User talk:Begoon/Archive 17

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

←

Copyvios

Thanks for your diligence in spotting and acting on all the Singaporean TV dramas. I now have far more knowledge about TV in Singapore than I ever imagined I would have! Nthep (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't actually go looking for them, but after I stumbled on the first one the others just kind of followed on, from linked articles. I have no knowledge of Singaporean TV either, but when the plot summary is the only halfway decent chunk of prose in the article one becomes a little suspicious that it perhaps wasn't written by the same editor(s). Thank you for dealing with them all so promptly. -- Begoon 14:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Z1381

sure.Thank you.--Z1381 (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk pages consultation 2019

The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects. As such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019. You are invited to express your views in the discussion. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration case reminder

You had recently provided a statement regarding a request for arbitration. We would like to remind you that the case is still open and evidence will be accepted until 11 February. Evidence may be posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Evidence according to the instructions of this page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

No thank you. I said what I wanted to at the case request: "There are, of course, two possible reasons that "the community has failed to handle an issue" - one being that there is a genuinely disruptive issue for which the community cannot agree upon a solution, the second being that the community has not acted because the vocal proponents of something being an issue requiring more action have failed to convince the community of the necessity of the further action they desire." Given the lack of participation at the case it seems to be the latter. They've certainly failed to convince me, at least. -- Begoon 13:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

DanishMaggot

Beat me to it, I was just about to open a sockpuppet claim for him. Canterbury Tail talk 15:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Heh. Not exactly the hardest one to spot. I just saw 3 edits quack across my watchlist in quick succession and I'd reverted some of the InterestingCircle edits last month, so... -- Begoon 15:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I saw the one to Canada and Mexico and went straight there. Canterbury Tail talk 16:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually I've just gone ahead and blocked them, not even waiting for the investigation. Canterbury Tail talk 16:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah - I don't think there's any real doubt. A 'duck' block seems a good move to me. Thanks. -- Begoon 17:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Moar thanks

I usually click only once per person and day, so here I am with moar. You say it so much better than I could. Talking images: I uploaded a few from a recent trip, with long hikes in desert mountains, click on "the desert", for dessert. (I didn't take 1 and 5.) He was despised was a redirect I created in 2012, see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't think that's true, though - in my experience you're pretty good at getting your meaning across. Besides, nobody listens to me, remember?

The pictures are awesome. -- Begoon 19:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

A smile for you

Hello Begoon, Not a very active user has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Not a very active user (talk) 10:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Precious anniversary

Inviting you to a performance --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Mesmerising... Thank you. -- Begoon 09:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

2019

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Perspolis Logo.svg

Hello. I removed the badSVG tag simply to remove it from Category:SVGs for cleanup, as it was due to be deleted. There was about 50 files in that category, and I was trying to keep myself organized. Sorry for any confusion! Pbroks13 (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

No, that's fine. I prefer to leave it on there as a warning because the file may not actually get deleted, for some reason, someone may use it, or it may get restored at some point. I can certainly understand why you'd remove it in those circumstances though - sorry if my edit summary came across as brusque. I had noticed that you had been fixing some of the files in that category - good work. Thanks. -- Begoon 03:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense. No worries, I know it can be frustrating when someone removes a nag for no apparent reason (I should have made an edit summary!). And thank you! Pbroks13 (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate Pages

Just wondering what the protocol was when duplicate pages have been identified (as I have recently come across duplicate pages on the same topic), such as http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Solihull_Metropolitan_Borough_Council and http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Metropolitan_Borough_of_Solihull Greenguytroy (talk

Wikipedia:Merging seems to be the procedure. -- Begoon 09:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

User_talk:Itsbydesign

Begoon do you know what can be done regarding this user blindly changing and moving articles and uploading images? Have been asked to go through WP:RM and even left final warning but does not seem to heed to any of that. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

They do seem like a bit of a "bull in a china shop". I can't really suggest anything more than putting together a good, clear ANI report - but the problem with that is that it might be seen as a content dispute rather than a behavioral issue. Is there a friendly admin in the music area you can ask for help/advice? Don't get yourself in trouble by edit-warring though... -- Begoon 10:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I have left a final warning and asked to go through WP:RM. If this continues I will need to file a WP:3RR or WP:ANI. Now going on EW using IP, I think its time to file the report. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

List of MAS*H episodes

Hadn't noticed the links had broken, thanx for straightening me out on that, there I go assuming again. Thanx again, - FlightTime (open channel) 13:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

No problem. I wouldn't have reverted your edit in the first place if there wasn't a problem. The links point to sections on different character pages but your edit made them point to sections that don't exist on the same page (episodes) which basically just makes them broken, going nowhere, but still confusingly blue, because the blue/red of a link only cares if the page exists, not the section, so any link to a section on the same page will always be blue, whether the section actually exists or not. -- Begoon 13:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Daedalus

That edit on Daedalus. So true. DaedalusGodOfWisdom (talk) 04:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: Anna Laetitia Barbauld

Hi, thank you for your opinion. I have improved the dimensions (extra 1px on the edge) of the image according to your suggestion. PawełMM (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. That looks better in the article now. It seems to be mainly small images where MediaWiki does this most noticeably. Sometimes with small svg files it will even chop off content from one or more edges of the png it generates, but leaving just a 1px blank "border" usually "fixes" it. -- Begoon 09:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Photography_workshop#Stitch

Hi Begoon,

Could you please help with this request before it becomes stale? Thank you very much. Gryffindor (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Gryffindor, I actually tried a few days ago, sorry I should have posted a reply there. Stitching them is no problem, but I can't get a good result fixing the window reflections without altering the image unacceptably. I actually spent quite a while trying various approaches, but none of the results were good. -- Begoon 15:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Alright, would you mind posting the stitch first and then we'll take a look? Gryffindor (talk) 08:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll need to tidy it up, because I only did tests, but I should have time to do that tomorrow. -- Begoon 10:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Adding to an SPI

It's most often the safe option to open a new case if you have more socks to add. You need to consider where the case is at. If blocks have been recommended but not yet handed out, adding a new sock might look as if you were trying to get a user blocked without any consideration. Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 08:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll do that in future then. Thanks for answering my question, and thanks for the work you are doing there. -- Begoon 08:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

DVD covers

Thanks for you help in doing a lot of these svg to jpg. I've finished off the rest from that user. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

No problem. There were quite a few which didn't need any reduction, but were still inappropriate as svg. I noticed you were doing some at roughly the same time, so I'm glad we didn't "conflict" at all. They were all 5 or 6 years old, and it doesn't seem as though the user still uploads embedded bitmaps as svg like this, so I didn't bother sending them a long explanation of why they shouldn't, on the assumption they've worked that out by now. -- Begoon 01:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree - I noticed his later covers were just fine. I put the earlier ones down to being a novice editor. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:SIZE image

I noticed you are the one who created the lead image used at WP:SIZE. However, it is woefully out of date now. Can you update the picture to include all of the contributions for the last 8 years? I simply don't have the skill to do so. Thanks! --BrianCUA (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, I always pretty much hated that image... I only updated it after a request on WP:GL, based on numbers provided by someone else which I just plugged in. It shows 2646 volumes. Evidently this calculation is terribly subjective, or just plain wrong - because Wikipedia:Size in volumes only shows 2693 volumes even now, 8 years later... So... something is wrong/different about someone's assumptions/calculations somewhere. If you can get a reasonable consensus somewhere on what it ought to show, and point me to that discussion then I might be able to update/improve it from a graphical perspective. How does that sound? -- Begoon 05:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thanks for your recent advice and tips regarding the use of logo rationale. Much appreciated. Greenguytroy (talk) 09:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Taylor Swift signature

What's the "significance to this signature" you're talking about? Can you explain further? What significance do you need? BawinV (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure. Why is it notable? What does it add to the article beyond decoration? What understanding of the subject does it give to the reader? But don't feel you have to convince me - if you can get consensus to include it on the article talk page that's fine. But consider this - is it even authentic? The description on the file page says "The factual accuracy of this signature is disputed. The file's source is listed as "Taylor Swift" only in text, not providing any URL or other tangible reference to confirm authenticity. For all we know without verification, this could've been fabricated" So if it adds no value, and we don't even know for sure it's genuine, well, it's a featured article, and we perhaps shouldn't endanger that status without a proper consensus just because someone thinks it looks 'nice'... Cheers. -- Begoon 13:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)