User talk:George Ho/Archives/2016/5

Leaving Wikipedia in somewhere in the summer (or after)
I've come to the conclusion that my work here in Wikipedia is almost done. I do not have many friends here in Wikipedia. In fact, I've gained resentments and enemies here. Also, I tend to feel like I'm such a bother to people. I have known that, without me, Wikipedia will never be the same. Of course, many, if not some, people would disagree and hope that someone greater than me would come along. Who knows? Also, many would not feel bad about me leaving or my planned absence. I can't just leave yet. I've got some unresolved things, like drafts, FFDs, etc. The big influencers here are also administrators and are willing to make us editors look bad. I'll never be qualified as administrator because I have not taken heavy criticisms well and because I have not worked well with more difficult people. Never mind that. I'm not one of people to be friends with, maybe? Also, I could not handle well difficult situations that I made. I just wanted some agreements, not retaliations and stuff. If people do not commemorate me well as one of reliable editors, then that's fine for me (even when it might make me sadder). The sooner I finish existing situations without making newer ones, the sooner I leave, and the better for everybody to be fine without me. Fair deal? --George Ho (talk) 08:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * George, don't leave, that's all I can say. — I B  [ Poke  ] 09:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

My status in Wikipedia
After eleven years here, I still wonder what the intent of Wikipedia is. If it is not therapy, not a set of rules, not a place of debates, not a place to socialize, not whatever I wanted it to be, then what is? If it is reading and reading and reading, why editing? People see information but then change or add more info. If it is appeal or attracting readers, why attracting editors? Wikipedia goes through evolution... or maybe it will become a shell form of itself. Right now I'm tired. Just tired. I don't know how I must redeem myself, but recently I failed. Perhaps... if new people come in the future, and Wikipedia becomes a much better place than it is now, maybe I will gain interest in Wikipedia. Without enough friends or support, I guess there is nothing else left for me here. I will edit someday, and I have temptations to edit Wikipedia. However, when a big case that I'm involved in is over, maybe I will seriously take a wikibreak. I don't know how long, but while I can read more and more, then I can edit less and less. This mean I will talk to others less and less and read everything more and more. That way, maybe I will understand what Wikipedia is. I will be more of a reader and less of an editor. I will read discussions. I will read articles. I will talk less. I will edit less.

I have college work, so if I can focus on that, I can read and study everything. I can write notes but on notebook, not on Wikipedia. --George Ho (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

George, If after 11 years and 80k+ edits you "still wonder what the intent of Wikipedia is" you shouldn't do anything but read Wikipedia. Just stop editing. I'm not trying to be mean, or come off as hateful, but that is the truth. Wikipedia is not about how to "redeem yourself". As for, its "not whatever I wanted it to be", what does that even mean? 2601:483:100:CB54:2451:AFDE:F9E2:1AFB (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but this- "If it is reading and reading and reading, why editing?" is so when the public reads Wikipedia, the information they are reading is correct. I'm honestly trying to help you, that's why I'm trying to answer your questions. This -"People see information but then change or add more info." is to be expected, it is after all, an online encyclopedia, and encyclopedias need to be updated. You wouldn't read a hard back encyclopedia from 1980 and expect to see events from 2016 in it would you? This -"If it is appeal or attracting readers, why attracting editors?" is the same answer, the information needs to be correct and accurate. This- "Right now I'm tired. Just tired." then just stop, it's really that simple. This- "However, when a big case that I'm involved in is over, maybe I will seriously take a wikibreak." why don't you just take a break now? I'm sure whatever "big case" you're involved will get resolved, even if you take a break. This- "I have college work, so if I can focus on that, I can read and study everything. I can write notes but on notebook, not on Wikipedia." then just take a break and concentrate on college. I'm trying to help you. Look at the big picture, It's not like you're paid for Wikipedia and this is your job and source of income. Wikipedia will survive without you. Just take a wiki break. Please don't take any of my comments as hostile, I'm trying to help. 2601:483:100:CB54:2451:AFDE:F9E2:1AFB (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Really?
I am minded to block you for disruption. Seriously, what the hell were you thinking? Guy (Help!) 22:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:ARC
Your request has been removed as withdrawn. For the Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 04:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Alan kurdi smiling playground.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Alan kurdi smiling playground.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. ATTENTION : This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Missed question
In WT:NOT, archive 47, you'd asked "If the reference is not bare URL, why should references by re-stylized?" Because templated citations produce consistent output and useful metadata, while people randomly hand-writing cites any way they want to does neither. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Stanton... you might give me consideration of using templates. Per WP:CITECONSENSUS, citation style must be consistent. However, I can't go against or for them. Also, per WP:CITEVAR, we can't and shouldn't force editors to change their citation styles on grounds of consistency with other articles, personal preference, or being bold without discussion. Sometimes, I don't use templates because... I'm lazy (sarcasm?). George Ho (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * How often are these rules enforced? George Ho (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have any statistical data on that. And CITEVAR is frequently misinterpreted.  It does not mean you can't change citation styles (for any reason). You certainly can, you just shouldn't without consensus if the article already consistently uses one citation style and is no longer a stub.  Even if it does have one and is not a stub, if it's not an effective or appropriate one (e.g. someone's idiosyncratic made-up style that is hard to read), a proposal to change it is sufficient if it gains consensus through active discussion or simply doesn't garner opposition.  Disputes about citation styles usually break out in only two circumstances: a) it's a GAN or FAC about which someone feels proprietary, or b) it was authored by one editor, or a handful from one wikiproject and they again feel proprietary about it.  Most conversion of untemplated to templated citations goes unopposed. I do it frequently (including conversion of messy templating to consistent templating, conversion of random date formatting to one style per MOS:DATEVAR, one that matches the articles MOS:ENGVAR, and imposing a consistent ENGVAR if mixed spelling is used) and am almost never reverted or challenged on it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes
Hi George. If you are interested in finding additional sources for this article, take a look at this sub-page where I was gathering edits and new sources to propose later for the "Terminology" section. It might save you some time. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Re "What is your problem?"
You said: "Can't you cooperate with me and discuss edits with me or anyone? You seem to revert the changes. Look at Don't Cha. Look at All Through the Night (Cyndi Lauper song). Images of original versions don't have to be on the top of articles. Original versions are less emphasized. --George Ho (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)"
 * Hi, I'm not sure why this isn't in the RM discussion on the article page. If you start a discussion on an article talk page then anyone who regularly takes part in titling discussions should be free to respond without you making it personal, leaving messages on their talk pages etc, In ictu oculi (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Other people's talk page comments
Please don't alter other people's comments on article talk pages. That applies not just to the wording but to the context as well, including which section the comments appear in and the text formatting. See WP:TPNO. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you want me to undo that then, Kendall? If so, I will. --George Ho (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, just for future reference. Thanks. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Downtown by Petula Clark UK vinyl A-side.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Downtown by Petula Clark UK vinyl A-side.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. ATTENTION : This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

upload
hello george could u help me to giving ideas about uploading photos to the wiki through the article... how could i?? Manishkarki714 (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Alan Kurdi lifeless body.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Alan Kurdi lifeless body.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. ATTENTION : This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Interview invitation from a Wikipedia researcher in the University of Minnesota
I am Weiwen Leung, a student at the University of Minnesota. I am currently conducting a study on how people on the LGBT+ Wikipedians group use and contribute to Wikipedia.

Would you be willing to answer a short 5 minute survey? If so, please email me at leung085@umn.edu. It would be helpful if you could include your Wikipedia username when emailing.

Thank you, Weiwen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weiwensg (talk • contribs) 03:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Your 2nd question
You've removed it from others for a rewrite, did you mean to remove it from my page? Doug Weller talk 07:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'm afraid I don't understand the new version. Did you mean "upset", or maybe "resenteful"? Of course it's pretty impossible to predict feelings. Doug Weller  talk 09:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

3O request for OR tag
While I sort of thought the tag was baseless to begin with (and given the usual practice, BeenAroundAWhile's absence from that discussion after a brief exchange, as well as his refusal to get specific when asked to do so, would normally just justify taking the tag off the article completely), I will seek a 3O because you have asked so nicely and you feel it should be done.

While we're on the subject, what do you want to do about the picture? Just put it back in the box for now, or try to find some further input on its placement? Daniel Case (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I think they meant that BeenAround had not gone back and forth with me the way you had—apparently the 3O rules do require a "thorough discussion" have taken place.

In the absence of that discussion, or a third opinion, I really think it's time to remove the tag. It can be taken up again another time if someone really wants to do it. Daniel Case (talk) 05:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Eric Garner facebook.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Eric Garner facebook.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Daniel Case (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Harry S
See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_S._Truman&diff=prev&oldid=754468064

FYI Lakeshake (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit war
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Template:People Power LegCo members. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Formatting of requested moves
George, I'm going to be very blunt here due to your proviso at the top of this page talking about your lack of social understanding. It is not meant aggressively or as a personal attack.

Walking into someone else's discussion that they set up and telling them where to stick their comments is grossly inappropriate and rude. There are no Wikipedia 'rules' being broken. You aren't even participating in the RM. What the hell. It'd be like someone coming and telling you how to format your own user or talk page. And even IF Daniel Case was doing something non-standard - setting up some weird alternate RM format, say - that would still be fine. It might reduce the odds of getting consensus from others if it's too weird, but plenty of RFC's have changed policy, reorganized articles, moved pages, whatever off just a simple running conversation with no voting and no fanciness. If a discussion is getting REALLY huge, it's reasonable to politely request it be taken elsewhere. But we aren't anywhere near that, and yabbering about the 'standard format' (aka what's already happening, not your preferred style!) like you're the arbitrator is not going to win you any allies.

To put things another way. When you open a RM, you can feel free to say "please stick to just votes and move any extended commentary to a Discussion section." When someone else opens an RM, you don't tell them how you'd like them to do it!

If you are truly dead set on this issue - and I can't imagine why - you can, I suppose, open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves with a likely futile attempt to enforce your preferred format, which is usually used for large RFCs where the voting section really should be kept tight. But you are trying to enforce WP:Bureaucracy on small discussions involving 3-7 people. There's no need for a strict format for so few people. SnowFire (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologize, SnowFire. I didn't mean to offend you or make a huge fuss about it. I just caught up in the moment of heat discussions and feared the worst. --George Ho (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi.
George Ho, I accept your apology. If the screenshot is that important to you, I will not remove it. I do wonder if you can fix a link in the Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward page. On that page, under the section Murders, it reads- " WDBJ production master control operators then switched back to Mornin' anchor Kimberly McBroom at the station's news studio, seemingly confused by what had just happened". If you click on the link in the sentence, the link production master control, it takes you to the Wikipedia page for production control. While that is ok, it would be better if it linked to the Wikipedia entry for Master control. Take a look at the Wikipedia entry for Production control, then look at the Wikipedia entry for Master control. I think it would be better and correct because master control operators actually do the job of Master control, which there is a Wikipedia article about. I'm also going to sign up for a new Wikipedia account. I will comment back here when I do, so you won't have to communicate on the IP page. 2601:483:100:CB54:2921:709C:47A2:195E (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Um... I'll leave that up to you to choose either production control or master control. That latter is tagged as unsourced since 2008. Linking to a poorly managed article is too risky for me. As for the screenshot, let's discuss further at the other talk page. George Ho (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome you left at my talk page. Have a good night. Paige Matheson (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Exile
Hi George. Per your comments on the RM, and your quoting WP:TITLECHANGES, it appears as though you misunderstood the situation. Given what WP:TITLECHANGES says, and the true situation (that Exile on Main St. is the long standing title, and Exile on Main St was (and again now is) the controversial move), would you consider undoing your page move, and opening a new discussion to see if there is consensus for moving Exile on Main St. to Exile on Main St.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  10:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I made a dummy edit, SilkTork. Must I close it and then ask for technical request? --George Ho (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I notified some users about the ongoing RM and then one project. --George Ho (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice, Exile isn't on my watchlist so I would have missed the discussion.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

You left a message entitled "Your actions"
As follows:
 * I just want to say.... thank you for doing one tough RM at Talk:Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series). You did what I could have done differently. Nevertheless, disambiguating articles is not an easy job, especially when consensus may be normally against changing one title or another. And I want to apologize for doing an awful ArbCom case request on you, which failed. Maybe I apologized to you for awful remarks on you or antagonizing you too much; I'm apologizing again. Maybe... we can cooperate (again like before) and discuss before changing titles boldly. You can notify me about articles you want to create on the side of caution. What do you say? --George Ho (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Why would any editor have to ask or notify you? Your behaviour to various editors is problematic to say the least. Please do not reply on my page. If you have anything to say, please say it here and ping me. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In ictu oculi, can you explain my behaviors toward you and others? If my apologies are not enough, how else shall I redeem myself? --George Ho (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I recall there was an admin who sent you a message after the attempt at Arbcom (which I have no interest in, I have no relationship with you) who warned you that you were running close to getting banned. Maybe you should ask him/her. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Ks0stm, is IIO right? Am I unredeemable? George Ho (talk) 09:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions and the gamergate controversy
Howdy. I don't believe discretionary sanctions on the gamergate controversy were lifted, just that single discretionary sanction (500/30 on the ggc talk page). Correct me if I'm wrong. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for thanking me, PeterTheFourth. I have had a very bad year. I have seen too much drama, controversy, and animosities. Maybe I should be careful and improve my literacy from now on. Jorn, you were right about giving me a DS notice. I shouldn't have removed it. George Ho (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC) I mean, Jorm. 20:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob 13 Talk 16:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Korean nationalism
Hi. Do you want to discuss further on Korean nationalism? I asked for a third opinion, but it has been denied since already more than two editors were involved. --Christian140 (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. I opened a discussion on the dispute resolution noticeboard. Since you were not further involved, I didn't add you for now. But if you want to be included, you might add yourself or tell me and I do it. Not that you feel excluded. --Christian140 (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Robert, but not totally involved. Already explained my noninvolvement in the subject matter. George Ho (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Spinout
Hi. Concerning this:. Look at the link I've provided, most versions have it as the A-side. (Actually, I've browsed Elvis' singles on Discogs and there are usually several different covers, some of them listing one song first and others the other one.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC) While creating articles for some of Elvis' singles, I found out that even some books that list his releases are incorrect. Some examples: "Fool" is listed as a B-side to "Steamroller Blues" everywhere, but Billboard back in 1973 reviewed the single as simply "Fool". According to Wikipedia, "Life" is an A-side (I decided not to change the article, cause I really didn't know what I should do), but Billboard in 1971 reviewed the single as "Only Believe / Life". --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC) By the way, according to the article "A-side and B-side", "flipside" is a synonym for "B-side". So saying "flip-side" equals saying "B-side". Could you maybe take it to the songs project yourself? I think you will be able to explain the matter in a couple of sentences and much better than I can. (I don't have much time now. And I was planning to fix and create some articles in another language in the next few days.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Added an image in Spinout (song) and modified text at All That I Am (Elvis Presley song), Moscow Connection. Weird, isn't it? One flipside makes the "All That I Am" a very huge blue text, while the other makes "Spinout" a very huge blue text also. In case of doubt, I make All That I Am/Spinout a double-A side. Or make Spinout B-side again? George Ho (talk) 22:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what we should do. (But making "Spinout" B-side is not correct.)
 * Rather than use "B-side" or "A-side", I listed the releases as "flipsides", Moscow Connection. Also, Discogs is considered unreliable as it's user-generated, but I made it an external link instead. George Ho (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. I though "flipside" was a synonym for "B-side" (actually, I still do). 2. When printed books are incorrect, Discogs is the only hope for finding the truth. It's not a reliable source, but the actual covers are. (It being not a reliable source means that we shouldn't care which side it lists first. But we can always look at the covers and/or the labels (some editions have sides marked as "A" and "B", most don't) --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this "A-side or B-side or double-A-side" problem is too complicated. It probably needs to be a topic of collective discussion at WikiProject Music. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Or, Moscow Connection, you can take this to WT:WikiProject Songs. Also, we must be careful interpreting primary sources, like the single release itself. The labels did not say "Side A" or "Side B" for all that matter. Therefore, avoiding OR, like interpreting one flipside as either "Side A" or "Side B", is the best way. Or, we can take this to WP:NORN, though the Noticeboard is slowly... I don't know. George Ho (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In this case maybe the labels didn't say "A", "B" (I don't remember), but sometimes (rarely) I saw there were an "A" and an "B" after the catalog number. (Probably these were some non-U.S. versions.)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Stairway to Heaven - 20th Anniversary Commemorative Edition.png
Hey. You can remove the 20th anniversary image. Thanks. --Mistymountain546 (talk) 12:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Ratnasiri Wickremanayake

 * Thank you, MBlaze Lightning, but I'm under scrutiny right now. I am not allowed to do that under ArbCom as of now. Thank you though. --George Ho (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not allowed to discuss this during ArbCom remedy. You can give me a simple thank you note, but... I don't want to be tempted. --George Ho (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've striked out part of the message. &mdash;  MB laze Lightning T 08:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This message was generated by a template "ITN notice", and is just to let you know that your's contributions benefited the encyclopedia. &mdash;  MB laze Lightning T 08:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your compliment, MBlaze Lightning. Now let's move on then. George Ho (talk) 08:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)