User talk:Begoon/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

​

Good grief.

Sorry about all that uploading, I shouldn't be editing (images) when sick obviously. :P sonia♫ 08:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It just popped up on my watchlist and I could see what you'd done. I often forget to convert type to paths. If you've got effects such as curves, or use a font not available, the wikipedia rsvg library often spews on it like that. I always use paths for big display fonts like that. Great job though - looks cool... Hope you feel better - just got over flu myself, no good.  Begoon•talk 08:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Teignmouth Community College

Hi Begoon. I wonder if when you have a moment, you could do me a small quick favour, and knock out the unsightly black bkgnd I left around File:Teignmouth_school_logo.jpg‎ when I lifted it from their website? Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I redrew it instead:File:Teignmouth_school_logo.svg - that bitmap was very low quality, and would have looked even worse trying to remove a dark blue background without leaving a halo around the ill defined border.  Begoon•talk 02:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks. I was only kidding when I said I have thousands of possible jobs for you. Only a few hundred actually... --Kudpung (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Wren School

Hi Begoon. File:Wren_school_crest.jpg is another one you could tweak if you have time. I think just knocking out the red background would do the trick. No hurry though.‎--Kudpung (talk) 07:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done as Wrenn school crest.svg  Begoon•talk 09:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks again, Bgoon :) --Kudpung (talk) 10:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

User:TFOWR

Thanks! I should be testing in multiple browsers, but I'm lazy and don't (I used to have virtualbox and VMWare images for major OSs, but had to sacrifice that when a new project started and I needed all the disk space I had...)

Just one problem: in Chrome (my current default browser) I'm seeing a wide gap now between the infobox and the content - is that just me? (If so, I can probably live with it - I only use my userpage to copy-and-paste stuff from). TFOWR 11:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that. You might have to bugger about with all the em widths inside the "left" div. I'll have a quick play.  Begoon•talk 11:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! The latest version looks much better - I get a slight overlap, but I browse zoomed-in slightly. Restoring the default zooming makes things look perfect. I suppose percentages instead of ems is out of the question? TFOWR 12:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a template parameter. I'll try it - also still needs fixing in IE, because of their broken box-model, the cat and first table don't stay together in IE at the moment  Begoon•talk 12:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That looks pretty damn near perfect - I'd need to compare it with the pre-fix version to spot the difference (assuming this one...) Thanks again! TFOWR 13:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - there was still one niggle in IE where the table next to the cat would "underflow" behind him if you went to a small window - but that's fixed by giving {{col-begin}} a fixed pixel width. I write web pages for a living, but cramming this stuff into wiki format can still be a challenge, because you need to take account of the surrounding wiki divs, and the html in the templates, some of which you have no control over... plus, if I'd been thinking, I'd have used {{col-begin}} from the start, instead of letting my native html coding instinct take over and trying to do it all with divs - note to self - always try to use wikicode first if it exists  Begoon•talk 14:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

My exposure to raw HTML is pretty limited - I've been a software developer in the past (I'm more of a Jack-of-all-trades these days) but even then I'd be handed ready-made HTML rather than having to craft it myself - my role would be "make code that spits out this bit of HTML here, does some dynamic magic, then spit out another bit of HTML" - I'm sure you know what I mean, except I was fairly isolated from the web people. Anyway, what prompted this unsolicited kindness?! I'm extremely grateful, by the way - at the back of my mind has always been a nagging doubt that I want to be accessible, but am too lazy to do much about it ;-) TFOWR 16:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing prompted it except a watchlist comment something like "bugger it doesn't work" popped up, so I looked out of interest, and thought - he just needs columns and floats. I know how annoying it can be when you want to do something like the collapse you were trying to do and it just shoots stuff around everywhere, so I thought I'd give it 10 minutes. Ok, ended up a little more, but you'll see all that on my detailed invoice... (which strangely seems to have gone through at my $0 per hour rate) Seriously, the user page layout is good, and it seemed a shame if you couldn't do what you wanted to. Anyway, it's good to help, there's an enzyme involved, I think - I wish sometimes it was more universal and potent.  Begoon•talk 16:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks again - it restores my faith in human nature. Just for that, I'll pay double ;-) TFOWR 16:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		For unsolicited but very, very welcome improvements to my userpage, specifically making it accessible to multiple web browsers while maintaining the original design. For the record, this was prompted by Begoon's diligence in spotting an off-the-cuff edit summary and responding with hard-graft and professionalism. TFOWR 08:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the cheque has arrived... (...lol). Thank you - much appreciated. I even have a page to put these on, so I can copy it there now.  Begoon•talk 09:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

SVG trace

Question for you at User_talk:Fastily#Image fogged. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks spam

Hello Begoon, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 65/4/3.
I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations, do my best for Wikipedia, and take to heart the constructive criticism. Always feel free to message me if I'm around.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

svg question

When I try to save svgs, my computer wants to turn them into pngs. What am I doing wrong?--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You're saving the png that the Wikimedia rendering engine rsvg generates from the svg. It always sends png files to browsers, because some browsers can't render svg images. Instead, do it like this.

• From the image description page, click the main thumbnail at top left, to take you to the "white screen" with just a preview.
• Then right click, save as / save image as*, on the image there. *wording depends on browser

and as a ps - normal service will be resumed on scout images in a week or so, when I get some other stuff and a lot of work backlogged out of the way, in case you felt ignored...  Begoon•talk 14:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, you're a busy man and a professional at this, I am lucky to have your help! And I've been busy, today (until 22 minutes ago) was my 40th birthday, I was threatened by my job with transfer-or-700-bucks-paycut, and have essentially had three birthday parties in as many days, so I haven't been able to worry about it. My edits have been sparse for a while, I wonder what the vandals and the stalkers are doing...--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Update-hey, that worked!--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes - you're not the first person to be confused by that, and you won't be the last. One day when I'm bored I should suggest adding a "download this file as svg" (or jpg, or whatever it is) link to the file description page, under the thumbnail.  Begoon•talk 17:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did it now, because one never comes back and does these things. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25148 refers.  Begoon•talk 17:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

SVG Rendering Question

Hi, apologies for contacting out of the blue - you're very active on the SVG pages, so I thought you might be the person to ask!

A couple of days ago, Chamberlain2007 uploaded an SVG for the Top 4 on the graphics requests page (Cloverdale_Municipal_Airport_diagram.svg). I noticed that it still had all the Inkscape tags, and the text hadn't been converted to paths so was sometimes rendering incorrectly (as shown in the original thumbnail). I corrected this and uploaded a new version. However.... Wikipedia seems to have created correctly rendered PNGs at all sizes other than the main page 348px image, which seems not to have updated from the original upload rendering.

This is quite perplexing! Any ideas? Thanks, Serenthia 09:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Almost certainly a problem with the thumbnail not being updated in the cache. To force the file to be recognised as different, I added a pixel to each dimension and re-uploaded it - seems ok now.  Begoon•talk 09:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic - thanks a lot :o) Serenthia 10:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks :):)

Well, Begoon, this is a personal note of thanks for the lovely support vote you placed in my RfA. Each vote mattered :) Just spluttered home :) My thanks to you for leaving the vote, and most importantly the comments :) Wishes Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 19:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

ChaosMaster16

Hello Begoon. I am ChaosMaster16's sister in real life. I edited from his account a few times, and finally decided to get my own. When I told him, though, his concern was about banning, since we share an ip address. Is there anyway that if he gets banned, I do not, or vice versa? Pinknp (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll be honest with you and say that most of my motivation to help here has been taken away by Chaos' total WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT approach to help, criticism and warnings he's been given, even down to adding a new link to pifeedback.com after being told he is likely to be blocked for that behaviour. I also notice that your first edit after posting here was to the page in his userspace where he posts pifeedback.com figures. Basically, the way to avoid any problems is to not behave in ways that you know are problematic. It won't be my decision in any way, but I imagine that those who judge the situation may well be inclined to give WP:LITTLEBROTHER some consideration. If you need any more help, then perhaps the WP:HELPDESK might have some advice for you for general questions like blocking policy. I will, however, add my welcome to Wikipedia, and a hope that you can put aside the history here and become a valuable member of the community. If you need any help concerning that, rather than the disappointing pifeedback saga, then my talk page is, as it generally always has been, an open house where you don't need to bring your own beer. Good luck.  Begoon•talk 03:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your warm welcome here. I'll take your warnings and use my privilages wisely. Regarding pifeedback, why would he get banned for adding that? To me, the edit seemed like a normal, helpful edit. ...You don't need to answer that if it continues anything, though. Yes, basically, what I am trying to do is use his pages on his userspace and add some to my watchlist. Though the CW edit was from his watchlist... Thanks again for your help.Pinknp (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. No, I don't want to rake over the pifeedback discussion again, sorry. It's time that it was dropped in my opinion. You can see the consensus at the ANI and RSN threads linked from the sections on Chaos' talk page - I guess you could ask him, too, if you're not sure where to look :-). As I said, I'm quite happy to help you with anything else, but I don't think any further discussion here of the pifeedback issue will be productive. Personally, I don't think it will be productive anywhere - but that's an opinion (and my advice, FWIW...).I also noticed you mentioned using Chaos' account to edit. That is not a good idea, especially if you're concerned about a possible block on that account affecting yours. Users should edit only from their own account, because technically it could be argued that an account is compromised if it can be shown that edits were made by a user who is not the account holder. I realise that may sound overly strict, and you did this before opening your own account, but it is the type of thing that could easily be seen as a problem if people start to examine the situation. I'm sure you don't intend to continue with that, but I mention it in relation to the concern you expressed.  Begoon•talk 00:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

so you're the tech guy...

Fun question for you, either you will know or you will know the guy who knows. You know? Is there presently any technology that will textwrap around a non-square image, and is Wikipedia working on it? What I mean is, let's say you have an oval-shaped image of Gladstone. All the corner space is dead space, can the text be moved so it justifies around the image?--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Short answer is no - divs and images are all square at the moment. You'll be able to do something like this once all browsers support HTML5 and CSS3 - a bit like this example. As far as I know there are no templates on wikipedia to implement any of the stuff you'd need to do for this - because it doesn't work reliably yet, so even if you tried to code any of that manually on a wikipedia page, and managed to get any of it to work at all, it wouldn't be reliable, or cross browser. There are ways to do it with javascript and php - one example is http://www.curvycorners.net/ but you can't do any of those on wikipedia pages. So, unless I've missed any ongoing experiments, the answer is "no - but coming soon (maybe 6 - 12 months)".  Begoon•talk 00:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

See? I knew you would know! Thank you!--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Poll

The reason that was there was because those comments will not be considered when the poll is closed, Jimbo made that very clear. It is there to notify editors that their vote will not count, except as a comment. I do not revert more than once, so please, self-revert. Ronk01 talk 02:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't self-revert, because, in my opinion, explained in my comments in the third section of the voting page, I don't believe that adding comments such as that, after over 200 votes have been cast, is at all appropriate. I reverted because I therefore agreed with Slim Virgin's action. I'm sorry if it makes it look like I'm having a war with you - I'm not. I, similarly will not revert again, so if you desire to make the edit again, please do so, and refer anyone who might dislike your action to this discussion if you desire. Apologies if you feel that's making things difficult for you, but I won't revert myself on an edit I feel is correct. As I said, you, or anyone else is/are free to do so, though, and I will not remake the edit. You'll notice that I did not revert the edit which added a similar statement to the instruction section, although I also disagree with the timing of its addition, so the page still carries that comment. All my revert did is remove it from section 3, where it was, in any case, a duplicate of content already present. By adding that comment and/or altering the section heading, it is imo absolutely essential to consider that all the comments in that section already are essentially put into a different light, since they have no knowledge of the poll instructions being altered subsequent to their vote being cast unless they come back to check. I understand you may feel this is pedantic - but I don't think it's pedantic in the circumstances where the last poll was called into question for possible bias in construction. If you still think providing more ammunition for those of that persuasion is a good idea, then cool - revert me with my blessing. I'd strongly recommend, though, that as well as doing so, you send messages to any editor who had already voted in that section before the "clarifications" were posted, in case they mistakenly thought their vote would count, just for the sake of transparency.  Begoon•talk 02:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I would add this - if you want those comments there, then consider altering them to be informational notes, linking them to the comment Jimbo actually made on his talk page, where he indicates that whilst he does not object to comments in that section, and indeed views them as useful, they will be treated as comments, and not votes in the final analysis. That way they are more accurate, you would be truly representing Jimbo's position (which you stated as the intention), you really wouldn't be reverting, and they cannot be viewed as new, unsupported, instructions to an ongoing poll, rather as informational help. That might be a better solution.

Incidentally, if you are concerned about editors not understanding the poll parameters, I would think of at least equal, and probably greater importance is to actually inform voters of the proposed 50% closing criterion. There is no mention of that on the poll introduction, or instructions at all, which seems wrong. Obviously, however, this has the same problem of adding information after many votes have been cast. Update - I now see that wording was originally present, but removed here...[1], and now reinstated here [2], so I'll strike that bit as no longer relevant (updated 13:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)).

And, on a personal level, although I'm very concerned that it may seem to you that I'm selectively picking your comments and actions to react to, please be assured that I'm not. In fact I appreciate the effort you have put into the construction and the discussion, and the efforts you have made to see both sides. It's merely the case that they have tended to be the comments regarding consensus and process that I have most felt the need to reply to. I truly apologise again if it seems any other way.  Begoon•talk 11:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If anything, my opposition to the opposition of the poll is a valid argument and must be considered at the same level. I don't see any trying to remove the comments, then why mine? Especially considering they are the guidelines of the poll.--intelati^(Call) 14:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added that quote by Jimbo, and changed the section header to clarify its non-official status. Ronk01 talk 14:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll accept that as a compromise. :)--intelati^(Call) 14:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for taking the time - that's ok as it stands as far as I'm concerned. And, intelati, of course your opinion is as valid as anyone else's. I didn't intend at any point to imply anything else.  Begoon•talk 14:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply (Mackay 86)

Begoon, I was trying to MAKE the "infobox" more flexible but your clearly not interested so just BLOODY well forget it!!! Mackay 86 (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you were - that's not the problem. The problem is you never listen when people give you advice, or try to explain something to you. Do you really think it's ok to break 100s of articles while you fiddle around with a template. Well, it isn't ok. You need to do that kind of experiment in a sandbox. You also need, if it's a widely used template, to get consensus either on its talkpage or on the pages of the Wikiproject concerned. Just consider the implications of your edits on the 3 or 4 hundred people who are looking at the articles you are breaking. Basically, if you don't understand how to do these edits properly, then stop making them until you do.  Begoon•talk 15:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC) (note that if you wish to reply you may do so here - posts are only archived here after 21 days, and then still accessible in the archives - makes it much easier to communicate than regularly deleting everything)

Arrow Vale High School

Hi Begoon. Can I ask you another favour? If you have time, could you knock out the awful maroon bkgd from the school crest for me? Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather redraw it - but I'm pretty busy for the next few days, so I've replaced it with a version with white background from a prospectus on the website for now - I'll get back to it later  Begoon•talk 14:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It already looks fine. There's no need to go to the extra trouble of redrawing it. Thank very much again  :) --Kudpung (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome - but I'm a bit of a fussy old pedant with my images, so don't be surprised if I do it anyway when I do have 30 minutes to kill :=)  Begoon•talk 14:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Malaysia

I feel the need to get this done before I become apatheticb(humour). Are you freed up to do a copyedit or is it possible to just ask the guild of copyeditors to do something? Either way I'd like to get some sort of peer review or nomination through soon. If no-one can source of rewrite the natural resources section I'm up for just removing it, perhaps just with <--! this weird coding -->, which should allow others to work on it if they can. I think the rest of the article is good in terms of what it has, although of course it could be expanded. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes - I didn't do it this week for 2 reasons - 1: I've been very busy in RL, 2: I wanted to wait until you'd finished adding/sourcing stuff. During next week I'll copyedit, check refs are RS, if not try to re-source - (I don't want to remove any), and check image licenses. Incidentally, the GCE normally has a huge backlog, and I'd prefer to do it. The peer review should be a good check for copy issues, anyway.  Begoon&#149;talk 11:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Waiting till I've done the sourcing? :o I'm almost done with a sports section, and I found an actual Sports in Malaysia page. Unfortunately I can't use it to make the main page, as like .... all .... the Malaysia main articles, its ridiculously under sourced. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well since you were doing it, yes that's what I was waiting for :-) I'm afraid I don't have the available time to work on this that you seem to, as I mentioned some time ago. That's not the first comment you've made implying you are doing everything with no help that's got my back up ever so slightly. I say this purely so that you will know. We all spend whatever wiki time we have where we think it is most useful, and, whilst I'm happy helping where I can, seeing comments and edit summaries implying that can get a little tedious. Sorry if that upsets you in any way, but I prefer to mention things like that, rather than not do. You're doing excellent work on the article - and I'm pleased about that, because the few other people likely to are either busy or committed elsewhere.  Begoon&#149;talk 12:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah no, no insult intended at all. I understand completely, and I don't mind what others are doing or not doing. The works been slightly tedious, maybe that's getting to me. I don't wish to offend anyone, and appreciate you saying that to me, although I would have preferred it if you'd said it earlier, so I could stop earlier. I do think after finishing up here I'll be off any major editing for awhile anyway, for my own sanity. Again, sorry for any offense. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason I didn't say anything earlier is because it's very easy to upset people by making comments like I made there, so I generally wait until it's happened a few times, or longer with people I particularly don't wish to risk upsetting. Anyway, it seems all said, now, so thanks for reacting so well. Incidentally, with the IHT reference, you can usually find the major newspapers' recent stories online and use a web cite like I did, if you just search from their main site for the article, assuming you only saw it by reading the physical Phillipines edition. I try to keep unlinked refs to an absolute minimum just because readers will have difficulty accessing them without a link.  Begoon&#149;talk 12:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I try not to be offended by random people on the internet, anyway, I personally feel that if I do something wrong I should be told, though I of course do prefer some tact. Humour would be useful too, and do correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't wikipedia have a trout template for things like that? I think it's a genius idea. The Barnwhale of epic fail I've linked to in my userpage is probably also extremely amusing to receive (one hopes), although no doubt reserved for a particularly high level of failure (as implied). At any rate, I also don't mind receiving such a message from you, who seem to handle discussions well. As for the IHT, I saw the newspaper article by coincidence, and thought I may as well whack the fact somewhere. Good call on the internet cite though, I will keep that in mind. If in the end something can't be cited should it just be removed? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The trout I see mainly used for silly mistakes, and the barnwhale, as you say for epic failures - this was obviously neither of those . Maybe we need one with Grumpy from Snow White on it, instead? With regard to sourcing - technically you only need it for anything that it is possible will be challenged, but since I suppose that basically means anything other than blindingly obvious content, we shouldn't have anything other than that unsourced. GA and FA reviews are progressively stricter. When I passed Malvern College's GA, I asked for a source for a section on "Activities". The people editing the page told me it was long standing content which had never been challenged in several years, and they had searched high and low for a source for a long time with no success, but several of them could personally vouch for its basic accuracy. It was the only problem left with the article, and didn't appear at all controversial, so I let it through on the proviso that if it was ever removed, it could not be reinserted without a source. However, it won't be me reviewing this - and different reviewers set different interpretations on guidelines.  Begoon&#149;talk 13:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I can think of a couple of times i deserved a trout. I think that most of the remaining citation needed tags I added deal with information I don't think is debatable, the exception being the scientific publication numbers, which I've run out of Boolean combinations for in terms of searching (but don't want to remove as I think the subsections too short already :/ ). I think the advice you gave of seeking peer review first would be a good idea. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think that when you get around to editing, if any statements remain unsourced just remove them, either by hiding or just plain deleting. Chances are sources haven't been able to be found. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I'll do unless I truly believe it is obvious enough to stand without a source. It'll be Saturday before I, hopefully, get to start this - should then take a few days to do, since it's pretty big.  Begoon&#149;talk 10:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Just had a thought, since you're the image guy, I assume you'll be checking the images for they're fitting criteria when you go over the article? I guess you should just delete them, but is there a general guideline for pictures that can be used to replace them? A simple one :) ? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I will check them - chances are they'll be fine, if not, I'll try to replace, last resort I'll remove - but I doubt that will be necessary. Real life still hasn't let me get started, but soon, I hope, have faith...  Begoon&#149;talk 12:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Cheeky request...

Hi Begoon. I'm not really following pending changes discussions. Could you ping me if there's any movement on discussing (or even - gasp! - working on) stuff for the next trial? I'm happy to put the hard work in, but can't really keep up with all the discussions. (Obviously, if you're in the same position I'll understand...) TFOWR 09:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm partially in the same position, as is, I suspect, everyone - it's a confusing mess. But if I see anything useful that isn't just people lobbing rotten fruit at each other, I promise you will be the first to know. Having said that, I'm way down on my wiki time at the moment, real life is keeping me away - so you could do the same for me if you trip across anything. Cheers  Begoon&#149;talk 12:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Will do. I'm in the same boat (real life is such a pain...) but it does mean I tend to read the whole page occasionally, rather than try and keep up with diffs. TFOWR 12:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Coat of arms of Malaysia.svg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Coat of arms of Malaysia.svg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Begoon. You have new messages at User talk:Magog the Ogre/Maps FAQ.
Message added 22:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lab

Hello, Begoon. I'm Wanwa from Russian Graphic lab. We have serious problems with graphists. Everyone rests. But we have nearly 15 images to vectorize it. So, you are dearly invited to our project. If you agree, please tell me. I'll show you those images and translate them in English. If you don't agree, please tell me, who can fulfilled this task. Yours, Wanwa (talk) 07:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC). Oh, sorry about mistakes in the text.

Hello - I can't promise anything - but if you can show me where the images are, I'll take a look, and let you know what I think.  Begoon^talk 10:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

To vectorize (into SVG). This is a list of images:  Done- using this file Wanwa (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Well, on the whole, they are really quite intricate designs, and for at least the first 3 the originals are not very good to work from. I'll search for some better originals first, and see where we go from there.  Begoontalk 00:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC) Oh, thanks a million! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanwa (talk • contribs) 09:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC) File:Coat of Arms of Khanty-Mansia.svg is  Done- using http://www2.admhmao.ru/obsved/simvol/gerb.jpg as a guide  Begoontalk 06:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC) O'thank you very much! Wanwa (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Still around?

Hi Begoon. I see you haven't edited for a couple of months. Are you still around, or is RL getting in the way of your editing? ;) --Kudpung (talk) 11:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, momentous events in real life I'd rather not go into, but I do hope to be back here in the coming weeks/months. See, and you wanted a straight answer.... (seriously, very unexpectedly stressed and busy - watch this space if you like)...  Begoon&#149;talk 18:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No need to appologise! I just like to stay in touch with people I have found to be particularly helpful and a pleasure to work with :) That was the smarm , now for the work ;) There is a short sweet GAC waiting a long time if you're interested, and I was wondering if you can vectorise a school crest from a photo (my own work). Only if if you have time. Take care and happy holidays, --Kudpung (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Malaysia

This user helped promote Malaysia to good article status.

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For recognition of work on Malaysia. SilkTork *YES! 14:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a very useful, readable and professionally presented article. One of the best articles I've encountered. Now get working on building up other articles. Well done. SilkTork *^YES! 14:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - I've been away for a while, and most of the recent work getting the article to GA status was other peoples effort. I'm pleased it succeeded, and thank you for the review. User:Chipmunkdavis and User:Bejinhan deserve most of the credit, along with User:BobK and numerous others, but I'm honoured to be mentioned in their company, and (like the Oscars) apologise deeply to whoever I forgot to mention. I'll shamelessly put the barnstar in my "awards" thingy anyway :)...  Begoon&#149;talk 19:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Just a note...

Heya, no problem. I understand. Hope you'll be back soon... and thanks for all your work on the Malaysia article! Cheers, Bejinhan talks 06:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Good to hear from you again, hope you can deal with RL in order to come back to the much more meaningful life found here on wikipedia. I like your message, the humour works, just if you were wondering. Anyway, just stopping by to say hi and welcome back and all that! Merry Christmas (soon enough) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Me too, thank you for letting me know you're okay!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Yegorievsk regional Scout organization.svg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Yegorievsk regional Scout organization.svg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've fixed the small obvious error left after the FUR was fixed by User:Kintetsubuffalo
(tiny error, incidentally - a cut/paste thing)

- I just used to do image work here occasionally for the good of the project. I stopped doing that when petty bureaucracy like this sucked all the fun out of it...).

Incidentally, this kind of unnecessary nonsense (leaving a template on the talk page of a former regular user who is now marked semi-retired instead of just taking a few minutes to help fix the problem yourself), is why I, and several others, no longer contribute in this area - see my user page for a relevant quotation.

Have a nice day...  Begoon&#149;talk 03:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You're back!

You've been missed, everything okay?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks (got a mystery stomach bug but otherwise fine). A combination of things (including what I refer to above) has kept me from editing for a while. I don't have the enthusiasm (or the time) these days. Nice to hear from you though - hope you're well too...  Begoon&#149;talk 03:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've tapered to a trickle myself, but someone's gotta fight the stupids. You are needed here, even when you feel like beating the tar out of most of the denizens. Hope you'll be around a bit.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"Fight the stupids" is probably a bit strong, but the sentiment is close to what I often feel. It just continually amazes me that people gain some sort of satisfaction from removing relevant information, or slapping a big, ugly template on it - reducing the experience for the reader, and lessening the relevance of articles, then flinging a template somewhere as some sort of justification. Just as a revolutionary thought, they could still look for problems, then try to actually fix them. They might find 50% of that "t" crossing and "i" dotting time was then productive from the point of view of the end reader (who he?...)

Possibly an over-reaction on my part in this particular case, but this is a minor example of what I view as a very dangerous, endemic "disease", ruining the wikipedia experience for many editors and readers alike.  Begoon&#149;talk 03:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm with you, and love the quote on your mainpage. Liked it better when this was still a growing, let's-try-it experiment before the tiny-mind-lawyers took over.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Just got tagged myself, haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate those guys.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I find that it is better to hate the approach and the mindset than to hate the "guys"...

9 times out of 10 the action is taken with good intention, and the end result of protecting the project from copyright violations is noble. The problem comes with interaction, where all concerned are generally genuinely convinced that they are doing "the best thing" for the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is good at some things, but very bad in situations where well meaning contributors differ on the best way forward, so:...

Slap a wordy, tortuous template on a page, and you do close to nothing to help the encyclopedia in the short term, and run the very real risk of pissing off an established regular, or confusing a newbie so much they never return.

Imagine instead if you fixed the problem, then dropped a short, polite, English note, written personally, explaining the problem, and what needed to be done, whilst thanking them for trying. That's a different scenario entirely - you just made a friend, instead of getting under someone's skin, or frustrating/confusing the hell out of a contributor. If you can't fix it, then offer to help. (and NOT with a template, because the sheer walls of text they often contain can prevent people from even reading them properly - a personal message will be seen as such, and appreciated as such.)

A new user may have spent many hours creating an image, eager to donate it to the community, and struggled with uploading his work at all (the image interface is hardly intuitive for a new user). If the instant reaction is what looks like an automatic "you f****ed up" message, that's probably not the reward he was hoping for, generally...

An established user will probably have just made an error, so they don't react well to a template explaining very basic things they already know, and resent the fact that their fellow established user didn't respect them enough to compose a proper explanatory note.

All in all, as an approach - it's pretty toytown-esque.

Templates do have a place, for example they are useful in vandal fighting, because quick action is preferable, and often vandalism is by a new user/anon, so warnings are important for people who may not yet know the rules and norms - although even then, when I used to do that, I would try to use them intelligently and modify the templates to fit the situation, welcoming users, deleting parts that don't apply to avoid confusion, and adding some help. And inevitably, occasionally, I made mistakes and a couple of people were pissed off, feeling they'd been templated rather than helped/informed. Whenever this happened, I had failed...

I guess what I'm calling for is an attitude that puts the poster in the position of the recipient. "Would I prefer this generic template, or a short friendly note explaining the problem, if it were me?"  Begoon&#149;talk 23:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Aha! Found it! My favourite "template":

courtesy of User:HJ Mitchell's user page...

That probably says more than a few more of my words could.

But as I say, that's all just my opinion of what's best... :-)  Begoon&#149;talk 00:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Something else to consider

(with apologies to anyone who feels this experiment was "fishing with hand grenades" - I plead guilty to that...)

Just as an experiment, since I use WP as "reference" myself, and partially to see if I'd be willing to come back and edit, I selected 2 articles I happened to be viewing, both of which had very old ugly tags right at the top - one was 4 years old - the other was about a year old.

Both articles were FAR FAR better than many of the "almost stubs" which the admin-wannabee kiddies and the like create and then blunder through to GA status to "score the points".

In both cases there had been no real effort to explain the reasons behind the tag, and certainly no effort from the tagger to engage in discussion, or improve the article.

Also, in both cases, the tag did nothing to explain WHAT was wrong - just that "some more references would be nice", and in the process spoilt otherwise good and informative articles.

Huge Orange exclamation marks proclaiming who knows what may mean something to us, but to a casual reader they just say "Alert - something wrong - go somewhere else".

Maybe it's just me as a designer that sees them as pug-ugly counterproductive shit - but I suspect not...

There must be better ways (categories/lists etc...) of flagging these articles. Ugly, scary tags that 99% of people viewing the article (remember the casual reader? - I met a few, once...) have no clue how to understand or interpret are, frankly, pathetic...

Both tags were replaced by editors who did nothing but that - replace the tag.

I politely invited talk page discussion in both cases, but none at all was forthcoming - just tag replacement.

I did this as an IP, because THAT'S WHAT MOST PEOPLE WHO READ WP ARE

I'm tempted to do it again as an established editor - I suspect neither tag replacement would be made in that case.

However, instead, I think I'll just alter my user page tags from Semi-Retired to Retired - since there really seems little point to any of this.

Welcome to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit - so long as it's for the benefit, or to the liking of, the guys in the editing club, and complies with their understanding of the game...

Sod the actual readers - why on earth would the end user matter ?

Ah, well...

Begoon&#149;talk 18:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

p.s: One important thing I forgot to add: In the unlikely event that anyone reads to the end of this rant, and finds this: I strongly recommend that you try the experience of editing as an IP yourself once in a while. Just do your normal edits, but don't log in. I guarantee it will open your eyes to how the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" treats anonymous contributors... Adieu  Begoon&#149;talk 14:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back

Are you staying for a significant period of time? Any new thoughts on the whole IP issues? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Erm - short answer, don't know, and not sure which IP issues you mean. Longer answer - I'm just dipping my toe back in for a while. I didn't even intend to get involved at Malaysia, but ended up giving an embarrassing "demonstration" of why, when an edit war starts, with "rolled together" series of edits combined, reverted and reinserted - confusion can reign. That's no excuse for my misreading diffs, but it's not the first time I've seen that sort of thing - just the first time I've been the "idiot" in the sequence. The article looks good, by the way. Begoon ^talk 07:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to your posts before you left about how you had trouble editing as an IP. I didn't post this asking for involvement in Malaysia, just to say hello. Feel free to stay out, although your comments and help is always welcome. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I understand now. I'm struggling with the same concepts that I know a lot of people are. Here's some of how my train of thought is currently:

• I think we are often pretty unkind and untrusting of new or anonymous editors.
• To test that theory, I did a few reasonable edits as an IP, and they were not treated anywhere close to as well as I think they would have been if Begoon had made them.
• Complicating my thoughts is that I also believe we don't sometimes treat very good content editors well, either.

...So: My best current conclusion from that is that before I get wrapped up in deciding why I think those specific areas of poor treatment occur - it might be best just to work out why we often don't treat people well in general. Current vague ideas include:

• We rely too much on lawyering around the common "blue-linked" policies and guidelines - in order to "win".
• Any time there's a "winner", there's probably a "loser" too.
• Human nature is to dislike others "altering" your hard work.
• The online nature isolates us all, removing the usual social "clues", and enhancing the "battle game" mentality.

I could go on, but you get the idea.
I've decided that, rather than just going with the flow this time around, I can only be comfortable editing here if I feel everything I do has a chance to enhance my understanding of these things, and maybe even some ideas to change them. Relevant to all this - I've offered to help "mentor" one user who's fallen into a block, but he, I think is very upset right now, and seems to have "gone away to think about things" - so I don't know how that will pan out.
And, yes, I understand that greater minds than mine have grappled with all these thoughts already - nevertheless, I won't be happy until I've taken at least some steps to understand it all, and maybe, even, help make a difference somewhere, instead of just moaning about it. Possibly I'm just setting myself up with a huge timesink, which will benefit no-one, but it's my time to sink, so we'll see...

Bet you're glad you asked, now... :) - Begoon ^talk 11:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't disagree with any of that, although I personally try to treat IPs like normal editors (or normal editors like IPs, I suppose!). In my time here at wikipedia I've posted numerous welcome templates, often with a short note at the end relating to their edits, on the talkpages of new editors, as well as on a couple of IPs. Although I haven't done a statistical analysis, I can say that the vast majority sadly never received a response.

I remember struggling with the blue policies when I first started (and I called all blue things policies, although I now know some of them are guidelines, and the difference between them), so that's true. However, it does usually only take one helpful explanation for people to understand policies. The winner/loser dilemma is tricky, I agree, and no point repeating the discussion about it we no doubt both know. Perhaps if you hung around WP:3O or got RfC notifications you'd be more exposed to how discussions go.

Anyway, yes, I do find this interesting, so I am glad I asked. Good luck mentoring, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)