User talk:George Ho

I must confess that I want to socialize but am bad at it. I'm uncertain whether moderate autism is related to it. Nevertheless, the above message implies that my social skills leaves a lot be desired. If a message is given to me, especially from a newcomer, I will do my best to be friendly and to avoid discouragement.

Leaving Wikipedia in somewhere in the summer (or after)

I've come to the conclusion that my work here in Wikipedia is almost done. I do not have many friends here in Wikipedia. In fact, I've gained resentments and enemies here. Also, I tend to feel like I'm such a bother to people. I have known that, without me, Wikipedia will never be the same. Of course, many, if not some, people would disagree and hope that someone greater than me would come along. Who knows? Also, many would not feel bad about me leaving or my planned absence. I can't just leave yet. I've got some unresolved things, like drafts, FFDs, etc. The big influencers here are also administrators and are willing to make us editors look bad. I'll never be qualified as administrator because I have not taken heavy criticisms well and because I have not worked well with more difficult people. Never mind that. I'm not one of people to be friends with, maybe? Also, I could not handle well difficult situations that I made. I just wanted some agreements, not retaliations and stuff. If people do not commemorate me well as one of reliable editors, then that's fine for me (even when it might make me sadder). The sooner I finish existing situations without making newer ones, the sooner I leave, and the better for everybody to be fine without me. Fair deal? --George Ho (talk) 08:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

George, don't leave, that's all I can say. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

My status in Wikipedia

After eleven years here, I still wonder what the intent of Wikipedia is. If it is not therapy, not a set of rules, not a place of debates, not a place to socialize, not whatever I wanted it to be, then what is? If it is reading and reading and reading, why editing? People see information but then change or add more info. If it is appeal or attracting readers, why attracting editors? Wikipedia goes through evolution... or maybe it will become a shell form of itself. Right now I'm tired. Just tired. I don't know how I must redeem myself, but recently I failed. Perhaps... if new people come in the future, and Wikipedia becomes a much better place than it is now, maybe I will gain interest in Wikipedia. Without enough friends or support, I guess there is nothing else left for me here. I will edit someday, and I have temptations to edit Wikipedia. However, when a big case that I'm involved in is over, maybe I will seriously take a wikibreak. I don't know how long, but while I can read more and more, then I can edit less and less. This mean I will talk to others less and less and read everything more and more. That way, maybe I will understand what Wikipedia is. I will be more of a reader and less of an editor. I will read discussions. I will read articles. I will talk less. I will edit less.

I have college work, so if I can focus on that, I can read and study everything. I can write notes but on notebook, not on Wikipedia. --George Ho (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

George, If after 11 years and 80k+ edits you "still wonder what the intent of Wikipedia is" you shouldn't do anything but read Wikipedia. Just stop editing. I'm not trying to be mean, or come off as hateful, but that is the truth. Wikipedia is not about how to "redeem yourself". As for, its "not whatever I wanted it to be", what does that even mean? 2601:483:100:CB54:2451:AFDE:F9E2:1AFB (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but this- "If it is reading and reading and reading, why editing?" is so when the public reads Wikipedia, the information they are reading is correct. I'm honestly trying to help you, that's why I'm trying to answer your questions. This -"People see information but then change or add more info." is to be expected, it is after all, an online encyclopedia, and encyclopedias need to be updated. You wouldn't read a hard back encyclopedia from 1980 and expect to see events from 2016 in it would you? This -"If it is appeal or attracting readers, why attracting editors?" is the same answer, the information needs to be correct and accurate. This- "Right now I'm tired. Just tired." then just stop, it's really that simple. This- "However, when a big case that I'm involved in is over, maybe I will seriously take a wikibreak." why don't you just take a break now? I'm sure whatever "big case" you're involved will get resolved, even if you take a break. This- "I have college work, so if I can focus on that, I can read and study everything. I can write notes but on notebook, not on Wikipedia." then just take a break and concentrate on college. I'm trying to help you. Look at the big picture, It's not like you're paid for Wikipedia and this is your job and source of income. Wikipedia will survive without you. Just take a wiki break. Please don't take any of my comments as hostile, I'm trying to help. 2601:483:100:CB54:2451:AFDE:F9E2:1AFB (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Really?

I am minded to block you for disruption. Seriously, what the hell were you thinking? Guy (Help!) 22:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:ARC

Your request has been removed as withdrawn. For the Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man

An arbitration case regarding The Rambling man has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)'s resignation as an administrator is to be considered under controversial circumstances, and so his administrator status may only be regained via a successful request for adminship.
2. The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors. If The Rambling Man finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve. If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy. The first four blocks under this provision shall be arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed. The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block.

   Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.

3. The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) and George Ho (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
4. George Ho (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from participating in selecting main page content. For clarity, this means he may not participate in:

   1. Any process in which the content of the main page is selected, including Did you know?, In the news, On this day, Today's featured article, Today's featured list, and Today's featured picture.
   2. Any process in which possible problems with the content of the main page are reported, including WP:ERRORS and Talk:Main Page.
   3. Any discussion about the above processes, regardless of venue.

   He may edit articles linked from or eligible to be linked from the main page (e.g., the current featured article) and may participate in content review processes not directly connected to main page content selection (e.g., reviewing Featured article candidates). He may request reconsideration of this restriction twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.

5. The community is encouraged to review the selection process for the Did you know and In the news sections of the main page. The community is also reminded that they may issue topic bans without the involvement of the Arbitration Committee if consensus shows a user has repeatedly submitted poor content, performed poor reviews, or otherwise disrupted these processes.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man

File:Alan kurdi smiling playground.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Alan kurdi smiling playground.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bad Case of Loving You (Doctor, Doctor) by Robert Palmer UK and European artwork.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bad Case of Loving You (Doctor, Doctor) by Robert Palmer UK and European artwork.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Missed question

In WT:NOT, archive 47, you'd asked "If the reference is not bare URL, why should references by re-stylized?" Because templated citations produce consistent output and useful metadata, while people randomly hand-writing cites any way they want to does neither.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Stanton... you might give me consideration of using templates. Per WP:CITECONSENSUS, citation style must be consistent. However, I can't go against or for them. Also, per WP:CITEVAR, we can't and shouldn't force editors to change their citation styles on grounds of consistency with other articles, personal preference, or being bold without discussion. Sometimes, I don't use templates because... I'm lazy (sarcasm?). George Ho (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

How often are these rules enforced? George Ho (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't have any statistical data on that. And CITEVAR is frequently misinterpreted. It does not mean you can't change citation styles (for any reason). You certainly can, you just shouldn't without consensus if the article already consistently uses one citation style and is no longer a stub. Even if it does have one and is not a stub, if it's not an effective or appropriate one (e.g. someone's idiosyncratic made-up style that is hard to read), a proposal to change it is sufficient if it gains consensus through active discussion or simply doesn't garner opposition. Disputes about citation styles usually break out in only two circumstances: a) it's a GAN or FAC about which someone feels proprietary, or b) it was authored by one editor, or a handful from one wikiproject and they again feel proprietary about it. Most conversion of untemplated to templated citations goes unopposed. I do it frequently (including conversion of messy templating to consistent templating, conversion of random date formatting to one style per MOS:DATEVAR, one that matches the articles MOS:ENGVAR, and imposing a consistent ENGVAR if mixed spelling is used) and am almost never reverted or challenged on it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Devil Summoner Soul Hackers Sega Saturn ordinary battle.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Devil Summoner Soul Hackers Sega Saturn ordinary battle.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes

Hi George. If you are interested in finding additional sources for this article, take a look at this sub-page where I was gathering edits and new sources to propose later for the "Terminology" section. It might save you some time. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

mail

Hello, George Ho. 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.

Re "What is your problem?"

You said: "Can't you cooperate with me and discuss edits with me or anyone? You seem to revert the changes. Look at Don't Cha. Look at All Through the Night (Cyndi Lauper song). Images of original versions don't have to be on the top of articles. Original versions are less emphasized. --George Ho (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)"

Hi, I'm not sure why this isn't in the RM discussion on the article page. If you start a discussion on an article talk page then anyone who regularly takes part in titling discussions should be free to respond without you making it personal, leaving messages on their talk pages etc, In ictu oculi (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, George Ho. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Other people's talk page comments

Please don't alter other people's comments on article talk pages. That applies not just to the wording but to the context as well, including which section the comments appear in and the text formatting. See WP:TPNO. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you want me to undo that then, Kendall? If so, I will. --George Ho (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

No, just for future reference. Thanks. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Downtown by Petula Clark UK vinyl A-side.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Downtown by Petula Clark UK vinyl A-side.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

upload

hello george could u help me to giving ideas about uploading photos to the wiki through the article... how could i?? Manishkarki714 (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Alan Kurdi lifeless body.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Alan Kurdi lifeless body.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Interview invitation from a Wikipedia researcher in the University of Minnesota

I am Weiwen Leung, a student at the University of Minnesota. I am currently conducting a study on how people on the LGBT+ Wikipedians group use and contribute to Wikipedia.

Would you be willing to answer a short 5 minute survey? If so, please email me at leung085@umn.edu. It would be helpful if you could include your Wikipedia username when emailing.

Thank you, Weiwen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weiwensg (talk • contribs) 03:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Your 2nd question

You've removed it from others for a rewrite, did you mean to remove it from my page? Doug Weller talk 07:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm afraid I don't understand the new version. Did you mean "upset", or maybe "resenteful"? Of course it's pretty impossible to predict feelings. Doug Weller talk 09:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Interaction Ban Reminder

Hello,

I’m writing to remind you that as a result of the arbitration case that both you and The Rambling Man are prohibited from interacting with each other, barring the usual exceptions. Recently, you posted questions to the election pages of multiple candidates where you indirectly made reference to The Rambling Man. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15) Please note that such comments are not permitted under the interaction ban and further instances will result in a block. Best regards, Mike V • Talk 22:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I won't do that anymore for now, Mike. Shall I report this the next time it happens? Or can someone else do it? George Ho (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

If you are referring to a violation of the interaction ban, you can mention it another admin once. Otherwise, it would be best to avoid all discussion related to The Rambling Man. Mike V • Talk 23:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Shall I report his attempts to excuse himself to you, Mike? I felt unease when he made indirect references by saying "canvassing". I was prompted to ask questions when mentioned "canvassed". Is this his actions at the questions subpages excusable? George Ho (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

At this point, a warning has been made and I've encouraged him to leave things alone. I think that is sufficient for now. Mike V • Talk 00:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop a note that, as a result of extensive community discussion and numerous issues, the warning issued above has been overturned. [1] Regards, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

3O request for OR tag

While I sort of thought the tag was baseless to begin with (and given the usual practice, BeenAroundAWhile's absence from that discussion after a brief exchange, as well as his refusal to get specific when asked to do so, would normally just justify taking the tag off the article completely), I will seek a 3O because you have asked so nicely and you feel it should be done.

While we're on the subject, what do you want to do about the picture? Just put it back in the box for now, or try to find some further input on its placement? Daniel Case (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I think they meant that BeenAround had not gone back and forth with me the way you had—apparently the 3O rules do require a "thorough discussion" have taken place.

In the absence of that discussion, or a third opinion, I really think it's time to remove the tag. It can be taken up again another time if someone really wants to do it. Daniel Case (talk) 05:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Eric Garner facebook.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Eric Garner facebook.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Daniel Case (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Harry S

See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_S._Truman&diff=prev&oldid=754468064

FYI Lakeshake (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:People Power LegCo members. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Formatting of requested moves

George, I'm going to be very blunt here due to your proviso at the top of this page talking about your lack of social understanding. It is not meant aggressively or as a personal attack.

Walking into someone else's discussion that they set up and telling them where to stick their comments is grossly inappropriate and rude. There are no Wikipedia 'rules' being broken. You aren't even participating in the RM. What the hell. It'd be like someone coming and telling you how to format your own user or talk page. And even IF Daniel Case was doing something non-standard - setting up some weird alternate RM format, say - that would still be fine. It might reduce the odds of getting consensus from others if it's too weird, but plenty of RFC's have changed policy, reorganized articles, moved pages, whatever off just a simple running conversation with no voting and no fanciness. If a discussion is getting REALLY huge, it's reasonable to politely request it be taken elsewhere. But we aren't anywhere near that, and yabbering about the 'standard format' (aka what's already happening, not your preferred style!) like you're the arbitrator is not going to win you any allies.

To put things another way. When you open a RM, you can feel free to say "please stick to just votes and move any extended commentary to a Discussion section." When someone else opens an RM, you don't tell them how you'd like them to do it!

If you are truly dead set on this issue - and I can't imagine why - you can, I suppose, open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves with a likely futile attempt to enforce your preferred format, which is usually used for large RFCs where the voting section really should be kept tight. But you are trying to enforce WP:Bureaucracy on small discussions involving 3-7 people. There's no need for a strict format for so few people. SnowFire (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I apologize, SnowFire. I didn't mean to offend you or make a huge fuss about it. I just caught up in the moment of heat discussions and feared the worst. --George Ho (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi.

George Ho, I accept your apology. If the screenshot is that important to you, I will not remove it. I do wonder if you can fix a link in the Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward page. On that page, under the section Murders, it reads- " WDBJ production master control operators then switched back to Mornin' anchor Kimberly McBroom at the station's news studio, seemingly confused by what had just happened". If you click on the link in the sentence, the link production master control, it takes you to the Wikipedia page for production control. While that is ok, it would be better if it linked to the Wikipedia entry for Master control. Take a look at the Wikipedia entry for Production control, then look at the Wikipedia entry for Master control. I think it would be better and correct because master control operators actually do the job of Master control, which there is a Wikipedia article about. I'm also going to sign up for a new Wikipedia account. I will comment back here when I do, so you won't have to communicate on the IP page. 2601:483:100:CB54:2921:709C:47A2:195E (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Um... I'll leave that up to you to choose either production control or master control. That latter is tagged as unsourced since 2008. Linking to a poorly managed article is too risky for me. As for the screenshot, let's discuss further at the other talk page. George Ho (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome you left at my talk page. Have a good night. Paige Matheson (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Exile

Hi George. Per your comments on the RM, and your quoting WP:TITLECHANGES, it appears as though you misunderstood the situation. Given what WP:TITLECHANGES says, and the true situation (that Exile on Main St. is the long standing title, and Exile on Main St was (and again now is) the controversial move), would you consider undoing your page move, and opening a new discussion to see if there is consensus for moving Exile on Main St. to Exile on Main St. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I made a dummy edit, SilkTork. Must I close it and then ask for technical request? --George Ho (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, I notified some users about the ongoing RM and then one project. --George Ho (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Exile isn't on my watchlist so I would have missed the discussion.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

You left a message entitled "Your actions"

As follows:

I just want to say.... thank you for doing one tough RM at Talk:Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series). You did what I could have done differently. Nevertheless, disambiguating articles is not an easy job, especially when consensus may be normally against changing one title or another. And I want to apologize for doing an awful ArbCom case request on you, which failed. Maybe I apologized to you for awful remarks on you or antagonizing you too much; I'm apologizing again. Maybe... we can cooperate (again like before) and discuss before changing titles boldly. You can notify me about articles you want to create on the side of caution. What do you say? --George Ho (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Why would any editor have to ask or notify you? Your behaviour to various editors is problematic to say the least. Please do not reply on my page. If you have anything to say, please say it here and ping me. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, can you explain my behaviors toward you and others? If my apologies are not enough, how else shall I redeem myself? --George Ho (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I recall there was an admin who sent you a message after the attempt at Arbcom (which I have no interest in, I have no relationship with you) who warned you that you were running close to getting banned. Maybe you should ask him/her. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Ks0stm, is IIO right? Am I unredeemable? George Ho (talk) 09:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)