User talk:George Ho/Archives/2011/2

Deletion procedures and policy
I think you need to take a break from prodding or nominating articles for deletion until you've had a chance to better familiarize yourself with how things are done. Your comments suggest that you don't yet have a good understanding of relevant policy.

First, read: WP:DEPROD. Prodding is intended for completely uncontroversial deletions, which means those for which no one objects. Anyone can object for any reason, or no offered reason, contrary to your comment at this AFD or this AFD, or your edit summaries here, here, or here ("give me very legitimate reasons to contest"). There is no requirement that whoever objects must present an argument that satisfies the prodder, so you cannot demand that they comply with anything or meet any standard before they can remove the prod tag. So you need to stop doing that, because it misrepresents how prodding works.

Second, read WP:BEFORE, WP:ATD, and WP:PRESERVE. Both your prod nominations and your AFD nominations appear to misunderstand the reasons for which we delete articles. We do not delete articles purely based on their current state. Per deletion policy, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." That an article does not have references at present is not at all reason for deleting it; what matters is whether it is verifiable. Can references be found? Per BEFORE, before you nominate something for deletion you are expected to make a reasonable effort to look for sources, not purely to judge a subject's notability based on whether the article at present has sources. I have seen no evidence you have been following BEFORE, as you have never described any searches you've performed for sources, and you have always framed your deletion nominations based on what sources are currently in the articles.

Similarly, that an article is at present only in-universe plot is also not reason for deleting it but for developing it through editing. Can it be expanded with non-plot information, such as about its production or reception? Per WP:ATD, if an article can be improved through normal editing, it is not a proper candidate for deletion. This applies to prodding as well as AFD: WP:PROD states "Before nomination...Consider your reasons for deletion and the alternatives to deletion, including whether or not merging the article elsewhere or making it a redirect are more appropriate than deletion."

Which leads into the next point... Third, per WP:ATD, if an article can be merged or even just preserved as a redirect, it should not be listed at AFD; you should attempt that through normal editing and discussion. It should also be noted that notability requirements to not apply to segments of articles, such that even if you don't think a fictional character isn't independently notable and does not merit a standalone article, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be documented within a larger article.

Fourth, also a point related to the above, AFD is not for cleanup. Many of your deletion noms, such as Articles for deletion/Our Private World, aren't even calling for deletion ("I will vote some other time"), but instead seem to be criticism of the article's current state. AFD is not a forum for your opinion of an article and what needs to be done to improve it; that is instead what cleanup tags and article talk pages are for. If you do not actually think an article should be listed for deletion, or you simply haven't decided whether deletion is the proper alternative, you should not be starting an AFD discussion for that article. Nor does starting an AFD entitle you to demand what should be done with an article, as if you are the one who needs to be satisfied just because you started the AFD.

I think for now, you should focus on participating in AFDs others have already started so you can get a better sense of how they operate, and you should try to address your concerns with certain articles through normal editing (such as trying merging and redirection yourself, expanding articles with sources you have found) and discussion (on article talk pages to raise your concerns, or on wikiproject talk pages to discuss wide-scale edits that may affect a lot of articles). But regardless, you need to read and reread the policies I've linked to above and start following them. Many of these comments have been made to you in the context of AFDs, but you have not yet improved, and it's going to be a problem if you continue to use prod and AFD in a way that violates deletion and editing policy. postdlf (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Need Your Opinion on My Future Reasons for deletion
(copied from User talk:Postdlf)

You gave me the message in my talk page. Therefore, I don't know if I should continue anymore. Before I re-edit my arguments, I shall give you my examples and need your opinions on them: What do you think? How long should I break myself from nominating for PROD and AfD? --Gh87 (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "The soap opera is notable; this fictional character is not. Also not enough sources in and out of that article."
 * "The show is cancelled, and news only covers the whole soap opera but fails to mention soap opera characters."
 * "This fictional character of the soap opera  is not notable.  The news did not cover him/her very much, and almost no one has inserted "real world" perspectives.  The fact that the article did not improve from the current status as plot-only article suggests that no one outside soap dedication is aware of this fictional character."


 * I have your talk page on my watchlist, so let's keep this discussion here. I'm happy to answer your questions, but you still really have to take the time to read over relevant policies and guidelines yourself, and to look at what other people are doing in AFDs.  Here are some comments on your arguments:
 * "Not enough sources" in an article is not a reason for deletion. First, per WP:BEFORE, you are expected to make a reasonable effort to confirm whether sources exist or not for a subject before you list it for deletion; you are not to simply look at the current state of the article.  "This article has no sources" is not a deletion argument; "no sources exist about the subject of this article" is a deletion argument.  Second, "not enough" really doesn't make any sense; an article's subject either does or doesn't satisfy WP:GNG.  Third, if it is part of a broader notable subject, such as a fictional character from a TV series, then even if the character itself is not notable, it still might be appropriate to describe in an article about that TV series (whether the main article or a separate character list), and so per WP:ATD you should consider merging or redirecting instead of listing it for deletion.
 * That a show has been canceled is completely irrelevant. We do not favor articles about ongoing TV series over articles about canceled ones.  The second part, regarding whether sources cover the characters or not, brings us back to the points I just made above: if you can't find sufficient secondary sources about a character (again, by actually searching outside of Wikipedia), that is a good argument for not maintaining a standalone article and instead merging that character somewhere.
 * "The news did not cover him/her very much, and almost no one has inserted 'real world' perspectives." These are pretty meaningless statements in an AFD discussion and just end up confusing things more than clarifying.  Your use of phrases such as "very much" and "almost no one" are wishy-washy and actually concede the opposite of what you're trying to assert: by saying that there wasn't "very much" coverage you are at the same time saying that there was some coverage, and by saying "almost no one" has added real world perspective you're at the same time saying at least someone has added real world perspective.  Similarly, claiming something is "not notable enough" is meaningless because you're saying it's nevertheless notable.  I hope you don't take offense at me asking you this, but is English your native language?  If not, that may explain the indirectness or lack of clarity of some of your comments, which is yet another reason to take some more time participating in Wikipedia in other ways.  A few more points: per WP:NOEFFORT, "no one has improved this" is not considered a relevant argument for deletion.  The solution to an article being plot only is to expand it with information other than plot, or to merge it to an article that can provide better factual framework.  And your comment about "soap dedication" is off the mark, because it doesn't matter whether a source is dedicated to a subject, or whether an article's editors are only interested in that subject.
 * The problems in your demonstrated understanding are pretty pervasive, so I think you should take a break from prodding and starting AFDs for the foreseeable future, and just contribute in other ways as I have noted above. postdlf (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciate the assist on tagging the articles for The O.C. season AFD. I got called away for a bit IRL and wasn't able to complete it right away. It was nice to see the task taken care of. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  02:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

My Three Sons
My friend, you've proven the photo is PD because you've uploaded the photo uncropped (so it can be seen there are no copyright marks on a border) and the back of the photo, which has no copyright marks, a date stamp, and the source of it. ;-) What I do is to initially paste the front and back into Paint for my first upload, and then upload the cropped (and sometimes "repaired") photo that will be used for the article.  Would suggest cropping the borders on your image and doing a reupload of it.

Am glad you found a My Three Sons PD! I still have a long list to work through re: uploading, but wasn't lucky enough to find the cast photo for the show. Was just working at Commons also and at times have been having the same kind of problems with uploads. Sometimes when I upload the second image (cropped), the display is of the front and back first uploaded that looks squashed. Reuploading the photo once more has been fixing that for me. We hope (talk) 05:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahem! I changed the author and made info and date appear differently.  I hope: I'm right about the reproduced photo.  --Gh87 (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The image originally came to the newspaper from ABC re: the copy on the back that says "on the ABC Network". The copy on the back also says that the program would start its third season at the time ABC was sending this photo out. That would have begun in the fall of 1962, so the photo dates from 1962, is from ABC and is not a reproduction. Newspapers receive all sorts of publicity photos like this and put them into their photo files, where they're brought out when needed.

When their local NBC affiliate began airing the shows as syndicated reruns, this is most likely when the newspaper got it out, added the 1966 date stamp because they ran the photo, and wrote the information about the NBC affiliate on the back. It also looks like they used the image for some reason in 1982, but that wouldn't make the pre-1978 PD license invalid because it's when the photo was first released and that was 1962. I would change the file information to date as 1962 and the source as ABC; you have the uploaded back of the photo with the attached publicity release to bear this out. We hope (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Will you or I make changes? It is past midnight in my area.  --Gh87 (talk) 07:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I just made the changes (and now I'm off to bed). We hope (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Gh87, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Gh87/sandbox.


 * See a log of files removed today here.
 * Shut off the bot here.
 * Report errors here.
 * If you have any questions, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Does this mean: I cannot use non-free images in my sandboxes? --Gh87 (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's correct. That can be inconvenient sometimes, and I've been caught out myself, but that's the rule. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To be clear, you can have non-displaying links to them in your sandboxes (File:Example.jpg); you just can't display them. The bot just added a colon to the link to stop it from displaying.  If you want to see what your draft looks like with the image displaying, just remove the colon from the link and look at it in a preview without saving.  postdlf (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Mail
We hope (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate deletion tempates
A request - you don't need to remove the duplicate deletion templates - these images are transcluded into many categories & the duplicate deletion templates stops the transclusion into these categories... this keeps the workload off of those that watch those categories, making sure that they're marked & they don't continue to be transcluded again & again into the same category(ies)... and, multiple deletion templates do nothing to the original deletion category (and they can be a clue to someone who is fixing the images that additional steps need to be taken). Skier Dude ( talk ) 04:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Alpha_Quadrant   (talk)  04:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

AMC Miscellaneous characters page
What happened to the original AMC miscellaneous characters page? I was not aware it was deleted and if there was any AFD/PROD attached to it. I think this should have been discussed further before any deletion, did you know about it?

Also, after the endless disagreements I am calling a truce and would just hope you see other points of view with all your recent deletions. We are doing our best to improve, we meaning me and other users, so I think it would be in everyone's best interest that we act more respectable because we have all gotten to be too much! The sock puppet investigation shocked me, it really did. Easing up on the deletions and improving more would be a good idea. Agreed? Casanova88 (talk) 05:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It was deleted for copyright infringements; the administrators decided to delete the WHOLE article. I hope you understand that, and, also, I hope we both have to make peaceful truce to each other, all right?  Right now, I'm almost exhausted, but I can manage for late night.  Peace?  --Gh87 (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Mail
We hope (talk) 00:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Faye Wong discography PR
Hello Gh87, I noticed that you want a peer review for Faye Wong discography; however, you have only done the first part. After you put the template on the talk page, you have to actually create the PR page by clicking on which category it is (this one would be "Arts"). Once you fill out the information there, then the article can be peer reviewed. I hope this helps and if you have any questions, feel free to contact me. —Michael Jester (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

DRV
DRV is a place where attacks on people and demands rarely go over well. I'd strongly suggest you rephrase both of your DRV nominations. Otherwise I suspect they might get shut down for civility reasons. Hobit (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Article sections
Don't do any more of this kind of tagging. There's a reason why that template uses the word "article"; mere sections do not have to demonstrate independent notability. Why did you think they did? postdlf (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Parameters to cite news
Hi, re - please note that in, the parameter day is deprecated. Although it does display, it also places the page into hidden category. It is preferable to use date when all of month, day and year are known. Thanks. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Photos
According to the article 34, copyright on photos last for 20 years after publication. It does not mention the author at all (who could be alive, deceased, anonymous, whatever), the only thing that counts is the publication date. Anonymous works are other works without such specific clause, such as logos, ilustrations, etc.

Consider as well that it's not the same "anonymous" than "I don't know it" or "it isn't credited". In some of these images the author is known, even if the publication does not credit him next to the image. The photo may had been published earlier somewhere else, where it was credited, or the uploader may not notice the credit if it's somewhere else in the publication. But, as the publication date is enough and the author is not required, it makes no difference. It may be better to include that info when available, but publication date is enough to keep the file. To license a work as anonymous, we must point a source that confirms it's anonymous.

And it is correct that creation and publication is not the same, but the issue is not at stake here. If a photo is taken many years ago, kept in a box or a family album, and gets published now, the count would begin now, not back then. All the photos considered were created and published enough time ago, as per their credits. Cambalachero (talk) 02:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, that other file should be deleted. It's a screenshot from a movie, and the terms are in PD-AR-Movie, which are not met. Acceder is not the real source, it is merely republishing it. The publication of a movie (or of screenshots of a movie) is the movie itself, once it was available to the public. Cambalachero (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Double files
I tagged the one you just uploaded for speedy deletion; that seems to be the only way to fix things. ;-) We hope (talk) 02:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't feel bad; a while ago we had someone here who was uploading different photos over the ones that were already in place. He/she uploaded a non-free file over a free file of mine before it moved to Commons. :-) We hope (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Mail
We hope (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC) We hope (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Notifying uploader of deletion nominations
When tagging files for deletion or for anything else, the uploader has to be notified of the proposed action or problem with the file. When the file is orphaned, it's a two step process as there's no article it's attached to; the file is tagged and the uploader notified. When it's for no rationale, license, deletion or other issues, it's a three step process: tag the file, notify the uploader and tag the photo on the article.

The uploader has no opportunity to correct the situation or to give his/her reasons why the file should be kept unless there's notification to that editor that something isn't right with the file. You have been omitting the uploader notification for them. We hope (talk) 04:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have known the steps; I could not notify those who have been inactive ever since 2009 or 2008 or whose talk page is too long. The uploader should know if the image is on the watchlist, correct?  --Gh87 (talk) 04:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But if the file is not on the watchlist, the editor has no notification that anything is wrong with the file and in order to be following procedure, the editor needs to be notified on his/her talk page that there is an issue with a file. We hope (talk) 05:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have check the contributions of the uploader; this person hasn't done anything since August 2011. Isn't it necessary or a required policy to notify the uploader?  --Gh87 (talk) 05:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Even if someone has not been active in a long period of time, you should be placing a notice on the talk page. Some people have their preferences set to e-mail them when their talk pages are changed. By not giving notice in this way, the uploader doesn't have a fair chance to correct whatever issues there may be with the file or to have his/her say as to why the file shouldn't be deleted. We hope (talk) 05:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * (User:We hope asked me to comment) Gh, The extent to which is is absolutely required in written policy is conceivably open to question, but Almost everyone always notifies about all deletions, so it in effect is a guideline. Anyway, even if you think it unnecessary in a [particular case, .  it can never hurt to notify the person; they will either fix the problem, which is good, or not, and it will be deleted, which is also good--and nobody will have cause for complaint. In my experience, short-cuts just create difficulties further down the line. Anyway, if you use Twinkle, it can be done automatically.  DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

My Three Sons/Part Two
We have a chance to get quite a few free use photos from the show for characters like Uncle Charley, Mike and his wife, and Robbie's wife with the triplets. Since this is the case with this show and looks like it could be true for many others, what would you think about adding a gallery for articles like this, where there just doesn't seem to be either the room or the "right" spot for the photos? We hope (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as the pre-1978 published photos have no copyright notices, give me links to future files, so I can look over. --Gh87 (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Here they are: We hope (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Tina Cole My Three Sons triplets 1969.JPG
 * File:Meredith MacRae Tim Considine My Three Sons 1965.JPG
 * File:Don Grady William Demarest My Three Sons 1969.JPG
 * File:Fred MacMurray Gloria Swanson My Three Sons 1965.JPG
 * How about adding a gallery section similar to advertisements in I Love Lucy? Otherwise, these are too many images for My Three Sons; there are enough amount there for now.  The first image was added to Tina Cole.  The second to Meredith MacRae; I wanted to add it to Tim Considine but couldn't.  Third to William Demarest and Don Grady.  Fourth to Gloria Swanson. --Gh87 (talk) 06:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I added the Tim Considine one to his infobox as there was no photo at all in it. Didn't realize he didn't have an infobox photo until now. Let's think about whether adding a gallery there would be good or not. We hope (talk) 07:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Mail
We hope (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * OK-I see I had uploaded this earlier and cropped some of the individual photos. Here's the ones I cropped: File:Peter Hansen General Hospital 1973.jpg, File:Rachel Ames General Hospital 1973.jpg, File:Martin West General Hospital 1973.jpg.  Have now uploaded a cropped photo of all of these people to File:General Hospital Cast 1973.jpg. We hope (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Disputed fair use
I've been seeing a number of your disputed fair use taggings. Rather than retagging a free image and then disputing its fair use, a much simpler way is to go through WP:PUF. FYI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, when an image/file fails WP:NFCC, the easiest course is to tag is {{subst:nrd}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

And finally one more: if it fails WP:NFCC, the easiest course is to tag it with {{subst:rfu}}. Hope I'm not messaging you to death. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

U.K. vs UK and U.S. vs US
Hi, for future reference, just a quick note about you moving Cracker (UK TV series) to Cracker (U.K. TV series). In British English the correct abbreviation is UK, so that's generally used in articles about UK subjects. The manual of style confirms this: WP:ABBR. It's not really a big deal - and I've already requested a page move to restore the article to how it was before - but I thought you'd appreciate being made aware of the differences in punctuation convention. Thanks. 81.107.26.167 (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop tagging png files NOW please
See comments just arriving on mentorship page. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a promising start. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)