User talk:Begoon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User:Begoon)
Jump to: navigation, search

Blue[edit]

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

Face-smile.svg Thank you. Begoontalk 01:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Commons file[edit]

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

Try this: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0aof2njmlsypbmw/AABnw-H6_XFwdCDG67LDVHI3a?dl=0 If that doesn't help, let me know.
I didn't create it as SVG - it's Adobe Illustrator (ai) document. If you don't have Illustrator I could drop the text in for you if you leave me a translation in a table here. Begoontalk 18:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Done! It was the icing on the cake. Thank you! Nakinn (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Cool. It looks great. Thank you. You wrote a fantastic article. Begoontalk 16:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

About Struthio camelus distribution.svg of Commons[edit]

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

What requires modification? Did the distribution change? If you're just talking about a text alteration, then tell me precisely what should change - with a source, please. Thanks. Begoontalk 02:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The image is called "Struthio camelus distribution" but with new classification, it show too to S. molybdophanes. Ref. as species itis, Clemets checklist, Catalogue of Life, IOC, ZooNomen, BirdLife, original publication. --Jr JL (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
So, would renaming the image to "Ostrich distribution" solve that issue? It's still in use at Ostrich.
I'm copying this discussion to Talk:Ostrich for more input - we should continue discussion there Begoontalk 08:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Re. Wifione ArbCom case[edit]

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

I don't see that you need to feel embarrassed. You are far from the only one to be taken in by the clever manipulation - hell, I supported Wifione's RFA... AGF can be a double-edged sword when exploited in this way. Whilst the correct decision was reached, it shouldn't have been so difficult, or have taken so long to address, and I'm still not sure enough lessons were taken away. I'm curious though - what prompted you to raise this now, after so much time? --Begoontalk 03:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I guess I just looked back on my involvement in that case and felt silly, knowing that I came out in defense of someone who abused people's trust so brazenly. Then again, I do tend to feel guilty when I really shouldn't; I know others fell for his act as well, and it was very convincing. I'm the sort of person that likes to see the good in nearly everybody, no matter what path they've chosen in life - but not to the point of naïveté. I extended this to Wifione because I believed that he was a genuinely good and decent person, even when everyone else had seen through his façade. It wasn't until near the end of the case that I began to realize just how cold and calculating he really was. More than anything else, I wanted to distance myself from any support I had for him in the past. He clearly cannot be trusted. Kurtis (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I think looking for good in people is entirely the right thing to do. I try to do so myself. Where wikipedia is less successful is when dealing with people who exploit this, knowing that AGF will allow them to misbehave so long as they appear, superficially, to be acting in good faith. Civil POV pushing is the most insidious example of this, and takes up mountains of time. Unfortunately it is hard to deal with, because the "pusher" will devote as much time, and post as many civil walls of text as are necessary to wear down other editors. Many areas of the encyclopedia are degraded by this, and much valuable time wasted. Unfortunately I don't have a solution for this, and I've never seen a really good suggestion for one. When "anyone can edit" that means we need to accept that sometimes that will include people who shouldn't. In the end, most of the "worst" of this kind of thing does get addressed, but much does not (and the "worst" is, anyway, only the tip of an iceberg), and it's a slow, painful process. --Begoontalk 05:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

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

With regards to your first sentence: you're welcome. The second sentence I don't understand, sorry. I think sometimes you harm your cause by lashing out at those who disagree with you, like, for example, this. I understand it is disappointing to see opposition to an RFC, and I do sympathise. Anyway, I'm sure you've had quite enough of my unsolicited advice, and I apologise if you felt that any of my comments were too harsh. Sometimes we could all do better at considering the feelings of others, I think. All the best. --Begoontalk 04:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I am just disgusted at the way some people (not you) behave on RfC, much the same way as they do at RfA. It's lost us a lot of good editors and admins in the past and if I were not so damn thick skinned and persevere with ideas to improve the way we work where others can't be bothered, I would have retired long ago - at my age I have better things to do than piss around for free at Wikipedia and travel all round the world at my expense to its conferences and meetings. I was supposed to be flying 12,000Km to London again to a meet up next month, but frankly, I don't think I can be bothered - it will only cause more PA from the people who don't understand that that is how the real work gets done. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad you're not disgusted with me. I understand what you are saying, but it's really not important who gets the credit for change, or that people don't fully understand how it happens. The folks who make the most difference are often almost invisible in many ways. Like you, I tend to want to get defensive (by responding in kind, or more strongly) when I feel criticised. I try to remember some old advice: write the angry letter, put a stamp on it (the stamp is important), then tear it up and toss it in the hearth. It helps, but sometimes it doesn't help enough. It's a fact, though, that most grown-up people will respect you more if you don't keep telling them why they should. I share your frustration with newbies incompetently meddling in areas they shouldn't as part of what they imagine is a path to "power" - we've posted on some of the same talk pages in that regard - and yes, RFA is a mess, now with added drive-by superficial voting - not good at all. I'll stop now, as I appear to be "preaching", which was not my intention. Thanks for engaging. --Begoontalk 06:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think your preaching, but I'm an old (very old) dog, and while I have absolutely neither desire nor intention of taking the credit (got enough of that in RL) for anything on Wikipedia, it puts my back up when children and clueless newbies throw their weight around on Wikipedia just because they can. "Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit' was meant to infer ...anyone can add reasonable content to but it's been misconstrued as ...anyone can screw around with, which was definitely not Jimbo Wales' intention. If I'm still around in December, I'll be starting a counter RfC to some of the changes that were made recently to RfA (not by me, and I gave plenty of warning - well, advice really). Already my mail box is awash about the close of a recent RfA. As we have seen there and now at the current RfC, watchlist notices are a bad idea. It never used to be commonplace, and it's still not mandated; I just naively thought (again) that I was doing the right thing.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Unarchiving an off-topic discussion in an ANI report[edit]

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

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

He used... sarcasm![edit]

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

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

Unused images[edit]

The duplicate images that I did not use can be deleted. I want others to use only the best images. I already compared all the images and selected only the best ones. QuackGuru (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

They may not be useful for you, and you have "selected only the best ones" for your needs, but since they may have features such as transparency which other users may find useful in other scenarios there is little point in deleting them, in my opinion. Feel free to improve the description pages to indicate the advantages/disadvantages of the various versions if you are concerned, or nominate them for deletion if you like - but be aware that different versions are invariably kept. -- Begoon 02:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
After all the work you did I will not nominate the other images for deletion. My concern is that others could use the blurry images. Others may not see what I see. For example, I noticed this image is slightly tilted because the original image is slightly tilted. QuackGuru (talk) 05:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, your "For example..." isn't really an example of a problem with leaving other versions available, since that's just an extra correction to your chosen version. I rotated it 0.2 degrees ccw now. Since none of the actual images are "blurry" and I suspect that my mentioning the fact that Mediawiki sometimes creates less sharp thumbnails when reducing png images has made you far more aware of it than you might otherwise have been, I'm of a mind to leave them there for the extra functionality of transparency they provide. They are, after all, on Commons, whose mission is not just to serve wikis but a wide range of re-users, so making decisions based on just what Mediawiki software does, and its flaws, is probably not the best "big picture" approach, all told. -- Begoon 07:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. One day the software on Wikipedia may be updated and the news media may use some of the images. The rotation improved the alignment. QuackGuru (talk) 07:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I uploaded a new image today. There is too much space at the top and bottom of the image. The image would look better with less spacing like this image. I am using both images next to each other in my sandbox. QuackGuru (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)