User talk:George Ho/Archives/2010

AfD nomination of Telephone Game
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Telephone Game. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Telephone Game. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Give or Keep
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Give or Keep. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Give or Keep. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Dana Plato
I reverted your additions of the comment again because they are not unneeded in the infobox. If you want to comment on what you'd "like to see" or what you find preferable, that's what the talk page is for. There are plenty of bad or "outdated" photos on Wikipedia I'd like to see replaced, but I don't leave hidden comments in the article expressing my opinion on the matter because it's my opinion. All that matters is that the image has proper rationale (ie it's free) and that it doesn't violate copyright. Further, there's no year on the photo to begin with so it could very well be from 1998. Contacting the original uploader and asking them what year the photo was taken would be advisable if you're concerned.  Pinkadelica ♣  22:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Microsoft Word Archiving
Hope you don't think I was being rude, but it popped up in my watchlist, and I happened to have done the same thing for Talk:The Rolling Stones yesterday, so I tried to help by copying it over while it was fresh in my mind. The index bot is down at the moment, so that won't work until it's fixed, but I created the target page and a template page for an index. - Begoon (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, while I was here I noticed you added it to this page too. The HowTo says the bot code should go at the top, before anything that "prints" on the page - I don't know if it matters here - you have it before the first section, but after the "headers" - just thought I'd mention it in passing - it might work fine as it is. I'll stop sticking my nose in now :-) -  Begoon (talk) 09:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Tagging
Regarding your recent edit to The Benny Hill Show, I'd like to know specifically what content you're referring to as "overdetailed" and resembling a fansite. If you can't identify the offending content, the tags need to go and stay gone. As I stated on the article's talk page, slapping tags on articles and vaguely communicating through edit summaries only isn't going to work. I get that you don't actually want to improve the article, but slapping tags back on a few hours after the article is overhauled by two different people in as many days without so much as one comment on the talk page is a bit much. Any further communication about this issue needs to take place on the article talk page ASAP please.  Pinkadelica ♣  11:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

re: List of The Price is Right pricing games
In your edits you used inconsistent bolding, punctuation, verb tense and numbering not used in other game summaries within the same article. Also, you included no additional clarification about what prizes were won when playing On the Spot (and made no edits to Balance Game), instead making the description more vague. Sottolacqua (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You certainly didn't offend anybody, so no need to apologize at all. You don't need to make edits in the sandbox and get my approval – just try to keep formatting within the article consistent with what's already there.


 * You should take some time to look through the rest of the game descriptions and get a feel for how they're written. Notice what chronological order changes are discussed, how the gameplay is described, complete narrative sentences versus fragments, what type of formatting is used, etc. Have fun! Sottolacqua (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox
You don't need to create a sandbox or run your proposed edits by me. Instead you should make edits that follow the same patterns already in the List of The Price is Right pricing games and are congruent with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Read through the Pricing Game article and review how rules are presented (specifically, trends of chronology, what is/is not bolded/numbered/hyphenated, the use of complete narrative statements rather than fragments/bullet points, etc.), then make your edits accordingly. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The previous response and suggestions I provided should be a good guide for you to follow when making edits. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits
Please be careful about the number of commas you add to sentences. Commas should only be used when listing items of which there are more than three or when joining two independent clauses together. If you are adding commas and realize the statement creates a run-on sentence or becomes confusing, consider breaking up the sentence into two independent statements. Sottolacqua (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Why Merge the Lucy-Desi Episodes
Why should you merge the Lucy-Desi Comedy Hour episodes into the article when the Lucy-Desi Comedy Hour Episodes are already in the I Love Lucy Episode List? (--IIloveapplemacintosh (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC))