User talk:George Ho/Archives/2017/July

RfC notifications

Regarding this edit: some of the venues to which you post notifications aren't really suitable. For example, in the edit I linked to, the RfC isn't about a proposal as described at the top of the Village Pump (proposals) page. In the interest of targeting specific appropriate audiences, perhaps you could ensure that your notifications are limited to the most relevant project pages? It would be greatly appreciated. isaacl (talk) 06:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I apologize, Isaacl. It's not easy for me to notify whichever projects and village pump to notify. If I notify more WikiProjects, that'd be seen as excessive. Do you want me to retract that notification from the village pump? I'll do so. --George Ho (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I"m not sure I follow; notifying the Village Pump about content discussions is excessive and not a replacement for notifying the specific projects that are interested in a topic. Particularly if you find it difficult to identify the appropriate projects, I think it would be best if the interested parties determined the appropriate projects to notify, rather than your trying to do it for them. isaacl (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... Well... ... ... I'll take your advice, Isaac, so thanks. I'll partially rephrase about the example you mentioned: What about that notification I made in the "Proposal" subpage? May I leave it alone or remove it myself? Therefore, I'll clean that up. Fair? --George Ho (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're asking: first you ask if you should remove the notification that I linked to, and then you say you're going to remove it. My advice, for what it's worth, is that since it just went up, you can safely delete it without issue. isaacl (talk) 07:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Removed. --George Ho (talk) 07:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding these edits: perhaps you can help me understand why you believe these discussions are relevant for those following the Notability guideline page? isaacl (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Isaacl: Regarding the Wikibooks discussion, Wikipedia's search engine collects existing data. Whenever a user tries to type a nonexistent term, the user may be shown search results from selected sister projects. Non-notable terms can be used to search existing data. (Moved to opening) I didn't think WP:deletion policy. Any user can use terms to search for deleted pages but will realize that there are search results from sister projects. For the WP:RY guideline discussion, inclusions of events in "year" articles, like "2017", have been debated. --George Ho (talk) 04:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC); moved underlined, 04:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Scratch that; I forgot that I already did. George Ho (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, regarding WP:RY, Isaacl, international prominence of events have been challenged and/or debated. --George Ho (talk) 05:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, as far as I can tell, you just summarized what the discussions were about (I've skimmed through them so I already know). I don't understand why you believe that someone who is interested in the notability guideline would be particularly interested in these discussions. isaacl (talk) 05:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Isaacl: Reason for notifying them about the Wikibooks discussion? Users have used the search engine to find out whether article about one notable subject exists. If nonexistent, they can be directed to search results, including ones from sister projects recently implemented. About the notification of the "Recent years" guideline discussion... I removed that one as the RY guideline is based on editorial discretions. --George Ho (talk) 05:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, the cross-wiki search results may influence a user's decisions to create or edit an article about something. --George Ho (talk) 05:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Editors interested in the notability guideline are interested in how English Wikipedia sets the standards for having an article. This has nothing to do with how users search for Wikipedia articles, or articles in other Wikimedia projects. I appreciate that you wish to be helpful in ensuring that discussions have adequate participation, but unfortunately your habit of putting notifications on irrelevant or only tangentially relevant talk pages gives an impression of someone overreaching in their efforts. As you said earlier you had trouble identifying appropriate places to put notifications, my suggestion is that you would be more effective providing assistance in a different way. Perhaps you can leverage your strengths in some way to help the community? isaacl (talk) 05:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Recently, isaacl, I have been neutrally requesting closures on discussions, especially at WP:ANRFC. That can help the community, right? Also, I know which WikiProjects related to one article topic are to be notified. That's something, right? ...Maybe I can figure out my own other strengths and help the community... ...Maybe I can figure out about myself. Thanks. I will keep that in mind. --George Ho (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

My personal feeling (that some others share) is that it's better to let the interested parties request closure at the RfC closure noticeboard. Having someone drop in to do it seems to remove the initiative from the active participants to work out a resolution. That being said, some times discussions get stuck. However it's not always clear the best result is to request a formal closure. For example, if it's pretty clear there is no consensus, then just letting the discussion end may be better than stirring up the issue again. Thanks for considering how to use your strengths to help out! isaacl (talk) 06:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Isaacl. However, I'm not sure whether informal closures by an involved party are usually appropriate. One closure was recently undone. Nonetheless, sometimes or occasionally I do involved closures because I can see a clear consensus, like Talk:Cold War II#RfC: "Novel risks and measures for preventing escalation" section. But I guess I'll let someone else request a closure... right? If no one else can, then when can I request it at WP:ANRFC or WP:AN? --George Ho (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Then again, I guess requesting a closure is not necessary for some article discussions about one topic. --George Ho (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

But then again, requesting closures for central discussions may be necessary. How was the joint closure on the WP:NSPORTS discussion personally? I thought it went well. --George Ho (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Note I didn't say involved parties should close a discussion; I just said, in my view, they should be the ones who work towards an agreement and request a closure if necessary. There are a lot of competing factors that make it difficult to give hard-and-fast rules, and it's also subject to personal judgment, so I can't think of any specific guidance beyond what I've said. Regarding the joint closure of the discussion of the sports-specific notability guideline, well, I offered my opinion at the time. Part of what concerns me about your handling of certain interpersonal-related matters is that some of your comments seem to show that you find it challenging to interpret the opinions of others. Unfortunately I don't really know what to suggest to help. Maybe there's someone to whom you can speak in person about these types of questions so they can provide you with more timely feedback? isaacl (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... maybe I'll remove the notice and then post the notice to WT:NOT, whose project page mentions Wikibooks. Fair, Isaacl? --George Ho (talk) 05:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Ask yourself the question: if I'm interested in trying to clarify what types of content is suitable for English Wikipedia, would I be specifically interested in whether or not the search box shows results in other Wikimedia projects? Personally, I don't see a lot of connection. I don't wish to take on the full time role of vetting your thoughts on where to post notifications (if I were going to do invest time on thinking about that, I'd just post notifications myself), so again I feel you may be better suited for a different task than posting notifications. isaacl (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

From Legacypac

You made a number of unusual accusations at ArbCom that only muddy the water. Specifically, I've moved plenty of pages but none since the topic ban on page moves (one I don't agree with, but can work around). I was not aware of the Obama bin thing being previous discussed, I just happened upon a mention on some talk page and found it inappropriate. Redirecting Draft:Topic X to Mainspace Topic X is perfectly normal. On the rare occasion there is useful merge content, I'll merge it. I've never been involved with gamergate (its a huge stupid timesink) I only nominated an old drafting page on the topic for deletion, which closed as redirect, which is perfectly fine and what I expected. I would have just redirected it myself on any other topic, but given the sensitivity of the topic, having an MfC result with an Admin doing the redirect is more definitive. I also have not edit warred on RBSS, I removed POV junk that turned the story of group from being against ISIL to supporting ISIL. I posted my rational on the talk page. I've NOT refused to cooperate - that is a wild misreading of the situation. I can't discuss some of the things you posted, but I'd urge you to edit your statement to ensure accuracy and not accuse me of crimes based on misreadings and misunderstandings. 04:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh on Individual Quick Freezing I deleted a redirect (not an article) and moved in an article on the topic from draft or userspace. That is a good thing. Legacypac (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

My apologies. I struck part of it out, Legacypac. Is the statement more accurate? --George Ho (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Also amended my words. --George Ho (talk) 04:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank-you for being so responsive. I have no specific interest in Biographies, there are just tons of them abandoned in user and draft space where I do a lot of cleanup. Perhaps the large number of bios is because most non-bio topics are covered in mainspace but there are 7 billion people in the world who have yet to get their autobio promoting their failing singing career/self published book they can't give away/Youtube channel with 3 subscribers/uninteresting business/normal life etc, accepted on Wikipedia. I'd rather not have an ArbCom case that covers several broad areas operating under my personal username. If you want a different case, go start one, please don't takeover this one. Thanks again. Legacypac (talk) 05:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome, Legacypac. I also struck and amended more of my misassumptions out about biographies. To be honest, I don't want them to accept the full case. I just hope a motion is effective enough to make the two-way IBAN and your topic-ban more effective. --George Ho (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, I've never suggested I can't live with the page move to mainspace restriction. I think it an unnecessary restriction but it's easy enough to work around until lifted. I maintain a page that shows my track record User:Legacypac/Promotions and assists me in tracking any efforts to delete promoted pages. Legacypac (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Reg Grundy 20 September 2010.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Reg Grundy 20 September 2010.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Quick question

The associated deletion discussion has been closed with a recommendation to follow your advice. Per this comment, were you suggesting re-licensing the image as "cc-by-3.0", or were you saying that the current CC 3.0 license (i.e. "cc-by-sa-3.0") was sufficient? I'd be glad to re-license it as "cc-by-3.0" if you think that would be a better fit. Thanks in advance. -Thibbs (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Thibbs. I'll rephrase what I said: I added the "cc-by-sa-3.0" to indicate the copyright of the photo. However, the prize(s) is still non-free, so don't remove that "non-free" license tag. --George Ho (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Thibbs. My adjustment was reverted because the OTRS ticket is not yet verified. I'm afraid we should treat the image like "non-free" and not make any more licensing adjustments indefinitely. --George Ho (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

No worries. I appreciate the help you've been so far. Sadly I don't have the user rights to see what is happening at OTRS, but I wonder if you happen to know how one goes about getting an OTRS ticket verified? I sent a copy of my discussion with the photographer to OTRS years ago, and I remember specifically asking for and receiving permission from the author to upload and license the image at Wikipedia. That course of action had been recommended to me earlier by an OTRS person after I had gained permission from another photographer without licensing specified who then withdrew permission when I started asking the licensing questions required by OTRS (long story related to this image ultimately culminating in disappointment on all sides). So my assumption has been that photographic licensing could be arranged by the uploader after the establishment of an agency relationship with the photographer. Now does the OTRS verification require that the original photographer directly contact WikiMedia to affirm the veracity of the documents (which I forwarded to them) that establish the agency relationship? Or is the validity of this kind of a relationship just no longer recognized by OTRS? Unfortunately, either way it may have to sit unlicensed indefinitely because the photographer's website is long gone and I'm not sure I could reach him again. So the whole question might be moot, but just out of curiosity do you know how to get OTRS tickets verified? -Thibbs (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't know either, Thibbs. I'm not an OTRS volunteer. Nonetheless, how about WP:OTRS noticeboard? They can help you, I hope. --George Ho (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Billionaire boys club miniseries 1987 print ad.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Billionaire boys club miniseries 1987 print ad.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for posting

Thanks for posting the June move review log to ANRFC. I was about to do it myself. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Re LGBT films category

Hi. I responded on my talk page, but I realized I didn't answer your question. Please go ahead and put on that template you requested. I don't have the technical know how. GetSomeUtah (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC facilitation

Regarding this edit: I hate to say this, as I believe you mean well, but I think it may be better for you to sit back a bit and stop trying to facilitate RfCs. Your reaction to being told that no more closers were needed and that the response of the WMF was irrelevant to how the discussion should be closed was to say you were going to request another closer, which demonstrates difficulty in taking feedback into account and group dynamics. And your comment is far too complex, with its multiple nested numbered lists and hypotheticals. You are overcomplicating the matter, and unfortunately you haven't been able to realize this after much feedback. I urge you to find a different way to make your contributions to the project; I have confidence that you will be able to find a better path! isaacl (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

In other words, Isaacl, I have to withdraw the request to find more editors at WP:AN, right? And I can't ask any more proposers about asking how many closers, right? I can request closures at WP:ANRFC instead without asking for any more closers, right? Fine, I won't facilitate... Actually, can you give me examples of facilitating RfCs, so I won't do them anymore? --George Ho (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Just leave everything as it is. You made the request already; let people decide for themselves if they want to respond. You can tell me: what actions do you do at an RfC (or related to an RfC) other than comment directly on the question being asked? Why do you do them, particularly for RfCs where you don't seem to be expressing any particular opinions on the matter under discussion? isaacl (talk) 23:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, Isaacl. I start RFCs, like ones at Talk:Cold War II/Archive 2 and Talk:Death of Alan Kurdi#Proposed merge with Nilüfer Demir. Usually, I thought RFC process is needed for outside opinions, especially when voters are split. I do that because I wanted to (re)do an edit. When either a discussion goes stale, or an RFC tag is removed, I could request closure at WP:ANRFC. I also do them because some articles have empty talk pages where almost no one visits. If I see snow oppose, I just withdraw a proposal, like Talk:Christina Grimmie#RfC: Photo of Grimmie's killer.

However, those were before recently re-reading WP:RFC#Before starting the process. Now I realize that sometimes an RFC process is unnecessary. For example, Talk:Breitbart News#Reinsert "described as" in opening sentence? didn't need an RFC due to huge opposition. The issue's not that challenging. Really, it's not. I wouldn't request closure on that one because I know what the results would be and because I can tell the consensus. In the case of the referrer info, while there may be a consensus, the "strong consensus" is needed before the proposer can ask WMF to implement the referrer info policy and abide to the results. Even the proposer himself requested multiple editors to volunteer the joint closure last month. --George Ho (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

This is part of the problem: I asked you specifically about RfCs where you are not directly involved in the question at hand, and instead you talk about RfCs you have started. Now when there's a miscommunication just between you and me, no big deal; but if it happens in the full view of a crowd of argumentative editors, it can make them less willing to work with you. The question is why do you feel a need to help out at RfCs like the one on the referrer info? If the author of the proposal wants to request multiple closers, he can do it without your aid. (Plus the number of closers really has nothing to do with establishing a strong consensus.) Simply put: don't assist other people's RfCs, as your efforts are often counterproductive. I agree with your assessment that you should be more selective about starting RfCs; a lot of questions can get resolved through discussion of the immediately interested parties. In general, I suggest watching from the sidelines more, and trying to learn from editors who have some success at interpreting group dynamics. isaacl (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh... sorry about misunderstanding your question, Isaacl. Well, here's one that I've not been directly involved in. I did ask the proposer of one RFC about gender neutrality style (or whatever) because I was unsure about how many closures. I was told that more than one was unnecessary, so I went to ANRFC to ask one person to volunteer. Someone took it and closed the discussion. Consequently, the closure was criticized as poorly done and wrong. Then I asked for closure review, and then the closure was shortly undone. A few days later, the proper closure was done. --George Ho (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)