User talk:Begoon/Archive 16

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

←

→

Promoting Sarawak to FA article

I noticed that previously you had contributed to the Sarawak article. Therefore, I decided to ask you for help on this one. Sarawak, located on the northwest Borneo, was a former British crown colony from 1946 to 1963. This article is just a few steps away from becoming the featured article status. Would you help to do either a general review/source review or an image review for this article so that it can achieve the featured article status as soon as possible? Any help is very much appreciated, thank you. Cerevisae (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Probably the last person you want to hear from

So, you posted this on AN:
::::KV, it's a continual mystery to me why you make this kind of post when you obviously have no clue what you are talking about. You used to have a sanction against doing so, I think. Has it expired? If so, please point me to where you were permitted to behave like this again so that I can properly object. I have no sanctions against posting on AN/ANI, however I do have a few sanctions not relating to AN/ANI,, such as:

a.) I drop an issue if two or more people in good standing say so.
b.) I am not to archive or close off any part of any discussion where I'm involved.

The complaint you and I are at odds with looks purely punative to me , that why I said what I said. I get that you disagree, as does another sysop, and per restriction A I will not post anything else about that complaint. In the future, Please comment on content , not contibutor . К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 20:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding on the sanctions. However, disappointingly, in answer to our request to drop the issue and stop posting about things you don't understand, you decided instead to just change the venue to my talk page, continue posting about the same issue here, and, just for good luck, accuse me, in a sideways manner, of breaching a policy you also clearly don't understand?

Priceless.

Drop it, Kosh.

Note: (the word is punitive , for your future reference, but I really recommend you don't use that until you understand it, either...) -- Begoon 01:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

At Arb

Sorry, I was trying to move a single line - not sure how it ended up reverting a whole pile of stuff. GoldenRing (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry. Shit happens. ANI is the typical example of another page which does that all the time. Mediawiki sucks at big pages with lots of consecutive, quick edits. All is good. -- Begoon 14:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Blanchardstown Demographics

The Data which I have collected was from http://census.cso.ie/sapmap/, http://airo.maynoothuniversity.ie/external-content/fingal in which I calculated the 8 EDs Together — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackW436 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

TomBarker23

Thank you also for your consideration on my talk page. I found it very uplifting. Thank you for being a very supprortive Wikipedian. TomBarker23 (talk)% —Preceding undated comment added 21:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

for your edit to my userpage yesterday. I'd forgotten that I opted into beta features - I've removed them now, as I found the new editor a tad annoying. Take care. Patient Zero^talk 10:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Bollywood posters

The now inactive user Kaayay has uploaded several posters of Bollywood films from Osianama without removing watermarks, and in lower-than-necessary resolutions. If you are overwriting them, please make sure they are at least 220px large and not lower. --Kailash29792 (talk) 09:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for signing my post!

Can't believe I didn't sign it myself... :) Garchy (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think everyone forgets to do that sometimes. -- Begoon 02:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Begoon, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! ansh 666 20:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Someone you know?

Ankur Bhandari? —SpacemanSpiff 15:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Certainly worth keeping an eye on, but at a quick glance I don't see all the usual signs or range yet. Could be our friend with a casual mobile account, or just another religion/ethnicity "enthusiast" - there's certainly no shortage of them... -- Begoon 00:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why you weren't pinged. —SpacemanSpiff 07:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Ha - I feel unloved now... -- Begoon 04:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Endorse involved close

Just to say that I agree with your action in closing the discussion I started at talk:AN/I. As your edit summary said, it's for the best.

But I'd also like to invite you to consider your closing comment It would be really nice if people were always perfectly polite. This can be taken at least two ways, either as sarcasm, or as an endorsement of my main point which is that Wikipedia would be improved if we stuck more closely to the current policy.

The sarcastic possibility is an example of exactly what I'm objecting to. Better avoided perhaps? Andrewa (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

If it can be taken in "at least two ways" then it's probably a better summary of that discussion than I thought it was, given the fact that perception of "civility" is often as much about interpretation as it is about content. I'm not inclined to alter it, but anyone is welcome to undo my action. -- Begoon 22:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough! Andrewa (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

On reflection, if you don't like it, it seems a reasonable thing to alter it, so I did. -- Begoon 08:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you. Andrewa (talk) 09:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

MMLPiv

MMLPiv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Lotus (Christina Aguilera album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thanks for reverting them, but they're clearly a sockpuppet of MariaJaydHicky and their associated accounts, who was edit warring with the user Kellymoat just earlier this year on the same page. The page was unprotected in November, and they've obviously remembered and resumed with IP addresses and now this account. I've reported them to an admin. Edit: Looks like Widr already found out, blocked them and protected the page. Ss112 08:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but until they were blocked I didn't want you to have to do any more reverts, nor just leave it there. The article is on my watchlist from years ago, when the album was new. Keep up the good work. -- Begoon 08:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Saw [1]. You may want to compare [2]. If so, maybe add to the list? I see a familiar pattern. And, there will be more. Montanabw^(talk) 18:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I only made that small edit because I happened to stumble across one sock in the course of general editing, and I glanced at that page. I see Oshwah has blocked the one you link as a sock. In general, I prefer to leave the tagging and addition (or not) of socks to lists and categories to CU/SPI clerks or admin at SPI, since they are usually more familiar with the reasons why it may or may not be desirable in individual cases - or whether just RBI might be preferable. -- Begoon 05:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Invite to watch talkpage

Hey, per your edits here, would you mind watchlisting my talkpage? There have been more, at least five having hit my talkpage with false ANI reports [3]. I tagged some of them as suspected socks (they don't even try to pretend they aren't) and it only triggers more hits at me, yet WP:DENY also doesn't seem to de-escalate them. I don't know what it takes to get a rangeblock on this user, but I figure the more eyes out there, the better. Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 19:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this

Thank you for this [4]. I never knew The Daily Mail was prohibited as a source on Wiki. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I'm happy to have helped. -- Begoon 02:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You had recently provided a statement regarding a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others. This case will address the behaviour of Joefromrandb and editors who have interacted poorly with them. However, on opening, who those editors might be is not clear to the committee. Before posting evidence on the relevant page about editors who are not parties to the case please make a request, with brief supporting evidence, on the main case talk page for the drafting arbitrators to review. Evidence about editors already listed can be posted directly at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 11, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Precious three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Begoon 11:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Module: Graph

Hey. Since you were one of the active discussers on the talk page of Module:Chart. I was wondering if you or somebody else can help make a model of a graph similar to the images placed in this source. Can it be done? Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 21:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

If you are just talking about a basic bar chart, then there are several ways of doing that in wikicode, and I can help you with that if needed. If you wanted something with custom graphics, like the example, then that would need to be created as an illustration (image file), but could not be exactly the same for copyright reasons. It could be similar. I could help with that too. Give me some more details about exactly what you'd like, and we'll go from there. -- Begoon 23:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

A basic bar chart should probably do. But just to be sure show me the example of the custom graphic too. I am curious about both.Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 23:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll have more time for this tomorrow, so I'll post a fuller reply on your talk page then. It should be fairly quick and easy to do what you need. Cheers. -- Begoon 00:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I don’t think it should need updating. I will most likely state that it will be reported in whatever time it was reported on and that it reflected that time period then. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 05:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

ok - well if you can specify exactly what data you want to graph, link to the raw data source, and specify any other requirements or desirables for the chart(s), I'll have a look at creating something for you in the next day or two. -- Begoon 06:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. I believe I want a bar chart that is similar or true to this. I don’t care if which direction the bar chart goes though. That is all I understand to answer. My apologies if I needed to be more specific on your question. :) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 06:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that to create a chart like that I need to source the actual raw data (numbers). The graphic you link says "Sources: The Licensing Letter 2013", but https://www.thelicensingletter.com/newsletter-archive/ indicates that a 'premium subscription' is required to access that data. 2013 is quite old, so I was hoping to access newer data, but if I can't even access the 2013 data I'm a bit stuck... Your source article lists some of the numbers in text, but not all of them. I suppose I could just trust their chart, and extrapolate the approximate values to create a new one, but I'd rather do it properly, with real, sourced numbers. -- Begoon 07:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I have the copy and paste of a current 2016 article on it. The update seems to indicate that Batman beat Spider-Man domestically but not worldwide in 2015 when BvS came out. You can see it yourself if you sign up and don’t look at any articles past it. The. Copy and paste as shown:

“The age-old question is re-examined: DC or Marvel? We’ve restated the 2014 retail sales figures for Batman, Avengers, and Superman to reflect the relative rankings between the four superhero brands on the $100 million-plus list. This is how the top superheroes rank up in 2015 for licensed retail sales in the U.S./Canada: Batman (No. 11 on the $100 million list) Spider-Man (No. 12) Avengers (No. 13) Superman (No. 16) Globally, the ranking is re-arranged a bit, with Batman relegated to the number 3 spot: Spider-Man Avengers Batman Superman”

The chart source they cite is here which I have just took a screenshot of. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 07:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok - I've saved a copy of that chart data. I'll put a graphic together in the next couple of days, based on the data from that, and showing the comparisons in the original graphic you linked. -- Begoon 08:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Sounds good. :) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Can’t wait to see it whenever it’s ready! Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 23:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Don’t feel guilty about it. I understand you being busy and all. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

That looks like a good start. Is that an example of an chart or do you plan to use it an image file? Either way I like it and I plan to use it on said articles. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 17:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Because you indicated there wouldn't be a need for editors to frequently update it I opted for an image file, because the final visual output is more flexible that way. It's generated with Adobe Illustrator - the basic wireframe of the bars comes directly from entered sales figures, so size is accurate, then just colour/style is added. As I said, it was very basic, to confirm style and data used - so if you do want to alter/add anything let me know. -- Begoon 02:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

2pac

I couldn't find anything anywhere honestly, but I recall a while back when I first started editing someone on some article I edited said it's preferred to use the official cause of death. They could have been mistaken. Honestly I check his article every couple of months and I've noticed the cause of death changes frequently so it might be something that consensus would need to be reached on at some point.--Rockchalk7 17 04:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

It's no big thing to me, but I do, on balance, prefer something that indicates the circumstances to something "clinical" that doesn't. I deliberately chose JFK as my example because I think anything other than "Assassination" there would just feel wrong. We're not supposed to use the "death_cause" parameter at all unless it's important to the particular individual, and obviously in this case it is, so something that indicates what actually happened rather than a bare clinical diagnosis (which could, after all, have been "internal bleeding" or something similarly vague and unhelpful) seems to me to be more useful to the reader. That's just my opinion, though... -- Begoon 04:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Here lies my watchlist. May it rest in peace. GMG ^talk 07:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry - just trying to help out - guess it needed a bot flag - I'll stop (did 91) - my bad... -- Begoon 07:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Nah. It's all good. I wasn't complaining. Just thought it was funny. GMG ^talk 07:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's a fair point, so I'll let someone with a bot flag finish it. The people after Curb Safe Charmer can have lots of "small" until then - they'll survive... -- Begoon 07:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)