User:George Ho/Block History #1

{{unblock reviewed | 1=To address the following issues that ErrantX brought: #To address #1 and #2, I still have to tag anything for deletion on those that have not been either created and/or improved by Dr. Blofeld. If anything by Blofeld, then I will make an open discussion with this user without giving him some "spam" or deletion templates before I make a first move on these contributions that he makes. Messing with Blofeld was a mistake, not doing anything else to anyone other than Blofeld, isn't it? #To address #3, I guess... it was an advice, not a libel, threat, or slander. If it was an advice, then what's this:

Believe you me I will make things bitterly difficult for you to the point you will no longer want to continue if you decide to become purely deletionist as you clearly haven't the best interests of the project at heart.

1. Show you have read and understood the WP:5P
2. Show you understand the block reasons,
3. Give a good reason for your unblock,
4. Talk about yourself only,
5. Take all of the advice to heart and agree to behave
6. Acknowledge that we're all here to improve ourselves AND the project

Once your formulate this unblock, I would like to see all of the admins who have already commented here review the unblock request (and comments from others would be welcome) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)}}

George Ho - blocked users can edit their talkpage only for the purpose of requesting unblock. To request unblock, you need to consider the advice you have been given. You must not ask other people to proxy for you, you must not conduct random discussions about whether something is a policy or a guideline. Go and read all the links in the welcome template someone left at the top of the page, and come back with some understanding of what this project is about.

If you continue to post randomness and requests for proxy edits, you run the risk of having your talkpage access revoked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

:Can you strike out what you think is random for me and is a proxy edit request? I can't tell which one; I was just making promises. Or should I do it myself? Look, I'll behave and then read the welcome message and the guidelines. I must "ignore all rules", right? --George Ho (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

:: I'm definitely coming round to the opinion that you are either not capable of editing, or you are a troll. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see my current messages as either random or requests for proxy edits, aside from the ones I already stroke out. They all look fine to me: my suspicions on the IP editor starting with a two hundred twenty-something and promises to discuss articles with WikiProject members. --George Ho (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

:There you go, I've just struck a comment from you that has nothing to do with your unblock - one you have just made! While promises to discuss articles may be a valid part of your unblock request, your suspicions about IP editors are not. You should be addressing *your* actions only here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

How did I "molest templates", "misuse tags", "fail to read policies", and "generally barge about the place tripping over the furniture"? Yes, I have misunderstood people's messages and failed to open discuss it sometimes. I just tagged articles, such as The Matrix Online and fictional topics that relate to Sailor Moon franchise, with maintenance needs because their topics' notabilities are under question. --George Ho (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

::Under question by who? Fictional topics are very notable - especially when they're related to, oh, just one of the most iconic and pioneering anime series ever. If you repeatedly go around tag-bombing articles because you don't think they're notable, that very quickly becomes disruptive editing. WP:IAR is not carte blanche. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

"Tag-bombing"? I just need to know policies about it; is it necessary to give me essays, such as WP:AADD and its WP:IDONTLIKEIT?

Regarding my actions on Matrix Online, I did what I can because the game has been shut down and because the gameplay may be supposedly unnecessary and because the news covered only the game's premiere and its end. Reception may be useful but may not help the article strengthen the quality. I have not been planning to nominate it with AfD; instead, I was going to propose a merger with The Matrix (franchise). Also, too much fiction yet somewhat useful enough to be merged into another article. Isn't that "tag-bombing"?

Regarding my actions on Sailor Moon characters, their notabilities are anybody's concerns, including mine, because there were no receptions about them yet and because periodicals about them have not been found yet. There were too many plot elements and too few realities.

I tagged List of The Price Is Right pricing games with "Notability" needs because periodicals and third-party publications have not covered them at all except Plinko. --George Ho (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

:"because the game has been shut down" - Notability is not temporary. If the game was notable enough for an article at any point, it's still notable. "No receptions" - what are receptions? "Perodicals about them have not been found yet"; "periodicals and third-party publications..." - perodicals are not required for references. Any reliable source - book, magazine, reliable website, etc., is an acceptable source. Online, offline, English, Japanese, Swahili - it does not matter. (And your tag of Sailor Moon (character) is not the "too much plot" tag, I might note, despite your comment above.). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

::I wasn't referring Sailor Moon (character). Sorry about confusion. To help you understand, here are links: Dark Kingdom, Makaiju, Black Moon Clan, Death Busters, Dead Moon Circus, and Shadow Galactica. Yes, I have watched first three seasons of Sailor Moon, and villians come and go, but their notabilities are not temporary? Receptions, such as listing and analyses, about them are missing, and there have been too much spoilers. ...Isn't that "tag-bombing"? --George Ho (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC) --George Ho (talk) 03:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

:::"...too much spoilers?" WP:SPOILER: It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot.. Yes, they should be referenced and analysed through third-party sources, but you should discuss as mentioned below. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh... I did not realize WP:Notability/Noticeboard at all; I have always overlooked it, and, if I've unknowingly "tag-bombed", this does not excuse my "tag-bombing" if these "Multiple issues" qualify. If you want me not to tag articles with {{tl|notability}}, the noticeboard is the best start to go, correct? --George Ho (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

:No, you discuss on the talk page of the article itself, or the page of the relevant WikiProject. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sigh* If I find one talk page of an article nearly empty, then I shall use relevant WikiProject, shan't I? Why not WP:Notability/Noticeboard? I could end up adding "notability" without discussion there first. --George Ho (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

:I could end up adding "notability" without discussion there first. ...and that is a problem how? *confused* - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

::I stroke it because I realized my poor logic of my own words and because I need to rephrase it. Without the noticeboard, without relevant WikiProject, and without the recent post in the article's talk page, I shall still add "notability" and have temptations to do so. If it is wrong to add "notability" to notable topics, then how does a "notable" topic guarantee? A stand-alone article (e.g. Erica Kane) or a section or small entry of a related article (e.g. Jackson Montgomery in List of All My Children characters)? Anything else?

::If it is not wrong, how does adding "notability" to notable topics guarantee, including to you? --George Ho (talk) 08:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Your last two answers aren't especially clear, but you should re-read the "usage" section of Template:Notability, in particular:

::::"Deletion is not clean up. Do not use this tag merely because the page requires significant work. Notability requires only that appropriate sources have been published about the subject. It does not require that any editor has already named these sources, followed the neutral, encyclopedic style, or otherwise written a good article."

:::That "deletion is not clean up" link is pointing to a section of WP:ATA, which I'd recommend reading all of. Also worth considering: WP:POTENTIAL, WP:OBSCURE and WP:NOPE

:::In terms of general tagging behaviour, it's worth reading and thinking about: WP:TAGGING, WP:RESPTAG and WP:TAGBOMB

:::I've given these links not to give you something to come back and argue about (I'll ignore any of that) but something to mull over when considering a statement to admins about how you plan to improve your behaviour in the future. Please read to understand and not to rebut.

:::Thanks. -- 81.107.26.167 (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

George,

When you go to the supermarket, you don't yell at the other shoppers because they don't buy the same items as you do, do you? And you don't yell at the store's manager because the store carries other items than those you use, do you? :-) Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and choice--that also applies here. What may not be important to one person is very important to someone else--it all depends on one's interests.

Try talking to the other editors here like you do to your neighbors--because that's basically what they are.

And now try working on a plan you can post here for all of us to see re: what you will do better when you're unblocked. In this way, the admins can have a look at it and tell you if you're on the right track or if what you're suggesting still needs some work. We hope (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

:Thank you for your methaphors, but, literally, they have nothing to do with Wikipedia. Why would I yell at other shoppers for not buying the same items? Whenever I shop with anybody, I scold my mother for her shopaholism and her mishandling of it; I scold her for buying things that I never wanted. And I can yell at the manager for poor management, not the lack of carrying the items I want. Wikipedia is intended to be edited without restrictions, unless administrators have some things semi- or fully-protected, am I correct? Policies can change, guidelines can change, and "ignore all rules" (which is not carte blanche per Bushranger or somebody else) policy can be modified, isn't it? --George Ho (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

::You're not getting it, and I'm starting to agree with Elen's comment above, alas. Wikipedia is not "intended to be edited without restrictions". Polices and guidelines can change - by diuscussing the policy or guideline at that policy or guideline's talk page to establish a new WP:CONSENSUS, not by hurrying around tagging this, deleting that, etc. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

In other words, the Consensus may discuss changing Five pillars in talk page prior to actually editing it, correct? In first pillar, under policy, Wikipedia is not anything other than an online encyclopedia. Some articles have disobeyed the second pillar; have I disobeyed the second pillar in any way? What's the point of the third pillar (free content) if re-using content requires permission, especially for third-party sites such as Monsters and Critics? Have I disobeyed the fourth pillar in the past, aside from my conflicts with Dr. Blofeld? Have I disobeyed or abused the fifth pillar, "ignore all rules"? --George Ho (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

::You are still completely missing the point. The five pillars are a start, but they are not the end of the policies and guidelines. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Why am I blocked from editing English Wikipedia, not other Wiki sites, such as Commons Wikimedia? Isn't editing there while being blocked an evasion of block policy? --George Ho (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

:::No, each project has separate rules. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

From 221.6.29.66:

{{quote|No, I am not Dane97 and I pointed out why above. You just don't listen, at all. Here you are trying to deflect attention on me, completely ignoring that you were wrong in your editing. The fact that you were wrong is exactly why you are blocked now. Because you are blocked for similar reasons. You say that I canvassed against you, but I say that my complaints were valid. Your block, where others are saying pretty much the same thing I said, shows they were valid. Raintheone didn't have much of a problem with me, and, despite whatever happened between Raintheone and myself, Raintheone agreed that you were making some pretty silly edits. Also, Postdlf knows what he was talking about. Every soap opera character is documented in "soap opera periodicals," and more than a few of the soap opera characters on Wikipedia are notable. It just takes the right person to demonstrate that notability; you clearly are not that person. And saying "No one knows soap operas nowadays" is not only an untruth, even with your having meant "hardly anyone," but an opinion as well. You need to do like another editor said below and learn some humility.

As for "How [do I] speak English very well?" (not that some people aren't fluent in both languages), that's because I am American and am using a proxy. See WP:PROXY. I thought you'd known by now that the only reason I keep getting blocked is because I prefer to use a proxy instead of reveal my true IP identity.

}}

All right, you got your point, and I don't. My abstract of your point: everybody wins, and I lose; everybody improves of Wikipedia, and I destroy of Wikipedia; everybody talks rationally, and I whine like an angry politician or a disturbing anti-social; everybody thinks rationally, and I mindlessly witch-hunt.

I even can't report you because I'm still blocked from reporting open proxies. I haven't taken your advices or anyone else's because... I couldn't trust you and because I depend on reputations of anybody to know whom I can eventually trust. I couldn't trust or listen to you as the same person with open proxies until you admitted that you are not Dane97. I may have right to be concerned about you, yet I... Did I make myself worse toward you and others who are intersted with soap operas? If copyrights-related, then I am not solely responsible for these infringements; I just reported them to WP:Copyright problems. Wait, I remember... some person accused SoapCentral.com for infringing Wikipedia articles; was it you?

Anyway, I still continue because I have participate other people's AfD and found similar arguments. I have misunderstood how AfD works, haven't I? If I did, then how can anybody explain my following AFDs: WP:Articles for deletion/Barbara Montgomery (character), WP:Articles for deletion/Comparison of CECB units, and WP:Articles for deletion/Samuel Woods (All My Children)? What about my arguments in others', such as WP:Articles for deletion/Lily Montgomery and WP:Articles for deletion/Aubrey Wentworth? I will not admit my fault on them until I must know what are wrongs with these of my arguments; I still don't know what the flaws of my arguments are.

However, I must admit my faults for using my AfDs to speak ill against people, such as Dr. Blofeld. It was inexcusable, and I couldn't find any other excuse to make up for it. I won't beg his forgiveness, as I swear. I won't beg his clarifications and understandings of my actions either. I must have inadvertently hurted myself, including my own reputation. If it is damaged, then I don't know how to repair my own reputation. Shall I replace it like a new vase, or what else shall I do?

I hope: this section is not a random or request, isn't it? --George Ho (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

:OK, here goes at another attempted explanation. Ignore the IP currently using 221/6. His intentions appear to be good, but I don't think he is helping.

:# Stop taking this personally. No-one actually knows you, all we have to go on are a set of edits. We are largely strangers to each other - strong statements like "betrayal" and "slander" suggest motives that imply the other editor has taken against you personally.

:# You are treating people's comments in a strangely literal way. If you don't understand what someone says - just ask them to explain a different way. Do not assume that everything is an attack.

:# Copyright - yes you may absolutely tag and report something that appears to have been copied and pasted from another source. What you need to watch for is that the other site didn't get its material from Wikipedia to start with. They don't always credit Wikipedia as the source. However, it is better to tag it than not - the project cannot afford the risk.

:# Notability - rather than tag an article for deletion, start a discussion. With the soap opera characters, starting a general discussion about notability at the WikiProject is a good idea. If the talkpage is active, start a discussion there. Always try to notify the article creator.

:# Read WP:BEFORE. Non-notable articles rarely damage the project unless they are also inaccurate or completely foolish (an article about my cat for example would be completely foolish, as the cat is known to no-one outside my family and our neighbours, and is just an ordinary cat), so there's often no urgent rush to delete things that are non-notable. Someone spent time and effort working on it. What other steps might be taken - can the information be merged into another article and a WP:REDIRECT used, for example.

:# If you eventually decide that nominating for a deletion discussion is the only option, use a neutral rationale. Do not attack the article creator because they have disagreed with you. Remember it is a discussion. Do not attribute any motive to those who disagree other than the differing viewpoint of a stranger.

:# Images - if you find someone has pirated an image from a newspaper website, and uploaded it as their own work, yes you absolutely must tag it as a copyvio for speedy deletion. In other instances, it is better to identify the least drastic option to deal with the damage. Can I fix it myself? Can I alert the uploader - maybe they just made a mistake? If in doubt, always tag for WP:PUF which results in a discussion, not for deletion.

:# Talk - explain why you thought what you did. Don't post reams of justifications and question the motives of others. You may be right, but you'll lose if you can't discuss things with people.

:# Read the guidelines and policies and understand what the project is about. You haven't got it yet. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

::::10 - Just take a break from Wikipedia. That's what a block is supposed to be about, giving you the time to think things through and then start fresh with the benefit of the doubt, not making 83 post-block edits to your user talk page trying to discuss, explain and justify every aspect of your behavior to everyone who says anything. You've made some valuable contributions, but the project really, really will survive without you for a while. Come back when you're more informed about policies and procedures, and less argumentative about other people's work. JTRH (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

::I'll have one last go as well. Some things to add to the excellent points that Elen makes:

::*Wikipedia is not about winning the point is not to get your own way but to raise issues as widely as possible within the community to try and reach a consensus. Yes, I've linked you to another essay - but the point of essays is to give you a good idea of how to work with other people, that's how things progress.

::*You seem to have the idea that your interpretation of policy can applied, without discussion, because those are the rules and you're just following them. That all you need to do is tag and the bad stuff (that breaks the rules) will eventually be removed. With a very few exceptions (which qualify for speedy deletes) that's not how the project works: the aim is always to improve, through discussion, first; and to delete only as the last resort. And the decisions are made by consensus - not by one person's interpretation of "the rules" winning. The ultimate aim being to improve the encyclopedia.

::* To this end, if your view is largely not taken up, it doesn't reflect on you personally - it is likely that it was helpful in allowing others to improve the article.

::* If you are continually frustrated by the consensus, then perhaps you have to accept that you don't share the aims of the project in that area and either look for other areas to contribute in or give up on Wikipedia altogether. Again, that's no reflection on you, if it does come to pass - people are different and projects goals cannot satisfy everyone.

::* You seem to be concerned with articles being wrong at some point in their history. Because of this, you seem to want them deleted so that the "bad history" is removed and made inaccessible. That's not a reasonable expectation in most cases - all that matters is the current state of the article. If there is a heinous edit that needs removing from the history then an admin can do it (that'd be for something really bad though, like defamation).

::*In the light of all the above, it's a good idea, if you do nominate something for AfD (or the image equivalent) to try and get as many editors involved in the discussion as possible. So notify as many people as you can. Again, this isn't about winning, it's about bringing as many people as possible together to come up with the best solution to any issues.

::*There's no rush in most cases - so take one issue at a time and don't move on to the next until the discussion has finished. That will automatically improve the quality of your contributions. You can maybe group together similar issues across a single subject area - but your goal should be to have a single discussion and get to some sort of resolution before moving on to the next discussion. Tagging and then not staying aorund to help find a solution is not especially productive and can be quite annoying. Remember, there is no deadline.

::As I said before, you should stop thinking about specific cases and not worry about the motives of editors - think about your general approach and how you plan to approach editing in the future.

::It may be an idea to forget about everything that has happened so far and just read all the policies and essays that you can. Without thinking about yourself too much, try and get a general idea of what the project is trying to achieve and how it does that. Only after you feel you've got a proper understanding, in the abstract, apply it to the specifics of what has been said here.

::Good luck.

::-- 81.107.26.167 (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

:::One last thing. You keep bringing up AfDs where the article was, in fact, deleted as evidence that you must understand how these things work. A couple of points:

:::*There's not a lot of discussion in those AfDs, deletion was a solution - more discussion (had you notified more people) may have produed a better solution.

:::*You aren't banned because of everything you have done - this isn't an all-or-nothing thing. Every single deletion case has its own characteristics and merits. Agreement in one or more cases doesn't automatically make you "correct" in all cases.

:::*AfDs that end in deletion with no-one taking issue with you aren't what we're talking about here. What's relevant is the times when you have been disruptive and approached things badly. Avoiding that in the future by changing your behaviour is what you should be focussed on - not trying to avoid this by bringing up irrelevant examples of when things went your way.

:::To repeat what many people have said for days now: STOP EDITING THIS PAGE AND TAKE A BREAK. Read generally about Wikipedia and try and get a better understanding of how things work. Then take a few hours off. Then read what everyone has said on this page with a view not to defend yourself, but to understand what they're saying. Then take a few hours off. Then ask any questions about things you don't understand - but don't try to justify yourself or argue back. Once you're sure you understand what's been asked of you, take a few hours off. Then, make a short statement saying how you plan to accommodate what people are asking you to do. Then wait for an admin's response. -- 81.107.26.167 (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

::::And here's something you should definitely read and think about, in your downtime: WP:ZEAL -- 81.107.26.167 (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::And you may find WP:NOSHAME helpful. -- 81.107.26.167 (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I may have trouble reading and understanding metaphorically and literally policies, essays, and guidelines. I also may have trouble with yet somewhat understood the five pillars and their intentions: it is a start, not an end. However, here is my stance: {{quote|Wikipedia is intended to educate everybody a lot of topics that are not familiar to such people, regardless of notability, such as The Matrix and the universe of Sailor Moon and soap operas. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that is unlike other online encyclopedias: free to edit (with limitations) by anyone. Wikipedia is not anything that is not an online encyclopedia. For example: it is not a paper encyclopedia, an indiscriminate collection of information, under criteria of censorship which is forbidden under policy, and a battleground. Over the years, numbers of articles have grown to millions of articles in every Wiki sites to brighten the minds of everyone and to preserve history online.

Editing policies and guidelines and essays is free. However, normally accepted policies and guidelines must be followed, and normally accepted essays are intended to influence those who intend to improve Wikipedia and its articles. Conflicts with them must be discussed first, and finishing a discussion must come next before any other action.}} I have gone as far as I could, but would this affect my unblock request? --George Ho (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

:It is hard for us to evaluate whether there is merit in the unblock request at this point; the essay WP:TL;DR applies very well. Honestly, your answers remind me of another editor who became very long-winded in his explanations, but never seemed to grasp what anyone else was telling him: User:Tenmei (you'll note, it eventually got him a one year ban by ArbCom). I wish you could just come out and admit that you were tag-bombing the articles too much and see the bigger picture rather than try to abide by the letter (I will stop tagging DB's articles) while not admitting fault (but I don't see the problem with it [and hence it might be a problem when you interact with other editors]). Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

:George,

:I think what happens here is when you see something that needs fixing, you get very anxious about it. This may have been the reason you were tagging so much. If so, you need to do less worrying about it. There are no paid workers here and everyone does things when able. If this is the case, can you try to remember that most of the time, it will get taken care of, either by someone else or by your correcting it? We hope (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I may have reasons to tag articles, whether you call it "tag-bombing" or not. Unfortunately, I have seemingly never "grasped" the logics and explanations from people, and essays may not be positive about "tag-bombing", so I must decline to explain my reasons, unless "tag-bombing" is proven to be excusable.

I mean, I am too ashamed about my English skills at the standards of good and featured articles, so I wanted others to accomplish rather than I. They are very good writers; I made articles, such as O Fantasma and early versions of The Lake House, and my skills were superseded by others'. Still, it does not excuse my block.

Honestly, I would have been more of a reader than a writer; too bad I am considered a "tag-bomber" without policies or guidelines about it. Still, I contribute a lot without tagging. Every vandalism by disruptive editors on any article has been and must be cleaned by me. I will include citations if I am interested. Otherwise, I tag articles because tagging articles sends readers who do not edit at all a moral about relying or not relying on Wikipedia a lot.

At least I merged List of Peter Gunn episodes into Peter Gunn because the former list has no summaries or reliable references whatsoever. Are there objections to my edits?

To Magog: I don't grasp explanations without simple logics. What's the point of admitting "tag-bombing", and what do you mean "bigger picture"? --George Ho (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

To We hope: Hmm... good analysis. I may have known but denied what you analyzed and never properly explained my "tag-bombing". My worries do not excuse rationale of my block; however, I worry about others' interests and lack of interests, and I worry about readers more than editors. That's it: I have depended on readers' dependance on Wikipedia. I always care more about readers who do not edit at all because they believe in Wikipedia's words about topics. As a reader, I always believed in everything until I realize the flaws and inaccuracies. I mean, what if readers believe in inaccuracies? --George Ho (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Three things are coming to mind right now. The first is that merging the list back into the article was completely pointless, the second is that you are not responsible for what other people choose to believe about Wikipedia, and the third is that you still have not accepted that the consensus is that your activities in tagging and nominating for deletion, particularly your image activities, were disruptive. Before we can move forward, you need to accept that the community has found your activities to be a problem. If you are having difficulty understanding this in the English language, then tell us what your first language is and we'll see if we can find a speaker of that to explain it to you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

My ethnicity is Asian (possibly Caucasian-mixed, but still Asian), but I fluently speak English. I don't speak Chinese very well. How are my nominating for deletion and tagging disruptive?

Speaking of disruptive, while I was blocked, I did not save :File:ILoveLucyTitleScreen.jpg, the I Love Lucy screenshot, which I tagged with {{tl|di-replaceable fair use}}. Now I have regretted not adjusting the rationale information. I should have made changes before I was blocked. I hope this is the first step to admitting that my tagging to that image is disruptive, isn't it?

At least I'm totally "moved" by the second part: not responsible for people's choices about Wikipedia. However, if I made edits to such parts, then I would be partially responsible. --George Ho (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

:I believe it was explained above what the problem is. Completely disregarding the article problem, and addressing the image problem: you were too quick to tag many of the images for deletion. I personally had to decline several of your disputed fair use taggings because the images were free. Now this is understandable as a n00b mistake, but when the user who uploaded them asked you to please slow down and help him fix the problems (rather than just tagging them and running away), you not only said no, but you took him to ANI, when he wasn't in the wrong for asking this. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Some editor has removed my tagging as TAGBOMBing. I don't get it. If I see problems with this list, then why can't others? Either I'm a tagbomber, or someone is not admitting the problems with this page. Are these characters notable to everyone else besides Sailor Moon fans? I could not see hints of notability. I have checked the references; they are of books, episodes, and fansites. This page has intricate details that may interest those who want to be spoiled. The real-world perspective is absent. If my concerns are invalid, then I think that community may be right about me. I think I have problems with my own inabilities to improve Wikipedia, unless this is proven wrong. --George Ho (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

:For goodness sake, calm down. The world won't end because that article continues to exist. The project is not ruined because articles about Sailor Moon, Pokemon, or Hollyoaks continue to exist. Yes, they are notable to some sections of the community, just as the Glossary of ancient Roman religion is important to some people. The fan communities keep the articles on Final Fantasy and My Little Pony honest even if the sources aren't totally A1, so oddly enough, they are rarely madly inaccurate.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

:And, to get to the root of this, why did you put all those tags on the article without saying why in the talk page? Why didn't you discuss what makes for a notable Sailor Moon article at WT:WikiProject Sailor Moon or WT:ANIME to work out what the consensus is before starting to tag articles? Why do you assume that you're self-evidently correct about this and that is needed is a tag? Can you not see that to tag without even attempting to communicate with other editors is disruptive?

:For what it's worth, lists about something that is notable (such as Sailor Moon) will normally be acceptable - the point being together aspects of a notable subject that don't merit their own articles but would also make the main article too big. WP:FICTION says:

::"Individually non-notable elements of a fictional work (such as characters and episodes) may be grouped into an appropriate list article. Advice for the appropriateness of these list articles can be found at the general notability guideline and at Stand-alone Lists and Topics."

:It should at least be obvious that these issues are up for discussion and that just tagging with no explanation is disruptive - at the very least editors have to try and work out why you added the tags. To echo what Elen has said, I think your concerns are largely invalid - you don't like that type of article so you're determined to see it removed, you aren't thinking about the people who read the encyclopedia. You also seem hung up on spoilers, which is not a reason to challenge an article, see WP:SPOILER. If you can't see the need for discussion and communication around these issues then I really think you cannot be a productive Wikipedia editor. 81.107.26.167 (talk) 12:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

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:

:#an apology for the behaviour that lead to the block

:#a promise to be less confrontational and not use ANI or AfD or legal terms inappropriately

:#how you plan to deal with images that previously you would have tagged for deletion

:#how you plan to deal with articles that previously you would have tagged for issues

:#how you plan to deal with AfDs

:#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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:George_Ho&diff=next&oldid=462467538 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, 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)

George, I saw this edit: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:George_Ho&diff=463902950&oldid=463901640].

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)

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)

:{{ec}}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)

== {{#ifexist:User:Gh87

|[{{fullurl:User:Gh87|redirect=no}} Gh87]

|{{#if:Gh87

|Gh87

|:User:Gh87

}}

}} ==

"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)

{{helpme-helped}}

: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 {{tlx|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)

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: [http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_needing_additional_references 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)

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 {{tl|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)

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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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)

• 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.

• 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)

• Are there specific communication issues that should be discussed here?

• 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 {{tl|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)

{{outdent}}

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)

{{outdent|3}}

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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre&diff=466524437&oldid=466523275 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 {{tl|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 {{tl|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)
• Sounds like a plan. I guess unblocking must come next. Best of luck. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

{{unblock reviewed | 1=I may have done uncivil things to Dr. Blofeld by disrespecting wishes of his and by messing with him in WP:ANI. I have done edits that many people consider disruptive and unconstructive. I will never accuse Dr. Blofeld for anything without concrete proof again; however, I have been granted by administrators to let me do whatever I want, i.e. tagging, nominating, under conditions: *If someone has told me to stop doing something, then I must stop doing something. *If I want to do something, I must ask any administrator first. *If doing something is approved by administrators and others alike, then I may do something; otherwise, I must wait until approval. —George Ho (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC) *If an editor requests that I stop doing one thing, then I must stop doing the same thing that an editor requests. *If I want to continue doing that same thing but was requested to stop, then I must discuss first in User talk:George Ho/Mentorship discussions. Then I must anticipate replies from mentors. *If I cannot wait any longer, or if the deadline expires, then I must discuss it in WP:ANI instead. *Until agreement from mentors has been reached, I must follow the restrictions requested by an editor. *The following mentors are Elen of the Roads, Dr.K., Magog the Ogre, Begoon, Fastily, MGA73. I hope: they help my unblock request. --George Ho (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC) | accept=lets get this show on the road. George, I believe you are acting in good faith, so lets hope this works out for everyone. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)}}

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