User talk:George Ho/Archives/2013/1

Welcome!

Hello, George Ho/Archives/2013/1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Alhutch 16:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

SPAMMING WARNING

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CANVASS

Your recent spamming of people for your AfD of Cliff Hangers violates the above Wiki topic. Please refrain from canvassing like that again. TySoltaur (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliff Hangers (3rd nomination), everyone says merge. Am I the only one who thinks you are stooping so low by giving me this message that I have striked out and voting "keep" without bolding it? I am certain that I am NOT canvassing. --Gh87 (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I checked your contributions per Special:Contributions/TySoltaur, and, to my amusement, you just voted and then tagged me this ridiculous message. --Gh87 (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

you did canvass with posting the same message to a mass amount of people, which the article clearly says is frowed upon. And btw, it's not a concensus, not everyone is saying delete. Some say delete, some say merge, and at least one says keep. TySoltaur (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I have checked your previous revisions, such as 02:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC). You have been blocked for your behavior; I realized that you have occasionally changed your talk page. I begin to re-consider your claims against me. What "same message" are you referring? (BTW, this same reply will be rephrased in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliff Hangers (3rd nomination)) --Gh87 (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

wow, resorting to using irrelevant crap now? TySoltaur (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Jim Sullivan (1920s pitcher)

Generally, major league baseball players are considered inherently notable, since essentially all of them would have reliable sources. I went ahead and added one to be on the safe side notability-wise. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Richard O'Sullivan

Hello. Since you decided to move Richard O'Sullivan and establish a disambiguation page at the old title, it would be helpful if you would also WP:FIXDABLINKS. There are still several dozen other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Richard O'Sullivan" that need to be reviewed and edited to point to the correct article. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Mark Tandy (actor)

Hi. Please be mindful when adding the {{multipleissues}} tag to articles. You added it to the Mark Tandy article recently when it really was not called for. While the article is not sourced, the subject clearly passes WP:ENTERTAINER, having appeared in several well known films and television shows. Further, the article is a stub and needs to be expanded in general so the lede is naturally going to be short. If you have additional concerns about the article, I suggest leaving a comment on the talk page or nominating it for deletion if you strongly feel the subject is not notable. Simply expanding the article and/or fixing the issues you think are present yourself is also an option. Thanks. Pinkadelica^♣ 20:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about nominating the article for deletion. Then I found out that he was in the 1995 miniseries, which has no article on its own and I'm unsure about its notability, of a novel. The rest: he was a guest cast of many series, including well-known ones, and supporting actor of other films and television movies. --Gh87 (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Mass-contesting your PRODs.

This is a note to let you know that I object to every PROD of any television episode of any notable television show you have made. Please go through and remove the PROD notices. Per WP:ATD, I believe the content should be merged into season articles, with the history maintained under the redirects so someone else can go through and flesh out the articles should they decide to research sourcing in the future. If you want to make those redirects directly, that's fine with me, and it's always your right to take things to AfD if you disagree with my stance. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, these articles have yet not established notability of episodes. Therefore, I have no intentions to remove PROD. Also, I have not watched The O.C., and I have found no major articles discussing them. Also, I am not available and not skilled enough to make a great article, let alone a "featured article". If you want to contest the PROD, just improve the article before you remove the PROD. --Gh87 (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC) See WP:PROD for details. --Gh87 (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is not how PROD works. Please re-read WP:PROD and revise your response accordingly. You don't need to {{tb}} me--I watch the pages on which I start conversations. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Some of my PRODs on articles have been contested because of the editor's disagreement (not my doing). Fortunately, I created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The O.C. episodes from season 4, volume 1. Almost forgot: prior to this topic and other PRODding, "The Dawn Patrol (The O.C.)" was deleted under {{prod-nn}}. Do you want to review it? By the way, I have read the guidelines of PROD, and my reasoning isn't "generic" and less "clear", is it? --Gh87 (talk) 06:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's generic or unclear, but rather that it runs afoul of WP:ATD, which prefers merging to deletion, among other things. Thus, since I contest all your prods of episodes, those that have already been deleted will be undeleted when an admin gets around to doing them. I'll comment at the AfD. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

There are still more O.C. episodes PRODded, and I will leave them as is until you want to contest my PRODs. If all contested, then I will create a volume 2. I'm still weary of unreasonable recovery from anonymous users. By the way, every episodes should start obviously with "The..." Look at what happened to Olivia Hack. --Gh87 (talk) 05:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I already did. That is, by saying "I contest your PROD", I've contested your PRODs. I asked you nicely to clean up the mess you made as well, but fundamentally, I don't have to edit each article to contest your PRODs. Jclemens (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is the link:[1]. Well, I did not remove the PRODs and let the PRODded articles be deleted. You can contest the administrators about this if you want, but I wouldn't do that. I mean, why saving the previous revisions for future editing on (less) notable articles? --Gh87 (talk) 03:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The way you have been using the PROD process is not appropriate. PRODs are for things where you believe, in good faith, that no other editor would advocate the retention of the material. It is not supposed to be a stealth attempt to have stuff you don't like deleted if no one else notices. I have indeed asked for everything to be put back at WP:REFUND, and, if you continue to user PRODs in this manner, I may blanket-contest every PROD you've ever made. I'd really rather not do that; I'd much rather you used more appropriate methods, such as redirection, to deal with articles created in good faith, belonging to a notable topic area, that do not merit standalone articles to the best of anyone's interpretation of the present guidelines and policies. Each of those articles was someone's effort; even if they don't deserve to exist in their current form, preserving them in the edit history of the redirects allows them to be easily moved to a topic-specific Wiki, or recreated with additional sources and elsewise upgraded to meet current standards, without administrator intervention. Jclemens (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

From/To Raintheone

I think an IP editor is attempting to convince others to vote keep - [Comment - This editor has canvassed and tried to persuade members of a project to save this article. - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Soap_Operas#Various_soap_opera_articles_have_been_nominated_for_deletion - tut.RaintheOne ^BAM 20:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why I signed twice last time. Anyway, I noticed you nominated Sunset Beach characters for deletion. However, where id the duscussion for these? Also, Kathleen Noone is an actress, why nominate her for deletion when she has been in so many programmes alone.RaintheOne ^BAM 17:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I reverted that nomination on an actress; it was a mistake on my part. --Gh87 (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

How come you are closing AFD's and merging? In one case the result you came up with did not match the talk - and most of the time seven days is given, right?RaintheOne ^BAM 21:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Some editor has been making cut-and-paste edits into List of All My Children miscellaneous characters. Therefore, keeping the discussions open is pointless. --Gh87 (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Well what do you think about Annie's article so far, from Sunset Beach.RaintheOne ^BAM 21:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's discuss the article of Annie from Sunset Beach in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional women of Sunset Beach

I'm not like stalking your edits or anything. I was just reading about Aaron Spelling, I clicked Randy and noticed you nominated it for deletion. However, the reason you gave was because there is no notable sources in the search... when there is quite a few looking quickly through it. I'm slightly concerned now about your AFD's and prods... can you honestly say you have looked through and made the correct decision? I just want to make sure you are really looking these over before nominating - as I've seen much better candidates for deletion from several other US soaps. I am more familiar with UK soaps, but I'm aware US soaps these days are not as notable as they once were. So I totally understand the need for merging many of the characters. A big problem with US soaps is that their core editors do not know what a reliable source is and love to use fansites. Maybe they will work harder in the future, if they really want seperate articles... but I still you'll find Randy Spelling is notable. How many sources do you want for him?RaintheOne ^BAM 04:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. This IP is actually canvassing to stop your AFD's - [2] - I reckon they need reporting for this one? I wouldn't be suprised if it is Casanova or that other IP using a sock.RaintheOne ^BAM 16:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

If you are concerned, report this to either Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or another link within the noticeboard template from that page. --Gh87 (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I was alerting you. If you do not mind then so be it. As for you removing refs from Randy Spelling, I added that ref for now as I was busy. I'm going to write a career section up.RaintheOne ^BAM 17:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I have gone to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations to report two IP users and some registered users for sockpuppetry if you are concerned. I must have forgotten the Sockpuppetry reports page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gh87 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

To Raintheone, I have appreciated your attempts to improve Randy Spelling. However, do not remove the PROD, even if there are improvements. Wait for the administrators to decide. As for the "Career" section, isn't it partially the summarized duplicate of TV credits list? Shouldn't that be reverted to non-existant or something? Articles, such as Alec Guinness and Richard Burton, would not do that, wouldn't it? Isn't it necessary to give citations of TV credentials? --Gh87 (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Above, Raintheone said, "I'm slightly concerned now about your AFD's and prods." Exactly what I've been saying! And you make it seem like I was wrong to report this to the project and that I was only trying to save these articles? Funny. Now you see what I was talking about. First you get it wrong that I committed inappropriate canvassing and tried to persuade members of the project to save the Hayley Vaughan Santos article. Then you see exactly what I see. Funny. Hayley Vaughan is already a redirect, by the way. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

To be fair Gh, anyone is welcome to add some sources and remove the template afterward. I'm not sure what you mean about the Richard and Alec example. They do include notable roles in career section and document them aswell as the filmog. I went for the more obvious roles for the career section. I can find sources for more.

174.137.184.36 - You say funny a lot, but I don't find it funny. That is why I'm picking the obvious notable ones and improving them. I don't understand how you can complain about the AFD's etc, when you are not willing to help improve them. I'd understand more if you were adding sources to establish their notability and potential. So while I may disagree with some, others are perfectly called for and as for images being removed - their is a strict policy on non free images, US soap opera editors seem to think they can upload a picture of any old event and shove it in an article. When one infobox image does the job of illustrating the article.RaintheOne ^BAM 00:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I can complain the same way Postdlf has complained.[3] You want to sit back and let this editor continue to edit Wikipedia in a way that hinders it, then that is your right. But ignoring the very damaging way this editor prods and nominates articles for deletion does not take care of that problem. I am willing to improve soap opera articles. Has it occurred to you that some of these articles cannot be saved and/or that I am not all that interested in saving certain character articles? Yes, I think it has. That is why I alerted the project, so that editors who do care may help out.

I said nothing about images, and don't care about images. If you are assuming that I some other IP, you are assuming wrong. I will say that one infobox image does not always do the job of illustrating the article, however. As for calling things "funny," I don't say it a lot, actually (just twice above on Wikipedia, in fact). And if you could not note my sarcasm in using that word, I don't know what to tell you. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 08:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, if you want to talk to Raintheone alone, go to that user's talk page, not mine. You can contact me with a newer section if possible. --Gh87 (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The IP just seems to be accusing me of wrong doings now too. Anyway Gh, I've started addressing your concerns over Olivia by adding some sources. :)RaintheOne ^BAM 10:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I was correcting you on your assertions of wrong-doing on my part. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 10:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Please review the policy on PROD. Any person can decline the deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion}} tag at any time and for any reason, with or without editing or addressing the issue indicated. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 20:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

There you go Gh87, I updated the usage and source information of the Passions file. :)RaintheOne ^BAM 13:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Highlander (season 5)

Such as? Be specific or remove the template, please. - Denimadept (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The whole article is not compared to every typical "List of..." or "<show> (season #), such as The O.C. (season 1) and List of As Time Goes By episodes. In fact, the titles and the summaries should be tabled/charted. See WP:TABLE. --Gh87 (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I see. Feel free to do it. - Denimadept (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Invalid AfD closure

Hi there, I noticed you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional women of ''All My Children'', volume 1. Closing an AfD which you yourself opened is against policy; speedy/premature closing without snow consensus is against policy; cut-and-paste merges are not only against policy, they're also copyright violations. I'm going to have to request that you revert your closure of the AfD, and revert all the pages involved to the state that they were in when the AfD opened, or this will have to be taken to deletion review, as it is seriously out-of-order. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know; tell that to Casanova88 (that link ain't a joke!): that user did the cut-and-paste editing for List of All My Children miscellaneous characters. I did not mean to prematurely close it; I had to do it. I had to merge quickly and then close the AfD per Casanova88's editing. What about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hayley Vaughan Santos, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalia Fowler, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Lavery, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional men of All My Children, volume 1? I should not be banned or blocked for this. What happens to me if I were not blocked or banned? --Gh87 (talk) 08:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ouch. You don't need to worry about being blocked or banned; it's a good-faith mistake and prompted by the severely out-of-process cut-and-pasting of another editor, so don't worry about it. :) I'll see what I can do about fixing Casanova88's cut-and-paste-move vandalism. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to revert the cut-and-paste moves, then reopen the AfDs. Again, don't worry about it - the other editor's cut-and-paste put you in a bad situation, so no worries at all on your part, and now you know! :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

They should all be back to normal now, reverted both the cut-and-pasting and reopened the AfDs. Once more, don't worry about it, good faith can be tricky sometimes but all's well now. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I did revert some more AfDs that I've missed. Marist2015 did also the cut-and-paste editing while I turned the articles into redirects. I'm too exhausted to tell examples right now. --Gh87 (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I know that feeling. Sometimes Wikipedia can be srs bzns! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Like I said in the deletion debate: Can't the nominator just withdraw the nomination if he or she has now decided that the articles should be redirected, just like nominations have been withdrawn once notability has been established? You say "Closing an AfD which you yourself opened is against policy," but I've seen this done on Wikipedia quite a few times in the cases of withdrawing upon the presence of notability. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

See WP:AFD to know policies if you want to understand more. --Gh87 (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have to see that to understand more. I know what I have seen time and time again on Wikipedia. That is why I asked The Bushranger about it. But I see that he is ignoring me. Whatever. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

List of The Price Is Right pricing games

I see that you've tagged this article for notability. It replaced, literally, 103 different individual articles on every game that's ever appeared on the show. The List article was created as a result of consensus among those who wanted to keep 103 pages and those who wanted to remove the whole thing. This information is relevant to an article on the show, but it's far too lengthy to be merged into the parent article. Removing it as non-notable or combining it would open up a significant can of worms. Thanks. JTRH (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Besides very few sources that explains the game online, what about the print publications, such as journals, books, encyclopedias, and newspapers? I just had to tag that for notability needs for the list of games in general. As for the games that are currently sections, they may not need notability right now. Instead, the whole bundle of games need notability, especially from the third-party sources. Also, I would prefer catalog of games, such as quickie games and cash games, along with active and retired to alphabetical order of games along with active and retired. Therefore, we must find out the notabilities of types of pricing games generally. --Gh87 (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your comments. Please note that, on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of the arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. Consider reading Wikipedia's deletion policy for a brief overview of the deletion process. We hope that you decide to stay and contribute even more. Thank you! Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 15:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Sock puppet investigation

While I did include this on the investigation article, I would like to post it here in case you do not get a chance to read it - and do not that it includes minor edits.

It is disheartening to see that while I was attempting to improve and save the articles nominated for deletion, I was targeted due to my differing contributions of GH87 as a sock puppett. Listen, I am only here on Wikipedia to edit and contribute in an appropriate manner. Just because my contributions differ, Gh87, does not mean I'm a sock puppet. I don't know who those other account/IP users are and I must say, it seems that the investigation was personal to you because we dared to declare different approaches into improving articles than agreeing to your daily, intense deletions. Please, you are welcome to improve them but that is something you are not doing. You want them gone and forgotten about. You have options of improving or merging articles but you endlessly want all the articles - on characters and information - gone. I am knowledgable of Wikipedia so please don't accuse me of being "dedicated to soap opera universes regardless of Wikipedia policies" while you try to get articles deleted with no logical or valid reasons and personally attack other users. It's becoming a daily pursuit with you.

Suffice to say, while we may differ in our views and edits on Wikipedia, I hope that we can rise above this and at least find common ground - as I hope for all users involved when differentiating themselves against your deletion nominations. Please try to understand where all of the other users, including myself, are coming from. What's that prophecy again - "treat others the way you want to be treated." I truly believe this applies in person and on Wikipedia.Casanova88 (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Reliance Industries Page

Hey, I was making edits on the Reliance Industries page since few days. You have made sum suggestion on the regarding the The Length and the neutrality. Could you please guide me further on the same. Actully i am new to the Platform; I might have been over-zealous in doing so. thanks a lot for looking into it. Looking for your reply and SUggestions. Mananshah15 (talk) 05:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much every aspect of soap operas are notable

Are you American? If you are, you've probably seen those weekly soap opera magazines in the checkout line at the supermarket, like Soap Opera Digest. They discuss every aspect of soap operas. and most of the non cancelled soaps have individual weekly magazines entirely about them. So, there's almost no character or couple that couldn't pass WP:NOTE if someone had the right magazines and put in the effort.

That said, none of them are searchable online that I know of, and because of this they aren't used as references. And all aspects of soapdom seem to not be notable when they really are. The upshot of all this, is that if you just want to get rid of the soap articles, keep on keeping on. But, if you thought they weren't notable, but would want to keep the articles around if you found out they really are notable (regardless of current state), then yes they are notable. Happy editing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm American-born and Asian (probably not exactly). I don't go out very much to buy those magazines. So many copies of issues are thrown-away or not carried by libraries right now. I do not know if the back issues have been duplicated in microfilms; too bad I don't see a single such in libraries. Primarily using soap-related publications and less of third-party and independent sources will lead to {{primarysources}} instead of {{third-party}}, but I would rather have that than no references that leads to {{unreferenced}}. By the way, some articles of fictional characters have been deleted under PROD, such as "Livia Frye", "Isabella Santos", and some others. I'm only targetting characters, cities, and histories of American soap operas, not the soap operas themselves. Right now, I'm goaling the soap operas that have been cancelled on television. --Gh87 (talk) 03:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC) --Gh87 (talk) 03:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I looked at your talk with JClemens above. I understand that your English is not good enough to really discuss this. Have a good day. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

How and why is my English "not good enough"? Can you clarify more? --Gh87 (talk) 05:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Just happened on this discussion but that comment by Peregrine Fisher was unacceptable, your english is perfectly fine. I also happen to agree with you that some disposable Rag found at a superstore and not kept on back catalogue is neither a reliable source nor any indication of notability. Best wishes Polyamorph (talk) 07:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your support for my English. If you are concerned about Peregrine Fisher's comment, one of warnings in WP:UTN can help. --Gh87 (talk) 08:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Um, sources like Soap Opera Digest and Soaps In Depth are not "rags." They are primary sources (like Gh87 said above) that discuss characters and their history. They are reliable sources that you'd typically need if you want to include information about character development and reception with regard to American soap opera characters. Some of these interviews and such are indeed online because these magazines have websites that replicate some of the information (or they are duplicated on news sites, in books, etc.). In fact, some of the interviews and such are only found on the online versions of the magazines. Third-party sources are simply the sources that show that people outside of the soap opera medium care about these characters and therefore establish notability. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

While soap opera magazines are not the big reliable sources we all wish for. The majorety of the time they become useful for interviews and other behind the scenes development info. I always used them as the last resort, they can be quite useful to go along side an article with many online, third-party sources. Wikipedia encourages editors to be broad in all aspects of the coverage, providing there is minimal bias - so it is often a good way to balance the tone of the article out.

However, Gh87 - why are you targetting axed soap operas? You just openly admitted that - instead of deciding on a case by case basis, whether or not the character is notable. I've already established you mislead in the Sunset Beach AFD, you claimed to have searched for sources - Either you did look at the sources and chose to ignore them, hoping no one at AFD would notice, - or you didn't research them - just simply put them up for AFD because in your opinion Sunset Beach is an axed soap opera - "therefore non of the characters are notable". I also agree with the above editor, your english is perfectly fine and understandable, so not sure why they felt they had to say that to you.RaintheOne ^BAM 16:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion procedures and policy

I think you need to take a break from prodding or nominating articles for deletion until you've had a chance to better familiarize yourself with how things are done. Your comments suggest that you don't yet have a good understanding of relevant policy.

First, read: WP:DEPROD. Prodding is intended for completely uncontroversial deletions, which means those for which no one objects. Anyone can object for any reason, or no offered reason, contrary to your comment at this AFD or this AFD, or your edit summaries here, here, or here ("give me very legitimate reasons to contest"). There is no requirement that whoever objects must present an argument that satisfies the prodder, so you cannot demand that they comply with anything or meet any standard before they can remove the prod tag. So you need to stop doing that, because it misrepresents how prodding works.

Second, read WP:BEFORE, WP:ATD, and WP:PRESERVE. Both your prod nominations and your AFD nominations appear to misunderstand the reasons for which we delete articles. We do not delete articles purely based on their current state. Per deletion policy, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." That an article does not have references at present is not at all reason for deleting it; what matters is whether it is verifiable. Can references be found? Per BEFORE, before you nominate something for deletion you are expected to make a reasonable effort to look for sources, not purely to judge a subject's notability based on whether the article at present has sources. I have seen no evidence you have been following BEFORE, as you have never described any searches you've performed for sources, and you have always framed your deletion nominations based on what sources are currently in the articles.

Similarly, that an article is at present only in-universe plot is also not reason for deleting it but for developing it through editing. Can it be expanded with non-plot information, such as about its production or reception? Per WP:ATD, if an article can be improved through normal editing, it is not a proper candidate for deletion. This applies to prodding as well as AFD: WP:PROD#Nominating states "Before nomination...Consider your reasons for deletion and the alternatives to deletion, including whether or not merging the article elsewhere or making it a redirect are more appropriate than deletion."

Which leads into the next point... Third, per WP:ATD, if an article can be merged or even just preserved as a redirect, it should not be listed at AFD; you should attempt that through normal editing and discussion. It should also be noted that notability requirements to not apply to segments of articles, such that even if you don't think a fictional character isn't independently notable and does not merit a standalone article, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be documented within a larger article.

Fourth, also a point related to the above, AFD is not for cleanup. Many of your deletion noms, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Our Private World, aren't even calling for deletion ("I will vote some other time"), but instead seem to be criticism of the article's current state. AFD is not a forum for your opinion of an article and what needs to be done to improve it; that is instead what cleanup tags and article talk pages are for. If you do not actually think an article should be listed for deletion, or you simply haven't decided whether deletion is the proper alternative, you should not be starting an AFD discussion for that article. Nor does starting an AFD entitle you to demand what should be done with an article, as if you are the one who needs to be satisfied just because you started the AFD.

I think for now, you should focus on participating in AFDs others have already started so you can get a better sense of how they operate, and you should try to address your concerns with certain articles through normal editing (such as trying merging and redirection yourself, expanding articles with sources you have found) and discussion (on article talk pages to raise your concerns, or on wikiproject talk pages to discuss wide-scale edits that may affect a lot of articles). But regardless, you need to read and reread the policies I've linked to above and start following them. Many of these comments have been made to you in the context of AFDs, but you have not yet improved, and it's going to be a problem if you continue to use prod and AFD in a way that violates deletion and editing policy. postdlf (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Need Your Opinion on My Future Reasons for deletion

(copied from User talk:Postdlf)

You gave me the message in my talk page. Therefore, I don't know if I should continue anymore. Before I re-edit my arguments, I shall give you my examples and need your opinions on them:

• "The soap opera is notable; this fictional character is not. Also not enough sources in and out of that article."
• "The show is cancelled, and news only covers the whole soap opera but fails to mention soap opera characters."
• "This fictional character of the soap opera <insert title> is not notable. The news did not cover him/her very much, and almost no one has inserted "real world" perspectives. The fact that the article did not improve from the current status as plot-only article suggests that no one outside soap dedication is aware of this fictional character."

What do you think? How long should I break myself from nominating for PROD and AfD? --Gh87 (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I have your talk page on my watchlist, so let's keep this discussion here. I'm happy to answer your questions, but you still really have to take the time to read over relevant policies and guidelines yourself, and to look at what other people are doing in AFDs. Here are some comments on your arguments:

• "Not enough sources" in an article is not a reason for deletion. First, per WP:BEFORE, you are expected to make a reasonable effort to confirm whether sources exist or not for a subject before you list it for deletion; you are not to simply look at the current state of the article. "This article has no sources" is not a deletion argument; "no sources exist about the subject of this article" is a deletion argument. Second, "not enough" really doesn't make any sense; an article's subject either does or doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Third, if it is part of a broader notable subject, such as a fictional character from a TV series, then even if the character itself is not notable, it still might be appropriate to describe in an article about that TV series (whether the main article or a separate character list), and so per WP:ATD you should consider merging or redirecting instead of listing it for deletion.
• That a show has been canceled is completely irrelevant. We do not favor articles about ongoing TV series over articles about canceled ones. The second part, regarding whether sources cover the characters or not, brings us back to the points I just made above: if you can't find sufficient secondary sources about a character (again, by actually searching outside of Wikipedia), that is a good argument for not maintaining a standalone article and instead merging that character somewhere.
• "The news did not cover him/her very much, and almost no one has inserted 'real world' perspectives." These are pretty meaningless statements in an AFD discussion and just end up confusing things more than clarifying. Your use of phrases such as "very much" and "almost no one" are wishy-washy and actually concede the opposite of what you're trying to assert: by saying that there wasn't "very much" coverage you are at the same time saying that there was some coverage, and by saying "almost no one" has added real world perspective you're at the same time saying at least someone has added real world perspective. Similarly, claiming something is "not notable enough" is meaningless because you're saying it's nevertheless notable. I hope you don't take offense at me asking you this, but is English your native language? If not, that may explain the indirectness or lack of clarity of some of your comments, which is yet another reason to take some more time participating in Wikipedia in other ways.

  A few more points: per WP:NOEFFORT, "no one has improved this" is not considered a relevant argument for deletion. The solution to an article being plot only is to expand it with information other than plot, or to merge it to an article that can provide better factual framework. And your comment about "soap dedication" is off the mark, because it doesn't matter whether a source is dedicated to a subject, or whether an article's editors are only interested in that subject.

The problems in your demonstrated understanding are pretty pervasive, so I think you should take a break from prodding and starting AFDs for the foreseeable future, and just contribute in other ways as I have noted above. postdlf (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate the assist on tagging the articles for The O.C. season AFD. I got called away for a bit IRL and wasn't able to complete it right away. It was nice to see the task taken care of. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

TFD in general, and Template:Article-cv

Hello,

Please note that old templates (2007 and earlier) frequently have documentation on their talk pages. Also, substitution templates do not show up as being transcluded as they aren't, they're substituted. Thus the "problems" you found on the template being unusued aren't problems, since it is substituted. You need to search for the text of the template to see if it was ever substituted. The "proper instructions" in this case is actually on WP:CP.

70.24.251.158 (talk) 05:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

My Three Sons

My friend, you've proven the photo is PD because you've uploaded the photo uncropped (so it can be seen there are no copyright marks on a border) and the back of the photo, which has no copyright marks, a date stamp, and the source of it. ;-) What I do is to initially paste the front and back into Paint for my first upload, and then upload the cropped (and sometimes "repaired") photo that will be used for the article. Would suggest cropping the borders on your image and doing a reupload of it.

Am glad you found a My Three Sons PD! I still have a long list to work through re: uploading, but wasn't lucky enough to find the cast photo for the show. Was just working at Commons also and at times have been having the same kind of problems with uploads. Sometimes when I upload the second image (cropped), the display is of the front and back first uploaded that looks squashed. Reuploading the photo once more has been fixing that for me. We hope (talk) 05:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Ahem! I changed the author and made info and date appear differently. I hope: I'm right about the reproduced photo. --Gh87 (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The image originally came to the newspaper from ABC re: the copy on the back that says "on the ABC Network". The copy on the back also says that the program would start its third season at the time ABC was sending this photo out. That would have begun in the fall of 1962, so the photo dates from 1962, is from ABC and is not a reproduction. Newspapers receive all sorts of publicity photos like this and put them into their photo files, where they're brought out when needed.

When their local NBC affiliate began airing the shows as syndicated reruns, this is most likely when the newspaper got it out, added the 1966 date stamp because they ran the photo, and wrote the information about the NBC affiliate on the back. It also looks like they used the image for some reason in 1982, but that wouldn't make the pre-1978 PD license invalid because it's when the photo was first released and that was 1962. I would change the file information to date as 1962 and the source as ABC; you have the uploaded back of the photo with the attached publicity release to bear this out. We hope (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Will you or I make changes? It is past midnight in my area. --Gh87 (talk) 07:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I just made the changes (and now I'm off to bed). We hope (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Gh87, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Gh87/sandbox.

• See a log of files removed today here.
• Shut off the bot here.
• Report errors here.
• If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Does this mean: I cannot use non-free images in my sandboxes? --Gh87 (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. That can be inconvenient sometimes, and I've been caught out myself, but that's the rule. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, you can have non-displaying links to them in your sandboxes (File:Example.jpg); you just can't display them. The bot just added a colon to the link to stop it from displaying. If you want to see what your draft looks like with the image displaying, just remove the colon from the link and look at it in a preview without saving. postdlf (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, George Ho. You have new messages at Monty845's talk page.
Message added 20:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Monty₈₄₅ 20:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, George Ho/Archives/2013. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

We hope (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate deletion tempates

A request - you don't need to remove the duplicate deletion templates - these images are transcluded into many categories & the duplicate deletion templates stops the transclusion into these categories... this keeps the workload off of those that watch those categories, making sure that they're marked & they don't continue to be transcluded again & again into the same category(ies)... and, multiple deletion templates do nothing to the original deletion category (and they can be a clue to someone who is fixing the images that additional steps need to be taken). Skier Dude (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, George Ho. You have new messages at Alpha Quadrant's talk page.
Message added 04:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Janet Image

Well that image is copyrighted to ABC via the domain name - there it probably should not have been uploaded as a simple screenshot from the series itself would be more acceptable. As the source can then be directly from the show itself.RaintheOne ^BAM 21:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Well the problem there is the website the image is taken from features a explicit disclaimer which does not prohibit any use of there content on external websites - without permission from the website. Which is a bit rich seeings it isn't their picture to begin with. That image was likely to be released by ABC's press office. The uploader is a notorious copyvio supporter - taking whatever they find and uploading as they please - which as we know - is not the standard practise here. So, to be fair we can overide the source as ABC themselves, because they released the promotional image with the purpose of just that - promotion. However, we are not here to promote the show, but we can build a rationale for its usage soley in a character infobox - with promo images they vare generally more accepted here provided there is sourced text in the article about the characters appearance, where this type of image would aid the reader to identify better with the subject matter. Which in this article there is not. Personally I think a screen shot from the serial itsef is better, where a lesser portion is used - most usually to the subjects face - therefore the rationale is better justified.

The real problem is these editors who have been warned about images uploads, ignore and carry on uploading with very thin rationales and crediting the wrong people as the source - because that fansite does not own the copyright to the photo in the first place.RaintheOne ^BAM 21:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

More of your bad editing

In response to this edit, let me point out that editors of Soap Central character biographies have been known to plagiarize Wikipedia. So just because both sites say the same thing, it does not mean that it was Wikipedia who plagiarized them.

In response to this edit, the author of the website does not have to give permission for us to use any of their photos. These photos are within public domain. They don't even belong to that website. The same goes for this image that you tagged. It does not belong to AOL, AOL has no say on whether we can use it or not, contrary to what you believed![4] And it is a screenshot, for goodness sakes. Yes, we can take such images from the Internet and upload them, granted we fill in the correct upload information. That is what Wikipedia's fair-use rationales are for. Read that guideline!

You also shouldn't tag plot summaries as "possibly copyrighted"[5] just because you believe they may be. Judging by your edits, you believe that all soap opera plot summaries are copyrighted. Your suspicion is not enough, since you could go around tagging any and every plot summary this way, which it seems you are already on the track to doing. Prove that it is copyrighted, or at least prove your suspicion, before throwing on such tags.

Lastly: You should not alter AfDs after they have closed, as you did here. Did you not see the Please do not modify it line? Black Kite can do it to make a tweak because he is the closer.

You obviously have a lot to learn about Wikipedia, and need to take a step back and learn those things before trying to go about them. I understand about learning through experience, but you are currently doing more harm to the project than you are good. You should have taken Postdlf's advice above about prodding and AfDs. Really. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You are digging yourself in the grave.

1. SoapCentral has copyright notifications in the media; is their notifications false? Can you prove that SoapCentral is infringing Wikipedia articles?
2. The source's main domain (http://www.takeitishamcmyway.com/) says on the bottom: "All Rights Reserved Do Not Copy , Re-Print or Distribute without permission of Author." Does it mean anything to you? Also, I tagged the source with "unreliable" because of that message?
   1. The image I tagged for deletion is NOT in the public domain; the post-1978 promotional images from ABC Press have been copyrighted with either a "c" or "All Rights Reserved". Have you read the license, or is the license wrong? Or maybe the ABC Press has not registered copyrights of promotional releases as it has claimed for years? Can you prove that the image is released in the public domain?
3. All My Children webpage of the ABC.com has become inaccessible. Fansites are not reliable, and not even SoapCentral except as an external link, not a Reference. Soap opera periodicals have not been circulated or collected in the libraries; their websites may not last, and they may be willing to prevent their articles from being collected in the Archive.org.
4. I did not interfere the discussions; I just corrected the link after the redirect page has been deleted at my requested. Was that "modifying" after AfD is closed?
5. If you are concerned about me, then talk to Postdlf. You and that person have something to advise me in the future, right?

I don't have to point out the history log, do I? I suggest: you preview before you make more re-editing. --Gh87 (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Oops... am I a hypocrite to you? I just made a booboo by forgetting to indent. I am learning more about using codes and professional keyboarding. Why won't you use your "edit summary" --Gh87 (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

IP - those pictures are NOT in the public domain - that would of meant there would be no issue here. They are copyrighted - even the media, the intended users of the images, say copyright/courtsey of the named company - hense the need for a strong rationale if we are to use them. The issue here should be with the uploader - who credits the wrong website.RaintheOne ^BAM 01:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

(←) One should give a good look at SoapCentral terms if interested. --Gh87 (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Gh87, you are digging yourself into a grave, and I will be reporting you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. Fine, I said the wrong word: "public domain." I meant "released to the public." My mistake in words does not take away from the other stuff I said and that your deletion rationales are idiotic. Just look at what you stated in one of the above links, asking if the author of the website gave permission for us to use their photos. Raintheone explained how you were wrong about that in a higher section.

It does not matter that Soap Central has copyright notifications in the media, because they are still committing plagiarism. No, I cannot prove that they are plagiarizing Wikipedia articles, but I can attest to what I have seen and know. Their character bios are written by volunteers (aka fans). I have seen new character articles on that site consist of character bio plot summaries that were on Wikipedia first. This has also been observed by users of that site. It does not matter that takeitishamcmyway.com's main domain says on the bottom: "All Rights Reserved Do Not Copy , Re-Print or Distribute without permission of Author." It doesn't mean anything to me because these images do not belong to that site or the author. They belong to ABC. Again, Raintheone explained that to you.

Wrong on all accounts about Soap Central.

Yes, that was "modifying" after the AfD was closed. What do you not understand about "modifying"?

Postdlf is already watching your talk page. But I will ask him to comment here about this. These latest two edits by you[6][7] for example, are also problematic. In that first link, that image could be a screenshot that the editor made. In cases such as those, there is no external link to link to because it was not a website the editor got the image from. And if the source were to say "Fox Broadcasting Company," it would be correct because that image belongs to Fox. In the second link, that is exactly what it says: "FOX.com, owned by FOX." But you tagged it as having no source and with the wrong type of tag. That tag does not apply to screenshots. Yeah, we need some people to clear things up for you. I don't know why Raintheone is taking all your bad editing so lightly. It's not a "light" matter. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Gh87, please explain why you added Template:di-no permission to File:OC-104.jpg. postdlf (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The FOX.com took down The O.C. website and its entities, including this file, and makes the source less reliable. If they haven't taken it down, I cannot find the website in the main FOX.com. Is the image permitted under these circumstances, or circumstances may have no effect on the pemission of using this image? --Gh87 (talk) 04:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

That shouldn't matter. If we're treating it as non-free, that means we're not claiming we have permission (i.e., a license) to use it, and we don't need permission to use content that qualifies under WP:NFCC. That's a pretty basic concept here. Maybe you should hold off on tagging any images until you're more familiar with our usage policy. postdlf (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Postdlf. WP:Fair use is all about not having obtained permission. Going by the rationale Gh87 gave for tagging this image for deletion, it would mean that the infobox image used for featured article Jason Voorhees should be deleted if it does not obtain explicit permission from the website or companies which released the Jason movies. I will now be undoing any invalid image tags by Gh87 that I come across. If Gh87 continues to wrongly tag images, I will bring this to the attention of editors at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content or report the issue to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, randomly tagging articles for WP:Peer review, when you are not a contributor to the articles and won't be there when they are peer-reviewed? Seems like more misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works to me. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikihounding? Yeah, sure. Whatever you need to say to victimize yourself. You make it appear as though I was blocked because I was being a bad little IP. I was blocked for using a proxy. For those who don't know, this is discussed at User talk:Moonriddengirl#Concern regarding inexperienced editor tagging things as possibly copyrighted. And as for you, Gh87, at least you see my proof that SoapCentral does, in fact, copy Wikipedia. Everyone look at this: While trying to see if SoapCentral plagiarizing Wikipedia has been discussed anywhere here before, by using "Search," I located the Talk:Téa Delgado#Soap Opera Central not above copying Wikipedia discussion. I then researched this issue by using the Wayback Machine, and this is what I found. Look at this text:

Two years later, Téa returned to town for a brief visit. She visited Todd, and it was evident that Todd was still hurt by her having left him. Todd next ran into Téa in Hawaii. Blair and Sam Rappaport had secretly gone to Hawaii with Manning kids Starr and Jack, but Blair's bodyguards tipped Todd off and he followed them there. Téa warned Blair about Todd's plan to kidnap the kids, allowing Blair and the children to safely return to Llanview. Todd's plan to kidnap his children having gone awry, he ended up shipwrecked on a deserted island with Téa and Ross Rayburn, a man Todd had hired to help him with the kidnapping. Todd and Ross both vied for Téa's affections. After Todd spied Téa kissing Ross, he decided to leave the island alone. As he prepared to depart, Téa showed up and told Todd that she was in love with him and always had been. A wave of emotions came over Todd and he admitted to Téa that he wanted to be with her, too. The two then made love for the first time. Afterwards, however, Téa discovered that Todd still had a picture of Blair and painfully realized that he was still in love with Blair, despite having earlier sworn that he was through with her. Though hurt by this realization, Téa gave her blessing for Todd to romantically reunite with Blair. Desperate to get home to his family, Todd risked his life by getting on a make shift raft and rowing out into sea. He washed up on a beach in Guam, and from there made his way back to Llanview. Téa and Ross were later rescued.

The Téa Wikipedia article had it first. It was created on July 22, 2008.[8] On July 4, 2008, SoapCentral's looked like this and it was still that way on December 19, 2008.[9] So it's easy to see that SoapCentral copied Wikipedia. 85.195.138.27 (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

AMC Miscellaneous characters page

A start of a truce with a bouquet

What happened to the original AMC miscellaneous characters page? I was not aware it was deleted and if there was any AFD/PROD attached to it. I think this should have been discussed further before any deletion, did you know about it?

Also, after the endless disagreements I am calling a truce and would just hope you see other points of view with all your recent deletions. We are doing our best to improve, we meaning me and other users, so I think it would be in everyone's best interest that we act more respectable because we have all gotten to be too much! The sock puppet investigation shocked me, it really did. Easing up on the deletions and improving more would be a good idea. Agreed? Casanova88 (talk) 05:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It was deleted for copyright infringements; the administrators decided to delete the WHOLE article. I hope you understand that, and, also, I hope we both have to make peaceful truce to each other, all right? Right now, I'm almost exhausted, but I can manage for late night. Peace? --Gh87 (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Source on files

I think I'll leave mine as they are. You can conveniently click the links and see where it came from. Because there will be times and cases when the link(s) are no longer valid, is why I started uploading the front and back of the images before they're edited. Doing that means there's a permanent record as to what qualifies the photo as non-free. I enter the information about where the photo ultimately came from in the author section. We hope (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, George Ho. You have new messages at WP:REFUND.
Message added 19:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mail

Hello, George Ho/Archives/2013. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

We hope (talk) 00:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Faye Wong discography PR

Hello Gh87, I noticed that you want a peer review for Faye Wong discography; however, you have only done the first part. After you put the template on the talk page, you have to actually create the PR page by clicking on which category it is (this one would be "Arts"). Once you fill out the information there, then the article can be peer reviewed. I hope this helps and if you have any questions, feel free to contact me.
—Michael Jester (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

DRV

DRV is a place where attacks on people and demands rarely go over well. I'd strongly suggest you rephrase both of your DRV nominations. Otherwise I suspect they might get shut down for civility reasons. Hobit (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Article sections

Don't do any more of this kind of tagging. There's a reason why that template uses the word "article"; mere sections do not have to demonstrate independent notability. Why did you think they did? postdlf (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Parameters to cite news

Hi, re this edit - please note that in {{cite news}}, the parameter |day= is deprecated. Although it does display, it also places the page into hidden category Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters. It is preferable to use |date= when all of month, day and year are known. Thanks. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

re: my talk page & Plinko

Featuring the game in middle school-level academics (or even college-level) is not anything that meets WP:N. This is not significant coverage of a topic. This is barely anything more than trivia. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Photos

According to the article 34, copyright on photos last for 20 years after publication. It does not mention the author at all (who could be alive, deceased, anonymous, whatever), the only thing that counts is the publication date. Anonymous works are other works without such specific clause, such as logos, ilustrations, etc.

Consider as well that it's not the same "anonymous" than "I don't know it" or "it isn't credited". In some of these images the author is known, even if the publication does not credit him next to the image. The photo may had been published earlier somewhere else, where it was credited, or the uploader may not notice the credit if it's somewhere else in the publication. But, as the publication date is enough and the author is not required, it makes no difference. It may be better to include that info when available, but publication date is enough to keep the file. To license a work as anonymous, we must point a source that confirms it's anonymous.

And it is correct that creation and publication is not the same, but the issue is not at stake here. If a photo is taken many years ago, kept in a box or a family album, and gets published now, the count would begin now, not back then. All the photos considered were created and published enough time ago, as per their credits. Cambalachero (talk) 02:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that other file should be deleted. It's a screenshot from a movie, and the terms are in {{PD-AR-Movie}}, which are not met. Acceder is not the real source, it is merely republishing it. The publication of a movie (or of screenshots of a movie) is the movie itself, once it was available to the public. Cambalachero (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Substing

Check out Wikipedia:Substitution when you get a chance. Will help you in your discussions about template deletion matters. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Double files

I tagged the one you just uploaded for speedy deletion; that seems to be the only way to fix things. ;-) We hope (talk) 02:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't feel bad; a while ago we had someone here who was uploading different photos over the ones that were already in place. He/she uploaded a non-free file over a free file of mine before it moved to Commons. :-) We hope (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, George Ho/Archives/2013. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

We hope (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

We hope (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

self-fulfilling prophecies

I notice that a little while ago today you removed a number of images from an article, and then nominated them for speedy deletion as unused non-free. These two things only make sense if you first had consensus to remove them from the article. You may be right, but which way do you want to proceed: would you prefer to revert and have the discussion, or to do what is even better, expand the articles to justify the images better? DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Examples, please? --Gh87 (talk) 04:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Notifying uploader of deletion nominations

When tagging files for deletion or for anything else, the uploader has to be notified of the proposed action or problem with the file. When the file is orphaned, it's a two step process as there's no article it's attached to; the file is tagged and the uploader notified. When it's for no rationale, license, deletion or other issues, it's a three step process: tag the file, notify the uploader and tag the photo on the article.

The uploader has no opportunity to correct the situation or to give his/her reasons why the file should be kept unless there's notification to that editor that something isn't right with the file. You have been omitting the uploader notification for them. We hope (talk) 04:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I have known the steps; I could not notify those who have been inactive ever since 2009 or 2008 or whose talk page is too long. The uploader should know if the image is on the watchlist, correct? --Gh87 (talk) 04:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

But if the file is not on the watchlist, the editor has no notification that anything is wrong with the file and in order to be following procedure, the editor needs to be notified on his/her talk page that there is an issue with a file. We hope (talk) 05:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I have check the contributions of the uploader; this person hasn't done anything since August 2011. Isn't it necessary or a required policy to notify the uploader? --Gh87 (talk) 05:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Even if someone has not been active in a long period of time, you should be placing a notice on the talk page. Some people have their preferences set to e-mail them when their talk pages are changed. By not giving notice in this way, the uploader doesn't have a fair chance to correct whatever issues there may be with the file or to have his/her say as to why the file shouldn't be deleted. We hope (talk) 05:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC) {{di-no fair use rationale}}

(User:We hope asked me to comment) Gh, The extent to which is is absolutely required in written policy is conceivably open to question, but Almost everyone always notifies about all deletions, so it in effect is a guideline. Anyway, even if you think it unnecessary in a [particular case, . it can never hurt to notify the person; they will either fix the problem, which is good, or not, and it will be deleted, which is also good--and nobody will have cause for complaint. In my experience, short-cuts just create difficulties further down the line. Anyway, if you use Twinkle, it can be done automatically. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

My archive pages

Sure, it's fine with me. As I told you a while back, I don't spend a lot of time at work on my user and talk pages. ;-) We hope (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

My Three Sons/Part Two

We have a chance to get quite a few free use photos from the show for characters like Uncle Charley, Mike and his wife, and Robbie's wife with the triplets. Since this is the case with this show and looks like it could be true for many others, what would you think about adding a gallery for articles like this, where there just doesn't seem to be either the room or the "right" spot for the photos? We hope (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

As long as the pre-1978 published photos have no copyright notices, give me links to future files, so I can look over. --Gh87 (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

(←) Here they are:

• File:Tina Cole My Three Sons triplets 1969.JPG
• File:Meredith MacRae Tim Considine My Three Sons 1965.JPG
• File:Don Grady William Demarest My Three Sons 1969.JPG
• File:Fred MacMurray Gloria Swanson My Three Sons 1965.JPG

We hope (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

How about adding a gallery section similar to advertisements in I Love Lucy? Otherwise, these are too many images for My Three Sons; there are enough amount there for now. The first image was added to Tina Cole. The second to Meredith MacRae; I wanted to add it to Tim Considine but couldn't. Third to William Demarest and Don Grady. Fourth to Gloria Swanson. --Gh87 (talk) 06:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I added the Tim Considine one to his infobox as there was no photo at all in it. Didn't realize he didn't have an infobox photo until now. Let's think about whether adding a gallery there would be good or not. We hope (talk) 07:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Father knows

Instead of creating pointless redirects, I would have asked Boleyn to explain this silly edit. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification (for George Ho)

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Stone Cates and Robin Scorpio (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Michael Sutton

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, George Ho/Archives/2013. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

We hope (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

OK-I see I had uploaded this earlier and cropped some of the individual photos. Here's the ones I cropped: File:Peter Hansen General Hospital 1973.jpg, File:Rachel Ames General Hospital 1973.jpg, File:Martin West General Hospital 1973.jpg. Have now uploaded a cropped photo of all of these people to File:General Hospital Cast 1973.jpg. We hope (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Rename request

Hi, I have shifted your rename request to zh:Wikipedia:更改用戶名/帳戶易手. It is now on hold for 7 days. Regards. Ben.MQ (talk) 10:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

File:FriendsLogo.jpg

Your deletion nomination at File:FriendsLogo.jpg includes the concern that the image "was registered as a trademark, but trademark guidelines have not been mentioned within rationale." As far as I can see, MOS:TM includes no requirement to mention trademark guidelines. It only suggests that images be tagged with {{Non-free logo}}, which is already the case with this file. Could you therefore please elaborate on why you think this file does not comply with MOS:TM and, more importantly, WP:NFCC, which is actually a policy, unlike MOS:TM, which is only a guideline. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the MOS:TM, as you pointed, does not include requirement to mention trademark. Maybe I must have misinterpreted guidelines as it does not mention, as well, files that contain trademarks. Maybe United States trademark law and trademark infringement will help. How about the following essays: Wikipedia:Logo Copyright/Trademark, Wikipedia:Copyright or Trademark, Wikipedia:Don't confuse Trademarks with Copyrights? This image originated from Zap2it.com, and I wonder why there is no symbol of registered trademark. Unregistered trade mark should suffice for this image, but I don't know where the Zap2it originated this image, and I don't know if Zap2it fairly used this logo. Anyway, according to MOS:TM, "However, when in doubt err on the side of caution per non-free content policy by assuming that the logo is copyrighted." Also, let's use WP:Logos instead. --George Ho (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

In case of this image, here's the registration link: http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=75098341. However, I have found out that you have fixed the other file description. --George Ho (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Logo Copyright/Trademark, Wikipedia:Copyright or Trademark and Wikipedia:Don't confuse Trademarks with Copyrights (all only essays) don't provide any more guidance than MOS:TM (the guideline). Neither does WP:Logos. File:FriendsLogo.jpg probably doesn't contain a trademark icon for the same reason that the opening credits of Friends don't include one. This edit to File:Friends titles.jpg was unnecessary. WP:Logos says "When uploading material which is subject to trademark protection, but for which the {{non-free logo}} template does not apply, please use the {{trademark}} template message:" Since {{non-free logo}} does apply, {{trademark}} is not necessary. Since {{non-free logo}} also applies to File:FriendsLogo.jpg, there's nothing that needs to be done to that image either. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that you are still adding deletion notices to files based on the same perceived problems as the two files mentioned above. However, there is no requirement to add "mention use of logos and of trademarks", only to include {{non-free logo}} to file pages. Until such time as you can actually identify a policy that requires compliance with your concerns, you should stop adding these notices. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Disputed fair use

I've been seeing a number of your disputed fair use taggings. Rather than retagging a free image and then disputing its fair use, a much simpler way is to go through WP:PUF. FYI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, when an image/file fails WP:NFCC#10, the easiest course is to tag is {{subst:nrd}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

And finally one more: if it fails WP:NFCC#1, the easiest course is to tag it with {{subst:rfu}}. Hope I'm not messaging you to death. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Matrix Online

Hi! It looks like you added fancruft and notability to the Matrix Online article. I was planning on removing the tag for non-NPOV (see the talk page because I looked through pretty thoroughly and couldn't find anything. Maybe you could tell me specifically what you think is from a fan's POV so I can work on fixing it? As for notability, considering this was a major title run by Monolith Productions and SOE I would like to here your reasoning for tagging it as non-notable. Thanks! --MonsieurKovacs (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know which one is the fan's POV, but, considering its own shutdown, I will leave that up to you. I did not add "POV" tag; I added "fancruft", which may contain information that are interests of specific audiences. Fancruft: "Gameplay" section, for example, has too much information that may specify those who used to be members of this multiplayer online game; there should be references of these game rules, or the section must be skimmed down, in my opinion. As for notability of it, this game's premiere and shutdown and reputation as a spin-off of The Matrix trilogy; however, is this game notable enough to help its stand-alone article survive? --George Ho (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

U.K. vs UK and U.S. vs US

Hi, for future reference, just a quick note about you moving Cracker (UK TV series) to Cracker (U.K. TV series). In British English the correct abbreviation is UK, so that's generally used in articles about UK subjects. The manual of style confirms this: WP:ABBR. It's not really a big deal - and I've already requested a page move to restore the article to how it was before - but I thought you'd appreciate being made aware of the differences in punctuation convention. Thanks. 81.107.26.167 (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Posters

You'd be doing us all a big favour if you simply added rationales yourself seems as you seem to dedicate your time to tagging images...♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? I did not upload the first versions, as you have done it. No offense, but I don't want to do other people's dirty work and to clean people's mistakes. Why don't you provide a rationale yourself? --George Ho (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Primarily because those images were uploaded at a time when image rationales were not common place everywhere. As for your prodding of articles. One word. Irritating. If you are convinced they are not notable take them to AFD and notify me about it and we'll let the community decide. But you're wasting your time as the vast majority of Argentine film articles need expansion... And you are doing little to help wikipedia. If you don't want to do other people's dirty work and to clean people's mistakes then I suggest you pick a more self-rewarding task like expanding articles you are interested in. For somebody who doesn't like cleaning up mess you are sure doing an ill-suited task on wikipedia. Oh and if you're thinking about getting shirty with me and spamming me more messages you've picked the wrong guy to wind up.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Look, I have been enforced to notify you about images that will be soon deleted. If you don't want me to give you notifications about deletion, fine. I will still tag them for deletion. --George Ho (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You haven't been enforced to do anything!!! You've chosen to be disagreeable and try to delete valid images which could easily be put right in just seconds using some script. Instead you choose to annoy editor by drilling them generic messages and making zilch effort to try to salvage any of them Its only a matter of time before somebody else complains about you. What you are doing is of no help for wikipedia whatsoever... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You have created articles, whose topics< such as films have not meet WP:GNG. You have created images and considered drawings or posters as part of photos, which they do not define as photo. Just go somewhere else, and let me do my work. I'm very busy. --George Ho (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not. You are not doing work. You are causing disruption by trying to delete content which could be reasonably improved or expanded. When you mess with something I've uploaded or created you are messing with me and I won't let it rest until you do the decent thing and start treating wikipedia as an ongoing good faith progressive development. Believe you me I will make things bitterly difficult for you to the point you will no longer want to continue if you decide to become purely deletionist as you clearly haven't the best interests of the project at heart. Yes, some images may not be photographs and not apply for PD and yes some articles are short but have you even considered that they could be fixed or improved? You have a problem with them, why don't you fix them? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

To everyone

I have now been blocked from editing by Elen of the Roads. If you want to talk about my block, go to #November 2011. Otherwise, please comment my edits here, such as my own images and AfDs. Quote me in AfDs and talk pages if you wish to add my comments about articles; I deserve some credit. --George Ho (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

To DGG

You have given me a rhetorical question in WP:Articles for deletion/The Great Adventure (1974 film). As for accusations of libel and slander, I don't know, yet I should be certain. Please reply if you can; I can still edit my own talk page at this time. --George Ho (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Jclemens

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison North, I have been POINTy, but I don't know how "point-y" I was. Can you specify the guidelines? --George Ho (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

We hope

In Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents you suggested that I should be mentored. Do you mean "no matter what"? By whom? I don't know anymore. --George Ho (talk) 01:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

George, I am suggesting that someone who has more time and experience with some of these matters serve as an advisor to you for doing things like files and articles for deletion. This would give you someone to talk things over with and would be very valuable advice for doing things like this on your own in future. Having a mentor isn't forever, but you would be able to go to him or her after that for advice on things you might not know the answers to or aren't sure about. There are some editors who are willing to serve as mentors to others editors; am afraid I don't know the names of everyone who's willing to do this.

Being mentored doesn't mean you are banned from editing in certain areas; it means that you have someone who's willing to show you how things are done and help you be able to do them on your own in the same way. A teacher most likely taught you how to read, but every time you read anything now, you don't need the teacher's help to do it--this is quite a bit like what's meant by having a mentor. We hope (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Who are possible mentors? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of CECB units has valid reasons to delete the article, hasn't it? --George Ho (talk) 06:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you {{quote}} my comment in Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 November 25#File:Stanzbornak0.jpg? If so, here it is:

This file is certainly of a copyrighted work, The Golden Girls. Too bad I must have lacked good faith on the uploader because I isolated myself from people and because I made terrible assumptions that this user may be a vandal or a bad guy. Anyway, this should be moved to WP:Non-free content review because this image does not meet WP:NFCC.

I hope this quote helps. --George Ho (talk) 08:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I won't be able to edit your archives and configurations of MiszaBot. I'll advise and/or instruct you my suggestions to change while I'm blocked. I must either email your or post comments in this talk page: what do you want me to do? --George Ho (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• As I said below, you have access to your Talk page only for addressing your block - not for instructing other editors to edit by proxy for you, and not as a substitute place to discuss AfD -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Greglocock

You said that my 'reasoning' in the AfD of The Great Adventure (1974 film) is disgusting. Can you elaborate? I don't understand. My reasons about this film are clear and valid, unless they are proven wrong. --George Ho (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, your nomination itself contained a personal attack against Dr. Blofeld, which was way out of line -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you help me strike that out? I'm still blocked, you know. --George Ho (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've struck that for you -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

To Casanova88 and administrators of imagery

These files, File:Stanzbornak0.jpg, File:Ethan and Simone.jpg, and File:RuthMartin.jpg, have been tagged for deletions for valid reasons. Casanova88 has reverted my edits without proper reason. I know that:

1. The first image is of a copyrighted work and tagged with the wrong license.
2. The second image has no explanation of purpose of being used in one article. So does the third.

Administrators and Casanova88, I want some definite explanations of this. I have valid reasons to tag them for deletion, and somebody may clean up other people's messes without tagging them for deletion which I will not myself will do. --George Ho (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The version of File:Annie-lavery.jpg does not originate from ABC.com which shut down its own page of All My Children. Why was my edit reverted? --George Ho (talk) 02:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, File:Barbara Montgomery.jpg is used in the BLP Susan Pratt without proper rationale and without complying with Image guidelines of WP:Non-free content#Unacceptable use. I dare an explanation about this. --George Ho (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl and other administrators of copyright handlings

There are so many articles that violate copyrights, such as "soap opera"-related articles. I will e-mail you and list any article that I figure could be copyrighted. --George Ho (talk) 08:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

My AfD nominations

Now I'm blocked from editing. If you want to talk to me about articles nominated for AfDs during AfD discussions, quote me in AfD pages if I request any:

Madison North and Sean Montgomery

Both articles have not proved notability of their subjects. These fictional male characters still have not been mentioned in periodicals and books. Even Jclemens's rationale for his/her vote won't help me withdraw nominations. Storylines won't help at all, but at least it helps the guidelines of WP:WikiProject Soap Operas. --George Ho (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The Great Adventure (1974 film) and El Hijo del crack Both articles have improved since the AfD and proved notability of their subjects. What a coincidence! I always thought that their sources may not be reliable because.... well, I have not considered them reliable at the other time. This makes my nomination rationale totally invalid. If anybody demands me to withdraw nomination, please do so if you wish and if you have valid arguments. --George Ho (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Augusta Wainwright

I don't watch Santa Barbara at all, and no news have covered this fictional character at all. I have been probably too ignorant to learn about her, but I am certain about my AfD rationale if they comply with guidelines, policies, and advices. --George Ho (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Note - I have removed all the {{empty section}} templates. This template is for use in articles only. As you will see from the documentation it puts pages into Category:Articles to be expanded --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring talk here, please

To those who should me about anything, just comment here. This includes you, We hope. --George Ho (talk) 03:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

George, I commented above where you asked the question. We hope (talk) 03:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

To Dr. Blofeld

I have e-mailed you twice about unresolved things, such as categories, and I hope this section proves my validation of becoming unblocked. I have separated this from "To everyone" because this thread shall prove that I am capable of competency and because I fear the size of this section in the future. --George Ho (talk) 08:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

As I say I am very reasonable to work with if you approach me in the right way. When you are unblocked you may create a list of images which need sorting (with generic spamming), but I would appreciate it if you were more constructive and tried to help me sort out the licenses instead of deleting them. Film posters for instance may not be PD-Ar but still quality for fair use. If you could learn the standrd rationales you could simply sort them out in 30 seconds.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Some advice

Hi, I got your email, and here's my advice...

When blocked, the only reason you are allowed to edit your own Talk page is so you can discuss your block and work towards getting it lifted.

So at the moment, you need to focus on your own block and the reasons for it, forget what everyone else is doing, forget the progress of your current AfD nominations, and stop trying to carry on multiple conversations with lots of people unless they are directly related to your block and the reasons for it. That is, you need to concentrate on *your* behaviour, not anybody else's.

Then if you get yourself unblocked, slow down, take things step by step, and follow all the advice you're being given here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I will second the above advice. And add that it appears you've been online for nearly the last 16 hours. Take a breath and think things through after some sleep :) --Errant ^(chat!) 10:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Don Segundo Sombra.jpg

This file now has a FUR. That's... fair, but I have to consider the history logs. I don't know what else to say. Is this how Wikipedia works? If so, then why am I feeling unhappy about it? I mean, the history log has a revision of wrong license at the start, so, if the revisions must be saved, and if they are historical, what else can I do? Is this doing a dirty work? --George Ho (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC) I tagged it for deletion, so the history log may be erased. Then I would wait for someone else to create an image with a FUR at the start without the need to {{histmerge}}, unless the administrators have logs accessible to only them. If no one will create the same image, too bad. Should it be how Wikipedia works? --George Ho (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for see more detailed notes below. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

George Ho/Archives/2013 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hey! I have been following the guidelines, am I? Well, I knew I should not have canvassed against Dr. Blofeld. How am I sheerly incompetent? I want examples. I have done nothing wrong. What did I do wrong to be blocked from editing articles and other people's talk pages? George Ho (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Full explanation now given below - your next unblock request will need to address those points -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

So, part of the problem is that you don't seem to be listening to the issues being raised. Here are some pointers to where you went "wrong":

• Dumping multiple deletion templates onto an established editors page (particularly one so prolific as Blofeld) isn't particularly productive and is likely to rub anyone up the wrong way. You clearly identified a possible problem with images in this area (Argentine film), in such a situation the better idea would have been to open a discussion with Blofeld
• One mistake was approaching this from the perspective of deleting as much as possible if there were issues. A much better approach is to try and retain as much as possible - if an image is lacking an FUR, but was uploaded some time ago, it is quite possible that it simply wasn't part of policy at that time. So you could instead have a look and consider whether the image needed FUR. Similarly with those stubs, you could have asked Blofeld if he intended to expand them, and if not discuss what best to do.
• When people questioned your actions you went on the defensive - going to AN/I and then mentioning this fact at a couple of AFD's. I see you already retracted most of those comments.
• You're moving a bit too fast, I see a lot of edits today in quick succession. This was probably what annoyed Blofeld the most. The rapidity of posting an unblock request after the block is a symptom of this problem.

Blofeld is a pretty good editor to work with - he is very prolific and one of the best "source finders" I have seen. This didn't work out very well, hence the block, but perhaps by slowing down you can approach things differently - particularly the idea of constructive addition rather than destructive removal. I'm not going to unblock you right now because it is far too quick for you to "get" the points being made. --Errant ^(chat!) 00:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, I should use FFD, right, rather than file deletion tags? If not, then what else besides addition? I'm not very good at constructive additions other than in lists and file descriptions. I did not mean to ruin the reputation of Blofeld or disrupt him, did I? I'm just an average Joe here. However, the images that I have tagged for deletion still have problems, such as copyrights and meanings of photos and works. Nevertheless, I never meant to make myself destructive, did I? As for other issues, I'll reply later about them. --George Ho (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I got interrupted while putting this together. This is the full block rationale

George Ho, I have blocked you because your continued pattern of editing - which I am prepared to accept is largely intended in good faith - is actually disruptive. You have crashed your way through PRODs and moved onto some of the most WP:POINTy AFD's I have come across, you are misusing tags, molesting templates, failing to read policies, not understanding what people are saying to you, and generally barging about the place tripping over the furniture.

I don't intend you should be blocked for ever, but you need to stop tagging and nominating for deletion for a while, because you are wrong too often. Maybe you need a mentor to work with you. Whatever, you don't seem to be doing too much listening, or thinking about what you are doing wrong.

Just going back over your last four hours edits:- [10] - You refactored Blofeld's post. OK it was only minor, but given that you're in a dispute with him, you should not do even minor refactors. [11] - why did you post a link to a google search for "gran aventura" -wikipedia 1974. It's hardly surprising it didn't turn anything up [12] - why does that citation need verification? Because you're trying to get the article deleted? [13] - refactoring another of Blofeld's posts (again minor, but read WP:REFACTOR [14] - no, spanish sources don't need to be verified unless you are accusing the person who listed it of something shady [15] - pointy AFD [16] - pointy AFD [17] - ANI report that Dr Blofeld is libelling and slandering you. Do you actually know what those words mean? [18] - adding that template without following the instructions only makes work for someone else. [19] - this, which seems to have kicked off the argument with Blofeld, beggars belief. It was correctly tagged - you decided that it wasn't a photograph, and the source was "unreliable". Why? In what way can the source be "unreliable"? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I did not interact with Blofeld very well and made things without proper consideration, yet he replaced the deletion tags with "suck eggs" or something like that in the file description of the file that was later deleted. I'm not kidding or anything like that. I found that derogatory, and I could not trust him further because of something simply derogatory; any vandal could something like that. How can I see him as "good editor"? How can I think positive? I know he did not mean to upload these images, but policy is policy, isn't it? Should a policy be properly discussed? "Slander" and "libel" meant vicious and malicious comments about me, such as accusing me of "spamming", and he "threatened" me to be discussed for my edits that he did not agree with. I still don't understand it, and, if I did something wrong, I still don't understand myself. --George Ho (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Just on the suck eggs thing - Blofeld blanked the page and replaced it with the message "I suck eggs". Blanking the page meant that he was indicating the image should be deleted - "I suck..." means "I did that badly" or "I made a mistake". You are not reading/not comprehending (not sure which) what people are saying to you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 01:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• On the "slander/libel" thing, those words don't just mean "someone was a bit nasty to me". They have specific legal meanings, and nothing said to you was even close to legally actionable - he may have been a bit robust in his words, but you had been placing him under a lot of pressure with your rapid-fire tagging etc and your failure to just talk to him first -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Look, I need a mentor about anything, such as valid deletion tags. I can't leave anything alone. Do I have to sit by and let things happen, such as edits by Casanova88? If I can't tag them for deletion, then what are reasons for me to talk to the contributors? Do I have to trust people who do not know the laws? If I am one of those people, do I trust myself to tag anything for deletion? As for Blofeld, he did not mean to let things alone, or I must have interpret. I just have to tag them for valid reasons. Do I have to notify uploaders about deleting images? --George Ho (talk) 03:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
• By the way, I don't understand how point-y my nominations of articles are, aside from personal attacks toward editors. My reasonings on films and fictional characters are understandable, aren't they? --George Ho (talk) 03:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
• How long can I be blocked? I still have to tag them for deletion without need to discuss contributors and others, right? I just... I care about Wikipedia' reputation too much without considering civility. If I can't create deletion discussions, then I must notify uploaders, right? If I notify them, then the uploaders and authors may clean up their own mess, although history log proves otherwise. How can I request revdel on these files if I can't create any more deletion discussions? --George Ho (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
• All right, I continued tagging anything for deletion because I could not trust people, including sockpuppets by Dane97. I have dealt trust with others, and others let me down. I have not trusted others except administrators and We hope. I continued using deletion tags because I have been self-righteous, unless my actions are not self-righteous under guidelines and laws, and because there were too many topics that may not meet WP:GNG and because I'm a spoiled, shallow brat. You can let me be blocked from article editing for one or two years, but I can still email people and edit my talk page. However, I am not sure if this helps me learn my lessons never to do such above mentioned actions again. --George Ho (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You are not "sheerly incompetent". But you have been going about things totally the wrong way. I did warn you not to get on the wrong side of me and look what has happened. Would have all been completely avoidable if you'd started discussing the image issue with me and how to sort them out without the mass spamming of my talk page. You were standoffish "don't interfere I am busy mass tagging your images". Not good enough. When an editor is concerned about something you should stop and discuss it with them. The offer still stands when you are unblocked to create a list of problematic images. Regards. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If you want to know what I found the most irritating was a] you were mass tagging images for deletion which are likely public domain and some of the images were actually hard to find, especially screenshots on set of films. I spent a lot of time finding images and uploading them so to go all out deletionist without trying to help me salvage them and correct the license with "this file will be deleted in seven days" placed on them was annoying. b] You added a mass of unnecessary tags to images like Roberto Escalada with a ridiculous "reliable source?" tag on the source of the image!! That was probably what I found the most absurd, Elen is right about that. c] The way you made a series of edits in quick sucesison spamming me deletion warnings and prodding articles I've created for deletion without even asking me to expand them when if you actually looked in google books you'd find it meets requirements.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

What else can I say? That you were right and I was wrong? If I admit that, then I have to swallow my pride and never tag anything for deletion again; is that what everyone wants me? As for your edits, why did you replace deletion tags with "I suck eggs"? You have a good reputation, but I could not understand your behavior; yet people made possible explanations. That's why I did not make an open conversation; I felt betrayed when you did that. I also made you feel betrayed by my actions, didn't I? If I can't use my talk page for anything else while I'm blocked, then what else can I do? I apologize for not having an open discussion about each other's behavior, all right? Look, if I have to tag them for deletion without (unnecessary, IMHO) open discussion, I have reasons to tag anything for deletion. 1) Out of fun of it; 2) If an article is deleted per my AfD and without open discussion before AfD, there must be a valid reason for it; 3) I hate myself as a human being; 4) I'm miserable and inexcusable and wanting to be loved for being that. --George Ho (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You've got to stop using such strong words as "libel", "slander" and "betrayed" in completely the wrong context. No I absolutely didn't feel "betrayed" by your actions that's totally the wrong word. That would imply I once trusted you or were fond of you, I don't know you!! To me you are simply one of the image copyright fanatics who patrol the site every now and then and drill everybody deletion warnings. "Irritated" that you were tagging likely public domain images yes, wondering why on earth you would dedicate your time to going through images and even caring about 50 year old Argentine images which may or may not be public domain, most certainly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If you want me to determine the copyright status of images without tagging them for deletion, what else can I do besides editing file descriptions and discussing with you openly? Isn't changing tags cleaning up people's initial mess? If not, then what is it? --George Ho (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)I noticed that you haven't answere why you did such a thing, unless it was a message for me in a sarcastic and humorous way to delete an image. I must apologize if I did not understand your humor. --George Ho (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm blocked from editing English Wikipedia but not from editing Commons Wikimedia. Is it all right for me to do editing there? I swear I have not edited anything yet. --George Ho (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

George Ho/Archives/2013 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

To address the following issues that ErrantX brought:

1. To address #1 and #2, I still have to tag anything for deletion on those that have not been either created and/or improved by Dr. Blofeld. If anything by Blofeld, then I will make an open discussion with this user without giving him some "spam" or deletion templates before I make a first move on these contributions that he makes. Messing with Blofeld was a mistake, not doing anything else to anyone other than Blofeld, isn't it?
2. To address #3, I guess... it was an advice, not a libel, threat, or slander. If it was an advice, then what's this:

   Believe you me I will make things bitterly difficult for you to the point you will no longer want to continue if you decide to become purely deletionist as you clearly haven't the best interests of the project at heart.

   If it is not a threat, then I should not have reported an AN/I. Messing with him got me into trouble, didn't it?
3. To address #4, if this request doesn't help, then how long will I be blocked? How can I prove myself to be capable of doing good if this request fails? I've been advised not to use this talk page as substitute of anything, especially while I'm blocked from editing. If I'm blocked again, I swear I won't request too quickly again.

To address issues that Elen of the Roads brought, I swear that if Blofeld made edits that I either don't understand or presumed them to be vandalism, then I will have an open talk with him next time.

As for the "misusing tags, molesting templates, failing to read policies, not understanding what people are saying to you, and generally barging about the place tripping over the furniture", I have recently read WP:Ignore all rules. I shall follow that, shan't I? Shall you, too? I've been struggling to read WP:Five pillars and WP:Civility, and I will slowly understand it while I shall follow them, right? I will still add "deletion tags" if open discussion is not necessary for others, unless I'm not allowed to do it under policy.

To address issues that Boing! said Zebedee and Blofeld brought, I will trust both Boing! and Blofeld from now on. If I'm unblocked, then I will discuss with him only his uploads and articles that he either created and/or substantially improved. --George Ho (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=To address the following issues that [[User:ErrantX|ErrantX]] brought: #To address #1 and #2, I still have to tag anything for deletion on those that have not been either created and/or improved by [[User:Dr. Blofeld|Dr. Blofeld]]. If anything by Blofeld, then I will make an open discussion with this user ''without'' giving him some "spam" or deletion templates before I make a first move on these contributions that he makes. Messing with Blofeld was a mistake, not doing anything else to anyone other than Blofeld, isn't it? #To address #3, I guess... it was an advice, not a libel, threat, or slander. If it was an advice, then what's this: <blockquote class="templatequote " >Believe you me I will make things bitterly difficult for you to the point you will no longer want to continue if you decide to become purely deletionist as you clearly haven't the best interests of the project at heart.</blockquote> If it is not a threat, then I should not have reported an AN/I. Messing with him got me into trouble, didn't it? #To address #4, if this request doesn't help, then how long will I be blocked? How can I prove myself to be capable of doing good if this request fails? I've been advised not to use this talk page as substitute of anything, especially while I'm blocked from editing. If I'm blocked again, I swear I won't request too quickly again. To address issues that [[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] brought, I swear that if Blofeld made edits that I either don't understand or presumed them to be vandalism, then I will have an open talk with him next time. As for the "misusing tags, molesting templates, failing to read policies, not understanding what people are saying to you, and generally barging about the place tripping over the furniture", I have recently read [[WP:Ignore all rules]]. I shall follow that, shan't I? Shall you, too? I've been struggling to read [[WP:Five pillars]] and [[WP:Civility]], and I will slowly understand it while I shall follow them, right? I will still add "deletion tags" ''if'' open discussion is '''not''' necessary for others, unless I'm not allowed to do it under policy. To address issues that [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] and Blofeld brought, I will trust both Boing! and Blofeld from now on. If I'm unblocked, then I will discuss with him '''only''' his uploads and articles that he either created and/or substantially improved. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho#top|talk]]) 22:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=To address the following issues that [[User:ErrantX|ErrantX]] brought: #To address #1 and #2, I still have to tag anything for deletion on those that have not been either created and/or improved by [[User:Dr. Blofeld|Dr. Blofeld]]. If anything by Blofeld, then I will make an open discussion with this user ''without'' giving him some "spam" or deletion templates before I make a first move on these contributions that he makes. Messing with Blofeld was a mistake, not doing anything else to anyone other than Blofeld, isn't it? #To address #3, I guess... it was an advice, not a libel, threat, or slander. If it was an advice, then what's this: <blockquote class="templatequote " >Believe you me I will make things bitterly difficult for you to the point you will no longer want to continue if you decide to become purely deletionist as you clearly haven't the best interests of the project at heart.</blockquote> If it is not a threat, then I should not have reported an AN/I. Messing with him got me into trouble, didn't it? #To address #4, if this request doesn't help, then how long will I be blocked? How can I prove myself to be capable of doing good if this request fails? I've been advised not to use this talk page as substitute of anything, especially while I'm blocked from editing. If I'm blocked again, I swear I won't request too quickly again. To address issues that [[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] brought, I swear that if Blofeld made edits that I either don't understand or presumed them to be vandalism, then I will have an open talk with him next time. As for the "misusing tags, molesting templates, failing to read policies, not understanding what people are saying to you, and generally barging about the place tripping over the furniture", I have recently read [[WP:Ignore all rules]]. I shall follow that, shan't I? Shall you, too? I've been struggling to read [[WP:Five pillars]] and [[WP:Civility]], and I will slowly understand it while I shall follow them, right? I will still add "deletion tags" ''if'' open discussion is '''not''' necessary for others, unless I'm not allowed to do it under policy. To address issues that [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] and Blofeld brought, I will trust both Boing! and Blofeld from now on. If I'm unblocked, then I will discuss with him '''only''' his uploads and articles that he either created and/or substantially improved. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho#top|talk]]) 22:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=To address the following issues that [[User:ErrantX|ErrantX]] brought: #To address #1 and #2, I still have to tag anything for deletion on those that have not been either created and/or improved by [[User:Dr. Blofeld|Dr. Blofeld]]. If anything by Blofeld, then I will make an open discussion with this user ''without'' giving him some "spam" or deletion templates before I make a first move on these contributions that he makes. Messing with Blofeld was a mistake, not doing anything else to anyone other than Blofeld, isn't it? #To address #3, I guess... it was an advice, not a libel, threat, or slander. If it was an advice, then what's this: <blockquote class="templatequote " >Believe you me I will make things bitterly difficult for you to the point you will no longer want to continue if you decide to become purely deletionist as you clearly haven't the best interests of the project at heart.</blockquote> If it is not a threat, then I should not have reported an AN/I. Messing with him got me into trouble, didn't it? #To address #4, if this request doesn't help, then how long will I be blocked? How can I prove myself to be capable of doing good if this request fails? I've been advised not to use this talk page as substitute of anything, especially while I'm blocked from editing. If I'm blocked again, I swear I won't request too quickly again. To address issues that [[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] brought, I swear that if Blofeld made edits that I either don't understand or presumed them to be vandalism, then I will have an open talk with him next time. As for the "misusing tags, molesting templates, failing to read policies, not understanding what people are saying to you, and generally barging about the place tripping over the furniture", I have recently read [[WP:Ignore all rules]]. I shall follow that, shan't I? Shall you, too? I've been struggling to read [[WP:Five pillars]] and [[WP:Civility]], and I will slowly understand it while I shall follow them, right? I will still add "deletion tags" ''if'' open discussion is '''not''' necessary for others, unless I'm not allowed to do it under policy. To address issues that [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] and Blofeld brought, I will trust both Boing! and Blofeld from now on. If I'm unblocked, then I will discuss with him '''only''' his uploads and articles that he either created and/or substantially improved. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho#top|talk]]) 22:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}