User talk:George Ho/Archives/2022/November

Warning about edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

To be clear:

• You made a WP:BOLD redirect.
• You were reverted by someone else.
• You revert-warred to keep the redirect in place.
• The final revert wasn't picked up for a year.
• When it finally was picked up and was clearly going to be overturned, you tried to frame at as an WP:RFC with your unilateral, disputed by multiple editors, WP:BOLD edit as the status quo, so that you might be able to stonewall a low-turnout WP:RM if only a couple of editors responded.

That's clearly an abuse of process. There wasn't a consensus when you were WP:BOLD in the first place. There wasn't a consensus when you revert-warred to stop it being overturned when it was initially picked up by another editor. And the last, desperate play to try to stop it being overturned when it was noticed still didn't generate a consensus. It's just a determined effort to railroad Wikipedia despite a clear admission that there's no policy basis for it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I've responded there. If you'd done the right thing when your WP:BOLD merger attempt was reverted a year ago, instead of revert-warring to try to avoid a discussion, we wouldn't be here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

You should've left the redirect page alone in the first. Don't blame me or hold me responsible for this. George Ho (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

No, you should have left the article in place when you were reverted at the time. You were WP:BOLD, you were reverted, and instead of proceeding to the next step and discussing it, you revert-warred in the hope that you could still try to skip having to get a consensus if it went unnoticed. Unfortunately for you, eventually, your edits got noticed, and so we're having the discussion now that you tried to dodge a year ago. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

"dodge"? I just assumed that there would be almost no objections to the redirect. One year without notice is too late for me. If it were three months or less after my first redirect/merger of the Tandoh page, I would've started the merger discussion right away. George Ho (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

You were reverted a month later, and your response was to revert-war rather than start that merger discussion, so we know for a fact that's not true. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The IP editor didn't explain why. I treated that edit as mere vandalism rather than unstated or implied opposition. George Ho (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

On what basis? It's literally a step in WP:BRD: you were bold, you were reverted, you needed to discuss it. There's not an out because you decide that the person reverting you is a secret vandal who just happened to undo your potentially controversial move. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kelly Wiglesworth (November 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kelly Wiglesworth and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CNMall41 (talk) 07:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Nigel Platts-Martin

Hello, George Ho. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Nigel Platts-Martin, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Solomon Golomb 2014.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Solomon Golomb 2014.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

GBBO second? Runner-Up?

I admit to never having watched an episode of GBBO, so I'm writing User:GRuban/Ruby Tandoh completely from sources, no personal knowledge. In this edit you wrote Tandoh fared worse than Kimberley in the finals, but.... whatever. Are the two behind the winner ranked, or are they both just runners-up? Is there a source? I just read a few sources that seem to say Tandoh was second, the one that I can think of immediately is https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/being-second-best-can-make-you-the-real-winner-in-the-end-ruby-tandoh-one-direction-olly-murs-jls-x-factor-r2mwgqm3s - which you probably can't read, but it's right in the URL. It doesn't exclude Wilson also being second, I guess, but it is something. We do want to get it right. Is there a source one way or the other? --GRuban (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

As a side comment - thanks! I admit, at first I thought that maybe User:The Drover's Wife would be participating in expanding the article, and you would just be standing by. Then when your participation was slapping questionable tags on the article, I, well ... let's just say, . But now that it seems that you're actually helping, that's very nice of you! --GRuban (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:38, 17 November 2022‎ (UTC)

Thanks, and you're welcome. The judges found Tandoh's wedding cake tier "dry" or "too dry" AFAICR. (Side note: you can watch the series on Roku Channel if you're in the US) Nonetheless, best to treat two runners-up as the same position or tie indefinitely. George Ho (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Every newspaper owned by Reach plc questionable?

I notice [1] you've been adding questionable source tags to the Birmingham Mail saying that you don't trust them because they're owned by the Reach plc conglomerate, which owns the Daily Mail. I'm not an expert on the lesser British press, but I can read our article on Birmingham Mail which says it's been around since 1870. insource:birminghammail says it's used in 3271 articles on Wikipedia. List of Reach plc titles says they own maybe 200 titles, most of which we have articles about, I'm not going to do a search for every one of these, but I wouldn't be surprised if each one has a similar number of uses. Are you going to add a similar tag to each use? It also says it used to own 43% of The Independent, which I'm pretty sure is considered highly reliable. While we're at it, News UK is a similar conglomerate, and owns The Sun (United Kingdom) - unreliable - and The Times - highly reliable. I don't think mechanical guilt by association works here.

What does work is asking what a given citation is used for. If you, in good faith, can tell me "I don't think this is true" for a specific instance where a source is used to cite a fact, tell me, and I'll be glad to discuss it with you, and if it's not convincing, remove the statement. I don't think this is the case, especially since you are tagging sources even before they're used to cite anything. We want to be quite sure that what we're writing is true. That is the final point, right? Making sure our articles are correct? Not satisfying the criteria of a table of sources? --GRuban (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

A few Wikipedia:Featured articles that use Birmingham Mail as a source:

• Aston Villa F.C.
• Baseball
• J. K. Rowling (living person)
• Villa Park

Wikipedia:Good articles likewise:

• Birmingham
• Burger King
• Black Sabbath (debatably living persons)
• Iron Maiden (likewise)
• Birmingham City F.C.
• Paul Pogba (living person)
• Rupert Grint (living person)
• West Bromwich Albion F.C.
• Supermarine Spitfire
• Bournemouth
• Caroline Flack (living person)
• Tammy Abraham (living person)

This is from a few minutes of searching. I suspect I could find more if I searched longer. --GRuban (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

File:I Will Always Love You Whitney Houston chorus refrain 3.mp3 listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:I Will Always Love You Whitney Houston chorus refrain 3.mp3, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Ruby Tandoh

The draft for this article is clearly pushing WP:GA level, and you're still obsessively trying to unilaterally redirect the article.

If it was very questionable before, it's patently absurd now, and it's indefensible.

The draft needs to be moved live, and any further work anyone would like to do can take place there.

What, exactly, would it take to stop your obsessive crusade against this article? Literal WP:FA status? The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

If there's consensus to restore the article. I already requested closure at WP:CR. Please change back to the redirect page. I'm getting tired of your back-and-forth edits. I'll not submit to your demands until the discussion results come in. I'll keep on fighting if you are willing to fight back until you stop changing it back amid the discussion. George Ho (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Your behaviour is in straight-up bad faith at this point: you've admitted that she's notable, you've demanded an expansion of an already fine article and received an absolutely phenomenal makeover that pushed the article close to WP:GA status and you just told me that you'll "keep on fighting" to redirect it without any further attempt whatsoever to even try to justify said behaviour following the huge expansion and mass addition of sources. You unilaterally redirected the article to your list without any consensus whatsoever, you revert-warred when it was challenged, it has been opposed by multiple editors and only supported by one, and even after someone gave into your demands and undertook a huge expansion and mass addition of sourcing, you're still just desperately grasping at any straw to redirect the article. Hell, I asked you if it would take an expansion to WP:FA status to get you to stop, and you just responded about how determined you were to fight me without any reference to the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hell, I asked you if it would take an expansion to WP:FA status to get you to stop, and you just responded about how determined you were to fight me without any reference to the article. Aren't you being sarcastic? As said, the page should still be a redirect while the discussion. Also, I'm unsure whether having two newer votes would change anything unless majority votes are sufficient. Also, the "Twitter conflicts"... oh no! Now I wonder whether she'll be viewed more negatively when readers see this. George Ho (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

That's not a response that actually has anything to do with the article: it's just "I'll keep on fighting" in more words. I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the finalist list needs to be deleted: most of the article concerns details on non-notable people that don't belong on Wikipedia, and the remaining content is misplaced and generally only there due to your disruptive behaviour. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

There's already a consensus to merge most of winners' pages: Talk:The Great British Bake Off/Archive 2#Individual articles about Bake Off winners. If that doesn't convince you, then I shall tell you that someone already accept the draft into the mainspace via AFC. George Ho (talk) 08:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

A grand total of two people responded to that RfC, there was no clear consensus about which articles were and were not included, and it didn't even include this article in any context in the original proposal. Articles that don't meet Wikipedia standards slip through WP:AFC and get deleted every single day. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Do I have to give in to your demands that the Tandoh article be left alone? Must articles about winners be restored by another discussion or what? The consensus already agreed that most, if not all, articles about winners be merged into the list. If that discussion isn't enough, look at other past discussions seen in Talk:List of The Great British Bake Off finalists (series 1–7).

I wasn't disruptive as you claimed. Look, I shouldn't have said "I'll keep on fighting" just to encourage you and myself. I was hoping for collaboration (or some sort of agreement) between us, but... I don't know how to handle your combativeness (or what else was that if it's not "combativeness"?). George Ho (talk) 08:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

There was no consensus there: four people replied (I missed the two that didn't !vote), everyone agreed that some could be merged and some were notable and no one really agreed on which was which. There's a similar situation with the others: articles that weren't tagged with merge notices to notify editors interested in that person, as should've happened per policy, quietly merged after no-turnout discussions on a page no one was paying attention to.

I'm all for collaboration, but there has to be something to base that on other than an insistence that you don't want Tandoh to have an article, regardless of any arguments about either her notability as per Wikipedia guidelines or even the article content. There's nowhere much to go from there. If you want to have discussions about the notability of former GBBO contestants that are actually based on questions of notability, as is normally the case, I'm absolutely all ears. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

In general, or which contestants specifically? Winners? Runners-up? Who else? Also, where to discuss the general matter? I don't wanna restore the articles back per WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Also, only you objected to the list. Who do you think is revising history of such discussions about their notabilities? You or me? George Ho (talk) 08:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Would that be WT:notability (people) or WT:Notability or where else? George Ho (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

There was no consensus as such as applied to any specific articles (beyond the broad, undisputed principle that some are notable and many if not most aren't), so WP:EDITCONSENSUS is irrelevant.

I don't really see that it's possible to come up with a general rule for these contestants (or really for any television show of that nature), because notability is going to wildly vary regardless of how they did on the show - it's probably always going to be a situation where everyone (winners included) needs to pass WP:GNG. And that's fine: outside of a few specific areas where most of Wikipedia can agree that there's an inherent notability in some achevement, that's the way these things are generally handled on most subjects on Wikipedia. There's also no example (anywhere that I can think of, in any context) of there being such a thing as an inherent non-notability (because of having done something in particular) that would override WP:GNG. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

IMO notability is not an automatic reason to benefit a stand-alone article, especially if a stand-alone list can cover people whose notabilities (or non-notabilities) vary. Also, I've not yet seen you specify which articles you wanna restore back. Kim-Joy? Ruby Bhogal? Andrew Smyth (engineer)? Those three articles to me deserved to be merged into the list. If you revert any of them, that means you disagree with me. Still, I've not yet seen these articles present anything valuable that would belong in a stand-alone article and nowhere else. Rather info from these (former) articles are more suitable for the list(s). George Ho (talk) 09:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

You repeatedly insist that there's "no consensus" and that you're "right" about specific articles, but no one opposed redirecting many or most articles about winners and runners-up. Also, you seem to be in favor of restoring articles and denouncing the lists I created as "disruptive" or something. You know what? I don't know whether our collaboration will work well when we are unable to compromise. Rather we clash over and over. Have you often clashed with other users in the similar way as you and I? George Ho (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is that there's no basis for it in Wikipedia policies or guidelines: you're advocating an approach that genuinely flies in the face of how Wikipedia has handled the question of who gets an article for its entire history. Inclusion comes down to notability, with a large field of guidelines to flesh out how that gets decided. You can have the opinion that that shouldn't be the case, but trying to impose it on a small area of articles with limited if any support isn't going to fly - that's an argument you need to have, essentially, with the whole project, which if successful would amount to what would be one of the most fundamental shifts on article inclusion in the entire history of the project.

That's why this is so difficult - in general, Wikipedia falls back on a multitude of often long-established guidelines to resolve these issues, and you're trying to completely toss them out the window and do something different but only as applied to a very small section of articles with the feedback of a couple of users. I have no particular opinion on the three cases you listed, as I haven't assessed whether they meet WP:GNG, but that is ultimately the policy question that their inclusion hinges on.

Similarly, the list raises additional policy issues. You mention Wikipedia:Stand-alone list, but none of that deals with "lists" which amount to merged biographies of a bunch of living people into a combined page. The closest it comes to what you're suggesting is the criterion "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria" (and cites List of Dilbert characters, which very much resembles what you're trying to create here), but it explicitly states "this criterion is never used for living people".

Further, Wikipedia generally takes a dim view of including biographical details of non-public figures, and I think there's a fairly solid case that the substantial amount of "here's the current job and/or residence of this person who's been out of the public eye for ten years" entries doesn't gel with our WP:BLP policies. For an example of a more common approach, List of American Idol finalists looks a lot more like I'd expect this list to look, were there a need to split it out from the contestants list in the first place.

To be clear, I don't oppose redirecting "many or most articles about winners and runners-up". The question, again - here and everywhere else on Wikipedia - is whether they meet WP:GNG. My initial assumption would be that most wouldn't, but it's always going to be something that requires an individual assessment based on that guideline. I see very little value in having biographical entries at all for people who don't. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how else to respond to your argument(s). Before the list was created, article about Bake Off winners have been created. I figured that merging them would be the best way possible, especially to preserve valuable info. I hate to see the list get deleted just because (you think) it doesn't fly with policies and guidelines. Also, if the list gets deleted, must I turn redirects back into articles again? I just.... I just.... I don't know.

Nonetheless, how are most Bake Off contestants "non-public figures"? To me, they became public figures by appearing on Bake Off, watched by viewers. If they're not "public figures" to you, then how do you define a "public figure"? Nonetheless, not all public figures meet GNG if there aren't enough independent reliable sources covering such persons. George Ho (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has existing policies and guidelines that cover how to deal with all of these issues precisely to avoid disputes becoming protracted arguments if possible. In respect of the "public figures" question, see Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual (which uses the example of someone who was a minor member of a famous band many years ago and then dropped out of public life) and WP:NPF, the latter of which states "In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources". The "where are they now" stuff for the people who don't pass WP:GNG doesn't really cut it as being relevant to the person's notability (and often the sourcing is pretty tabloid at best anyway). As for turning redirects back into articles: probably not, in most cases, because as we've discussed the majority of finalists are unlikely to pass WP:GNG. It may be that the best place for those redirects, though, is the article about their GBBO season, because that's a more on-topic place to discuss material that is relevant to their GBBO appearance. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPF also implies case-by-case basis on individual materials about living persons, including low-profile "public" figures, but at least you made a point about practicing caution.

If you feel like proposing re-targeting redirects into their seasons, then the best place to propose would be either WP:RFD or Talk:The Great British Bake Off. To you, it's logical. However, I put my blood, sweat, tears, and effort to create and develop the list(s). Furthermore, readers would be frustrated over insufficient info about winners and runners-up. Also, what about WP:NOTBURO (and/or WP:NOTDEMO if applicable) and occasional exceptions and common sense per WP:GUIDES? I would oppose your retargeting proposal to specific seasons. I recently created List of The Great British Bake Off contestants, accepted via AFC. Why not that one instead? Oh wait... I don't feel like supporting that either.... unless.... Ah well, I can't support, but please feel free to propose elsewhere.

The "where are they now" stuff for the people who don't pass WP:GNG doesn't really cut it as being relevant to the person's notability (and often the sourcing is pretty tabloid at best anyway). Which information about specific winners and runners-up do you have issues with? I'll address the specific issue if you're willing. What you said is general, but I appreciate your concerns about verifiability of disputed info. George Ho (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Neither of those WP:NOT links are a basis for ignoring all relevant policies and guidelines because of "blood, sweat and tears" or because of assertions about reader curiosity. There is no issue with your List of The Great British Bake Off contestants: it's completely compliant with policy and guidelines, and is an example of what to do. However, it isn't the place for details about their time on the show, content which has always been in the season articles, with any non-notable contestants who wound up at AfD over the years redirected to their season. (Again, an article being accepted through AfC is no defence as to whether it should ultimately exist; as a long-time (if long inactive) AfC reviewer, I wasn't going to lose sleep if anyone nominated for deletion any lineball cases where I'd erred on the side of inclusion.)

Every contestant who doesn't meet WP:GNG because they haven't gone on to any continued significance would be likely to be considered "low profile" for the purposes of whether biographical material irrelevant to their time on the show should be included, and anyone who does pass WP:GNG shouldn't be there to begin with. I can't say having to clean up the entire GBBO contestant article universe is what I want to be doing with my time on Wikipedia, but if it's necessary to get that done to stop relentless merge efforts on the small handful of very notable former contestants then unfortunately I guess it has to be done. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

What about WP:NBIO, including WP:BIOSPECIAL and WP:LISTBIO? It handles merged content, especially for persons who fail GNG. Honestly, I'm getting too excited and frustrated over your arguments against the list. I feel beaten and beaten over and over, and it's not fun anymore. George Ho (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:NBIO (like WP:GNG) is part of how we determine notability, and provides no basis for the merge-notable-people-and-keep-quasi-articles-on-non-notable people thing you've tried to do here. WP:LISTBIO refers only to straight lists (such as List of The Great British Bake Off contestants). Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists makes explicitly clear that WP:BIOSPECIAL can never (its wording, not mine) be used in the way you're trying to do here. The relevant policies and guidelines determine questions of inclusion, and whether or not they're "fun" is beside the point. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

(*sigh*) Which other winner biographies do you want restored? Candice Brown (7) is out of question as people already agreed with the merger to the list. John Whaite (3) and Nadiya Hussain (6) are already considered notable, and two of you oppose redirecting Giuseppe to the list. George Ho (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Apart from Tandoh, James Morton is the only only other one that stands out as really obviously notable independently of GBBO (and the discussion on which the redirect was purportedly based was an explicit no-consensus close). The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

an explicit no-consensus close Not entirely true. The one who answer my request didn't close the discussion (Talk:List of The Great British Bake Off finalists (series 1–7)#Redirect James Morton (baker)?) but went ahead with the retargeting and had no opposition to anyone wanting to restore the article. IMO the Morton article didn't present anything that would've belong in the article itself rather than the list. But please feel free to be bold and undo the redirecting if you wish. George Ho (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Spandau Ballet files

I've been doing a lot of work on Spandau Ballet songs and added or replaced several sound files. You marked the two that I didn't replace for deletion, so I thought I'd ask about the best way to address them. I see that the editor who uploaded them didn't provide as much detail in his summary of those files as I have, so would adding more of a description to what he already entered address your concern? You wrote, "justification for sample usage not well illustrated in the song article", but my description in the article talks about dance rock rhythms and jazz horns. Is that the part I should focus on? I look forward to addressing this matter with your assistance. Danaphile (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

You can remove the PROD tag from File:Gold (Spandau Ballet song).ogg if you disagree with my concern. I just figured that readers would understand what the words mean without the sample, and I wondered why it's placed in the Critical Reception section. But then if you think the sample's placement is justified, then I won't challenge it further for a long while. George Ho (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The sound samples for both "Chant No. 1 (I Don't Need This Pressure On)" and "Gold" were placed in the Critical reception section because the descriptions come from comments by critics that are enhanced by the inclusion of the sample. Would it be OK to remove the PROD tag from Chant No. 1 as well? Danaphile (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Curiously, why didn't you click file links, like File:Chant No. 1 (I Don't Need This Pressure On).ogg, and see the PROD tag intact in file pages? But then you're not the only person who removed caption notices and overlooked file pages. George Ho (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC); expanded, 23:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I didn't realize the link was for the sound file. I had the Gold article open on another tab and just went to it. Danaphile (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

thanks!

Thank you for requesting a history merge, I feel a bit like an idiot, but you're quite correct, I didn't come across Kim-Joy until after I'd already created Kim-Joy Hewlett and started fixing a ton of piped mentions. Valereee (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Kim-Joy

You know exactly what you're doing, and that it's not an acceptable way to move a page. Don't pull that sort of nonsense again. Primefac (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac: What do you think I should've done, especially after my initial request was rejected? Also, Kim-Joy is her commonly used name. --George Ho (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:RM/TR. Primefac (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

thank you ...

November songs

... for a constructive comment in the Laurence Olivier RfC, to which I referred in my arbcand questions. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

....Although the vexatious SPI against SC was rather ungentlemanly and spiteful. Ends should not be excuses for means. Ceoil (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

If you want me to apologize to SchroCat, then I'll do so right away. Well, I should've done something else instead of SPI. I just got caught up by multiple IP addresses and pushy attempts to suppress info in lead. George Ho (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

No you don't need to apologize; that's fine he has think skin - it was more that you didn't read carefully or understand the rules around socking before you leapt in and made the filing. Thats what I'm saying - your often not basing your deletions requests etc on actual policy....slow down man!! Ceoil (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll try; I just see other samples deleted, like certain Celine Dion ones, and get caught up by things easily. George Ho (talk) 05:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The internet is stressful to us all !!!! Ceoil (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)