User talk:George Ho/Archives/2017/June

Can you do us a favor?
Please forget the retirement nonsense. Just remove the notice, and continue what you do best: building an encyclopedia along with the rest of us! Cheers. The Transhumanist 21:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Removed the banner for now. George Ho (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * But am doing my best to reduce my activities here, to be frank. --George Ho (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Community Bulletin Board (CBB)
You wrote: Hello again. I see that you have contributed to the bulletin board. I thank you for that. However, seems that we're losing its regulars. Mind if I post a notification at WP:Village pump (miscellaneous) and then WT:Community portal for recruitments? --George Ho (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear George,


 * The CBB is like a regular bulletin board, for anyone who needs to post a notice or bulletin about their events, projects, activities, and so on. It is for announcers who have something to announce. It's not a news gathering service, and therefore recruiting volunteers or journalists to post news items goes way beyond the purpose of that department. It's just a spot for everyone in the neighborhood to post stuff when they feel the need to.


 * Like regular bulletin boards, activity on the CBB ebbs and flows. Having volunteers to post notices doesn't generally help, because they would have to know what to post. You never know where the announcements are going to come from (people with unusual projects, etc.), or when. It's announcer-driven.


 * It's normal for the CBB to slow down during late spring, and summer vacation months. It'll pick back up again in the fall.  The main reason it is there is to provide an unrestricted place for posting notices to the general community, as needed. For example, when the new redesign of the Main Page was ready to vote on it was posted there, and it had the biggest turn out ever! All the other notice venues have limitations in scope, or require lead time, etc. But you can always be sure to be able to post a notice at the CBB - it's always available, and is unrestricted.


 * The important thing is that the CBB is there ready and waiting.


 * Thank you for your interest. The Transhumanist 21:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * With pleasure. I'm new to the bulletin board, though I've recently edited "centralized discussion" template. I don't know whether to announce having more participants at WP:FFD, WP:RFD, and/or WP:TFD. Though others can search for those processes themselves, would posting such notification be fine? --George Ho (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No, that's not needed: the deletion departments have their own notification system. Good brainstorming though.  Remember, bulletin boards just sit there until someone needs to post something.  There is no need to advertise the CBB.  It is on the community's most trafficked page.  People know it is there. I just posted another notice, in case you are interested. Check it out. The Transhumanist 23:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Precious four years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Dual names
Hello again.

It seems that the naming of articles relating to Taiwan and China continues to be controversial. I think for articles relating to Taiwan, the use of either "Taiwan" or the ROC will never stand the test of time. What do you think about using Taiwan/ROC like HIV/AIDS? Szqecs (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message, Szqecs. However, please don't think about changing the title to "Taiwan/ROC" or proposing it. You might want to raise this at WP:Administrators' noticeboard if you think the whole issue is beyond your control. Can you do my suggestion please? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Why not? Has it been proposed? Szqecs (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's say, Szqecs, if it were proposed as a compromise, the majority would say no to "Taiwan/ROC" because, obviously, the naming looks ridiculous and... silly. Also, it's not compared to HIV/AIDS, which is a well-known disease, not a country or an unrecognized state. I appreciate your good-faith efforts to resolve the matter, nevertheless. I also responded to your suggestion at Talk:List of political parties in the Republic of China. --George Ho (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What is so ridiculous about it? The slash is a fairly common grammatical punctuation used for connecting alternatives: Slash_(punctuation). Szqecs (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well... you can ask at Talk:Taiwan, but just ask before using the RM process. George Ho (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC) Pinging Szqecs, just in case. 17:28, 6 June 2017 (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. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Reg Grundy 20 September 2010.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Reg Grundy 20 September 2010.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. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Boy in the dress.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Boy in the dress.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Well!
was quick! Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh... Thanks for the compliment. ;) I also tagged one statement as "original research" per your rationale. --George Ho (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, thank you for doing it. It can be frustrating to spend time and energy wrestling with a long RfC such as that only to see it sit untouched. I'm gratified (if a bit pleasantly surprised) at seeing the close recommendations implemented so immediately.  Cheers. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Help offering accepted.
Just tell me what do you think about what i have written. Also you have already helped.-- Neurorebel (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * By now I have not many time for taking courses though id like to (and I will soon), in turn what you saw on wikiversity (how did you saw that?) is because a mayor concern I have, I read that you have moderate autism so may be you can understand that reason. About wikipedia what I urgently need is a momentary permission for writting articles as to avoid problems as I have some Ideas for edits and articles. --Neurorebel (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed im prevented, not banned, against editing in the main namespace by one user [], mostly by redacting and indeed I shouldnt have edited for example List of candies, thats why im asking for temporal permission until I can improve my skills over the language.

At the end is not totally clear to me if im banned or not but I want to gain at least minor edits.--Neurorebel (talk) 05:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ownership by who? If its related with me and Uruguayan cuisine im not possessive but passionate, of course I dont own the article but I do the best I can to improve it. is my adoption as a personal challenge.
 * I want to prevent a ban since im stating this, I can see that you neither are administrator nor rollbacker am I right with that? however my proposal is messure and criterion on my edits and of course the method of editing you meantion that already was of my knowledge is extremely useful in this situation i will adopt it also.--Neurorebel (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Your comments at WP:AN
George Ho, I'm not quite sure why you appear to be encouraging BlaccCrab to take this to ANI, or why you linked to previous disputes he and I had. As I pointed out, he was previously brought to ANI by myself and blocked by Ritchie333 in November last year for the exact behaviour he engaged in again yesterday. I reported him to Ritchie333 again after this incident. If anything, from your experience at such boards, you should clearly be able to see it's not really going to go anywhere and I thought you would have encouraged it be closed. He esssnentially said "I can't be bothered trying to diffs" of whatever he accused me of—also because there really aren't any. People are rarely, if ever, being blocked for being "condescending" in summaries. If that were the case, half the registered editors here would have been blocked for it. This is assumed persecution based on my reverting him at my talk page. There's nothing else to be looked into.  Ss 112  07:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I struck the encouragement, Ss112. Therefore, I won't get involved in your and BlaccCrab's disputes, okay? I'll stay most out of it for now until I figure out, okay? I did my best to stay neutral or listen to both sides or mediate. I've done my job, so I'll leave the rest to others. --George Ho (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC); modified, 07:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not that I wanted you to "stay out of it", as I didn't say that. It's more that I thought, objectively speaking, that you would have been able to see it was a waste of time, certainly a WP:BOOMERANG case, and the user doing the reporting was in the wrong previously and did so again.  Ss 112  07:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up (again). Enough about BlaccCrab and you. Let's chat sometime, all righty? George Ho (talk) 07:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The sister sites search etc
Thx for your email. The search results I was getting before I disabled it in my css were useless - that's my main beef with this feature (the visual clutter isn't as problematic to me)...so I just don't understand how enabling it would improve my editing. Other editors might find it useful, not even notice it, or might not have an opinion to opt-in or to opt-out via a checkmark-box. When the feature was brought online, I doubt that any of the sister Wiki-Projects were notified so I don't think that notifying them would be necessary (and where that would or should be done is another matter). And in my opinion letting people know about a discussion isn't canvassing, as long as there's no favoritism or bias towards one side or another, I think of it as being inclusive to the WP-community at large. Not everyone keeps up with all the policy/guidline/rules discussions that take place on all the Village pumps & elsewhere on WP (witness all the thread respondents who knew about the various discussions while I did not). If you've left notices at various on-WP noticeboards etc that's about as much as you can do - if it's possible I think it elevates community when WP-constituents are aware of discussions or changes on-wiki that could impact their editing & their experience. Shearonink (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, Shearonink. May I notify some (just selected ones based on search results) sister projects right away then? --George Ho (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Do what you think is right, it's fine with me if [whatever] sister-projects are notified. Heh, it's not like any of us around here are in charge of anything in particular - so do what you think is appropriate. Shearonink (talk)

Invitation
Hi, I would like to invite you to participate in this arbitration case I filed regarding the ROC/PRC issue. Supreme Dragon (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration Special:Permalink/787497450 Closed
This is to inform you that the request for arbitration in which you were recently named as a party has been declined by the committee and closed. GoldenRing (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Me and you, IIO
Why still being so hostile to others and me? Why accusing me of following you? Also, why moving No Way Out (song) to No Way Out (Phil Collins song) without checking whatever links to that other article? If I were following you, I would have cleaned up your messes that you made. However, I was not following you, and I have no plans to clean up the mess you made. I browsed around, looked at No Way Out dabpage, and found that you moved the page, and found that the Stone Temple Pilots song exists! You're lucky you're not sanctioned at ANI, but in one of these days, your luck won't save you. Since our last encounter together, I noticed that you slightly improved some of the articles you created. Impressive. Therefore, I have left you alone for months, and I still intend not to bother you. Well, your disagreements with others and me... and our hostile interactions... must have gotten you... isolating yourself from others. I somewhat... understand that. Still, I don't do what you always do. The more you move pages and create such pages, the more trouble you get yourself in. Please save your accusations before you start accusing any one of us of following you. --George Ho (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not "accusing you of following me". You are following me. You've just admitted it above. You log on to Wikipedia and follow me. That's what following is. Listen there is no "me and you". We do not have a relationship. You are just following me. That's all. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You know what, In ictu oculi? I'm tired of all this, including "following me" crap, and your adolescent comment. I can prove that I lost interest in you since the "WT:Notability" encounter if you're interested. Please read WP:ASPERSIONS before accusing others; that's all. Also, since you haven't admitted responsibility of your actions, I'm staying clear away from you, your edits and your articles, and you... stop claiming stalking, following, or whatever. Got it? --George Ho (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC); modified, 22:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And if you want to stay away from my edits and me, please feel free to say so if you wish . Otherwise, don't give me any more of your such responses. --George Ho (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC); amended, 22:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Just the Way You Are by Billy Joel US vinyl.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Just the Way You Are by Billy Joel US vinyl.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Reform of mediation
George, you sent me and undisclosed others an email about reforming mediation and Arbcom and extending mediation from one to multiple articles. I'm afraid that I don't quite get what you mean. Formal Mediation can already include multiple articles, so I'm not sure why you believe that it cannot. I'm also uncertain why you, by implication, feel that Mediation needs to be reformed. Before jumping on my horse and riding off in all directions at the same time, I'd like to better understand your concerns. Could you explain? Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh... I didn't know about WP:Formal mediation. My apologies, TransporterMan. I didn't realize that. About the reforming thing, I was at daze when I read so many failed requests and was thinking reform without having second thoughts. Also, I read Mediation and figured by reading Definition figure #4. I initially thought that process would be limited to just one article. I guess I was confused. That's all. If formal mediation can apply to all pages related to one topic, and reformation is unnecessary.... then maybe I can file a request for mediation. Here's one unresolved issue: China/Taiwan thing. It's been ongoing for a long time, especially since PRC became China and ROC became Taiwan. Every RM attempt I've seen, I tried WT:NC-ZH to update the rule, but that went nowhere. Even I tried WP:RFD a couple times, but they decided to leave the redirects as they are, like Politics of Taiwan. Even someone filed an ArbCom request that failed. I thought about inviting participants for mediation, but I'm unsure whether they want to participate. If many participants leave the formal mediation process, then formal mediation would be futile. Maybe that's another reason for reform, but then I now realize the reason is not adequate and good enough for reformation. Still, before requesting mediation, I am going to ask the community about mediation. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * George, if that dispute has not yet gone to DRN it really ought to be tried there first, but first read what I'm about to say about RM's. The more narrow you can define the topic, the better the chances for success, as well. However, if the topic of the discussion is an article name and if you've already gone through the RM process then you may not get much help through dispute resolution. RM is one of those processes, like XFD, which has its own built-in dispute resolution process in the form of a formal closing by an independent editor. Except in unusual cases, the content DR processes are not usually going to be willing to become involved in that since all they can do is try to get the editors to discuss the dispute thoroughly and try to get them to come to consensus. (We have no form of binding content arbitration, only various forms of voluntary mediation. Every attempt to create a system of binding content arbitration — and there have been many attempts over the years — has been rejected by the community as being out of line with the wiki nature of Wikipedia.) By the time a RM or XFD discussion is complete, the matter has usually been discussed about as much as can be expected. Moreover, since all forms of content dispute resolution are done with a view to achieving consensus, if any significant number of the parties to the dispute choose not to participate then any consensus reached by those who do participate can be easily torpedoed when an attempt is made to implement the consensus back at the article; that's the reason that DRN and Formal mediation both require most parties to agree to participate before they will take a case. RFC is about the only type of dispute resolution where parties must either participate or have their views ignored — but RFC's often end in no consensus or have only minimal participation. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC) PS: Formal closes of RM's, XFD's, and RFC's are also usually not subjects of content dispute resolution because they also have their own appeals processes, q.v.. —  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Obama bin laden listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Obama bin laden. Since you had some involvement with the Obama bin laden redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Legacypac (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)