This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I don't really think it's a good idea to do a peer review yet. There are still obvious things that need to be fixed before it's up to FA standards. Anyone can look at the Featured article criteria and see how it's failing, 2c (consistent citations) being the most glaring issue. Once all the obvious things have been ironed out and it looks close to FA, that's the time to request peer review to get input and see if there's anything that's been overlooked. But right now working on the obvious issues should come before any peer review. Siawase (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Man, just caught your question on WP:AT. Looks like you missed all the drama. Of the 4,175,000 en.wp articles 99.999% of those that can have French etc. accents (which I'd guess is 15-20% or 600-800,000 articles?) already have them. There was a "diacritics war" mainly initiated by one hockey editor in 2011 which ended up with him being blocked, and the remaining hockey bios were tidied up at Talk:Dominik Halmoši 8 months ago. Those two RMs you've picked up are actually - check article histories one-step-back - both restore RMs, caused by undiscussed moves stripping foreign spelling. Just so you know the background. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey George. How are you? I was wondering if you were gonna purpose a similar move to Oops!... I Did It Again (song) to that of ...Baby One More Time?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The album is more popular than the song. How must I support this request? Um... I think you can do it yourself. --George Ho (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

One could argue that people were looking for the song, but came to the album and from there clicked on the song. However, I think the amount of difference in hits says it all. And I've had your talk watchlisted since the J.Lo thing months and months ago.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi George Ho, I'm beginning the copy-edit you requested to the above article at the GOCE Request page. Please feel free to contact me, or to correct or revert my edits if I'm doing something I shouldn't. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Done – feel free to contact me about any issues arising from the copy-edit. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seinfeld (season 3), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Siobhan Fallon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi George, I'm beginning the copy-edit you requested to the above article at the GOCE Request page. Please feel free to contact me, or to correct or revert my edits if I'm doing something I shouldn't. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Done – feel free to contact me about any issues arising from the copy-edit. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I realize now it's a waste of time to connect TV shows through the people who wrote for them. It was just a stupid preconceived notion of programs I should view on a regular basis. Just delete Category:Lists of writers by television series and all the articles in that category. I don't care. I'm autistic. --StewieBaby05 (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

George, I can't speak for other admins, but I'm not going to delete all those lists you tagged. No offense, but the author should tag them, not you as their proxy. I haven't removed the tags, but if they're still there tomorrow, I will.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi George, I'm beginning the copy-edit you requested to the above article at the GOCE Request page. Please feel free to contact me, or to correct or revert my edits if I'm doing something I shouldn't. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Done – feel free to contact me about any issues arising from the copy-edit. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2013‎ (UTC)

Hey George, no biggie but WP:RM asks to mark RMs as "2" if there's been one before. We don't normally clean off old RMs into an archive like you did here. 17:34, 10 March 2013‎ George Ho (talk | contribs)‎ . . (41 bytes) (+41)‎ . . (George Ho moved page Talk:Jane Seymour to Talk:Jane Seymour/Archive 1) but if someone does this it makes "2" essential. Please add it. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cheers (season 6), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A Different World (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you're not doing very well at the moment! I do hope it's nothing too serious.

–anemoneprojectors– 09:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I have recently made another renaming request on the same article. Join in. --George Ho (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to post these alerts to my talk page, and I would appreciate it if you would not, as I've mentioned before. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 29 March 2013 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		Thanks so much for going to the trouble of making an image for Ants in the Plants. It's wonderful! Star767 (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

On 30 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Reeva Steenkamp, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that South African model Reeva Steenkamp appeared in the reality TV show Tropika Island of Treasure which premiered two days after her death? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Reeva Steenkamp. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your diligence with the copyright violations in the history of Susan Banks. James086^Talk 18:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Big Chill (film), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bad Moon Rising and When A Man Loves A Woman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

You are obviously quicker and more aware of the information, so I will leave it with you. No point having edit conflicts. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, George Ho. You have new messages at Anne Delong's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

—Anne Delong (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't appreciate you undoing my edits to the Cheers episode sublists. I think it's stupid to combine multi-part episodes of TV shows if they aired on seperate weeks. --StewieBaby05 (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi George, I'm beginning the copy-edit you requested to the above article at the GOCE Request page. Please feel free to contact me, or to correct or revert my edits if I'm doing something I shouldn't. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Done – feel free to contact me about any issues arising from the copy-edit. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

On 12 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Neville Page, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that creature and concept designer Neville Page portrayed minor roles in soap operas, including General Hospital? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Neville Page. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi George, I moved the disambiguation page to What's Going On now. Please note that you don't need to tag the redirect for deletion when I've already told you I'd move it when all links have been fixed (much less keep re-tagging after it has been removed). The only thing that accomplishes is making the redirect not work while the links are being repaired, which means that any readers following the link will end up on the tagged redirect page instead of whatever article they were looking for. That's why it's better to fix the links first and only then move the disambiguation page. I hope that makes sense. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that your opening of the 王菲 album titles is a good idea. Incredible that titles of the major albums of the world's best known singer could be so badly sourced. I'm not opposed to Chinese titles, just proceding cautiously. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) has no guidance on which Cantonese Romanization of Chinese. Hong Kong Government Cantonese Romanisation? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Question, please note on Talk:Ingratiate Oneself. Is tou hou ji gei Jyutping? Wouldn't Yale Touhou zigei be more usual? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

You were right. I've concluded that wanting to add (Faye Wong album) simply because Cantonese has 2 romanization systems is silly. Where are you on which to prefer? WP:CANTONESE still doesn't exist. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, does Yale usually break up tou hou zi gei? To be honest I don't mind whether Jyutping or Yale. Wiktionary seems to have 100% coverage of Yale, 70% of which also give Jyutping. As long as we don't copy the random non-romanizations on mp3 pagas, and as long as we say in which romanization in lead it will be clear enough. You decide Jyutping or Yale. Whichever I will support. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Other way round Tou hou ji gei is Yale, Jyutping is Tou hou zi gei In ictu oculi (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

In response to the initial discussion here I went back and officially closed this discussion as withdrawn. I was told after the fact that it was against policy to fix something that was done against policy and that I should at least let you know as a courtesy. I'm trying to get my semester and college work done, so any replies to this may take me a while to get back to. At least now you know. I apologize if this was wrong, I was trying to eliminate a conflict not create one. Technical 13 (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Some discussion has taken place because of your closure. I feel you need to become aware of it. In part it has taken place here and has spilled over to here, too, becaise I reverted the reversion of your closure. You will see there is a different signature now to the closure, followed by a huge discussion post closure, which appears to be rehashing the closed discussion in some measure. I have, at present, no intention of taking further part in either of those discussions, but reserve the right to reply if necessary.

I have no intention of seeking to influence your reaction in any manner, nor of asking for a reaction. This message is only to make you aware of some developments. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I see that you have posted Showdown (Cheers) on the GOCE Requests page. It may take us a few weeks to get to it. In the meantime, can you try to clean up the citation error messages? Citations 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, and 15 are showing me "requires |url=" errors. Jonesey95 (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, George Ho. You don't know me and I don't think we've interacted much until very recently, so I'm not really sure where you're coming from with regard to this. Given the banners at the top of your talk page, I'm very reluctant to arrive at your page only to bitch and moan, but honestly it seemed just a little pointy. My previous edit was not a challenge, you know; I honestly hoped that the other editor, who was playing fast and loose with terminology, would stand down. Surely you are aware that the discussion has been contentious and stressful and that tempers have been frayed. The uninvolved admin who closed the related discussion made what I thought was a perfectly reasonable suggestion that we all give it a rest for a while. Honestly, what do you think will be gained by an RfC at this point? Even if one side "wins", will anyone emerge from the process happier and less stressed? Will Wikipedia be a better place overall, for its readers and its contributors? I wonder. Rivertorch (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Like You rock. Rivertorch (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Uhm, my reply from when you asked the same thing just two months ago is still right here on your talk page. I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve by asking me again? Siawase (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You said: "We are not sure about what to do to make the article near Featured-quality"

Actually, I know full well many things that need to be done. But I don't have the time, nor frankly the interest do the work at this time. I already posted above, so I'll just quote myself: "Anyone can look at the Featured article criteria and see how it's failing, 2c (consistent citations) being the most glaring issue." If you are interested in working on the article but unsure of where to start, that might be a good place. (Note that "too many refs" is not part of the FA criteria.) To be clear here, just fixing 2c will not make it FA compliant. It fails 1a, and also 1b and 1c which are core article building issues and very time consuming to work on. See also Wikipedia:Featured article advice and User:Jengod/Some common objections to featured status and how to avoid them. Also note that despite the comments on the talk page that it's too long, as Jengod's essay points out, "most featured articles are 30k-50k" and the Lohan article, at under 30k, is actually on the short side. Siawase (talk) 07:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you considered RMs for the Star Wars film articles? I have been thinking for some time now that the article titles are overly precise and fails WP:COMMONNAME. For example, Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back is the actual article title, and it could simply be The Empire Strikes Back with the full title in the lead sentence. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

One tricky exception may be Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. It's still referred to as simply Star Wars pretty often, so it could possibly be Star Wars (film). I don't think A New Hope quite works. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"Episode <#>" makes titles more precise and accurate than what you are proposing. Another problem is the ((subst:move-multi)) template. Currently, "current1" parameter defaults to the pagename of the talk page, where discussion occurs. If I have discussion at talk page of one article, it occurs at that article's talk page. Same thing for any other. First off, we must separate multi-move from the very first Star Wars film. Second, how can we deal with derived topics of similar names, like novels and soundtracks? --George Ho (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:PRECISION, "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." I think that the "Star Wars Episode <#>" term is overly precise. If a source simply says The Empire Strikes Back, the topic is still clear. Same reason why I can see an argument for dropping "The Lord of the Rings" from these films' articles. I agree that we would need to keep a RM for the 1977 film from the others. Hmm, maybe that's why we have the current setup in the first place? I can imagine editors thinking that Star Wars (film) is too simplistic and agreeing to do these full titles instead, despite their excessive precision. Might be worth looking at the articles' talk page history for past RM discussions. Even so, a new consensus could be assessed. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If we could do the multi-move, which other films and derivatives must we include besides The Empire Strikes Back? --George Ho (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello George Ho. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Talk:The Empire Strikes Back (album), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Does not rely on a page that does not exist. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Why did you do that? It had nearly 10K views. It met the criteria.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 06:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clearing that up!—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 11:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

With all respect, you should probably consider dropping the stick and backing slowly away from the horse carcass. Canvassing every opposing vote with comments like "Which part of "WP:Naming conventions (people)" is tedious and does nothing to change the consensus particularly when the very policy you're quoting notes that there are occasions where people are best known by a single name such as Prince (musician), where such naming is acceptable. You can actually be blocked/banned from editing for rebuking everyone's vote during a consensus discussion. There appears to be no support for the page move, but either way it would be wise to stop trying to rebuke every vote and allow the consensus to run its course. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Why can't you rename it? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Joy Luck Club (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walt Disney Studios (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

If you have an alternate cover, you could upload it to replace mine and then request deletion on the older version.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi George, please check your ms.wiki talk page. You have new messages! Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 00:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

On 25 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article White Teeth (TV serial), which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the author Zadie Smith declined to adapt her own novel, White Teeth, into the television miniseries to complete her next novel, The Autograph Man? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/White Teeth (TV serial). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

	Fish soup bee hoon
	Real efficient! You beat me seconds to posting the lead image! Here's a bowl of fish soup bee hoon in admiration of your diligent speed... Truly worthy of the project. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Awarded to George Ho in appreciation of his efforts to keep Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count update while the 'bot that normally does the job wasn't working. Thanks for pitching in to help maintain the DYK project during a time of need! Orlady (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Teresa Teng may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, you might want to reduce this picture File:The Legend of the Condor Heroes (1982 TV series).jpg. Better tell you now before an administrator contact you.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 06:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Despeckled, colour balance/tone adjusted, non-free reduce supplied. Begoon ^talk 06:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Would you care to comment at this talk page regarding a silly spat over genre warring? It's silly, but it has been said that discussions can cure genre warrior's symptoms LOL. Dan56 (talk) 06:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand we subtract background views, but looking a bit more closely, it receives next-to-no views at all as a background, and so I am inclined to suggest those 2000-odd views were people looking at the queue and therefore should not be subtracted at all. Any thoughts? Even if it were to be subtracted it would only be - ~1000 views because it is the average of the days before and after. Any thoughts? :) --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 16:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the way it works was the last hour before DYK template change. In fact, these numbers are inserted to the next day. Ask Henrik about the final hours. As for the hook, it lasted from 15:33 to 23:48 UTC on May 16. Check other hooks from the same set of that period. --George Ho (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok so if the 379 were included because of the switch-over, why do the 2000 the previous day count as background? The article has barely been viewed since, so I find it hard to believe those weren't due to something about the DYK process.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably readers got smarter by clicking into archives and upcoming queues. Maybe edits were done, but there were few logs on the day before that day. That's all I say... --George Ho (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I think I made a serious error on my part. I realize that the 16th was the day, and the 17th was after the DYK. I don't know how the 17th got 40k views, but I'll correct my errors. --George Ho (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Do it.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You were mentioned in this AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Non-admin_closures_of_controversial_RM_discussions_-_appropriate.3F.

--B2C 03:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

mentor note: George, just to remind you that this is only the required notification that B2C has to send to everyone he mentioned. There is no requirement for you to comment there unless you want to. Begoon ^talk 03:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

cheers
Thank you for quality articles of Cheers, such as Coach's Daughter, for listing your Halls of shame and realizing "I don't think expansion is needed.", for updating the DYKstats and giving credit generously, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi George, we discussed a few days ago my plans to nominate History of Gibraltar to run as Today's Featured Article next month. I thought you might like to know that I've posted the nomination at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#July 13. Prioryman (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

George, when you have time, no hurry, could you have a look at Through Distant Worlds and Times - Letters from a Wayfarer in the Universe. That seemed the correct, full name to me, but now I wonder if it should be moved to just Through Distant Worlds and Times, leaving a redirect. What do you think? Begoon ^talk 22:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Either that or Putnik kroz vasionu i vekove. I don't know what is the common English name for the Russian novel. --George Ho (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• It's Serbian, and the full name,Through Distant Worlds and Times - Letters from a Wayfarer in the Universe, was the most common name I got in Google Searches.
• I don't want to use the foreign language name really, and if I did there would be a problem there, because I found about 3 versions of that when searching.
• I've moved it to Through Distant Worlds and Times, since that just seemed the best option to me. I made a redirect for Putnik kroz vasionu i vekove too. Thanks for the advice. Begoon ^talk 02:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for working up this article but there's still a bit more to do, please. Warden (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of The Joy Luck Club (film) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Warden (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Mrv has been nominated for merging with Template:MRVdiscuss. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

George, why is there a seemingly random series summary in the Cast and Characters section? I can't understand what it's there for. Should it be its own section, "Season summary" or something? Begoon ^talk 06:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, Season synopsis was the section, looking at S4. Begoon ^talk 06:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi George Ho. As per Christian's first appearance image, I agree to get rid of it...there's no drastic change and a free image would be a lot better. Best regards, George^Ping! 20:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Cheers season 5.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

The file was replaced with File:Cheers season 5.png.

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Begoon ^talk 16:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of adding this to the closure, but instead I'll just leave a note for you. "George Ho's comment about the stats for the 1959 film being 'vague or dishonest' are hard to interpret but do take a look at the month by month page views for Room at the Top which spike upwards dramatically in September, 2012, which is when the BBC film was aired. So our article on the 1959 film benefitted from the coattails of the 2012 film." Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to see you are not feeling well, George. I hope you feel better soon after some rest. Take care of yourself. Begoon ^talk 04:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, George Ho. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Showdown (Cheers) at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Miniapolis 02:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

On 1 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Joy Luck Club (film), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that several of Amy Tan's family members had roles in the film adaptation of her novel The Joy Luck Club, but she did not take part in choosing the cast? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Joy Luck Club (film). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Since you participated in a relevant prior move discussion for Dazed and Confused, I hereby invite you to comment in the new discussion that I just opened. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, George Ho. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Cheers (season 3) at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Miniapolis 18:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, George Ho. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Chung Li-ho.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Having had a look at this recently, I have to say that I'm amazed at what you've done with it. I don't know a lot about the topic, and I know even less about the ins-and-outs of the GAN process, but it seems to me to pass all six criteria with flying colors. Have you thought about nominating it? Joefromrandb (talk) 02:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Have you thought about what title you yourself propose now? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

At this time, I don't have preference on a name of any Chinese person, especially with Ivy Ling Po and Anthony Wong situations. --George Ho (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Through this way, I inform there is a discussion about partially disambiguated titles, known as "PDABs". This subguide of WP:D was approved at VPP. I notify you about this because you has participated in at least one RM discussion in which PDAB is cited (in any form). You are welcome to give ideas about the future of this guideline at WT:D or to ignore this message. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, George Ho. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Cliff Clavin at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Miniapolis 18:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Did you know ... that since you expressed an opinion on the GA/DYK proposal last year, we invite you to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the matter? Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Regards, Gilderien Chat|What I've done22:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Do not move to Commons. Since you had some involvement with the Do not move to Commons redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi!

I saw that you renamed "Suicides for eviction in Spain" to "Suicide in Spain" in April. The article is indeed limited to suicides for evictions, but I don't think this a problem. Existence of Suicides for eviction in Spain doesn't prevent from creating Suicide in Spain. However, the renaming of Suicides for eviction in Spain to Suicide in Spain prevents from creating Suicide in Spain.

Moreover, the current state of the article (title not matching the content) is quite misleading for the readers.

Anyway, if the goal was to encourage a rewriting with a larger scope, it seems it did not worked (no changes since April). If you think the article Suicides for eviction in Spain is not enough developed to deserve a separate article, I think we should wait the creation and development of "Suicide in Spain" before considering any merging.

I think it would be judicious to rename the article back to Suicides for eviction in Spain. What do you think? Pwet-pwet (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you restruct the article? I really want to avoid using the computer as much as possible. Actually, leave the title as is and expand the scope. Thanks. Or make a sandbox. --George Ho (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a misunderstanding : I'm a reader, not a contributor (my level of English is too bad for writing articles on the English wikipedia, i'm not a native speaker). I don't want to write an article about suicide in Spain. Actually, I'm looking for information about suicide in Spain. This misleading title only made me lose my time. I don't want to discuss further about this, I was only taking time to gently explain the issue I met and to suggest a possible solution. Do whatever you want.

Anyway, have a nice summer! Pwet-pwet (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Given the responses we are getting for the Cosby show, we should probably put File:Cheers premiere ad tv guide 1982.jpg and File:Cheers cast 1982 bw.jpg up for discussion against each other. What happened to the latter?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 14:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't! The infobox is essential as is, and no worthless screenshot can surpass that. I'm sure that it meets WP:NFCC. What about infobox image of First Person Shooter (The X-Files)? You can discuss it with the uploader WITHOUT taking it to FFD, can't you? --George Ho (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC) By the way, the cast photo is deleted under my request because someone else said that it is unnecessary and lacks "contextual significance". --George Ho (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dancing on Ice (series 3) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi George, you currently have four articles listed for copy-editing at the GOCE Requests page. These are The Joy Luck Club (film), Cheers (season 4), What Is... Cliff Clavin? and Rebecca Howe. To ensure that every request gets answered (eventually!), we ask at the top of the page that you limit your requests to a maximum of three articles at any time. Please remove one request, otherwise the most recently listed one will be removed. You can re-add this request when one of the others has been fulfilled. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks George. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, George Ho. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Carlton Intercontinental Hotel heist.
Message added 12:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Matty.007 12:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi George,

Thank you for taking an interest in the Speeches of Barack Obama article. I agree that all of his speeches should be summarized on that article, so long as we have sources for them, whether they are notable enough to have their own articles or not. I am busy in other areas of Wikipedia at the moment, and am unlikely to get around to the actions you indicate. Feel free to recommend mergers and/or add the summaries to the list as you see fit.

Neelix (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi George,

Is there any particular reason why you want me to add the summary rather than you doing it yourself? You have full freedom to edit the article. Be bold!

Neelix (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi George,

I just read the failed merger proposal and I am not convinced that Speeches of Barack Obama is an appropriate location for a summary of You didn't build that, which is an article about a single phrase rather than a particular speech as a whole. It may be more appropriate to list the phrase at List of political catchphrases.

Neelix (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Added ALT1. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• See my response. ALT1 meets the hook guidelines and is clear. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Hey, George. Saw you struck ALT1a. Was wondering if you'd be ready to clear ALT1 or if you had more comments. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Will you be able to rephrase the struck hook and turn it into ALT1b? Thanks! --George Ho (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
      • What is wrong with ALT1? -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
        • ... Nothing's wrong. Just approve it if you wish. --George Ho (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
        • I'll retract that; you can't because (I forgot) you are the nominator. As for the hook, you can make more rephrases if you wish, but I don't object to alt1 (for now). --George Ho (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
          • great. I would then ask that if you believe the hook satisfies all the DYK conditions that you please leave a comment on the page itself with a recommendation to pass or fail the nomination. Thanks! -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi there George... Thanks for your input at the above article. I considered your same point during the article's author-ization actually. I was of the opinion that its simply too early to separate "21st century" into its own section, isn't it? Surely there have been replicas other than Banksy's made in that period (some are noted further down in the better-related sections), but we're also dealing with notability guidelines toward which who-knows-when a new notable replica may appear. Must you really blow the flow of the article with an edit which kind of jumps-the-gun and adds pain to where theres no injury (not to mention the eyesore expansion box)? Maybe a simple paragraph-separation will suffice? Or? The access is already there for other editors to contribute as new notable works appear in the years to come. I bow to you for your interest, but can we please just leave-well-enough-alone for now, and revert that particular edit to its original state? I surely don't want to step on any feet by reverting it myself. With all due respect... Penwatchdog (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your recent contributions :) Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 12:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello! This message is to inform you that Wikipedia:WikiProject U2 needs your input! Please, join this discussion on this talk page!

You may add yourself to our member list below by clicking here!

Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 20:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Grand funk railroad loco motion.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. MASEM (t) 00:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've updated the "Like a Virgin" single cover you've uploaded with a cleaner scan and deleted the old orphaned image. If you have no objections I'm going to delete the old revisions and remove the notice as "requested" by Theo's bot. Cheers, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi George - any reason you are subst-ing the templates on the Chelsea Manning talk page? I don't see any need to do so.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, to prevent further vandalism and to discourage re-opening the section. Subst-ing is best advised, especially with the drama going on. --George Ho (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how that prevents re-opening. And it makes the page bigger, which is already really big... and adds additional edits to the history. I'd suggest just leaving the templates as is.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Or next time, sub it before saving the page. --George Ho (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi George.

I very rarely post this sort of "advice" this these days, because, well..., I very rarely feel the need to, and, well..., who'd want my advice anyway?() But I can't help but wonder a little if you might just be getting a tiny bit too emotionally involved with the whole Manning thing?

I wasn't going to post here, because it's late here, and I actually went to bed, but I couldn't settle. If you're really ok with it all, then please ignore this post, but if you really are getting as upset as some of your posts could indicate, then my sincere advice is don't. I do understand why you might be. I just think it will all look differently to you when the dramafest has died down and sensible heads like yours prevail, which they will. They truly will.

If you're not as upset as I thought you were, then I'm sorry for this note, but I would not sleep well without having made it. Time, and hindsight will be wonderful things, they always are, and wikipedia dramafests are not worth emotional investment. They really are not.

Anyway, that said, take care, and I'll speak to you soon.

On another thing entirely, I've been wanting to ask you if you can help me implement a graph/chart template I've been working on for a while, because I keep running out of time, and I think it might be something that would interest you, with your strengths in wikicoding and detail. Let me know if you might be interested - it would involve creating some article pages and editing/creating some template data pages, but I can go into more detail if you think you have the time to help. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 18:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

George, it may not be any use, but since it only took a couple of minutes, just letting you know I cut out the title lettering at File:Quantum Leap (TV series) title.png. Begoon ^talk 07:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, George Ho. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Cheers (season 4) at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! JudyCS (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, George Ho/Archives/2013. Greetings from the Photography workshop. A reply has been made to your request. You may view the reply here.
If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: ((resolved|1=~~~~))

Begoon ^talk 09:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC).

You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((GL Photography reply)) template.

In regards to this edit, what are you hoping to accomplish be reopening the nomination? As noted in your comment, the article has already appeared on the Main page for eight hours. As we will be changing to eight hour updates in about 25 hours, there is a very strong argument that the article has already had its time on DYK. It seems the most likely result of reopening the nomination is having to just turn around close it with a rejection due to the previous appearance, rendering the reopened nomination moot. --Allen3 ^talk 23:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this when I reverted George's reopening of the nomination about an hour ago. My edit summary was much the same as what Allen3 has said: the nomination had appeared on the main page for over eight hours, which is longer than nominations will be getting starting tomorrow. If the nomination had run for an hour or two, I could see it being given another shot, but not with over eight. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

An editor is opposing your request at WP:RMTR. If you still think your title is the best, why not open a move discussion at Template talk:GA reassessment request using the ((Requested move)) template. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi George Ho, I've begun working on the copy-edit you requested at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page for the article What Is... Cliff Clavin?. Please feel free to contact me and to correct or revert my edits if necessary. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, George Ho. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for What Is... Cliff Clavin? at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! I tried to set the references to two columns but I received missing refs errors, so it seems as though the references need to be consistently formatted. The reference Richmond, Ray (2004). "This is Jeopardy!" needs a url. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi George Ho,

I have replied to your message at my user talk page. Please see here, thanks.

Best regards,

-QB

--Qwerty Binary (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

And again. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

And again. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

So you replaced the cleaner and larger US single cover image with a dull and wrinkled UK cover image. Really? Just because they are British? The song was recorded in France and they were living in the Miami at that time, so how is the UK cover that important? Lou72JG (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

They are British-born, so an image based on their nationalities must be used. As for "dull and wrinkled", I would prefer it that way because years went by, and readers already know that old sleeves become wrinkled or dull. Making the image would require a lot of skill. But that's not important. Wherever was recorded won't matter, and I don't think residence in Miami will change my mind about images. Speaking of recording, the source is a personal website, as the webmaster admits. Why is it used? --George Ho (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

George - I have no idea why you have decided to run around starting disagreements and requests for third opinions with me everywhere concerning, of all things, actions I took with your uploaded images that I thought you'd be pleased I was helping you out with. This is the first time in all the time I've spent working with you that your actions have really got under my skin. I'm disappointed and upset about it, if I'm honest. That's all I want to say, except that, since we no longer seem able to communicate, I'd rather you didn't come to me for advice any more. Sorry, but I think I deserved better treatment from you after the many hours I've spent trying to help you over a long period. That's all I really want to say. All the best. Begoon ^talk 17:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Look, we both didn't mean to get ourselves into the mess. Why are we fighting? We acknowledge that PNG is superior to JPEG. I had to obey, but you use common sense. Image may be an image, but... I don't know whether you should have asked me first or now, but that may imply my blaming on you. But I can't blame you. I can't blame circumstances. I can't blame anyone else, and I can't blame rules. Nevertheless, I don't think I was bureaucratic, was I? I didn't "misuse" policy. Maybe I didn't consider the "principles of policy"; I'll read Wikipedia:The rules are principles right now. It's not an essay, but an "information". --George Ho (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

No George. You forgot to consider lots of things. Let me know when you've thought it through if you like. At the moment I'm very disappointed with you. If you can upset me this much, when I understand better than most your tendency to be single-minded and literal, then that is not a good thing. You need to fix this, not me. You've really made a mess of my editing day for no good reason. That's a fact. And never, ever, is there a single word of thanks - for anything I do to help you. That gets pretty disheartening, you know. I hoped for better from you, really. And yes, read Wikipedia:The rules are principles, and understand it. There's a lot of sense in there, and it's how this place works best. Begoon ^talk 17:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Um... thank you for handling the behavioral matter at Talk:Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. Anything else? --George Ho (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

No, nothing else, George - the other tens of hours devoted to getting you unblocked, responding to your requests for help, advising you on things you didn't understand, dealing with users who abused you, giving you preferential treatment for image work, setting up pages to handle your mentorship, worrying about whether I was helping you as well as I could, defending you in multiple venues, and generally just being there whenever you wanted me (oh, except when I was offline for a few months) are all free. I never asked for thanks, and I'm not now. Just offering a perspective.

I'm truly shocked you would ask. Guess I just wasted all that time. A learning experience for me. Here you go - if it makes it clearer - that is one of the most ungrateful things I have ever heard on this site. Don't contact me again. Ever. I begin to suspect you've led me a merry dance all these months, and when I defended you against accusations as I did I may have been misguided. I'd love to think that was wrong, but I'd love even more not to think about it at all - so that's what I'll be doing. Have fun wikilawyering about things that don't matter and picking holes in someone else's arguments from now on. Ciao. Begoon ^talk 22:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

You can also, I'm afraid, take this conversation as my withdrawal from any lingering remnants of "mentorship". It's obvious I'm not needed any more, or helping, since my advice is ignored or of no use - and possibly quite rightly so. You'll do fine without my help. I wish you well with what you do here, George, in future, but I'm now convinced I can no longer help you with it - if I ever could do that as much as I hoped. Good luck, truly.

It would, however, serve you well in the future to recall the second sentence Elen used way back when she blocked you. "He needs to stop and just listen for a while". Not to me, since I'm pretty much done talking to you after today's petulant display - but for your own sake - find someone you can listen to. Just my last bit of advice... ttfn Begoon ^talk 20:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

You are not correct concerning The Detectives. The Television Academy's Archive of American Television, TV.com, and even the Four Star Productions database lists the show as "The Detectives starring Robert Taylor". Willgee (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I checked reliable sources, and they say "The Detectives". --George Ho (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Luk Siu-fung (1976 TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Teresa Cheung (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea why you feel the need to stick an original research tag onto the sentence when a dictionary was given as the source for the origin and meaning of the phrase. The only thing you can object to is the word "wandering" which is implied in the lines of the poem "[He roamed] from the edge of the world to the cape of the sea seeking me, [I] went to the edge of the world but can't find him". There are earlier instances of "tianya" and "haijiao" (or variations of the two words) used separately, but this is the earliest one used as one phrase listed in various dictionaries. You can just delete the word "wandering" if you are not happy with it, but don't make it sound like the whole sentence is made up. It is simply unhelpful. Hzh (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Ergs! may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * The Ergs! cover "Blockhead" by [[Devo]] (Teenage Bottlerocket cover Green Day's "Having a Blast" on the flipside.
• |''[Hindsight is 20/20, My Friend Vol. 2: Okay, Enough Reminiscing<ref>http://www.dorkrockcorkrod.com</

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz 1955.jpg File:Lucille Ball 1957.jpg We hope (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Lucille Ball 1943.jpg one I forgot ;) We hope (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Carolyn Jones and Aaron Spelling 1960.jpg Could have called this "I Married Morticia". :-) We hope (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, just a suggestion, but might be better to include the proposed title in the template rather than " ? " All the best. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

As I said, support the dab used in the majority of sources. Should be obvious to everyone what that is. Cheers! In ictu oculi (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you please indicate what your proposed move is. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I proposed either "(singer)" or "(musician)". At least you can propose "(performer)" or a similar sort, relating to music. --George Ho (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but the only thing I'm going to propose is an early close. Thanks for the attempt, but the next time filling out a template please put your best proposal in the move to redlink slot. A second redlink can follow in the rest of the template if theres a choice B. And, with all best regards, best not to flip the finger at the subject of a BLP in a RM nomination, just pisses people off :) In ictu oculi (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, George Ho. You have new messages at DarkToonLink's talk page.
Message added 00:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

George Ho, I award you the wet trout for Talk:Thriller_(Michael_Jackson_album)#Requested_move_4. How much of the community's time do you wish to waste? Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Apparently, Binksternet, he intends to waste a great deal. To my chagrin, I allowed him to waste a lot of mine, and through that, indirectly, that of others, over a far too long period. Mea culpa. We live, we learn... Begoon ^talk 18:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)