This is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit this archive page. To start a new discussion or revive an old one, please use the current talk page.
Hi Begoon, I just want to apologize for what I did about your talk page from the bottomof my heart. It was very unintentional and I really felt sorry about the missing talk box. I am hoping for your consideration and forgiveness. -Nofoolz
I don't think you need to apologise for anything at all. As far as I could see you were just trying to improve the encyclopedia by fixing up a similar thing for List of best-selling albums in the Philippines and you made a mistake and saved the wrong page. Nothing wrong with making a mistake - I make lots of them, and it's all been fixed very easily, so don't worry about it, and enjoy your editing. Cheers. Begoontalk09:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for this, but hey, at some point I thought that the Simple Minds were like almost on a par with U2. (In fact, I bought Live in the City of Light, which the store owner let me return that same afternoon.) Also, I am guilty of having bought a Handspring. Still, it's appreciated. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Heh - you're welcome. I just tell it as I see it. I had an 8 track and an Abba LP, so I find it hard to condemn your taste crimes. Cheers. Begoontalk01:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh! Yes--Arrival and a Musik Laden compilation. My father had an 8-track player in his car with some ABBA as well--that awful "Thank you for the music" album. (He was also a big Neil Diamond and Johnny Cash fan, so he wasn't all wrong.) Later, Drmies (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Arrival was the one. Complete with some kind of fake electronic bagpipey choral folky nonsense I seem to recall, although I'd rather not recall too much, or I'll get to "Dum, dum, diddle"... I tried to be "trendy" at the time by professing to "prefer" the brunette lady to the blond one. Happy days... Begoontalk05:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'd prefer it if you made requests for graphics work on the workshop page. That way is better for you too, because if I can't do it, one of the other editors at the workshop may be able to, but they won't see it here. Begoontalk02:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Please read the question properly, and answer it in the proper place - at WP:GL/ILL. If you don't understand the question, then please say so. Thanks. Begoontalk17:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Well I'm sure you're very good at whatever your native language is. You're not the first, and you won't be the last, person who comes here to get quick, easy help converting logos and such to vectors - we've seen that more times than you can imagine, and we fully understand the temptation to get easy help that way - it's a very active graphic workshop we have here.
My offer stands that if you can demonstrate you've done your best to get help on your own wikipedia, and you are really stuck, you can ask me here. I promise, in those circumstances, to help as much as I can.
Please don't take anything I've said too personally - but please also understand that we donate our time as we see fit, and to those we feel will benefit most from it.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I actually think I prefer that too - more dignified with the desk and in setting. Good choice - just wanted to give you the option. Begoontalk15:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thank you for removing the watermarks. You really saved me... I spent hours searching how can I remove them. Anyway, there are a lot of other images that have the same watermark and since the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop doesn't allow a lot of pictures to be put on the list, I listed only four of them. What should I do about the others? My love is love (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
They are quite tricky because of the way they are placed, and the nature of some of the low-res images. Are you going to use them in articles? You could tag them with {{watermark}} but I don't know how quick that would be. That relies on some kind soul coming along to do them. How many is "a lot?" Begoontalk16:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, provided they are going to be used in articles, we can put them through the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop/Eight Requests which would probably get them done in a week to 10 days or so (we can have more than 8 requests at a time). How does that sound?
If any are urgent I can't see the harm in sticking another batch of 4 you want to use in articles right away in the main workshop.
I'll move this to the workshop, because more graphists might get interested and they won't see it on my talk page. Begoontalk17:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi George. It's been a long day and I'm just going to bed. I'll have a look first thing tomorrow, but I'd suggest not worrying about it in the meantime, and not doing anything to further any disagreement. I promise the first thing I do tomorrow will be to look at it and let you know what I think. I hope you are feeling well - I've noticed you've been a bit more active lately - lots of good article work and image stuff. Speak to you tomorrow. Begoontalk20:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I took a look - ugh. This is a storm in a teacup. I replied there: [1]. Honestly, it's all a misunderstanding, and best everyone moves on - I can see both sides to the mini disagreement, and it's really not worth any more words. When you deal with stuff that is topical and recent you will run into strong opinions - political articles often have editors who feel strongly about the subject matter, and in this case the editor is rightly proud of the work he has done on the article. I think his reactions were too strong - but I understand why he thought you were being biased, even though I know you weren't. Opinions of Travyon don't have much to do with merging the article, and expressing them like you did can make the discussion heated.
I think enough has probably been said about the disagreement, but I'm happy to talk to you about anything I said that you don't understand - or any remaining concerns you have about it all. Best just to all get on with the good work we do - and if I can help you do that, just ask.
I was pleased to see JBarta managed to get a good result for you on your Golden Girls logo - and pleased to see you are making good use of it. Begoontalk04:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Begoon, I think you should check about this, should this article available here? Plus the source are only from the Philippines media. Thanks. — иz нίpнόpʜᴇʟᴘ!11:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't personally get too involved with it until the news settles down, and there's a clearer picture of the whole thing. I'm not a big fan of articles springing up while news is developing, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DEADLINE, but there are enough people here who seem to think we should be a news source that I predict a shitfight if you tried to AFD it now. I'd give it some time and see what develops, unless you feel strongly about it. Cheers.Begoontalk11:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I think I would just leave it like that at the moment, but I would reverts any of his edits on this article ([2]) because Sabah and Sarawak doesn't have any separatist rebels group. — иz нίpнόpʜᴇʟᴘ!11:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah - that's fair. As you say there if Sabah/Sarawak wanted anything along those lines it would be independence for themselves, not anything like that. We'll see how it goes. Begoontalk11:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
To avoid the impression of forum shopping, try to limit yourself to one discussion at a time, and wait until each one reaches a consensus. This will help you in the later discussions because you will already know most of the objections by then.
Try not to respond to everyone who opposes your point of view, to avoid looking like you want to dominate discussions. I know that can be hard, but if you try very hard to make all your points in your initial post, and then only respond again if absolutely necessary, it makes your position look more confident, and stronger, and you don't get dragged into pointless back/forth exchanges.
That means do a lot of thinking before the initial post, trying to anticipate what the objections will be, and addressing them up front. Begoontalk03:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your tips. I wasn't aware changes had to go through the process you mentioned.
The bulk of the content under "Race Relations" is very controversial, unbalanced and without references. It is also heavily biased towards a certain goal. I have checked and made the changes with references to scholars and quotes from those involved in the events mentioned. They are verifiable. There must be sufficient revision to avoid this biased opinion and work towards a more balanced view as would be found in Encyclopedia Britannica. History cannot be written from one point of view or having others' views rejected. If you can first provide scholarly references to those which I feel need to be edited, we can discuss those points and take it from there, as these changes need to be made.
As I indicated, the place to propose large changes such as you think are necessary, is Talk:History of Malaysia (link...), so you should start a new section there, proposing your changes in detail, to discuss it. Editors with that article on their watchlist will see your post, and are more likely to join a discussion there, than here on my talk page where it will be just you and I.
Quite possibly it will be easy to reach agreement there about what changes, if any, consensus feels should be made to the article.
It's important to keep personal opinion out of our articles, so you should take care that you only propose inclusion of what reliable sources have said, neutrally, and in a balanced way, considering also sources with other interpretations. Changes which deal with content neutrally are much more likely to find consensus than ones which seem slanted to a particular viewpoint or purpose. Cheers. Begoontalk03:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I shall start a dialogue there. I agree that matters written should not be controversial but it was the controversial nature of some of the content without references that led me to balance with some things similarly controversial. After all, there is never one side to the story.Knerys (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, there are usually many sides to most stories. The important thing is that we achieve balance, and that we base that balance on the reliability, strength and relative weight of our sources. Thanks. Begoontalk14:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
A message from SayaamRulz
I'm sorry about this whole horrible business, it's just that lately nearly all my edits are being reverted mostly because they mess up the articles and i can pretty much be proven wrong from any angle when I try to make a worthy contribution to Wikipedia. It's just that when I checked Katy Perry's page on Billboard - roar wasn't on it - it wasn't even ON the billboard hot 100. i just thought it was a crazy fan trying to make her look good when I can't even properly reference without looking at other references as a template. Anyway, I am TRULY sorry for any bitter feelings caused and I hope we can co-operate properly in the future. :) XXX — Preceding unsigned comment added by SayaamRulz (talk • contribs) 21:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey - if I didn't think it was worth it I wouldn't have left you a message. It's simple, really - stop treating Wikipedia as a place to show how right you are, like you did with the silly image wars on the Kesha article, stop ignoring good advice, like you've done at the Katy Perry articles, and start being friendly and co-operative with other editors. That's all.
If Wikipedia does one thing well, it's forgiving bad behaviour - all you need to do is change, and people will forget the old you, just like that.
You like pop music articles, so get involved on the talk pages and the projects, but do it to help and co-operate, not to fight and prove points. There really is nothing else to it - treat it like any hobby you would do with a group of friends. People will react to the way you are with them. The more you help and work with them, the more they will help and work with you...
And that's my speech for today . Nothing else to it, really - simple. Let me know if I can help you with anything, and enjoy yourself. Good luck. Begoontalk22:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
This whole situation is going out of control, and I can't control it any further. Even worse, we are waiting for a consensus, and the votes are getting huge. I don't know when you will vote on this. --George Ho (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
No, there are plenty of voices of reason there already, all drowned out by the noise. I have better things to do than shout into that kind of mess - and so do you. If you forced me to answer, I'd say that it shouldn't have been moved, and it makes me a little sad someone did that - but seriously, all those words, and all that drama - nope, not my kind of discussion, sorry. You should identify dramafests like this as a waste of words at this point. Your voice, or mine, will not be heard above that din. Time heals all. Nothing is so important it must be done this second on this encyclopedia. It'll sort itself out - and if it hasn't done so in a week or so, I might make a very short comment - but as for throwing myself into that melee, no thank you, not going to happen, even for you, George (and you know I would support you in most things if I thought there was any point right now). Sorry. Begoontalk17:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission
Well, actually, yes. Give me a good reason why, or tell me how to put transparency in a jpeg and I might agree. Those are just guidelines, to be interpreted with a bit of common sense. Even if the page says "policy" that doesn't mean we don't use common sense. There are thousands of photographs saved as png here and at Commons, often for that very reason - that you can't have transparency in a jpeg, and they are circular or odd shaped. You're being far too literal about that page. Begoontalk15:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
George - you are being silly now. Please stop it. I tell you what, if it makes you feel any better I'll add the word "generally" to the "policy" page, and see if anyone reverts me. You are being far too literal about something that is common practice. Begoontalk16:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean - a "rule of thumb" is exactly that - a rule that isn't a rule - a guide. Something to which you apply common sense. You might notice I've used the term "common sense" several times now - that's a clue that it's important... Begoontalk16:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I know what "common sense" is: a sense or reaction to what is commonly known. "Common sense" is used to, most often, scold others for not knowing what is commonly known. but WP:common sense is an essay. WP:IUP#Rule of thumb is what you're looking for; I guess it's not common sense, is it? --George Ho (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
George - I'm going to be honest here. You are really annoying me. I don't know why you've got a bee in your bonnet about this, and I don't know why you won't listen to what I'm saying. I'd rather not discuss it any more thanks. I've given you all the advice I can - if you want to ignore it, feel free. Begoontalk16:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
There dose appear to be an off white background, which they may wanted removed to give transparency - I won't upload it (3rd version). I'll leave it you - Cheers FOX 52 (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by an off white background. If you're talking about the GIF that just looks like crap in the image to me where someone has tried to cut it out badly. The original svg has a white box behind the lettering and symbol for background - and the lettering itself is white shapes. Problem with making it transparent is it will pick up background colours in some uses on wikipedia and elsewhere. Sure looks like it's supposed to be white to me.
On another matter, that logo you did recently for the Indian Reserve Police, I really wouldn't have done - the requester said he had sent an email, and the colours are different to the logo they use on their main web page, and the one you can see in the background on placards at presentations etc - the yellow is nearer to gold, and there are other differences. Sorry if you think that's fussy - but it's not a race, and we don't need to rush to do something that might be wrong. That's just my opinion.
The I-League logo you drew was fantastically accurate, though - a perfect match, colours and gradients - really impressive work. Begoontalk18:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah there are actually two layers of white background, not sure what the original artist was trying to do. So in either case it looks good – job well done - Thanks for complements all round FOX 52 (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, Plantation Shutters is however a registered trade mark to Plantation Shutters PTY Ltd in South Africa - this is a fact same as Coke is a registered trademark of The Coca-Cola Company in the United States. Please advise? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.159.223 (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Advise? Sure... I advise you to stop adding it, since it is a waste of your, and other editors' time.
The fact that a company has the same name as a type of shutter is no reason to add it to the article. It adds nothing of encyclopedic value - see WP:NOT for a list of the things wikipedia is not - including a trade listing, or a place to promote a company or business.
It will continue to be removed as wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. Coca Cola is a WP:NOTABLE company, hence it has its own article. If (and only if) the company you are referring to fulfils the criteria at that blue link link it could have an article too - but shoehorning it into a general article like this is not acceptable.
If you are associated with the company you should also read WP:COI.
That particular article and related articles are magnets for promotional additions like this on a regular basis, editors expect and are alert to it, and additions such as this are quickly removed. Thank you. Begoontalk12:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Education in India
I have tried to answer your complaint about my contribution in the Talk page of the Education in India page. Don't you at least agree that the photograph, if not the caption, can be there?
Khaydock (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Some related content can perhaps be there too - if you can show it is notable, and write it neutrally and encyclopedically, supported by reliable sources. I replied there. Begoontalk13:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Could you please make a variant of the image? I would like to see what it looks like if the magnified section is displaced to the lower right. The issue is aspect ratio. "Tall" images are very hard for me to fit into articles and even onto laptop screens. I think I have a good place/way to display your creation (centered as section header), but I need "wide" rather than "tall".
Yeah, tomorrow. It's a valid request, and I admit it crossed my mind while I was doing it - portrait images can be hard to fit in that way. I'll see what I can come up with. Begoontalk18:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll need an alternative to the circle - too big as it is, and squashed anyway because of that - definitely too big as the right hand half of a landscape. I liked your "torn paper" idea, but it looks too "corny" in an svg. Works if you can use a bitmap texture for the paper as well, but that's all getting a bit much for a scientific diagram. Probably end up as a rounded corner rectangle/square with some cheap drop shadows or something. Depends if I do it before or after beer o'clock... See how we go. Begoontalk20:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I want you to play and use creativity. I am a pusher...but also need to learn to let artists be artists (not just in Wiki, but in business, sports, etc.) I would buy you one. Don't worry about perfection...just "play". :-) 71.127.131.41 (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
What would actually help is if you can think of some content to go:
-------------------------------------
| H-E-R-E be G-A-P xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy xxxx blow up xx |
|yyyy PERIODIC yy xxxx magnified |
|yyyyy TABLE yyy xxxx stuff xx |
|yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
-------------------------------------
A heading or caption, or anything else would do. Perhaps a relevant symbol, or some details not covered in the blowup, like electron diagram, or something - dunno. Atomic diagram and all that sort of thing is probably going to be duplicative of existing article content... Begoontalk20:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
don't tell the "wiki bosses"
I am a little past o'clock...if you get my drift.
So...here is my idea. (don't let anyone know as this place is crushing against innovation...have to sneak it in...they don't even know what is good for them.) I would use the graphic at the very top of "Characteristics". Before the first subsection.
In terms of content...I am thinking something along the lines of
'Fluorine's characteristics can be understood based on its place in the periodic table. Especially its comparison to row and column "neighbors".'
We could do something with the thumb turned OFF, given the caption would really be embedded. Which would make my dick hard...to actually not use the thumb attribute and ditch the little border.
Done - well actually, not done at all - but will be. That's all I needed. Content to fill the gap. And if it obviates the need for thumb/caption stuff, clean too. Good answer. Begoontalk20:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Looks great. Could you cut S, Se, Kr, and Ar? Also cut "means of". And I have a couple admins gunning for me, so will have to lay low with innovation in reader interest (not going into article right away).98.117.75.177 (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I respect your work and effort. My English is very bad, but I can do only small changes. I realized my mistake in that the previous article on pilot Sondermajer. I still think that Sondermajer deserves article in the English version of Wikipedia, to its full potential. Also, the Flora Sandes, one of the first female officers. Today, every modern army in the world has female officers and soldiers. I noticed that you know the Cyrillic alphabet, are you from the Balkans?--Свифт (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Sondermajer probably does deserve an article. Copying and pasting it as a copyvio from elsewhere isn't a solution, though. We can't accept content like that. If you try to write it yourself, in your own words, referenced to reliable sources, I'm happy to copyedit it when you've finished - just let me know.
No, I don't actually know Cyrillic - I can transliterate Greek letters because I studied ancient Greek, long ago, so I know that alphabet, but not Cyrillic - for the rest it's copy/paste and Google translate for me... Begoontalk02:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Reversion of an edit of article "Star"
Stars less massive than .25 solar masses are fully convective and will consume all the hydrogen fuel. Such stars are know as red dwarfs. The original material was wordy and misleading. While the reason for the edit was "cutting wordiness" it is still a good edit. I will change the reason for the edit. Zedshort (talk) 02:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
You are breaking grammar and altering meaning with the edits you are making. Please be more careful. I note that you have a history of reacting badly to your edits being reverted. More care would mean this would happen less often. Thanks for the note. Begoontalk02:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
You need to stop with the wholesale reversion of my edits
I see one of my edits changed the meaning of a paragraph but a great many of the edits that followed that did nothing of the sort and in fact improved the reading. If you object to a particular edit you should change that one in particular and not make wholesale reversions. I will change revert and change the misleading part. Please show more respect for the work others are performing on these articles. Zedshort (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, if I'd actually wholesale reverted your edits - which many would have done, I could understand your complaint. In fact I didn't do that - I took the time to correct your errors, and explained why. I'll correct another error you seem to be making here, now: if you think this talk page is a good place to come for one of the petulant little arguments I see peppering your history, you are mistaken. Thanks for dropping by, but please also drop the WP:STICK. That's advice. I see you've had such advice before. It's good advice. Begoontalk03:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Re : Sabah
Yup, you're right, I should not getting trouble because of this. Thanks for helping. Looks like this user are very "naughty". Based on his IP, I see he's coming from Indonesia. — иz нίpнόpʜᴇʟᴘ!17:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I already replied on your talk page. It's pretty clear to me which indef blocked user that almost certainly is, socking. Don't worry about it. Begoontalk17:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Hehe, you mean Omdo?. I also saw in Facebook there's a page named "SSKM" which means "Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia" (Sabah Sarawak get out of Malaysia), however we already get an information from our government bodies such as SKMM that the page are been operates by an Indonesian, not from any people in Sabah and Sarawak or Peninsular Malaysia. Since that, I always wonder why they like to make such as this silly things, can they just minded their own country business. — иz нίpнόpʜᴇʟᴘ!18:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Might not be him, but same style, same city, same ISP, same POV. Doesn't matter anyway - it's the edits that count, whoever makes them. Always have to have a cause to fight for, these guys, and don't realise this is just a silly waste of their time trying to do it here. They think it is, or should be, their country's "business". Ah, well. Begoontalk19:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
It's alright, now I see almost all the IP's that disturbing East Malaysian articles comes from the same place. Ok, I wouldn't through an edit war with "them" anymore. — иz нίpнόpʜᴇʟᴘ!09:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah - I just wanted you to know that since multiple IPs are involved, if it got too much to handle (which it isn't yet) the next step would be protecting the important country/state articles because blocking IP after IP would be futile. That way the disruption would be confined to the silly little POV "articles" which nobody except them reads anyway, where they may waste as much time and effort as they like, and which will fade to oblivion by themselves in a short while, and the important articles would be protected. WP:DENY. Begoontalk09:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
