User talk:George Ho/Archives/2016/1

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Best wishes for a wonderful 2016!---- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Savvyjack23 (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Address Downtown Dubai Flickr.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I see your incorrectly listed requests and I have rearranged your edits to make them in the way that Beeblebrox had said to you to do. Thanks. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Qwertyxp2000 All you have done is re-list his requests without giving any indication of why PC should be re-added before it even expires. That was rather the whole point. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I get it. Gees, but I think he should just relist them with the reasons. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, what about your reviewing some of those requests separately now that each request is requested separately? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, since you apparently refuse to try and provide a reason, sure, I'll go decline them all. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

George, you have got to stop worrying so much about when protection expires. Right up there on the masthead it says this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and we take that seriously. A certain amount of disruption and vandalism is expected here. It's a sign that the grand experiment is working. If a page needs protection again, it will get it then. Please, please stop flooding RFPP and our talk pages with these requests. Katie^talk 16:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't do that. See further comments at your talk page and WT:RFPP. George Ho (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

No. Please seek consensus before page moves

You can't use "present" in the name. That article will still exist years from now. No. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

There is Chinese stock market crash, a disambiguation page. Have you known that? --George Ho (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Please stop. Please learn the rules for editing Wikipedia pages. Please let experienced editors make page moves. By the way, are you also using the name User:EggyEggPercent? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

What? No! I'm not that person. You are mistaken. And how does another crash in 2016 not count? Why removing the RM banner? --George Ho (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You're just using your own logic and your own opinion to make moves without finding WP:CONSENSUS on the best possible name first — in precisely the same way and on precisely the same page as User:EggyEggPercent. So please just stop doing things by yourself without consensus first. There seems to have been some consensus to move the page (perhaps), but NO consensus as to the appropriate name. And "present" is completely impossible. So stop. Please. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not EggyEggPercent. --George Ho (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I only have ONE Wikipedia account, so how can George Ho be using my account as well; besides, use of multiple accounts is only allowed in limited circumstances.--EggyEggPercent 05:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Fab Five: The Texas Cheerleader Scandal

George, there's been an IP editor changing the characters' names on the article here (edits before mine); I don't know whether the IP is correct but I reverted the changes as unexplained. Please feel free to re-revert me if the IP is correct, but it might be one to watch. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items

Hey George. Could you explain the un-closing but keeping of my consensus statement? It's unclear to me whether sections should or shouldn't be closed on that page, I'm not familiar with it :) Sam Walton (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

As it makes no sense at all, I've undone George's edits. The item is now closed again, and removed from ITNR per the consensus found by the closing admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Odd comments

Your nomination here included some unnecessarily inflammatory commentary about another recently deceased individual. Whether you were trying to be funny or clever is irrelevant, it was disrespectful and unnecessary. Please do not do it again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Voices Carry (album) (redirect) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Voices Carry (album) (redirect). Since you had some involvement with the Voices Carry (album) (redirect) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:List of Cheers characters concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:List of Cheers characters, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

AlphaGo logo

Hi! I've removed the AlphaGo logo from the AlphaGo page because it does not display correctly. I'm not sure how what the best way to resolve this problem is, but could you please not put the logo back until there's some way to fix this? Thanks, -- The Anome (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Alphago-logo.png

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Policy discussion in progress

There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of "Smells Like Teen Spirit", "I Like It Like That", "Love You Like a Love Song", &c., a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII 11:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: logic

Hi George, I don't know. I didn't do the original protection; I just restored it to how it was after I deleted the article. Graham87 04:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Per la ricuperata salute di Ofelia

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Buster keaton rides again.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Buster Keaton Rides Again.jpg

Re: "How does the DVD surpass the opening title in historical value? I received a notice saying that the screenshot is orphaned." --George Ho (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

See article: Buster Keaton Rides Again. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Shall we take the images up to FFD instead? WP:NFCC encourages very minimal amount of images. --George Ho (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what that entails. Both images have a place and rationale. AFAIK, having two images in an article does not seem excessive, especially since the caption with the screenshot gives more detail as to why it is being used. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Since this debate continues, let me direct you to the notification placed on the wikifilm group's MOS dealing with the use of an image in the infobox:

"Ideally, an image of the film's original theatrical release poster should be uploaded and added to the infobox to serve as an identifying image for the article. Poster images can be found at websites such as Internet Movie Poster Awards or Internet Movie Poster Database. If a poster image cannot be found for the film, or if the film did not have a theatrical release, then a cover image of the film's display case (VHS, DVD, etc.) may be used instead."

Please note the following proviso: "In the absence of an appropriate poster or cover image, a screenshot of the film's title card may also be used."

The original screenshot is not a very good image, as it shows Buster Keaton from behind with a title credit superimposed over the image. When you notified me that you felt that the image should supplant cover art in the infobox and that it would be "orphaned", as a courtesy, I re-inserted the image into the article. I was careful to provide a rationale for the use of a "non-free" image, linking the "trademark Buster Keaton" outfit that was clearly evident in the photo to the screen persona of the comic actor. I also linked the caption to an authoritative reference source that identified the significance of the clothing that was Keaton's trademark "look".

Also, please note that in an infobox image, the following applies: "If very old poster or advertisement is found, do not hesitate to upload it and replace this image with it."

On a final note, when a referencing style is established, please do not re-visit the article and arbitrarily re-do the work already in place. The style that was used was the Harvard Citation guide for cites and the Modern Language Style Guide for reference notation. Do Not change styles to suit your interests. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Stop your edits that are not AGF. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Regina Belle Baby Come To Me.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Regina Belle Baby Come To Me.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Edward Perry Warren

Thanks for notifying me about this. --rossb (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:JR

Unless you mean to challenge WP:JR again, or argue that a comma is needed per its provisions, you should not be moving articles to include a comma in the name. All recent RFC and RM discussions affirm this consensus. Such moves are purely disruptive. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow, you escalated that to some serious disruption, got yourself trouted and almost boomeranged, and then opened a couple of clearly losing anti-MOS RM discussions. What is motivating this comma-inclusion feeling? Dicklyon (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Trout

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

For looking foolish when disruptively proposing "Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk)#RfC: Proposing moratorium" on a talk page he had hardly ever participated in, with an apparent intention to stir up negative arguments and stifle normal processes while building up his own importance, telling people to stop doing things when they had already stopped doing them, all the while thinking the article must be highly volatile when in fact it had been quiet for many months (a fact he failed to notice). "I'll re-propose when further RMs result in 'no move' or 'no consensus'" he said as he withdrew his embarrassingly silly "moratorium proposal". No, he will not be doing that, as we will be watching to ensure that he doesn't. Prhartcom (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

George, you are capable of better, and I know you can succeed at Wikipedia, but you have got to stop with the pointy, bureaucratic behavior. Stop annoying people by running around here and there, doing officious but essentially useless tasks, and affecting people in negative ways. Instead, why not stop and focus some positive energy on one article for awhile and actually help the encyclopedia by creating some content? That's the core Wikipedia activity, you know. You could find a single article that you like and work to improve it, researching new reliable sources, possibly finishing by nominating it for WP:GA! What do you think? Let me know if I can help. Best of luck, Prhartcom (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

To amplify both of what Prhartcom is saying here, and what I'm saying two threads below, a good example of unconstructive "style omphaloskepsis" and pointless argument about trivia is Talk:Years Past Matter#"Past" in the title, an RfC launched to answer a pointless question that was not on anyone's mind and did not require the community's attention, followed immediately by Talk:Years Past Matter##Requested move 28 November 2015, to re-pursue the exact same question after the few people who GAF enough to respond the first time had already answered it. Next came the attempt to WP:FORUMSHOP the Talk:Love Me Like You#Requested move 12 February 2016 RM while the matter was already under discussion at WT:MOSCAPS. There are several other cases like this. This makes it ironic that you went after Dicklyon at WP:ANI for alleged singleminded and pointless pursuit of disruptive style nitpicks. It's psychological projection (blame-shifting).

As I tried, probably poorly, to indicate below, I think your input could be valuable on such matters, if your focus shifted to raising them when they're appropriate and meaningful within the project and for its goals, not pursuit of trivial nitpicks for their own sake. We have a tremendous amount of work to do to clean up our articles on English grammar, punctuation, and usage. They're embarrassingly poor, so we need additional, detail-oriented editors who care about the subject matter to work on them in earnest. I think you could be very helpful to WP in that capacity.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Concerning the kerfuffle at: Dicklyon and his treatment on commas before Jr/Sr

Just let it go in good grace, take a step back and breathe. Both of you don't come out smelling of roses. Just saying. Lectonar (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Olive branch, and thoughts on how to approach style and usage on Wikipedia

I've rescinded my topic-ban suggestion at ANI. On reflection, it was a less temperate than was warranted, and I think I was influenced to overreaction by recent behaviors of another editor, Darkfrog24 (now indefinitely blocked) that really could be described as "disruptive antics". It's not my intent to foment some kind of "feud" with you. ANI just isn't the place for trying to win content disputes, especially, especially about style matters, because most of the ANI crowd detest such arguments and tend to want to blame everyone involved ("punish everyone equally so they all shut up and stop arguing about minutiae").

To the extent I have any actual dispute with your general approach, not the ANI-related judgment, it's just your seeming [I don't read minds!] resistance to accepting sourcing and evidence when it comes to language matters, as if your own interior sense of what is "right" will not be swayed. If that turns out to be true, please do what Darkfrog24 could not: just let it go entirely, and pick a different topic area to "work" here. If I'm misreading you, and you continue working constructively in this general area, it's important to conceptualize and compartmentalize some things:

What little wisdom I may have gleaned:

Our articles on style and grammar matters are entirely descriptive. (Or should be / must become – the aforementioned editor inserted a bunch of PoV and OR in some of them, as have some others, and many of the articles are poorly sourced, which is why I'm drafting User:SMcCandlish/WikiProject English Language; the cleanup and development effort will need to be organized and sustained.) There's nothing special about them, and they're subject to the same core content policies as anything else. In particular, WP:MOS- and WP:AT-related concerns, ideas, and preferences have no part in their content (trying to warp some articles to support an MoS battlegrounding position has a lot to do with why that editor was banned). Our article titles are intended for a general audience, who really don't care much about the fine details of them, and have widely different expectations and preferences anyway. We cannot please everyone all the time. Title consistency is primarily for internal maintenance practicality. It's worth wrangling a bit to make them practical, but not worth fighting to make them "correct" according to some off-WP ideas about grammar, spelling, capitalization, punctuation, etc. It is entirely sufficient that we have our own consensus-developed style manual and naming conventions (which are sometimes arbitrary), just as other publishers do. It is physically impossible for our title style (and article content style) to agree with all external publications, since there are many variant styles in conflict. Pushing for a particular one that doesn't serve a Wikipedia-specific interest is a total waste of time an energy. See Bicycle-shed problem. Our manual of style (plus naming-convention set), while more descriptive than average, is by nature a prescriptive (and in part proscriptive) work, like all style guides and house style sheets. Their very purpose is to set rules, not to identify all known possible options. Working on MoS and working on articles about English usage are similar conceptually, but pretty much opposite each other in actual practice. It is the job of MOS (and AT and the NC pages) to identify what works best on WP for its own purposes, context, and audience, and to codify that, whether that agrees with topically specialized "authorities" or not and whether it's the most common exact way, off-WP, to address any particular style nit-pick or not. It takes some work, some re-learning, and flexibility. Zero line-items in any of these policies and guidelines have 100% buy-in from all editors, and zero editors agree with 100% of the line-items found in these pages. We just accept them as the best, though ever-shifting, compromise we can come up with, and agree to "work" under it so we can actually get the work done instead of fighting 24/7 about style trivia. (It's the same at other publishers; it's not like you get to insist on non-NYT style when you write an op-ed for the New York Times.) Those peccadilloes can never be normalized since there are no universal, real-world standards to apply, just numerous options, some of which work great here and some of which are very unsuitable (plus many that don't matter either way, and which we thus do not address and leave to random editorial discretion). Our internal standards are based a combination of what has experientially worked best, what logically makes more sense, what high-quality, formal-English external sources are doing or recommend (secondarily to the first criterion), and sometimes just picking an option simply to have a single rule about something to put an end to fights about it. People who cannot separate their desire to be prescriptive from their article editing work write terrible article content. Those who cannot compartmentalize their descriptive urge and want to "source the MOS" make a mess of our internal guidelines. Both types of failed approach eventually lead to the ejection of the editor, at least from the topic area. Those who balance these approaches and learn to switch between them are invaluable to both parts of the project. Please be in that group.

I hope this helps, and it is not intended as a haughty lecture or a strident chiding, but a "please be among the performers not the hecklers" invitation, and some advice based on a decade-plus of doing this stuff. :-) PS: I empathize with your socialization comment at page-top, and this may relate to our short-term friction.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (see here) - ^theWOLFchild 17:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• The reason I informed you of the ANI is because it involves the same person and the same issue that you recently dealt with. In fact, I mentioned and linked your ANI in mine. I would've simply added my concerns to yours, but it has become quite convoluted and stale, with a lot of the focus now on punishing you instead of dealing with the issue. If you still have concerns about the commas, feel to participate in the ANI I started. - ^theWOLFchild 00:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:20th century fox (2009).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:20th century fox (2009).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing MoS/RM issues

Canvassing of admins like this needs to stop. Please just let the editorial community decide things. We have processes like RM for that purpose, not for building up an "army" of sympathetic admins to WP:SUPERVOTE. (To FPaS's credit, he didn't take your bait, I note.) I realize that some of these grammatical and style debates can get emotional. Let's endeavor to steer them away from that territory. This is one of the reasons I've been collecting style guides, so that dispassionate research on these questions can be done.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

If you have a problem with that, either request to become an admin or report me at ANI then. --George Ho (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

No, just stop. SMcCandlish needs to neither become an admin nor report you at ANI to ask you to stop doing this. It'd be better for you wholesale to stop doing this. If you're prepared to gamble on an ANI report working out in your favour, that's your call, but my advice is that, right now, it would not end well for you. Please take SMcCandlish's kind note to heart and go with what he's suggesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, George Ho. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/2016 Donald Trump Chicago rally protest.
Message added 08:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of 2016 Donald Trump Chicago rally protest

Hello! Your submission of 2016 Donald Trump Chicago rally protest at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

George Ho, the nomination has been marked with an "X", and is likely to close as unsuccessful very soon unless the issues with the article are dealt with. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Your fascination on disambiguating articles

Hi George, you wrote:

I want to discuss your disregard on primacy at WP:ANI, but I can't... Not yet. I am very tired of your fetish or fascination on disambiguation methods, like comma, more precision, or parenthesis. You seem to lack your connections with the mainstream... Wait, you haven't been considerate of what mainstream masses really want to surf at. Maybe that's accusatory, but apparently, your comments at move discussions, while growing tiresome, might indicate your disconnection with most readers. This is very troubling. You seem to lack a creative rationale for any topic of the same name. Better yet, maybe you think anything is not distinctive enough, or you think there is no primary topic for anything. But I must have faith in you for... how long before I report you? --George Ho (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow. That's pretty strong. You're threatening me? I have said clearly that I do believe that both parts of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC need to be satisfied, not just one. What in the guideline do you see that makes anyone with that view punishable for expressing the view? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Look, I was discussing the way you commented lately, like Talk:Yellow Boots here. Also, your way of thinking may conflict with WP:notability and its subpages, like WP:notability (music). I was amazed by your creations on articles, but some pages become deleted as result of not meeting notability standards. I saw some of notifications at your talk page. George Ho (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Why are you threatening someone with ANI because of them doing a [Google Books search on "Yellow Boots"] which agrees with and supports your RM proposal? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Or you're upset that I created Yellow Boots (novel) on the first Canadian-Ukrainian novel after that's what I saw Google Books picked up first? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... I see that you created Adonis amurensis. My apologies if I made you feel threatened. I didn't intend to do so if that's what you were thinking. Still, creating the article to justify your point at the talk page would bring consequences. I hope that's not the reason, right? I don't see how the flower you demonstrated is prominent or meets the notability standards. Can you explain? George Ho (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be harassing a number of editors and repeatedly wasting time at ANI. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

IIO, you're getting reported. I've had enough. Unreal7 (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

For creating Adonis amurensis? You'll see that it has extensive interwiki articles in Japanese and Chinese Wikipedia, you'll see that it has extensive sources in books on Japan as a culturally important flower. So on what grounds are you challenging creation of a stub on en.wp? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Ready for Your Love (Chapter 8 song)

George you wrote:

Will you allow me to merge or redirect the page to Chapter 8 (album)? Seems to fail WP:NSONGS. --George Ho (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It was a chart hit in the US, where the English song didn't chart, and the biggest hit for Chapter 8 band, I suggest you take it to AFD. If you genuinely think that the topics are not notable as you have said then you can also try taking the Adonis amurensis and Yellow Boots (novel) to AfD and see what other editors think. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

ITN trial

It's very well to nominate as many RDs as you can, but you do realise that they need to be of sufficient quality before they're posted? I hope you'll assist with some of your nominations, or else we'll need to start treating your edits as disruptive. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Comma noise

George, you are well aware by now that every RM discussion has re-affirmed the preference for no comma before Jr. There's no need for a bunch more RM discussions. This is just disruptive noise at this point. Dicklyon (talk) 05:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

And nobody but you has suggested that the comma is related to U.S. versus elsewhere. Where are you getting that? Dicklyon (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Sally Brampton at Malou efter tio TV4 2009.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Sally Brampton at Malou efter tio TV4 2009.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Reg Grundy 20 September 2010.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Reg Grundy 20 September 2010.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Orphaned non-free image File:Hello Goodbye by The Beatles UK vinyl single.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Reg Grundy 20 September 2010.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Reg Grundy 20 September 2010.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sally Brampton at Malou efter tio TV4 2009.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sally Brampton at Malou efter tio TV4 2009.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Your conduct at ITN

It's noble that you have attempted to refactor some of your comments at the closed "Ongoing: Fort McMurray wildfire" on WP:ITN/C, but I think you've missed the point entirely. When you were asked to depersonalize the nom, you were to remove your references to Sca and his conduct, regardless of how you saw it. ITN/C is not the place to discuss the conduct and behavior of other editors. If you feel that his conduct deserves attention, there are venues available for this sort of thing.--WaltCip (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

DW4 cover images

Hey George,

Looks like the FFD was closed. Anyway, as to the question mark: no, it's not an accident, but more of a mark of skepticism. The question mark is saying "Probably not, at least to my current knowledge, but I could be wrong if you know something I don't." I was saying that I suspected that by the current guidelines, the DS box art does not meet WP:NFC, but perhaps a case could be made if you or someone else wanted to.

Example:

• "Do you think I can get into the movie theatre for free?"
• "No...?" (Implication: By default, no, but maybe you know the manager or something...?)

Thanks! SnowFire (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Notice

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

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

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.,

George, these edits [1], [2], [3], [4] constitute a longterm edit war over something which you never attained WP:CONSENSUS for, and these edits [5], [6] constitute blatant WP:FORUMSHOPPING over the consensus you didn't like. Please stand down and self-revert and observe article talkpage WP:BRD before this escalates needlessly into a noticeboard report or a report to an administrator. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 06:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say I agree with your "consensus". There's just two of us not willing to agree with each other in the talk page, Softlavender. I just backed down for a while because I get intimidated into not replacing the DVD cover. I just added the VHS cover as an extra instead. George Ho (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

If you want to report on me, go ahead. I'm waiting. George Ho (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

George, the consensus is clearly two to one on the article's talkpage, and per WP:BRD, the status quo ante remains unless you get WP:CONSENSUS to change it. Again, I encourage you to self-revert in order to comply with BRD. Softlavender (talk) 06:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The other guy who preferred the DVD is inactive; I was thinking of inviting him to FFD, Softlavender. Therefore, it's just two of us. Also, the BRD is an essay. Here's another essay for us to read: Wikipedia:BRD misuse. George Ho (talk) 06:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, consensus may change, you know. The talk page venue was never visited since two (if not three) of us had a discussion. George Ho (talk) 06:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment from a random passerby: I have no opinion on this matter, but George, re "The other guy who preferred the DVD is inactive", you're reinforcing one of the worst elements of Wikipedia: a presumed need to constantly repeat yourself lest your vote not be "counted." He or she has said their piece. Their opinion matters. They shouldn't need to constantly say "Yes, I still think this" at risk of editor burnout, or doing other, more useful things. Of course, opinions might be "stale" because circumstances or policies have changed and therefore more discountable, but this particular dispute seems like it's roughly the same as in 2014. He might be "wrong" but he shouldn't be discounted.

You can see this at its worst on policy pages, where it's not uncommon to have, say, 5 really hardcore editors spending time debating something 3:2, when including a larger pool of editors who aren't deeply committed would show a preference of like 30:4. But those people who really care can filibuster and make their opinions seem far more relevant than the repeated passerbys who say "No, I think this" and move on. SnowFire (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)