{{
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)You are using this template in the wrong namespace. Use this template on your talk page instead.
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":
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)
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:- [1] - 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. [2] - 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 [3] - why does that citation need verification? Because you're trying to get the article deleted? [4] - refactoring another of Blofeld's posts (again minor, but read WP:REFACTOR [5] - no, spanish sources don't need to be verified unless you are accusing the person who listed it of something shady [6] - pointy AFD [7] - pointy AFD [8] - ANI report that Dr Blofeld is libelling and slandering you. Do you actually know what those words mean? [9] - adding that template without following the instructions only makes work for someone else. [10] - 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
To those who should me about anything, just comment here. This includes you, We hope. -- George Ho ( talk) 03:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Look, I'm wrong about my "bad faith" nomination of this article, and I must admit my mistakes of using AfD as a tool to personally attack Dr. Blofeld. Just please withdraw my nomination as soon as possible. Thank you! --
George Ho (
talk) 02:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
You are using this template in the wrong namespace. Use this template on your talk page instead.
As for
postdlf, he means well. However, he perceives them as 'unconstructive' because everybody else is improving articles a lot and because numerous deletion tagging is considered to him 'bad for Wikipedia'. To me, I have reasons to nominate things for deletion, and I do not have to search for sources, do I? No one knows soap operas nowadays, and no news have covered them recently, unless they either have been or will be cancelled. I don't have to present his email replies to me, do I? Also, other proxies of the same person have been blocked indefinitely, especially when the same person contacted
Moonriddengirl. --
George Ho (
talk) 02:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Then how can anyone explain deletions of
Barbara Montgomery (character),
Lily Montgomery,
Asher Pike, and
WP:Articles for deletion/Mason Capwell per AfDs? Are two views in
Articles for deletion/Comparison of CECB units valid to have an article deleted? Is there something wrong with my views? --
George Ho (
talk) 08:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
People, like him or her (the IP open proxies), have trouble with my edits because I have been very impatient with atrocities of bad article qualities and articles of non-notable subjects. Nothing or nobody or not a block can persuade me to improve articles, unless I have proper rationales to do it. I mean, I never meant to put
WikiProject Soap Operas under stress; I just am doing things on the behalf of common people, like me, who have become too unenthusiastic or too apathetic to care about American soap operas and their entities nowadays. --
George Ho (
talk) 09:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I am interested in the 1980s storylines of Days of our Lives and All My Children. The rest: I'm more concerned about growing number of articles of fictional characters of the 1980s (such as "
Donna Beck" which was an article but moved per AfD but deleted as a redirect page of non-existing article), including those that violate copyrights, such as "
Mark Dalton (All My Children)". How can you explain the deletion of
List of All My Children miscellaneous characters and
Minor Characters of All My Children? The
WP:MENTOR you gave me is an essay, not a policy; do I have to follow essays? By the way, you have always used an IP address; this is getting me suspicious about you. --
George Ho (
talk) 19:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh... I must apologize for my behavior. I'm too paranoid and too inexcusable about IP addresses. Look, I did not imply "not listening to you". Since you don't want to use your username, do whatever you like. I have had enough of IP users nowadays. I would prefer usernames, but you prove yourself to be harmless. Look, I will listen, but I will listen well if points have been broken into paragraphs. -- George Ho ( talk) 20:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I still don't understand the benefits of discussing with people other than possibilities of giving up plans to nominate articles for AfD and of avoiding "tag-bombing". Speaking of "tag-bombing", what are "tag-bombing" and examples of it?
I won't accuse Dr. Blofeld for slander or libel again until I will understand them. Right now, I'm learning still to understand the meanings of libel and slander. When you mention his attacks on me, what kinds of attacks, and why do you think he attacked me in one way?
Thank you for the URAA stuff. I totally understand the automation of copyright restoration of registered eligible pre-1996 works that were first published abroad.
Can you clarify the "slow down" comment please? I don't know how to "slow down" and how long I can. What "some humility" did you mean?
Maybe I have not been aware of my "non-apology apology" if I did that. Can anybody give me examples of my own non-apology apologies if I did one? If I did one, I will not do it again.
I don't know what apology to give, but I must admit my faults (or apologize) for destroying the efforts that Dr. Blofeld made, regardless of copyright statuses. I must admit my faults for hounding his files and articles like a hound dog. I must admit my ignorance of Argentine heritages. I must admit my lack of decency to give him good faith and to be open to him about anything. What other humilities I must have missed?
Since now, I will never tag his articles or files again without permission. Regarding others' articles and files, can I still tag them? If not, I must discuss them in talk pages of articles and/or of related WikiProjects
Regarding "tag-bombing" on articles of villians of Sailor Moon and The Matrix Online, I'm not at fault for that, am I? If so, then why should I admit fault about it? Actually, I tagged them because... why did I tag them? Was I a disinterested editor who loves tagging them for fun? Did articles not satisfy me? Am I a loner and anti-social yet inexcusable for my unreasonable actions? Am I interested at these topics? Did I miss the point of their notabilities?
Speaking of notabilities, The Matrix Online does meet
WP:GNG, but is its article beneficial to be existed? Does it deserve its own article? Back then it did; now there should be sources rather than citations for gameplay of it if the article should survive. Does meeting
WP:GNG benefit either the existance of the stand-alone article for the same topic (e.g.
Homer Simpson and
Erica Kane) or the secondary information in related general articles (e.g.
List of All My Children)? --
George Ho (
talk) 05:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
George Ho - blocked users can edit their talkpage only for the purpose of requesting unblock. To request unblock, you need to consider the advice you have been given. You must not ask other people to proxy for you, you must not conduct random discussions about whether something is a policy or a guideline. Go and read all the links in the welcome template someone left at the top of the page, and come back with some understanding of what this project is about.
If you continue to post randomness and requests for proxy edits, you run the risk of having your talkpage access revoked. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 21:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't see my current messages as either random or requests for proxy edits, aside from the ones I already stroke out. They all look fine to me: my suspicions on the IP editor starting with a two hundred twenty-something and promises to discuss articles with WikiProject members. --
George Ho (
talk) 22:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
How did I "molest templates", "misuse tags", "fail to read policies", and "generally barge about the place tripping over the furniture"? Yes, I have misunderstood people's messages and failed to open discuss it sometimes. I just tagged articles, such as
The Matrix Online and fictional topics that relate to Sailor Moon franchise, with maintenance needs because their topics' notabilities are under question. --
George Ho (
talk) 00:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
"Tag-bombing"? I just need to know policies about it; is it necessary to give me essays, such as WP:AADD and its WP:IDONTLIKEIT?
Regarding my actions on Matrix Online, I did what I can because the game has been shut down and because the gameplay may be supposedly unnecessary and because the news covered only the game's premiere and its end. Reception may be useful but may not help the article strengthen the quality. I have not been planning to nominate it with AfD; instead, I was going to propose a merger with
The Matrix (franchise). Also, too much fiction yet somewhat useful enough to be merged into another article. Isn't that "tag-bombing"?
Regarding my actions on Sailor Moon characters, their notabilities are anybody's concerns, including mine, because there were no receptions about them yet and because periodicals about them have not been found yet. There were too many plot elements and too few realities.
I tagged List of The Price Is Right pricing games with "Notability" needs because periodicals and third-party publications have not covered them at all except Plinko. -- George Ho ( talk) 01:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh... I did not realize WP:Notability/Noticeboard at all; I have always overlooked it, and, if I've unknowingly "tag-bombed", this does not excuse my "tag-bombing" if these "Multiple issues" qualify. If you want me not to tag articles with {{ notability}}, the noticeboard is the best start to go, correct? -- George Ho ( talk) 03:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
George,
When you go to the supermarket, you don't yell at the other shoppers because they don't buy the same items as you do, do you? And you don't yell at the store's manager because the store carries other items than those you use, do you? :-) Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and choice--that also applies here. What may not be important to one person is very important to someone else--it all depends on one's interests.
Try talking to the other editors here like you do to your neighbors--because that's basically what they are.
And now try working on a plan you can post here for all of us to see re: what you will do better when you're unblocked. In this way, the admins can have a look at it and tell you if you're on the right track or if what you're suggesting still needs some work. We hope ( talk) 01:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
In other words, the
Consensus may discuss changing
Five pillars in talk page prior to actually editing it, correct? In first pillar, under policy, Wikipedia is not anything other than an online encyclopedia. Some articles have disobeyed the second pillar; have I disobeyed the second pillar in any way? What's the point of the third pillar (free content) if re-using content requires permission, especially for third-party sites such as Monsters and Critics? Have I disobeyed the fourth pillar in the past, aside from my conflicts with
Dr. Blofeld? Have I disobeyed or abused the fifth pillar, "ignore all rules"? --
George Ho (
talk) 03:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Why am I blocked from editing English Wikipedia, not other Wiki sites, such as Commons Wikimedia? Isn't editing there while being blocked an evasion of block policy? -- George Ho ( talk) 21:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
From
221.6.29.66:
No, I am not Dane97 and I pointed out why above. You just don't listen, at all. Here you are trying to deflect attention on me, completely ignoring that you were wrong in your editing. The fact that you were wrong is exactly why you are blocked now. Because you are blocked for similar reasons. You say that I canvassed against you, but I say that my complaints were valid. Your block, where others are saying pretty much the same thing I said, shows they were valid. Raintheone didn't have much of a problem with me, and, despite whatever happened between Raintheone and myself, Raintheone agreed that you were making some pretty silly edits. Also, Postdlf knows what he was talking about. Every soap opera character is documented in "soap opera periodicals," and more than a few of the soap opera characters on Wikipedia are notable. It just takes the right person to demonstrate that notability; you clearly are not that person. And saying "No one knows soap operas nowadays" is not only an untruth, even with your having meant "hardly anyone," but an opinion as well. You need to do like another editor said below and learn some humility.
As for "How [do I] speak English very well?" (not that some people aren't fluent in both languages), that's because I am American and am using a proxy. See WP:PROXY. I thought you'd known by now that the only reason I keep getting blocked is because I prefer to use a proxy instead of reveal my true IP identity.
All right, you got your point, and I don't. My abstract of your point: everybody wins, and I lose; everybody improves of Wikipedia, and I destroy of Wikipedia; everybody talks rationally, and I whine like an angry politician or a disturbing anti-social; everybody thinks rationally, and I mindlessly witch-hunt.
I even can't report you because I'm still blocked from reporting open proxies. I haven't taken your advices or anyone else's because... I couldn't trust you and because I depend on reputations of anybody to know whom I can eventually trust. I couldn't trust or listen to you as the same person with open proxies until you admitted that you are not Dane97. I may have right to be concerned about you, yet I... Did I make myself worse toward you and others who are intersted with soap operas? If copyrights-related, then I am not solely responsible for these infringements; I just reported them to
WP:Copyright problems. Wait, I remember... some person accused SoapCentral.com for infringing Wikipedia articles; was it you?
Anyway, I still continue because I have participate other people's AfD and found similar arguments. I have misunderstood how AfD works, haven't I? If I did, then how can anybody explain my following AFDs:
WP:Articles for deletion/Barbara Montgomery (character),
WP:Articles for deletion/Comparison of CECB units, and
WP:Articles for deletion/Samuel Woods (All My Children)? What about my arguments in others', such as
WP:Articles for deletion/Lily Montgomery and
WP:Articles for deletion/Aubrey Wentworth? I will not admit my fault on them until I must know what are wrongs with these of my arguments; I still don't know what the flaws of my arguments are.
However, I must admit my faults for using my AfDs to speak ill against people, such as Dr. Blofeld. It was inexcusable, and I couldn't find any other excuse to make up for it. I won't beg his forgiveness, as I swear. I won't beg his clarifications and understandings of my actions either. I must have inadvertently hurted myself, including my own reputation. If it is damaged, then I don't know how to repair my own reputation. Shall I replace it like a new vase, or what else shall I do?
I hope: this section is not a random or request, isn't it? -- George Ho ( talk) 06:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I have gone as far as I could, but would this affect my unblock request? -- George Ho ( talk) 02:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Wikipedia is intended to educate everybody a lot of topics that are not familiar to such people, regardless of notability, such as The Matrix and the universe of Sailor Moon and soap operas. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that is unlike other online encyclopedias: free to edit (with limitations) by anyone. Wikipedia is not anything that is not an online encyclopedia. For example: it is not a paper encyclopedia, an indiscriminate collection of information, under criteria of censorship which is forbidden under policy, and a battleground. Over the years, numbers of articles have grown to millions of articles in every Wiki sites to brighten the minds of everyone and to preserve history online.
However currently, notability status of some topics are still considered; as recommended, if possible but not certain that one topic is non-notable, discussions about such topics must come first before any other action toward topics. Civility and respect toward others must come first before any other attitude toward others.
Wikipedia is intended to educate people from a neutral point of view. Possibility of any other point of view present in one article must be discussed first if certainty is not definite.
Editing policies and guidelines and essays is free. However, normally accepted policies and guidelines must be followed, and normally accepted essays are intended to influence those who intend to improve Wikipedia and its articles. Conflicts with them must be discussed first, and finishing a discussion must come next before any other action.
I may have reasons to tag articles, whether you call it "tag-bombing" or not. Unfortunately, I have seemingly never "grasped" the logics and explanations from people, and essays may not be positive about "tag-bombing", so I must decline to explain my reasons, unless "tag-bombing" is proven to be excusable.
I mean, I am too ashamed about my English skills at the standards of good and featured articles, so I wanted others to accomplish rather than I. They are very good writers; I made articles, such as
O Fantasma and early versions of
The Lake House, and my skills were superseded by others'. Still, it does not excuse my block.
Honestly, I would have been more of a reader than a writer; too bad I am considered a "tag-bomber" without policies or guidelines about it. Still, I contribute a lot without tagging. Every vandalism by disruptive editors on any article has been and must be cleaned by me. I will include citations if I am interested. Otherwise, I tag articles because tagging articles sends readers who do not edit at all a moral about relying or not relying on Wikipedia a lot.
At least I merged
List of Peter Gunn episodes into
Peter Gunn because the former list has no summaries or reliable references whatsoever. Are there objections to my edits?
To Magog: I don't grasp explanations without simple logics. What's the point of admitting "tag-bombing", and what do you mean "bigger picture"? --
George Ho (
talk) 00:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
To We hope: Hmm... good analysis. I may have known but denied what you analyzed and never properly explained my "tag-bombing". My worries do not excuse rationale of my block; however, I worry about others' interests and lack of interests, and I worry about readers more than editors. That's it: I have depended on readers' dependance on Wikipedia. I always care more about readers who do not edit at all because they believe in Wikipedia's words about topics. As a reader, I always believed in everything until I realize the flaws and inaccuracies. I mean, what if readers believe in inaccuracies? --
George Ho (
talk) 00:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
My ethnicity is Asian (possibly Caucasian-mixed, but still Asian), but I fluently speak English. I don't speak Chinese very well. How are my nominating for deletion and tagging disruptive?
Speaking of disruptive, while I was blocked, I did not save File:ILoveLucyTitleScreen.jpg, the I Love Lucy screenshot, which I tagged with {{ di-replaceable fair use}}. Now I have regretted not adjusting the rationale information. I should have made changes before I was blocked. I hope this is the first step to admitting that my tagging to that image is disruptive, isn't it?
At least I'm totally "moved" by the second part: not responsible for people's choices about Wikipedia. However, if I made edits to such parts, then I would be partially responsible. -- George Ho ( talk) 20:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Some editor has removed my tagging as
TAGBOMBing. I don't get it. If I see problems with this list, then why can't others? Either I'm a tagbomber, or someone is not admitting the problems with this page. Are these characters notable to everyone else besides Sailor Moon fans? I could not see hints of notability. I have checked the references; they are of books, episodes, and fansites. This page has intricate details that may interest those who want to be spoiled. The real-world perspective is absent. If my concerns are invalid, then I think that community may be right about me. I think I have problems with my own inabilities to improve Wikipedia, unless this is proven wrong. --
George Ho (
talk) 00:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
A good site for references on soap characters and actors is soapcentral.com. For example, for an article on Eric Brady, you could look at http://soapcentral.com/days/whoswho/eric.php. The Mark of the Beast ( talk) 01:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
George, to help an administrator assess the status of your unblock request, I suggest you answer these questions as briefly as possible (yes or no would be best). Please try to avoid getting bogged down in specific articles or editors, your general attitude and understanding are what matters.
I think that pretty much covers it. 81.107.26.167 ( talk) 12:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
-- 81.107.26.167 ( talk) 13:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Long list of questions, but, if unblocked, I must archive these posts into a separate page and add link, so I will look over and then be true to my oath. -- George Ho ( talk) 20:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello
George, you probably don't even remember me, but our paths crossed way back when I got upset with you for tag-bombing (and by that I mean adding lots of poorly thought out and unexplained tags to an article without making any improvements/suggestions yourself) to a Benny Hill article, of all things... (here's a little link, in case your memory is as bad as mine.)
I remember at the time thinking what a good editor you could be if you only got the confidence to edit and improve articles instead of just tagging and criticising.
You've devoted many hundreds of hours in what I firmly believe to be good faith to Wikipedia, and it's tragic that you are in this situation.
I remember how well you handled our interaction after the initial "spat", and if you remember that too, maybe you might think back to other times when you were "shocked out of your groove" and did something positive.
You can be a great contributor here - but that's what you need to do. Contribute.
I'd like to think that you'll use this time to re-evaluate what you want to do here, and channel the enormous energy you have for this site to the "positive" instead of the "negative".
Things that are "wrong" in Wikipedia will get fixed even if you don't do it - so why not try a bit of article writing or improvement for a while.
If you don't know how to make that change - ask here - I predict that you'll be pleasantly surprised by the number of your fellow editors who'd love to help you do that.
I also predict that you'll be a lot happier with the site, and much prouder of your own contributions if you can get over the initial "fear" of taking that leap.
Wikipedia needs people with your dedication and enthusiasm, and to lose you would be a damn shame. Please think it all through.
Whatever you decide - be well, and be happy. Begoon talk 14:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
George, I saw this edit: [27].
That makes me somewhat sad, because I don't think it's probably your best option.
Sure, it lets you edit again (on other projects) straight away, and I understand that right now that's important to you. It's also possible that if you do contribute well elsewhere, you could use that in a few months as part of a rationale for an unblock here. So it could work out for you.
What I think is far more likely, though, is that, because you don't seem to have fully understood what the problems were that led to this block, you'll repeat the same kind of edits elsewhere, and run into the same brick wall. All it will do is postpone the need to look at what went wrong.
Here's what I think is a better idea:
I've had a conversation with Elen of the Roads, here: User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads#A_non-typical_decline_of_your_block - and I think you should read it.
If you're willing to accept my help, I'm offering you my services as a mentor, to try and help you understand what the problems were that brought all this about.
I need to be clear though - I'm willing to put the effort into helping you - you would need to be receptive to that help for all this to work out.
Initially, you'd need to run all your edits past me (as mentor) before making them, and that would be a stated editing restriction - in the terms of your unblock. I can then help you to assess if you are proposing good, productive edits, or repeats of the problems. You will, no doubt, feel very inhibited by that condition - but the reality is that you need to be seen by others to be making an effort to adjust your approach in the problem areas, or an unblock won't last long. Once the picture becomes clearer, the editing restrictions can be relaxed in certain areas, then, eventually, removed, provided things go to plan. How quickly that happens would depend on you.
You can drop a note here if you want to discuss this offer - and that's what it is - an offer.
The choice is yours to make, but people are willing to help you, because losing enthusiastic long term contributors like you is a very bad thing. Begoon talk 01:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
George,
Please read what Begoon has written and get back into editing by agreeing, We hope ( talk) 01:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC) |
I have to confess: I have suffered autism (or, under psychologist's words: "moderate autism" or "part of psychological disorder"), and I have done greater harm yet greater good, regardless of quantity. Even my diagnosis is irrelevant to my behavior toward people, such as Dr. Blofeld. I have misused words, such as "libel" and "slander". I did not want to admit my shame of my behavior because I haven't known what elso to do if I have not confessed part of myself.
I have struggled to understand the basic logics of anything, and I have struggled to learn complex things. I have struggled to understand the feelings of others. Unfortunately, I am both a successor and failure on anything, including one at the same time.
Other personal parts I must keep to myself, such as my sexuality, until I make a successful unblock request and I have a need to talk about myself.
I may add free images in Commons; I will not be able to add non-free fair use images during any block. However, I may contact We hope in Commons about adding free images to any articles in the future.
True, I somewhat understand WP:IAV, but is it also a "key NOT to ignore ANY rules when tagging images for deletion", according to Elen of the Roads? At Simple Wikipedia, I'm sure that I must discuss first about anything. There is no need to overtag anything, but I see problems in articles.
I have understood proper ways to rationalize a nomination for deletion and which non-notable topics to delete. Personal attacks against an editor is not a way, using a current revision as a reason is not a way, and pointlessly attempting to change the consensus is not a way.
I stand by my decision, and I will learn how to write "simple" and "basic". However, feel free to mentor or reply me whenever you can. --
Gh87 (
talk) 02:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Must apologize; I have accidentally used my old yet active account to add this comment. It was never intended to evade block policy EVER! Is there a way to delete "Gh87"? I have struck my signature just in case. --
George Ho (
talk) 02:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Explanation: I have logged in globally in Simple Wikipedia to change my username there, and I have accidentally used "Gh87". If deleting a username is impossible, then it should be either a "doppleganger" or an "alternative" account, so I must know which one. It is never intended to be used as a "sockpuppet"; believe me! --
George Ho (
talk) 02:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
"Gh87" must be blocked from editing English Wikipedia, so no one, including me, will use it for any purpose, intentional or not. Previously, I must have used it accidentally. However, this username still exists in other projects; I have a right to change my username. -- George Ho ( talk) 03:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
{{
adminhelp}}
). I'm going to be offline, now - but I'll check back here as soon as I can.
Begoon
talkHi George. No worries in this case as all you did was edit the George Ho userpage, which you are allowed to do while blocked. I can block the Gh87 account here. What you could do is ask at Meta (I see you've asked at Simple - that's OK too) to have the account globally renamed to George Ho, although I guess there might already be editors with that name on some projects.-- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 09:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
George - as well as answering my questions above (I've labelled them as [a] and [b] because this page is getting a bit unwieldy and confusing) about whether you want to go ahead with a "mentorship" arrangement, and any thoughts the quote on my user page inspires, I had another idea for something you might like to try.
I noticed that you started editing at Simple, and that one of those edits added a "needs more sources" tag. You probably realise that adding that tag places the article in this category: Simple Category - Articles needing additional references.
There are 243 articles in that category as I write this. Why not pick one or a couple of them and search for and add some references, maybe even enough that you can remove a tag or two? (in the case of articles at Simple, sometimes this task can even be made easier if there is already a well referenced article here at WP - obviously you can't use the article here as a reference, but it would probably help show where to find some good sources)
No problem if you don't feel up to doing that right now - it's just a suggestion for something you could look at - or we could just talk about that idea first, if you prefer.
Just to share a little bit of my philosophy with you, I see it a bit like this:
I won't be around now until tomorrow - so I'll pop back here then. Begoon talk 10:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I could no longer have interest on Simple English; no matter what size, I must type simple words.
Instead, I have decided to be mentored here, although I just care too much about deleting stuff, whether educational or not. When I looked at File:Logans world.JPG, I realize: keeping bad history is better than removing, right? No matter what intentions, I will, unless it is of Dr. Blofeld, tag anything for deletion if anything in description is missing. Even I must either tag my own files for deletion or edit their descriptions.
If I can't tag any article for maintenance needs, then I must discuss an article's flaws in WikiProjects or talk pages, correct? Moreover, maybe I must remove "Notability" tag from The Matrix Online because I found sources in Google Books.
Regarding notability, I must discuss a topic first before AfD, correct? Otherwise, I will tag anything for AfD.
Regarding non-free images, if I find an invalid or bad rationale, do I have to correct their mistakes, tag them for deletion, or something else?
Is there anything flawed with Dark Kingdom, article of fictional villian clan of Sailor Moon, or, I must have tag-bombed? I will remove some needs that have been resolved already if I see one; I will add more, however, such as {{ all plot}}. -- George Ho ( talk) 05:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
If this is the case, what are the main points I may discuss first? If I can't discuss my future plans on Wikipedia, then I must discuss something, such as understanding Five pillars. I don't know which ones are valuable, but replies to me are much more valuable than my OPs, so I stroke them out, regardless of valuability. -- George Ho ( talk) 06:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok - I decided that to try and map out the "whole" process to an exact degree was going to be too long and probably need too many amendments as we progress, so, instead, I've mapped out the steps up to requesting unblock in detail, and the subsequent sections we would develop as we progress.
Because it will not just be me and you who look at this, it will need to be kept clear and neat for other users, particularly unblocking admins. We are not just creating this record for ourselves, but so that, hopefully, anyone can come along and quickly see how this whole process is going - so we should follow the following "rules":
I hope this seems like a reasonable plan to you, and now I just need your thoughts and comments on all of it. Begoon talk 04:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi George. I haven't got a lot of time today, very busy in "Real Life" but I have noticed you've commented in the discussion section. I'll have a look again tomorrow, and post some comments in the various sections then. Begoon talk 07:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I would have preferred to start this on its own subpage in your User space, but I think this is the only page you can post to, so we'll start here, and once we get as far as getting you unblocked, we can move it and tidy up.
In the long run, this will become a "mentorship record" page.
This section can also briefly explore if there are any other ways to achieve your aims here.
More plans later then... -- George Ho ( talk) 10:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Prior to the "shopping list" that I would make if unblocked, my future edits would be contacting a mentor, like you, and adding a proper request to be unblocked. This is your logic that I am logicizing, correct? -- George Ho ( talk) 09:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Then, if this is your logic, I must keep an eye on all articles, interesting or not, because they are very messy and neglected. Descriptions of non-free files of living people, such as actors who portray fictional characters, should be changed to reflect the policies of WP:BLP and "fair use"; they are very messy, and each one may take a long or short while to be edited substantially. For example, an image of Ted Danson is used in Sam Malone, but there is no mention about using image of a living person. I hope this is not a waste of time or a confusing post. -- George Ho ( talk) 01:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I must apologize for letting you down, all right? I just assumed that I don't have to answer my interests, do I? If I misunderstood the questions, then I may have failed to answer them. However, my interests are notabilities of subjects, topics related to homosexuality and people, quality of articles, and cleaning vandalism or unconstructive edits. I don't have to explain the reasons, do I? -- George Ho ( talk) 02:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
In this case, I may first discuss American soap operas. I used to watch Passions, but I stopped watching it because it is a bad soap opera that went worse. Then I tried other soap operas, but I end up liking the older storylines, including that involved Erica Kane. In general, anything that relates to soap operas should be limited to topics of notable soap opera fictional characters (in only all together third-party, independent, and primary sources) and soap operas. The rest should be deleted because of lack of notability and of bad quality of articles; the creators are using Wikipedia as a substitute of soap opera dedications. -- George Ho ( talk) 06:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Oops... I must clarify: I should have said "bad quality of articles". Really, articles of non-notable entities of soap operas that violate WP:PLOT and WP:GNG and that have never improved for years. However, I may have been advised not to use AfD as a "cleanup". -- George Ho ( talk) 12:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Begoon talk 02:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
All right. On topic, I am certain: I don't have communication issues here, unless I must tell the difference between "slander/libel" and Dr. Blofeld's posts posed as "advices". If people here were not "scolding" me for not understanding words or metaphors, then what were their logics? Also: "Just to leave it languishing, with no follow up would be to fail in this responsibility." Do you mean: if article is tagged, and no improvements were made, and it is tagged for "deletion", I may be irresponsible? -- George Ho ( talk) 08:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Which "first part"? I stroke some of the OP, and I have no plans to rephrase it. The italic sentences were your suggestions, correct? What happened to suggestions about discussing images? Speaking of images, anything not uploaded by Dr. Blofeld is easier for me to check for copyright statuses. Simply, if one image tagged as "free" is found to be non-free, then I may add a deletion tag for one issue.
However, some issues of one image, such as of File:Joan Caulfield Sept 1941.jpg, were not easy to determine, such as permission and copyright status of this photo. Therefore, I asked someone in Commons:Help desk rather than planned to tag a deletion proposal for one issue. -- George Ho ( talk) 09:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh... "[I] need slow down and listen," correct? I don't know what communication issue I have, but at least "[I] have done some very good image work." Speaking of image work, can anyone clarify? Regarding communication issue, specific clarifications are best recommended to me. I may have trouble with general questions, don't I? -- George Ho ( talk) 13:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm inclined to suggest that, other than [i] Image tagging/licensing/deletion and [ii] Article improvement tagging/Article deletion tagging - most other areas should be far less problematic. I'll write something simple up later today, along the lines of:
If George, or anyone else has any comments on this, I can incorporate any amendments when I write this up, if the comments are posted here. Begoon talk 03:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
In other words, you mean: "[speedy deletion tags] need to be [first] approved by the mentor" or "ask mentor first before tagging for speedy deletion"? Can you elaborate "initial restrictions" please? -- George Ho ( talk) 14:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Hell, yes! I will accept and have accepted your suggestions, Magog. It is easier than Begoon's. If no one objects, then I may request an unblock with Magog's idea. Too many non-notable fictional characters of soap operas are ruining the reputation of Wikipedia. However, I may ask WP:Notability/Noticeboard if I'm not very certain about notability of anything. Also, too many revivals of needless articles by sockpuppets and editors that may meet WP:criteria for speedy deletion. -- George Ho ( talk) 00:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Elen of the Roads ( talk) 00:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm compelled to agree with all of you. Article of Peter Scolari needs some cleanup by me; I barely have energy to be interested with the topic to add anything other than tags. For considerations, if talk pages are either obscure or non-existant, then I must use WikiProjects then. Can I do the "unblock request" right now? -- George Ho ( talk) 02:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to take so long - George, as I see it, these are the new unblock terms (unless anyone sees an error or something I've overlooked):
Begoon talk 23:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
George, that's not what the restrictions say. Begoon has typed them out, right above your unblock request. Just explain them to me in your own words and I'll unblock you. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you George. Sounds good to me. By the way thank you and Begoon for adding me to your mentor list. I will be glad to help. Best wishes and Season's Greetings. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 23:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
George - just a quick note - the option of a WP:ANI discussion is to give you reassurance that, in the unlikely situation that none of the mentors were available, you would still have "somewhere to go" with your concerns. Because there are now 6 users in the mentors list, I would hope that this is a very unlikely situation - and that mentors will be available to respond. All of the mentors would have User talk:George Ho/Mentorship discussions watchlisted. The idea is that, if you post a request for discussion, and after, say, a couple of days, no mentors have responded, you could take the conversation to WP:ANI. However, it's always going to be best to let mentors handle discussions if possible, because they have understanding of the particular situation. I'm not sure what you mean about "if the deadline expires"? Begoon talk 00:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
You are using this template in the wrong namespace. Use this template on your talk page instead.
Moved to User talk:George Ho. -- George Ho ( talk) 22:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
{{
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)You are using this template in the wrong namespace. Use this template on your talk page instead.
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":
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)
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:- [1] - 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. [2] - 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 [3] - why does that citation need verification? Because you're trying to get the article deleted? [4] - refactoring another of Blofeld's posts (again minor, but read WP:REFACTOR [5] - no, spanish sources don't need to be verified unless you are accusing the person who listed it of something shady [6] - pointy AFD [7] - pointy AFD [8] - ANI report that Dr Blofeld is libelling and slandering you. Do you actually know what those words mean? [9] - adding that template without following the instructions only makes work for someone else. [10] - 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
To those who should me about anything, just comment here. This includes you, We hope. -- George Ho ( talk) 03:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Look, I'm wrong about my "bad faith" nomination of this article, and I must admit my mistakes of using AfD as a tool to personally attack Dr. Blofeld. Just please withdraw my nomination as soon as possible. Thank you! --
George Ho (
talk) 02:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
You are using this template in the wrong namespace. Use this template on your talk page instead.
As for
postdlf, he means well. However, he perceives them as 'unconstructive' because everybody else is improving articles a lot and because numerous deletion tagging is considered to him 'bad for Wikipedia'. To me, I have reasons to nominate things for deletion, and I do not have to search for sources, do I? No one knows soap operas nowadays, and no news have covered them recently, unless they either have been or will be cancelled. I don't have to present his email replies to me, do I? Also, other proxies of the same person have been blocked indefinitely, especially when the same person contacted
Moonriddengirl. --
George Ho (
talk) 02:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Then how can anyone explain deletions of
Barbara Montgomery (character),
Lily Montgomery,
Asher Pike, and
WP:Articles for deletion/Mason Capwell per AfDs? Are two views in
Articles for deletion/Comparison of CECB units valid to have an article deleted? Is there something wrong with my views? --
George Ho (
talk) 08:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
People, like him or her (the IP open proxies), have trouble with my edits because I have been very impatient with atrocities of bad article qualities and articles of non-notable subjects. Nothing or nobody or not a block can persuade me to improve articles, unless I have proper rationales to do it. I mean, I never meant to put
WikiProject Soap Operas under stress; I just am doing things on the behalf of common people, like me, who have become too unenthusiastic or too apathetic to care about American soap operas and their entities nowadays. --
George Ho (
talk) 09:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I am interested in the 1980s storylines of Days of our Lives and All My Children. The rest: I'm more concerned about growing number of articles of fictional characters of the 1980s (such as "
Donna Beck" which was an article but moved per AfD but deleted as a redirect page of non-existing article), including those that violate copyrights, such as "
Mark Dalton (All My Children)". How can you explain the deletion of
List of All My Children miscellaneous characters and
Minor Characters of All My Children? The
WP:MENTOR you gave me is an essay, not a policy; do I have to follow essays? By the way, you have always used an IP address; this is getting me suspicious about you. --
George Ho (
talk) 19:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh... I must apologize for my behavior. I'm too paranoid and too inexcusable about IP addresses. Look, I did not imply "not listening to you". Since you don't want to use your username, do whatever you like. I have had enough of IP users nowadays. I would prefer usernames, but you prove yourself to be harmless. Look, I will listen, but I will listen well if points have been broken into paragraphs. -- George Ho ( talk) 20:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I still don't understand the benefits of discussing with people other than possibilities of giving up plans to nominate articles for AfD and of avoiding "tag-bombing". Speaking of "tag-bombing", what are "tag-bombing" and examples of it?
I won't accuse Dr. Blofeld for slander or libel again until I will understand them. Right now, I'm learning still to understand the meanings of libel and slander. When you mention his attacks on me, what kinds of attacks, and why do you think he attacked me in one way?
Thank you for the URAA stuff. I totally understand the automation of copyright restoration of registered eligible pre-1996 works that were first published abroad.
Can you clarify the "slow down" comment please? I don't know how to "slow down" and how long I can. What "some humility" did you mean?
Maybe I have not been aware of my "non-apology apology" if I did that. Can anybody give me examples of my own non-apology apologies if I did one? If I did one, I will not do it again.
I don't know what apology to give, but I must admit my faults (or apologize) for destroying the efforts that Dr. Blofeld made, regardless of copyright statuses. I must admit my faults for hounding his files and articles like a hound dog. I must admit my ignorance of Argentine heritages. I must admit my lack of decency to give him good faith and to be open to him about anything. What other humilities I must have missed?
Since now, I will never tag his articles or files again without permission. Regarding others' articles and files, can I still tag them? If not, I must discuss them in talk pages of articles and/or of related WikiProjects
Regarding "tag-bombing" on articles of villians of Sailor Moon and The Matrix Online, I'm not at fault for that, am I? If so, then why should I admit fault about it? Actually, I tagged them because... why did I tag them? Was I a disinterested editor who loves tagging them for fun? Did articles not satisfy me? Am I a loner and anti-social yet inexcusable for my unreasonable actions? Am I interested at these topics? Did I miss the point of their notabilities?
Speaking of notabilities, The Matrix Online does meet
WP:GNG, but is its article beneficial to be existed? Does it deserve its own article? Back then it did; now there should be sources rather than citations for gameplay of it if the article should survive. Does meeting
WP:GNG benefit either the existance of the stand-alone article for the same topic (e.g.
Homer Simpson and
Erica Kane) or the secondary information in related general articles (e.g.
List of All My Children)? --
George Ho (
talk) 05:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
George Ho - blocked users can edit their talkpage only for the purpose of requesting unblock. To request unblock, you need to consider the advice you have been given. You must not ask other people to proxy for you, you must not conduct random discussions about whether something is a policy or a guideline. Go and read all the links in the welcome template someone left at the top of the page, and come back with some understanding of what this project is about.
If you continue to post randomness and requests for proxy edits, you run the risk of having your talkpage access revoked. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 21:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't see my current messages as either random or requests for proxy edits, aside from the ones I already stroke out. They all look fine to me: my suspicions on the IP editor starting with a two hundred twenty-something and promises to discuss articles with WikiProject members. --
George Ho (
talk) 22:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
How did I "molest templates", "misuse tags", "fail to read policies", and "generally barge about the place tripping over the furniture"? Yes, I have misunderstood people's messages and failed to open discuss it sometimes. I just tagged articles, such as
The Matrix Online and fictional topics that relate to Sailor Moon franchise, with maintenance needs because their topics' notabilities are under question. --
George Ho (
talk) 00:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
"Tag-bombing"? I just need to know policies about it; is it necessary to give me essays, such as WP:AADD and its WP:IDONTLIKEIT?
Regarding my actions on Matrix Online, I did what I can because the game has been shut down and because the gameplay may be supposedly unnecessary and because the news covered only the game's premiere and its end. Reception may be useful but may not help the article strengthen the quality. I have not been planning to nominate it with AfD; instead, I was going to propose a merger with
The Matrix (franchise). Also, too much fiction yet somewhat useful enough to be merged into another article. Isn't that "tag-bombing"?
Regarding my actions on Sailor Moon characters, their notabilities are anybody's concerns, including mine, because there were no receptions about them yet and because periodicals about them have not been found yet. There were too many plot elements and too few realities.
I tagged List of The Price Is Right pricing games with "Notability" needs because periodicals and third-party publications have not covered them at all except Plinko. -- George Ho ( talk) 01:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh... I did not realize WP:Notability/Noticeboard at all; I have always overlooked it, and, if I've unknowingly "tag-bombed", this does not excuse my "tag-bombing" if these "Multiple issues" qualify. If you want me not to tag articles with {{ notability}}, the noticeboard is the best start to go, correct? -- George Ho ( talk) 03:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
George,
When you go to the supermarket, you don't yell at the other shoppers because they don't buy the same items as you do, do you? And you don't yell at the store's manager because the store carries other items than those you use, do you? :-) Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and choice--that also applies here. What may not be important to one person is very important to someone else--it all depends on one's interests.
Try talking to the other editors here like you do to your neighbors--because that's basically what they are.
And now try working on a plan you can post here for all of us to see re: what you will do better when you're unblocked. In this way, the admins can have a look at it and tell you if you're on the right track or if what you're suggesting still needs some work. We hope ( talk) 01:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
In other words, the
Consensus may discuss changing
Five pillars in talk page prior to actually editing it, correct? In first pillar, under policy, Wikipedia is not anything other than an online encyclopedia. Some articles have disobeyed the second pillar; have I disobeyed the second pillar in any way? What's the point of the third pillar (free content) if re-using content requires permission, especially for third-party sites such as Monsters and Critics? Have I disobeyed the fourth pillar in the past, aside from my conflicts with
Dr. Blofeld? Have I disobeyed or abused the fifth pillar, "ignore all rules"? --
George Ho (
talk) 03:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Why am I blocked from editing English Wikipedia, not other Wiki sites, such as Commons Wikimedia? Isn't editing there while being blocked an evasion of block policy? -- George Ho ( talk) 21:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
From
221.6.29.66:
No, I am not Dane97 and I pointed out why above. You just don't listen, at all. Here you are trying to deflect attention on me, completely ignoring that you were wrong in your editing. The fact that you were wrong is exactly why you are blocked now. Because you are blocked for similar reasons. You say that I canvassed against you, but I say that my complaints were valid. Your block, where others are saying pretty much the same thing I said, shows they were valid. Raintheone didn't have much of a problem with me, and, despite whatever happened between Raintheone and myself, Raintheone agreed that you were making some pretty silly edits. Also, Postdlf knows what he was talking about. Every soap opera character is documented in "soap opera periodicals," and more than a few of the soap opera characters on Wikipedia are notable. It just takes the right person to demonstrate that notability; you clearly are not that person. And saying "No one knows soap operas nowadays" is not only an untruth, even with your having meant "hardly anyone," but an opinion as well. You need to do like another editor said below and learn some humility.
As for "How [do I] speak English very well?" (not that some people aren't fluent in both languages), that's because I am American and am using a proxy. See WP:PROXY. I thought you'd known by now that the only reason I keep getting blocked is because I prefer to use a proxy instead of reveal my true IP identity.
All right, you got your point, and I don't. My abstract of your point: everybody wins, and I lose; everybody improves of Wikipedia, and I destroy of Wikipedia; everybody talks rationally, and I whine like an angry politician or a disturbing anti-social; everybody thinks rationally, and I mindlessly witch-hunt.
I even can't report you because I'm still blocked from reporting open proxies. I haven't taken your advices or anyone else's because... I couldn't trust you and because I depend on reputations of anybody to know whom I can eventually trust. I couldn't trust or listen to you as the same person with open proxies until you admitted that you are not Dane97. I may have right to be concerned about you, yet I... Did I make myself worse toward you and others who are intersted with soap operas? If copyrights-related, then I am not solely responsible for these infringements; I just reported them to
WP:Copyright problems. Wait, I remember... some person accused SoapCentral.com for infringing Wikipedia articles; was it you?
Anyway, I still continue because I have participate other people's AfD and found similar arguments. I have misunderstood how AfD works, haven't I? If I did, then how can anybody explain my following AFDs:
WP:Articles for deletion/Barbara Montgomery (character),
WP:Articles for deletion/Comparison of CECB units, and
WP:Articles for deletion/Samuel Woods (All My Children)? What about my arguments in others', such as
WP:Articles for deletion/Lily Montgomery and
WP:Articles for deletion/Aubrey Wentworth? I will not admit my fault on them until I must know what are wrongs with these of my arguments; I still don't know what the flaws of my arguments are.
However, I must admit my faults for using my AfDs to speak ill against people, such as Dr. Blofeld. It was inexcusable, and I couldn't find any other excuse to make up for it. I won't beg his forgiveness, as I swear. I won't beg his clarifications and understandings of my actions either. I must have inadvertently hurted myself, including my own reputation. If it is damaged, then I don't know how to repair my own reputation. Shall I replace it like a new vase, or what else shall I do?
I hope: this section is not a random or request, isn't it? -- George Ho ( talk) 06:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I have gone as far as I could, but would this affect my unblock request? -- George Ho ( talk) 02:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Wikipedia is intended to educate everybody a lot of topics that are not familiar to such people, regardless of notability, such as The Matrix and the universe of Sailor Moon and soap operas. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that is unlike other online encyclopedias: free to edit (with limitations) by anyone. Wikipedia is not anything that is not an online encyclopedia. For example: it is not a paper encyclopedia, an indiscriminate collection of information, under criteria of censorship which is forbidden under policy, and a battleground. Over the years, numbers of articles have grown to millions of articles in every Wiki sites to brighten the minds of everyone and to preserve history online.
However currently, notability status of some topics are still considered; as recommended, if possible but not certain that one topic is non-notable, discussions about such topics must come first before any other action toward topics. Civility and respect toward others must come first before any other attitude toward others.
Wikipedia is intended to educate people from a neutral point of view. Possibility of any other point of view present in one article must be discussed first if certainty is not definite.
Editing policies and guidelines and essays is free. However, normally accepted policies and guidelines must be followed, and normally accepted essays are intended to influence those who intend to improve Wikipedia and its articles. Conflicts with them must be discussed first, and finishing a discussion must come next before any other action.
I may have reasons to tag articles, whether you call it "tag-bombing" or not. Unfortunately, I have seemingly never "grasped" the logics and explanations from people, and essays may not be positive about "tag-bombing", so I must decline to explain my reasons, unless "tag-bombing" is proven to be excusable.
I mean, I am too ashamed about my English skills at the standards of good and featured articles, so I wanted others to accomplish rather than I. They are very good writers; I made articles, such as
O Fantasma and early versions of
The Lake House, and my skills were superseded by others'. Still, it does not excuse my block.
Honestly, I would have been more of a reader than a writer; too bad I am considered a "tag-bomber" without policies or guidelines about it. Still, I contribute a lot without tagging. Every vandalism by disruptive editors on any article has been and must be cleaned by me. I will include citations if I am interested. Otherwise, I tag articles because tagging articles sends readers who do not edit at all a moral about relying or not relying on Wikipedia a lot.
At least I merged
List of Peter Gunn episodes into
Peter Gunn because the former list has no summaries or reliable references whatsoever. Are there objections to my edits?
To Magog: I don't grasp explanations without simple logics. What's the point of admitting "tag-bombing", and what do you mean "bigger picture"? --
George Ho (
talk) 00:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
To We hope: Hmm... good analysis. I may have known but denied what you analyzed and never properly explained my "tag-bombing". My worries do not excuse rationale of my block; however, I worry about others' interests and lack of interests, and I worry about readers more than editors. That's it: I have depended on readers' dependance on Wikipedia. I always care more about readers who do not edit at all because they believe in Wikipedia's words about topics. As a reader, I always believed in everything until I realize the flaws and inaccuracies. I mean, what if readers believe in inaccuracies? --
George Ho (
talk) 00:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
My ethnicity is Asian (possibly Caucasian-mixed, but still Asian), but I fluently speak English. I don't speak Chinese very well. How are my nominating for deletion and tagging disruptive?
Speaking of disruptive, while I was blocked, I did not save File:ILoveLucyTitleScreen.jpg, the I Love Lucy screenshot, which I tagged with {{ di-replaceable fair use}}. Now I have regretted not adjusting the rationale information. I should have made changes before I was blocked. I hope this is the first step to admitting that my tagging to that image is disruptive, isn't it?
At least I'm totally "moved" by the second part: not responsible for people's choices about Wikipedia. However, if I made edits to such parts, then I would be partially responsible. -- George Ho ( talk) 20:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Some editor has removed my tagging as
TAGBOMBing. I don't get it. If I see problems with this list, then why can't others? Either I'm a tagbomber, or someone is not admitting the problems with this page. Are these characters notable to everyone else besides Sailor Moon fans? I could not see hints of notability. I have checked the references; they are of books, episodes, and fansites. This page has intricate details that may interest those who want to be spoiled. The real-world perspective is absent. If my concerns are invalid, then I think that community may be right about me. I think I have problems with my own inabilities to improve Wikipedia, unless this is proven wrong. --
George Ho (
talk) 00:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
A good site for references on soap characters and actors is soapcentral.com. For example, for an article on Eric Brady, you could look at http://soapcentral.com/days/whoswho/eric.php. The Mark of the Beast ( talk) 01:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
George, to help an administrator assess the status of your unblock request, I suggest you answer these questions as briefly as possible (yes or no would be best). Please try to avoid getting bogged down in specific articles or editors, your general attitude and understanding are what matters.
I think that pretty much covers it. 81.107.26.167 ( talk) 12:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
-- 81.107.26.167 ( talk) 13:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Long list of questions, but, if unblocked, I must archive these posts into a separate page and add link, so I will look over and then be true to my oath. -- George Ho ( talk) 20:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello
George, you probably don't even remember me, but our paths crossed way back when I got upset with you for tag-bombing (and by that I mean adding lots of poorly thought out and unexplained tags to an article without making any improvements/suggestions yourself) to a Benny Hill article, of all things... (here's a little link, in case your memory is as bad as mine.)
I remember at the time thinking what a good editor you could be if you only got the confidence to edit and improve articles instead of just tagging and criticising.
You've devoted many hundreds of hours in what I firmly believe to be good faith to Wikipedia, and it's tragic that you are in this situation.
I remember how well you handled our interaction after the initial "spat", and if you remember that too, maybe you might think back to other times when you were "shocked out of your groove" and did something positive.
You can be a great contributor here - but that's what you need to do. Contribute.
I'd like to think that you'll use this time to re-evaluate what you want to do here, and channel the enormous energy you have for this site to the "positive" instead of the "negative".
Things that are "wrong" in Wikipedia will get fixed even if you don't do it - so why not try a bit of article writing or improvement for a while.
If you don't know how to make that change - ask here - I predict that you'll be pleasantly surprised by the number of your fellow editors who'd love to help you do that.
I also predict that you'll be a lot happier with the site, and much prouder of your own contributions if you can get over the initial "fear" of taking that leap.
Wikipedia needs people with your dedication and enthusiasm, and to lose you would be a damn shame. Please think it all through.
Whatever you decide - be well, and be happy. Begoon talk 14:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
George, I saw this edit: [27].
That makes me somewhat sad, because I don't think it's probably your best option.
Sure, it lets you edit again (on other projects) straight away, and I understand that right now that's important to you. It's also possible that if you do contribute well elsewhere, you could use that in a few months as part of a rationale for an unblock here. So it could work out for you.
What I think is far more likely, though, is that, because you don't seem to have fully understood what the problems were that led to this block, you'll repeat the same kind of edits elsewhere, and run into the same brick wall. All it will do is postpone the need to look at what went wrong.
Here's what I think is a better idea:
I've had a conversation with Elen of the Roads, here: User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads#A_non-typical_decline_of_your_block - and I think you should read it.
If you're willing to accept my help, I'm offering you my services as a mentor, to try and help you understand what the problems were that brought all this about.
I need to be clear though - I'm willing to put the effort into helping you - you would need to be receptive to that help for all this to work out.
Initially, you'd need to run all your edits past me (as mentor) before making them, and that would be a stated editing restriction - in the terms of your unblock. I can then help you to assess if you are proposing good, productive edits, or repeats of the problems. You will, no doubt, feel very inhibited by that condition - but the reality is that you need to be seen by others to be making an effort to adjust your approach in the problem areas, or an unblock won't last long. Once the picture becomes clearer, the editing restrictions can be relaxed in certain areas, then, eventually, removed, provided things go to plan. How quickly that happens would depend on you.
You can drop a note here if you want to discuss this offer - and that's what it is - an offer.
The choice is yours to make, but people are willing to help you, because losing enthusiastic long term contributors like you is a very bad thing. Begoon talk 01:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
George,
Please read what Begoon has written and get back into editing by agreeing, We hope ( talk) 01:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC) |
I have to confess: I have suffered autism (or, under psychologist's words: "moderate autism" or "part of psychological disorder"), and I have done greater harm yet greater good, regardless of quantity. Even my diagnosis is irrelevant to my behavior toward people, such as Dr. Blofeld. I have misused words, such as "libel" and "slander". I did not want to admit my shame of my behavior because I haven't known what elso to do if I have not confessed part of myself.
I have struggled to understand the basic logics of anything, and I have struggled to learn complex things. I have struggled to understand the feelings of others. Unfortunately, I am both a successor and failure on anything, including one at the same time.
Other personal parts I must keep to myself, such as my sexuality, until I make a successful unblock request and I have a need to talk about myself.
I may add free images in Commons; I will not be able to add non-free fair use images during any block. However, I may contact We hope in Commons about adding free images to any articles in the future.
True, I somewhat understand WP:IAV, but is it also a "key NOT to ignore ANY rules when tagging images for deletion", according to Elen of the Roads? At Simple Wikipedia, I'm sure that I must discuss first about anything. There is no need to overtag anything, but I see problems in articles.
I have understood proper ways to rationalize a nomination for deletion and which non-notable topics to delete. Personal attacks against an editor is not a way, using a current revision as a reason is not a way, and pointlessly attempting to change the consensus is not a way.
I stand by my decision, and I will learn how to write "simple" and "basic". However, feel free to mentor or reply me whenever you can. --
Gh87 (
talk) 02:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Must apologize; I have accidentally used my old yet active account to add this comment. It was never intended to evade block policy EVER! Is there a way to delete "Gh87"? I have struck my signature just in case. --
George Ho (
talk) 02:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Explanation: I have logged in globally in Simple Wikipedia to change my username there, and I have accidentally used "Gh87". If deleting a username is impossible, then it should be either a "doppleganger" or an "alternative" account, so I must know which one. It is never intended to be used as a "sockpuppet"; believe me! --
George Ho (
talk) 02:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
"Gh87" must be blocked from editing English Wikipedia, so no one, including me, will use it for any purpose, intentional or not. Previously, I must have used it accidentally. However, this username still exists in other projects; I have a right to change my username. -- George Ho ( talk) 03:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
{{
adminhelp}}
). I'm going to be offline, now - but I'll check back here as soon as I can.
Begoon
talkHi George. No worries in this case as all you did was edit the George Ho userpage, which you are allowed to do while blocked. I can block the Gh87 account here. What you could do is ask at Meta (I see you've asked at Simple - that's OK too) to have the account globally renamed to George Ho, although I guess there might already be editors with that name on some projects.-- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 09:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
George - as well as answering my questions above (I've labelled them as [a] and [b] because this page is getting a bit unwieldy and confusing) about whether you want to go ahead with a "mentorship" arrangement, and any thoughts the quote on my user page inspires, I had another idea for something you might like to try.
I noticed that you started editing at Simple, and that one of those edits added a "needs more sources" tag. You probably realise that adding that tag places the article in this category: Simple Category - Articles needing additional references.
There are 243 articles in that category as I write this. Why not pick one or a couple of them and search for and add some references, maybe even enough that you can remove a tag or two? (in the case of articles at Simple, sometimes this task can even be made easier if there is already a well referenced article here at WP - obviously you can't use the article here as a reference, but it would probably help show where to find some good sources)
No problem if you don't feel up to doing that right now - it's just a suggestion for something you could look at - or we could just talk about that idea first, if you prefer.
Just to share a little bit of my philosophy with you, I see it a bit like this:
I won't be around now until tomorrow - so I'll pop back here then. Begoon talk 10:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I could no longer have interest on Simple English; no matter what size, I must type simple words.
Instead, I have decided to be mentored here, although I just care too much about deleting stuff, whether educational or not. When I looked at File:Logans world.JPG, I realize: keeping bad history is better than removing, right? No matter what intentions, I will, unless it is of Dr. Blofeld, tag anything for deletion if anything in description is missing. Even I must either tag my own files for deletion or edit their descriptions.
If I can't tag any article for maintenance needs, then I must discuss an article's flaws in WikiProjects or talk pages, correct? Moreover, maybe I must remove "Notability" tag from The Matrix Online because I found sources in Google Books.
Regarding notability, I must discuss a topic first before AfD, correct? Otherwise, I will tag anything for AfD.
Regarding non-free images, if I find an invalid or bad rationale, do I have to correct their mistakes, tag them for deletion, or something else?
Is there anything flawed with Dark Kingdom, article of fictional villian clan of Sailor Moon, or, I must have tag-bombed? I will remove some needs that have been resolved already if I see one; I will add more, however, such as {{ all plot}}. -- George Ho ( talk) 05:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
If this is the case, what are the main points I may discuss first? If I can't discuss my future plans on Wikipedia, then I must discuss something, such as understanding Five pillars. I don't know which ones are valuable, but replies to me are much more valuable than my OPs, so I stroke them out, regardless of valuability. -- George Ho ( talk) 06:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok - I decided that to try and map out the "whole" process to an exact degree was going to be too long and probably need too many amendments as we progress, so, instead, I've mapped out the steps up to requesting unblock in detail, and the subsequent sections we would develop as we progress.
Because it will not just be me and you who look at this, it will need to be kept clear and neat for other users, particularly unblocking admins. We are not just creating this record for ourselves, but so that, hopefully, anyone can come along and quickly see how this whole process is going - so we should follow the following "rules":
I hope this seems like a reasonable plan to you, and now I just need your thoughts and comments on all of it. Begoon talk 04:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi George. I haven't got a lot of time today, very busy in "Real Life" but I have noticed you've commented in the discussion section. I'll have a look again tomorrow, and post some comments in the various sections then. Begoon talk 07:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I would have preferred to start this on its own subpage in your User space, but I think this is the only page you can post to, so we'll start here, and once we get as far as getting you unblocked, we can move it and tidy up.
In the long run, this will become a "mentorship record" page.
This section can also briefly explore if there are any other ways to achieve your aims here.
More plans later then... -- George Ho ( talk) 10:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Prior to the "shopping list" that I would make if unblocked, my future edits would be contacting a mentor, like you, and adding a proper request to be unblocked. This is your logic that I am logicizing, correct? -- George Ho ( talk) 09:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Then, if this is your logic, I must keep an eye on all articles, interesting or not, because they are very messy and neglected. Descriptions of non-free files of living people, such as actors who portray fictional characters, should be changed to reflect the policies of WP:BLP and "fair use"; they are very messy, and each one may take a long or short while to be edited substantially. For example, an image of Ted Danson is used in Sam Malone, but there is no mention about using image of a living person. I hope this is not a waste of time or a confusing post. -- George Ho ( talk) 01:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I must apologize for letting you down, all right? I just assumed that I don't have to answer my interests, do I? If I misunderstood the questions, then I may have failed to answer them. However, my interests are notabilities of subjects, topics related to homosexuality and people, quality of articles, and cleaning vandalism or unconstructive edits. I don't have to explain the reasons, do I? -- George Ho ( talk) 02:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
In this case, I may first discuss American soap operas. I used to watch Passions, but I stopped watching it because it is a bad soap opera that went worse. Then I tried other soap operas, but I end up liking the older storylines, including that involved Erica Kane. In general, anything that relates to soap operas should be limited to topics of notable soap opera fictional characters (in only all together third-party, independent, and primary sources) and soap operas. The rest should be deleted because of lack of notability and of bad quality of articles; the creators are using Wikipedia as a substitute of soap opera dedications. -- George Ho ( talk) 06:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Oops... I must clarify: I should have said "bad quality of articles". Really, articles of non-notable entities of soap operas that violate WP:PLOT and WP:GNG and that have never improved for years. However, I may have been advised not to use AfD as a "cleanup". -- George Ho ( talk) 12:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Begoon talk 02:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
All right. On topic, I am certain: I don't have communication issues here, unless I must tell the difference between "slander/libel" and Dr. Blofeld's posts posed as "advices". If people here were not "scolding" me for not understanding words or metaphors, then what were their logics? Also: "Just to leave it languishing, with no follow up would be to fail in this responsibility." Do you mean: if article is tagged, and no improvements were made, and it is tagged for "deletion", I may be irresponsible? -- George Ho ( talk) 08:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Which "first part"? I stroke some of the OP, and I have no plans to rephrase it. The italic sentences were your suggestions, correct? What happened to suggestions about discussing images? Speaking of images, anything not uploaded by Dr. Blofeld is easier for me to check for copyright statuses. Simply, if one image tagged as "free" is found to be non-free, then I may add a deletion tag for one issue.
However, some issues of one image, such as of File:Joan Caulfield Sept 1941.jpg, were not easy to determine, such as permission and copyright status of this photo. Therefore, I asked someone in Commons:Help desk rather than planned to tag a deletion proposal for one issue. -- George Ho ( talk) 09:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh... "[I] need slow down and listen," correct? I don't know what communication issue I have, but at least "[I] have done some very good image work." Speaking of image work, can anyone clarify? Regarding communication issue, specific clarifications are best recommended to me. I may have trouble with general questions, don't I? -- George Ho ( talk) 13:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm inclined to suggest that, other than [i] Image tagging/licensing/deletion and [ii] Article improvement tagging/Article deletion tagging - most other areas should be far less problematic. I'll write something simple up later today, along the lines of:
If George, or anyone else has any comments on this, I can incorporate any amendments when I write this up, if the comments are posted here. Begoon talk 03:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
In other words, you mean: "[speedy deletion tags] need to be [first] approved by the mentor" or "ask mentor first before tagging for speedy deletion"? Can you elaborate "initial restrictions" please? -- George Ho ( talk) 14:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Hell, yes! I will accept and have accepted your suggestions, Magog. It is easier than Begoon's. If no one objects, then I may request an unblock with Magog's idea. Too many non-notable fictional characters of soap operas are ruining the reputation of Wikipedia. However, I may ask WP:Notability/Noticeboard if I'm not very certain about notability of anything. Also, too many revivals of needless articles by sockpuppets and editors that may meet WP:criteria for speedy deletion. -- George Ho ( talk) 00:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Elen of the Roads ( talk) 00:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm compelled to agree with all of you. Article of Peter Scolari needs some cleanup by me; I barely have energy to be interested with the topic to add anything other than tags. For considerations, if talk pages are either obscure or non-existant, then I must use WikiProjects then. Can I do the "unblock request" right now? -- George Ho ( talk) 02:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to take so long - George, as I see it, these are the new unblock terms (unless anyone sees an error or something I've overlooked):
Begoon talk 23:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
George, that's not what the restrictions say. Begoon has typed them out, right above your unblock request. Just explain them to me in your own words and I'll unblock you. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you George. Sounds good to me. By the way thank you and Begoon for adding me to your mentor list. I will be glad to help. Best wishes and Season's Greetings. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 23:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
George - just a quick note - the option of a WP:ANI discussion is to give you reassurance that, in the unlikely situation that none of the mentors were available, you would still have "somewhere to go" with your concerns. Because there are now 6 users in the mentors list, I would hope that this is a very unlikely situation - and that mentors will be available to respond. All of the mentors would have User talk:George Ho/Mentorship discussions watchlisted. The idea is that, if you post a request for discussion, and after, say, a couple of days, no mentors have responded, you could take the conversation to WP:ANI. However, it's always going to be best to let mentors handle discussions if possible, because they have understanding of the particular situation. I'm not sure what you mean about "if the deadline expires"? Begoon talk 00:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
You are using this template in the wrong namespace. Use this template on your talk page instead.
Moved to User talk:George Ho. -- George Ho ( talk) 22:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)