Wikipedia

User:George Ho/Block History

< User:George Ho

Block #1 edit

 
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for see more detailed notes below. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request edit 

You are using this template in the wrong namespace. Use this template on your talk page instead.

Unblock request #2 edit 

You are using this template in the wrong namespace. Use this template on your talk page instead.

Soap characters and actors edit

A good site for references on soap characters and actors is soapcentral.com. For example, for an article on Eric Brady, you could look at http://soapcentral.com/days/whoswho/eric.php. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

To try and regain some focus here edit

George, to help an administrator assess the status of your unblock request, I suggest you answer these questions as briefly as possible (yes or no would be best). Please try to avoid getting bogged down in specific articles or editors, your general attitude and understanding are what matters.

  1. Do you agree that is someone contacts you about a tag you have left that it is inappropriate to tell them to go away? not to engage with them in an attempt to solve the problem?
  2. Do you agree that you shouldn't raise an issue with WP:ANI simply because of a strongly-worded disagreement on your talk page? Do you agree that this is what you did and undertake not to do so again?
  3. Do you accept that you didn't understand the meanings of the words libel and slander when you used them; and undertake not to use them in future, without first demonstrating your clear understanding of their legal meanings and justifying you use of the words?
  4. The that end, do you accept that it's impossible for anyone to slander you on Wikipedia?
  5. Do you accept that it is inappropriate to include any information or comment about an editor when submitting an AfD and undertake not to do so in future?
  6. Do you accept that if there is any possibility that an image licence can be improved (such as by attaching a fair use rationale or clarifying its copyright status) that it should not be tagged for deletion unless the improvement has been attempted?
  7. In that light, do you undertake to deal with problematic images by trying to improve them yourself or by contacting the uploader, via their talk page, in the first instance? And only to tag if no progress is made after a reasonable time or no course of action is agreed?
  8. If an image tag is needed, as above, do you agree to tag with WP:PUF rather than a deletion tag?
  9. Do you accept that content that spoils is permitted on Wikipedia?
  10. Do you accept that obscure and specialised subjects can be still be notable, as long as they are covered by reliable secondary sources?
  11. Do you agree to discuss issues you have with certain types of articles (such as lists or fictional character articles) with the wiki-project that covers those subject areas, in advance of tagging any articles?
  12. Do you agree to refrain from tagging if the consensus that results from your discussion is that tagging is not necessary? Or to escalate the issue to the appropriate noticeboard if you feel more discussion is needed?
  13. If a discussion in advance of tagging is not possible, do you agree to leave an explanation on the talk page for each of the tags that you add to an article?
  14. If someone raises an objection to a tag, or removes it, do you agree to stop applying similar tags (eg on images with the same issues from that uploader, or similar articles in the same subject area) until you have discussed the issue with them and it has been resolved?
  15. If you cannot resolve the issue with a single editor, do you agree to seek the views of the community to find a consensus before proceeding?
  16. Do you agree to go along with the consensus even if you don't agree with it? In other words, to argue to change the consensus but not break it if it doesn't change?

I think that pretty much covers it. 81.107.26.167 (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no rush here - take your time with the answers. The point was to make things easier for a reviewing admin.
I've rephrased #1, there was no need to go on the attack, however. Aside from the fact that there are no grammatical errors in the original question, all you had to do was say that it was unclear. I'm saying this because it's that sort of wording that gets people's backs up - so it's worth thinking about. Anyway, it was based on User talk:George Ho#Posters where you said "Just go somewhere else, and let me do my work. I'm very busy." Now, I take saying "just go somewhere else" to be equivalent to telling someone to go away. However, the main point is that you were refusing to engage in a discussion.
For #5, I think you've probably answered the question. There may be times in a AfD when there is something about an editor commenting that needs mentioning. But you shouldn't be talking about the article creator or using the AfD process to attack people, agreed?
While you were answering, I added another question (#8), although I think it's covered by your answer to #6.

-- 81.107.26.167 (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll not get involved in any more to-and-fro with you about this, George, as it just expands things and we run the risk of it being too long for an administrator to deal with. If they need a further response from you, I'm sure they'll ask for it - but as I can't unblock, I'm withdrawing from this, now.
Before I go, though, on the subject of question 1, if you re-read all of your exchange with Dr Blofeld at User talk:George Ho#Posters I'd hope you'll realise that you rather rudely refused to engage him in a discussion and resolve not to do that again.
Regardless of that, an alternative question 1 would be "Do you undertake to be civil and engage with people who leave you talk page messages in future?"
Now, my final suggestion would be to strike out you current unblock request in the blue box, miles above this, as it doesn't really address the issues. Then add a more concise request either in that box (and leave a message at the bottom of the page with a link back) or as a new request at the bottom of this page (in a new section - and with a note to say that's what you've done, in the previous request box). This the form I think the request should take, with each part as concise as possible:
  1. an apology for the behaviour that lead to the block
  2. a promise to be less confrontational and not use ANI or AfD or legal terms inappropriately
  3. how you plan to deal with images that previously you would have tagged for deletion
  4. how you plan to deal with articles that previously you would have tagged for issues
  5. how you plan to deal with AfDs
  6. how you plan to help find the consensus as to the best way to deal with issues
The answers that you've given to my questions should help you write that. It's all just a suggestion, but you need a concise summary of why you feel you should be unblocked - you can't expect admins to make sense of this ever-expanding mess of a talk page. It's up to you how proceed, but if you don't come up with something concise and concrete for an admin to assess, I can see this dragging on indefinitely. Good luck with it, I'll not be contributing any further. I suggest that from now on your only edits to the talk page are statements directed to an admin who will revue your unblock request or responses to questions from a reviewing admin. Try not to get distracted by other issues. All the best. -- 81.107.26.167 (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, so I wasn't going to comment further, but I notice you've gone back and struck out most of your comments made since the ban. Now, that's up to you; however, to avoid any doubt, my suggestion was only to strike out the "Request Reason" in the blue unblock request block (ie this edit) and to replace it with an updated reason that clearly outlines your feelings about past behaviour and plans for future behaviour.
My reason for doing this was to try to help you communicate with the admin who will review and assess the unblock request. I hope you haven't struck out all those other comments because you feel you have to jump through a lot of hoops that I've given you.
Ultimately, everything rests on your communication with the reviewing admin and any suggestions I make are only suggestions. My blue box suggestion was inspired by the idea that an admin has to accept or decline the reason given there and isn't about to look through the whole talk page for supplemental material.
Personally, I don't think it was necessary to strike out everything you did (and indeed the replies you got are probably worth re-reading) although I'd agree that it may help an admin new to the page to navigate it. But my opinion in anything is only useful in so far as it helps you communicate with the admins - the final responsibility in all this is yours.
Hopefully I won't need to add anything further.
-- 81.107.26.167 (talk) 07:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello George edit

Hello

George, you probably don't even remember me, but our paths crossed way back when I got upset with you for tag-bombing (and by that I mean adding lots of poorly thought out and unexplained tags to an article without making any improvements/suggestions yourself) to a Benny Hill article, of all things... (here's a little link, in case your memory is as bad as mine.)

I remember at the time thinking what a good editor you could be if you only got the confidence to edit and improve articles instead of just tagging and criticising.

You've devoted many hundreds of hours in what I firmly believe to be good faith to Wikipedia, and it's tragic that you are in this situation.

I remember how well you handled our interaction after the initial "spat", and if you remember that too, maybe you might think back to other times when you were "shocked out of your groove" and did something positive.

You can be a great contributor here - but that's what you need to do. Contribute.

I'd like to think that you'll use this time to re-evaluate what you want to do here, and channel the enormous energy you have for this site to the "positive" instead of the "negative".

Things that are "wrong" in Wikipedia will get fixed even if you don't do it - so why not try a bit of article writing or improvement for a while.

If you don't know how to make that change - ask here - I predict that you'll be pleasantly surprised by the number of your fellow editors who'd love to help you do that.

I also predict that you'll be a lot happier with the site, and much prouder of your own contributions if you can get over the initial "fear" of taking that leap.

Wikipedia needs people with your dedication and enthusiasm, and to lose you would be a damn shame. Please think it all through.

Whatever you decide - be well, and be happy. Begoon talk 14:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

A way forward? edit

George, I saw this edit: [27].

That makes me somewhat sad, because I don't think it's probably your best option.

Sure, it lets you edit again (on other projects) straight away, and I understand that right now that's important to you. It's also possible that if you do contribute well elsewhere, you could use that in a few months as part of a rationale for an unblock here. So it could work out for you.

What I think is far more likely, though, is that, because you don't seem to have fully understood what the problems were that led to this block, you'll repeat the same kind of edits elsewhere, and run into the same brick wall. All it will do is postpone the need to look at what went wrong.

Here's what I think is a better idea:

I've had a conversation with Elen of the Roads, here: User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads#A_non-typical_decline_of_your_block - and I think you should read it.

If you're willing to accept my help, I'm offering you my services as a mentor, to try and help you understand what the problems were that brought all this about.

I need to be clear though - I'm willing to put the effort into helping you - you would need to be receptive to that help for all this to work out.

Initially, you'd need to run all your edits past me (as mentor) before making them, and that would be a stated editing restriction - in the terms of your unblock. I can then help you to assess if you are proposing good, productive edits, or repeats of the problems. You will, no doubt, feel very inhibited by that condition - but the reality is that you need to be seen by others to be making an effort to adjust your approach in the problem areas, or an unblock won't last long. Once the picture becomes clearer, the editing restrictions can be relaxed in certain areas, then, eventually, removed, provided things go to plan. How quickly that happens would depend on you.

You can drop a note here if you want to discuss this offer - and that's what it is - an offer.

The choice is yours to make, but people are willing to help you, because losing enthusiastic long term contributors like you is a very bad thing. Begoon talk 01:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

A cupcake for you! edit

  George,

Please read what Begoon has written and get back into editing by agreeing, We hope (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Truth about myself edit

I have to confess: I have suffered autism (or, under psychologist's words: "moderate autism" or "part of psychological disorder"), and I have done greater harm yet greater good, regardless of quantity. Even my diagnosis is irrelevant to my behavior toward people, such as Dr. Blofeld. I have misused words, such as "libel" and "slander". I did not want to admit my shame of my behavior because I haven't known what elso to do if I have not confessed part of myself.

I have struggled to understand the basic logics of anything, and I have struggled to learn complex things. I have struggled to understand the feelings of others. Unfortunately, I am both a successor and failure on anything, including one at the same time.

Other personal parts I must keep to myself, such as my sexuality, until I make a successful unblock request and I have a need to talk about myself.

I may add free images in Commons; I will not be able to add non-free fair use images during any block. However, I may contact We hope in Commons about adding free images to any articles in the future.

True, I somewhat understand WP:IAV, but is it also a "key NOT to ignore ANY rules when tagging images for deletion", according to Elen of the Roads? At Simple Wikipedia, I'm sure that I must discuss first about anything. There is no need to overtag anything, but I see problems in articles.

I have understood proper ways to rationalize a nomination for deletion and which non-notable topics to delete. Personal attacks against an editor is not a way, using a current revision as a reason is not a way, and pointlessly attempting to change the consensus is not a way.

I stand by my decision, and I will learn how to write "simple" and "basic". However, feel free to mentor or reply me whenever you can. --Gh87 (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Must apologize; I have accidentally used my old yet active account to add this comment. It was never intended to evade block policy EVER! Is there a way to delete "Gh87"? I have struck my signature just in case. --George Ho (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Explanation: I have logged in globally in Simple Wikipedia to change my username there, and I have accidentally used "Gh87". If deleting a username is impossible, then it should be either a "doppleganger" or an "alternative" account, so I must know which one. It is never intended to be used as a "sockpuppet"; believe me! --George Ho (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

George - you already earnt a great deal of respect here, by acknowledging that problems exist. That's usually more than half of the way to solving the problem. I'm not entirely clear what you mean by "I stand by my decision". It seems to say that you intend to stop editing here and instead edit on other projects. But then you say "feel free to mentor".
My offer of mentorship is intended to start a path towards resuming your editing here. The idea would be that you can be unblocked, but under the initial restriction that you will, at first, need to suggest the edits you want to make, before you make them, and we will discuss them. That discussion might be brief, or it might be a little more 'in-depth', depending on the nature of the proposed edit(s).
What I hope would happen, is that we would first, and as soon as possible, establish which types of edits are "fine" to go ahead with without much further discussion, and which types need to be thought through a little more carefully. As this happens, the restrictions could be gradually relaxed and removed. It may take a while, but I hope that after a reasonable time it should become easier to limit your restriction to a couple of "areas" that still need work and "mentorship" - and then address all our effort to fixing those areas.
[a] If that sounds like something you could (and want to) work within, then please confirm that, and I can try to help you move it all forwards.
[b] To help me understand something about how you feel in an area that seems very relevant, I'd like to ask you a question. There's no "right" or "wrong" answer to this - but it might start a discussion that helps us understand each other. On my user page there is a quotation - something that User:SlimVirgin said. I wonder if you could read it, give it some consideration, and tell me any thoughts it brings to your mind. As I said, it's not a question that has any right or wrong answers, but it might serve to open a useful conversation here, I think. Begoon talk 03:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I just saw your additional comments about Gh87. I'm certain nobody sees what happened there as sockpuppeting, but you should not use any other accounts to edit while you are blocked. Nobody will take any action over a genuine mistake. In the circumstances, though, for complete transparency, and your own peace of mind that you won't have any similar accidents, maybe you could ask for the account to be temporarily blocked. That shouldn't be a problem for you if you don't want to use it any more - and you could feel safer that you won't have any slip-ups. Begoon talk 03:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Gh87 edit

"Gh87" must be blocked from editing English Wikipedia, so no one, including me, will use it for any purpose, intentional or not. Previously, I must have used it accidentally. However, this username still exists in other projects; I have a right to change my username. --George Ho (talk) 03:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice use of #ifexist, George. :) I like things like that, it appeals to my sense of neatness. I'm not an admin, so I can't block that account for you myself, but I'll ask Elen if she can help (or another passing admin may do so - I'll tag this with {{adminhelp}}). I'm going to be offline, now - but I'll check back here as soon as I can. Begoon talk

Hi George. No worries in this case as all you did was edit the George Ho userpage, which you are allowed to do while blocked. I can block the Gh87 account here. What you could do is ask at Meta (I see you've asked at Simple - that's OK too) to have the account globally renamed to George Ho, although I guess there might already be editors with that name on some projects.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Moving along edit

George - as well as answering my questions above (I've labelled them as [a] and [b] because this page is getting a bit unwieldy and confusing) about whether you want to go ahead with a "mentorship" arrangement, and any thoughts the quote on my user page inspires, I had another idea for something you might like to try.

I noticed that you started editing at Simple, and that one of those edits added a "needs more sources" tag. You probably realise that adding that tag places the article in this category: Simple Category - Articles needing additional references.

There are 243 articles in that category as I write this. Why not pick one or a couple of them and search for and add some references, maybe even enough that you can remove a tag or two? (in the case of articles at Simple, sometimes this task can even be made easier if there is already a well referenced article here at WP - obviously you can't use the article here as a reference, but it would probably help show where to find some good sources)

No problem if you don't feel up to doing that right now - it's just a suggestion for something you could look at - or we could just talk about that idea first, if you prefer.

Just to share a little bit of my philosophy with you, I see it a bit like this:

  • Pretty much any one of my friends/family or acquaintances could walk into my kitchen, look around, and leave me a big, bright note saying: "Gee, your kitchen needs some work. You should get that fixed." - Chances are I might already know that, though - just not know what to do about it. I certainly don't think I'd be very happy in the long run if all they ever did was to nail notes like that to every door in my house, though.
  • If, instead, one of them sat me down and did a detailed sketch of how they thought I could improve it, and a list of places I could get costings and timings from, that would be awesome. A different kind of "help" entirely.

I won't be around now until tomorrow - so I'll pop back here then. Begoon talk 10:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring questions; plans edit

I could no longer have interest on Simple English; no matter what size, I must type simple words.

Instead, I have decided to be mentored here, although I just care too much about deleting stuff, whether educational or not. When I looked at File:Logans world.JPG, I realize: keeping bad history is better than removing, right? No matter what intentions, I will, unless it is of Dr. Blofeld, tag anything for deletion if anything in description is missing. Even I must either tag my own files for deletion or edit their descriptions.

If I can't tag any article for maintenance needs, then I must discuss an article's flaws in WikiProjects or talk pages, correct? Moreover, maybe I must remove "Notability" tag from The Matrix Online because I found sources in Google Books.

Regarding notability, I must discuss a topic first before AfD, correct? Otherwise, I will tag anything for AfD.

Regarding non-free images, if I find an invalid or bad rationale, do I have to correct their mistakes, tag them for deletion, or something else?

Is there anything flawed with Dark Kingdom, article of fictional villian clan of Sailor Moon, or, I must have tag-bombed? I will remove some needs that have been resolved already if I see one; I will add more, however, such as {{all plot}}. --George Ho (talk) 05:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, George. Good to see you back.
  • If you are interested in pursuing my particular offer to help mentor you, that's great, and I'd be happy to discuss some plans for it all with you.
  • I would need you to understand one thing, though - this kind of "mentorship" is a 2-way deal, and it will only work if we can communicate properly and effectively.
One of the things I've noticed is that people sometimes seem to find it very difficult to have a proper discussion or conversation with you, often because you don't really appear to answer the questions they ask. I don't think you are being rude - I just think you might find it difficult to fully consider what is being discussed by other people, because you are very eager to have your own concerns (as you see them) addressed.
I think this means you often miss, or skip over, a lot of the valuable things people say to you. I'm certain that if we could make some progress on this one thing first, a lot of the other issues would become much, much simpler to address.
In an attempt to start just there, I'd be really, really happy if you could think about what I've said in just this post, and reply here with your thoughts and opinions on just what I'm saying in this post, and nothing else.
It may seem to you like a slow way of doing things right now - but I'm asking you to trust me that thinking about the communication issue will speed everything else up enormously in the short/medium term.
I know that all the specific points you make in your post above are important to you, right now - but it's going to help a lot if we can stop leaping around from point to point, and take things in a nice, steady progression, so I'll defer (not ignore) responding to specific points like that right now, because I think it will only sidetrack us. Begoon talk 06:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If this is the case, what are the main points I may discuss first? If I can't discuss my future plans on Wikipedia, then I must discuss something, such as understanding Five pillars. I don't know which ones are valuable, but replies to me are much more valuable than my OPs, so I stroke them out, regardless of valuability. --George Ho (talk) 06:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Your future plans on Wikipedia, and how to make sure you can achieve them without what happened here, in your block, happening again, is exactly what I'd like to help you to discuss. I'm glad that is your priority, too.
I have to go out after I post this, and I won't probably get back online here until about 02:00 UTC tomorrow. When I do log back on, I'll post an outline of how I think this "mentoring" arrangement might best proceed. Obviously, you will want to comment on my ideas, but I'd like to think we could pretty easily put the basic plan together between us very quickly, and then move on from there, if we're both happy.
Enjoy the rest of your day. Begoon talk 07:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok - I decided that to try and map out the "whole" process to an exact degree was going to be too long and probably need too many amendments as we progress, so, instead, I've mapped out the steps up to requesting unblock in detail, and the subsequent sections we would develop as we progress.

Because it will not just be me and you who look at this, it will need to be kept clear and neat for other users, particularly unblocking admins. We are not just creating this record for ourselves, but so that, hopefully, anyone can come along and quickly see how this whole process is going - so we should follow the following "rules":

  • Discuss here in this section any changes to the structure or approach.
  • Only add to the subsections marked "Discussion", and only add relevant discussion to such sections.
  • I will refactor, if I feel the process is "wandering" or "off track".

I hope this seems like a reasonable plan to you, and now I just need your thoughts and comments on all of it. Begoon talk 04:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Very good outline. However, I must be careful; whenever changes occur, I have to preserve my messages before changes happen. Otherwise, I must start over. --George Ho (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok - I'm glad you're happy with it.
  • Reading your second sentence, I'm guessing I may have misled you with my wording above. When I said I will "refactor" if I feel the discussion goes off-track, I didn't mean that I would alter your comments in any way - just that I might move things to a more relevant section or reorganise the format of the page. Nothing to be concerned about, and if you don't like the way I do anything - you must say so.
  • So, I think the best thing to do is for you to make a start with adding some discussion to each section below. If you can, it will probably work best if comments can be as concise as possible and focussed. I guess we are going to end up with a 24 hour cycle here - so I'll try to respond in that cycle. Begoon talk 08:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your intentions, and I fully understand your words. Nevertheless, I also meant that someone may edit this talk page before I save my edits. For example, you attempt to edit an article, but someone before you has done changes. --George Ho (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi George. I haven't got a lot of time today, very busy in "Real Life" but I have noticed you've commented in the discussion section. I'll have a look again tomorrow, and post some comments in the various sections then. Begoon talk 07:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

"Mentorship" plan outline edit

I would have preferred to start this on its own subpage in your User space, but I think this is the only page you can post to, so we'll start here, and once we get as far as getting you unblocked, we can move it and tidy up.

In the long run, this will become a "mentorship record" page.

Overview edit

  • The sections in "Prior to Unblock" need to be completed before we can ask for an unblock.
  • Following sections can be completed after unblock, and will be added as "mentorship" proceeds.
  • This is a voluntary arrangement, from which any party may withdraw, at any time.
  • In the event one party withdraws, you would obviously be free to seek other mentor(s) or other routes to unblock.

Prior to Unblock edit

Understand the reasons for your block edit

  • This is important. Before any admin will unblock you, they will need to be convinced that you understand the reasons you were blocked, and that you will not repeat these actions.
Discussion edit
  • I have been blocked for messing with Dr. Blofeld in an uncivil way. I have given him too much deletion template messages, which annoyed him, and I still kept doing it. He gave me advices to help him keep his images and to stop tagging them for deletion, and I mistook it as an attack toward me. I report this as part of my view against him in ANI. About tagging for either maintenance needs or deletion, I must discuss it later. --George Ho (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • That's a good start, George, but are there any other things you think may have contributed to the thinking behind any block? Begoon talk 02:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I overtagged every article, which is considered TAGBOMB-ing, for maintenance needs, including stubs, whether needed or not. I even tag anything for deletion because... I made premature conclusions on any article, and I did not even talk first. --George Ho (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Your plans for future editing edit

  • What kind of edits do you want to make to the project.
  • Why do you want to make these kinds of edits.
  • Any other future/long term plans within the project.

This section can also briefly explore if there are any other ways to achieve your aims here.

Discussion edit
  • I have added files in Commons. Right now, I must add them into articles if I'm unblocked. Otherwise, I must have someone else, such as we hope, do this for me.
  • I have non-free files, but I have not yet uploaded them. Now I'm still waiting to be unblocked, so I can add them.
  • I must copyedit the rationales of cropped non-free images that I have uploaded to replace previous versions. Otherwise, if I'm too inept to edit, then I must request deletion per WP:G7.
  • Any file not made by Dr. Blofeld will be easier to check. At my standards, if someone added anyone's or his own non-free image already in an article, I don't want to add a missing rationale for that fair use. Also, I don't want to add a license to someone else's image that lacks one. Instead, an image that is not uploaded by Dr. Blofeld is easier to tag a deletion proposal for one issue or another.
  • If I'm too inept to tag or edit properly, then I must discuss an article or its topic in either WikiProject or WP:Notability/Noticeboard. Article talk pages are becoming obscure, unless topic is very big to discuss, such as VHS.

More plans later then... --George Ho (talk) 10:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand all that, George, but that's really a "shopping list" of edits you'd be making right now if you weren't blocked. That's not really what I was hoping we could do in this section. Rather than keep trying to discuss specific cases and usernames, what I would hope is that you'd be able to lay out the areas and kinds of edits you want to make in the near future, and long term, and give some idea of why you want to edit in those particular areas. It helps enormously in understanding if you can say something about "why" you want to edit in the areas you do. Begoon talk 06:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Prior to the "shopping list" that I would make if unblocked, my future edits would be contacting a mentor, like you, and adding a proper request to be unblocked. This is your logic that I am logicizing, correct? --George Ho (talk) 09:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

What I think, George, is that you are probably thinking far too hard about what should be a couple of reasonably quick discussions. All we are trying to do is reach a point where we are comfortable in asking for an unblock, and setting out quick straightforward answers in the simple discussion sections here was supposed to help us achieve it. I'd like this page to be something that a passing admin could look at, and see that you have made great steps. The kinds of answer I'm hoping to get here are things like:
  • Improving Articles on Alligators. (because I have a pet alligator)
  • Correcting common spelling errors. (because I like correct spelling)
  • Reverting vandalism on my watchlist. (because I don't like to see articles damaged)
etc... (and maybe we'll have a quick discussion about your answers) Begoon talk 10:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Then, if this is your logic, I must keep an eye on all articles, interesting or not, because they are very messy and neglected. Descriptions of non-free files of living people, such as actors who portray fictional characters, should be changed to reflect the policies of WP:BLP and "fair use"; they are very messy, and each one may take a long or short while to be edited substantially. For example, an image of Ted Danson is used in Sam Malone, but there is no mention about using image of a living person. I hope this is not a waste of time or a confusing post. --George Ho (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think we have a pretty basic communication failure here. I've tried 3 times now to show you what kind of answers this section was designed for, and each time you've replied with lists of examples, or off-topic "little" questions. I've even gone so far as to show you examples of the type of answer, for you to replace with your own areas of interest. I'm struggling to know what else to do to try to keep this on track. If we can't stay focussed even on small things like this, then we will never make any progress. Begoon talk 02:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I must apologize for letting you down, all right? I just assumed that I don't have to answer my interests, do I? If I misunderstood the questions, then I may have failed to answer them. However, my interests are notabilities of subjects, topics related to homosexuality and people, quality of articles, and cleaning vandalism or unconstructive edits. I don't have to explain the reasons, do I? --George Ho (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You haven't "let me down". No, you don't have to answer any question anyone asks you if you don't want to. Most people are happy to talk about the areas that they edit in, and it often leads to productive discussions where you can learn why people want to do what they do - learning from each other's experiences. I was hoping that would be the case here, but not if it intrudes in any way. Begoon talk 06:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

In this case, I may first discuss American soap operas. I used to watch Passions, but I stopped watching it because it is a bad soap opera that went worse. Then I tried other soap operas, but I end up liking the older storylines, including that involved Erica Kane. In general, anything that relates to soap operas should be limited to topics of notable soap opera fictional characters (in only all together third-party, independent, and primary sources) and soap operas. The rest should be deleted because of lack of notability and of bad quality of articles; the creators are using Wikipedia as a substitute of soap opera dedications. --George Ho (talk) 06:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Now, actually, that is interesting. Apart from a brief flirt with Dallas when I was a youngster, I've never really followed any American soaps. My wife watches a lot of them, though, and they have Articles on here. What interests me is, you say they must be notable and not "bad quality". How do you decide the "bad quality" bit? I've got to be honest and say that none of them look particularly "good quality" to me (but then I'm not a soap watcher - so I'm comparing to other types of show, unfairly, I expect) Begoon talk 11:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops... I must clarify: I should have said "bad quality of articles". Really, articles of non-notable entities of soap operas that violate WP:PLOT and WP:GNG and that have never improved for years. However, I may have been advised not to use AfD as a "cleanup". --George Ho (talk) 12:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Communication edit

  • Are there specific communication issues that should be discussed here?
Discussion edit
  • I'd like you to tell me what type of communication you feel is [a] required and [b] desirable, at the following times:
  • Before tagging an article for improvement.
    • Note your concerns on article talk page to see if another editor can help
  • When tagging an article for improvement.
    • Discussion on article talk page
  • After tagging an article for improvement.
    • Return periodically to check the discussion on article talk page
and similarly, for:
  • Before tagging an image with a licence issue.
  • When tagging an image with a licence issue.
  • After tagging an image with a licence issue.

Begoon talk 02:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Before I tag an image with any issue, I must check the description first. If non-free but tagged as free, and an uploader is not Dr. Blofeld, discussion used to be not necessary. However, I am not sure anymore. In Commons, I was not sure about File:Joan Caulfield Sept 1941.jpg, so I have contacted people in Commons:Help desk.
Now I must find help from "Help desk" if I'm not very sure. I was planning to tag it with {{npd}} because "PD-US" appears too generic for the 1941 photo. However, I made different decisions and changed the license with a specific one.
Regarding articles, I leave articles alone after I tag them if one "notable" topic is not interesting to educate at all to me. Therefore, I must wait for someone to improve it. Before I tag them for improvement, I must not use AfD ever again as a cleanup; instead, I proofread an article and tag it without discussion. --George Ho (talk) 10:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The important thing is to communicate all the way along, whatever you do. I've added 3 quick suggestions to the first half of the question. Discussion before tagging could remove the need for a tag altogether. Discussion when tagging lets people understand why you have tagged. Following up is a natural part of what I see as the responsibility you undertake by adding the tag. Just to leave it languishing, with no follow up would be to fail in this responsibility. See if that suggests anything for the later part.
  • I do want to come back to your rest of your reply, because it seems a little confused, in parts, but that's more for the other discussion section on "Your plans for future editing", when we have something to discuss there. I want to stick to "communication" here.
Begoon talk 11:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
What about articles that were re-created in violation of deletion policy or block policy, such as Lily Montgomery and Troy McIver? Must I discuss them or tag them for speedy delete? Right now, DaneDaneDane is blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Dane97. --George Ho (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
George - if you read the question, I was referring to articles "tagged for improvement" not "tagged for deletion" - so your examples don't really apply. I don't really want to discuss specific examples here, anyway, this is about communication, in general - we need to keep focussed and finish the discussions here so that we can move forward. Getting to a point where you can request unblock is the first thing, so we need to concentrate on just that. I'm disappointed you still think dropping in specific examples like your Dane97 one is helpful. It isn't helpful to this part of our discussion at all, as I already explained, and it's not something you should be concentrating on. Worrying about little incidents here and there will not help with this process at all.(If you had looked at the SPI you would probably have realised that I knew about this, anyway). The "positive" SPI doesn't mean it was the "right" thing for you to do - you still need to concentrate only on these discussions and getting your block lifted. Let the rest of Wikipedia take care of itself. It will, you know... Begoon talk 07:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

All right. On topic, I am certain: I don't have communication issues here, unless I must tell the difference between "slander/libel" and Dr. Blofeld's posts posed as "advices". If people here were not "scolding" me for not understanding words or metaphors, then what were their logics? Also: "Just to leave it languishing, with no follow up would be to fail in this responsibility." Do you mean: if article is tagged, and no improvements were made, and it is tagged for "deletion", I may be irresponsible? --George Ho (talk) 08:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The first part of your post, I'm sorry I don't understand. I read it a couple of times but I don't follow what you are saying. The second part - no, I'm not saying you would be at fault for a deletion in those circumstances, I'm merely giving my opinion which is that you should feel a responsibility to "follow up" on things you have tagged. It's not a rule - it's my opinion. Begoon talk 09:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Which "first part"? I stroke some of the OP, and I have no plans to rephrase it. The italic sentences were your suggestions, correct? What happened to suggestions about discussing images? Speaking of images, anything not uploaded by Dr. Blofeld is easier for me to check for copyright statuses. Simply, if one image tagged as "free" is found to be non-free, then I may add a deletion tag for one issue.

However, some issues of one image, such as of File:Joan Caulfield Sept 1941.jpg, were not easy to determine, such as permission and copyright status of this photo. Therefore, I asked someone in Commons:Help desk rather than planned to tag a deletion proposal for one issue. --George Ho (talk) 09:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

What happened to suggestions about discussing images?
  • I'm waiting for your suggestions
I'm also hoping you will add something to the other discussion sections, soon - particularly the "Your plans for future editing..." section, since only you can start that one off. Try to keep stuff structured in that discussion, if possible. Begoon talk 10:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for barging in like this but given the vast amount of discussion which has taken place thus far without too much progress, why not think of some simpler plan? For instance how about unblocking on the basis that no image-related or tag-placing editing happens and any edits are restricted to vandalism-fighting for a while and maybe fixing typos or some other simple maintenance work under mentoring supervision. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 06:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I think George may be experiencing a difficulty in going from the specific (this edit, this user, this file) to the underlying scenario (this type of thing, situations like this), to the abstract (what would you like to do, generally one should do this). A more specific approach may help.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I like Dr K's idea, but it, of course, depends on George being willing to be initially limited to editing outside his preferred areas. Elen - I'm sure you are absolutely right - I appreciate the comment - I'm slow to change course sometimes. Begoon talk 11:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Part of the issue is I think George has done some very good image work so far, although some of it has gone wrong. I would not like to see George stop tagging files; I would just like to see him slow down and actually listen (rather than come up with 1000 word essays as a way of saying "no"). Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Indeed - that's why I still think there is a communication issue, of sorts. Communication is about talking and listening, and you're not the first person to say "he just needs to slow down and listen"... Sometimes, though, George, I think, also, you can occasionally tend to just ignore things which you don't want to answer, and then it can appear as though you're not listening, when actually you are, you're just not responding to everything you listen to. Forgive me if I have that wrong. Begoon talk 12:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh... "[I] need slow down and listen," correct? I don't know what communication issue I have, but at least "[I] have done some very good image work." Speaking of image work, can anyone clarify? Regarding communication issue, specific clarifications are best recommended to me. I may have trouble with general questions, don't I? --George Ho (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for your replies. I agree with your well-made points. The reason I submitted my idea was that I wanted to see George unblocked first and foremost. He has been blocked for quite some time and I feel that a long block is not necessarily the best solution for him because I believe it may have a desensitising effect on him on the practical aspects of every-day editing. IMO this is the point missed by this process. I think that an unblock with wide image restrictions would put George back in action and give him an opportunity to connect with the wider community via live editing while at the same time preventing him from engaging in any area which caused him trouble in the past. We can sit here and talk about abstract constructs till next year but I don't think this helps George and it is keeping him isolated from live editing. Instead let us demonstrate that we all agree on certain simple ideas, unblock him for limited, but at least live, editing and slowly add more responsibilities as his editing remains trouble-free and under mentoring supervision. Further, George will not have the burden to articulate abstract thoughts in order to become unblocked using this plan. His behaviour will demonstrate in a practical sense if he can remain trouble-free or not. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, your plan is pretty much identical to the plan we have here, with initially limited mentored edits gradually expanding. Where we were "hitting the wall" is this first phase prior to asking for an unblock, which I honestly expected to be a fairly quick process, long over by now. Begoon talk 01:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Then let's modify phase 1. Just ask George if he is willing to do a number of simple tasks upon being unblocked as a yes or no proposition. I will let you define those tasks but I suggest a small number and maximum simplicity. If George cannot even give a straight answer to that then I think there is no hope. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 06:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm inclined to suggest that, other than [i] Image tagging/licensing/deletion and [ii] Article improvement tagging/Article deletion tagging - most other areas should be far less problematic. I'll write something simple up later today, along the lines of:

  • George agrees to the unblock terms.
  • George will be unblocked, but may not edit in areas [i] and [ii] (broadly construed) initially.
  • All of George's edits, to begin with, will be scrutinised by a mentor, and discussed if necessary.
  • Once normal edits are progressing satisfactorily, areas [i] and [ii] can begin to be addressed, initially by George suggesting edits in these areas, which can then be discussed.

If George, or anyone else has any comments on this, I can incorporate any amendments when I write this up, if the comments are posted here. Begoon talk 03:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/A.C. Mallet that I started resulted a deletion of an article. My initial argument did not lead to the deletion; further arguments lacked policy-based comments and evidence of notability and led to deletion. However, if I agree, then that WP namespace page may be my last until I understand the process of [i] and [ii]. I don't know how long I must decide; I know that my edits will be examined. Regarding area [i], would this include "speedy deletion" tagging? I have seen articles that meet "speedy deletion criteria"; if "speedy deletion" is included, them I must not agree. If not, then I must agree on above conditions. --George Ho (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd personally prefer it if deletion tagging was included in the initial restrictions. The easiest compromise might be to say that from the time of "unblock" you may suggest speedy deletion related edits, but they need to be approved by the mentor to start with. It's probably safer for you, too, and if they are obviously eligible for "speedy" it should take no real time to check them over. That would rule out any initial "waiting period" for these edits. I'll wait to see if anyone else has any thoughts on this specific before I write up some suggested terms. Begoon talk 09:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you mean: "[speedy deletion tags] need to be [first] approved by the mentor" or "ask mentor first before tagging for speedy deletion"? Can you elaborate "initial restrictions" please? --George Ho (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Initial restrictions means that you start out quite restricted in what you do. If all goes well, you become less restricted over time. Magog the Ogre has posted an alternative suggestion on his talkpage. I'm summarising here.
  • Magog's thinking is that we can unblock him under these conditions: he can tag which ever the heck he wants, but if someone politely asks him to stop doing something, he must stop until he can get permission from someone . This could be Begoon, Elen, or Magog, Fastily or MGA73 if it's image tags (all very familiar with image policy). In the extremely unlikely event none of us is around, then he can go to ANI. :Is this more acceptable than Begoon's suggestion or less acceptable? Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I was being a little conservative when I suggested that George abstain from controversial areas. But if, as proposed, you keep an eye on George's image work I am good with that too. My motivation in coming into this was to see George unblocked and engaged in the wider community. If this happens I am happy. My thanks go to everyone. Best of the Season to all. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hell, yes! I will accept and have accepted your suggestions, Magog. It is easier than Begoon's. If no one objects, then I may request an unblock with Magog's idea. Too many non-notable fictional characters of soap operas are ruining the reputation of Wikipedia. However, I may ask WP:Notability/Noticeboard if I'm not very certain about notability of anything. Also, too many revivals of needless articles by sockpuppets and editors that may meet WP:criteria for speedy deletion. --George Ho (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to wait for Begoon to come by and comment. If he's ok I will unblock. If I do, here are a couple of ground rules that should mean that people don't ask you to stop.
  1. If an article has multiple problems only tag it for the worst problem. Being non-notable will get it deleted, being written badly won't, so if it's non-notable, just focus on that.
  2. Check if an article is being edited by other people. If it has been edited in the last few days, tag it with the "may not meet our notability requirements" tag and leave a note on the talkpage rather than listing for deletion.

Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason I continue to prefer a short period of restricted edits in those 2 areas is that I think this would be a handy mechanism to get George into the habit of considering alternatives. That's something I think is important, and I'm not sure it is happening. I agree that Magog's idea is simpler. Because it has taken so long to get this far, I'm forced to agree that "simpler" may be better here right now - so let's try it (and hope that "easier" is "better" all round). However, George, I will say this: please consider, before tagging anything whether the problem or improvement you are dealing with could, instead, be solved by making changes yourself or opening discussions with other editors. Discussion, with an open mind, will solve 99% of the dilemmas you come across. Begoon talk 02:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm compelled to agree with all of you. Article of Peter Scolari needs some cleanup by me; I barely have energy to be interested with the topic to add anything other than tags. For considerations, if talk pages are either obscure or non-existant, then I must use WikiProjects then. Can I do the "unblock request" right now? --George Ho (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Elen has indicated she's watching this page and will come back to deal with the "unblock" - so I would wait for her to do that, George - we can drop her a quick note if we think she needs reminding, but I doubt that will be necessary. Begoon talk 02:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Somehow, I tend to forget further advices because my mind is too busy with joys of quick agreement without remembering restrictions. For instance, I forget that I must ask permission if I'm told to stop what I will have done, right? --George Ho (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
That's good thinking, George. You certainly don't want to get so "excited" you make any of the "old" errors. I was writing out the restrictions (as they were) so that they would be clear for you. However, since they will probably now need rewriting again, that will need to be redone if you would like it all to be put in simple, clear terms. Begoon talk 02:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • George, what would you do to "clean up" Peter Scolari, and what would you tag it for. I can see that it could be expanded if sources could be found, but I can't see anything to clean up or tag. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I must turn the "Career" section into list format; then I must tag it with {{BLP IMDB refimprove}}. I know: he met WP:GNG because he appeared in Bosom Buddies, Newhart, and TV series Honey: I've Shrunk the Kids; I won't tag it with {{Notability}}. That's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Ho (talk • contribs) 21:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Article of Randi Morgan has a lot of problems, yet I have not addressed them in talk pages. However, I must explain, if unblocked, the reasons of tagging them appropiately in WikiProject Soap Operas and WP Television. --George Ho (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Terms edit

Sorry to take so long - George, as I see it, these are the new unblock terms (unless anyone sees an error or something I've overlooked):

  • George Ho is unblocked with the following editing restriction:
  • If any editor requests or suggests that George not make a particular edit/particular type of edit, then George shall stop this editing until discussion with mentors can take place.
  • In these circumstances, George will open a new section at User_talk:George_Ho/Mentorship discussions requesting such discussion. One or more mentors will discuss the situation, and, with George, decide how to proceed.
  • If George does not obtain a response by this method in a reasonable time, he may start a topic at WP:ANI for assistance instead.
  • These restrictions will remain in place until the agreement of mentors to replace with a lesser restriction, relax, or remove.
  • For the purposes of these restrictions, the term mentors means any of the following users: User:Elen of the Roads, User:Dr.K., User:Magog the Ogre, User:Begoon, User:Fastily, User:MGA73.

Begoon talk 23:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request #3 edit

George, that's not what the restrictions say. Begoon has typed them out, right above your unblock request. Just explain them to me in your own words and I'll unblock you. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you George. Sounds good to me. By the way thank you and Begoon for adding me to your mentor list. I will be glad to help. Best wishes and Season's Greetings. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

George - just a quick note - the option of a WP:ANI discussion is to give you reassurance that, in the unlikely situation that none of the mentors were available, you would still have "somewhere to go" with your concerns. Because there are now 6 users in the mentors list, I would hope that this is a very unlikely situation - and that mentors will be available to respond. All of the mentors would have User talk:George Ho/Mentorship discussions watchlisted. The idea is that, if you post a request for discussion, and after, say, a couple of days, no mentors have responded, you could take the conversation to WP:ANI. However, it's always going to be best to let mentors handle discussions if possible, because they have understanding of the particular situation. I'm not sure what you mean about "if the deadline expires"? Begoon talk 00:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

  • I was trying to re-word a "reasonable time" that you mentioned. If you want, I may re-phrase my own words of that. --George Ho (talk) 05:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, ok - just my misunderstanding of "deadline" then. I don't think you need to rephrase anything - it's pretty clear now, thanks. Begoon talk 06:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you Begoon for all your efforts. Thanks also go to Elen for the unblock. Congratulations George on your being unblocked and thank you for persevering through this process. Also don't hesitate to ask me if you have any questions. I would be very glad to help you in any way I can. Best of the Season to you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
You are using this template in the wrong namespace. Use this template on your talk page instead.

Blackmark edit

Moved to User talk:George Ho. --George Ho (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:George_Ho/Block_History&oldid=1077392283"