User talk:Begoon/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

​

Thank you for your help and understanding!

Hello, Begoon. You have new messages at Mjscheer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjscheer (talk • contribs) 07:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm replying on your talk page. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 07:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

An award for you

Golden Wiki Award In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 67.80.64.128 (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello (re: User:BeckiGreen)

resolved discussion related to mentorship

BeckiGreen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 74.179.215.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Hello. You left a message on my talk page. I clicked and the contributions link and they are mine. They are just edits on pages like Lisa Bonet,Dodgeball etc. I just read a article and if I see a grammar mistake or something that is not neutral,I change it. That is all. I have been doing this since June of 2008,though I sometimes was not logged in and there is no telling what IP address showed up since I have moved several times. Thank you.--BeckiGreen (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Thank you. I was talking about the messages you posted regarding User:George Ho: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Basically, I wondered why you felt the need to do this logged out, and whether, amongst the hyperbole, speculation and borderline personal attacks in those posts, there was actually something worthy of a productive discussion which you wanted to pursue? I guess possibly not, since you didn't respond to either of my previous invitations to do so ([5], [6]) - but now that I realise you are a registered user, I felt I should check with you "in person" so to speak. As one of George's 'mentors' I'm always happy to have constructive discussions with anyone on related matters. Begoon talk 23:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC) I did not write anything logged out on purpose. If you go through my history you can see where I had contacted someone and told them I could not access my username,because I did not know it was case sensitive. Also when I use my I pad sometimes it has me logged in,other times I will type something and realize I was not logged in. So that is why I did not respond to your previous discussions,also,I am not on Wikipedia 24 hours a day,or everyday for that matter. Also I do not feel regret about what I said about user George Ho,I followed the whole discussion about him,although I did not say anything when the discussion was going on. And also I believe when the discussion about him was going on,other users maybe yourself to( I can't remember) had said that they thought he was being a Troll or goofing around too. So why can't I say the same thing? When I brought up my opinion on him on someone's talk page I stated that I was not being mean,or something to that effect,but that I was concerned that George Ho was messing around wasting people's time. I have a right to a opinion,just as everyone else. In fact,I don't even care anymore. I only brought it up 2 times I believe and that was over a week ago so please just let it go.--BeckiGreen (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC) I forgot to as that I just read what I wrote on user Elen of the Roads talk page about George Ho and I stated in the first line that I was not making a personal attack,just concern about wasting people's time. So there was no speculation or Hyperbole,so to speak.--BeckiGreen (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Well, you said a lot, there, but nothing new or helpful. I'm afraid that saying something is not an attack does not make that true. The posts you made were unacceptable and you are fortunate that nobody has yet insisted on sanctions being discussed. Don't mistake that for approval or indifference. If you feel no regret for the attacking, unsupported posts you made, then I am sorry for you. I hope you find better ways to interact with people in future, for your own sake, and find some more peace in your own mind. You seem to have made one huge characterisation error, though - the "troll" is not the person on the receiving end when this behaviour occurs… The "troll" is the person posting multiple, almost identical attacks/slurs with no supporting evidence. In this case, guess who that is…? As to your (somewhat petulant) "In fact,I don't even care anymore. " - I do care about the possible repercussions of the actions you took, and, frankly, the fact that you do not speaks very poorly of you, in my opinion. I'm not insisting you apologise to George, because forced apologies are worthless - your conscience should make you do that without prompting, to try and minimise the distress you caused with your posts. On this occasion I will not pursue sanctions. Please don't behave in this way again. Thank you. Begoon talk 21:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC) I cannot believe this. I have said I don't care. When I say that I mean that since no one thought my concerns were valid that I was leaving the discussion alone. Instead you twist "I don't care" into me needing peace in my mind,and that I don't feel regret. I already apologized for what I said,long before you suggested it. And as far as Sanctions, sorry,I am not worried about that becuase all I did was voice a opinion,some other people on the original discussion page said he was ,or thought, he was a troll as well. Are you going after them too? Can you please just leave me alone,I couldn't care less that you think I need "peace in my own mind". And you also now have called me a Troll,("in this case,guess who that is")is that a personal attack? Please just do not contact me anymore. You have Turned a opinion I had into nothing but drama. I think it best if you do not contact me again. --BeckiGreen (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC) As I stated, I will not pursue sanctions in this case, so "not contacting you again" will not be an issue, unless I notice this kind of behaviour in areas in which I am involved again. You say you apologised. I see no apology to the target of your attacks. My apologies to you if I missed seeing it. However, I discussed that above. I do not believe in "coercing" apologies, since that makes them worthless. In stating you said you "do not feel regret" I was merely repeating your own comment. I didn't characterise you that way. You did so yourself. My comment about "troll" was to show you that your behaviour in this case was indistinguishable from the behaviour you were attributing to another user, and the term was introduced by you, not me. Mine was kind of a "glass houses" comment. You'd do well to think about that. If you feel I am being unfair or unreasonable, please feel free to ask any independent admin to evaluate this conversation. I am merely dealing with a matter related to a mentorship, which has the potential to damage the progress achieved in that process. You may disengage from this discussion at any time you wish. Alternatively, you could support your concerns with some evidence, and it could be properly discussed. If you have no intention of doing that, then the posts you made could serve no purpose other than to distress. Thank you for the time you have spent discussing these matters. Begoon talk 01:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC) I just saw your name on the talk page for Murfreesboro,Tennessee. I was just curious if you live in Murfessboro,Tennessee? I am asking because I just moved there. Also I am going to start work on the Betty Broderick article. I have read it and to me it seems kind of biased towards Betty. I would like to make it read more neutral. Also I don't or don't remember seeing a picture in the article for Betty Broderick. The article could use a picture of her but I do not know how to add pics to articles. Maybe user George Ho could find one? He seems to really know the rules for images and copyright when it comes to that sort of thing. Maybe he can find one.--BeckiGreen (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Current/Past Members of the Beatles

There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Temporary mentor request

update: I have requested a temporary mentor while you are still gone. Is this okay? --George Ho (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Kevin is away :(

What a pity - Kevin is delated. What happened?! --Kürschner (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

File:TheTwilightZoneLogo.png

This image is used in two articles; one is The Twilight Zone that has other two images. While the title card alone is irreplaceable, the text is free, according to the WP:NFR. I have added some rationale about the logo itself. Will you be able to create the SVG version? --George Ho (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can, but there are a couple of things to consider.

• I assume that you only want to use the text (type), because the "starry" background is what gives the png titlecard its "originality".
• The text is white - so it will need to have a solid background or it will be invisible.
• If you use just a black background, with white type, it will look odd (IMO), because it will look like the stars have just been missed out.
• The other option is just to make the type solid black.

I won't have time to do the conversion for a day or so, but in this case this gives a bit of time. Would you do me a favour in the meantime, and add a question at the relevant project page, asking them to confirm they think this is an acceptable way to proceed. I saw the "Cosby Show" example you linked in the other discussion, but it's still nice to get opinions, and keeps them up to date with what you plan to do. Also, someone may have another idea, or spot something we missed. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 03:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedians

You joined the Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian, which is being discussed at its entry at Categories nominated for deletion.

You may wish to join the category Category:Wikipedians working towards even enforcement of civility.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but no. I added the category because it seemed to me to convey my sentiments over the issue perfectly.

If it turns to a redlink, then so be it - the community has the right to delete the category, through process, with consensus, as it seems it eventually will. That's fine - a redlink works just as well for me.

I'm not here enough at the moment to "work" towards anything, so it would probably be inaccurate to add myself to that new category.

I'll find time to make appropriate votes at the ARBCOM election. Other than that, I can do little at the moment. Thanks for the note, though, Kiefer, it's appreciated. Begoon ^talk 23:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

A word that has been misspelled by the Wikipedia everywhere.

A word that has been misspelled by the Wikipedia everywhere.

Hello, Begoon, Not in the writings of article writers, but rather in the writings of the Wikimedia Foundation staff itself, "semi-protected" is a misspelling everywhere.

This word is really "semiprotected", and "semi" is never correctly hyphenated only ANY common noun or common adjective.

Let me assure you that "semi-protected" appears in dozens of places that I do not have the authority to do anything about it, and that is why I am writing you.

In English, "semi" is attached directly to the word that it modifies, such as in these: semiannual, semiarid, semiautomatic, semiconductor, semiconscious, semigroup, semimetallic, semimonthly, semiprecious, semisolid, semihemidemiquaver.

Sincerely yours, Dale A. Wood Atlanta, Georgia Dale101usa (talk) 05:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was merely helping an editor with a semi(-)protected edit request. I have no strong views on the issue. There are, as is often the case with usage, arguments both ways. It's certainly not an issue I'd want to spend a lot of time and effort on. If you want to get more feedback, then Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style would be the place to go. I have no more authority than you do - and you seem very keen to discuss this meaningfully, so that's what I'd recommend. Thanks for the note.

Incidentally, since the IP address of the editor who made the original edit requests also geolocates to Atlanta, and he phrased his comments very much as you did here, I wonder if that was you, logged out? If so, I wonder why you did not make the original edits yourself? Apologies if it's just one of those one in a million coincidences. Begoon ^talk 05:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

List of AT&T U-verse channels

List of AT&T U-verse channels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is now a redirect to AT&T U-verse, but it formerly was deleted and then userfied. It was nominated as MFD but resulted as "come back for several months" before it became a redirect. This fails WP:RFD#KEEP; stuff is already merged into the redirected article, but every log is useless. Also, it attracts vandalism. --George Ho (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yuk - that whole saga is an ugly mess - I actually think I saw this at ANI weeks ago when NeutralHomer was battling with the IP editor, and it got very silly and nasty. But it's probably not doing much harm as a redirect.

If it does get a lot of vandalism, it could get semi-protected. I wouldn't worry too much about it, because anything you try to do with it right now looks like it will just be met with squabbling. Follow the result of the xFD and revisit it in a couple of months when it'll hopefully be calmer, would be my suggestion, with protection for the redirect if it needs it at any point.

Nice to hear from you, by the way - just got home from a day at the beach with my little girl, tired and sunburnt. Begoon ^talk 07:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Screenshots in EastEnders article

I've talked about some images in EastEnders that may fail to be "irreplaceable by text" in User talk:Gungadin and User talk:AnemoneProjectors‎. I need your permission that I may nominate them for deletion. Do you allow? I'll make separate rationales for each image. --George Ho (talk) 10:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me ask you a question first. Do you think you should still need to ask before nominating an xFD, or do you think things have moved on? Begoon ^talk 10:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Come again? I'm under mentorship agreement that permission is required for xFD, unless I'm wrong. --George Ho (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

What I'm asking is whether you'd feel confident if that requirement was removed. I'm the only one who imposed it, to make you give some more thought and discussion before some nominations, and I'm now wondering if that purpose is served and I should withdraw the condition. I wondered whether you agreed? Begoon ^talk 10:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Um... I don't recall anybody ever removing that requirement, now that you asked me. If removal of permission is needed, then please say so. Otherwise, maybe tone down (or change) requirements: only discussion with others first (no mentor permission needed), and then request deletion. How's that? That way, I no longer need your permission under condition that discussion comes first. --George Ho (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Well then, I will change it to this, right now, here:

"George Ho is no longer under a mentorship restriction requiring him to gain permission for an xFD nomination. George may nominate items at xFD, provided he can, on each occasion, demonstrate the following:

1. He has considered all alternatives to deletion, thoroughly, before requesting deletion.
2. He has discussed the matter on the relevant talk pages, or elsewhere, and there was no consensus against such a nomination.
3. He will seek advice even more carefully if the xFD in question is likely to be at all controversial."

Is that ok? Begoon ^talk 10:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You can change it now. I can follow either one or all, right? As for #1, I don't think removing an image is considered an "alternative to deletion"; that still counts as deletion. --George Ho (talk) 10:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You need to consider them all, every time, and follow those that apply, and be prepared to show someone how you did all that if they ask you later. That's all, and I trust you to understand all that. I'll go and alter the thing on your mentorship page now. Begoon ^talk 10:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, using WP:NFR or WP:MCQ may count as #2, correct? --George Ho (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Begoon ^talk 10:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok.  Done Take things slowly and carefully, but most importantly - thoughtfully. As I know you will. Begoon ^talk 11:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Ian H. Crocker

It would be easier if you explained requests at the time, rather than after. Indeed, looking into it more, it's clear that someone supposed to be born in 1924 didn't found a town in the 1890s [7], but when it looks merely like someone complaining he's not mentioned in what looks like a RAMbot city article with no town history, I'm going to decline it. Leave a little note on the talk page, or edit summary; even something that shows that I need to investigate more before deciding. WilyD 08:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't blame me for the fact that you didn't investigate. You could equally have asked, or glanced at my recent contributions. I spent around 30 minutes investigating before I placed the tag. I'm not happy with your response to something I spent considerable time on. I have no idea what "it looks merely like someone complaining he's not mentioned in what looks like a RAMbot city article with no town history" actually means - but my account is a longstanding account with 10k+ edits - that bit would take 5 seconds more to check than the 10 you probably spent declining the CSD. Sorry if you think that's harsh - but I call them as I see them. Begoon ^talk 09:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The point isn't blaming, but that if you're going to spend 30 minutes looking into the subject, it's worth spending 30 seconds explaining what you're mean when it's non-obvious. Your edit summary was "No indication of why this should redirect there" - which is true enough, but the article on the hamlet says nothing about the history at all. But that doesn't give me any indication that you have cause to think it's a hoax, just that you didn't know why it was redirected there. Which fails "obvious hoax", because any name is plausible enough of the person who founded the town (perhaps not Zaphod Beeblebrox, but most random names, anyhow). So yes, I made a decision based on your comments, plus a quick check of the article (which revealed nothing, but a thorough check would have, yes). But with a consistent-looking picture, I didn't see a need to question it. You can think I'm as lazy as you like, but it behooves you to give a better explanation next time, so your effort isn't wasted. WilyD 09:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Have it your own way. I did not, and would not, call you 'lazy' though. It would be no more, and no less 'lazy' to spend 60 minutes cleaning one room of a house, than it would to spend 6 minutes on each of 10 rooms. I even accept that sometimes the latter is necessary. I do think that if you can't even look at the talk page of the article the redirect points to, which had all you would have needed, you need to slow down and be more careful. But reasonable people can disagree, and it was only a declined speedy, not a bad deletion, so I'd be the first to admit you erred on the "right" side (if indeed you did err - certainty is never 100% and it could turn out that really is the founder's name, that's why I was reticent in the first place - seems unlikely, though) - careless deletion would be much worse of an error - so I'll leave it at that. Begoon ^talk 09:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Bal Thackeray Issue

I am sorry for editing that page "Talk:Bal Thackeray", i wasn't aware that it was wrong/bad practice. Thank you for guiding me. I will make sure I do not edit other's comments on Talk Pages.

Thank You!

MSS 14:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. No problem at all.

I can see from your contributions that you are keen to help with editing here. I know it's difficult when you are new, there seem to be a million rules, and 10 million people telling you about them! It will all seem a lot less confusing as you gain experience. Nobody will think badly of you for making a few mistakes - I make lots every day - the important thing is that we can correct them and learn.

I also noticed this edit: [8] which you made just afterwards. There would be nothing wrong with that edit at all, except that the text you changed is part of a direct quote from the cited reference next to it [9]. You can tell because it is "italicised and contained in speech marks". We don't change directly quoted material like that as it misrepresents the source: see WP:QUOTE.

However, on this occasion it doesn't matter because I'm removing that reference as not a reliable source - it is content generated by users without editorial oversight, as far as I can tell.

I do encourage you to keep up the good work you have been doing so far. If you need any help, feel free to ask. Thanks.

ps - you might want to fix your signature so that it links to your talk or user page. The easiest way to do that is to revert to the default, which you can do in "Preferences" by clearing whatever you have entered in the signature field and unchecking the "Treat the above as wiki markup" box. To get more adventurous and alter it, as I think you have tried - see the examples at WP:CUSTOMSIG - Begoon ^talk 14:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I tried doing that. went to Preferences and cleared the text. unticked the checkbox. I hope the signature will now point to my User page as it is supposed to.

And i even checked it, it works - via the Preview button.

Compfreak7 14:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Compfreak7 (talk • contribs)

Nope - sorry - no link:

• If you're signing using 4 tilde characters: ~~~~
• and you have nothing in the Signature field in your preferences
• and the Treat the above as wiki markup box is unchecked
• and you saved your preferences

- then you have me stumped... Begoon ^talk 15:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's how mine looks if I follow those steps - yours should be the same, with your name and links: Begoon (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Yes. I got it. i saw it in the preview. and then somehow i dont know when, the other tab in my browser had the checkbox ticked, and i clicked save (preferences page). Its fixed now.. Thanks a lot.

By the way, can/should i delete all this text from your user page, or i would be at fault if i did so? I mean we should not waste wikipedia's server disk space- databases stuff.. just joking.. But still, things that are not required must be deleted,isnt it?

I hope i am not at fault again. I ll learn Wiki-editing with time hopefully. Compfreak7 (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Great - you got it. That works fine. (don't start a new line just for your sig, though...)

No, the User talk page stuff should stay. Just like Article talk pages they are permanent records of discussions. - read WP:TPG

Most people just archive periodically. I do so after 14 days. The only stuff I delete without archiving is unimportant messages from WP:BOTS. You can see the links to my archives at the top of this page. Whatever you do it doesn't "hide" or "lose" any messages, because they can still be seen in the history of your page, and that is permanent.

Glad you got the sig fixed. Happy editing. Begoon ^talk 16:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

GGSIPU Logo

Hi Begoon, and thanks for creating an SVG version but there's a little problem. Official logo doesn't have blue background. I understand that the PDF has similar one but it's an artistic modification of original logo, like as it appears on the website. So, is it possible to remove this blue background? — Bill william compton^Talk 04:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Easily. What about the caption below? That's not on the website version either? Begoon ^talk 05:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, caption is also not a part of the logo. Old file is an exact copy of original logo. — Bill william compton^Talk 05:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok - done. I uploaded all 3 versions, so if you want to snag copies for yourself, do it before the old revisions get deleted. (If it looks spooky on the file page, clear your cache, purge page etc - the WP SVG engine does funny things when you preview similar versions on the same page - the files are correct and will work fine on articles etc... Begoon ^talk 05:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears fantastic. Thanks again Begoon. — Bill william compton^Talk 05:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Kesha

Thanks for touching up my recently uploaded Kesha image. Looks so good now. :) --Thevampireashlee (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem. The article was on my watchlist, because I edited it for something or other, so I saw the new pic - and that thing on her nose just had to go... It's a good pic, and suits the article well - good find. Begoon ^talk 21:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Except... Now I look closer - that wasn't a blemish, it was a nose ring (see the other Flickr pics in the set, particularly [10]. I was trying to show reality, not invent a new one... I'll do it again without removing the ring. Begoon ^talk 22:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok -  Done - with nasal adornment intact - and she still looks lovely... Begoon ^talk 22:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me for laughing. That's actually pretty funny. Looks better now. That's a mistake anyone could've made. :P --Thevampireashlee (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

And laugh you should... Still, never believe what you see on the internet - it may have been edited by me, or another idiot like me... Begoon ^talk 00:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom

I didn't get the chance to reply to your comment here before that section became history, but I think you summed it up pretty well. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I wish I could sum it up better. I used to be better with words and often find myself struggling to convey what is very clear to me these days. Age, I guess. I actually feel a bit sorry for the arbs (except a couple of them...) - they are just so out of their depth with all this. There's a telling comment in the section that got moved separately, though - nobody can help them unless they drop the act and admit they need help. Begoon ^talk 17:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I can only continue to agree with you (and with your reverted comments too ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Good grief... You mean people read reverted edits? But.... that could lead people to do it deliberately... heavens to Murgatroyd, it's all too much for me. Begoon ^talk

List of best-selling albums

Hi

May I ask if the IP user adding and removing comments from Talk:List of best-selling albums is in fact you, logged out. The reason I ask is that the IP deleted one of your comments: [11], and I don't want to revert if it is in fact you. Begoon ^talk 07:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

yup, that's me. Because until today, no editor seems interest with my question regarding of claim figures from Ace of Base albums. so i decided to logged out and ask by posted an offical edit request, perhaps it could attract the others editor to answer my question.

Because, even i'm also a registered editor. i need opinion from another editor. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politsi (talk • contribs) 08:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for replying. {{edit semi-protected}} is only intended to be used by editors who are unable to edit the page (new accounts, IP editors), not to draw attention to a discussion. The editors who respond to these requests are doing so to help new users, and there is often a backlog of requests, so it would be appreciated if you could either make the edits yourself, or just start discussions as you have been doing previously if you are not sure whether to make the edit or not.

I understand that waiting can be frustrating, but there is no WP:DEADLINE and it doesn't hurt to wait for input if you feel other opinions are necessary. I see that some other editors who are regulars have tried to help you recently, and hopefully they will do so again if that's what's needed.

I'm afraid that I don't have enough knowledge in that area to help you with that one myself, otherwise I would. Perhaps you might ask one of the editors who has helped you at those pages in the past directly, by posting to their talk page? Thanks. Begoon ^talk 08:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright then, thank you for your suggestion. Politsi (talk) 09:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome - good luck, and thanks for your quick replies. Begoon ^talk 09:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Mentorship with George Ho

Hi

I hope everything is well with you at the moment.

It occurred to me that it's nearly a year now since we started your mentorship arrangement, and I wondered whether you felt that it was still needed? I'll always be happy to be a "sounding board" or offer advice if you think you need it, and I'm sure the other mentors would be too. I always enjoy hearing from you, but having a formal mentorship agreement doesn't seem at all necessary to me any more, and we should probably have already brought it to an end.

Of course, if you want it to continue for your own peace of mind, then that's fine, there's no effort involved on my part any more. I just thought you might want to close it out, and remove that box from your talk page etc...

I'm not even sure if we need to do anything formal, but I could start a discussion at WP:AN if you like, to make it "official" - your block log says "Unblocking with mentorship", and that way you'd have an "official" end point for it. I'm sure that would just be a formality.

Let me know what you think, and don't feel any pressure over this - we can do whatever you would prefer. Begoon ^talk 13:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, maybe you can end your mentorship with me. However, that does not officially end my unblock with mentorship. Nevertheless, I haven't spent time asking others what I should do, but I ask them, no matter what I assume to know. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you have, some time ago, reached the point where you don't need to be under formal mentorship unless you still want to be. As the person who proposed it to end your block, and the person who contributed most to its management, I'd be happy to take steps to make it officially ended by starting an ANI discussion, and I don't think anyone would object.

You know when to ask for help, and what discussions to have before you take actions, and you no longer need to be "supervised" as far as I'm concerned. None of the issues that made it necessary exist any more, in my opinion.

My main concern is to do what you would like to do, so if you'd like it officially ended then I'm pretty certain that would be no problem at all. If that's not what you want, then that's fine too. If you're at all worried about changing anything, then that's fine, it can continue as long as you like.

You'd still be able to ask for guidance whenever you felt you needed to, just like we all can, and I'd be honoured any time in the future if you chose to ask me.

I hope I explained that ok. Begoon ^talk 15:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know; I spent a lot of time communicating with others. However, I don't contribute that much right now, but I will make more articles. Nevertheless, I would likely tag with issues or nominate for deletion without adequate communication. I wonder what other mentors will think, now that I have reached my peak. If ALL mentors agree to make mentorship requirements unofficial, that's okay. However, community comes first. For starters, we can contact more active people, Magog the Ogre, Dr.K., and Elen of the Roads. --George Ho (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok - I'll ask them all to contribute to this discussion if you'd like me to - that would probably be neater, you're right. Just let me know that's ok, and I'll pop out some talkback notes. If you want some more time to think about it, that's fine too - I just want to do what you think is best for you. It's also ok if you just say "forget it for now" and things can carry on as they are as long as you like. Begoon ^talk 15:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If you could communicate without initially proposing an end to mentorship, that's all right. If ALL of available mentors agree to have the mentorship requirement ended, then... that's okay. However, mentor replacements would be nice alternatives, especially since I begin to think that three or less is enough and that four is too much for now. --George Ho (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, cool. You'd like all of their independent opinions, without me suggesting anything? I can certainly understand that. Very wise. How about this - I'll start a review on your mentorship page, and invite them all to comment. I won't comment there until everyone else has. I'll just say something like: "It's almost a year, and I think it would be good if we can have a review to gather comments." ? How does that sound? We can also remove this discussion first if you like - it's my talk page. I should have used email, sorry for that. I'm still learning too Begoon ^talk 15:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Non-free images of "Goodbye, Farewell and Amen"

The infobox image is replaceable by text and/or fails to be significant to the article. Also, the body image may appear to be replaceable by text. --George Ho (talk) 05:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to contact uploaders, but they are not very frequent nowadays. Although permission is not required, I want your permission, please, to let me tag them for deletion. --George Ho (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look, and tell you what I think. Give me a little while. Begoon ^talk 06:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Remember you are more expert than me, so correct me if I miss anything:

• The infobox image is pretty much ornamental, and doesn't add much understanding for me. I mean: yeah, great, it's a title screen, so what?
• The other image, of the "Goodbye" message does help - it's evocative of one of the most poignant moments in the episode, I remember it, and that image brought it all back, so here I disagree. It adds something that text cannot. However many words you tried to use to describe that moment, it wouldn't have as much impact as that shot, and it was the last moment of a massively successful series that had run over many years, so hugely significant in the context of M.A.S.H. in general, and this episode.
• If it was my decision, I'd put that "Goodbye" shot in the infobox, and lose the crappy title screen shot. See how The Winchester Tapes uses a screenshot in that way - crap article, great infobox pic.
• Even better would be to replace it with a better cropped screenshot, that doesn't chop off a bit of the message and a head if that was possible. I might even have that DVD in a box under the house - I'd have to look...

All that being said, I'd like to see consensus on the article talk page before taking any steps toward that. Either that, or a discussion elsewhere if you don't think the talk page would be active enough.

All of that is just my opinion, though, and I'm looking from a content point of view, not a non-free-image copyright point of view - tell me if you have any reaction to those thoughts. Begoon ^talk 06:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll tag the title card for deletion if you approve. If deleted, as you said, I will put the "Goodbye" image to the infobox. The article talk page is not active since 2007, and further discussion about just one mere image elsewhere other than FFD is less than necessary. --George Ho (talk) 06:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

As you said, you don't need my approval, but I do agree with that, so please go ahead. I'll see if I have got that DVD in the next few days. It would be good to get a better cropped image.

I'm interested to know this. Do you agree with my reasoning for doing it that way? Just for fun I asked my wife for an unbiased opinion without seeing my answer and she said pretty much the same thing. Begoon ^talk 07:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to add my thoughts : )

I agree that the title card is kinda pointless. If I were to pick images for the article for "poignant moments", it would ones of Potter leading the camp on his horse; Winchester's musicians riding off in the truck; Klinger's marriage; the salute scene with the three of them saluting; the two images: showing the woman with the chicken, and the woman with the baby; and three images for the final shot: BJ riding away on the motorcycle with the closeup obscuring "some stones", the shot of "Goodbye", and Hawkeye's reaction shot.

Obviously, this wasn't merely a single episode in some obscure television series. This was done as a TV movie. And I think these scenes explain the emotionality of those moments in a way that the text can't. Though in the case of the chicken/baby scenes, the text can supplement.

I would personally pick the an image of Potter leading the camp on horseback as the infobox scene. The Goodbye scene, while iconic, should be adjacent to that moment in the text. - jc37 23:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

They are great thoughts, jc, and if I find the disc, that will be enormously helpful when I do. The article could stand a few pics, I think, and those are great calls. The same thought went through my mind, about the "goodbye" shot remaining next to the text to supplement it. I do, however, think it would be a great infobox pic, purely because it spells out the word, and what gives better 'info' about the episode than the word "Goodbye", picked out by hand in individual stones, as a final message from our one main "hero" to the other, and his reaction? I think it's also a great example of how to "break the third wall" without a spoken word. The message isn't just to Hawkeye, after all, it's to the viewers, isn't it?

Dilemmas, where would we be without them? . Incidentally, don't forget to indent your comments correctly on this page, I'm working on a bot to move anything I don't like the look of (format wise, of course) to a subpage, and I wouldn't want to startle you. (it's turning out to be too hard just to have it format them, so I'll have to do that manually, with a little thought and care, I think) Begoon ^talk 00:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I did some searching online, and of the diverse goodbye shots I have seen there, I don't think the angle will work for the infobox. YMMV of course : )

And be nice to Mbisanz : ) - He's doing a tough, thankless job, that is bound to bring adversarial comments. I am personally torn about what/how things should be done, and in the end, the compromise is likely to please no one, which may mean it's the right way to go. I dunno. - jc37 00:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You have a point, and I shall attempt to take it on board. I do try, but sometimes my inherent need to sarcastically comment on sub-par outcomes takes over. It's all about interaction, in the end, and sometimes I fail to rememember that. I think we all do. Thanks though for stopping by. Begoon ^talk 00:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Nod. And I understand the wont to comment on actions which I may disagree with or that I at least find "odd". Sandy Georgia recently suggested to me that I should "pick my battles", but I dunno. The wiki is not made of paper after all : ) - jc37 00:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandy's often right. I've never personally interacted with her, but see my comment on the T-shirt page. Begoon ^talk 01:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

A start

Here's a few...

It takes a while to find a good place to grab, and sometimes there isn't a good place - I'll look at the others you mentioned when I have some more time.

I don't think the shot of "BJ riding away on the motorcycle with the closeup obscuring "some stones" exists, but it damn well should do - I may have skipped over it or you may be better at dreaming the movie than they were at filming it, I'll look again later. You had me convinced, but I didn't see it in a quick fast forward...

I'll probably just watch the whole thing with a beer or three tomorrow or day after, now I've found it - seems like a plan, it's outstanding viewing...

Enjoy... Begoon ^talk 05:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, very nice : )

I could very well be dreaming it : )

(Though, I don't think I did too badly working only from memory : )

Anyway, what I recall was the the camera panned back a little, and you see BJ starting to ride away (the back tire of the motorcycle slide sideways a bit as he started off).

But that said, the picture you did get was a good one. San Fran sign and all.

The one with Potter on the horse that I was thinking of was post bug-out, where he does a sort of "westward ho, the wagons", with him on horseback leading the convoy, just as they are about to start out (I think he raised his arm).

Anyway, very nice job with the screenshots : ) - jc37 16:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)