George Ho ( talk · contribs · count) I registered since 2005 or 2006. My involvement on topics in Wikipedia fluctuates, but I've grown into adding/discussing/deleting images and writing about old TV shows lately. George Ho ( talk) 23:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Questions
- What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
- I have contributed to Cheers-related articles, like Sam and Diane, Cheers (season 1), and I Do, Adieu. Also, I have added articles that have 5,000 hits in one day into WP:DYKSTATS, and I've been involved in WP:DYK project. Also, I have done many requests to rename or disambiguate article titles. I'm predominantly proud of creating articles about Cheers because it is an old show and very interesting to write about. Unlike current shows, writing information about old shows has been and should be condense to prove long-term significance and greater educational value. I've been involved in image-related projects, but I've added only images and discussed them whether for deletion or review. I've made other contributions, but you'll see them in other answers.
- Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
- I have been blocked once because I've made unintentionally inaccurate accusations on Dr. Blofeld, and I've been unblocked under condition that I should be mentored. Afterwards, I've done unconstructive things to articles about soap operas and people who love soap operas. I have conflicts with other editors in the past, and people haven't talked to me since. I've been warned and given restrictions. I've made conflicts with some others recently, like TonyTheTiger and JHunterJ, whom I deemed as "fanatic". I tried to make people side with me, but I've let people either turn against me or comment badly about the way I do; see Talk:Cry Me a River and WP:ANI. I've done unconstructive things that caused people to yell at me or to
- What do you want to get out of this editor review? Are you thinking of running for adminship? Would you like feedback on a specific area of your editing? Or would you just like a general review of your edits?
- I don't know if this review would have me blocked again. Mentors listed in my talk page have not been contacting me often, and I'm uncertain that they are watching me. I have figured that I've not done my best in some areas, but at least I'm trying some good. Some people think that I should read articles or research topics before I could either nominate for deletion or request a rename or disambiguation. Sometimes I did; sometimes I didn't. People advise me to follow pillars and official rules, but I'm uncertain. There are too many areas that I've involved in. If my involvement in all areas needs to be reviewed, then each subsection of a review on one area should be created. And, I don't know how to make people be nice or friendly or friends to me. I just want people to give me thumbs up, not down, on the way I do, but I think I've received more downs than ups. I love kind people, but if Wikipedia community is more hostile and fanatic than friendly and nice, how do I transform attitudes into positive?
Reviews
- I've seen you around, George, and know you're a good, dedicated editor. One suggestion I'd make is to try not to get upset if a discussion doesn't seem to go your way; different editors see an issue in different ways, and it's good not to take good-faith disagreements personally. Have fun and all the best, Mini apolis 02:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think you're very wonderful and generous to make an image for my little tiny article Ants in the Plants. That you took it upon yourself to do that made my day! (Even made my week!)
- As far as the comments you've made above, I haven't come across you before but I think it's very hard to feel positive about wikipedia a lot of the time. So just do your own thing, work on areas you're interested in, and don't worry about being liked. The best things come when least expected, like you making that image. It really made me feel good! Just stay away from the hostile and fanatic editors. The encyclopedia isn't worth losing your good feelings. And just really appreciate those who are kind and friendly. There are some who are unfailingly so, and they inspire me to do good. They are so very valuable. (However, I don't always follow my own advice about staying away from the bad, so I especially appreciate the honesty of your comments and I know how you feel.) Good wishes from me to you,
Star767 (
talk)
23:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- I believe your suggesting the Barack Obama speech articles all be combined into one article stretch the boundaries of good faith. People work hard on these articles, and for you to suggest their hard work should just be shortened and shuffled into another article seems callous and arrogant to me. You should not only withdraw your proposed mergers, but you should apologize. These are clearly notable articles. Perhaps a long break from Wikipedia would do you some good. Juneau Mike ( talk) 20:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
George Ho ( talk · contribs · count) I registered since 2005 or 2006. My involvement on topics in Wikipedia fluctuates, but I've grown into adding/discussing/deleting images and writing about old TV shows lately. George Ho ( talk) 23:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Questions
- What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
- I have contributed to Cheers-related articles, like Sam and Diane, Cheers (season 1), and I Do, Adieu. Also, I have added articles that have 5,000 hits in one day into WP:DYKSTATS, and I've been involved in WP:DYK project. Also, I have done many requests to rename or disambiguate article titles. I'm predominantly proud of creating articles about Cheers because it is an old show and very interesting to write about. Unlike current shows, writing information about old shows has been and should be condense to prove long-term significance and greater educational value. I've been involved in image-related projects, but I've added only images and discussed them whether for deletion or review. I've made other contributions, but you'll see them in other answers.
- Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
- I have been blocked once because I've made unintentionally inaccurate accusations on Dr. Blofeld, and I've been unblocked under condition that I should be mentored. Afterwards, I've done unconstructive things to articles about soap operas and people who love soap operas. I have conflicts with other editors in the past, and people haven't talked to me since. I've been warned and given restrictions. I've made conflicts with some others recently, like TonyTheTiger and JHunterJ, whom I deemed as "fanatic". I tried to make people side with me, but I've let people either turn against me or comment badly about the way I do; see Talk:Cry Me a River and WP:ANI. I've done unconstructive things that caused people to yell at me or to
- What do you want to get out of this editor review? Are you thinking of running for adminship? Would you like feedback on a specific area of your editing? Or would you just like a general review of your edits?
- I don't know if this review would have me blocked again. Mentors listed in my talk page have not been contacting me often, and I'm uncertain that they are watching me. I have figured that I've not done my best in some areas, but at least I'm trying some good. Some people think that I should read articles or research topics before I could either nominate for deletion or request a rename or disambiguation. Sometimes I did; sometimes I didn't. People advise me to follow pillars and official rules, but I'm uncertain. There are too many areas that I've involved in. If my involvement in all areas needs to be reviewed, then each subsection of a review on one area should be created. And, I don't know how to make people be nice or friendly or friends to me. I just want people to give me thumbs up, not down, on the way I do, but I think I've received more downs than ups. I love kind people, but if Wikipedia community is more hostile and fanatic than friendly and nice, how do I transform attitudes into positive?
Reviews
- I've seen you around, George, and know you're a good, dedicated editor. One suggestion I'd make is to try not to get upset if a discussion doesn't seem to go your way; different editors see an issue in different ways, and it's good not to take good-faith disagreements personally. Have fun and all the best, Mini apolis 02:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think you're very wonderful and generous to make an image for my little tiny article Ants in the Plants. That you took it upon yourself to do that made my day! (Even made my week!)
- As far as the comments you've made above, I haven't come across you before but I think it's very hard to feel positive about wikipedia a lot of the time. So just do your own thing, work on areas you're interested in, and don't worry about being liked. The best things come when least expected, like you making that image. It really made me feel good! Just stay away from the hostile and fanatic editors. The encyclopedia isn't worth losing your good feelings. And just really appreciate those who are kind and friendly. There are some who are unfailingly so, and they inspire me to do good. They are so very valuable. (However, I don't always follow my own advice about staying away from the bad, so I especially appreciate the honesty of your comments and I know how you feel.) Good wishes from me to you,
Star767 (
talk)
23:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- I believe your suggesting the Barack Obama speech articles all be combined into one article stretch the boundaries of good faith. People work hard on these articles, and for you to suggest their hard work should just be shortened and shuffled into another article seems callous and arrogant to me. You should not only withdraw your proposed mergers, but you should apologize. These are clearly notable articles. Perhaps a long break from Wikipedia would do you some good. Juneau Mike ( talk) 20:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)