User talk:George Ho/Archives/2012/5

"Loving You"

CBS Copyright © 1974 Loving You Thomas J Mitchell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.101.3.64 (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Trolljegeren

Hmm? Could you please elaborate on how or what won't help? -Laniala (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see now, and I agree. I'll try to reformulate myself too :) -Laniala (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

List of Mr. Belvedere episodes discussion

When I initially put together this list four years ago, I was inspired by Gerry A.'s episode guide:

http://www.oocities.org/mrbeaverfalls/guide.html

Notice how he has all the episodes listed in production order? I wanted to do the same thing. Hell, most, if not all Mr. Belvedere airings in syndication, were in production order. Plus, I prefer using that kind of formatting for the episode guide, than the typical table format. I think it makes the list of each episode much more linear, and easier to understand.

Ergo, the only way I think you and I can resolve this dispute is this: To let me keep the formatting, and production order arrangement, and for you to delete any tidbits that you feel may be either too trivial, and/or not enough research.

What do you say to that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vnisanian2001 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 25 April 2012‎ (UTC)

Please discuss more in WP:DRN. Let's not talk here. --George Ho (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hui dab?

Hui (secret society) is dab'd from Hui people, but I messed up when I tried to put one there. Does it need it?

Further information: Haw wars

--Pawyilee (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Your sub-pages

Hi. I'm happy to delete your sub-pages, but they don't need so many tags: for anything in your own user space {{db-user}} (or, even shorter, {{db-u1}}) is sufficient. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

My apologies

George, I know I told you that I would try to look over your drafts this week. Unfortunately, I have several pressing issues with which to deal IRL right now. It may be a while longer before I have the chance to review them, but I promise I'll get to it! Thanks for your patience. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Woody Interruptus

Your edit summary, which stated "per talk with Lemonade51, List of Cheers episodes#ep207. Clearly, even with accolades, this episode's inherent notability and notability itself are not strong enough for a stand-alone article" implied that he agreed with the decision that it should be redirected, when in fact he stated that "I intended to expand the article at the time of creating it but unfortunately never had the time to do so." at User_talk:Lemonade51#Woody_Interruptus. Although he consented, I think he disagreed. He included sources, which it sounds like he intends to incorporate. Basically, I interpret his statement as saying that he believes that the episode has inherent notability. Given its significant awards, it should be a stand-alone article in my eyes. What was your point with the redirect. It is one of the most highly decorated episodes in television.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's talk in Talk:Woody Interruptus, okay? --George Ho (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

TV to-do list

I have moved the season/episode drives and updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/to do.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

 Sweeeeeet!!! --George Ho (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Anchoring names on the list of Price Is Right pricing games

Hi. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by "anchoring" the names of pricing games? Thanks. JTRH (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks for the response. JTRH (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Desperate Women

Desperate Women has been nominated for speedy deletion as an obviously unnecessary disambiguation page, as it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either:

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

See Criteria G6. Senator2029 (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, George Ho. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 18:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Inch by Inch (film)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Friends episodes

Discussed here. So will be reverting. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You are invited.....

As a recent contributor to List of Friends episodes you are invited to a discussion at Talk:List of Friends episodes#Disputed changes, which is discussing recent changes that involve replacement of transclusion with custom tables. Thank you. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Page Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)

• Please see Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen#Queried requests. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for The Boys in the Bar

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, George Ho. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 21:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RTitle

I really didn't want to confuse the issue for The Rambling Man any further so I thought I'd bring this here. At the FLC discussion, there were concerns over bolding the episode titles, so I was going to change "|Title=" in the episode lists to "|AltTitle=" until the template was fixed. This was mainly because The Rambling Man didn't seem to want to wait for the template changes and was using non-compliance with MOS:BOLD as a reason not to use the template. However, when I looked at the versions of the article using the custom tables that were acceptable to those at the FLC,[1][2] none of the episode titles were inside quotes, so I decided to use "|RTitle=" instead, naturally assuming that's what was preferred. Matthewedwards then said the titles had to be in quotes,[3] and I explained why I hadn't done so here. This is the diff that The Rambling Man provided on the episode list's talk page. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You can explain in WP:DRN#Friends episodes; that is for the administrator to decide. I have done explaining all I can. I'm too exhausted and tired to discuss this. By the way, I appreciate this, but I wonder if same thing should go to List of The O.C. episodes. --George Ho (talk) 06:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Doctor Zhivago

George, I have no problem reopening and relisting RMs when the nominator or anyone else asks me too. But, I do hesitate to weigh-in with any interim rationale other than the request for doing so. The assumption for relisting always is the thought that further discussion may change to current level of consensus or lack thereof, although it rarely does. I also refrain from reclosing any RM that I reopen. Another admin will have to evaluate this one. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

George, no offense, but I find RMs based on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to be essentially disfunctional because Primary Topic in my view is a flawed guideline that causes noting but tension in the community and does little to improve the encyclopedia. First it is based on the idea that a single editor, selectively interpreting pages views, ghits, etc. can divine what millions (100s of millions) of readers are thinking. Second, absent any solid empirical methodology for definitively determining the mythical primary topic, any answer can be defended and every oppose or support is correct in some fashion. I don't weighin on Primary Topic based RMs. I only close them based on the local consensus in the discussion. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, George Ho. You have new messages at M4gnum0n's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WP:RFPP

Please familiarise yourself with page protection best practices before making further requests at WP:RFPP. I've declined all three of your requests today. Protection is usually not used pre-emptively, and talkpages are only protected in exceptional circumstances (and these do not include a perceived lack of usefulness in commentary or random suspicions of sockpuppetry for which you have no proof); additionally, protection should never be used to "encourage" an IP editor to register—they have every right to edit without an account. Maxim_(talk) 19:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: File:Jack Lord Hawaii Five-O title 220px.png

In your message on my talk page, you asked: "What must this image be?" I don't understand the question. — Quicksilver^{T @} 21:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd just leave it. If someone wants to use it for some other purpose, fine. If not, some 'bot may eventually discover that it's unused and will flag it for deletion later. — Quicksilver^{T @} 21:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for The One Hundredth

Orlady (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Josh Byrne Brendan Lambert Step by Step.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, George Ho. You have new messages at Magog the Ogre's talk page.
Message added 02:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi there George Ho, thanks very much for your helpful formatting! Quick query, could you please clarify at your comment here, if the proposal happens to not be withdrawn, if your stance should be read as "Keep" or just "withdraw" ? Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

User:JHunterJ

I think it might by time for you to leave this user alone. If you have serious concerns, file an RfC/U and see if you can get someone else to certify it, but your interactions on his talk page are starting to look like borderline harassment. I know you have several mentors. Perhaps now would be a good time to ask them what they think about your interactions with JHunterJ. AniMate 17:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

What is a "borderline harassment"? I didn't know it was a "harassment". I was just.... well, should I have done the RFC/U earlier? --George Ho (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Borderline harassment is exact;y what it sounds like. It may or may not be harassment, but it's very close. Going there to preemptively get him to disqualify from moves, trying to force him into administrative feedback, and going to a favorite administrator to second guess any moves of his you disagree with is getting to be a bit much. It needs to stop. You should definitely go ask your mentors to give their opinion of your behavior and the prospect of you filing an RFC/U. AniMate 17:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Asked Magog and Elen. I don't know how I can raise concerns other than RFC/U, but must I tell you examples, or is it pointless? --George Ho (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked them, and no examples are never a bad thing, though I've been watching the situation and know most of what is going on. AniMate 17:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

In Talk:The End of the Innocence (album), he calls Noetica's comments rhetoric; was he correct saying that? Also, look at WT:Disambiguation. Also, look at his comments in Talk:It's Great to Be Alive (film). What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, Talk:All That Jazz (film) proves that sometimes consensus changes within one day after JHunterJ made closure on first move. --George Ho (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I see absolutely nothing in any of those that shows he's a bad administrator or really anything other than you and JHunterJ have vastly differing opinions about how disambiguation/article titles should be handled and that you're smart enough to go to a sympathetic administrator when you want to get your way. AniMate 17:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, look at WT:RM (even though someone said that his closure on Trollhunter was the right thing) and his user talk page itself. Well, in Talk:Watkin Tudor Jones (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs), he did close the move request as "page moved", but someone just reverted the title move, and Hunter re-opened it shortly afterwards. Well,... maybe that is why I have been.... "harassing" him inadvertently. --George Ho (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

At least he is correct in Talk:Doctor Zhivago, but I hope no one complains about it. --George Ho (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

What you don't seem to understand is that judging consensus is rarely about "right" or "wrong". Opinions can rarely be "right" or "wrong". If it was just about "right" or "wrong" everyone would have the exact same opinion. Administrators look at discussions like the ones you have pointed out, and try to see if consensus has been formed from the opinions given. For any requested move, you can bring four administrators in to look at it and there is a very good chance that they will all come to different conclusions or similar conclusions for different reasons. You have managed to find an administrator who sees things your way and have seem to have taken that as proof that JHunterJ is a "bad" administrator. He's not. His experiences here have just lead him to judge consensus in a way that you disagree with. AniMate 18:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

"Disagree"? Since when? I looked the consensus carefully, especially in Talk:All That Jazz (film) and I don't see evidence that any policy or guideline prevails strongly. --George Ho (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You see it one way, I see it one way, he sees it one way, and another administrator might see it one way. I get that you think you are right and he is wrong. Like I said, everyone judges consensus differently. AniMate 18:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Was Hunter right or wrong about making comments about Noetica's comments without some explicit proof, such as calling them "hypocritical", "Orwellian", and stuff in WT:Disambiguation? --George Ho (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

George, I'm going to let this go since you're mentors are aware of the situation. I'm simply going to ask that you try and remember that opinions rarely can be right or wrong. They're just different. AniMate 19:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, in my opinion, this "discussion" is heading in the "not-so-fruitful" direction.

If you think that an RfC should be started concerning JhunterJ's closures, then start one, and see what the rest of the community thinks. (See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct for more info on starting one.)

If you have would like jhunterj to explain/clarify a closure, then ask him about that close specifically. Otherwise, I think User:AniMate has a point that maybe you should steer clear of jhunterj at this point.

I of course welcome others' thoughts on this. - jc37 19:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course, must I contact Anthony Appleyard about closures that JHunterJ made, just in case that JHunterJ is too reluctant to re-open it? --George Ho (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No. The proper way to go if, after asking the closer for clarification, you still disagree with a close, would be to go to WP:DRV. That said, my understanding is that you should get input from your mentors before posting to DRV, I think. So at this point, I suggest you wait for insight from your mentors. - jc37 19:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

What? The DRV is for reviewing deletion discussion. There is WP:requested moves/Closure review. Consensus is needed to make it happen. --George Ho (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes for requested moves, and yes community discussion (hopefully resulting in consensus). But regardless, as I mentioned, I believe you are to get input from your mentors at this point. - jc37 19:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review

Must I take this first to either WP:village pump (proposal) or WP:village pump (idea lab)? The proposal is becoming obscure and unnoticed lately. --George Ho (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean how should this discussion be advertised? I think it's probably (mostly) past the idea lab stage. I suppose WP:VP/Proposals might be a decent place to note it. And maybe also at WP:AN. - jc37 04:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Simultaneously? --George Ho (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying to start a discussion at those locations. I'm suggesting that you post a note that the discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Closure review. - jc37 05:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the discussion is already at WP:VPP. The talk page there is obscure. --George Ho (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I have noted that proposal a while ago in "Village pump (proposals)", but there have been little effort to bring in the crowd. --George Ho (talk) 05:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback (22 May 2012)

Hello, George Ho. You have new messages at David Levy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—David Levy 00:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bu liao qing (song)

THIS NOTICE MUST BE DISREGARDED. THE ARTICLE IS KEPT BECAUSE THE SUBJECT OF THIS ARTICLE IS ASSERTED TO BE NOTABLE. Thank you, George Ho (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Bu liao qing (song) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 06:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Help

I'm new :waves: I need some help. I need a neutral 3rd part to resolve an editing issue here with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz here --> Jessicka My point: "Art Slant,[4] Juxtapoz,[5][ Supacute,[6] Coagula Art Journal, [7] & Hi- Fructose [8] are all reputable 3rd party Art sources. Saying these articles are written by friends is purely speculation on your part. Jessicka's wiki page clearly states that she's an artist. Listing past art shows with 3rd party references is just like listing the albums she's released as a musician in her discography. Both are wiki relevant & significant"

Thanks! (Lifespan9 (talk))

{{trout}}

In recognition of your siding with a long-term disruptive user without, apparently, taking the few moments necessary to properly review the situation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

LET'S WAIT UNTIL REPORT IN WP:BLPN IS RESOLVED. --George Ho (talk) 06:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:The Boys in the Band#Requested move

I don't think the statistics prove anything, as the rationale said. Shall I take this to the WP:AN then? --George Ho (talk) 09:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

What specifically is your concern? - jc37 09:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm checking the last 90 days of the film, and it looks more popular than the play itself. Even one day, the film reached 500 views. However, I'm analyzing the regular day-to-day view, especially from May 2012 of the film and the play. I'm not sure if the statistics, especially from 90 days, prove the film to be primary. Yesterday, the film pulled 152 views, while the play pulled 117 views. Sometimes, the play has sharp inclines and declines. Also, one opposer said that the discussion is a waste of time, and another opposer used only the 90-day statistics. One supporter says the title is ambiguous, and another supporter says... well, I can't summarize what the supporter said. The close rationale disregarded some arguments as unhelpful and used statistics as a reason not to move. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 09:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't suggest taking it to WP:AN.

The discussion looks like a no consensus to me as well.

One thing that may (hopefully) help is to note that a closer of a discussion is not adding their "vote" or "stamp of approval/disapproval". What they are supposed to be doing is reading through the discussion, and weighing the arguments in balance with existing common practice/policy/guidelines.

So in this case, you suggested that the move should succeed due to primacy of the play because it was the inspiration for the film. Someone else suggested that they felt that primacy should be due to that and page traffic. Since this is a subjective opinion on both sides, they are (roughly) weighed equally. There are style guidelines in regards to this, but they vary in applicability on a case-by-case basis. So what you hope in an RM is that the others in a discussion will agree with your perspective as to how such guides should be applicabile.

Anything dealing with style (how we do things) rather than substance (actual content) is almost always subjective.

I hope this helps clarify. - jc37 14:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't hoping my side would succeed. Look at the closing rationale. Numbers of the 90-days statistics are interpretted, but the closer decides them as "correct". There are other ways to interpret the statistics. If the arguments are strong, why disregard them? --George Ho (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Your DYK? created-date move

Re: the double DYK? submission that you moved to May 28th with this edit: It appears your move was in error since both articles were moved to mainspace on May 31st, Sarkinite with this edit and Arsenoclasite with this edit. I admit I am puzzled by your stated rationale of "Under DYK rules, even history logs of editing under userspace count." since the editing history of Sarkinite shows that it only existed as a draft prior to being moved into article-space on May 31 (the date that the nominator had first placed the nomination in). If I've misunderstood something about your rationale or the situation, please let me know here. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Titanic 2020: Cannibal City

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Reliable source or external link for Sam Malone?

I want to summarize this in the Sam Malone article: http://www.grudge-match.com/History/sam-fonz.shtml. --George Ho (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Neither. It looks like it's a fan site talking about matching up characters from different shows in the style of professional wresting. - jc37 18:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lunigiana revolt

Hello! Your submission of Lunigiana revolt at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Secretlondon (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:1973 Susan Strasberg.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:1973 Susan Strasberg.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —innotata 15:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Bloke (word)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

RFAR Perth opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 23, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

AN help request

Hi, George, having had a poke around after posting on AN, I thought I'd drop a note on your talk page. If you need someone to just bounce ideas off or to get an interpretation of something, feel free to drop a question on my talk page. I'm not the most familiar with all the little subtleties of policies but I'd be happy to give you my take on things if you think I'll be of help. Blackmane (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

April Fools

Thanks for approving the hook. But I still don't understand the April Fools comment, or even if it is an insult. Am I stupid? Smetanahue (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

slow

oh yeah i have a slow connection so your talk page takes a long time to load. i don't know if you know that. :) ~~`~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnJeanBartiste (talk • contribs) 08:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Manfred von Richthofen (General)

Hello! Your submission of Manfred von Richthofen (General) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Note: George, I'm sorry; I thought you would have noticed the latest comment. I should have posted this here long ago. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, a week later, basically the same question, sorry, topic more boring than "Full Service" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Lunigiana revolt

Yngvadottir (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

hello

thank you for the welcome. i didnt know about archive but i will look into it. i use wikipedia for research mostly and whenever something is in there that is inaccurate i remove it because that is a major problem. beyond my ken seems to think this isnt a valid way to contribute to the site. is that true? at the same time he removed some of my actual contributions and has a problem with my account being new. JohnJeanBartiste (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

@George Ho: In answer to the question you posed in your edit summary, yes, I would say that JJB is indeed a sockpuppet, probably of User:Bouket, who followed me around to comment on my actions in various places, until several admins told him to cut it out. He's never contributed anything positive to Wikipedia, and is basically here to troll and be disruptive. My suggestion is to stay far away from him. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

sorry, i don't know what to say. i felt that ken was stalking me so it is strange that he thinks i was stalking him? i never saw him before today and he went through my contributions and undid many of them. he says they didn't have references but some did. and you know he put in that fake death date for that guy. so he wasn't paying attention but i wish i knew why he got angry at me to begin with. i'm sorry to cause all this trouble, i don't know what to do now. i feel he will revert every change i do now. but thank you so much for your help. i am a little confused about something. in ken's comment he said he removed what some of my contributions because they didn't have references. i think they did but will have to check again. if they didn't i am sure they are easy to find through google because that is how i knew to add it. i am not sure how him removing those things i added is different from me removing things from a page because the references did not confirm they were true. i am being sincere so if i am missing something, i hope it is not too problematic for you to explain what it is. JohnJeanBartiste (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

i know i said a lot so if you want i can just find one change i am confused about and we can discuss that. but now i am wary of making any changes anymore. JohnJeanBartiste (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

thank you. there are some other changes i think were ok but i want to ask you about them if you don't mind. if there is something wrong with them, maybe i am missing something. JohnJeanBartiste (talk) 06:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

i will never contact ken again. the only reason i did was because out of nowhere he reverted a lot of my edits with no explanation. you can see it in his contribs. JohnJeanBartiste (talk) 06:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyone interested in this sock's history can read the comments of User talk:Bouket, which read almost exactly like his -- same syntax, same faux naivitee.

Keep away from me, Bouket/JJB, you've already been warned by at least three administrators. Proceed at your own risk. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Manfred von Richthofen (general)

Yngvadottir (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination co-credit! I didn't expect that, that was very sweet of you. :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback (24 April 2012)

Hello, George Ho. You have new messages at David Levy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—David Levy 16:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, George Ho. You have new messages at Awun's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Awun (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Very long

I saw you moved recent edits from the talkpage of Template:Very long. I will not speculate on the question whether you did this to prevent visitor of the Rfc to see the previous discussion where you withdraw your proposal. I will just say that you should not archive recent discussions. And on a template talkpage "recent" can be a lot longer than on talkpage of certain articles, so I restored all 2012 content. Debresser (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for The Show Where Sam Shows Up

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Angela Santomero

George, I was wondering why your name was listed as the nominator of this DYK with a DYKnom template, since it looks like Figureskatingfan self-nominated the article, including creating the initial template. I didn't want to remove the DYKnom template without checking with you first. Thanks. (I'll check back here for any response; no need to leave anything on my talk page.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I added myself in the DYKnom because I want to credit myself for ALT1, which led to ALT2. --George Ho (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but creating ALTs subsequent to the nomination's creation is not grounds for a DYKnom credit. If it were, there would be dozens of additional nomination credits each week. Only if you are the person who creates the original template do you get that credit, which does not apply in this case. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

What about DYKmake? If that won't work, then how can I credit myself for doing ALTs? --George Ho (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

DYKmake means that you contributed extensively to the article in question: that you created a significant portion of the new Wikipedia article content. DYKnom means that you saw this great new article written by someone else, and submitted it to DYK so everyone else could see it. There is no credit for coming up with ALT hooks or otherwise helping in the DYK review process, aside from the satisfaction in knowing you've helped make a nomination better, just like there's no credit for doing extra reviews beyond any QPQ requirements. It's all for the betterment of DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Where else can I discuss giving credit to other contributors of this nomination if they are not starters? --George Ho (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The main DYK talk page, WT:DYK, would be the place to discuss something like that. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, George Ho. You have new messages at Siawase's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Siawase (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloke (word)

I have nominated Bloke (word) for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloke (word) per my close at Talk:Bloke#Bloke is broke., a discussion in which you participated. Cunard (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Frasier Crane.jpg

The point is that nobody can possibly have an image of the character that doesn't originate with the network, as the chances of a WP editor getting on set and being permitted to take a nonfree photo of the actor in character are so small that we don't worry about them. We permit nonfree images of characters to be used instead of out-of-character images of the actor; see featured article Jack Sparrow for an example. Either we use an image from the network, or we go against previous practise and reduce the quality of the article by demanding only an image of the actor himself, or we seriously damage the article by using no image at all. Nyttend (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You mention other editors, but I don't see where they said the things you quote; could you provide a link or links? At any rate, the problem with most Getty images is that they operate by producing and selling photography, while NBC isn't generally in the business of still photography. Since this isn't a Getty creation, the fact that it appears in the Getty database isn't by itself any more reason to delete it than it would be if they took one of my PD-self uploads and added it to their database. We only need to consider NBC's rights here. Don't expect further responses today — I'm about to be out of town for some hours, and my home network is awaiting the repair guy. Nyttend (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

No response because I didn't realise that you'd left another message. The other user is flat-out wrong; Getty does not own the photo, so their use of it is completely irrelevant, and we treat this like we do any other image from the same source. Nyttend (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No; you're free to, but I have too many other things going on right now. Nyttend (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Patrick Awuah Jr

Hi. You were involved with Template:Did you know nominations/Patrick Awuah Jr. Can you revisit the nomination so we can move it along? :) Thanks. --LauraHale (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Big (boring) job for you?

Hi! I don't think I asked you before so here I go:

There is a lot of files in Category:Public domain files ineligible for copyright (and sub categories) there should be checked. It may result in a lot of Ffd and Puf work. It should be easy once you know what to do but it will take a lot of time.

I was thinking that step 1 would be to find decide if the file is usefull. If not it should be nominated for deletion. If it is usefull next step is to find out if it has the right license or it should be fair use. If it is free then the description should be fixed (links to the relevant article(s) would also be nice) and the file could be marked as ok for Commons.

If you want to give it a try I suggest that you check 10, 20 or 50 files and then I check your work. If it looks ok you could get a free pass (if you need that?) to work on those files and send files to Ffd or Puf untill you have send 20(?) files to Ffd/Puf. If that looks good you could add another 20 and if they are also ok you could add 50 etc... We could ofcourse also send hundreds of files there but last time I did that many users complained there were to many at one time... --MGA73 (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Example: this file. --MGA73 (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, 50 or 100 in first or second page fall below threshold of originality. No need to file for FFD/PUF yet. Let's wait for Commons bot transfer then. --George Ho (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

although I did not check the license, first two pages have images ineligible for copyrights, like text-only and common colors and shapes. --George Ho (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No bot transfer the files unless someone decide to move the files.

The problem with these files is that even if they look very simple a file like File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg can't go to Commons because the logo is from the United Kingdom. So that files like that should be tagged with {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. And if a better description is added to the files before they are moved to Commons they are more likely to be usefull. --MGA73 (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I also know that the "chem users" think that we should not move unused chem files to Commons so I send this one to Ffd. --MGA73 (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

File:ClavenCliff.jpg

Redirects are not subject to the file-dependent speedy deletion criteria. Nyttend (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Housekeeping consists of things such as deletion to perform history merges or to enable a page to be moved over a redirect. It does not consist of deleting redirects just because you don't think they belong; WP:RFD#HARMFUL says that you should not seek the deletion of harmless redirects that are not "very recent". Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No. Housekeeping deletions are deletions for the purpose of overcoming technical issues; the criterion permits other maintenance, such as deleting extra disambiguation pages, monthly cleanup categories that have been emptied, and pages created in the wrong place. It most definitely does not permit the deletion of redirects that RFD says not to delete. Nyttend (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, read WP:RFD#HARMFUL. You're trying to make it harder for people to access this file from pages that were created more than a few days ago. Link rot is a harmful thing, and we should not contribute to the problem by deleting non-new redirects unless they're actively causing problems. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It's old. Deletion causes linkrot. How do you know that nobody has linked to it from other websites? Moreover, as long as it remains in existence, old diffs will appear properly, but what you're trying to do would have the effect of making them appear mangled. If you stilll wish to see it deleted, please go to WT:RFD and attempt to gain consensus for repealing WP:RFD#HARMFUL, because everything you're saying is directly in contradiction to it. Nyttend (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Your link provides me pages such as this one, which still use the old image; you must fix that link before assuring me that all links are fixed and that no linkrot will occur. Nyttend (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This revision still has the old image. Fixing the current revision does not update previous revisions in the page history, and you cannot update them, so you may not continue to pester me in order to get me to violate deletion policy. Nyttend (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#R3_has_nothing_to_do_with_image_redirects. Many redirects may have been deleted in the past but it is generally a bad idea unless a file is moved right after upload. --MGA73 (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Christopher Castile Beethoven Ted Newton 1993.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Christopher Castile Beethoven Ted Newton 1993.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The photo was removed by vandal. Please disregard this notice. --George Ho (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Showdown (Cheers)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Zai shui yi fang (1975 album)

A tag has been placed on Zai shui yi fang (1975 album) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. mabdul 23:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Cheers episodes

any news ones due for creation with notability? Woody's wedding (long episode) and the proposal and SMalone v. Chambers? Give me a heads up if your up for any.Lihaas (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The poet wasnt notable (based on the comment that it was only a combination of some other notable persons poem and this relationship). The poet is even unknown, and the poem even less soLihaas (talk) 05:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Notability i would think. notability is not in herent.Lihaas (talk) 05:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Dream Team (pornographic film)

Hello! Your submission of Dream Team (pornographic film) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Secretlondon (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Ace Attorney Gyakuten Saiban DS.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Ace Attorney Gyakuten Saiban DS.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Karen admits prostitution to Viki.jpg

I actually disagree with the nomination for deletion. I think the image of the two actresses on the series, taken with the importance of the storyline has to the series contributes to explaining the article via a visual representation. FrickFrack 02:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)