User talk:George Ho/Archives/2011/1

Tagging
This tagging is really rather overzealous, the only issue that you added that is legitimate there is the lead, and the citation style issue should have been removed, as that was fine at that point. You shouldn't be added tags to articles to point out their deficiencies to GA or FA standard. A similar thing applies to this tagging, given its a stub the only thing it really needs is a source or two. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, I don't mind your tagging articles about albums as unreferenced, but in the case of Chinese albums, may I suggest you help out by adding references from douban for a start? That would help a lot, especially as IIRC you can read the language! Kind regards, Fayenatic (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
For your help with the talk page archiving! As you can see, I don't spend a lot of time working on my user or my talk pages, so thanks for getting my talk page organized! We hope (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Photos
Please feel free to use anything I've uploaded that are free files wherever you like. :-). I may have more to come with Lucy; have a long list of ones I need to upload yet from a lot of different radio and television shows. We hope (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Found "only" in torrents
I'm here because of your revert of my edit moving "Cry Baby Lane" to the list of rediscovered movies. The movie was a lost one, unavailable to the general public and believed to be destroyed, now it is a rediscovered one (even if the availability is only over shady canals).

What is your rationale of removing it again? --95.208.128.7 (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Free Lucy images
If you're interested in more "Lucy" photos, have uploaded 2 more: File:Lucy wins racehorse 1958.JPG and File:Lucy in scotland 1956.JPG We hope (talk) 03:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

SPAMMING WARNING
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CANVASS

Your recent spamming of people for your AfD of Cliff Hangers violates the above Wiki topic. Please refrain from canvassing like that again. TySoltaur (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, as per Articles for deletion/Cliff Hangers (3rd nomination), everyone says merge. Am I the only one who thinks you are stooping so low by giving me this message that I have striked out and voting "keep" without bolding it?  I am certain that I am NOT canvassing.  --Gh87 (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I checked your contributions per Special:Contributions/TySoltaur, and, to my amusement, you just voted and then tagged me this ridiculous message. --Gh87 (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * you did canvass with posting the same message to a mass amount of people, which the article clearly says is frowed upon. And btw, it's not a concensus, not everyone is saying delete. Some say delete, some say merge, and at least one says keep. TySoltaur (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have checked your previous revisions, such as 02:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC). You have been blocked for your behavior; I realized that you have occasionally changed your talk page.  I begin to re-consider your claims against me.  What "same message" are you referring?  (BTW, this same reply will be rephrased in Articles for deletion/Cliff Hangers (3rd nomination)) --Gh87 (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * wow, resorting to using irrelevant crap now? TySoltaur (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Jim Sullivan (1920s pitcher)
Generally, major league baseball players are considered inherently notable, since essentially all of them would have reliable sources. I went ahead and added one to be on the safe side notability-wise. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Richard O'Sullivan
Hello. Since you decided to move Richard O'Sullivan and establish a disambiguation page at the old title, it would be helpful if you would also WP:FIXDABLINKS. There are still several dozen other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Richard O'Sullivan" that need to be reviewed and edited to point to the correct article. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Mark Tandy (actor)
Hi. Please be mindful when adding the tag to articles. You added it to the Mark Tandy article recently when it really was not called for. While the article is not sourced, the subject clearly passes WP:ENTERTAINER, having appeared in several well known films and television shows. Further, the article is a stub and needs to be expanded in general so the lede is naturally going to be short. If you have additional concerns about the article, I suggest leaving a comment on the talk page or nominating it for deletion if you strongly feel the subject is not notable. Simply expanding the article and/or fixing the issues you think are present yourself is also an option. Thanks.  Pinkadelica ♣  20:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about nominating the article for deletion. Then I found out that he was in the 1995 miniseries, which has no article on its own and I'm unsure about its notability, of a novel.  The rest: he was a guest cast of many series, including well-known ones, and supporting actor of other films and television movies.  --Gh87 (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Highlander (season 5)
Such as? Be specific or remove the template, please. - Denimadept (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The whole article is not compared to every typical "List of..." or " (season #), such as The O.C. (season 1) and List of As Time Goes By episodes. In fact, the titles and the summaries should be tabled/charted.  See WP:TABLE.  --Gh87 (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. Feel free to do it. - Denimadept (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

List of The Price Is Right pricing games
I see that you've tagged this article for notability. It replaced, literally, 103 different individual articles on every game that's ever appeared on the show. The List article was created as a result of consensus among those who wanted to keep 103 pages and those who wanted to remove the whole thing. This information is relevant to an article on the show, but it's far too lengthy to be merged into the parent article. Removing it as non-notable or combining it would open up a significant can of worms. Thanks. JTRH (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Besides very few sources that explains the game online, what about the print publications, such as journals, books, encyclopedias, and newspapers? I just had to tag that for notability needs for the list of games in general.  As for the games that are currently sections, they may not need notability right now.  Instead, the whole bundle of games need notability, especially from the third-party sources.  Also, I would prefer catalog of games, such as quickie games and cash games, along with active and retired to alphabetical order of games along with active and retired.  Therefore, we must find out the notabilities of types of pricing games generally.  --Gh87 (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Invalid AfD closure
Hi there, I noticed you closed Articles for deletion/Fictional women of All My Children, volume 1. Closing an AfD which you yourself opened is against policy; speedy/premature closing without snow consensus is against policy; cut-and-paste merges are not only against policy, they're also copyright violations. I'm going to have to request that you revert your closure of the AfD, and revert all the pages involved to the state that they were in when the AfD opened, or this will have to be taken to deletion review, as it is seriously out-of-order. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know; tell that to Casanova88 (that link ain't a joke!): that user did the cut-and-paste editing for List of All My Children miscellaneous characters. I did not mean to prematurely close it; I had to do it.  I had to merge quickly and then close the AfD per Casanova88's editing.  What about Articles for deletion/Hayley Vaughan Santos, Articles for deletion/Natalia Fowler, Articles for deletion/Annie Lavery, and Articles for deletion/Fictional men of All My Children, volume 1?  I should not be banned or blocked for this.  What happens to me if I were not blocked or banned?  --Gh87 (talk) 08:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ouch. You don't need to worry about being blocked or banned; it's a good-faith mistake and prompted by the severely out-of-process cut-and-pasting of another editor, so don't worry about it. :) I'll see what I can do about fixing Casanova88's cut-and-paste-move vandalism. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to revert the cut-and-paste moves, then reopen the AfDs. Again, don't worry about it - the other editor's cut-and-paste put you in a bad situation, so no worries at all on your part, and now you know! :) - The Bushranger One ping only 08:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They should all be back to normal now, reverted both the cut-and-pasting and reopened the AfDs. Once more, don't worry about it, good faith can be tricky sometimes but all's well now. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 08:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I did revert some more AfDs that I've missed. Marist2015 did also the cut-and-paste editing while I turned the articles into redirects.  I'm too exhausted to tell examples right now.  --Gh87 (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I know that feeling. Sometimes Wikipedia can be srs bzns! - The Bushranger One ping only 17:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Like I said in the deletion debate: Can't the nominator just withdraw the nomination if he or she has now decided that the articles should be redirected, just like nominations have been withdrawn once notability has been established? You say "Closing an AfD which you yourself opened is against policy," but I've seen this done on Wikipedia quite a few times in the cases of withdrawing upon the presence of notability. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:AFD to know policies if you want to understand more. --Gh87 (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have to see that to understand more. I know what I have seen time and time again on Wikipedia. That is why I asked The Bushranger about it. But I see that he is ignoring me. Whatever. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your comments. Please note that, on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of the arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. Consider reading Wikipedia's deletion policy for a brief overview of the deletion process. We hope that you decide to stay and contribute even more. Thank you! Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 15:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Sock puppet investigation
While I did include this on the investigation article, I would like to post it here in case you do not get a chance to read it - and do not that it includes minor edits.

It is disheartening to see that while I was attempting to improve and save the articles nominated for deletion, I was targeted due to my differing contributions of GH87 as a sock puppett. Listen, I am only here on Wikipedia to edit and contribute in an appropriate manner. Just because my contributions differ, Gh87, does not mean I'm a sock puppet. I don't know who those other account/IP users are and I must say, it seems that the investigation was personal to you because we dared to declare different approaches into improving articles than agreeing to your daily, intense deletions. Please, you are welcome to improve them but that is something you are not doing. You want them gone and forgotten about. You have options of improving or merging articles but you endlessly want all the articles - on characters and information - gone. I am knowledgable of Wikipedia so please don't accuse me of being "dedicated to soap opera universes regardless of Wikipedia policies" while you try to get articles deleted with no logical or valid reasons and personally attack other users. It's becoming a daily pursuit with you.

Suffice to say, while we may differ in our views and edits on Wikipedia, I hope that we can rise above this and at least find common ground - as I hope for all users involved when differentiating themselves against your deletion nominations. Please try to understand where all of the other users, including myself, are coming from. What's that prophecy again - "treat others the way you want to be treated." I truly believe this applies in person and on Wikipedia.Casanova88 (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Reliance Industries Page
Hey, I was making edits on the Reliance Industries page since few days. You have made sum suggestion on the regarding the The Length and the neutrality. Could you please guide me further on the same. Actully i am new to the Platform; I might have been over-zealous in doing so. thanks a lot for looking into it. Looking for your reply and SUggestions. Mananshah15 (talk) 05:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Mass-contesting your PRODs.
This is a note to let you know that I object to every PROD of any television episode of any notable television show you have made. Please go through and remove the PROD notices. Per WP:ATD, I believe the content should be merged into season articles, with the history maintained under the redirects so someone else can go through and flesh out the articles should they decide to research sourcing in the future. If you want to make those redirects directly, that's fine with me, and it's always your right to take things to AfD if you disagree with my stance. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, these articles have yet not established notability of episodes. Therefore, I have no intentions to remove PROD.  Also, I have not watched The O.C., and I have found no major articles discussing them.  Also, I am not available and not skilled enough to make a great article, let alone a "featured article".  If you want to contest the PROD, just improve the article before you remove the PROD.  --Gh87 (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)  See WP:PROD for details.  --Gh87 (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that is not how PROD works. Please re-read WP:PROD and revise your response accordingly. You don't need to tb me--I watch the pages on which I start conversations. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Some of my PRODs on articles have been contested because of the editor's disagreement (not my doing). Fortunately, I created Articles for deletion/The O.C. episodes from season 4, volume 1. Almost forgot: prior to this topic and other PRODding, "The Dawn Patrol (The O.C.)" was deleted under prod-nn. Do you want to review it? By the way, I have read the guidelines of PROD, and my reasoning isn't "generic" and less "clear", is it? --Gh87 (talk) 06:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's generic or unclear, but rather that it runs afoul of WP:ATD, which prefers merging to deletion, among other things. Thus, since I contest all your prods of episodes, those that have already been deleted will be undeleted when an admin gets around to doing them. I'll comment at the AfD. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There are still more O.C. episodes PRODded, and I will leave them as is until you want to contest my PRODs. If all contested, then I will create a volume 2.  I'm still weary of unreasonable recovery from anonymous users.  By the way, every episodes should start obviously with "The..."  Look at what happened to Olivia Hack.  --Gh87 (talk) 05:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I already did. That is, by saying "I contest your PROD", I've contested your PRODs. I asked you nicely to clean up the mess you made as well, but fundamentally, I don't have to edit each article to contest your PRODs. Jclemens (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is the link:. Well, I did not remove the PRODs and let the PRODded articles be deleted. You can contest the administrators about this if you want, but I wouldn't do that. I mean, why saving the previous revisions for future editing on (less) notable articles? --Gh87 (talk) 03:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The way you have been using the PROD process is not appropriate. PRODs are for things where you believe, in good faith, that no other editor would advocate the retention of the material.  It is not supposed to be a stealth attempt to have stuff you don't like deleted if no one else notices. I have indeed asked for everything to be put back at WP:REFUND, and, if you continue to user PRODs in this manner, I may blanket-contest every PROD you've ever made.  I'd really rather not do that; I'd much rather you used more appropriate methods, such as redirection, to deal with articles created in good faith, belonging to a notable topic area, that do not merit standalone articles to the best of anyone's interpretation of the present guidelines and policies.  Each of those articles was someone's effort; even if they don't deserve to exist in their current form, preserving them in the edit history of the redirects allows them to be easily moved to a topic-specific Wiki, or recreated with additional sources and elsewise upgraded to meet current standards, without administrator intervention. Jclemens (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much every aspect of soap operas are notable
Are you American? If you are, you've probably seen those weekly soap opera magazines in the checkout line at the supermarket, like Soap Opera Digest. They discuss every aspect of soap operas. and most of the non cancelled soaps have individual weekly magazines entirely about them. So, there's almost no character or couple that couldn't pass WP:NOTE if someone had the right magazines and put in the effort.

That said, none of them are searchable online that I know of, and because of this they aren't used as references. And all aspects of soapdom seem to not be notable when they really are. The upshot of all this, is that if you just want to get rid of the soap articles, keep on keeping on. But, if you thought they weren't notable, but would want to keep the articles around if you found out they really are notable (regardless of current state), then yes they are notable. Happy editing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm American-born and Asian (probably not exactly). I don't go out very much to buy those magazines.  So many copies of issues are thrown-away or not carried by libraries right now.  I do not know if the back issues have been duplicated in microfilms; too bad I don't see a single such in libraries.  Primarily using soap-related publications and less of third-party and independent sources will lead to primarysources instead of third-party, but I would rather have that than no references that leads to unreferenced.  By the way, some articles of fictional characters have been deleted under PROD, such as "Livia Frye", "Isabella Santos", and some others.  I'm only targetting characters, cities, and histories of American soap operas, not the soap operas themselves.  Right now, I'm goaling the soap operas that have been cancelled on television. --Gh87 (talk) 03:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)  --Gh87 (talk) 03:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked at your talk with JClemens above. I understand that your English is not good enough to really discuss this.  Have a good day. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How and why is my English "not good enough"? Can you clarify more?  --Gh87 (talk) 05:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Just happened on this discussion but that comment by Peregrine Fisher was unacceptable, your english is perfectly fine. I also happen to agree with you that some disposable Rag found at a superstore and not kept on back catalogue is neither a reliable source nor any indication of notability. Best wishes Polyamorph (talk) 07:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support for my English. If you are concerned about Peregrine Fisher's comment, one of warnings in WP:UTN can help.  --Gh87 (talk) 08:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, sources like Soap Opera Digest and Soaps In Depth are not "rags." They are primary sources (like Gh87 said above) that discuss characters and their history. They are reliable sources that you'd typically need if you want to include information about character development and reception with regard to American soap opera characters. Some of these interviews and such are indeed online because these magazines have websites that replicate some of the information (or they are duplicated on news sites, in books, etc.). In fact, some of the interviews and such are only found on the online versions of the magazines. Third-party sources are simply the sources that show that people outside of the soap opera medium care about these characters and therefore establish notability. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

While soap opera magazines are not the big reliable sources we all wish for. The majorety of the time they become useful for interviews and other behind the scenes development info. I always used them as the last resort, they can be quite useful to go along side an article with many online, third-party sources. Wikipedia encourages editors to be broad in all aspects of the coverage, providing there is minimal bias - so it is often a good way to balance the tone of the article out.

However, Gh87 - why are you targetting axed soap operas? You just openly admitted that - instead of deciding on a case by case basis, whether or not the character is notable. I've already established you mislead in the Sunset Beach AFD, you claimed to have searched for sources - Either you did look at the sources and chose to ignore them, hoping no one at AFD would notice, - or you didn't research them - just simply put them up for AFD because in your opinion Sunset Beach is an axed soap opera - "therefore non of the characters are notable". I also agree with the above editor, your english is perfectly fine and understandable, so not sure why they felt they had to say that to you. Rain the One  BAM 16:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

TFD in general, and Template:Article-cv
Hello,

Please note that old templates (2007 and earlier) frequently have documentation on their talk pages. Also, substitution templates do not show up as being transcluded as they aren't, they're substituted. Thus the "problems" you found on the template being unusued aren't problems, since it is substituted. You need to search for the text of the template to see if it was ever substituted. The "proper instructions" in this case is actually on WP:CP.

70.24.251.158 (talk) 05:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Monty 845  20:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Janet Image
Well that image is copyrighted to ABC via the domain name - there it probably should not have been uploaded as a simple screenshot from the series itself would be more acceptable. As the source can then be directly from the show itself. Rain the One  BAM 21:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Well the problem there is the website the image is taken from features a explicit disclaimer which does not prohibit any use of there content on external websites - without permission from the website. Which is a bit rich seeings it isn't their picture to begin with. That image was likely to be released by ABC's press office. The uploader is a notorious copyvio supporter - taking whatever they find and uploading as they please - which as we know - is not the standard practise here. So, to be fair we can overide the source as ABC themselves, because they released the promotional image with the purpose of just that - promotion. However, we are not here to promote the show, but we can build a rationale for its usage soley in a character infobox - with promo images they vare generally more accepted here provided there is sourced text in the article about the characters appearance, where this type of image would aid the reader to identify better with the subject matter. Which in this article there is not. Personally I think a screen shot from the serial itsef is better, where a lesser portion is used - most usually to the subjects face - therefore the rationale is better justified.

The real problem is these editors who have been warned about images uploads, ignore and carry on uploading with very thin rationales and crediting the wrong people as the source - because that fansite does not own the copyright to the photo in the first place. Rain the One  BAM 21:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Source on files
I think I'll leave mine as they are. You can conveniently click the links and see where it came from. Because there will be times and cases when the link(s) are no longer valid, is why I started uploading the front and back of the images before they're edited. Doing that means there's a permanent record as to what qualifies the photo as non-free. I enter the information about where the photo ultimately came from in the author section. We hope (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

From/To Raintheone
I think an IP editor is attempting to convince others to vote keep - [Comment - This editor has canvassed and tried to persuade members of a project to save this article. - - tut.[[User:Raintheone| Rain the One ] BAM 20:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure why I signed twice last time. Anyway, I noticed you nominated Sunset Beach characters for deletion. However, where id the duscussion for these? Also, Kathleen Noone is an actress, why nominate her for deletion when she has been in so many programmes alone. Rain the One  BAM 17:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted that nomination on an actress; it was a mistake on my part. --Gh87 (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

How come you are closing AFD's and merging? In one case the result you came up with did not match the talk - and most of the time seven days is given, right? Rain the One  BAM 21:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Some editor has been making cut-and-paste edits into List of All My Children miscellaneous characters. Therefore, keeping the discussions open is pointless.  --Gh87 (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Well what do you think about Annie's article so far, from Sunset Beach. Rain the One  BAM 21:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's discuss the article of Annie from Sunset Beach in Articles for deletion/Fictional women of Sunset Beach

I'm not like stalking your edits or anything. I was just reading about Aaron Spelling, I clicked Randy and noticed you nominated it for deletion. However, the reason you gave was because there is no notable sources in the search... when there is quite a few looking quickly through it. I'm slightly concerned now about your AFD's and prods... can you honestly say you have looked through and made the correct decision? I just want to make sure you are really looking these over before nominating - as I've seen much better candidates for deletion from several other US soaps. I am more familiar with UK soaps, but I'm aware US soaps these days are not as notable as they once were. So I totally understand the need for merging many of the characters. A big problem with US soaps is that their core editors do not know what a reliable source is and love to use fansites. Maybe they will work harder in the future, if they really want seperate articles... but I still you'll find Randy Spelling is notable. How many sources do you want for him? Rain the One  BAM 04:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. This IP is actually canvassing to stop your AFD's - - I reckon they need reporting for this one? I wouldn't be suprised if it is Casanova or that other IP using a sock. Rain the One  BAM 16:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are concerned, report this to either Administrator intervention against vandalism or another link within the noticeboard template from that page. --Gh87 (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was alerting you. If you do not mind then so be it. As for you removing refs from Randy Spelling, I added that ref for now as I was busy. I'm going to write a career section up. Rain the One  BAM 17:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have gone to Sockpuppet investigations to report two IP users and some registered users for sockpuppetry if you are concerned. I must have forgotten the Sockpuppetry reports page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gh87 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

To Raintheone, I have appreciated your attempts to improve Randy Spelling. However, do not remove the PROD, even if there are improvements. Wait for the administrators to decide. As for the "Career" section, isn't it partially the summarized duplicate of TV credits list? Shouldn't that be reverted to non-existant or something? Articles, such as Alec Guinness and Richard Burton, would not do that, wouldn't it? Isn't it necessary to give citations of TV credentials? --Gh87 (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Above, Raintheone said, "I'm slightly concerned now about your AFD's and prods." Exactly what I've been saying! And you make it seem like I was wrong to report this to the project and that I was only trying to save these articles? Funny. Now you see what I was talking about. First you get it wrong that I committed inappropriate canvassing and tried to persuade members of the project to save the Hayley Vaughan Santos article. Then you see exactly what I see. Funny. Hayley Vaughan is already a redirect, by the way. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To be fair Gh, anyone is welcome to add some sources and remove the template afterward. I'm not sure what you mean about the Richard and Alec example. They do include notable roles in career section and document them aswell as the filmog. I went for the more obvious roles for the career section. I can find sources for more.


 * 174.137.184.36 - You say funny a lot, but I don't find it funny. That is why I'm picking the obvious notable ones and improving them. I don't understand how you can complain about the AFD's etc, when you are not willing to help improve them. I'd understand more if you were adding sources to establish their notability and potential. So while I may disagree with some, others are perfectly called for and as for images being removed - their is a strict policy on non free images, US soap opera editors seem to think they can upload a picture of any old event and shove it in an article. When one infobox image does the job of illustrating the article. Rain the One  BAM 00:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I can complain the same way Postdlf has complained. You want to sit back and let this editor continue to edit Wikipedia in a way that hinders it, then that is your right. But ignoring the very damaging way this editor prods and nominates articles for deletion does not take care of that problem. I am willing to improve soap opera articles. Has it occurred to you that some of these articles cannot be saved and/or that I am not all that interested in saving certain character articles? Yes, I think it has. That is why I alerted the project, so that editors who do care may help out.


 * I said nothing about images, and don't care about images. If you are assuming that I some other IP, you are assuming wrong. I will say that one infobox image does not always do the job of illustrating the article, however. As for calling things "funny," I don't say it a lot, actually (just twice above on Wikipedia, in fact). And if you could not note my sarcasm in using that word, I don't know what to tell you. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 08:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, if you want to talk to Raintheone alone, go to that user's talk page, not mine. You can contact me with a newer section if possible. --Gh87 (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The IP just seems to be accusing me of wrong doings now too. Anyway Gh, I've started addressing your concerns over Olivia by adding some sources. :) Rain the One  BAM 10:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was correcting you on your assertions of wrong-doing on my part. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 10:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

There you go Gh87, I updated the usage and source information of the Passions file. :) Rain the One  BAM 13:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please review the policy on PROD. Any person can decline the deletion by removing the tag at any time and for any reason, with or without editing or addressing the issue indicated. Best regards,   Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 20:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

More of your bad editing
In response to this edit, let me point out that editors of Soap Central character biographies have been known to plagiarize Wikipedia. So just because both sites say the same thing, it does not mean that it was Wikipedia who plagiarized them.

In response to, the author of the website does not have to give permission for us to use any of their photos. These photos are within public domain. They don't even belong to that website. The same goes for It does not belong to AOL, AOL has no say on whether we can use it or not, contrary to what you believed! And it is a screenshot, for goodness sakes. Yes, we can take such images from the Internet and upload them, granted we fill in the correct upload information. That is what Wikipedia's fair-use rationales are for. Read that guideline!

You also shouldn't tag plot summaries as "possibly copyrighted" just because you believe they may be. Judging by your edits, you believe that all soap opera plot summaries are copyrighted. Your suspicion is not enough, since you could go around tagging any and every plot summary this way, which it seems you are already on the track to doing. Prove that it is copyrighted, or at least prove your suspicion, before throwing on such tags.

Lastly: You should not alter AfDs after they have closed, as you did here. Did you not see the Please do not modify it line? Black Kite can do it to make a tweak because he is the closer.

You obviously have a lot to learn about Wikipedia, and need to take a step back and learn those things before trying to go about them. I understand about learning through experience, but you are currently doing more harm to the project than you are good. You should have taken Postdlf's advice above about prodding and AfDs. Really. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are digging yourself in the grave.


 * 1) SoapCentral has copyright notifications in the media; is their notifications false? Can you prove that SoapCentral is infringing Wikipedia articles?
 * 2) The source's main domain (http://www.takeitishamcmyway.com/) says on the bottom: "All Rights Reserved Do Not Copy, Re-Print or Distribute  without permission of Author."  Does it mean anything to you?  Also, I tagged the source with "unreliable" because of that message?
 * 3) The image I tagged for deletion is NOT in the public domain; the post-1978 promotional images from ABC Press have been copyrighted with either a "c" or "All Rights Reserved". Have you read the license, or is the license wrong?  Or maybe the ABC Press has not registered copyrights of promotional releases as it has claimed for years?  Can you prove that the image is released in the public domain?
 * 4) All My Children webpage of the ABC.com has become inaccessible. Fansites are not reliable, and not even SoapCentral except as an external link, not a Reference.  Soap opera periodicals have not been circulated or collected in the libraries; their websites may not last, and they may be willing to prevent their articles from being collected in the Archive.org.
 * 5) I did not interfere the discussions; I just corrected the link after the redirect page has been deleted at my requested. Was that "modifying" after AfD is closed?
 * 6) If you are concerned about me, then talk to Postdlf. You and that person have something to advise me in the future, right?
 * I don't have to point out the history log, do I? I suggest: you preview before you make more re-editing.  --Gh87 (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)  Oops... am I a hypocrite to you?  I just made a booboo by forgetting to indent.  I am learning more about using codes and professional keyboarding.  Why won't you use your "edit summary"  --Gh87 (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * IP - those pictures are NOT in the public domain - that would of meant there would be no issue here. They are copyrighted - even the media, the intended users of the images, say copyright/courtsey of the named company - hense the need for a strong rationale if we are to use them. The issue here should be with the uploader - who credits the wrong website. Rain the One  BAM 01:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

One should give a good look at SoapCentral terms if interested. --Gh87 (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Gh87, you are digging yourself into a grave, and I will be reporting you to WikiProject Television. Fine, I said the wrong word: "public domain." I meant "released to the public." My mistake in words does not take away from the other stuff I said and that your deletion rationales are idiotic. Just look at what you stated in one of the above links, asking if the author of the website gave permission for us to use their photos. Raintheone explained how you were wrong about that in a higher section.


 * It does not matter that Soap Central has copyright notifications in the media, because they are still committing plagiarism. No, I cannot prove that they are plagiarizing Wikipedia articles, but I can attest to what I have seen and know. Their character bios are written by volunteers (aka fans). I have seen new character articles on that site consist of character bio plot summaries that were on Wikipedia first. This has also been observed by users of that site. It does not matter that takeitishamcmyway.com's main domain says on the bottom: "All Rights Reserved Do Not Copy, Re-Print or Distribute  without permission of Author." It doesn't mean anything to me because these images do not belong to that site or the author. They belong to ABC. Again, Raintheone explained that to you.


 * Wrong on all accounts about Soap Central.


 * Yes, that was "modifying" after the AfD was closed. What do you not understand about "modifying"?


 * Postdlf is already watching your talk page. But I will ask him to comment here about this. These latest two edits by you for example, are also problematic. In that first link, that image could be a screenshot that the editor made. In cases such as those, there is no external link to link to because it was not a website the editor got the image from. And if the source were to say "Fox Broadcasting Company," it would be correct because that image belongs to Fox. In the second link, that is exactly what it says: "FOX.com, owned by FOX." But you tagged it as having no source and with the wrong type of tag. That tag does not apply to screenshots. Yeah, we need some people to clear things up for you. I don't know why Raintheone is taking all your bad editing so lightly. It's not a "light" matter. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Gh87, please explain why you added Template:di-no permission to File:OC-104.jpg. postdlf (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The FOX.com took down The O.C. website and its entities, including this file, and makes the source less reliable. If they haven't taken it down, I cannot find the website in the main FOX.com.  Is the image permitted under these circumstances, or circumstances may have no effect on the pemission of using this image?  --Gh87 (talk) 04:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That shouldn't matter. If we're treating it as non-free, that means we're not claiming we have permission (i.e., a license) to use it, and we don't need permission to use content that qualifies under WP:NFCC.  That's a pretty basic concept here.  Maybe you should hold off on tagging any images until you're more familiar with our usage policy.  postdlf (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Postdlf. WP:Fair use is all about not having obtained permission. Going by the rationale Gh87 gave for tagging this image for deletion, it would mean that the infobox image used for featured article Jason Voorhees should be deleted if it does not obtain explicit permission from the website or companies which released the Jason movies. I will now be undoing any invalid image tags by Gh87 that I come across. If Gh87 continues to wrongly tag images, I will bring this to the attention of editors at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content or report the issue to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, randomly tagging articles for WP:Peer review, when you are not a contributor to the articles and won't be there when they are peer-reviewed? Seems like more misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works to me. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikihounding? Yeah, sure. Whatever you need to say to victimize yourself. You make it appear as though I was blocked because I was being a bad little IP. I was blocked for using a proxy. For those who don't know, this is discussed at User talk:Moonriddengirl. And as for you, Gh87, at least you see my proof that SoapCentral does, in fact, copy Wikipedia. Everyone look at this: While trying to see if SoapCentral plagiarizing Wikipedia has been discussed anywhere here before, by using "Search," I located the Talk:Téa Delgado discussion. I then researched this issue by using the Wayback Machine, and this is what I found. Look at this text:


 * The Téa Wikipedia article had it first. It was created on July 22, 2008. On July 4, 2008, SoapCentral's looked like this and it was still that way on December 19, 2008. So it's easy to see that SoapCentral copied Wikipedia. 85.195.138.27 (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

re: my talk page & Plinko
Featuring the game in middle school-level academics (or even college-level) is not anything that meets WP:N. This is not significant coverage of a topic. This is barely anything more than trivia.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Substing
Check out Substitution when you get a chance. Will help you in your discussions about template deletion matters. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

self-fulfilling prophecies
I notice that a little while ago today you removed a number of images from an article, and then nominated them for speedy deletion as unused non-free. These two things only make sense if you first had consensus to remove them from the article. You may be right, but which way do you want to proceed: would you prefer to revert and have the discussion, or to do what is even better, expand the articles to justify the images better?  DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Examples, please? --Gh87 (talk) 04:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

My archive pages
Sure, it's fine with me. As I told you a while back, I don't spend a lot of time at work on my user and talk pages. ;-) We hope (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification (for George Ho)
Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Stone Cates and Robin Scorpio (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * was linked to Michael Sutton

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

File:FriendsLogo.jpg
Your deletion nomination at File:FriendsLogo.jpg includes the concern that the image "was registered as a trademark, but trademark guidelines have not been mentioned within rationale." As far as I can see, MOS:TM includes no requirement to mention trademark guidelines. It only suggests that images be tagged with Non-free logo, which is already the case with this file. Could you therefore please elaborate on why you think this file does not comply with MOS:TM and, more importantly, WP:NFCC, which is actually a policy, unlike MOS:TM, which is only a guideline. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the MOS:TM, as you pointed, does not include requirement to mention trademark. Maybe I must have misinterpreted guidelines as it does not mention, as well, files that contain trademarks.  Maybe United States trademark law and trademark infringement will help.  How about the following essays: Logo Copyright/Trademark, Copyright or Trademark, Don't confuse Trademarks with Copyrights?  This image originated from Zap2it.com, and I wonder why there is no symbol of registered trademark.  Unregistered trade mark should suffice for this image, but I don't know where the Zap2it originated this image, and I don't know if Zap2it fairly used this logo.  Anyway, according to MOS:TM, "However, when in doubt err on the side of caution per non-free content policy by assuming that the logo is copyrighted."  Also, let's use WP:Logos instead.  --George Ho (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In case of this image, here's the registration link: http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=75098341. However, I have found out that you have fixed the other file description.  --George Ho (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Logo Copyright/Trademark, Copyright or Trademark and Don't confuse Trademarks with Copyrights (all only essays) don't provide any more guidance than MOS:TM (the guideline). Neither does WP:Logos. File:FriendsLogo.jpg probably doesn't contain a trademark icon for the same reason that the opening credits of Friends don't include one. to File:Friends titles.jpg was unnecessary. WP:Logos says "When uploading material which is subject to trademark protection, but for which the template does not apply, please use the   template message:" Since non-free logo does apply, trademark is not necessary. Since also applies to File:FriendsLogo.jpg, there's nothing that needs to be done to that image either. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that you are still adding deletion notices to files based on the same perceived problems as the two files mentioned above. However, there is no requirement to add "mention use of logos and of trademarks", only to include non-free logo to file pages. Until such time as you can actually identify a policy that requires compliance with your concerns, you should stop adding these notices. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Matrix Online
Hi! It looks like you added fancruft and notability to the Matrix Online article. I was planning on removing the tag for non-NPOV (see the talk page because I looked through pretty thoroughly and couldn't find anything. Maybe you could tell me specifically what you think is from a fan's POV so I can work on fixing it? As for notability, considering this was a major title run by Monolith Productions and SOE I would like to here your reasoning for tagging it as non-notable. Thanks! --MonsieurKovacs (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know which one is the fan's POV, but, considering its own shutdown, I will leave that up to you. I did not add "POV" tag; I added "fancruft", which may contain information that are interests of specific audiences.  Fancruft: "Gameplay" section, for example, has too much information that may specify those who used to be members of this multiplayer online game; there should be references of these game rules, or the section must be skimmed down, in my opinion.  As for notability of it, this game's premiere and shutdown and reputation as a spin-off of The Matrix trilogy; however, is this game notable enough to help its stand-alone article survive?  --George Ho (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this was mostly my mistake. I'm still learning all of Wikipedia's tags and I think I got fancruft and fan tone confused (since there were so many tags on that article). I completely agree about the gameplay section, I'm not going to dedicate myself to it now but hopefully someone will. I am, however, removing your notability tag, as I strongly disagree with it and I think the ample sources for this article back me up (and I'm sure we could find hundreds more with a simple Google search). If you disagree with me, please start a topic in the talk page so other editors can voice their opinions. MonsieurKovacs (talk) 05:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Posters
You'd be doing us all a big favour if you simply added rationales yourself seems as you seem to dedicate your time to tagging images...♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? I did not upload the first versions, as you have done it.  No offense, but I don't want to do other people's dirty work and to clean people's mistakes.  Why don't you provide a rationale yourself?  --George Ho (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Primarily because those images were uploaded at a time when image rationales were not common place everywhere. As for your prodding of articles. One word. Irritating. If you are convinced they are not notable take them to AFD and notify me about it and we'll let the community decide. But you're wasting your time as the vast majority of Argentine film articles need expansion... And you are doing little to help wikipedia. If you don't want to do other people's dirty work and to clean people's mistakes then I suggest you pick a more self-rewarding task like expanding articles you are interested in. For somebody who doesn't like cleaning up mess you are sure doing an ill-suited task on wikipedia. Oh and if you're thinking about getting shirty with me and spamming me more messages you've picked the wrong guy to wind up.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, I have been enforced to notify you about images that will be soon deleted. If you don't want me to give you notifications about deletion, fine.  I will still tag them for deletion.  --George Ho (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You haven't been enforced to do anything!!! You've chosen to be disagreeable and try to delete valid images which could easily be put right in just seconds using some script. Instead you choose to annoy editor by drilling them generic messages and making zilch effort to try to salvage any of them Its only a matter of time before somebody else complains about you. What you are doing is of no help for wikipedia whatsoever... ♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You have created articles, whose topics< such as films have not meet WP:GNG. You have created images and considered drawings or posters as part of photos, which they do not define as photo. Just go somewhere else, and let me do my work.  I'm very busy.  --George Ho (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not. You are not doing work. You are causing disruption by trying to delete content which could be reasonably improved or expanded. When you mess with something I've uploaded or created you are messing with me and I won't let it rest until you do the decent thing and start treating wikipedia as an ongoing good faith progressive development. Believe you me I will make things bitterly difficult for you to the point you will no longer want to continue if you decide to become purely deletionist as you clearly haven't the best interests of the project at heart. Yes, some images may not be photographs and not apply for PD and yes some articles are short but have you even considered that they could be fixed or improved? You have a problem with them, why don't you fix them? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone needs to arrange a ban for George Ho. This guy is extremely unprofessional and seems determined to disrupt the community. 68.147.236.21 (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey hey hey. Look at User:George Ho/Block History  before you post further. --George Ho (talk) 06:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)