User:George Ho/Block History

Block #1
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for see more detailed notes below. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request
To read discussion, click "Show" to the right  So, part of the problem is that you don't seem to be listening to the issues being raised. Here are some pointers to where you went "wrong": Blofeld is a pretty good editor to work with - he is very prolific and one of the best "source finders" I have seen. This didn't work out very well, hence the block, but perhaps by slowing down you can approach things differently - particularly the idea of constructive addition rather than destructive removal. I'm not going to unblock you right now because it is far too quick for you to "get" the points being made. --Errant (chat!) 00:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Dumping multiple deletion templates onto an established editors page (particularly one so prolific as Blofeld) isn't particularly productive and is likely to rub anyone up the wrong way. You clearly identified a possible problem with images in this area (Argentine film), in such a situation the better idea would have been to open a discussion with Blofeld
 * One mistake was approaching this from the perspective of deleting as much as possible if there were issues. A much better approach is to try and retain as much as possible - if an image is lacking an FUR, but was uploaded some time ago, it is quite possible that it simply wasn't part of policy at that time. So you could instead have a look and consider whether the image needed FUR. Similarly with those stubs, you could have asked Blofeld if he intended to expand them, and if not discuss what best to do.
 * When people questioned your actions you went on the defensive - going to AN/I and then mentioning this fact at a couple of AFD's. I see you already retracted most of those comments.
 * You're moving a bit too fast, I see a lot of edits today in quick succession. This was probably what annoyed Blofeld the most. The rapidity of posting an unblock request after the block is a symptom of this problem.
 * Alternatively, I should use FFD, right, rather than file deletion tags? If not, then what else besides addition?  I'm not very good at constructive additions other than in lists and file descriptions.  I did not mean to ruin the reputation of Blofeld or disrupt him, did I?  I'm just an average Joe here.  However, the images that I have tagged for deletion still have problems, such as copyrights and meanings of photos and works.  Nevertheless, I never meant to make myself destructive, did I?  As for other issues, I'll reply later about them.  --George Ho (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I got interrupted while putting this together. This is the full block rationale

George Ho, I have blocked you because your continued pattern of editing - which I am prepared to accept is largely intended in good faith - is actually disruptive. You have crashed your way through PRODs and moved onto some of the most WP:POINTy AFD's I have come across, you are misusing tags, molesting templates, failing to read policies, not understanding what people are saying to you, and generally barging about the place tripping over the furniture.

I don't intend you should be blocked for ever, but you need to stop tagging and nominating for deletion for a while, because you are wrong too often. Maybe you need a mentor to work with you. Whatever, you don't seem to be doing too much listening, or thinking about what you are doing wrong.

Just going back over your last four hours edits:- - You refactored Blofeld's post. OK it was only minor, but given that you're in a dispute with him, you should not do even minor refactors. - why did you post a link to a google search for "gran aventura" -wikipedia 1974. It's hardly surprising it didn't turn anything up - why does that citation need verification? Because you're trying to get the article deleted? - refactoring another of Blofeld's posts (again minor, but read WP:REFACTOR - no, spanish sources don't need to be verified unless you are accusing the person who listed it of something shady  - pointy AFD  - pointy AFD  - ANI report that Dr Blofeld is libelling and slandering you.  Do you actually know what those words mean? - adding that template without following the instructions only makes work for someone else. - this, which seems to have kicked off the argument with Blofeld, beggars belief. It was correctly tagged - you decided that it wasn't a photograph, and the source was "unreliable". Why? In what way can the source be "unreliable"? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I did not interact with Blofeld very well and made things without proper consideration, yet he replaced the deletion tags with "suck eggs" or something like that in the file description of the file that was later deleted. I'm not kidding or anything like that.  I found that derogatory, and I could not trust him further because of something simply derogatory; any vandal could something like that.  How can I see him as "good editor"?  How can I think positive?  I know he did not mean to upload these images, but policy is policy, isn't it?  Should a policy be properly discussed?  "Slander" and "libel" meant vicious and malicious comments about me, such as accusing me of "spamming", and he "threatened" me to be discussed for my edits that he did not agree with.  I still don't understand it, and, if I did something wrong, I still don't understand myself.   --George Ho (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just on the suck eggs thing - Blofeld blanked the page and replaced it with the message "I suck eggs". Blanking the page meant that he was indicating the image should be deleted - "I suck..." means "I did that badly" or "I made a mistake".  You are not reading/not comprehending (not sure which) what people are saying to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 01:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * On the "slander/libel" thing, those words don't just mean "someone was a bit nasty to me". They have specific legal meanings, and nothing said to you was even close to legally actionable - he may have been a bit robust in his words, but you had been placing him under a lot of pressure with your rapid-fire tagging etc and your failure to just talk to him first -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, I need a mentor about anything, such as valid deletion tags. I can't leave anything alone.  Do I have to sit by and let things happen, such as edits by Casanova88?  If I can't tag them for deletion, then what are reasons for me to talk to the contributors?  Do I have to trust people who do not know the laws?  If I am one of those people, do I trust myself to tag anything for deletion?  As for Blofeld, he did not mean to let things alone, or I must have interpret.  I just have to tag them for valid reasons.  Do I have to notify uploaders about deleting images?  --George Ho (talk) 03:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, I don't understand how point-y my nominations of articles are, aside from personal attacks toward editors. My reasonings on films and fictional characters are understandable, aren't they?  --George Ho (talk) 03:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How long can I be blocked? I still have to tag them for deletion without need to discuss contributors and others, right?  I just... I care about Wikipedia' reputation too much without considering civility.  If I can't create deletion discussions, then I must notify uploaders, right?  If I notify them, then the uploaders and authors may clean up their own mess, although history log proves otherwise.  How can I request revdel on these files if I can't create any more deletion discussions?  --George Ho (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * All right, I continued tagging anything for deletion because I could not trust people, including sockpuppets by Dane97. I have dealt trust with others, and others let me down.  I have not trusted others except administrators and We hope.  I continued using deletion tags because I have been self-righteous, unless my actions are not self-righteous under guidelines and laws, and because there were too many topics that may not meet WP:GNG and because I'm a spoiled, shallow brat.  You can let me be blocked from article editing for one or two years, but I can still email people and edit my talk page.  However, I am not sure if this helps me learn my lessons never to do such above mentioned actions again.  --George Ho (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You are not "sheerly incompetent". But you have been going about things totally the wrong way. I did warn you not to get on the wrong side of me and look what has happened. Would have all been completely avoidable if you'd started discussing the image issue with me and how to sort them out without the mass spamming of my talk page. You were standoffish "don't interfere I am busy mass tagging your images". Not good enough. When an editor is concerned about something you should stop and discuss it with them. The offer still stands when you are unblocked to create a list of problematic images. Regards. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If you want to know what I found the most irritating was a] you were mass tagging images for deletion which are likely public domain and some of the images were actually hard to find, especially screenshots on set of films. I spent a lot of time finding images and uploading them so to go all out deletionist without trying to help me salvage them and correct the license with "this file will be deleted in seven days" placed on them was annoying. b] You added a mass of unnecessary tags to images like Roberto Escalada with a ridiculous "reliable source?" tag on the source of the image!! That was probably what I found the most absurd, Elen is right about that. c] The way you made a series of edits in quick sucesison spamming me deletion warnings and prodding articles I've created for deletion without even asking me to expand them when if you actually looked in google books you'd find it meets requirements.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What else can I say? That you were right and I was wrong?  If I admit that, then I have to swallow my pride and never tag anything for deletion again; is that what everyone wants me?  As for your edits, why did you replace deletion tags with "I suck eggs"?  You have a good reputation, but I could not understand your behavior; yet people made possible explanations.  That's why I did not make an open conversation; I felt betrayed when you did that.  I also made you feel betrayed by my actions, didn't I?  If I can't use my talk page for anything else while I'm blocked, then what else can I do?  I apologize for not having an open discussion about each other's behavior, all right?  Look, if I have to tag them for deletion without (unnecessary, IMHO) open discussion, I have reasons to tag anything for deletion.  1) Out of fun of it; 2) If an article is deleted per my AfD and without open discussion before AfD, there must be a valid reason for it; 3) I hate myself as a human being; 4) I'm miserable and inexcusable and wanting to be loved for being that.  --George Ho (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You've got to stop using such strong words as "libel", "slander" and "betrayed" in completely the wrong context. No I absolutely didn't feel "betrayed" by your actions that's totally the wrong word. That would imply I once trusted you or were fond of you, I don't know you!! To me you are simply one of the image copyright fanatics who patrol the site every now and then and drill everybody deletion warnings. "Irritated" that you were tagging likely public domain images yes, wondering why on earth you would dedicate your time to going through images and even caring about 50 year old Argentine images which may or may not be public domain, most certainly.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want me to determine the copyright status of images without tagging them for deletion, what else can I do besides editing file descriptions and discussing with you openly? Isn't changing tags cleaning up people's initial mess?  If not, then what is it?  --George Ho (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)  I noticed that you haven't answere why you did such a thing, unless it was a message for me in a sarcastic and humorous way to delete an image.  I must apologize if I did not understand your humor.  --George Ho (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm blocked from editing English Wikipedia but not from editing Commons Wikimedia. Is it all right for me to do editing there? I swear I have not edited anything yet. --George Ho (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes you may edit at Commons. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

To everyone
I have now been blocked from editing by Elen of the Roads. If you want to talk about my block, go to. Otherwise, please comment my edits here, such as my own images and AfDs. Quote me in AfDs and talk pages if you wish to add my comments about articles; I deserve some credit. --George Ho (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You have given me a rhetorical question in WP:Articles for deletion/The Great Adventure (1974 film). As for accusations of libel and slander, I don't know, yet I should be certain. Please reply if you can; I can still edit my own talk page at this time. --George Ho (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To DGG

In Articles for deletion/Madison North, I have been POINTy, but I don't know how "point-y" I was. Can you specify the guidelines? --George Ho (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens

In Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents you suggested that I should be mentored. Do you mean "no matter what"? By whom? I don't know anymore. --George Ho (talk) 01:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We hope
 * George, I am suggesting that someone who has more time and experience with some of these matters serve as an advisor to you for doing things like files and articles for deletion. This would give you someone to talk things over with and would be very valuable advice for doing things like this on your own in future.  Having a mentor isn't forever, but you would be able to go to him or her after that for advice on things you might not know the answers to or aren't sure about.  There are some editors who are willing to serve as mentors to others editors; am afraid I don't know the names of everyone who's willing to do this.


 * Being mentored doesn't mean you are banned from editing in certain areas; it means that you have someone who's willing to show you how things are done and help you be able to do them on your own in the same way. A teacher most likely taught you how to read, but every time you read anything now, you don't need the teacher's help to do it--this is quite a bit like what's meant by having a mentor. We hope (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Who are possible mentors? Articles for deletion/Comparison of CECB units has valid reasons to delete the article, hasn't it?  --George Ho (talk) 06:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you quote my comment in ? If so, here it is: "This file is certainly of a copyrighted work, The Golden Girls. Too bad I must have lacked good faith on the uploader because I isolated myself from people and because I made terrible assumptions that this user may be a vandal or a bad guy. Anyway, this should be moved to WP:Non-free content review because this image does not meet WP:NFCC." I hope this quote helps. --George Ho (talk) 08:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I won't be able to edit your archives and configurations of MiszaBot. I'll advise and/or instruct you my suggestions to change while I'm blocked. I must either email your or post comments in this talk page: what do you want me to do? --George Ho (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said below, you have access to your Talk page only for addressing your block - not for instructing other editors to edit by proxy for you, and not as a substitute place to discuss AfD -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You said that my 'reasoning' in the AfD of The Great Adventure (1974 film) is disgusting. Can you elaborate? I don't understand. My reasons about this film are clear and valid, unless they are proven wrong. --George Ho (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Greglocock
 * Well, your nomination itself contained a personal attack against Dr. Blofeld, which was way out of line -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you help me strike that out? I'm still blocked, you know.  --George Ho (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I've struck that for you -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

These files, File:Stanzbornak0.jpg, File:Ethan and Simone.jpg, and File:RuthMartin.jpg, have been tagged for deletions for valid reasons. Casanova88 has reverted my edits without proper reason. I know that: Administrators and Casanova88, I want some definite explanations of this. I have valid reasons to tag them for deletion, and somebody may clean up other people's messes without tagging them for deletion which I will not myself will do. --George Ho (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To Casanova88 and administrators of imagery
 * 1) The first image is of a copyrighted work and tagged with the wrong license.
 * 2) The second image has no explanation of purpose of being used in one article.  So does the third.
 * The version of File:Annie-lavery.jpg does not originate from ABC.com which shut down its own page of All My Children. Why was my edit reverted?  --George Ho (talk) 02:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, File:Barbara Montgomery.jpg is used in the BLP Susan Pratt without proper rationale and without complying with Image guidelines of WP:Non-free content. I dare an explanation about this.  --George Ho (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

There are so many articles that violate copyrights, such as "soap opera"-related articles. I will e-mail you and list any article that I figure could be copyrighted. --George Ho (talk) 08:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Moonriddengirl and other administrators of copyright handlings

My AfD nominations
Now I'm blocked from editing. If you want to talk to me about articles nominated for AfDs during AfD discussions, quote me in AfD pages if I request any:

Both articles have not proved notability of their subjects. These fictional male characters still have not been mentioned in periodicals and books. Even Jclemens's rationale for his/her vote won't help me withdraw nominations. Storylines won't help at all, but at least it helps the guidelines of WP:WikiProject Soap Operas. --George Ho (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Madison North and Sean Montgomery

The Great Adventure (1974 film) and El Hijo del crack Both articles have improved since the AfD and proved notability of their subjects. What a coincidence! I always thought that their sources may not be reliable because.... well, I have not considered them reliable at the other time. This makes my nomination rationale totally invalid. If anybody demands me to withdraw nomination, please do so if you wish and if you have valid arguments. --George Ho (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't watch Santa Barbara at all, and no news have covered this fictional character at all. I have been probably too ignorant to learn about her, but I am certain about my AfD rationale if they comply with guidelines, policies, and advices. --George Ho (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Augusta Wainwright

Note - I have removed all the templates. This template is for use in articles only. As you will see from the documentation it puts pages into Category:Articles to be expanded --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring talk here, please
To those who should me about anything, just comment here. This includes you, We hope. --George Ho (talk) 03:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * George, I commented above where you asked the question. We hope (talk) 03:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

To Dr. Blofeld
I have e-mailed you twice about unresolved things, such as categories, and I hope this section proves my validation of becoming unblocked. I have separated this from "To everyone" because this thread shall prove that I am capable of competency and because I fear the size of this section in the future. --George Ho (talk) 08:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

As I say I am very reasonable to work with if you approach me in the right way. When you are unblocked you may create a list of images which need sorting (with generic spamming), but I would appreciate it if you were more constructive and tried to help me sort out the licenses instead of deleting them. Film posters for instance may not be PD-Ar but still quality for fair use. If you could learn the standrd rationales you could simply sort them out in 30 seconds.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Some advice
Hi, I got your email, and here's my advice...

When blocked, the only reason you are allowed to edit your own Talk page is so you can discuss your block and work towards getting it lifted.

So at the moment, you need to focus on your own block and the reasons for it, forget what everyone else is doing, forget the progress of your current AfD nominations, and stop trying to carry on multiple conversations with lots of people unless they are directly related to your block and the reasons for it. That is, you need to concentrate on *your* behaviour, not anybody else's.

Then if you get yourself unblocked, slow down, take things step by step, and follow all the advice you're being given here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I will second the above advice. And add that it appears you've been online for nearly the last 16 hours. Take a breath and think things through after some sleep :) --Errant (chat!) 10:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Don Segundo Sombra.jpg
This file now has a FUR. That's... fair, but I have to consider the history logs. I don't know what else to say. Is this how Wikipedia works? If so, then why am I feeling unhappy about it? I mean, the history log has a revision of wrong license at the start, so, if the revisions must be saved, and if they are historical, what else can I do? Is this doing a dirty work? --George Ho (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC) I tagged it for deletion, so the history log may be erased. Then I would wait for someone else to create an image with a FUR at the start without the need to histmerge, unless the administrators have logs accessible to only them. If no one will create the same image, too bad. Should it be how Wikipedia works? --George Ho (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the excellent User:Sfan00 IMG has added a FUR to the article. Wikipedia works by IMPROVING things.  Deletion is only used when something is totally worthless or so b0rked it is better to start again. If you're still obsessed with deleting things - go play a shoot-em-up game. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mean: Gaming the system? --George Ho (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you for real?? No I do not mean Gaming the system.  I mean exactly what I say - you are not helping Wikipedia by madly trying to delete content in this way. You seem completely unwilling to do anything constructive to improve articles. Wikipedia is not a shoot-em-up game, it takes time and effort to contribute effectively. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Look, I'm wrong about my "bad faith" nomination of this article, and I must admit my mistakes of using AfD as a tool to personally attack Dr. Blofeld. Just please withdraw my nomination as soon as possible. Thank you! --George Ho (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Need to withdraw AfD nomination of The Great Adventure (1974 film) El Hijo del crack
 * I'm too late to withdraw the AfD; now do the same for the other article. --George Ho (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just forget them now and leave other people to deal with them in the normal fashion - you can't retract them or do any other work here just now because you are blocked! Just concentrate on dealing with the unblock discussion, which is the only reason you are still allowed to post here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and do you know what you should really do now? Take the weekend off, and don't even look at Wikipedia - turn your computer off if necessary -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request #2
To see further discussion, click "Show" to the right 
 * Reviewing editor, this is a standard admin block, not an arbcom block, so please unblock if you feel this editor now understands what they are doing. I recommend reading the whole talkpage from the start of the block, including . Personally I would recommend a topic ban on deletions, but this hasn't really been discussed by the community yet (see  Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As I stated to DGG, I've seen DGG criticize George Ho about his deletion nominations. He wasn't the first to do so, as seen in this section, for example. And I criticized different types of his editing in this section. No matter that he tagged it as WP:Wikihounding, my points were valid, as others have echoed my sentiments. I must ask why he is still allowed to nominate and/or propose articles for deletion when it is clear that he doesn't understand the deletion process, as recently as this incident? As that link shows, he still doesn't fully even understand WP:Notability. It was already suggested that he stop nominating articles for deletion because he doesn't know what he's doing (see that first example link). Yet he's still doing it. He doesn't seem to listen at all, another example being that he continues to start sockpuppet investigations about IPs despite having been told more than once that such investigations are not done. Further, he is hell bent on wiping away all All My Children character articles, more so because it is a cancelled show than having anything to do with the state of the articles themselves. Some of these articles can provide notability and/or be fixed up, and he just ignores that, judging these articles on their current state. He recently proposed that two soap opera writer articles be deleted, Margaret DePriest and Lorraine Broderick. I'd never heard of the former (who has also written for prime time), but the latter is a well-known, Emmy-winning soap opera writer. And some books on Google Books confirm this. But, no, this user does not check thoroughly; he just glosses over things, and if he doesn't see notability instantly, he nominates for deletion. He looked right over Tina Cole, and rather focused on these soap opera writers. Only after I pointed this out, did he tag Tina Cole for something.


 * I am so tired of this user fouling up Wikipedia, and am glad that he has finally been stopped. I wish for the block to last forever. Let it stay indefinite. If he creates a WP:Sockpuppet, block him again. 221.6.29.66 (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To administrators: This must the sockpuppet of Dane97, Marist2015, and Mayer2015. Is this reliable?  --George Ho (talk) 02:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? More of your inexperience showing. Dane97 knows nothing about Wikipedia policies or guidelines, and doesn't even talk! Get real. 221.6.29.66 (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I know you are if you are not Dane97, are you not? Fictional characters, except few such as Erica Kane, of All My Children have not met WP:GNG. Their own articles were created because Wikipedia is free and because there is no need to contribute to independent websites, yet the characters have not been covered at all in soap opera periodicals and any other periodicals at all. --George Ho (talk) 02:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To admins: This person is not totally civil toward and has canvassed against me because I nominated things for deletion. Even Raintheone has problems with the same person.  Also, other IP editors have violated copyrights of other websites.  --George Ho (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Now this person has posted a message to Zzuuzz who blocked previous proxies of the same person. --George Ho (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have used WHOIS of this IP, and this is from China. How does this person speak English very well?  There should be great English writers in China, unless an amount is rare.  Now I'm becoming suspicious.   --George Ho (talk) 04:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You could be either or .  --George Ho (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

As for postdlf, he means well. However, he perceives them as 'unconstructive' because everybody else is improving articles a lot and because numerous deletion tagging is considered to him 'bad for Wikipedia'. To me, I have reasons to nominate things for deletion, and I do not have to search for sources, do I? No one knows soap operas nowadays, and no news have covered them recently, unless they either have been or will be cancelled. I don't have to present his email replies to me, do I? Also, other proxies of the same person have been blocked indefinitely, especially when the same person contacted Moonriddengirl. --George Ho (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I am not Dane97 and I pointed out why above. You just don't listen, at all. Here you are trying to deflect attention on me, completely ignoring that you were wrong in your editing. The fact that you were wrong is exactly why you are blocked now. Because you are blocked for similar reasons. You say that I canvassed against you, but I say that my complaints were valid. Your block, where others are saying pretty much the same thing I said, shows they were valid. Raintheone didn't have much of a problem with me, and, despite whatever happened between Raintheone and myself, Raintheone agreed that you were making some pretty silly edits. Also, Postdlf knows what he was talking about. Every soap opera character is documented in "soap opera periodicals," and more than a few of the soap opera characters on Wikipedia are notable. It just takes the right person to demonstrate that notability; you clearly are not that person. And saying "No one knows soap operas nowadays" is not only an untruth, even with your having meant "hardly anyone," but an opinion as well. You need to do like another editor said below and learn some humility.


 * As for "How [do I] speak English very well?" (not that some people aren't fluent in both languages), that's because I am American and am using a proxy. See WP:PROXY. I thought you'd known by now that the only reason I keep getting blocked is because I prefer to use a proxy instead of reveal my true IP identity. 221.6.29.66 (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, George. A couple of points.  WP:IAR is not carte blanche.  You may already understand this and I apologize if my tone sounds patronizing.  Please understand that I mean no disrespect.  Also, you state at one point in your request "if open discussion is not necessary for others,"; there are very limited circumstances where discussion is not necessary.  I cannot see one instance where dealing with an established editor would fall into this category.  I am not presenting you with new hoops to jump through, I am attempting to provide food for thought.  Regards   Tide rolls 03:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If "dealing with an established editor" does not fall into category, then what else falls into category? If I have to establish an open discussion prior to AfD, in one instance, must I contact WP:WikiProject Soap Operas and then improve articles whose topics do not meet WP:GNG?  --George Ho (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In a word, yes; article improvement is always preferable to deletion. Perhaps I misunderstand the point you are attempting to make.  Deletion is the last resort; it should only apply to those articles whose subject is non-notable (in your example which cites GNG).  If the subject is notable and the article, as you find it, makes a poor case for notability or it lacks reliable souorces that support notability then, yes, address those issues.  Seeking help/advice from other editors, or Wiki projects that cover the article subject, are common courses to follow.  If I've not taken your meaning please be patient with me. I will help in any way I can.  Tide rolls 06:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Eric Brady is a non-notable character to me at the standards of GNG; he has been mentioned whenever the articles had discussed Jensen Ackles, the actor who portrayed him between 1997 and 2000. However, fans of Days of our Lives may prove otherwise if they could. Seriously, I used Google News and its archives; not one article even covered this fictional character and his storylines at all. Should I first either nominate its article for AfD or discuss this topic with WikiProject members? --George Ho (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You discuss it. Google is not the be-all and end-all; offline sources are more than acceptable (indeed, if they are ever banned, I will quit). Non-English-languages sources are also perfectly acceptable. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * ..."Eric Brady is a non-notable character to me..."rolls 07:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What if I have found none, other than awards list and recaps which are very unreliable and not helpful to establish notability of this fictional character, in websites of soap opera periodicals? I still have to search offline sources, correct?  There are microfilms in the following: New York Public Library, UCLA, and Central Library of Los Angeles Public Library.  Does anyone know how time-consuming the research of offline sources is?  Speaking of soap opera periodicals, I have found titles in category:television soap opera media.  I've learned that Soap Opera Digest will be the only periodical left to cover soap opera entertaiment circle.  Soaps in Depth should give up editions of ABC and CBS due to scarce amount of soaps nowadays; instead, there should be just one edition.  I don't know which one is more reliable than the other anymore.  If both of them are unreliable, then what's the point of searching this fictional character offline?  TV Guide never puts him into the top list or anything like that.  --George Ho (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Then how can anyone explain deletions of Barbara Montgomery (character), Lily Montgomery, Asher Pike, and WP:Articles for deletion/Mason Capwell per AfDs? Are two views in Articles for deletion/Comparison of CECB units valid to have an article deleted? Is there something wrong with my views? --George Ho (talk) 08:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

People, like him or her (the IP open proxies), have trouble with my edits because I have been very impatient with atrocities of bad article qualities and articles of non-notable subjects. Nothing or nobody or not a block can persuade me to improve articles, unless I have proper rationales to do it. I mean, I never meant to put WikiProject Soap Operas under stress; I just am doing things on the behalf of common people, like me, who have become too unenthusiastic or too apathetic to care about American soap operas and their entities nowadays. --George Ho (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "I just am doing things on the behalf of common people, like me, who have become too unenthusiastic or too apathetic to care about American soap operas and their entities nowadays." If you don't care about American soap operas, simply don't read the articles. You not caring is not a reason for deletion, indeed it suggests you are not a good fit for editing those articles, since you have no interest in them. Why not spend your time improving articles you are interested in?


 * When it comes to building an encyclopedia the idea is to provide useful information to interested parties. Notability is part of that, but I'd suggest that someone who can put themselves in the place of a reader who wants to find out about soap operas is better placed to consider this than someone who just wants to delete stuff.


 * Seriously, I think you should take some time out and think about what you are trying to achieve here - and what the purpose of the encyclopedia is. To me it looks like you are just trying to delete as much stuff as possible, regardless of the potential for improvement.


 * I'm just a dabbler here (I did have an account but I deliberately made it inaccessible to try and stop myself from wasting time on this sort of thing) but I'd suggest that you'll probably remain banned until you can articulate the purpose of deletion to the satisfaction of an admin and outline how, in general, you intend to approach improving articles in the future.


 * Don't get hung up on individual editors or cases, give a general answer that shows your understanding and a commitment to change.


 * Some suggested reading: WP:BATTLE, WP:EDIT, Deletionism, WP:DEL and WP:IUP - pay particular attention to the alternatives to deletion.


 * I'll not post again here, but I'd also suggest that it would help with your ban if you stopped trying to rebut every point that's made to you with spurious arguments that seem to indicate you don't understand the policy and practise here (and are unwilling to let things go).


 * No edits at all for a few days followed by a concise statement showing your understanding of when deletion is appropriate - and how you plan to behave in the future - would go greatly in your favour, I think. At the moment it just looks like you're addicted to arguing with people here and unwilling to take a break and learn about how things should be done.


 * Apologies if this comes across as too harsh - you obviously mean well - but you don't seem to be listening to what people are trying to tell you. Until you do, I suspect you will remain banned.


 * Oh and regarding Mentorship, you can read about it here: WP:MENTOR. I imagine you could propose being mentored as part of your plan for future behaviour - at this stage showing willing would be enough, I'd guess, the arrangements would be made after you were unblocked. All the best. 81.107.26.167 (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I am interested in the 1980s storylines of Days of our Lives and All My Children. The rest: I'm more concerned about growing number of articles of fictional characters of the 1980s (such as "Donna Beck" which was an article but moved per AfD but deleted as a redirect page of non-existing article), including those that violate copyrights, such as "Mark Dalton (All My Children)". How can you explain the deletion of List of All My Children miscellaneous characters and Minor Characters of All My Children? The WP:MENTOR you gave me is an essay, not a policy; do I have to follow essays? By the way, you have always used an IP address; this is getting me suspicious about you. --George Ho (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, don't listen to a word anyone is saying - but don't expect to be unblocked any time soon. Believe or not I was trying to help, but never mind, I'm done here. You can be as suspicious as you like, I only stumbled on this page because I left you a note about UK being the correct abbreviation (not U.K.) then all this other stuff happened, and I offered my perspective - that's it, done. "By the way, you have always used an IP address" is nonsense - do you expect my username edits to appear on the same list as my IP address edits? That's not how it works. If you're curious, here are my edits when I was logged in: Special:Contributions/Maccy69 and here are the not logged-in edits Special:Contributions/81.107.26.167 you'll see that the dates and editing patterns match. Like I said, I don't edit much and that was just my perspective. I deliberately broke my own log in (deleted the email address and changed the password at random) to try and avoid getting sucked into these types of discussions - this'll teach me for not staying away. Goodbye. 81.107.26.167 (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh... I must apologize for my behavior. I'm too paranoid and too inexcusable about IP addresses. Look, I did not imply "not listening to you". Since you don't want to use your username, do whatever you like. I have had enough of IP users nowadays. I would prefer usernames, but you prove yourself to be harmless. Look, I will listen, but I will listen well if points have been broken into paragraphs. --George Ho (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted.But even in your apologies you come across as patronising and insulting - I fear you may not have the self-awareness to work well with others.


 * As requested, I've edited my original post to correct typos and to split it into paragraphs. That's all stuff to think about - not to argue with me about. I can't unblock and I'm not interested in prolonging a discussion, I just gave my perspective, use it as you will.


 * One last thing: people have been talking about a mentor as a way to help you edit constructively, I just gave a link to give you some details about how it might work. It's not about saying you have to do anything, it's pointing you in the direction of a process that might help, that is all. You could perhaps start by ruminating on why "The WP:MENTOR you gave me is an essay, not a policy; do I have to follow essays?" is an inappropriate response to someone offering you information.


 * Anyway, it's no skin off my nose if you're unblocked or not, so I won't be responding further - either my input will help or it won't. You need to engage with the community and, in particular, the admins if you want to continue to contribute to the project. 81.107.26.167 (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * To administrators, I have found news sources in Google News for Mark LaMura and Mark Dalton (All My Children). If I'm unblocked, then I'll prove to you that I'm capable of improving Wikipedia.  Eric Brady: I must take advice, humbly, to discuss this article to WikiProject Soap Operas.  --George Ho (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I've tried to sift through the history here with only some success. Can someone paraphrase for me exactly why George Ho is being disruptive with diffs and links? I get that there was some nomination for deletion with Dr. Blofeld but I'm not seeing how a warning or a one day block wouldn't have better accomplished its purpose. I am not stating that Elen was blocking wrongly, just that I don't see the disruption, although George Ho certainly could use some teaching about image policy. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm maybe not best placed to try and make sense of this but if you read a section at a time in this order, it should make more sense:


 * 1. User talk:George Ho
 * 2. Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive728
 * 3. User talk:George Ho


 * That pretty much covers it, and there are diffs in at least the ANI thread. Also maybe of interest, from further in the past: User_talk:George_Ho, User_talk:George_Ho, User_talk:George_Ho, User_talk:George_Ho, User_talk:George_Ho. 81.107.26.167 (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And from this section (November 2011) here are the most relevant bits. Ellen's original block reason (includes diffs):
 * "Sorry, I got interrupted while putting this together. This is the full block rationale


 * George Ho, I have blocked you because your continued pattern of editing - which I am prepared to accept is largely intended in good faith - is actually disruptive. You have crashed your way through PRODs and moved onto some of the most WP:POINTy AFD's I have come across, you are misusing tags, molesting templates, failing to read policies, not understanding what people are saying to you, and generally barging about the place tripping over the furniture.


 * I don't intend you should be blocked for ever, but you need to stop tagging and nominating for deletion for a while, because you are wrong too often. Maybe you need a mentor to work with you. Whatever, you don't seem to be doing too much listening, or thinking about what you are doing wrong.


 * Just going back over your last four hours edits:-
 * - You refactored Blofeld's post. OK it was only minor, but given that you're in a dispute with him, you should not do even minor refactors.
 * - why did you post a link to a google search for "gran aventura" -wikipedia 1974. It's hardly surprising it didn't turn anything up
 * - why does that citation need verification? Because you're trying to get the article deleted?
 * - refactoring another of Blofeld's posts (again minor, but read WP:REFACTOR
 * - no, spanish sources don't need to be verified unless you are accusing the person who listed it of something shady
 * - pointy AFD
 * - pointy AFD
 * - ANI report that Dr Blofeld is libelling and slandering you. Do you actually know what those words mean?
 * - adding that template without following the instructions only makes work for someone else.
 * - this, which seems to have kicked off the argument with Blofeld, beggars belief. It was correctly tagged - you decided that it wasn't a photograph, and the source was "unreliable".  Why? In what way can the source be "unreliable"?
 * --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)"
 * and, from before that, another attempt at explantion:
 * "So, part of the problem is that you don't seem to be listening to the issues being raised. Here are some pointers to where you went "wrong":
 * Dumping multiple deletion templates onto an established editors page (particularly one so prolific as Blofeld) isn't particularly productive and is likely to rub anyone up the wrong way. You clearly identified a possible problem with images in this area (Argentine film), in such a situation the better idea would have been to open a discussion with Blofeld
 * One mistake was approaching this from the perspective of deleting as much as possible if there were issues. A much better approach is to try and retain as much as possible - if an image is lacking an FUR, but was uploaded some time ago, it is quite possible that it simply wasn't part of policy at that time. So you could instead have a look and consider whether the image needed FUR. Similarly with those stubs, you could have asked Blofeld if he intended to expand them, and if not discuss what best to do.
 * When people questioned your actions you went on the defensive - going to AN/I and then mentioning this fact at a couple of AFD's. I see you already retracted most of those comments.
 * You're moving a bit too fast, I see a lot of edits today in quick succession. This was probably what annoyed Blofeld the most. The rapidity of posting an unblock request after the block is a symptom of this problem.
 * Blofeld is a pretty good editor to work with - he is very prolific and one of the best "source finders" I have seen. This didn't work out very well, hence the block, but perhaps by slowing down you can approach things differently - particularly the idea of constructive addition rather than destructive removal. I'm not going to unblock you right now because it is far too quick for you to "get" the points being made. ::::--Errant (chat!) 00:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)"
 * I hope those are useful. 81.107.26.167 (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks 81.107. I'm sure admin Magog the Ogre - who seems to be considering an unblock - will find this helpful as well as George Ho.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope this is not a request for proxy edit or a random post: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas. There was a war between IP editor and another user about me and my edits.  Please consider the viewpoints from IP editors about me and my edits and the viewpoints from WikiProject Soap Operas members who have participated my AfD discussions.  To be honest, sometimes I have failed to mention the notability status of topics and instead mentioned the current state of articles.  I will not mention the current states of articles again, unless topics are non-notable.  --George Ho (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I've gone over the threads about your block. And I'm going to go over the points Elen made, point by point:.
 * The issue of refactoring another editor's comments is a non-issue to me. I only saw one example (Elen's second wasn't a talk page comment), and that was to add an indentation. I'm pretty sure I've done that with editors before, and never had a complaint. But it's not something you should be doing regularly; other editors have their own styles for adding material, and you should respect their styles just like they respect yours. That's why I sometimes refactor comments on my own talk page, but rarely do so elsewhere.
 * The accusations of libel/slander are completely off. He did not libel or slander you. He may have attacked you, which is an entirely different matter. However, this is a lot like misapplication of the term vandalism - it may have been an understanding. I would assume good faith, and simply ask you not to use the terms again without reading what they mean. See libel and slander.
 * The addition of the PD-URAA template was helpful. You should be commended for adding it, not reprimanded; 98% of file editors ignore US law, which is actually against WMF policy. In fact, you were probably mirroring my own lazy tagging of an image without the full parameters . Surely, if users think you should add all the arguments, they can give a worded request, and you will comply with that (right, George?).
 * The big issue here, George, is that you really need to slow down and take some humility. If someone brings up a point, listen to what that person has to say. If you don't, ask for clarification from the person. If you still don't understand, ask from the community, or, like you said, a mentor. Errant's comments are dead on.
 * I understand what it's like when you're not an administrator and you feel ganged up on. But sometimes this is the way of the world, and the only way forward is to play mea culpa even if you don't completely agree with it. I think that's what you need to do here, George. Admit fault, even if you don't completely understand why you're at fault. And no cheating with a non-apology apology. The humility alone to admit fault might do some good.
 * My recommendations for before any unblock: agree that you will not tag any of Dr. Blofeld's images or articles without his permission. That may seem extreme, but I doubt he wants any copyright violations on English Wikipedia either. If you two still don't agree after chatting it up, then come ask me, and I will walk you through it. Or, I should say, I will if I'm still here. I'm seriously considering giving the Wikipedia bucket a good long kick. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I still don't understand the benefits of discussing with people other than possibilities of giving up plans to nominate articles for AfD and of avoiding "tag-bombing". Speaking of "tag-bombing", what are "tag-bombing" and examples of it?

I won't accuse Dr. Blofeld for slander or libel again until I will understand them. Right now, I'm learning still to understand the meanings of libel and slander. When you mention his attacks on me, what kinds of attacks, and why do you think he attacked me in one way?

Thank you for the URAA stuff. I totally understand the automation of copyright restoration of registered eligible pre-1996 works that were first published abroad.

Can you clarify the "slow down" comment please? I don't know how to "slow down" and how long I can. What "some humility" did you mean?

Maybe I have not been aware of my "non-apology apology" if I did that. Can anybody give me examples of my own non-apology apologies if I did one? If I did one, I will not do it again.

I don't know what apology to give, but I must admit my faults (or apologize) for destroying the efforts that Dr. Blofeld made, regardless of copyright statuses. I must admit my faults for hounding his files and articles like a hound dog. I must admit my ignorance of Argentine heritages. I must admit my lack of decency to give him good faith and to be open to him about anything. What other humilities I must have missed?

Since now, I will never tag his articles or files again without permission. Regarding others' articles and files, can I still tag them? If not, I must discuss them in talk pages of articles and/or of related WikiProjects

Regarding "tag-bombing" on articles of villians of Sailor Moon and The Matrix Online, I'm not at fault for that, am I? If so, then why should I admit fault about it? Actually, I tagged them because... why did I tag them? Was I a disinterested editor who loves tagging them for fun? Did articles not satisfy me? Am I a loner and anti-social yet inexcusable for my unreasonable actions? Am I interested at these topics? Did I miss the point of their notabilities?

Speaking of notabilities, The Matrix Online does meet WP:GNG, but is its article beneficial to be existed? Does it deserve its own article? Back then it did; now there should be sources rather than citations for gameplay of it if the article should survive. Does meeting WP:GNG benefit either the existance of the stand-alone article for the same topic (e.g. Homer Simpson and Erica Kane) or the secondary information in related general articles (e.g. List of All My Children)? --George Ho (talk) 05:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * George, I replied to you again above. You won't listen anyway and will continue to make this about me, but I figured I would point it out anyway (not that you aren't glued to your talk page). The other IP covered things well. 221.6.29.66 (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Warning
George Ho - blocked users can edit their talkpage only for the purpose of requesting unblock. To request unblock, you need to consider the advice you have been given. You must not ask other people to proxy for you, you must not conduct random discussions about whether something is a policy or a guideline. Go and read all the links in the welcome template someone left at the top of the page, and come back with some understanding of what this project is about.

If you continue to post randomness and requests for proxy edits, you run the risk of having your talkpage access revoked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you strike out what you think is random for me and is a proxy edit request? I can't tell which one; I was just making promises.  Or should I do it myself?  Look, I'll behave and then read the welcome message and the guidelines.  I must "ignore all rules", right?  --George Ho (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely coming round to the opinion that you are either not capable of editing, or you are a troll. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see my current messages as either random or requests for proxy edits, aside from the ones I already stroke out. They all look fine to me: my suspicions on the IP editor starting with a two hundred twenty-something and promises to discuss articles with WikiProject members. --George Ho (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There you go, I've just struck a comment from you that has nothing to do with your unblock - one you have just made! While promises to discuss articles may be a valid part of your unblock request, your suspicions about IP editors are not. You should be addressing *your* actions only here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

How did I "molest templates", "misuse tags", "fail to read policies", and "generally barge about the place tripping over the furniture"? Yes, I have misunderstood people's messages and failed to open discuss it sometimes. I just tagged articles, such as The Matrix Online and fictional topics that relate to Sailor Moon franchise, with maintenance needs because their topics' notabilities are under question. --George Ho (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Under question by who? Fictional topics are very notable - especially when they're related to, oh, just one of the most iconic and pioneering anime series ever. If you repeatedly go around tag-bombing articles because you don't think they're notable, that very quickly becomes disruptive editing. WP:IAR is not carte blanche. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

"Tag-bombing"? I just need to know policies about it; is it necessary to give me essays, such as WP:AADD and its WP:IDONTLIKEIT?

Regarding my actions on Matrix Online, I did what I can because the game has been shut down and because the gameplay may be supposedly unnecessary and because the news covered only the game's premiere and its end. Reception may be useful but may not help the article strengthen the quality. I have not been planning to nominate it with AfD; instead, I was going to propose a merger with The Matrix (franchise). Also, too much fiction yet somewhat useful enough to be merged into another article. Isn't that "tag-bombing"?

Regarding my actions on Sailor Moon characters, their notabilities are anybody's concerns, including mine, because there were no receptions about them yet and because periodicals about them have not been found yet. There were too many plot elements and too few realities.

I tagged List of The Price Is Right pricing games with "Notability" needs because periodicals and third-party publications have not covered them at all except Plinko. --George Ho (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "because the game has been shut down" - Notability is not temporary. If the game was notable enough for an article at any point, it's still notable. "No receptions" - what are receptions? "Perodicals about them have not been found yet"; "periodicals and third-party publications..." - perodicals are not required for references. Any reliable source - book, magazine, reliable website, etc., is an acceptable source. Online, offline, English, Japanese, Swahili - it does not matter. (And your tag of Sailor Moon (character) is not the "too much plot" tag, I might note, despite your comment above.). - The Bushranger One ping only 02:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring Sailor Moon (character). Sorry about confusion.  To help you understand, here are links: Dark Kingdom, Makaiju, Black Moon Clan, Death Busters, Dead Moon Circus, and Shadow Galactica.  Yes, I have watched first three seasons of Sailor Moon, and villians come and go, but their notabilities are not temporary?  Receptions, such as listing and analyses, about them are missing, and there have been too much spoilers. ...Isn't that "tag-bombing"?  --George Ho (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)  --George Ho (talk) 03:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "...too much spoilers?" WP:SPOILER: It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot.. Yes, they should be referenced and analysed through third-party sources, but you should discuss as mentioned below. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh... I did not realize WP:Notability/Noticeboard at all; I have always overlooked it, and, if I've unknowingly "tag-bombed", this does not excuse my "tag-bombing" if these "Multiple issues" qualify. If you want me not to tag articles with notability, the noticeboard is the best start to go, correct? --George Ho (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you discuss on the talk page of the article itself, or the page of the relevant WikiProject. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sigh* If I find one talk page of an article nearly empty, then I shall use relevant WikiProject, shan't I? Why not WP:Notability/Noticeboard?  I could end up adding "notability" without discussion there first.  --George Ho (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I could end up adding "notability" without discussion there first. ...and that is a problem how? *confused* - The Bushranger One ping only 07:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I stroke it because I realized my poor logic of my own words and because I need to rephrase it. Without the noticeboard, without relevant WikiProject, and without the recent post in the article's talk page, I shall still add "notability" and have temptations to do so.  If it is wrong to add "notability" to notable topics, then how does a "notable" topic guarantee?  A stand-alone article (e.g. Erica Kane) or a section or small entry of a related article (e.g. Jackson Montgomery in List of All My Children characters)?  Anything else?
 * If it is not wrong, how does adding "notability" to notable topics guarantee, including to you? --George Ho (talk) 08:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your last two answers aren't especially clear, but you should re-read the "usage" section of Template:Notability, in particular:
 * "Deletion is not clean up. Do not use this tag merely because the page requires significant work.  Notability requires only that appropriate sources have been published about the subject.  It does not require that any editor has already named these sources, followed the neutral, encyclopedic style, or otherwise written a good article."
 * That "deletion is not clean up" link is pointing to a section of WP:ATA, which I'd recommend reading all of. Also worth considering: WP:POTENTIAL, WP:OBSCURE and WP:NOPE
 * In terms of general tagging behaviour, it's worth reading and thinking about: WP:TAGGING, WP:RESPTAG and WP:TAGBOMB
 * I've given these links not to give you something to come back and argue about (I'll ignore any of that) but something to mull over when considering a statement to admins about how you plan to improve your behaviour in the future. Please read to understand and not to rebut.
 * Thanks. -- 81.107.26.167 (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Real life stuff/Plan for improvement
George,

When you go to the supermarket, you don't yell at the other shoppers because they don't buy the same items as you do, do you? And you don't yell at the store's manager because the store carries other items than those you use, do you? :-) Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and choice--that also applies here. What may not be important to one person is very important to someone else--it all depends on one's interests.

Try talking to the other editors here like you do to your neighbors--because that's basically what they are.

And now try working on a plan you can post here for all of us to see re: what you will do better when you're unblocked. In this way, the admins can have a look at it and tell you if you're on the right track or if what you're suggesting still needs some work. We hope (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your methaphors, but, literally, they have nothing to do with Wikipedia. Why would I yell at other shoppers for not buying the same items?  Whenever I shop with anybody, I scold my mother for her shopaholism and her mishandling of it; I scold her for buying things that I never wanted.  And I can yell at the manager for poor management, not the lack of carrying the items I want.  Wikipedia is intended to be edited without restrictions, unless administrators have some things semi- or fully-protected, am I correct?  Policies can change, guidelines can change, and "ignore all rules" (which is not carte blanche per Bushranger or somebody else) policy can be modified, isn't it?  --George Ho (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're not getting it, and I'm starting to agree with Elen's comment above, alas. Wikipedia is not "intended to be edited without restrictions". Polices and guidelines can change - by diuscussing the policy or guideline at that policy or guideline's talk page to establish a new WP:CONSENSUS, not by hurrying around tagging this, deleting that, etc. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

In other words, the Consensus may discuss changing Five pillars in talk page prior to actually editing it, correct? In first pillar, under policy, Wikipedia is not anything other than an online encyclopedia. Some articles have disobeyed the second pillar; have I disobeyed the second pillar in any way? What's the point of the third pillar (free content) if re-using content requires permission, especially for third-party sites such as Monsters and Critics? Have I disobeyed the fourth pillar in the past, aside from my conflicts with Dr. Blofeld? Have I disobeyed or abused the fifth pillar, "ignore all rules"? --George Ho (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are still completely missing the point. The five pillars are a start, but they are not the end of the policies and guidelines. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Why am I blocked from editing English Wikipedia, not other Wiki sites, such as Commons Wikimedia? Isn't editing there while being blocked an evasion of block policy? --George Ho (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, each project has separate rules. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

My "silly edits", especially in AfDs
From 221.6.29.66: "No, I am not Dane97 and I pointed out why above. You just don't listen, at all. Here you are trying to deflect attention on me, completely ignoring that you were wrong in your editing. The fact that you were wrong is exactly why you are blocked now. Because you are blocked for similar reasons. You say that I canvassed against you, but I say that my complaints were valid. Your block, where others are saying pretty much the same thing I said, shows they were valid. Raintheone didn't have much of a problem with me, and, despite whatever happened between Raintheone and myself, Raintheone agreed that you were making some pretty silly edits. Also, Postdlf knows what he was talking about. Every soap opera character is documented in "soap opera periodicals," and more than a few of the soap opera characters on Wikipedia are notable. It just takes the right person to demonstrate that notability; you clearly are not that person. And saying "No one knows soap operas nowadays" is not only an untruth, even with your having meant "hardly anyone," but an opinion as well. You need to do like another editor said below and learn some humility.

As for "How [do I] speak English very well?" (not that some people aren't fluent in both languages), that's because I am American and am using a proxy. See WP:PROXY. I thought you'd known by now that the only reason I keep getting blocked is because I prefer to use a proxy instead of reveal my true IP identity."

All right, you got your point, and I don't. My abstract of your point: everybody wins, and I lose; everybody improves of Wikipedia, and I destroy of Wikipedia; everybody talks rationally, and I whine like an angry politician or a disturbing anti-social; everybody thinks rationally, and I mindlessly witch-hunt.

I even can't report you because I'm still blocked from reporting open proxies. I haven't taken your advices or anyone else's because... I couldn't trust you and because I depend on reputations of anybody to know whom I can eventually trust. I couldn't trust or listen to you as the same person with open proxies until you admitted that you are not Dane97. I may have right to be concerned about you, yet I... Did I make myself worse toward you and others who are intersted with soap operas? If copyrights-related, then I am not solely responsible for these infringements; I just reported them to WP:Copyright problems. Wait, I remember... some person accused SoapCentral.com for infringing Wikipedia articles; was it you?

Anyway, I still continue because I have participate other people's AfD and found similar arguments. I have misunderstood how AfD works, haven't I? If I did, then how can anybody explain my following AFDs: WP:Articles for deletion/Barbara Montgomery (character), WP:Articles for deletion/Comparison of CECB units, and WP:Articles for deletion/Samuel Woods (All My Children)? What about my arguments in others', such as WP:Articles for deletion/Lily Montgomery and WP:Articles for deletion/Aubrey Wentworth? I will not admit my fault on them until I must know what are wrongs with these of my arguments; I still don't know what the flaws of my arguments are.

However, I must admit my faults for using my AfDs to speak ill against people, such as Dr. Blofeld. It was inexcusable, and I couldn't find any other excuse to make up for it. I won't beg his forgiveness, as I swear. I won't beg his clarifications and understandings of my actions either. I must have inadvertently hurted myself, including my own reputation. If it is damaged, then I don't know how to repair my own reputation. Shall I replace it like a new vase, or what else shall I do?

I hope: this section is not a random or request, isn't it? --George Ho (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, here goes at another attempted explanation. Ignore the IP currently using 221/6. His intentions appear to be good, but I don't think he is helping.
 * Stop taking this personally. No-one actually knows you, all we have to go on are a set of edits. We are largely strangers to each other - strong statements like "betrayal" and "slander" suggest motives that imply the other editor has taken against you personally.
 * You are treating people's comments in a strangely literal way. If you don't understand what someone says - just ask them to explain a different way. Do not assume that everything is an attack.
 * Copyright - yes you may absolutely tag and report something that appears to have been copied and pasted from another source. What you need to watch for is that the other site didn't get its material from Wikipedia to start with.  They don't always credit Wikipedia as the source. However, it is better to tag it than not - the project cannot afford the risk.
 * Notability - rather than tag an article for deletion, start a discussion. With the soap opera characters, starting a general discussion about notability at the WikiProject is a good idea. If the talkpage is active, start a discussion there. Always try to notify the article creator.
 * Read WP:BEFORE. Non-notable articles rarely damage the project unless they are also inaccurate or completely foolish (an article about my cat for example would be completely foolish, as the cat is known to no-one outside my family and our neighbours, and is just an ordinary cat), so there's often no urgent rush to delete things that are non-notable.  Someone spent time and effort working on it.  What other steps might be taken - can the information be merged into another article and a WP:REDIRECT used, for example.
 * If you eventually decide that nominating for a deletion discussion is the only option, use a neutral rationale. Do not attack the article creator because they have disagreed with you. Remember it is a discussion. Do not attribute any motive to those who disagree other than the differing viewpoint of a stranger.
 * Images - if you find someone has pirated an image from a newspaper website, and uploaded it as their own work, yes you absolutely must tag it as a copyvio for speedy deletion. In other instances, it is better to identify the least drastic option to deal with the damage.  Can I fix it myself? Can I alert the uploader - maybe they just made a mistake? If in doubt, always tag for WP:PUF which results in a discussion, not for deletion.
 * Talk - explain why you thought what you did. Don't post reams of justifications and question the motives of others. You may be right, but you'll lose if you can't discuss things with people.
 * Read the guidelines and policies and understand what the project is about. You haven't got it yet. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 10 - Just take a break from Wikipedia. That's what a block is supposed to be about, giving you the time to think things through and then start fresh with the benefit of the doubt, not making 83 post-block edits to your user talk page trying to discuss, explain and justify every aspect of your behavior to everyone who says anything. You've made some valuable contributions, but the project really, really will survive without you for a while. Come back when you're more informed about policies and procedures, and less argumentative about other people's work. JTRH (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll have one last go as well. Some things to add to the excellent points that Elen makes:
 * Wikipedia is not about winning the point is not to get your own way but to raise issues as widely as possible within the community to try and reach a consensus. Yes, I've linked you to another essay - but the point of essays is to give you a good idea of how to work with other people, that's how things progress.
 * You seem to have the idea that your interpretation of policy can applied, without discussion, because those are the rules and you're just following them. That all you need to do is tag and the bad stuff (that breaks the rules) will eventually be removed. With a very few exceptions (which qualify for speedy deletes) that's not how the project works: the aim is always to improve, through discussion, first; and to delete only as the last resort. And the decisions are made by consensus - not by one person's interpretation of "the rules" winning. The ultimate aim being to improve the encyclopedia.
 * To this end, if your view is largely not taken up, it doesn't reflect on you personally - it is likely that it was helpful in allowing others to improve the article.
 * If you are continually frustrated by the consensus, then perhaps you have to accept that you don't share the aims of the project in that area and either look for other areas to contribute in or give up on Wikipedia altogether. Again, that's no reflection on you, if it does come to pass - people are different and projects goals cannot satisfy everyone.
 * You seem to be concerned with articles being wrong at some point in their history. Because of this, you seem to want them deleted so that the "bad history" is removed and made inaccessible. That's not a reasonable expectation in most cases - all that matters is the current state of the article. If there is a heinous edit that needs removing from the history then an admin can do it (that'd be for something really bad though, like defamation).
 * In the light of all the above, it's a good idea, if you do nominate something for AfD (or the image equivalent) to try and get as many editors involved in the discussion as possible. So notify as many people as you can. Again, this isn't about winning, it's about bringing as many people as possible together to come up with the best solution to any issues.
 * There's no rush in most cases - so take one issue at a time and don't move on to the next until the discussion has finished. That will automatically improve the quality of your contributions. You can maybe group together similar issues across a single subject area - but your goal should be to have a single discussion and get to some sort of resolution before moving on to the next discussion. Tagging and then not staying aorund to help find a solution is not especially productive and can be quite annoying. Remember, there is no deadline.
 * As I said before, you should stop thinking about specific cases and not worry about the motives of editors - think about your general approach and how you plan to approach editing in the future.
 * It may be an idea to forget about everything that has happened so far and just read all the policies and essays that you can. Without thinking about yourself too much, try and get a general idea of what the project is trying to achieve and how it does that. Only after you feel you've got a proper understanding, in the abstract, apply it to the specifics of what has been said here.
 * Good luck.
 * -- 81.107.26.167 (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * One last thing. You keep bringing up AfDs where the article was, in fact, deleted as evidence that you must understand how these things work. A couple of points:
 * There's not a lot of discussion in those AfDs, deletion was a solution - more discussion (had you notified more people) may have produed a better solution.
 * You aren't banned because of everything you have done - this isn't an all-or-nothing thing. Every single deletion case has its own characteristics and merits. Agreement in one or more cases doesn't automatically make you "correct" in all cases.
 * AfDs that end in deletion with no-one taking issue with you aren't what we're talking about here. What's relevant is the times when you have been disruptive and approached things badly. Avoiding that in the future by changing your behaviour is what you should be focussed on - not trying to avoid this by bringing up irrelevant examples of when things went your way.
 * To repeat what many people have said for days now: STOP EDITING THIS PAGE AND TAKE A BREAK. Read generally about Wikipedia and try and get a better understanding of how things work. Then take a few hours off. Then read what everyone has said on this page with a view not to defend yourself, but to understand what they're saying. Then take a few hours off. Then ask any questions about things you don't understand - but don't try to justify yourself or argue back. Once you're sure you understand what's been asked of you, take a few hours off. Then, make a short statement saying how you plan to accommodate what people are asking you to do. Then wait for an admin's response. -- 81.107.26.167 (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And here's something you should definitely read and think about, in your downtime: WP:ZEAL -- 81.107.26.167 (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And you may find WP:NOSHAME helpful. -- 81.107.26.167 (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

My, hopefully, understanding of Wikipedia
I may have trouble reading and understanding metaphorically and literally policies, essays, and guidelines. I also may have trouble with yet somewhat understood the five pillars and their intentions: it is a start, not an end. However, here is my stance: "Wikipedia is intended to educate everybody a lot of topics that are not familiar to such people, regardless of notability, such as The Matrix and the universe of Sailor Moon and soap operas. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that is unlike other online encyclopedias: free to edit (with limitations) by anyone. Wikipedia is not anything that is not an online encyclopedia.  For example: it is not a paper encyclopedia, an indiscriminate collection of information, under criteria of censorship which is forbidden under policy, and a battleground.  Over the years, numbers of articles have grown to millions of articles in every Wiki sites to brighten the minds of everyone and to preserve history online.

However currently, notability status of some topics are still considered; as recommended, if possible but not certain that one topic is non-notable, discussions about such topics must come first before any other action toward topics. Civility and respect toward others must come first before any other attitude toward others.

Wikipedia is intended to educate people from a neutral point of view. Possibility of any other point of view present in one article must be discussed first if certainty is not definite.

Editing policies and guidelines and essays is free. However, normally accepted policies and guidelines must be followed, and normally accepted essays are intended to influence those who intend to improve Wikipedia and its articles. Conflicts with them must be discussed first, and finishing a discussion must come next before any other action." I have gone as far as I could, but would this affect my unblock request?  --George Ho (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is hard for us to evaluate whether there is merit in the unblock request at this point; the essay WP:TL;DR applies very well. Honestly, your answers remind me of another editor who became very long-winded in his explanations, but never seemed to grasp what anyone else was telling him: User:Tenmei (you'll note, it eventually got him a one year ban by ArbCom). I wish you could just come out and admit that you were tag-bombing the articles too much and see the bigger picture rather than try to abide by the letter (I will stop tagging DB's articles) while not admitting fault (but I don't see the problem with it [and hence it might be a problem when you interact with other editors]). Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * George,


 * I think what happens here is when you see something that needs fixing, you get very anxious about it. This may have been the reason you were tagging so much.  If so, you need to do less worrying about it.  There are no paid workers here and everyone does things when able.  If this is the case, can you try to remember that most of the time, it will get taken care of, either by someone else or by your correcting it? We hope (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I may have reasons to tag articles, whether you call it "tag-bombing" or not. Unfortunately, I have seemingly never "grasped" the logics and explanations from people, and essays may not be positive about "tag-bombing", so I must decline to explain my reasons, unless "tag-bombing" is proven to be excusable.

I mean, I am too ashamed about my English skills at the standards of good and featured articles, so I wanted others to accomplish rather than I. They are very good writers; I made articles, such as O Fantasma and early versions of The Lake House, and my skills were superseded by others'. Still, it does not excuse my block.

Honestly, I would have been more of a reader than a writer; too bad I am considered a "tag-bomber" without policies or guidelines about it. Still, I contribute a lot without tagging. Every vandalism by disruptive editors on any article has been and must be cleaned by me. I will include citations if I am interested. Otherwise, I tag articles because tagging articles sends readers who do not edit at all a moral about relying or not relying on Wikipedia a lot.

At least I merged List of Peter Gunn episodes into Peter Gunn because the former list has no summaries or reliable references whatsoever. Are there objections to my edits?

To Magog: I don't grasp explanations without simple logics. What's the point of admitting "tag-bombing", and what do you mean "bigger picture"? --George Ho (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

To We hope: Hmm... good analysis. I may have known but denied what you analyzed and never properly explained my "tag-bombing". My worries do not excuse rationale of my block; however, I worry about others' interests and lack of interests, and I worry about readers more than editors. That's it: I have depended on readers' dependance on Wikipedia. I always care more about readers who do not edit at all because they believe in Wikipedia's words about topics. As a reader, I always believed in everything until I realize the flaws and inaccuracies. I mean, what if readers believe in inaccuracies? --George Ho (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

My ethnicity is Asian (possibly Caucasian-mixed, but still Asian), but I fluently speak English. I don't speak Chinese very well. How are my nominating for deletion and tagging disruptive?
 * Three things are coming to mind right now. The first is that merging the list back into the article was completely pointless, the second is that you are not responsible for what other people choose to believe about Wikipedia, and the third is that you still have not accepted that the consensus is that your activities in tagging and nominating for deletion, particularly your image activities, were disruptive.  Before we can move forward, you need to accept that the community has found your activities to be a problem. If you are having difficulty understanding this in the English language, then tell us what your first language is and we'll see if we can find a speaker of that to explain it to you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of disruptive, while I was blocked, I did not save File:ILoveLucyTitleScreen.jpg, the I Love Lucy screenshot, which I tagged with di-replaceable fair use. Now I have regretted not adjusting the rationale information. I should have made changes before I was blocked. I hope this is the first step to admitting that my tagging to that image is disruptive, isn't it?

At least I'm totally "moved" by the second part: not responsible for people's choices about Wikipedia. However, if I made edits to such parts, then I would be partially responsible. --George Ho (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe it was explained above what the problem is. Completely disregarding the article problem, and addressing the image problem: you were too quick to tag many of the images for deletion. I personally had to decline several of your disputed fair use taggings because the images were free. Now this is understandable as a n00b mistake, but when the user who uploaded them asked you to please slow down and help him fix the problems (rather than just tagging them and running away), you not only said no, but you took him to ANI, when he wasn't in the wrong for asking this. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed issues of List of minor Sailor Moon characters
Some editor has removed my tagging as TAGBOMBing. I don't get it. If I see problems with this list, then why can't others? Either I'm a tagbomber, or someone is not admitting the problems with this page. Are these characters notable to everyone else besides Sailor Moon fans? I could not see hints of notability. I have checked the references; they are of books, episodes, and fansites. This page has intricate details that may interest those who want to be spoiled. The real-world perspective is absent. If my concerns are invalid, then I think that community may be right about me. I think I have problems with my own inabilities to improve Wikipedia, unless this is proven wrong. --George Ho (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For goodness sake, calm down. The world won't end because that article continues to exist. The project is not ruined because articles about Sailor Moon, Pokemon, or Hollyoaks continue to exist. Yes, they are notable to some sections of the community, just as the Glossary of ancient Roman religion is important to some people.  The fan communities keep the articles on Final Fantasy and My Little Pony honest even if the sources aren't totally A1, so oddly enough, they are rarely madly inaccurate.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And, to get to the root of this, why did you put all those tags on the article without saying why in the talk page? Why didn't you discuss what makes for a notable Sailor Moon article at WT:WikiProject Sailor Moon or WT:ANIME to work out what the consensus is before starting to tag articles? Why do you assume that you're self-evidently correct about this and that is needed is a tag? Can you not see that to tag without even attempting to communicate with other editors is disruptive?
 * For what it's worth, lists about something that is notable (such as Sailor Moon) will normally be acceptable - the point being together aspects of a notable subject that don't merit their own articles but would also make the main article too big. WP:FICTION says:
 * "Individually non-notable elements of a fictional work (such as characters and episodes) may be grouped into an appropriate list article. Advice for the appropriateness of these list articles can be found at the general notability guideline and at Stand-alone Lists and Topics."
 * It should at least be obvious that these issues are up for discussion and that just tagging with no explanation is disruptive - at the very least editors have to try and work out why you added the tags. To echo what Elen has said, I think your concerns are largely invalid - you don't like that type of article so you're determined to see it removed, you aren't thinking about the people who read the encyclopedia. You also seem hung up on spoilers, which is not a reason to challenge an article, see WP:SPOILER. If you can't see the need for discussion and communication around these issues then I really think you cannot be a productive Wikipedia editor. 81.107.26.167 (talk) 12:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Soap characters and actors
A good site for references on soap characters and actors is soapcentral.com. For example, for an article on Eric Brady, you could look at http://soapcentral.com/days/whoswho/eric.php. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

To try and regain some focus here
George, to help an administrator assess the status of your unblock request, I suggest you answer these questions as briefly as possible (yes or no would be best). Please try to avoid getting bogged down in specific articles or editors, your general attitude and understanding are what matters.
 * 1) Do you agree that is someone contacts you about a tag you have left that it is inappropriate to tell them to go away? not to engage with them in an attempt to solve the problem?
 * 2) Do you agree that you shouldn't raise an issue with WP:ANI simply because of a strongly-worded disagreement on your talk page? Do you agree that this is what you did and undertake not to do so again?
 * 3) Do you accept that you didn't understand the meanings of the words libel and slander when you used them; and undertake not to use them in future, without first demonstrating your clear understanding of their legal meanings and justifying you use of the words?
 * 4) The that end, do you accept that it's impossible for anyone to slander you on Wikipedia?
 * 5) Do you accept that it is inappropriate to include any information or comment about an editor when submitting an AfD and undertake not to do so in future?
 * 6) Do you accept that if there is any possibility that an image licence can be improved (such as by attaching a fair use rationale or clarifying its copyright status) that it should not be tagged for deletion unless the improvement has been attempted?
 * 7) In that light, do you undertake to deal with problematic images by trying to improve them yourself or by contacting the uploader, via their talk page, in the first instance? And only to tag if no progress is made after a reasonable time or no course of action is agreed?
 * 8) If an image tag is needed, as above, do you agree to tag with WP:PUF rather than a deletion tag?
 * 9) Do you accept that content that spoils is permitted on Wikipedia?
 * 10) Do you accept that obscure and specialised subjects can be still be notable, as long as they are covered by reliable secondary sources?
 * 11) Do you agree to discuss issues you have with certain types of articles (such as lists or fictional character articles) with the wiki-project that covers those subject areas, in advance of tagging any articles?
 * 12) Do you agree to refrain from tagging if the consensus that results from your discussion is that tagging is not necessary? Or to escalate the issue to the appropriate noticeboard if you feel more discussion is needed?
 * 13) If a discussion in advance of tagging is not possible, do you agree to leave an explanation on the talk page for each of the tags that you add to an article?
 * 14) If someone raises an objection to a tag, or removes it, do you agree to stop applying similar tags (eg on images with the same issues from that uploader, or similar articles in the same subject area) until you have discussed the issue with them and it has been resolved?
 * 15) If you cannot resolve the issue with a single editor, do you agree to seek the views of the community to find a consensus before proceeding?
 * 16) Do you agree to go along with the consensus even if you don't agree with it? In other words, to argue to change the consensus but not break it if it doesn't change?

I think that pretty much covers it. 81.107.26.167 (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

To answer your questions: 
 * I don't get the question. Clarify, please?  As for "go away", what do you mean?  If literally, I did not mean "go away".  To be honest, there are some grammar errors in question #1.  I won't answer until it is fixed.
 * Yes, I must agree to both questions.
 * Until I understad "slander" and "libel", I will never them again.
 * Again, I must understand "slander". Otherwise, I will not accuse anyone for slandering, as it is impossible for now.
 * Clarification, please? Does this mean: I will not, if I vote or comment, especially in AfDs that I have not started, mention the block or ban status of editors again?  However, if I nominate for AfD, then I will not insert my words against any editor ever again; instead, the submission must discuss articles.
 * Boy, this is a tough question. Easily, without tagging a non-free file for deletion, I will edit files that only started with non-free rationale and license templates; I can change copyright status if proven to be out of copyright.  Regarding non-free that started with PD license tag, either I will tag a file with either PUF or NFR.  If rationale is incomplete, then I must either discuss a file with WP:Media copyright questions or add more info.  Never again will I tag Dr. Blofeld's files for deletion; instead, I must discuss them first.  I will still tag anyone else's if none of these conditions in this answer are met.


 * I can't answer more right now; winds are too strong in my area, and the electricity will be affected. I will answer more later.  --George Ho (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no rush here - take your time with the answers. The point was to make things easier for a reviewing admin.
 * I've rephrased #1, there was no need to go on the attack, however. Aside from the fact that there are no grammatical errors in the original question, all you had to do was say that it was unclear. I'm saying this because it's that sort of wording that gets people's backs up - so it's worth thinking about. Anyway, it was based on User talk:George Ho where you said "Just go somewhere else, and let me do my work. I'm very busy." Now, I take saying "just go somewhere else" to be equivalent to telling someone to go away. However, the main point is that you were refusing to engage in a discussion.
 * For #5, I think you've probably answered the question. There may be times in a AfD when there is something about an editor commenting that needs mentioning. But you shouldn't be talking about the article creator or using the AfD process to attack people, agreed?
 * While you were answering, I added another question (#8), although I think it's covered by your answer to #6.

-- 81.107.26.167 (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Answering unanswered questions:  Long list of questions, but, if unblocked, I must archive these posts into a separate page and add link, so I will look over and then be true to my oath. --George Ho (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Thank you for rephrasing. However, it is still unclear to me (and, if applied, too wordy with insufficient context): were you discussing a person or an action?
 * 2) For your reply to my answer, your reply question is a little either unclear or general to me.  Does this imply: will I not mention the ban or block of an article creator again?  Well, I answered #5 previously, but I will not answer the reply.  Specifying the question would be recommended.
 * 3) Can you clarify "problematic" to me?  Anyway, at my standards, either uploaders or others who add someone else's non-free images are, if absent, responsible for absent rationales.
 * 4) *If "purpose of use" is present, yet rationale is incomplete, I will either improve description of rationale or ask media copyright questions.
 * 5) *If both absent, then, if:
 * 6) **Dr. Blofeld, I must discuss first.
 * 7) **Otherwise, non-free image is tagged as free, then I must add either PUF or NFR.
 * 8) **Otherwise, then I must tag without open discussion first, so either uploader or a person who added a different uploader's non-free image must add a rationale. If I upload the non-free image, then I must provide rationale; if absent, then I the uploader must add one rationale, not anyone else.  If I add someone else's non-free image in any article, then I, not anyone else, am responsible for adding a rationale and a purpose of use.
 * 9) As mentioned, I will add PUF if matters are complicated to me.
 * 10) I have read WP:SPOILER and WP:NDA. Fortunately, "no disclaimers" are allowed in articles.  In other words, I will permit any relevant spoiler if, according to guideline, "encyclopedia purpose" is being served.  Otherwise, if it violates WP:PLOT, I must tag an article with all plot.
 * 11) If I don't see hints of notability in one non-list article, issues of notability must be addressed in either noticeboard, related WikiProjects, or talk pages before further actions, such as nominating for AfD, are made. I must read WP:BIO and WP:Notability again if necessary.
 * 12) If a list article, I must ask the noticeboard first prior to any related project.
 * 13) If an established consensus of administrators and others all together agrees that my tagging is disruptive, then I must take a sentence to forbid myself from tagging at any duration. Without established consensus from them, I will not agree.  Regarding the noticeboard, besides WP:Notability/Noticeboard, what are other noticeboards that I must have overlooked?
 * 14) If issue is obvious in the article and addressed by appropiate tag, no discussion is needed. However, if consensus agree to forbade me from tagging, then I must address issues of an article to talk page.
 * 15) If tags are removed, and if issues are still present, then I must refrain myself from tagging. Then I must discuss in talk pages.
 * 16) I must go to WP:Requests for comment if necessary. Otherwise, I must find other reliable community before I must proceed.
 * 17) I'm unclear about "break it", but I will not edit people's votes because it is uncivil and forbidden. I will go along with consensus, even if we do not agree about one thing.  I will make a strong counter-argument as long as I thought my arguments to be logical and effective.


 * I'll not get involved in any more to-and-fro with you about this, George, as it just expands things and we run the risk of it being too long for an administrator to deal with. If they need a further response from you, I'm sure they'll ask for it - but as I can't unblock, I'm withdrawing from this, now.
 * Before I go, though, on the subject of question 1, if you re-read all of your exchange with Dr Blofeld at User talk:George Ho I'd hope you'll realise that you rather rudely refused to engage him in a discussion and resolve not to do that again.
 * Regardless of that, an alternative question 1 would be "Do you undertake to be civil and engage with people who leave you talk page messages in future?"
 * Now, my final suggestion would be to strike out you current unblock request in the blue box, miles above this, as it doesn't really address the issues. Then add a more concise request either in that box (and leave a message at the bottom of the page with a link back) or as a new request at the bottom of this page (in a new section - and with a note to say that's what you've done, in the previous request box). This the form I think the request should take, with each part as concise as possible:
 * an apology for the behaviour that lead to the block
 * a promise to be less confrontational and not use ANI or AfD or legal terms inappropriately
 * how you plan to deal with images that previously you would have tagged for deletion
 * how you plan to deal with articles that previously you would have tagged for issues
 * how you plan to deal with AfDs
 * how you plan to help find the consensus as to the best way to deal with issues
 * The answers that you've given to my questions should help you write that. It's all just a suggestion, but you need a concise summary of why you feel you should be unblocked - you can't expect admins to make sense of this ever-expanding mess of a talk page. It's up to you how proceed, but if you don't come up with something concise and concrete for an admin to assess, I can see this dragging on indefinitely. Good luck with it, I'll not be contributing any further. I suggest that from now on your only edits to the talk page are statements directed to an admin who will revue your unblock request or responses to questions from a reviewing admin. Try not to get distracted by other issues. All the best. -- 81.107.26.167 (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, so I wasn't going to comment further, but I notice you've gone back and struck out most of your comments made since the ban. Now, that's up to you; however, to avoid any doubt, my suggestion was only to strike out the "Request Reason" in the blue unblock request block (ie this edit) and to replace it with an updated reason that clearly outlines your feelings about past behaviour and plans for future behaviour.
 * My reason for doing this was to try to help you communicate with the admin who will review and assess the unblock request. I hope you haven't struck out all those other comments because you feel you have to jump through a lot of hoops that I've given you.
 * Ultimately, everything rests on your communication with the reviewing admin and any suggestions I make are only suggestions. My blue box suggestion was inspired by the idea that an admin has to accept or decline the reason given there and isn't about to look through the whole talk page for supplemental material.
 * Personally, I don't think it was necessary to strike out everything you did (and indeed the replies you got are probably worth re-reading) although I'd agree that it may help an admin new to the page to navigate it. But my opinion in anything is only useful in so far as it helps you communicate with the admins - the final responsibility in all this is yours.
 * Hopefully I won't need to add anything further.
 * -- 81.107.26.167 (talk) 07:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello George
Hello

George, you probably don't even remember me, but our paths crossed way back when I got upset with you for tag-bombing (and by that I mean adding lots of poorly thought out and unexplained tags to an article without making any improvements/suggestions yourself) to a Benny Hill article, of all things... (here's a little link, in case your memory is as bad as mine.)

I remember at the time thinking what a good editor you could be if you only got the confidence to edit and improve articles instead of just tagging and criticising.

You've devoted many hundreds of hours in what I firmly believe to be good faith to Wikipedia, and it's tragic that you are in this situation.

I remember how well you handled our interaction after the initial "spat", and if you remember that too, maybe you might think back to other times when you were "shocked out of your groove" and did something positive.

You can be a great contributor here - but that's what you need to do. Contribute.

I'd like to think that you'll use this time to re-evaluate what you want to do here, and channel the enormous energy you have for this site to the "positive" instead of the "negative".

Things that are "wrong" in Wikipedia will get fixed even if you don't do it - so why not try a bit of article writing or improvement for a while.

If you don't know how to make that change - ask here - I predict that you'll be pleasantly surprised by the number of your fellow editors who'd love to help you do that.

I also predict that you'll be a lot happier with the site, and much prouder of your own contributions if you can get over the initial "fear" of taking that leap.

Wikipedia needs people with your dedication and enthusiasm, and to lose you would be a damn shame. Please think it all through.

Whatever you decide - be well, and be happy. Begoon &thinsp; talk 14:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

A way forward?
George, I saw this edit:.

That makes me somewhat sad, because I don't think it's probably your best option.

Sure, it lets you edit again (on other projects) straight away, and I understand that right now that's important to you. It's also possible that if you do contribute well elsewhere, you could use that in a few months as part of a rationale for an unblock here. So it could work out for you.

What I think is far more likely, though, is that, because you don't seem to have fully understood what the problems were that led to this block, you'll repeat the same kind of edits elsewhere, and run into the same brick wall. All it will do is postpone the need to look at what went wrong.

Here's what I think is a better idea:

I've had a conversation with Elen of the Roads, here: User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads - and I think you should read it.

If you're willing to accept my help, I'm offering you my services as a mentor, to try and help you understand what the problems were that brought all this about.

I need to be clear though - I'm willing to put the effort into helping you - you would need to be receptive to that help for all this to work out.

Initially, you'd need to run all your edits past me (as mentor) before making them, and that would be a stated editing restriction - in the terms of your unblock. I can then help you to assess if you are proposing good, productive edits, or repeats of the problems. You will, no doubt, feel very inhibited by that condition - but the reality is that you need to be seen by others to be making an effort to adjust your approach in the problem areas, or an unblock won't last long. Once the picture becomes clearer, the editing restrictions can be relaxed in certain areas, then, eventually, removed, provided things go to plan. How quickly that happens would depend on you.

You can drop a note here if you want to discuss this offer - and that's what it is - an offer.

The choice is yours to make, but people are willing to help you, because losing enthusiastic long term contributors like you is a very bad thing. Begoon &thinsp; talk 01:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Truth about myself
I have to confess: I have suffered autism (or, under psychologist's words: "moderate autism" or "part of psychological disorder"), and I have done greater harm yet greater good, regardless of quantity. Even my diagnosis is irrelevant to my behavior toward people, such as Dr. Blofeld. I have misused words, such as "libel" and "slander". I did not want to admit my shame of my behavior because I haven't known what elso to do if I have not confessed part of myself.

I have struggled to understand the basic logics of anything, and I have struggled to learn complex things. I have struggled to understand the feelings of others. Unfortunately, I am both a successor and failure on anything, including one at the same time.

Other personal parts I must keep to myself, such as my sexuality, until I make a successful unblock request and I have a need to talk about myself.

I may add free images in Commons; I will not be able to add non-free fair use images during any block. However, I may contact We hope in Commons about adding free images to any articles in the future.

True, I somewhat understand WP:IAV, but is it also a "key NOT to ignore ANY rules when tagging images for deletion", according to Elen of the Roads? At Simple Wikipedia, I'm sure that I must discuss first about anything. There is no need to overtag anything, but I see problems in articles.

I have understood proper ways to rationalize a nomination for deletion and which non-notable topics to delete. Personal attacks against an editor is not a way, using a current revision as a reason is not a way, and pointlessly attempting to change the consensus is not a way.

I stand by my decision, and I will learn how to write "simple" and "basic". However, feel free to mentor or reply me whenever you can. --Gh87 (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Must apologize; I have accidentally used my old yet active account to add this comment. It was never intended to evade block policy EVER! Is there a way to delete "Gh87"? I have struck my signature just in case. --George Ho (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Explanation: I have logged in globally in Simple Wikipedia to change my username there, and I have accidentally used "Gh87". If deleting a username is impossible, then it should be either a "doppleganger" or an "alternative" account, so I must know which one. It is never intended to be used as a "sockpuppet"; believe me! --George Ho (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * George - you already earnt a great deal of respect here, by acknowledging that problems exist. That's usually more than half of the way to solving the problem. I'm not entirely clear what you mean by "I stand by my decision". It seems to say that you intend to stop editing here and instead edit on other projects. But then you say "feel free to mentor".


 * My offer of mentorship is intended to start a path towards resuming your editing here. The idea would be that you can be unblocked, but under the initial restriction that you will, at first, need to suggest the edits you want to make, before you make them, and we will discuss them. That discussion might be brief, or it might be a little more 'in-depth', depending on the nature of the proposed edit(s).


 * What I hope would happen, is that we would first, and as soon as possible, establish which types of edits are "fine" to go ahead with without much further discussion, and which types need to be thought through a little more carefully. As this happens, the restrictions could be gradually relaxed and removed. It may take a while, but I hope that after a reasonable time it should become easier to limit your restriction to a couple of "areas" that still need work and "mentorship" - and then address all our effort to fixing those areas.


 * [a] If that sounds like something you could (and want to ) work within, then please confirm that, and I can try to help you move it all forwards.


 * [b] To help me understand something about how you feel in an area that seems very relevant, I'd like to ask you a question. There's no "right" or "wrong" answer to this - but it might start a discussion that helps us understand each other. On my user page there is a quotation - something that User:SlimVirgin said. I wonder if you could read it, give it some consideration, and tell me any thoughts it brings to your mind. As I said, it's not a question that has any right or wrong answers, but it might serve to open a useful conversation here, I think. Begoon &thinsp; talk  03:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I just saw your additional comments about Gh87. I'm certain nobody sees what happened there as sockpuppeting, but you should not use any other accounts to edit while you are blocked. Nobody will take any action over a genuine mistake. In the circumstances, though, for complete transparency, and your own peace of mind that you won't have any similar accidents, maybe you could ask for the account to be temporarily blocked. That shouldn't be a problem for you if you don't want to use it any more - and you could feel safer that you won't have any slip-ups. Begoon &thinsp; talk  03:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

== ==

"Gh87" must be blocked from editing English Wikipedia, so no one, including me, will use it for any purpose, intentional or not. Previously, I must have used it accidentally. However, this username still exists in other projects; I have a right to change my username. --George Ho (talk) 03:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice use of #ifexist, George. :) I like things like that, it appeals to my sense of neatness. I'm not an admin, so I can't block that account for you myself, but I'll ask Elen if she can help (or another passing admin may do so - I'll tag this with ). I'm going to be offline, now - but I'll check back here as soon as I can. Begoon &thinsp; talk

Hi George. No worries in this case as all you did was edit the George Ho userpage, which you are allowed to do while blocked. I can block the Gh87 account here. What you could do is ask at Meta (I see you've asked at Simple - that's OK too) to have the account globally renamed to George Ho, although I guess there might already be editors with that name on some projects.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Moving along
George - as well as answering my questions above (I've labelled them as [a] and [b] because this page is getting a bit unwieldy and confusing) about whether you want to go ahead with a "mentorship" arrangement, and any thoughts the quote on my user page inspires, I had another idea for something you might like to try.

I noticed that you started editing at Simple, and that one of those edits added a "needs more sources" tag. You probably realise that adding that tag places the article in this category: Simple Category - Articles needing additional references.

There are 243 articles in that category as I write this. Why not pick one or a couple of them and search for and add some references, maybe even enough that you can remove a tag or two?  (in the case of articles at Simple, sometimes this task can even be made easier if there is already a well referenced article here at WP - obviously you can't use the article here as a reference, but it would probably help show where to find some good sources) 

No problem if you don't feel up to doing that right now - it's just a suggestion for something you could look at - or we could just talk about that idea first, if you prefer.

Just to share a little bit of my philosophy with you, I see it a bit like this:
 * Pretty much any one of my friends/family or acquaintances could walk into my kitchen, look around, and leave me a big, bright note saying: "Gee, your kitchen needs some work. You should get that fixed." - Chances are I might already know that, though - just not know what to do about it. I certainly don't think I'd be very happy in the long run if all they ever did was to nail notes like that to every door in my house, though.
 * If, instead, one of them sat me down and did a detailed sketch of how they thought I could improve it, and a list of places I could get costings and timings from, that would be awesome. A different kind of "help" entirely.

I won't be around now until tomorrow - so I'll pop back here then. Begoon &thinsp; talk 10:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring questions; plans
I could no longer have interest on Simple English; no matter what size, I must type simple words.

Instead, I have decided to be mentored here, although I just care too much about deleting stuff, whether educational or not. When I looked at File:Logans world.JPG, I realize: keeping bad history is better than removing, right? No matter what intentions, I will, unless it is of Dr. Blofeld, tag anything for deletion if anything in description is missing. Even I must either tag my own files for deletion or edit their descriptions.

If I can't tag any article for maintenance needs, then I must discuss an article's flaws in WikiProjects or talk pages, correct? Moreover, maybe I must remove "Notability" tag from The Matrix Online because I found sources in Google Books.

Regarding notability, I must discuss a topic first before AfD, correct? Otherwise, I will tag anything for AfD.

Regarding non-free images, if I find an invalid or bad rationale, do I have to correct their mistakes, tag them for deletion, or something else?

Is there anything flawed with Dark Kingdom, article of fictional villian clan of Sailor Moon, or, I must have tag-bombed? I will remove some needs that have been resolved already if I see one; I will add more, however, such as all plot. --George Ho (talk) 05:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, George. Good to see you back.
 * If you are interested in pursuing my particular offer to help mentor you, that's great, and I'd be happy to discuss some plans for it all with you.
 * I would need you to understand one thing, though - this kind of "mentorship" is a 2-way deal, and it will only work if we can communicate properly and effectively.


 * One of the things I've noticed is that people sometimes seem to find it very difficult to have a proper discussion or conversation with you, often because you don't really appear to answer the questions they ask. I don't think you are being rude - I just think you might find it difficult to fully consider what is being discussed by other people, because you are very eager to have your own concerns (as you see them) addressed.


 * I think this means you often miss, or skip over, a lot of the valuable things people say to you. I'm certain that if we could make some progress on this one thing first, a lot of the other issues would become much, much simpler to address.


 * In an attempt to start just there, I'd be really, really happy if you could think about what I've said in just this post, and reply here with your thoughts and opinions on just what I'm saying in this post, and nothing else.


 * It may seem to you like a slow way of doing things right now - but I'm asking you to trust me that thinking about the communication issue will speed everything else up enormously in the short/medium term.


 * I know that all the specific points you make in your post above are important to you, right now - but it's going to help a lot if we can stop leaping around from point to point, and take things in a nice, steady progression, so I'll defer (not ignore) responding to specific points like that right now, because I think it will only sidetrack us. Begoon &thinsp; talk  06:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If this is the case, what are the main points I may discuss first? If I can't discuss my future plans on Wikipedia, then I must discuss something, such as understanding Five pillars. I don't know which ones are valuable, but replies to me are much more valuable than my OPs, so I stroke them out, regardless of valuability. --George Ho (talk) 06:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your future plans on Wikipedia, and how to make sure you can achieve them without what happened here, in your block, happening again, is exactly what I'd like to help you to discuss. I'm glad that is your priority, too.


 * I have to go out after I post this, and I won't probably get back online here until about 02:00 UTC tomorrow. When I do log back on, I'll post an outline of how I think this "mentoring" arrangement might best proceed. Obviously, you will want to comment on my ideas, but I'd like to think we could pretty easily put the basic plan together between us very quickly, and then move on from there, if we're both happy.


 * Enjoy the rest of your day. Begoon &thinsp; talk  07:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok - I decided that to try and map out the "whole" process to an exact degree was going to be too long and probably need too many amendments as we progress, so, instead, I've mapped out the steps up to requesting unblock in detail, and the subsequent sections we would develop as we progress.

Because it will not just be me and you who look at this, it will need to be kept clear and neat for other users, particularly unblocking admins. We are not just creating this record for ourselves, but so that, hopefully, anyone can come along and quickly see how this whole process is going - so we should follow the following "rules":
 * Discuss here in this section any changes to the structure or approach.
 * Only add to the subsections marked "Discussion", and only add relevant discussion to such sections.
 * I will refactor, if I feel the process is "wandering" or "off track".

I hope this seems like a reasonable plan to you, and now I just need your thoughts and comments on all of it. Begoon &thinsp; talk 04:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Very good outline. However, I must be careful; whenever changes occur, I have to preserve my messages before changes happen.  Otherwise, I must start over.  --George Ho (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok - I'm glad you're happy with it.
 * Reading your second sentence, I'm guessing I may have misled you with my wording above. When I said I will "refactor" if I feel the discussion goes off-track, I didn't mean that I would alter your comments in any way - just that I might move things to a more relevant section or reorganise the format of the page. Nothing to be concerned about, and if you don't like the way I do anything - you must say so.
 * So, I think the best thing to do is for you to make a start with adding some discussion to each section below. If you can, it will probably work best if comments can be as concise as possible and focussed. I guess we are going to end up with a 24 hour cycle here - so I'll try to respond in that cycle. Begoon &thinsp; talk  08:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your intentions, and I fully understand your words. Nevertheless, I also meant that someone may edit this talk page before I save my edits.  For example, you attempt to edit an article, but someone before you has done changes.  --George Ho (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi George. I haven't got a lot of time today, very busy in "Real Life" but I have noticed you've commented in the discussion section. I'll have a look again tomorrow, and post some comments in the various sections then. Begoon &thinsp; talk 07:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

"Mentorship" plan outline
I would have preferred to start this on its own subpage in your User space, but I think this is the only page you can post to, so we'll start here, and once we get as far as getting you unblocked, we can move it and tidy up.

In the long run, this will become a "mentorship record" page.

Overview

 * The sections in "Prior to Unblock" need to be completed before we can ask for an unblock.
 * Following sections can be completed after unblock, and will be added as "mentorship" proceeds.
 * This is a voluntary arrangement, from which any party may withdraw, at any time.
 * In the event one party withdraws, you would obviously be free to seek other mentor(s) or other routes to unblock.

Understand the reasons for your block

 * This is important. Before any admin will unblock you, they will need to be convinced that you understand the reasons you were blocked, and that you will not repeat these actions.

Discussion

 * I have been blocked for messing with Dr. Blofeld in an uncivil way. I have given him too much deletion template messages, which annoyed him, and I still kept doing it.  He gave me advices to help him keep his images and to stop tagging them for deletion, and I mistook it as an attack toward me.  I report this as part of my view against him in ANI.  About tagging for either maintenance needs or deletion, I must discuss it later.  --George Ho (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good start, George, but are there any other things you think may have contributed to the thinking behind any block? Begoon &thinsp; talk  02:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I overtagged every article, which is considered TAGBOMB-ing, for maintenance needs, including stubs, whether needed or not. I even tag anything for deletion because... I made premature conclusions on any article, and I did not even talk first.  --George Ho (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Your plans for future editing
This section can also briefly explore if there are any other ways to achieve your aims here.
 * What kind of edits do you want to make to the project.
 * Why do you want to make these kinds of edits.
 * Any other future/long term plans within the project.

Discussion
More plans later then... --George Ho (talk) 10:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added files in Commons. Right now, I must add them into articles if I'm unblocked.  Otherwise, I must have someone else, such as we hope, do this for me.
 * I have non-free files, but I have not yet uploaded them. Now I'm still waiting to be unblocked, so I can add them.
 * I must copyedit the rationales of cropped non-free images that I have uploaded to replace previous versions. Otherwise, if I'm too inept to edit, then I must request deletion per WP:G7.
 * Any file not made by Dr. Blofeld will be easier to check. At my standards, if someone added anyone's or his own non-free image already in an article, I don't want to add a missing rationale for that fair use.  Also, I don't want to add a license to someone else's image that lacks one.  Instead, an image that is not uploaded by Dr. Blofeld is easier to tag a deletion proposal for one issue or another.
 * If I'm too inept to tag or edit properly, then I must discuss an article or its topic in either WikiProject or WP:Notability/Noticeboard. Article talk pages are becoming obscure, unless topic is very big to discuss, such as VHS.
 * I understand all that, George, but that's really a "shopping list" of edits you'd be making right now if you weren't blocked. That's not really what I was hoping we could do in this section. Rather than keep trying to discuss specific cases and usernames, what I would hope is that you'd be able to lay out the areas and kinds of edits you want to make in the near future, and long term, and give some idea of why you want to edit in those particular areas. It helps enormously in understanding if you can say something about "why" you want to edit in the areas you do. Begoon &thinsp; talk  06:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Prior to the "shopping list" that I would make if unblocked, my future edits would be contacting a mentor, like you, and adding a proper request to be unblocked. This is your logic that I am logicizing, correct? --George Ho (talk) 09:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What I think, George, is that you are probably thinking far too hard about what should be a couple of reasonably quick discussions. All we are trying to do is reach a point where we are comfortable in asking for an unblock, and setting out quick straightforward answers in the simple discussion sections here was supposed to help us achieve it. I'd like this page to be something that a passing admin could look at, and see that you have made great steps. The kinds of answer I'm hoping to get here are things like:
 * Improving Articles on Alligators.   (because I have a pet alligator)
 * Correcting common spelling errors.  (because I like correct spelling)
 * Reverting vandalism on my watchlist. (because I don't like to see articles damaged)
 * etc... (and maybe we'll have a quick discussion about your answers) Begoon &thinsp; talk  10:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Then, if this is your logic, I must keep an eye on all articles, interesting or not, because they are very messy and neglected. Descriptions of non-free files of living people, such as actors who portray fictional characters, should be changed to reflect the policies of WP:BLP and "fair use"; they are very messy, and each one may take a long or short while to be edited substantially. For example, an image of Ted Danson is used in Sam Malone, but there is no mention about using image of a living person. I hope this is not a waste of time or a confusing post. --George Ho (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to think we have a pretty basic communication failure here. I've tried 3 times now to show you what kind of answers this section was designed for, and each time you've replied with lists of examples, or off-topic "little" questions. I've even gone so far as to show you examples of the type of answer, for you to replace with your own areas of interest. I'm struggling to know what else to do to try to keep this on track. If we can't stay focussed even on small things like this, then we will never make any progress. Begoon &thinsp; talk  02:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I must apologize for letting you down, all right? I just assumed that I don't have to answer my interests, do I? If I misunderstood the questions, then I may have failed to answer them. However, my interests are notabilities of subjects, topics related to homosexuality and people, quality of articles, and cleaning vandalism or unconstructive edits. I don't have to explain the reasons, do I? --George Ho (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You haven't "let me down". No, you don't have to answer any question anyone asks you if you don't want to. Most people are happy to talk about the areas that they edit in, and it often leads to productive discussions where you can learn why people want to do what they do - learning from each other's experiences. I was hoping that would be the case here, but not if it intrudes in any way. Begoon &thinsp; talk  06:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

In this case, I may first discuss American soap operas. I used to watch Passions, but I stopped watching it because it is a bad soap opera that went worse. Then I tried other soap operas, but I end up liking the older storylines, including that involved Erica Kane. In general, anything that relates to soap operas should be limited to topics of notable soap opera fictional characters (in only all together third-party, independent, and primary sources) and soap operas. The rest should be deleted because of lack of notability and of bad quality of articles ; the creators are using Wikipedia as a substitute of soap opera dedications. --George Ho (talk) 06:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Now, actually, that is interesting. Apart from a brief flirt with Dallas when I was a youngster, I've never really followed any American soaps. My wife watches a lot of them, though, and they have Articles on here. What interests me is, you say they must be notable and not "bad quality". How do you decide the "bad quality" bit? I've got to be honest and say that none of them look particularly "good quality" to me (but then I'm not a soap watcher - so I'm comparing to other types of show, unfairly, I expect) Begoon &thinsp; talk  11:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops... I must clarify: I should have said "bad quality of articles". Really, articles of non-notable entities of soap operas that violate WP:PLOT and WP:GNG and that have never improved for years. However, I may have been advised not to use AfD as a "cleanup". --George Ho (talk) 12:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Communication

 * Are there specific communication issues that should be discussed here?

Discussion

 * I'd like you to tell me what type of communication you feel is [a] required and [b] desirable, at the following times:
 * Before tagging an article for improvement.
 * Note your concerns on article talk page to see if another editor can help
 * When tagging an article for improvement.
 * Discussion on article talk page
 * After tagging an article for improvement.
 * Return periodically to check the discussion on article talk page
 * and similarly, for:
 * Before tagging an image with a licence issue.
 * When tagging an image with a licence issue.
 * After tagging an image with a licence issue.

Begoon &thinsp; talk 02:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Before I tag an image with any issue, I must check the description first. If non-free but tagged as free, and an uploader is not Dr. Blofeld, discussion used to be not necessary.  However, I am not sure anymore.  In Commons, I was not sure about File:Joan Caulfield Sept 1941.jpg, so I have contacted people in Commons:Help desk.
 * Now I must find help from "Help desk" if I'm not very sure. I was planning to tag it with npd because "PD-US" appears too generic for the 1941 photo.  However, I made different decisions and changed the license with a specific one.
 * Regarding articles, I leave articles alone after I tag them if one "notable" topic is not interesting to educate at all to me. Therefore, I must wait for someone to improve it.  Before I tag them for improvement, I must not use AfD ever again as a cleanup; instead, I proofread an article and tag it without discussion.  --George Ho (talk) 10:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The important thing is to communicate all the way along, whatever you do. I've added 3 quick suggestions to the first half of the question. Discussion before tagging could remove the need for a tag altogether. Discussion when tagging lets people understand why you have tagged. Following up is a natural part of what I see as the responsibility you undertake by adding the tag. Just to leave it languishing, with no follow up would be to fail in this responsibility. See if that suggests anything for the later part.
 * I do want to come back to your rest of your reply, because it seems a little confused, in parts, but that's more for the other discussion section on "Your plans for future editing", when we have something to discuss there. I want to stick to "communication" here.
 * Begoon &thinsp; talk 11:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What about articles that were re-created in violation of deletion policy or block policy, such as Lily Montgomery and Troy McIver? Must I discuss them or tag them for speedy delete?  Right now, DaneDaneDane is blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Dane97.  --George Ho (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * George - if you read the question, I was referring to articles "tagged for improvement" not "tagged for deletion" - so your examples don't really apply. I don't really want to discuss specific examples here, anyway, this is about communication, in general - we need to keep focussed and finish the discussions here so that we can move forward. Getting to a point where you can request unblock is the first thing, so we need to concentrate on just that. I'm disappointed you still think dropping in specific examples like your Dane97 one is helpful. It isn't helpful to this part of our discussion at all, as I already explained, and it's not something you should be concentrating on. Worrying about little incidents here and there will not help with this process at all.(If you had looked at the SPI you would probably have realised that I knew about this, anyway). The "positive" SPI doesn't mean it was the "right" thing for you to do - you still need to concentrate only on these discussions and getting your block lifted. Let the rest of Wikipedia take care of itself. It will, you know... Begoon &thinsp; talk  07:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

All right. On topic, I am certain: I don't have communication issues here, unless I must tell the difference between "slander/libel" and Dr. Blofeld's posts posed as "advices". If people here were not "scolding" me for not understanding words or metaphors, then what were their logics? Also: "Just to leave it languishing, with no follow up would be to fail in this responsibility." Do you mean: if article is tagged, and no improvements were made, and it is tagged for "deletion", I may be irresponsible? --George Ho (talk) 08:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The first part of your post, I'm sorry I don't understand. I read it a couple of times but I don't follow what you are saying. The second part - no, I'm not saying you would be at fault for a deletion in those circumstances, I'm merely giving my opinion which is that you should feel a responsibility to "follow up" on things you have tagged. It's not a rule - it's my opinion. Begoon &thinsp; talk  09:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Which "first part"? I stroke some of the OP, and I have no plans to rephrase it. The italic sentences were your suggestions, correct? What happened to suggestions about discussing images? Speaking of images, anything not uploaded by Dr. Blofeld is easier for me to check for copyright statuses. Simply, if one image tagged as "free" is found to be non-free, then I may add a deletion tag for one issue.

However, some issues of one image, such as of File:Joan Caulfield Sept 1941.jpg, were not easy to determine, such as permission and copyright status of this photo. Therefore, I asked someone in Commons:Help desk rather than planned to tag a deletion proposal for one issue. --George Ho (talk) 09:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What happened to suggestions about discussing images?
 * I'm waiting for your suggestions
 * I'm also hoping you will add something to the other discussion sections, soon - particularly the "Your plans for future editing..." section, since only you can start that one off. Try to keep stuff structured in that discussion, if possible. Begoon &thinsp; talk  10:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for barging in like this but given the vast amount of discussion which has taken place thus far without too much progress, why not think of some simpler plan? For instance how about unblocking on the basis that no image-related or tag-placing editing happens and any edits are restricted to vandalism-fighting for a while and maybe fixing typos or some other simple maintenance work under mentoring supervision. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 06:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think George may be experiencing a difficulty in going from the specific (this edit, this user, this file) to the underlying scenario (this type of thing, situations like this), to the abstract (what would you like to do, generally one should do this). A more specific approach may help.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I like Dr K's idea, but it, of course, depends on George being willing to be initially limited to editing outside his preferred areas. Elen - I'm sure you are absolutely right - I appreciate the comment - I'm slow to change course sometimes. Begoon &thinsp; talk  11:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Part of the issue is I think George has done some very good image work so far, although some of it has gone wrong. I would not like to see George stop tagging files; I would just like to see him slow down and actually listen (rather than come up with 1000 word essays as a way of saying "no"). Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed - that's why I still think there is a communication issue, of sorts. Communication is about talking and listening, and you're not the first person to say "he just needs to slow down and listen"... Sometimes, though, George, I think, also, you can occasionally tend to just ignore things which you don't want to answer, and then it can appear as though you're not listening, when actually you are, you're just not responding to everything you listen to. Forgive me if I have that wrong. Begoon &thinsp; talk  12:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh... "[I] need slow down and listen," correct? I don't know what communication issue I have, but at least "[I] have done some very good image work." Speaking of image work, can anyone clarify? Regarding communication issue, specific clarifications are best recommended to me. I may have trouble with general questions, don't I? --George Ho (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for your replies. I agree with your well-made points. The reason I submitted my idea was that I wanted to see George unblocked first and foremost. He has been blocked for quite some time and I feel that a long block is not necessarily the best solution for him because I believe it may have a desensitising effect on him on the practical aspects of every-day editing. IMO this is the point missed by this process. I think that an unblock with wide image restrictions would put George back in action and give him an opportunity to connect with the wider community via live editing while at the same time preventing him from engaging in any area which caused him trouble in the past. We can sit here and talk about abstract constructs till next year but I don't think this helps George and it is keeping him isolated from live editing. Instead let us demonstrate that we all agree on certain simple ideas, unblock him for limited, but at least live, editing and slowly add more responsibilities as his editing remains trouble-free and under mentoring supervision. Further, George will not have the burden to articulate abstract thoughts in order to become unblocked using this plan. His behaviour will demonstrate in a practical sense if he can remain trouble-free or not. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 18:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, your plan is pretty much identical to the plan we have here, with initially limited mentored edits gradually expanding. Where we were "hitting the wall" is this first phase prior to asking for an unblock, which I honestly expected to be a fairly quick process, long over by now. Begoon &thinsp; talk  01:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Then let's modify phase 1. Just ask George if he is willing to do a number of simple tasks upon being unblocked as a yes or no proposition. I will let you define those tasks but I suggest a small number and maximum simplicity. If George cannot even give a straight answer to that then I think there is no hope. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 06:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm inclined to suggest that, other than [i] Image tagging/licensing/deletion and [ii] Article improvement tagging/Article deletion tagging - most other areas should be far less problematic. I'll write something simple up later today, along the lines of: If George, or anyone else has any comments on this, I can incorporate any amendments when I write this up, if the comments are posted here. Begoon &thinsp; talk 03:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * George agrees to the unblock terms.
 * George will be unblocked, but may not edit in areas [i] and [ii] (broadly construed) initially.
 * All of George's edits, to begin with, will be scrutinised by a mentor, and discussed if necessary.
 * Once normal edits are progressing satisfactorily, areas [i] and [ii] can begin to be addressed, initially by George suggesting edits in these areas, which can then be discussed.
 * WP:Articles for deletion/A.C. Mallet that I started resulted a deletion of an article. My initial argument did not lead to the deletion; further arguments lacked policy-based comments and evidence of notability and led to deletion.  However, if I agree, then that WP namespace page may be my last until I understand the process of [i] and [ii].  I don't know how long I must decide; I know that my edits will be examined.  Regarding area [i], would this include "speedy deletion" tagging?  I have seen articles that meet "speedy deletion criteria"; if "speedy deletion" is included, them I must not agree.  If not, then I must agree on above conditions.  --George Ho (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd personally prefer it if deletion tagging was included in the initial restrictions. The easiest compromise might be to say that from the time of "unblock" you may suggest speedy deletion related edits, but they need to be approved by the mentor to start with. It's probably safer for you, too, and if they are obviously eligible for "speedy" it should take no real time to check them over. That would rule out any initial "waiting period" for these edits. I'll wait to see if anyone else has any thoughts on this specific before I write up some suggested terms. Begoon &thinsp; talk  09:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you mean: "[speedy deletion tags] need to be [first] approved by the mentor" or "ask mentor first before tagging for speedy deletion"? Can you elaborate "initial restrictions" please? --George Ho (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Initial restrictions means that you start out quite restricted in what you do. If all goes well, you become less restricted over time.  Magog the Ogre has posted an alternative suggestion on his talkpage. I'm summarising here.

Hell, yes! I will accept and have accepted your suggestions, Magog. It is easier than Begoon's. If no one objects, then I may request an unblock with Magog's idea. Too many non-notable fictional characters of soap operas are ruining the reputation of Wikipedia. However, I may ask WP:Notability/Noticeboard if I'm not very certain about notability of anything. Also, too many revivals of needless articles by sockpuppets and editors that may meet WP:criteria for speedy deletion. --George Ho (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Magog's thinking is that we can unblock him under these conditions: he can tag which ever the heck he wants, but if someone politely asks him to stop doing something, he must stop until he can get permission from someone . This could be Begoon, Elen, or Magog, Fastily or MGA73 if it's image tags (all very familiar with image policy). In the extremely unlikely event none of us is around, then he can go to ANI. :Is this more acceptable than Begoon's suggestion or less acceptable? Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was being a little conservative when I suggested that George abstain from controversial areas. But if, as proposed, you keep an eye on George's image work I am good with that too. My motivation in coming into this was to see George unblocked and engaged in the wider community. If this happens I am happy. My thanks go to everyone. Best of the Season to all. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 17:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to wait for Begoon to come by and comment. If he's ok I will unblock.  If I do, here are a couple of ground rules that should mean that people don't ask you to stop.

Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) If an article has multiple problems only tag it for the worst problem. Being non-notable will get it deleted, being written badly won't, so if it's non-notable, just focus on that.
 * 2) Check if an article is being edited by other people.  If it has been edited in the last few days, tag it with the "may not meet our notability requirements" tag and leave a note on the talkpage rather than listing for deletion.
 * The reason I continue to prefer a short period of restricted edits in those 2 areas is that I think this would be a handy mechanism to get George into the habit of considering alternatives. That's something I think is important, and I'm not sure it is happening. I agree that Magog's idea is simpler. Because it has taken so long to get this far, I'm forced to agree that "simpler" may be better here right now - so let's try it (and hope that "easier" is "better" all round). However, George, I will say this: please consider, before tagging anything whether the problem or improvement you are dealing with could, instead, be solved by making changes yourself or opening discussions with other editors. Discussion, with an open mind, will solve 99% of the dilemmas you come across. Begoon &thinsp; talk  02:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm compelled to agree with all of you. Article of Peter Scolari needs some cleanup by me; I barely have energy to be interested with the topic to add anything other than tags. For considerations, if talk pages are either obscure or non-existant, then I must use WikiProjects then. Can I do the "unblock request" right now? --George Ho (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Elen has indicated she's watching this page and will come back to deal with the "unblock" - so I would wait for her to do that, George - we can drop her a quick note if we think she needs reminding, but I doubt that will be necessary. Begoon &thinsp; talk  02:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Somehow, I tend to forget further advices because my mind is too busy with joys of quick agreement without remembering restrictions. For instance, I forget that I must ask permission if I'm told to stop what I will have done, right?  --George Ho (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's good thinking, George. You certainly don't want to get so "excited" you make any of the "old" errors. I was writing out the restrictions (as they were) so that they would be clear for you. However, since they will probably now need rewriting again, that will need to be redone if you would like it all to be put in simple, clear terms. Begoon &thinsp; talk  02:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * George, what would you do to "clean up" Peter Scolari, and what would you tag it for. I can see that it could be expanded if sources could be found, but I can't see anything to clean up or tag. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I must turn the "Career" section into list format; then I must tag it with BLP IMDB refimprove. I know: he met WP:GNG because he appeared in Bosom Buddies, Newhart, and TV series Honey: I've Shrunk the Kids; I won't tag it with Notability.  That's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Ho (talk • contribs) 21:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Article of Randi Morgan has a lot of problems, yet I have not addressed them in talk pages. However, I must explain, if unblocked, the reasons of tagging them appropiately in WikiProject Soap Operas and WP Television.  --George Ho (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan. I guess unblocking must come next. Best of luck. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 17:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Terms
Sorry to take so long - George, as I see it, these are the new unblock terms (unless anyone sees an error or something I've overlooked): Begoon &thinsp; talk 23:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * George Ho is unblocked with the following editing restriction:
 * If any editor requests or suggests that George not make a particular edit/particular type of edit, then George shall stop this editing until discussion with mentors can take place.
 * In these circumstances, George will open a new section at User_talk:George_Ho/Mentorship discussions requesting such discussion. One or more mentors will discuss the situation, and, with George, decide how to proceed.
 * If George does not obtain a response by this method in a reasonable time, he may start a topic at WP:ANI for assistance instead.
 * These restrictions will remain in place until the agreement of mentors to replace with a lesser restriction, relax, or remove.
 * For the purposes of these restrictions, the term mentors means any of the following users: User:Elen of the Roads, User:Dr.K., User:Magog the Ogre, User:Begoon, User:Fastily, User:MGA73.

Unblock request #3
George, that's not what the restrictions say. Begoon has typed them out, right above your unblock request. Just explain them to me in your own words and I'll unblock you. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you George. Sounds good to me. By the way thank you and Begoon for adding me to your mentor list. I will be glad to help. Best wishes and Season's Greetings. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 23:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

George - just a quick note - the option of a WP:ANI discussion is to give you reassurance that, in the unlikely situation that none of the mentors were available, you would still have "somewhere to go" with your concerns. Because there are now 6 users in the mentors list, I would hope that this is a very unlikely situation - and that mentors will be available to respond. All of the mentors would have User talk:George Ho/Mentorship discussions watchlisted. The idea is that, if you post a request for discussion, and after, say, a couple of days, no mentors have responded, you could take the conversation to WP:ANI. However, it's always going to be best to let mentors handle discussions if possible, because they have understanding of the particular situation. I'm not sure what you mean about "if the deadline expires"? Begoon &thinsp; talk 00:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was trying to re-word a "reasonable time" that you mentioned. If you want, I may re-phrase my own words of that. --George Ho (talk) 05:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok - just my misunderstanding of "deadline" then. I don't think you need to rephrase anything - it's pretty clear now, thanks. Begoon &thinsp; talk  06:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Begoon for all your efforts. Thanks also go to Elen for the unblock. Congratulations George on your being unblocked and thank you for persevering through this process. Also don't hesitate to ask me if you have any questions. I would be very glad to help you in any way I can. Best of the Season to you. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  16:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Blackmark
Moved to User talk:George Ho. --George Ho (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)