User talk:Begoon/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

​

Barnstar

In recognition of your hard work on Scouting images. Thank you! ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Inkscape - your questions - for User: Kevin W.

Question from email

Here's what I've got so far. Attached first is a large image of the Oregon jersey. I have the numbers, the Oregon and the wings saved separately. Attached second is my initial modifications to the SVG template. How do I go about adding in the numbers/wings/etc. into the SVG as their own separate parts?

User: Kevin W.

First trace the logos

For each image: (wings, numbers, logo etc...)

• Open the png in Inkscape
• click the image to select
• Path-Trace Bitmap
• Click the >color radio button
• you can fool around with the options - but default is often good
• ok
• close the trace box

• Now save as an svg

• Now open your template and one of the logo svg's in separate windows
• By using the 2 selection arrow tools from the toolbar at left you should be able to select all the paths you traced in the logo, copy them, then switch to the template window, paste them and resize them

You're going to have to refer to the tutorials I linked you to in order to learn about how to select, cut, paste, resize - practice using the different tools on some simple shapes first so you can understand how they work - then when you copy/paste from your traces, remember they are lots of individual shapes, so select them all and use Object-Group to make them easier to copy/paste/move around/resize.

I'm afraid whatever I type here is no substitute for getting stuck into the tutorials - it'll take a while to get used to - but once you "get it" it'll make more sense.

I honestly suggest setting a couple of hours aside just to play with the tutorials - it's well worth it - and far more than I can explain here. Editing vector graphics is different to any bitmap editing you've done - so it's a new skill you need to learn from scratch - once learnt it will make sense  -  Begoon (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This is all such crap. One: I don't get why the people who design these programs make them so damn difficult to learn. Why can't they be simple and user-friendly and intuitive? Two: there was absolutely nothing wrong with my original images in the first place and the jerk that forced me into this position was wrong. I don't see why all of this work to make the SVG images should be so difficult on one hand and necessary on the other. I appreciate the help, but this all shouldn't be necessary. --Kevin W. 23:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It may not be necessary. I hope I haven't misled you into thinking this was the only solution - I didn't say it was, just that it was one way to approach it - it was just a suggestion that if you were going to alter them anyway SVGs might be better suited for this kind of image, and an offer of help if you wanted to go that way, and improve them at the same time. There's nothing to stop you using the existing bitmaps provided you can resize them to something acceptable without losing quality. The editor who tagged them has no special position in this - he's just interpreting policy. I actually interpret it to mean the images are probably ok up to around 350-400px wide - but that's my opinion. You might find an opinion that they could even be larger to allow the logo details to be clear. There are editors who devote a lot of effort to this kind of thing - you might try asking someone like User:VernoWhitney. He talks sense in this area, in my experience.  -  Begoon (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I hope you didn't think I was blaming you in any way. That wasn't my intention. It's just frustrating and I'm venting. I'm going to work at this and find a solution one way or the other. It's just a question of whether that solution is via the SVG conversions or just proving Eekster wrong and getting my images back the way they should be. --Kevin W. 23:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've gone ahead and contacted him with my concerns. Ultimately, I would like to make the move over to SVGs entirely, but I want my images to be preserved as is while I go through the rather arduous process. That means getting Eekster off of my back. Hopefully, this can be resolved the way it should be. --Kevin W. 23:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to see you find a solution that is satisfactory. You are more than welcome to vent here - it's a very broadminded talk page!! Seriously, though - I do understand how frustrating this type of situation can be which is why I offered to help. I popped a note on User:VernoWhitney's talk page too - just to link him to the relevant discussions.  -  Begoon (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If you could take a look at my latest comment on the non-free review page I'd appreciate it. --Kevin W. 07:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll do so right now.  -  Begoon (talk) 08:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok - I commented there. A small piece of advice, though - I know it's frustrating, but try not to turn it into a fight - you're less likely to get the result you want that way. If it were me, I'd probably refactor the message you just left on the editor talk page to be less confrontational. Hope you don't mind that comment - just trying to help. It's easier for me to make comments like that when I'm not really involved - I know it must be a huge pain for you.  -  Begoon (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Malaysia spoken word

Hi, I saw that you added the Malaysia audio files in the article. Thanks for cleaning them up and the add. BejinhanTalk 06:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all - I could sense you were busy at the time, so it seemed best to do it for you  -  Begoon (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Oman and Gwadar

Kind of feel like I'm making progress understanding this! I've not got a rewrite done, I'm just concentrating on understanding the history, but I've got notes and some sources up at me sandbox if it helps. TFOWR 15:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll take a look at that later - just about to watch the football (4am here - must be insane, getting up in the cold to watch 2 teams I don't support. Always felt sorry for the Dutch that they didn't win it in the 70s when they deserved to - but I doubt they'll do it today, either)  -  Begoon (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:Quick note

Hi, ok, thanks for letting me know. It certainly does seems a little suspicious. I'll be keeping an eye on it. BejinhanTalk 12:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Btw,(offtopic) the Dutch lost as expected. Too bad. :p BejinhanTalk 12:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No - it's ok - they didn't deserve to win this time. In the 70s they were the "pure football" team with Cruyff, Neeskens etc, and it's a tragedy they didn't win then. This time Spain were the stand out team, even though they were a bit muzzled by a plodding Dutch performance in this game. The right team won...  -  Begoon (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) (offtopic) Per Begoon's prediction, or per Paul's prediction? ;-) TFOWR 12:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

@TFOWR: Meh, that psychic creature. Actually, neither. :) It was just a comment. BejinhanTalk 12:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit skeptical about the psychic sea creature. Wasn't quite prescient enough to see the blokes who put him in the tank coming, was he? eh?  -  Begoon (talk) 12:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd be more impressed with Paul if he'd predicted that I'd be quite interested in his predictions. As it is, I predict that Paul will be little more than a flash in the pan... TFOWR 12:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well quite. With his noted connections to the uncanny, and interconnectedness of all things, he should probably be a little concerned that the next link to pop up in my watchlist after your message was quite literally: Masterchef Australia...After all, he may have outlived his usefulness now - and that may be the best Guest Star gig he can get.  -  Begoon (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

not Scout stuff ;)

Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop#Italian Social Republic, again, and see if this might interest you? File:Coat of Arms of the Italian Social Republic.svg needs redrawn as gold, the "owner" of the crude earlier version is being testy. Can you help? Thank you either way, as always!--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done  -  Begoon (talk) 08:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I meant the guy who drew the original crude rendition on Commons, when we uploaded the Graphics Lab version over it, he reverted so we had to create a second file to work around him. Then he provided a pointer to [1], which his image looks nothing like. All are artists' renditions, he has not provided an actual photograph from a public building or a passport or anything, yet insists his is somehow "more correct" and brings in his buddies to votestack, without a shred of real evidence. Just a tiny mind with ownership issues.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah - ok. I uploaded the new version here and at Commons anyway :) I was surprised how well that eagle coloured just with a bit of a gradient fill. Incidentally, why are the stripes in the Italian flag reversed?  -  Begoon (talk) 12:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a good question, everyone who sees any variant asks why they are reversed. Yours is beautiful. If you are interested, the argume... discussion is at Commons:Deletion requests/File:CoA of the RSI.svg.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - that's a fun discussion. Takes all sorts, I guess.  -  Begoon (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Incredibly fun. Can you trim away some of the excess blank spacing?--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

done  -  Begoon (talk) 06:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, can you crop the Commons one too? I don't know why there are still duplicate images, that is problematic.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've downloaded the en version, and uploaded it to Commons - so that they are identical. If the files don't absolutely checksum as identical they won't delete the en version, I think  -  Begoon (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, you rock, and thank you for being a great sounding board. Hope your leg's better.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello. You deleted what I wrote. I took time out of my day to contribute to Wikipedia, and you deleted it, thinking it was a promotion. You are incorrect. I wrote it then added a link to a relevent website. I don't know whose website it is, but since others commonly link to useful sources of more info, I do as well. If you think the site is spammy, remove the link, but don't delete my contribution. I don't need to attribute the information to anything, because I lived there 20 years with first hand knowledge. That info did not come from the external link. What I wrote is an obvious missing piece to anyone who is familiar with the area, and that's why I wrote it. Don't vandalize my writings again. --Mkcas (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes you absolutely do need to attribute what you write. Begoon very clearly and gently explained on your talkpage why he removed what he did, and then went on to try and guide you in your griping. Others will not be so gentle. Had it been me, I'd try to get you blocked for spamming. Begoon is one of the nicest editors here, you clearly are more my ballpark.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Mkcas. Thanks for the message. Please be careful when you accuse other editors of vandalism. Some will take offence - especially when they have taken the time to carefully explain their actions. Fortunately, I realise that this is more a case of your feeling ownership of what you contributed, and disappointed that it wasn't quite appropriate. I understand that - we've all been there. Anyway, as it transpires, another editor has been good enough to take the time to remove the promotional tone from the content which you reinserted, so the problem seems to be solved. I replied further on your talk page.  Begoon^talk 07:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for Adminship

Hello Begoon, thank you for participating in my recent RFA. I have taken all your comments into consideration and will make sure that I do it right if I plan on doing another RFA. Also, please do have a look at the comments made by other editors and myself, regarding this RFA. Thank you again, and have a nice day! Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 03:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

But I like those juicebags!

They're so handy in a backpack, and for kids on the go! Only thing is, if the plastic is too hard, the straw is a bear to push through and then it makes a big mess. On second thought, no, scratch that, I hate those juicebags!--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes - I think the lovely little guy must have got his terminology mixed up, or mistyped something he heard somewhere - never mind. Not forgotten your images - just busy, busy this week  -  Begoon (talk) 11:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I never think the worst (anymore), I just watch so you don't get those kneejerk speedy-dels like you were getting when you first started helping us, and that outburst made me laugh. Wish I could share some of the cool little cultural giggles I get here, but it took me two years to understand how some of these things are funny. My kids are subversively funny, and I am just now learning it. And adorably cute, if the Japanese ever want to try to take over again, Hello Kitty will be leading the forefront.

Leg better?--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've got about 1000 page watchlist, so I revert vandalism if it pops up, and I do housekeeping edits on those pages for things like spam links and POV editing, plus grammar and such-like. So, inevitably, once in a while, one of our less articulate brethren will choose to express displeasure at my actions in that fashion. In this case it was pure vandalism, leading to a block, that sparked the comment. The leg is a bit better, thanks, but I heal more slowly these days - still swollen and painful. I'll be taking it to bed in an hour or so.  -  Begoon (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I must be bitter-you say brethren, I don't count them in the same species anymore. Did you see the South Park movie where the little boy is chipped so when he says a curseword, he gets an electroshock? Wikipedia should have a vandalproof system like that. Three years ago my local newspaper interviewed me about editing the Wikipedia, I said about 40% of my time was reverting vandalism. Ah, those halcyon days...--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I try to assume they have good intentions until they prove absolutely otherwise. Often it's a case of a younger editor not understanding why someone deleted or altered the text they thought was a masterpiece, and reacting in a less than social way. On the other hand, I'm not saying that I completely disapprove of your idea. There does, arguably, come a point where it would be advantageous both to the encyclopedia and (in the long run) the user if a chip could be devised to achieve that. Perhaps a more humane chip alternative would start with giving them an inexplicable aversion to cheetos, then graduate through discovery of real girls to a vague urge to travel - finally administering the shock as a last resort? I don't know - just rambling... :)  Begoon^talk 19:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Begoon for President 2012! I love it!--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for having my back. That is the weirdest persistent IP in a long time.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/200.234.49.79 pertains...  Begoon^talk 05:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I had independently created one, since yours is better, I tagged them for merge.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I wondered whether to search for another one first, but didn't in the end - obviously should have - I'm sure it won't hurt.  Begoon^talk 21:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Archiving talkpage

Also, how did you get the bot to automatically archive your talkpage? --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You can put something like this at the top of your talkpage:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 70K
|counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = User talk:Begoon/Archive %(counter)d
}}

That archives any conversation inactive for 30 days (30d) to a sequential series of pages called User_talk:Begoon/Archive_1, User_talk:Begoon/Archive_2 etc... It starts a new Archive when the current one reaches 70k in size. If you don't want a section archived automatically, you can put something like:

<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 00:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC) -->

right under the relevant section heading. Then I used

{{archive box | image= [[Image:Vista-file-manager (blue).png|45px]]| style=background-color:#F9F9F9; border-color:#AAAAAA; | auto=long | search=no}}

to put the linky Archivey thing on the page. - There's full docs at User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo and Template:Archive box.

In reality, I guess I did it cos I can - I'm a programmer/web-developer by trade, so I like to play with these things to see how they work :-) - Begoon (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

...and thank you! It's bedtime soon for me. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of content at Mecca

Hi, Whenever you feel like commenting on my edit in a particular article, please use that Discussion page and use talk back option if you need to remind me. Please don't use my talk page for article discussions.

I have clearly mentione in my comment, the reasons for removal. Could you please make clear what sense does it make to the article? 11:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasifwasif (talk • contribs)

Hello.

Please sign your posts, that way I don't need to look in the edit history to see who is commenting, Thanks.

Your original edit summary said: "This piece of info has nothing to do with Makkah's tradition. Can include somewhere." That doesn't make any sense, because it isn't an article on "tradition" - it's an article on Mecca. The information is about Archaeology in Mecca, and it's in a section called "Archaeology", in the article on Mecca. It has a source, and is perfectly valid - therefore should not have been removed. Now you've drawn my attention to it again I see it needs a copy edit for grammar, so I'll do that now - the errors in English are no reason for removal either, though - I'm sure you understand that not everyone can type perfect English.

Your second edit summary said "Anonymous!! Pls discuss before reverting. Thats for we have talk page". First of all, that might imply that you are giving less weight to an anonymous editor, which is wrong. There is certainly no reason for removal in that comment, and there was no talk page discussion - which I expected to see after this second revert and that edit summary.

What I left on your talk page was a warning template. Standard procedure is to leave those on a user's talk page. In this case it was a warning not to repeatedly remove sourced content without a valid explanation.

The edit summary on your talk page where you removed:

1. The warning I left, and
2. The comment from the editor whose content you removed, quite reasonably asking you for a good reason,

says: "Replied in the user's talk page and article page". At this point I see no comment concerning this on Talk:Mecca or on the other editor's talk page.

I hope that's a little clearer for you, now  Begoon^talk 12:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

They're out today...

My talkpage must have turned orange 20 times today... grr.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL. I particularly like: [2]. Probably his little brother, or the dog, or something, poor victimised soul that he is....  Begoon^talk 12:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

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) 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. Begoontalk 15:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC) 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) 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.  Begoontalk 23:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC) 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) 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.  Begoontalk 23:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC) 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) 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.  Begoontalk 10:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC) 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) 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  Begoontalk 10:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC) 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. BejinhanTalk 09:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 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"...  Begoontalk 11:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 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. BejinhanTalk 12:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Incidentally, the IPs geolocate to Indonesia  Begoontalk 10:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC) 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 BejinhanTalk 14:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC) 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.  Begoontalk 00:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 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? BejinhanTalk 04:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 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.  Begoontalk 04:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Talked to couple of people in the IRC help channel and an admin has semi-protected the page. :) BejinhanTalk 06:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 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.  Begoontalk 06:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 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. BejinhanTalk 10:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 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.  Begoontalk 10:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 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. BejinhanTalk 11:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 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.  Begoontalk 11:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 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. BejinhanTalk 12:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 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. BejinhanTalk 12:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 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: [3], 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.  Begoontalk 12:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 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. BejinhanTalk 12:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC) IP has started talking on the talk page due to the semi. :) BejinhanTalk 12:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 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.  Begoontalk 13:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 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 :)  Begoontalk 14:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 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.  Begoontalk 16:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Good to hear that. At least progress has been made. It was good that he started talking. BejinhanTalk 11:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC) 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.  Begoontalk 12:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC) 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. BejinhanTalk 12:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC) 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 [4] 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.  Begoontalk 12:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC) 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 BejinhanTalk 14:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC) 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) 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.  Begoontalk 10:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC) 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) 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.  Begoontalk 11:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC) 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) 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... Begoontalk 12:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC) (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) 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..." :-) :-)  Begoontalk 12:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC) 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) 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.  Begoontalk 11:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Bumiputra/National Language of Malaysia ==> moved to Talk:Malaysia#Bumiputra/National Language of Malaysia