User talk:Begoon

edit count | edit summary usage

Begoon

Scouting Images

Thank you so much for taking these old requests on, I really appreciate it! --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scout Image Archives

Scout Image Archives - Click here for earlier Scout Image Archives...

File:Logo UEB.svg

Logo UEB.svg

Done

This is a quickie from Commons that ~~is bound to get~~got deleted as nonfree there. It just needs uploaded here, under our name standards File:União dos Escoteiros do Brasil logo.svg. Thanks!--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 11:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one was speedily deleted from Commons, may I have an admin send you a copy for upload? --Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I'm away from where my wikipedia email goes for about 2 days - but send in the meantime, no problem. Begoon^talk 13:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asked him to send you a copy. When you get back, please let me know if you got it.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not received yet - I got the copy mail of you requesting the file, but no file as yet. Begoon^talk 02:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pinged my admin buddy, should hear something soon.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Received and Done - but I used File:Logo UEB.svg because that was the section title and name in the article, and because I need to learn to read... I've tagged it for renaming. Begoon^talk 11:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for everything!--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bosnian Scouts-in-Exile.png

It's small, but basic shapes, I hope...--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scouting Antiano.svg & File:Padvindstersvereniging van de Nederlandse Antillen.svg & File:Het Arubaanse Padvindsters Gilde.svg

Scouting Antiano.svg

Done & Padvindstersvereniging van de Nederlandse Antillen.svg

Done & Het Arubaanse Padvindsters Gilde.svg

Done

This one is basic geometric shapes, sorry about the ugly colors.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done - and now my poor eyes hurt... Begoon^talk 07:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. The badge itself is still ugly, but the version you made is much, uh, ~~well~~, ~~just~~ better, thank you! It's like the African countries that try to stuff every color available into their coats-of-arms, it just comes out painful. Sorry about your eyes. ;)--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it reminded me of those colour blindness test patterns we used to be given at school. The difference being that if this one were used, anyone who wasn't colour blind at the start of the test, or rendered colour blind by the test itself, would, after seeing this, wish that one of those 2 things were true... I'd love to hear a live performance of the Anthem without a title in its native Papiamento version. I'm sure it would be as much a treat for the ears as this emblem is to the eyes... Begoon^talk 01:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yumi tufala wan hirum! I have a buddy from Curaçao, I never thought until just now how close Papiamento and Bislama are! Basically a mix of colonial languages for workers to communicate in a third or fourth language. Thanks!--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the country (which dissolves in two months), mifala nidum File:Padvindstersvereniging van de Nederlandse Antillen.png and File:Het Arubaanse Padvindsters Gilde.png looksem File:Surinaams Padvindsters Gilde.svg sapos yufala kin.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Yumi, Yumi, Yumi--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scouting Antiano.svg & File:Padvindstersvereniging van de Nederlandse Antillen.svg & File:Het Arubaanse Padvindsters Gilde.svg - all Done Begoon^talk 10:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid, thank you! But can you make the light blue of Aruba orange instead? It's just bicolor. Thank you so much!--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ~~will~~ have done now, but there are 3 colours in the png you know, it's not bicolour... I only made it light blue so as to be visible, but it's certainly a 3rd colour in the png. Begoon^talk 13:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff...

Other stuff... Not done yet...

Stuck

For the future, these related may all be a pain, but similar pain... --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using the model File:Scout-Association-of-the-British-Virgin-Islands.svg (no hyphens!) ;) , with the same File:Scout Association 1967-2003.svg beneath the coat of arms, create new matching graphics each for

File:Anguilla Branch of The Scout Association.svg using File:Coat of Arms of Anguilla.svg, matching stars with aqua of original File:Flag of Anguilla (1967-1969).svg

File:Turks and Caicos Branch of The Scout Association.svg using File:Coat of arms of the Turks and Caicos Islands.svg, matching green stars

File:Montserrat Branch of The Scout Association.svg using File:Coat of arms of Montserrat.svg, matching blue stars

Using the model File:Scout Association of Jamaica.png, with File:WikiProject Scouting fleur-de-lis diamond.png in the upper left and the same typeface font at the bottom, create new matching graphics for

File:Saint Kitts and Nevis Branch of The Scout Association.svg using File:Coat of arms of Saint Kitts and Nevis.jpg

Yikes, and sorry for the "maybe I should have replied no to the "list question you reverted - lol..."-that's why I reverted it, sorry. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I made you say "Yikes" - I just like to keep this organised. I do these in between paying work tasks, and I find it much easier to be able to just quickly look at which one is outstanding, and work on it, than to waste that time looking through a list to decide which one to do next, and clicking on all the links in the list to assess each one. If it starts to look like too big a task it scares me, so I go back to work... - Begoon (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP problem

We are what we say... in here we can be anyone...

I feel quite ready to file in a notice at WP:AN/I about the IP adding in the wikisource link. He has changed tactic and has now added the link to the etymology section. I don't know if you want that request to be reverted because it is not outright blatantly wrong and he can argue that the agreement could be a ref there. What do you think? If I revert him, I will definitely go to WP:AN/I about it. Bejinhan Talk 09:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd already seen it, and left it. I altered his other change at Federation of Malaya to a general {{sister-projects}} link. I think it's just about arguably relevant there in the Malaysia article. My vote is to leave it, and see if [a] that satisfies them, or [b] they move on to something else on the agenda (I have no doubt there is an agenda).

As soon as that one got left alone for a couple of hours, another IP: Special:Contributions/118.96.236.234 popped up and added it as a ref to Sabah/Sarawak etc, because they obviously decided this was now the way to go. I'd rather see what they do next, now they feel bold. :-) I already went to wikisource and edited the titles etc of their articles a few days ago, just to "keep them honest"... Begoon^talk 11:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see your point. That's what I'm afraid of. I can't really give a good point to removing their link insertion anyway. If they go on to other things, then... we'll see. Bejinhan Talk 12:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the IPs geolocate to Indonesia Begoon^talk 10:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that's the irony of it. I checked them out a few days back. Why they are so hard-up to insert in the wikisource link, it's beyond my understanding. :p Bejinhan Talk 14:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing 14 States to 4 States is the latest bizarre fixation. Perhaps I'm too kind assuming an agenda, and it's just pure disruption. Begoon^talk 00:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think this is wasting my time. And it's wasting yours too. I don't see the point in this. If you agree, I'm going to WP:AN/I. Yes? No? Bejinhan Talk 04:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Problem is, I'm not altogether sure there's much that ANI can do about this. I'd like to see if any attempt at a reason is forthcoming, get some sort of consensus that this is vandalism, and then maybe have some semi protection applied to the page. See, the problem is, they are IP hopping, and I suspect it might be massively complicated to the point of impracticality to block all the ranges. If you can tolerate it a little longer, let it play out. Besides anything else, I'd still love to know where it's actually heading (if anywhere). If you have another plan I'll willingly give it a try, though. Begoon^talk 04:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talked to couple of people in the IRC help channel and an admin has semi-protected the page. :) Bejinhan Talk 06:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - as I mentioned, that was what I thought we'd need to do next. I don't altogether like it as a long term solution though, because we do get a number of perfectly valid IP editors contributing to the page, who may well just not bother if they have to use an editrequest. Trouble is, there might not be anything better - Pending Changes still requires reviewing and/or reverting, so that would leave us with just as much work - or even more. I'd already asked for input from Tnxman307, here; they've been helpful with SPI on this before. Begoon^talk 06:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're hoping that this would just die out. If this doesn't work, then I suppose we'll have to consider other alternatives. The people I talked to don't think that AN/I can do much. Also, this is not vandalism. Not only that, PC is also not an option because how sure are we that the reviewers won't approve? This is a bit dodgy. Anyway, the semi expires in a week and this has been going on since 11 July. So it's a wait-and-see I guess. This is not a straightforward issue where a block can be applied. The IP range makes it more difficult/tricky. Bejinhan Talk 10:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to know you have it under control. Thanks for explaining it all to me in such detail. I won't worry about it any more then. Begoon^talk 10:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until the semi expires. ;) I really hope that it won't happen again... at least I won't have to worry about it for a whole week. Bejinhan Talk 11:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well that's the point. Without wishing to upset anyone, all you're telling me about your IRC chat is pretty much what I'd already said above, except I was hoping to get more of an idea what the agenda was (if there is one), before asking for protection, and I'd spent quite a bit of time attempting to do that. I was prepared to invest a bit more, in the hope we'd learn a bit more. If you look at the SPI, I relate it all together with POV pushing that's not just on this article. Protection just postpones it a week, and just for one article, but if that's the route that's felt best then I won't pursue it my way any more. Your IRC chat may well be the right answer in the long run - certainly it's the easiest in the short run. Just one other point, though - I beg to differ with whoever gave the opinion that repeated, unsupported introduction of a factual error isn't vandalism. Begoon^talk 11:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see it as this way. I honestly did think that this is a deadlock. If the ip could not 'achieve' inserting in the wikisource link, how could he go on with his agenda? A week is not long, but there's a chance the ip might stop. About the vandalism part, it is not considered vandalism because per WP:VANDAL, Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. Bejinhan Talk 12:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, what's done has been done. I have been quite frustrated with it and honestly, this seemed to be the best solution to me. Hearing what you've got to say about this, I can see that we don't agree with it. I'm truly sorry if I have offended you or made you mad about this. Bejinhan Talk 12:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need for any apology - don't be silly. You haven't made me mad. Sometimes, though, I feel that we can do more than just react in the same knee-jerk ways (even given that I am, myself guilty of that as often, if not more, than anyone). It's also not totally impossible that there is a valid point of view of some sort lurking behind all this that they are just unable to explain well enough to be understood. Very unlikely, yes - impossible, no. At least if it was expressed we could maybe explore and/or dispel it. You never know, if we understood the point of view we might even be able to say something about it in the article that would make them happy. Quite possibly I was wasting my time - but every now and again I believe it's worth actually trying to find an underlying cause, because knowledge is key. I'm certainly not saying I am right in this case - there's every chance I'm not, and it's just pure disruption - but I do think that occasionally we might think outside the square a bit, and try to understand a problem - rather than finding the easiest way to make it "go away" for a while. If you check the history of WP:RFPP, here: [1], you'll see I filed a request for semi protection myself last night, then immediately changed my mind for the reasons I've (badly) tried to explain here. Begoon^talk 12:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a relief. You did sound annoyed/sarcastic. :p Maybe the main issue here is that the ip does not want to discuss it. He had many chances and we did ask him to discuss it but he only left 2 messages on the talk page... and they were to ask us not to revert his edits. Since his ip traces to Indonesia, I can ask him to talk Indonesian with us, if language is a barrier(Malay is quite similar to Indonesian), no problem with that, but I doubt that's the issue. It seems that it's more of him not wanting to discuss his edits with us. It is like a 'I'm-right-you're-wrong-so-keep-off' situation to me. Bejinhan Talk 12:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP has started talking on the talk page due to the semi. :) Bejinhan Talk 12:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you what I think about that later :) All I'll say for now is that I'm glad he's actually reading this - I had hoped he was, and was fairly certain - otherwise I really was wasting my time. Begoon^talk 13:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Well, that's good - at least now I'm absolutely sure I was right about who I always really suspected the editor was. I needed that conversation, because I wasn't totally sure.

You can do what you like with it now, or nothing (which is what I'm going to do), I won't engage him again - I'll add it all to the SPI for what it's worth later - thanks enormously for bearing with me.

What I meant above was that last time he started to talk after about 5 reversions just like this time - there was no semi involved that time, but it may well have helped draw him out this time, since he's now IP hopping instead of using multiple users to avoid 3RR :)

I was trying my way to get him talking, by posting stuff here that made it apparent we wanted to listen, knowing he would read it - your way may have been better - doesn't matter.

I'm now certain he's just the same pointlessly disruptive user - and I'm sorry I dragged it out in order to be certain. I'll document the SPI stuff when I have time. No hurry, he's not going anywhere.

Certainly won't be any problem recognising him next time, now - he's done us that favour at least :) Begoon^talk 14:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update to the update: Well, thanks to some marvellous insight from Elen of the Roads, we now at least can understand the point a bit.

Last time I encountered this guy, he was edit warring/socking to argue that Sarawak/Sabah should be seen as independent states.
This time the war was stepped back to trying to argue that they should have the status of being 1/4 of Malaysia instead of 1/14.

That might even show he's in some way receptive - most disruptive users don't actually concede, whereas he's conceded and come back with a different argument.

You never know, with a bit of help, after reading all this, he might even come back next time and discuss the issues properly.

I think that would be a good result, and I'm happy with the knowledge we gained here.

Begoon^talk 16:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear that. At least progress has been made. It was good that he started talking. Bejinhan Talk 11:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's as close to progress as I thought would be made with this guy. Maybe even better. I'm thinking of using his last comment on the talkpage as a quotation for my user page :) . Sorry if you felt I bit your head off a bit - I didn't intend to. Begoon^talk 12:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went "0.0" when I saw his quote on Malaysia's talk page. :p Nah, it's ok. I was getting a bit 'tight' with the issue. I don't know if the IP will start it all over again after the semi expires. I hope not. The reason why it seems like it's IP hopping is because his IP is dynamic. So it changes. Bejinhan Talk 12:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Often it's dynamic, sometimes a different ISP, or wireless. I've seen the guy posting under about 10 usernames (all blocked now), plus the various IPs. (you don't need to explain technical things to me, by the way - I'm an IT consultant/programmer - been engineering networks for 20 years. That's not a snappy comment either - just for info, so you know :) ). His posting methods and style are unmistakable. That's why I wanted the conversation. You can look through the archives of [2] to see some of the users he's been, if you're ever bored.

What intrigues me about it all is the lengths he'll go to in order to try and make some obscure point in a little corner of wikipedia somewhere. I think next time we should leave the stuff in for a week or so - just so that he realises that he's not actually going to change the world like this. In a lot of ways it's very sad. Begoon^talk 12:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, ok. :) I went through them a few days back and was quite surprised at the long list of usernames he went under. Oh, he has determination, that's for sure. :p Bejinhan Talk 14:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

continued...

I don't know whether you're interested in pursuing this or not, but wikisource links generally do not make reliable sources(they are primary sources) and there might be a little problem with the link in that article. Just a thought. I'll probably remove it sooner or later because of my planned GA-nom sometime later. Bejinhan talks 10:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can do it right now - I don't like it either. I will alter it to be a reference to the original document, though, as it's actually fairly relevant there to have a ref to the agreement. Begoon^talk 10:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good. I don't know if it that will go well with the IP, but that's it. Thanks, Bejinhan talks 10:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the funny thing is - and here I have to reveal one of the other reasons I was certain it's all the same person - it's the same user uploading the stuff to wikisource (linky:). Recognise the blocked sock username from the SPI? They appear there just before he adds them to WP articles. They are the same documents he has splattered across previous disputes at other articles, always with the same lack of relevance to supporting his points. Truly a huge amount of effort for no discernible gain. I think he thought this would somehow make them more "acceptable" to use in arguments here, when in fact he may just as well have linked to the UN treaty store he got them from, because it's the same document - the problem is it doesn't support the point. They get proofread at wikisource, so even if the intent was to alter them in some way (which I genuinely doubt it was), it's all pretty pointless. As I said, sad in many ways... Of course if he just likes helping to make wikisource more comprehensive, more power to him. Begoon^talk 11:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is correct or not, but it's possible that the user wants 'publicity' for what he uploaded. He feels that he 'owns' it and must do everything he can to bring awareness to the documents. Bejinhan talks 12:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Partly, maybe - but I think more to do with the points BobK brought up on the talk page. The IP believes that Sabah/Sarawak were led to believe they would be a special part of the new Malaysia, not just any old state, and he feels that they ended up with the "shitty" end of the stick, perhaps even feeling they are now exploited, or less than equal. He thinks that the documents somehow support the premise that there would be a different relationship, and, like many people who strongly believe something, he tries to find justification in words and phrases that really isn't there. That's why I keep saying it's sad. From his point of view he's the one trying desperately to tell the truth as he sees it, and we're the big, bad monsters refusing to see his truth, and stopping him. He needs to get a website set up to tell his story. I host websites - for a few $s a month I can set one up for him if he likes (we know he's a reader here, so maybe he'll take me up on that...) :-) Problem is, though - wikipedia can't be his soapbox, and he does need to come to understand that... Begoon^talk 12:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)::::::That could be the reason. Sabah/Sarawak is treated like "shit" sometimes so there's the sentiments. But his ip traces to Indonesia so it's somewhat puzzling. Oh well. He is probably reading this. :p Bejinhan talks 12:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Indonesia, yes, he adds Indonesian interwikis at wikisource too, but, you know, just as an example: my IP traces to Australia, because that's where I am, but if you want to start an argument about the North of England, I'll give you more than a run for your money, since that's where I'm from, and where my family live. Tracing IPs is nice, and can be useful, but it can never tell a full story of who someone is, where they are from, or why they believe what they do. Remember, "We are what we say... in here we can be anyone..." :-) :-) Begoon^talk 12:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean he's a Malaysian living in Indonesia? That's possible. I've thought of that too. Yes, that's a quote I'll never forget. :) Bejinhan talks 11:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I just meant that we don't know his background, or anyone's, unless they choose to tell us. Could be what you say, or, I suppose, any number of other reasons. It doesn't matter much, because the contributions are all we should need to judge, but in cases like this we can, I guess, be forgiven for speculating a bit when such persistence is shown, accompanied by such reluctance/inability to properly explain. I'm actually quite serious when I say I feel sympathy, because if you hold a strong point of view, and are continually turned away, I am sure it can seem like you're fighting a huge "establishment" that doesn't want to see "your truth". I can imagine it's awfully frustrating. As I said above, the best thing that could happen is that he realises wikipedia isn't, and can't be a vehicle for the kind of POV soapboxing he wants to do, and explores his other options. Begoon^talk 11:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan

2 sections combined for archiving - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ahmed_shahi for resolution

Hi, the section "foreign relations and military" is biased and poorly written. There is too much anti-Pakistan, pro-Iran and pro-Indian view in it. The "foreign relations" in this case are the diplomatic government to government relations, it has nothing to do with language, culture and prior history before the creation of the states. I mean if 1000s of years ago the people spoke the same language and practiced a similar culture this is irrelevant for foreign relations.

If you look at this and this, then you see that there are some problems between Afghanistan and Iran. The article tries to ignore this. It's a fact that Iran's government charges every Afghan $100 per one month visa, and I can provide many citations but I think something like that doesn't need it. It's also a fact that Pakistan's visas are totally free to Afghans, meaning the Pakistani government is not cruel as the radical Shia Iran. Afghans are one of the most poorest people in the world and mentioning that Iran charges them $100 per monthly visa in that section is relevant, it's to show the true relations.

You want a citation to explain that Iran is run by radical Shias? If Taliban are labelled in the section as radical Sunnis then Iran should also be labelled the same way, as a radical Shia. See Iran#Government_and_politics

You also reverted my correcting of the Afghanistan–Pakistan Skirmishes, which was only one case that happened in May 2007 due to the poorly-marked Durand Line border, but the section is saying Since 2007, Afghan and Pakistani forces have been involved in a number of border skirmishes.--119.73.7.124 (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I hesitated before reverting your edit, which I came across while patrolling pages on my watchlist. But in the end I did revert it, because, on balance, it seemed to have too much POV content, there were problems with the tenses you altered, and where you made some seemingly controversial claims, you did so without citing sources. On balance I thought there were too many issues for me to attempt to fix, and the statements regarding visas seemed not to conform with WP:NPOV or fit particularly well in the context. That's just my opinion though - it was an editorial issue, not a content judgement. I wouldn't debate content here with you - I would do that on the article talkpage if I felt the need.

I'm not making value judgements on what you added, that would be a discussion for the article talkpage. It was a judgement on the edit as a whole, and you are free to disagree with me.

By all means add the information you feel should be included again, bearing what I've said in mind. I won't revert you again if no policies are contravened. Be aware though, that other editors may do so if they have the same or similar concerns.

Thanks for discussing it with me, and don't take what I did as a comment on your views, rather as a judgement, in my own opinion, as to whether the edit as a whole was encyclopaedic, or in parts more commentary than fact, and perhaps not suited to context. Again, that's all only my view - that's how it works here (see WP:BRD) - please re-add what you feel you should, and I apologise if you were offended in any way by my action. Begoon^talk 15:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understand and it's ok what you did. I should have explained my self in the edit summary. Basically the info I add is self verifiable by clicking on the wiki links. If there was something that I know which may be disputed I would surely have added a citation, but usually the best articles are written with very little citations.--119.73.7.124 (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You do have one thing wrong though. Everything that could be questioned needs a citation, and good articles cannot be written without them. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which means it is a place to present facts that have already been published elsewhere by a reliable source - see WP:CITE. It's not a place to put forward your own personal views or opinions. I see you have now had some conversations with other editors about this too, and that's good, because you can always discuss your changes here to see if they are acceptable or not. Thanks again for taking the time to discuss this, and don't worry - you'll soon get used to how it works here. I am very pleased you've started to discuss your edits on the article talk page - that's where you'll get the best feedback. Begoon^talk 23:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I was trying to tell you is that a citation is not required for every word or every sentence that I write into Wikipedia. When it comes to this sort of stuff things get little complicated because someone assumes that the editor is trying to press his own view but in reality he is trying to explain it in a much better way so that readers don't get confused. The current version makes readers assume that Pakistan and Afghanistan are ready to start a war but the fact is that one border fight started which probably was due to the poorly-marked Durand Line. The bottom line is that anti-Pakistanis edited that section and it should be neutralized. This is the problem with Wikipedia, it attracts too many people trying to spread propaganda. Pakistan helped 3 million Afghan refugees for 30 years and still allow them to live in their country with respect and honor but Pakistan is given a bad name. Yet, Iran is treating Afghans like this and is given such a good name. It's just ridiculous and if you don't see this point I guess you are not understanding me.--119.73.7.124 (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand it can be frustrating. I don't have sufficient familiarity with the subject to comment on the particular content points you have raised - the article talk page really is the only place to do that. I can see you've already made an excellent effort to do that - now you just have to let the discussion develop. Do consider this, though: when editors with different points of view edit a page, the only way to get a fair and balanced article is for both "sides" to present sources supporting their point of view, and then discuss it in a level headed way before adding the correct facts to the article. Don't forget that the people with whom you disagree possibly feel just as strongly as you do. Also, remember that the discussions need to be about improving the article, because Wikipedia is not a forum. Staying focussed on improvements to the article will help enormously. I do strongly suggest you take a few minutes to carefully read and understand these 2 pages: WP:BRD and WP:CITE. They try to explain how we can all edit accurately together, despite holding different points of view. Another important thing to understand is that when you comment on a talk page, the first reply you receive may not be the only one. There's no WP:DEADLINE, so it's often worth just waiting for some more comments and coming back in a day or two. I know at the time you want to make immediate edits, but giving time for a discussion to develop can often be very valuable. I'm sorry I can't help with the specific content issues you've raised, but I do hope some of what I have been able to say is useful. Again, thanks for taking the time to discuss these things. That's an important first step that is not always taken by new editors. I'm sure you'll get used to how it all works - it might just need a little more patience than you first thought - that was a surprise to me, too, when I was a "new boy". Good luck. Begoon^talk 23:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your name mentioned

Hi, I just thought of letting you know that you are mentioned by Ariana310 at here and here--119.73.1.34 (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. I don't really have anything to add to either of those discussions at the moment, although I will keep my eye on them. As I said, I don't have an opinion on the content, which is what this is mostly about. The only thing I will say is that I might have been inclined to ask for a third opinion at WP:3O before placing it at either of those places which you did. But please don't do that now, or it really will look like forum shopping. Begoon^talk 10:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested at ANI that ANI regulars should decide whether this issue should be handled there or at WP:ANEW. One possible solution would be for 119.73.1.34 (Ali) to close both the ANI report and the ANEW report, and then raise it at WP:3O? Just a thought, but a third opinion is an excellent suggestion (disclaimer: I've volunteered at WP:3O in the past...) TFOWR 10:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as it seems to be basically a discussion between two editors who disagree, WP:3O seemed ideal. I'll suggest it on the ANI thread Begoon^talk 10:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noting link to eventual case at SPI, for archives: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ahmed_shahi

Oman and Gwadar

I see you managed to find the new location after I refactored my sandboxes and failed to let you know ;-)

Good work on the draft - I'm struggling to see what further work really needs done. I've added a couple of refs, wikilinked "wali" and done some minor copy-editing, but can't really improve further on your work. Ideally we'd find a cite for the 1955 "Makran" claim, and I'll have a dig later. It's a huge improvement on what currently exists, though, and I'd suggest we could push in into Oman very soon. TFOWR 08:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well my watchlist told me it moved, since I'd already edited there. :-) I agree, it's probably good enough to put in now. At least it's hopefully understandable and won't make people's heads explode like mine did when I first read the original text. It can always be improved "in situ". And it's not "my work" - I couldn't even understand it until you pulled those refs and notes into your sandbox. Begoon^talk 09:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take exception to your edit summary...

...here ;-) You wrote it, I merely typed a few search terms into Google... Good work, by the way - I'm glad that's finally done, I've been feeling more and more guilty about the length of time it had been sitting in my sandbox! TFOWR 13:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I really should have continued the thread two up from this one, rather than cluttering up your talkpage with a new thread... sorry!

Anyway, apropos of the Gwadar stuff, I asked a friend (Truthkeeper88 (talk · contribs)) for advice on referencing and cites, and they've gone crazy with Oman! ;-) All good stuff, lots of MOS fixes which I really should have done long ago. Anyway... there's a thread on my talkpage where we discuss Oman-related things (I mention this because I mention you there, and you might find it interesting anyway). TFOWR 07:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:Ariana310

lol No, I wasn't confused by your note. Actually, I wanted to post that note to your page, but I have no idea how I ended up on his page !! (I'm still thinking on it haha.) Thanks for reminding me. :) Ariana (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. We posted next to each other at the ANI thread, so maybe you were looking at that, and clicked the wrong link? Doesn't matter, anyway - everyone said what they wanted to say, and everyone who needed to read it did read it. Plus we had a bit of fun and giggles chasing each other around talk pages. It's all good... Thanks for the reply. Begoon^talk 09:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - club on wikipedia?

Hey Begoon. I had a question. Is it possible to start a club on wikipedia? For example, I was interested in starting (or contributing) in political discussion. The discussion could just be a civil debate about our views and opinions around wikipedia. Is there anything like that or can I start anything like that? ChaosMaster_Chat 01:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Not really, I don't think - per WP:NOTAFORUM. IRC might be suitable, or you could find one of the many existing forums on the net and and join up. If you didn't want to do that, you could set up your own forum with some cheap web hosting and invite your friends along - that's a lot easier than it sounds, actually. There are projects on Wikipedia, but they are for a group of editors who use those pages to collaborate on encyclopedic work, so not suitable for the kind of general conversation I think you're describing. In general, if it's not about improving wikipedia, then it's discouraged here. WP:NOTAFORUM does say, " There are also a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate.", but I don't know where these are, or what they cover, or indeed if they still exist - you could try asking at the reference desk, someone there may know. In general, though, if discussion isn't directly related to improving wikipedia, then it's discouraged as against policy. Exceptions are made for a very limited amount of chat on talk pages, but that's like the "chat" you would have with fellow workers in the lunch room, and once that becomes too excessive it violates WP:MYSPACE, and is not permitted, the same way your boss wouldn't let you chat about politics all day instead of working. Sorry if they weren't the answers you were hoping for - but I hope some of it might be helpful. Begoon^talk 03:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was helpful. I had a feeling that there really wasn't anything like what I was looking for on wikipedia. I just wanted to put my doubts to rest. Thanks for your help (again) though. *runs off to google to find a forum* :) ChaosMaster_Chat 19:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - happy to help. As I said to you previously, my talk page is a pretty open place: if I can help, I always will, and I have a (very few) (talk page stalker)s who may even help you if I can't. I do know you remember me saying that, because you also seem to have remembered me saying you didn't have to bring beer (lol) ... don't worry - nobody brings beer...sniff... :-) Happy editing - see you around, again... Begoon^talk 14:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, its wasn't my intention to not bring beer... It's just, I drank it all on the way here. *Buuuhhhrrp* Excuse me! :P ChaosMaster_Chat 00:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caprice Bourret

I have added material that is correctly sourced and have removed any promotional and non-neutrally worded information from before. Why does this keep being removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bycapricelingerie (talk • contribs) 13:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'd already replied on your talk page: User talk:88.211.31.174. I suggest you read that message which explains more, but basically, you are removing sourced content and references, and making a significant change to the article without discussion. You need to discuss this at Talk:Caprice Bourret before adding it again, or other editors are likely to revert it too. I hope that helps to explain it - please take some time to read the links I posted on your talk page too. Any further discussion should be at Talk:Caprice Bourret. I'm afraid also that your current Username may be in violation of username policy because it's a promotional username. See Wikipedia:Username policy. Sorry. Begoon^talk 13:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Diana, Princess of Wales

My mistake, no vandalism intended. I was reading the dates on this page incorrectly. Thought I was making an accurate correction. I caught my mistake, but it was already corrected. Apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibert7 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - we all make mistakes - I make more than most :-) I guess you changing it twice was what confused me. I've removed the warnings from your talkpage since it was obviously a misunderstanding. Thanks for letting me know - Happy editing... Begoon^talk

/* Ossification */

Thanks for the job. I´m SP WP user, so when you need any translation (from english to spanish) ask me. It´s more likely you find me there. I´m not sure I´m so good translating backwards, but if I can help you, great. See you. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 06:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no need to thank me - I didn't do anything except talk about it - User:Shandris did all the work. Glad you got what you needed. Begoon^talk 08:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shiaislam2010

Dear Sir Begoon, I'm Shiaislam2010 From Kuwait (really i am a Shi'a muslim a twelver shia muslim) My real name is 'Ali Jawad Al-mo'men . I really like the thing you wrote to me . But i was Just creating an Article of Shi'a Muslims In theKonw World whats the problem with that Tell your real name sir Begoon (I Know You're From USA). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiaislam2010 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. As I explained in the edit summary, the existing figures have a reliable source: http://pewforum.org/newassets/images/reports/Muslimpopulation/Muslimpopulation.pdf, and the numbers you added have no supporting source. If you want to change sourced content, you need to provide an updated, or better source. See WP:CITE. The chart I removed, because it's not useful with the variations in the ranges of figures from the sourced content. If you want to discuss changes like that, please do it at Talk:Kuwait. As to your other questions, where I am from is, frankly, not important, but it's no secret that I'm English, living in Australia. My real name? Well, that certainly is of no importance. I hope that makes things clearer for you. Enjoy your editing.

Thank you, also, for noticing the 2 extra templates I inadvertently pasted when replacing the figures, and correcting that error. I appreciate that. I removed the "see also" link to the mosque, because it's not really appropriate to link to one stub article for a religious building/site as a sub heading for a section discussing all religion in Kuwait. Imagine how many sub headings there would be if we linked to one place of worship for each religion mentioned in the section, which is what would be needed for fair balance! Just not practical, or necessary. Begoon^talk 10:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pole dance

Hi Begoon,

Just a quick query, I noticed you had taken my links of referencing the international grading and syllabus scheme (AAP) set up by the Pole Dance Community website. You have stated that this is it due to being a commercial site when it is actually a trade body. I am new to wiki so am a little unsure how it all works? There are other links to commercial sites such as Miss pole dance World?

Any advice you have for me would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Sam x Artofdance Sam