset, nor do I feel insulted or angered. I'm glad whenever I am able to realize I've made a mistake, one way or the other. And should you wish to ornament this section also with a staple smirk, feel free to do to so to your capricious little self's smug delight."
  28. "The malicious reversions by the editor 'Good Ol'factory' were getting to be annoying. ... I have had some level of engagement with him on the discussion page for 'Unification Church'. However, he is being obstinate there also."
  29. "Name a single article that could potentially be in this category. If you cannot, why not just admit you have no idea about the topic and let it go."
  30. "Ironically, I note the last time I came to your talkpage was because of completely unreasonable attempts on your part to mass-delete perfectly valid categories. Now you are trying to protect a category that has no conceivable use .... Is there a connection? Or is this just a sign of persistently bad judgement without any ulterior agenda? I am asking because it is hard to tell".
  31. "I am sorry, are you stupid? ... I do not have the patience to take your sort of armchair-bully through a full wikidrama, but I will have you know that I think your 'contributions' are detrimental not just to the project but also to the community spirit."
  32. "You also nominated the landowners categories after some hard work. You're a joke."
  33. "Lol, I just note that User:Good Olfactory is to blame for this mess. Not the first time this user boggles my mind with incredibly stupid ideas implemented without any discussion whatsoever and almost impossible to fix because they invest hundreds of edits in creating faits accomplis".
  34. "Keep your insults to yourself. As an Admin, I would have hoped for more intelligent wordplay."
  35. "The CfD process is tedious, terse and adversarial enough without the addition of schoolboy vulgarity. You might get away with it once, but repetitiously using insulting language to describe a group of people is not going to win you over to your side. Know any good Hooser jokes, eh?"
  36. "Y'know, being an admin doe NOT make you god ...."
  37. "You have a long history of refusing to Get It, and I do not feel obliged to spend any time with futile arguing in such a case. Sheesh, you do not even understand the meaning of the word 'eponymous'. Do yourself a favour and get a dictionary, and then spend some time reading instead of editing."
  38. "I do not think you understood what was going on there at all. I won't try to explain. Yes, the humble task of categorization sometimes requires some intelligence too. I see you still haven't looked up the meaning of 'eponymous'. I won't trying to convince you that you are not helping the project by your efforts, as you are clearly unable to follow such explanations. I also won't waste my time campaigning about this. It is enough to try and contain the worst damage done by you and your peers."
  39. "you were showing a diff which has nothing to do with the matter at hand just because you thought it would be embarassing for me. This doesn't surprise me in the least, and it is part of the reason why I think time spent 'discussing' with you is simply wasted. You do not want to listen, you do not want to rethink your approach even if it is painfully stupid."
  40. "Your terrible proposals end up being considered by people who ALSO don't know what they are doing, and it only takes a small number of them to nullify any stabilizing influence that a knowledgeable philosophy department could have on this process. We don't have a swarm of people able to correct your mistakes, and they remain. The process is a failure, and I don't have to sit here and pretend it isn't. STOP MAKING THE PROPOSALS. DON'T CLAIM THAT IT ISN'T JUST YOU. Once you put the question to the hoi polloi, there is no rhyme or reason. Fixing it after the fact takes a grand effort. Stop making more work. Please. Again."
  41. "Pointing to the consensus process as justification for doing whatever you want, with little or no knowledge of what you are doing (you certainly haven't given me ANY reason to think you have any education in this area, and I have asked several times) is VERY disingenuous."
  42. "A list of the most un-useful and nasty editors I've run in to: User:Mike Selinker and User:Vegaswikian and User:Good Olfactory" (page now deleted).
  43. "One China! One Taiwan! Go Die!"
  45. "What the hell is going on? You actually did it right in re-closing that thing as no-consensus, then let yourself get trolled by this guy into restoring his bad close? This is fucking ridiculous."
  46. "Fuck off".
  47. "why do you hate jesus the 3rd and children murdered with guns? /drapes canadian flag over clown corpse."
  48. "Tracing the discussion page (that again I was unaware and definitely not invited to) I find out that 'Good Ole Boy' has taken it upon himself to delete _every_ Huguenot Category page, from North America to Europe and beyond."

Administrators noticeboard complaints about me [ edit ]

I hope this saves you some time as you work to dig up dirt on me.

Some quotes [ edit ]

Categories for discussion precedents [ edit ]

My personal record of categories for discussion "precedents" for deletion are at /CFD and the ones for renaming are at /CFR. Feel free to use them. Beware, they have not been updated for some time.

Unofficial "CFD-is-broken" tracker (2009–10) [ edit ]

unofficial "CFD-is-broken" tracker
Month No. CFDs[1] No. DRVs[2] % total[3] E[4] RL/C[5] SC/M[6] % "unproblematic" of DRV total[7] OT[8] RL/I[9] NC[10] % "problematic" of DRV total[11] % "problematic" of CFD total[12] % "clearly wrong" of CFD total[13]
Jan 09 538 1 0.19% 1 0 0 100% 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%
Feb 09 410 3 0.73% 2 0 1 100% 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%
Mar 09 448 3 0.67% 1 0 0 33.3% 1 1 0 66.7% 0.45% 0.22%
Apr 09 493 1 0.20% 0 0 0 0% 1 0 0 100% 0.20% 0.20%
May 09 439 2 0.46% 1 0 0 50.0% 0 1 0 50.0% 0.23% 0%
Jun 09 410 6 1.46% 3 0 1 66.7% 0 1 1 33.3% 0.49% 0%
Jul 09 406 5 1.23% 4 0 0 80.0% 1 0 0 20.0% 0.25% 0.25%
Aug 09 480 5 1.04% 0 0 1 20.0% 2 0 2 80.0% 0.83% 0.42%
Sep 09 521 3 0.58% 2 1 0 100% 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%
Oct 09 594 4 0.67% 1 2 0 75.0% 1 0 0 25.0% 0.17% 0.17%
Nov 09 377 3 0.80% 2 0 1 100% 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%
Dec 09 420 1 0.24% 0 0 1 100% 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%
2009 TOTAL 5536 37 0.69% 17 3 5 67.6% 6 3 3 32.4% 0.22% 0.11%
Jan 10 404 2 0.50% 1 0 0 50% 0 0 1 50% 0.25% 0%
Feb 10 488 4 0.82% 2 0 1 75% 1 0 0 25% 0.20% 0.20%
Mar 10 497 4 0.80% 2 0 1 75% 1 0 0 25% 0.20% 0.20%
Apr 10 454 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0%
May 10 393 4 1.02% 0 1 0 25% 1 1 1 75% 0.76% 0.25%
Jun 10 505 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0%
Jul 10 684 1 0.15% 1 0 0 100% 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%
Aug 10 413 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0%
Sep 10 416 5 1.20% 3 0 2 100% 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%
Oct 10 350 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0%
Nov 10 392 2 0.51% 1 1 0 100% 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%
Dec 10 397 3 0.76% 2 0 0 66.7% 0 1 0 33.3% 0.25% 0%
2010 TOTAL 5393 25 0.46% 12 2 4 72% 3 2 2 28% 0.13% 0.06%
2009–10 TOTAL 10,929 62 0.57% 29 5 9 69.4% 9 5 5 30.6% 0.17% 0.08%

Explanatory notes [ edit ]

  1. ^ Total number of discussions at CFD. The number of categories discussed may be significantly higher, since often multiple categories are discussed within one discussion.
  2. ^ Total number of category-related discussions at DRV.
  3. ^ Percentage of CFDs that resulted in a DRV. Formula: (No. CFDs ÷ No. DRVs) x 100. (This figure is necessarily a bit imprecise on a month-by-month basis, since obviously not every category-related DRV involves a CFD that was discussed in the same month as the DRV. However, over time, these monthly variations won't make a difference to the overall total percentages calculated.)
  4. ^ Number of DRVs that endorsed the CFD close.
  5. ^ Number of DRVs that resulted in a relisting of the category and the result after the relisting was closed was consistent with the original CFD close.
  6. ^ Number of DRVs that were speedily closed, closed as moot, withdrawn, or were otherwise inappropriate.
  7. ^ Percentage of DRVs that resulted in "endorsed", "relist / confirmed", or "speedy close / moot". Formula: ((endorsed + relist/confirmed + speedy close/moot) ÷ No. DRVs) x 100
  8. ^ Number of DRVs that resulted in an overturning of the CFD result. Such CFD closes are classified as "problematic" and "clearly wrong" for the purposes of this table.
  9. ^ Number of DRVs that resulted in a relisting of the category and the result after the relisting was closed was inconsistent with the original CFD close. Such CFD closes are classified as "problematic" for the purposes of this table.
  10. ^ Number of DRVs that resulted in no consensus in the DRV discussion. Such CFD closes are classified as "problematic" for the purposes of this table.
  11. ^ Percentage of DRVs that resulted in "overturned", "relist / inconsistent", or "no consensus". Formula: ((OT + RL/I + NC) ÷ No. DRVs) x 100
  12. ^ Percentage of all CFDs that ultimately resulted in a DRV of "overturned", "relist / inconsistent", or "no consensus". Formula: ((OT + RL/I + NC) ÷ No. CFDs) x 100
  13. ^ Percentage of all CFDs that ultimately resulted in a DRV of "overturned". Formula: (OT ÷ No. CFDs) x 100
What is this?