User talk:George Ho/Archives/2016/2

Orphaned non-free image File:Burj Rafal official photo website nighttime.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Files listed for discussion

Some of your images or media files have been listed for discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 21 if you are interested in preserving their usage.

• File:Sally Brampton.jpg

Thank you.

My talk page

I answered your post. You continue to be your own worst enemy. I don't think there's much I can do to help. Begoon ^talk 23:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Goodbye

Helllo George, I think that the copyright issues being discussed at FFD are a side issue. Obviously, if the image fails to pass FFD then it cannot be included in this article, but conversely, passing FFD does not necessarily make it suitable for inclusion here (though it might be suitable in other articles—Parlophone, for example.). As I understand, the matter in hand is primarily a content dispute: does the image in question provide significant information to the reader, or is just adding clutter? The established procedure for dealing with such disputes is to restore the stable version of the page until the dispute is resolved. HTH, Aquegg (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

How is the version with the UK image not a stable version, Aquegg? I added the image one month before the other party removed it without notifying me. I couldn't replace the US image, so I added the UK one as the extra instead. George Ho (talk) 09:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:I Want You by Marvin Gaye A-side US vinyl 1976.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:I Want You by Marvin Gaye A-side US vinyl 1976.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Sally Brampton

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Edward Leung Yiu-ming (May 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LaMona was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Edward Leung Yiu-ming and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LaMona (talk) 08:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello! George Ho, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! LaMona (talk) 08:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

"The Rambling Man's pomposity and uppity behavior"

Enough time-wasting please. Stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

No need to worry me anymore, TRM. I tried to stop you, but I failed. Therefore, I made it as my final one at ANI. Right now, I'm one of ANI's "drama queens". I hope you're happy because you know I'm gonna exit as soon as I am done with all that I created. When I leave, I hope you'll never see me again. --George Ho (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea why you're hell bent on this terminal exit nonsense. Just relax and do some things that you enjoy and that benefit Wikipedia. Right now you're destroying yourself here, a break would be a great idea if you decide to continue in your current editing pattern. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

George,

I don't understand. You say at the top of your page that you're aware that you "struggle to socialize and may not understand nuances of a conversation". That's a good thing to know about yourself; there are a lot of people around here who are not that self aware. I wish more people were.

The part I don't understand: why do you continue to act as if you are good at social communication, and do understand nuances of conversations? Why do you take it upon yourself to try to monitor/police/comment on other people's social interactions, when you know you aren't great at reading the situation? It's like you say something self-aware, but then don't act on that knowledge.

It seems to me you'd be much happier, more productive, and less disruptive if you not try to monitor/police/comment on any other people's behavior, ever. Don't you think so? Leave it to others, let it be someone else's problem?

If you can make that change, I am confident you could carve out a niche for yourself, happily doing something that doesn't require skill in that one area. If you can't make that change, then it would probably be best to leave Wikipedia. Whichever of those two choices makes you happiest is what you should do. What you shouldn't do is continue on this same path. It seems to make everyone - including you - miserable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, Floquenbeam, I struck out that notice and gave out a newer one then. George Ho (talk) 05:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't really complaining that the note was confusing (indeed, I thought it was fairly clear and useful). I was observing that you're not acting on the fact. I'm not asking you to do better at social interaction, I have a (limited) understanding of your situation. I'm asking you to not get embroiled in other people's social interaction when you know you're not good at reading them. And asking you to not assume the worst in other people's motivations, when you know you're not good at divining them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2016

As a participant of WikiProject LGBT studies, you are invited to participate in the third annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which runs through the month of June. The purpose of the campaign is to create and improve content related to LGBT culture and history. How can you help?

1. Create or improve LGBT-related Wikipedia pages and showcase the results of your work here
2. Document local LGBT culture and history by taking pictures at pride events and uploading your images to Wikimedia Commons
3. Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Looking for topics? The Tasks page, which you are welcome to update, offers some ideas and wanted articles.

This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. The group's mission is to develop LGBT-related content across all Wikimedia projects, in all languages. Visit the affiliate's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why this user page is on my watchlist; maybe it has to do with topics like Sam and Diane. Anyway, the above flyer is just what I'm needing for a director in my company who wants advice on organising an editathon for LGBT Pride Month. Thanks for hosting this, George. Even if you want to give editing a rest for a while, please leave your pages up as they can be useful in this way regardless. Andrew D. (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean "hosting this", Andrew? I just receive this invitation. George Ho (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• I mean that your talk page is showing the message, so helping to spread the word. It's like an automatic retweet, providing "pass-along value". I have forwarded these details to my corporate contact and so it goes... Andrew D. (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

YMCA single cover

It's been such a long time since I uploaded it that I really don't care (and it's late, and I'm tired). Yes, I can recover the Japanese cover if you'd like. Daniel Case (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead. I think that's a better idea anyway. Daniel Case (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Three years ago ...

cheers
... you were recipient no. 506 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Yesterday's Gone

Sure, you can replace the sheet music image with a label.--Batfan1966 (talk) 19:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Elián González

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you clarify? Nightscream (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The article details the Cuban-US relationship because for most of its existence, the article was about the custody battle in which he was centered, as indicated by its previous titles. As such, his childhood prior to his arrival in the U.S. was not very relevant. In any event, he was only six when he came to the U.S., so how much of his childhood prior to the event that made him famous do you think is covered in secondary sources, and would be significant for inclusion? What info would there be to add? The flavor of his fifth birthday cake? His grades in kindergarten? :-) If you know of secondary sources that can provide relevant information not already in the article, then by all means, add it, or link me to it, and I'd be more than happy to add it myself. Nightscream (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Move Review

I apologize, but could you clarify the issue, resulting in the Procedural close on Draft:Caiden Cowger?

"The result of the move request was: Procedural close. How many more namespace requests are used as RMs?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadioGuy98 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I changed the rationale to make it a little more sincere but still serious. --George Ho (talk) 07:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I sincerely thank you, and after visiting your page, I honestly hope that you do not retire. haha — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadioGuy98 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

"The Rambling Man's pomposity and uppity behavior" v2

Just wanted to say that I think it's a pity I did not see the ANI thread before it was closed. I concur with you, and at this point even think that TRM either going WP:DIVA or getting perma blocked would be the best for Wikipedia. He's even done things that Arbcom have sanctioned in the past (compare [1] and [2]). [3] is also a clear threat of off-wiki harassment which violates WP:NPA. If you ever get into another conduct dispute with him, or arbcom case, feel free to tag me. I may not agree with everything you say, but I'll defend your right to say it without getting bullied.

On another note, I notice TRM has been taking his battleground behaviour onto your talk page too. If you don't like it, it's your talk page, you can ask him not to post here. Check out WP:NOBAN. Banedon (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It's funny how TRM thanked me for making this edit. Heh. He knows I asked him not to tag me for (almost) any reason in the past, he knows he's not welcome on my talk page, and yet he still has a dire need to catch my attention. TRM, if you're reading this, do not thank me for any reason in the future. Banedon (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The guy's a total klutz. He can make perfectly good article edits (when it suits him), but instead he spends most of his time at ITN, treating it like his own personal fiefdom, bossing folks around and leaving snide and pompous little comments all over the place. It's like a fricken circus. Yes, WP:DIVA certainly fits the bill. "Mr Untouchable" also springs to mind. I'm sorry I do want to log in - I've suffered reprisals in the past. Good luck with any future action. It's certainly well overdue. 217.38.94.238 (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Unblock

George I noticed your Arbcom filing. Yes, the appeal needs to come from the user. See WP:UNBLOCK. Part of what people considering an unblock need to see, is an awareness from the person that they will not repeat the behaviors that led to the block. Without that an unblock appeal has almost no chance of succeeding. Your filing was good hearted. Kind of you. Jytdog (talk) 06:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Jytdog, that's correct, but it's not the main story. The real issue is that some things are delicate—real people are involved and real people can suffer real problems. Onlookers should not stir the pot unless there is a very good reason to pick open the old scabs. I infer from events so far that George Ho has no reason to raise this issue apart from some personal feeling. Assuming good faith, it follows that George Ho has no knowledge of the background and should withdraw immediately. The normal situation regarding what Jytdog said is not relevant (although it is perfectly correct), and raising unblock requests with no awareness of the issues is not kind. Johnuniq (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Johnuniq you are correct; I apologize. The road to hell... Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the consideration, but I would like to hear involved parties first. Then I'll decide whether to go on or withdraw. This Rod guy, John, reminds me of someone I have known, looking at evidence, but I'm unsure of how much both are the same. Still, he could set himself straight for others. George Ho (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

In the context: I recently filed amendment, for lifting the restrictions of Andy Mabbett, aka Pigsonthewing, and to his and my surprise that was granted after a while, but not without Gamaliel demanding a "substantial statement" by Andy several times, while Andy made only a short statement. My experience tells me: you can always try arbitration when there's not much to loose. I don't know what they'd have decided with no statement. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Gerda, there's a lot to lose in this case. Johnuniq is absolutely correct. There are some deeply personal and painful issues regarding the editor which led to his block and desysop. As someone who witnessed the original episode unfold, I feel it would be extremely unkind to air those issues publicly without confirmation of the editor's consent, and I hope ArbCom will reject it. Even then, given the nature of the original events, ArbCom may well feel that it is in his own best interest for the unblock discussion to be held via email. Voceditenore (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense. I just felt that "Yes, the appeal needs to come from the user." needed some qualification. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request closed

Hi George Ho. I've closed the Rodhullandemu amendment request you filed upon the direction of an arbitrator, as appeals of this should be filed by email and by the editor under sanction (Rodhullandemu). For the Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 13:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Assistance with exposition of backstory

If what you are asking about is how to present material regarding previous contacts or conflicts with other editors, either in some sort of AN or Arbitration or other discussion, I can well understand how you might want to have some help in getting the requisite material together. God knows I am far from being really good at it myself, but I have been hanging around ArbCom and the noticeboards for some time and I might be able to offer some help. Feel free to drop me a message on my talk page or in e-mail, if you think on-wiki comments might be problematic. John Carter (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Steven Universe.png

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Carniolus (talk) 08:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

"...works" vs "List..."

I don't want to disturb your conversation with Iridescent. Just don't understand why you need to pursue moving an article from a short name which can be found (Busoni works) to what grew now to the proposal "List of compositions and adaptations by ..." - count syllables and letters, - why not keep simple? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

To me, looking at "Busoni works"... "works" looks like a second-tense verb. Shall we do centralized discussion after the RMs are done, Gerda? George Ho (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

We know what it looks like to you. I think moving is a waste of time. (Don't we have more urgent concerns?) To have a centralized discussion is more waste of more time. Keep simple. "Busoni compositions" doesn't work, because there are adaptations and books, for him alone. Do you know a better general word than "works"? (Your heading is wrong, btw, it's not "Works" vs "List", but "Works" vs "List of compositions and adaptations by") --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

To you, it's a cluster (see below). But, if you keep complaining about it over and over, I think a centralized discussion works best if you want a change. BTW, I have a real-life essay to do to turn in. I added ellipses. --George Ho (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Rereading Talk:Carl Nielsen works and Talk:Piano works (Bruckner), Gerda, other alternatives by editors make the central discussion more desirable. --George Ho (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

English is not my first language, sorry: I don't know what you mean by "To you, it's a cluster." I don't understand why you'd do anything to make things more complicated (like trying to move away from a short name to a more complex one that is not easy to find). I go for simply adding to context, and avoid all extra discussions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

ps: I don't take "complaining about it over and over" well, - offering a piece of mentoring ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I know that discussions are not your interests, Gerda. Nevertheless, remember what you did at Talk:A Boy Was Born and elsewhere related to it? You... kinda overreacted to results and demanded rule change. Well, no one wanted to lowercase the verbs, so rules about verbs stick... unless something like dot the i is an exception. I believe you underestimate the value of central discussions. Central discussions are essential whenever people bicker and fight and/or to avoid warring over such matters. WP:consensus tells us to build mutual agreement... though lately, I acted like I had been "right" about everything until recent events got to me (I don't feel like talking about it). Nevertheless, this matter is unlike some lowercase vs. uppercase. Rather it is the wording of titling the content itself. By the way, I like your typing the redirects, as I am typing YMCA (song), whose current title has dots. (The RM was proposed but then rejected; I also don't feel like talking about it much.) George Ho (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

You probably don't have children, or would understand better that if parents give a name to a child, they don't like others to change it. Britten called that composition A Boy was Born, - no "warring" would have happened if people had simply accepted that. - Please don't ping me twice in the same discussion, - offering another piece of mentoring ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

...If you are not interested in starting a central discussion, then where can I discuss this matter generally? Suggestions? George Ho (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I asked you two questions (I don't know what you mean by "To you, it's a cluster." - Do you understand that Britten called HIS composition A Boy was Born?) which you didn't answer (to offer another piece), you come with a different one. Hold your discussions where you think it's needed, but don't expect me to participate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I should have "redundant", not "cluster" because I didn't know what "cluster" means. It won't matter how his composition was published. Actually, the Oxford University Press published it that way because it used its old rules in the past. I don't think Britten was responsible for it. --George Ho (talk) 06:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, if you keep insisting on what you wanted, you're making the same mistakes that I have made. I regretted them; I don't want that happen to you. George Ho (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Wait... that doesn't sound right. Actually, we are two warriors battling for whatever we want to do. We... I'm not good at describing metaphors accurately. George Ho (talk) 06:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Wait, that doesn't sound right. I am no warrior other than in defense ;) - In the case of the composition: why not assume in good faith that the publisher followed Britten's wish? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing we can do about "Britten" thing for now. I brought it up because of your... (If that's not recklessness or persistence, then what is?) on titling. Of course, if you insist on turning it into another "like" debacle, I can't stop you. But, to be frank, I'm too tired to battle with others about capitalization because that wore my energy out. George Ho (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Can we agree that without a move request, our energies could have been used better? - If something works, why change? So many things are missing! I just created a stub. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems that we are driving ourselves away from the OP. I added a new section below. You can discuss the original topic if you wish, but I guess you seemed more interested in the other. George Ho (talk) 07:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The way it "was" or "Was"

In response to your insistence, Gerda, somehow I guess you still don't get how rules work. I know they go against original publications, but the rules didn't prevent us from improving the title. ... Oh, what's the use? Why are we fighting over this? I was hoping that you move on as I have, but I guess I was wrong. Maybe you should go to WT:MOSCAPS to discuss it again? However, you'll never reach consensus. They'd hound you again... am I right? --George Ho (talk) 07:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I tried to find some common ground, and insist on that ;) - Can we agree that creating articles is more important than minimal changes to page titles? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we should use level-2 header instead. That way, we can discuss two separate things. I don't want this to be the subsection. Also, this is my user talk page, and I have privileges. Of course, you can adjust your own posts, but that's all. About creating articles... I don't want to create them as mere distinctions from other uses of the same name. In fact, notability is also important. Of course, creating article is important. So is titling, but the capitalization is not that important unless it dissolves into a tirade. The importance is the wording of the title, from which you we are driving yourself ourselves away. Another importance would be consistency with other titles. --George Ho (talk) 07:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Shall we go back to the above? George Ho (talk) 07:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No. You didn't answer my question: Can we agree that creating articles is more important than minimal changes to page titles? Which - at least for me - implies not to start a move request for such a miniature change? No tirade would follow, if no request was made. - You didn't answer my question above: why not assume in good faith that the printed title is what the composer wanted? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of importance, I have already done requests at Talk:Alone yet Not Alone, Talk:This Ugly yet Beautiful World, Talk:Four past Midnight, Talk:None but the Brave, etc. Too late to say no; I've done such changes that did not go to the length of "like" debate. Hopefully, "Was" should not go to that level. And we should have no original research, i.e. assumptions on composer's wishes. How is "was" not an original research? George Ho (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, I'm staying away from titles containing "as" since Talk:As Long as You Love Me. George Ho (talk) 08:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

After the "like" mess, I'm staying away from "like" as well. Also, look at Talk:The Time Is Not Yet Ripe. No opposition, eh? George Ho (talk) 08:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Do what you have to do, but don't ask me to understand. You brought up the Boy, not I, I didn't mention that topic (which still hurts me when I think of it, - back to that you probably don't have children), for a long time. Sorry if I showed too much vulnerability. Enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I apologize. I shouldn't have hurt your feelings. I don't want both of us to have any more bad terms between us. I have so plenty bad terms with others, and I regretted it. Certain people won't talk to me. I don't want this happen to both of us also. Maybe we can respect each other's opinions fairly? Or how do we make up to each other? George Ho (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

In the course of this discussion, you mentioned (more or less about me): complaining, overacted, demanded rule change, OR, warrior, tirade, recklessness, persistence, insist. All this because I believe that the world would still be fine if nobody had placed a move request on the Boy? - What did I say that I should rather avoided? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

To me, you appeared that way, but you had good intentions. Nevertheless, people agree on how English works, and your proposal didn't reflect how it does to them. You did your best, but you couldn't (if not can't) change how and what they do and should do. On the safer side, because of the prior lowercasing of "was", I didn't make a tech request. I just thought it would have been potentially controversial, and my fears came true. Still, it was more constructive than I would (or wouldn't) have done otherwise. As for the second question, I don't know what or where? Was it in Talk:A Boy Was Born? Or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 11#Composition titles again? George Ho (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I was crying with sympathy while I was typing the above. Honest. George Ho (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Please, don't cry for me, - but I appreciate the sentiment. I tell you a little story. Once upon a time there was an editor who found on the day the world remembered that a certain boy was born (because it was 100 years later) that the boy's composition was mentioned in the lead of his article (TFA that day) but had no article yet, so wrote said article, at least a stub, asking the main contributor "Is it "Was" or "was"?" No answer, so she did her research, resulting in "was". Somewhat later, Christmas coming up, she remembered that it celebrates another boy being born, so thought it would make a nice DYK on Christmas Eve. - It could have ended there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

You can tell me what happen right away, but I'm going to bed. I'll read this story when I wake up. ;) --George Ho (talk) 10:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

You seem to sleep long ;) - completely different request: too many, partly conflicting notes on the top of this page (school - college - retirement - explanation), - you can borrow my simple image (same position) if you like it, or change the model, - anyway: try to be inviting, not confusing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Thanksgiving Orphans has been accepted

Thanksgiving Orphans, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Ringbang (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)