User talk:Begoon/Archive 14

Two years ago ...
encouragement
	... you were recipient; no. 937 of Precious,; a prize of QAI!

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.

Archive 10

←

→

Diety vs Deity and silly english language oddities

RE:[1] And here I thought "i before e except after c" was the governing rule. Still funny either way. Assuming you saw the play on Riot act verbage. Hasteur (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Nah, it's "i before e except for the exceptions". Weird, huh? Thanks. I enjoyed it too. Begoon ^talk 17:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

	Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology

This may interest you. Wikicology, who you discussed here in September 2014, has continued his trail of destruction across the project, except this time he was meddling around with articles about poison gas, in a highly dangerous way (see e.g. this cleanup). A site ban is being discussed again. Peter Damian (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Peter, I can see that you have been canvassing people you believed that will be interested in blocking me. You have your past too. However, It is apparently clear that I've demonstrated a certain level of incompetence which led to series of problems. The truth is, I'm just too excessively enthusiastic as a young man who is ready to learn. I never have any intention to harm the project and all have done so far is in good faith. I therefore humbly request a CLEAN START and someone to ADOPT me and I won't create or add any content to mainspace until they can attest that I'm experienced enough to do so. This will be more productive than indef block. Thank you. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Cheers season 5.png

I know you and I grew apart over the years, but I want to apologize to you for being too uppity and all the stuff that I could not well describe. To make it up, I'll request an undeletion of your PNG version soon. I promise. If interested, please reply to me as soon as possible, either here or anywhere. --George Ho (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Stop feeling sorry for yourself just because you don't get your own way all the time. That's generally your biggest problem, and it never changes. We didn't "grow apart", I just got tired of your unwillingness to see any point of view but your own. Frankly, you have a damn nerve coming back here after the huge effort I put in to help you and the atrocious way you behaved in return, but I don't expect you to admit to understanding that. Time you grew up. Begoon ^talk 23:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

My last message to you?

I don't want you to forgive me or anything; I'm not asking you to be my mentor again. I just want to redeem myself without your forgiveness or anything, but that would be before I retire. However, I must make a lot of effort to redeem myself, but I hope it's not too late. First off, I want to make amends with you. However, if you think I should never contact you again, please say so, so I will never bother you again. --George Ho (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't want to bother you about something, but I believe you didn't see that I created Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality. You can hate me whenever you want, and you know that I appear simply petty and vindictive. However, I did see ongoing conflict at Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, and maybe I'm too two-faced or multi-faced or something like that. I'll leave you alone again. Okay? --George Ho (talk) 06:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cheers season 5.jpg

⚠

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

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, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Precious again

encouragement
Thank you for your contributions to quality articles such as Malaysia, for a clean user page, for "this wonderful reduction of arbitrary criterion application to the absurdum it truly is.", for wisdom and encouragement, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (5 July 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 937th recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. If only I could sing. Begoon ^talk 17:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Just FYI

The RFC's in question were here and here. As you can see, they were malformed as well as being unlikely to go anywhere at all due to the participants involved, the basic misreading of source info etc. If anyone does want to open them properly I have no objection, but at this point its just another delaying tactic for EllenCT to still be involved in some way. Better they just appeal this quickly and get it over with. I was actually going to close them yesterday but got distracted by Brexit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I think Brexit distracted a lot of people. Yeah, having looked, they were POV-pushing trainwrecks. Entirely agree with your assessment. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 13:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I for one welcome our new overlord Boris... Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Your new overlord. I escaped in 1999. Begoon ^talk 13:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Personally I spent this morning googling if I could get an Irish passport because my Gran was Irish... Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Heh. My (Australian) wife is now pissed off in case our daughter can't get an EU passport, on the strength of my UK citizenship, permitting her to gallivant all over Europe for a couple of years after she finishes university in 10 years time. Begoon ^talk 13:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

'Closed per request'

Ha! I have used that one before. They reopened it with 'I didnt mean you to take me seriously'... Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I was just bored with it. If they accused me of not being serious I'd probably have to agree. Begoon ^talk 17:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm older, although maybe not wiser. This thankless work you do is what is truly precious. Never stop. Begoon ^talk 10:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

This Precious work is pure pleasure, and gets many thanks, including yours. Look at Holst to see thankless work, trying to improve an article a little bit, being told it was without that improvement for 14 years, - accepted, but is that a reason? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not a reason. Please keep on doing what you do - it makes many people very happy. Begoon ^talk 10:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't enter the infobox discussion, for your health's sake, but perhaps you could voice your opinion on the hidden notice? - Mathsci adding an image to my FAC cantata made me very happy, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Point me directly to the "hidden notice" and I'll try to look tomorrow, when I'm more awake. Can't promise to agree, but happy to look. --Begoon ^talk 11:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Gustav Holst#RfC on removal of hidden comment --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I looked. I agree with you, but I'm not getting into infobox wars, sorry. I will say this, though: those who oppose infoboxes because they'd rather people be forced to read their precious prose are sadly misguided.--Begoon ^talk 12:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The RfC about the hidden notice is no part of an infobox war (if that even exists, - I think think the concept serves some). It's a general question of policy. - All sane people stay away from these discussions ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Well,the rfc says "Should the hidden html comment, "!-- please do not add an infobox ... be removed from this article?", so I read it that way. My opinion is that infoboxes standardise and normalise, easing navigation and aiding comparison, and are thus a good thing. I still won't battle about it, though. Does that make me sane? Begoon ^talk 13:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

You are sane. - The issue of the RfC is: who has the authority to post such a comment. A project? No. So why is it there, and good for whom. Good for owners? Just food for thought. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Mathsci

Hi. I appreciated your post on Mathsci's page, and IMO it wouldn't have killed him to learn something from it, instead of blanking it. But please don't restore it when he has removed it — that can only aggravate further. WP:DRC. (There's a guideline too, but that essay puts it well.) Bishonen | talk 14:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC).

You're right, obviously, but I only restored it once, and it was a good-faith contribution to a discussion about an unblock, not just some random post to a user talkpage. Probably I was upset with the edit summary gratuitously inferring some kind of offsite "connection" was a factor, in such a confrontational way, when any such thing had nothing to do with my post, its point or its message. Your point is well taken, though. I'd have much preferred a better answer from him, followed by a conditional unblock from you - but hey-ho... Begoon ^talk 14:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Dweller?

Do you mean User:Dweller or me? People do get us confused and he mentions it on his talk or user page, I can't remember which! And I have a domain dweller@ramtops.co.uk Doug Weller talk 18:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC) \t

I meant you, Doug, and I'm sorry, I've noticed, and fallen for, that unfortunate username confusion before. How embarrassing. Sorry to make it worse. Not my intention. Please forgive me, and I promise to look at dweller@ramtops.co.uk tomorrow. It even sounds like something I might be interested in. --Begoon ^talk 18:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. No problem. My website is [2]. Sadly not kept up anymore. Doug Weller talk 20:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

'That' signature

Brilliant :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 21:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I gave up on that thread. Sorry, it all became just too ludicrous. --Begoon ^talk^{Posted (online) from my rocket to the moon...} 02:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh I can't tell you Begoon how much I laughed reading your comments on the kid's page. I've not had that good a laugh for such a long time. I dropped in to just say "thank you" :D Lourdes 15:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh god... now I know what rofl means. Just read your moon signature... Absolutely too good! :DDDDDDD Lourdes 15:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hold on a second, please - this tab is offline. Fortunately, I always try to keep an online tab open for emergencies like this. I'll just swap over, back in a tick... --Begoon ^talk^{Offline:- browser tab timed out due to inactivity...} 15:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Done - Ok, that's better. This online/offline stuff is quite confusing, and frankly it doesn't help much at all that I simply can't tell from your signature whether you were online or not when you posted here... You should get a sig like mine - I copied and pasted it from someone and I like it a lot! Anyway, back on topic: he finally caved in and changed it to something sensible, so we should probably be gentle now, no matter how funny it is. Cheers. --Begoon ^talk^{Currently online. Situation fluid due to possibility of needing to go offline to answer front door. Update pending...} 15:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Cheers to you too :) Have a good day. Lourdes 15:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Unarchiving an off-topic discussion in an ANI report

The discussion you deleted the hats for was collapsed for a reason. The ANI report was on Hullabaloo and his editing of Erpert's comments in Erpert's filing for a request for closure of an AfD, and Hullabaloo violating AGF by accusing Erpert of "canvassing" in his filing of the request for closure. The conversation I hatted was an accusation that a User named Unscintillating was canvassing in a completely different Afd. It had nothing whatsoever to do with Hullabaloo or Erpert, or Hullabaloo's actions in the request for closure, therefore it was completely off-topic and therefore collapsing all the comments was the best idea. If someone wants to accuse Unscintillating of canvassing, they should do so in a separate report. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. You're free to do what you wish with it. I simply deleted a broken template that damaged content, and took the time to explain why I didn't just fix your error instead. I wasn't prepared to [a] leave in place a broken template which effectively just removed multiple comments or [b] take ownership of the collapse whilst not sure of the merits, as I explained. -- Begoon 02:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Blue

for you, remembering the blue duck --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Begoon ^talk 01:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Commons file

Hi. I'm translating the Sistine Chapel ceiling article to the pt.wiki and it seems that you are the author of this file. I'm wondering if you have the original svg and if you could share, 'cause I've tried to remake this composite but I kind of failed. Sorry to bother, Nakinn (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Try this: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0aof2njmlsypbmw/AABnw-H6_XFwdCDG67LDVHI3a?dl=0 If that doesn't help, let me know.

I didn't create it as SVG - it's Adobe Illustrator (ai) document. If you don't have Illustrator I could drop the text in for you if you leave me a translation in a table here. Begoon ^talk 18:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Done! It was the icing on the cake. Thank you! Nakinn (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Cool. It looks great. Thank you. You wrote a fantastic article. Begoon ^talk 16:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Note for posterity - new, working link - https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C0q86LzgeS9l2t8ukJXgyV-qrbTJmht2?usp=sharing --- Begoon 12:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

About Struthio camelus distribution.svg of Commons

Hi. Can you modify this file or create a new? What happens is that S. c. molybdophanes is recognized as a distinct species. Thank you, --Jr JL (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

What requires modification? Did the distribution change? If you're just talking about a text alteration, then tell me precisely what should change - with a source, please. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 02:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The image is called "Struthio camelus distribution" but with new classification, it show too to S. molybdophanes. Ref. as species itis, Clemets checklist, Catalogue of Life, IOC, ZooNomen, BirdLife, original publication. --Jr JL (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

So, would renaming the image to "Ostrich distribution" solve that issue? It's still in use at Ostrich.

I'm copying this discussion to Talk:Ostrich for more input - we should continue discussion there Begoon ^talk 08:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Re. Wifione ArbCom case

This is probably irrelevant now that it's been a year and a half since the case closed, but for the record - I was wrong about Wifione. My involvement in the ArbCom case has become a source of embarrassment and I feel awkward reading through some of my comments there. Much as I hate speaking negatively about anyone, he was one of the most manipulative editors I've ever come across, and we are much better off without him. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that you need to feel embarrassed. You are far from the only one to be taken in by the clever manipulation - hell, I supported Wifione's RFA... AGF can be a double-edged sword when exploited in this way. Whilst the correct decision was reached, it shouldn't have been so difficult, or have taken so long to address, and I'm still not sure enough lessons were taken away. I'm curious though - what prompted you to raise this now, after so much time? --Begoon ^talk 03:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I guess I just looked back on my involvement in that case and felt silly, knowing that I came out in defense of someone who abused people's trust so brazenly. Then again, I do tend to feel guilty when I really shouldn't; I know others fell for his act as well, and it was very convincing. I'm the sort of person that likes to see the good in nearly everybody, no matter what path they've chosen in life - but not to the point of naïveté. I extended this to Wifione because I believed that he was a genuinely good and decent person, even when everyone else had seen through his façade. It wasn't until near the end of the case that I began to realize just how cold and calculating he really was. More than anything else, I wanted to distance myself from any support I had for him in the past. He clearly cannot be trusted. Kurtis ^(talk) 04:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I think looking for good in people is entirely the right thing to do. I try to do so myself. Where wikipedia is less successful is when dealing with people who exploit this, knowing that AGF will allow them to misbehave so long as they appear, superficially, to be acting in good faith. Civil POV pushing is the most insidious example of this, and takes up mountains of time. Unfortunately it is hard to deal with, because the "pusher" will devote as much time, and post as many civil walls of text as are necessary to wear down other editors. Many areas of the encyclopedia are degraded by this, and much valuable time wasted. Unfortunately I don't have a solution for this, and I've never seen a really good suggestion for one. When "anyone can edit" that means we need to accept that sometimes that will include people who shouldn't. In the end, most of the "worst" of this kind of thing does get addressed, but much does not (and the "worst" is, anyway, only the tip of an iceberg), and it's a slow, painful process. --Begoon ^talk 05:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC

Thank you for your support. Yes, I'll try to be more condescending in future rather than referring to obvious facts. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

With regards to your first sentence: you're welcome. The second sentence I don't understand, sorry. I think sometimes you harm your cause by lashing out at those who disagree with you, like, for example, this. I understand it is disappointing to see opposition to an RFC, and I do sympathise. Anyway, I'm sure you've had quite enough of my unsolicited advice, and I apologise if you felt that any of my comments were too harsh. Sometimes we could all do better at considering the feelings of others, I think. All the best. --Begoon ^talk 04:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I am just disgusted at the way some people (not you) behave on RfC, much the same way as they do at RfA. It's lost us a lot of good editors and admins in the past and if I were not so damn thick skinned and persevere with ideas to improve the way we work where others can't be bothered, I would have retired long ago - at my age I have better things to do than piss around for free at Wikipedia and travel all round the world at my expense to its conferences and meetings. I was supposed to be flying 12,000Km to London again to a meet up next month, but frankly, I don't think I can be bothered - it will only cause more PA from the people who don't understand that that is how the real work gets done. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you're not disgusted with me. I understand what you are saying, but it's really not important who gets the credit for change, or that people don't fully understand how it happens. The folks who make the most difference are often almost invisible in many ways. Like you, I tend to want to get defensive (by responding in kind, or more strongly) when I feel criticised. I try to remember some old advice: write the angry letter, put a stamp on it (the stamp is important), then tear it up and toss it in the hearth. It helps, but sometimes it doesn't help enough. It's a fact, though, that most grown-up people will respect you more if you don't keep telling them why they should. I share your frustration with newbies incompetently meddling in areas they shouldn't as part of what they imagine is a path to "power" - we've posted on some of the same talk pages in that regard - and yes, RFA is a mess, now with added drive-by superficial voting - not good at all. I'll stop now, as I appear to be "preaching", which was not my intention. Thanks for engaging. --Begoon ^talk 06:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think your preaching, but I'm an old (very old) dog, and while I have absolutely neither desire nor intention of taking the credit (got enough of that in RL) for anything on Wikipedia, it puts my back up when children and clueless newbies throw their weight around on Wikipedia just because they can. "Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit' was meant to infer ...anyone can add reasonable content to but it's been misconstrued as ...anyone can screw around with, which was definitely not Jimbo Wales' intention. If I'm still around in December, I'll be starting a counter RfC to some of the changes that were made recently to RfA (not by me, and I gave plenty of warning - well, advice really). Already my mail box is awash about the close of a recent RfA. As we have seen there and now at the current RfC, watchlist notices are a bad idea. It never used to be commonplace, and it's still not mandated; I just naively thought (again) that I was doing the right thing.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

He used... sarcasm!

<looks sheepishly> It took a while to sink in you were being sarcastic. I'm not usually that thick, I assure you. Kleuske (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, considering at least 3 people thought I was being serious, I'd say the fault, if any, was obviously in my expression rather than in your comprehension. Entirely my fault for expressing myself so poorly. See you around... -- Begoon 01:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)