User talk:George Ho

CAN'T RETIRE

George Ho tried to leave Wikipedia, but found that he couldn't do so…

Other banners below (If neither of above nor of below is accurate, feel free to suggest):

If above is not accurate, one of the boxes in this hidden box is ---> click the button at the far right

{{attempting wikibreak}} {{College wikibreak}} {{[[Template:tmbox |tmbox ]]}} {{Personal issues}}

I must confess that I want to socialize but am bad at it. I'm uncertain whether moderate autism is related to it. Nevertheless, the above message implies that my social skills leaves a lot be desired. If a message is given to me, especially from a newcomer, I will do my best to be friendly and to avoid discouragement.

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. —IB ^{[ 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 · t · c) 04:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man

An arbitration case regarding The Rambling man has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)'s resignation as an administrator is to be considered under controversial circumstances, and so his administrator status may only be regained via a successful request for adminship.
2. The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors. If The Rambling Man finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve. If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy. The first four blocks under this provision shall be arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed. The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block.

   Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.

3. The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) and George Ho (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
4. George Ho (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from participating in selecting main page content. For clarity, this means he may not participate in:

   1. Any process in which the content of the main page is selected, including Did you know?, In the news, On this day, Today's featured article, Today's featured list, and Today's featured picture.
   2. Any process in which possible problems with the content of the main page are reported, including WP:ERRORS and Talk:Main Page.
   3. Any discussion about the above processes, regardless of venue.

   He may edit articles linked from or eligible to be linked from the main page (e.g., the current featured article) and may participate in content review processes not directly connected to main page content selection (e.g., reviewing Featured article candidates). He may request reconsideration of this restriction twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.

5. The community is encouraged to review the selection process for the Did you know and In the news sections of the main page. The community is also reminded that they may issue topic bans without the involvement of the Arbitration Committee if consensus shows a user has repeatedly submitted poor content, performed poor reviews, or otherwise disrupted these processes.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man

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 Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  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)

mail

Hello, George Ho. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, George Ho. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 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 Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion 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 Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion 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)

Interaction Ban Reminder

Hello,

I’m writing to remind you that as a result of the arbitration case that both you and The Rambling Man are prohibited from interacting with each other, barring the usual exceptions. Recently, you posted questions to the election pages of multiple candidates where you indirectly made reference to The Rambling Man. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15) Please note that such comments are not permitted under the interaction ban and further instances will result in a block. Best regards, Mike V • Talk 22:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I won't do that anymore for now, Mike. Shall I report this the next time it happens? Or can someone else do it? George Ho (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)