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: Archive 1, Archive 2, Index...

I can't believe I forgot to ask you to do these

It's not like I live here or something...

--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images still to do

Coming soon...

File:Anguilla Branch of The Scout Association.svg

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

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

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

File:Saint Kitts and Nevis Branch of The Scout Association.svg

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.svg

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]

Hey

So... my wikibreak is at its tail-end. :) I'm already starting to think about the amount of work I have with WikiProject Malaysia. :p Anyway, the break didn't start well. There was a heated Afd and I started my first SPI as a result of that. But yeah, can't wait to get back to regular editing. Bejinhan talks 10:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey to you, too! Nice to see you back - sorry you had some drama. A couple of things rubbed me up the wrong way, too, while you were on your break - I find the trick is to say what you need to, no more, and leave it at that. Works for me, anyway. Don't leave stuff unsaid, but once it's said, move on. Not always easy, but I'm finding it a good plan. Begoon^talk 11:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back, it was good experience, albeit in a slightly nasty way. That's good advice. :) Bejinhan talks 12:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oksana Girgorieva (User:Podiumgroup)

Begoon,

I noticed you removed the additions to the Oksana Girgorieva page I posted last night. No, I am not the website you posted on you reasoning page- www.podium-group.com. I own a business and shorted the names of it to fit on wikipedias username page. If it is neccesary for me to change my username to allow ACCURATE postings to be done, so be it. But the information I supplied is 100% accurate based on a search on the USPTO website. All of the information is provable and should be reinstated as it is unbiased and accurate. If you disagree, that is of course your right. But again, I am not part of any group and there is no conflict of interest involved.

podiumgroup —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.93.121 (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Thanks for the reply. If you have no conflict of interest, then that's fine. That's why I asked the question instead of reporting the username. If it were myself, I'd probably change it, because as you point out it is still the name of a business. However, that's up to you - read the material I linked, and if there's no conflict of interest in anything you intend to edit, then do as you feel best.

I didn't revert your edits for that reason, though - as you'll see from the message I left and my edit summary. I reverted them because they were unsourced. Any edits to an article that might be controversial must be supported by a reliable source. This is even more important when the article is a biography of a living person. We have a duty of care to ensure that articles about living persons are accurate and impartial.

By all means, source your edits, and re-edit the article - but I strongly recommend reading these 3 links first, otherwise you may be liable to be reverted by other editors if the edits don't conform to policy:

Biographies of Living Persons: WP:BLP
Reliable Sources you can use: WP:RS
Providing cited sources: WP:CITE

Thanks. Begoon^talk 15:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Begoon,

Thank you for the reply. I am new to posting on Wiki so I will make sure to include the sources which of course is the USPTO site. Again, there is no conflict here as I have never met this person or Mel Gibson for that matter! As for the username, can I just change it or do I have to do the whole re-registering thing again? Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.93.121 (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but to re add your edits you'll need to source more than that. You need to source the fact that the claim was made at all before negating it. You need to source your claim that "Mr. Gibson has charged the Ms. Grigorieva has attempted to extort money from him due to their continuing personal battle." and your statement that "The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department is currently investigating these claims.". Furthermore the content you added regarding the tapes has been discussed at length already on the article talk page. Even after all that, the edits still won't be acceptable if they don't adhere to a neutral point of view: see WP:NPOV. I really recommend that before making large controversial edits like this, you discuss them at Talk:Oksana Grigorieva, and get a consensus, otherwise I can seriously see the edits being reverted again. In fact, any further discussion about these edits should take place at Talk:Oksana Grigorieva and not here.

With regard to changing your username, you can just create a request at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. Give as your reason that you used a company name, and would like to change to a neutral name. There's no need to register again, and your edit history, user page and talk page will be renamed for you. Begoon^talk 16:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graphic Lab interview at The Signpost

Hello Begoon. You seem active at the Graphic Lab, so I wanted to invite you to participate in The Signpost's interview of the project. The report is being written by Rock drum and will be published September 13; this is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Please stop by and answer some interview questions here. Thank you, â�³ono

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Mono at 03:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

quickie

Can you nip the r-trademark out of File:Royal Rangers.svg, per WPMOS? It wasn't in the original, and Wiki is against it. Thanks--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 09:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, sorry, no - it is in the one at http://www.ag.org/Royal-Rangers so it wouldn't be faithful to remove it. I'll change it to ~~blue~~ brown, and bottom of the S like it should be. I think you'll probably find the MOS discourages it in text, but when it comes to images, being a true reproduction is paramount. That's my understanding, though - if you know of some policy that says we should alter images by removing it - show me and I'll happily do it. Begoon^talk 10:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to brown and repositioned as per the weblink above. I also noticed the overall shape is different, and the "ROYAL RANGERS" font isn't the same - but I'm not going to alter them, since he could be working to a different source. I can't download the pdf linked on the image page to have a look and check - I just get a website error. Begoon^talk 11:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I swear the policy was on the stand near the front door next to my keys when I left home this morning..., but I can't find it now. Ah well. I can show precedentFile:Boy Scouts of America universal emblem.svg/File:White Stag Leadership Development Program.png, but it's not that important either way. Thanks for your time and energy.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the stuff at: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(trademarks)#General_rules says Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context - but there's nothing in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(trademarks)#Use_of_graphic_logos further down the page. As far as I'm concerned, if it's in the official logo, it's part of the graphic, and if you remove it you are altering the official logo, which I don't believe can ever be correct. Imagine you were supplied with official source files from an organisation - to alter them would be just plain wrong as far as I understand it. So far as precedent goes, if there really were a policy against it, you'd think some keen admin would have done something about File:Gmail logo.png by now - it is fairly high profile... Begoon^talk 12:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your diligence, and for being the voice of calm these days. I am trying to stress-down, not working yet. Still worth the try.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement

Hey Begoon. On V (2009 TV series), there seems to be a disagreement between another user and I. On my talk-page, we have discussed the issue (after an edit war). I feel that your opinion could help resolve it, as I don't want to start another edit war and/or be reported for further mishandling the issue. Do you mind chiming in to the discussion? ChaosMaster_Chat 01:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased you want to get your disagreement solved without edit warring - that's very positive.

"V", eh? I'm old enough to remember the first run, in its different, but similar flavours. I enjoyed it at the time, but it looked very dated when I saw it rerun a couple of months ago. Same could be said for most sci-fi of that era though, sets and effects have moved on. I haven't seen the new version yet.

The problem I would have "chiming in" is that I'm not really an editor of TV listing sections, so I don't have a lot of experience in that area. I look at them if I want to know about a show, but I don't edit them. That said, my position would probably be that they should be consistent across the board. I glanced at a few, and List of The X-Files episodes seemed a good example, but I'm sure there are better ones. I have seen some heated discussions in that area, often about formatting. Rather than jump into a discussion where I'm not an expert, could I point you at a couple of things to look at first?

Manual of Style-TV Listings - for Style Guidelines.
WikiProject Television - General Wiki Project.
WikiProject Television Talk Page - seems like a good place to ask a question about best practice for these articles.

I see you are already listed at Category:WikiProject Television participants, so you may well know some of those editors already.

My main advice about the disagreement would be to reach consensus - try and open up the discussion by moving it off your talk page and onto the article talk page. See if that gets some more input. It may take a while so be patient, and don't edit war, or canvass people to support you. If it still seems stuck after a while, then a nice, neutral notice on the Project talk page would be appropriate, I think. Remember that if you seek consensus you may get consensus that disagrees with you - so be prepared to accept that.

Really, the only points about your discussion I had any concrete thoughts on were:

The lead is short, and could be expanded, but should be general - maybe referring to the old versions, and outlining the new scenario a bit more, with maybe a brief mention of main cast/characters, but not by copying season specific details to the lead - that does seem redundant. I should read the lead and get a grasp of what the series is about, previous versions it is based on, who is in it, and what their characters are. 3 or 4 medium sentences should do it. Like the X-Files example I gave above, but shorter (certainly less than half that, probably 1/3) because there are less series to summarise.
The table and section formats should be consistent with other Episode List pages.

Those are just my quick thoughts based on a glance, though - as I say I'm not experienced in those articles, so my thoughts may differ from the main editors of those articles. If that is so, then they are more likely to be "correct" than I am.

I hope some of that waffle helps, even though I'm not of the opinion that my joining your discussion would really be helpful at this point, I am pleased you want to continue to seek better ways than edit warring to resolve disagreements - sorry I wasn't any specific help solving your dispute this time. Begoon^talk 02:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advise. I will gladly get involved with some discussions about it exc. Fo now, I'll leave it until consensus is reached, and fix it accordingly. Thanks for your advise though, I appreciate it. ChaosMaster_Chat 01:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to initiate a discussion about the series overview on the television talk page, and, for the most part, have kept my distance from the "V" episode list. My reply doesn't come because of the previous issue (though I think it's related), but because it seems the same user keeps reverting a good majority of my edits to other articles without initiating a discussion about why (s)he disagrees about those edits. Specifically, here, when I explained why I made the certain edit and provided a link to the guideline, the user reverted my revision stating that there was "nothing there to enforce" the change. Even if that is the case, couldn't the user start a discussion about it? Neither of us should "enforce" either change, this isn't the American legal system here. Furthermore, this revert uses the same explination of most of his revisions on the "V" episode list (restoring); this revert seems like it was goaled to help the article, but the user reverted this also. Other than those, nothing pops out by looking at his first two pages of contributions. But the user did warn me of an edit war without warning the other user (who is a newer editor) involved. Is there any way that this could be resolved without causing more warnings, bans, and without causing harsh words or feelings? I don't mean to be a burden :/ ChaosMaster_Chat 23:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Sigh*. Even when I commented on the talkpage, the user replied with this. (S)he is enitled to their opinion, but I feel the response is a "My way or the Highway" response. ChaosMaster_Chat 23:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I can't offfer you much concrete help. Sometimes editors differ and cannot agree. In those circumstances I would firstly politely ask why a revert was done, and then leave it at that. Certainly when the content in question is a style issue rather than facts being incorrect, it's seldom really worth the aggravation of a dispute. I know that seems as though I am saying just give in, but really what I'm saying is that when there is no real pressing need for a change, your time would be better spent improving other articles. If you get to the point where you have a real problem with another user, there are dispute procedures, but do you really want to spend all your available wiki time in a formal procedure about something that probably isn't too important? There is no rush to "finish" an article, so what I do in these circumstances is find something else to edit for a while, and watch how the other article evolves. Style issues can be important, but never really enough to get in a confrontation. You only need to look at the ongoing fight about actor table formats in movie articles to see how easily editors can be sucked into a huge, frustrating waste of time and energy. The time spent on that dispute could have written another 50 articles. Begoon^talk 23:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lab

Hello, Begoon. I'm Wanwa from Russian Graphic lab. We have serious problems with graphists. Everyone rests. But we have nearly 15 images to vectorize it. So, you are dearly invited to our project. If you agree, please tell me. I'll show you those images and translate them in English. If you don't agree, please tell me, who can fulfilled this task. Yours, Wanwa (talk) 07:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC). Oh, sorry about mistakes in the text.[reply]

Hello - I can't promise anything - but if you can show me where the images are, I'll take a look, and let you know what I think. Begoon^talk 10:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To vectorize (into SVG). This is a list of images:

Done- using this file

Wanwa (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on the whole, they are really quite intricate designs, and for at least the first 3 the originals are not very good to work from. I'll search for some better originals first, and see where we go from there. Begoon^talk 00:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks a million! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanwa (talk • contribs) 09:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coat of Arms of Khanty-Mansia.svg is

Done- using http://www2.admhmao.ru/obsved/simvol/gerb.jpg as a guide Begoon^talk 06:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O'thank you very much! Wanwa (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

way down the list...

File:Songs Day.png no rush, trying to find a better copy for you.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 08:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, later - but I'm going to have to call that a tiny wee little bit of a smidgin cheeky - non Scout stuff to lab, please, unless there's a special reason. No big thing, just trying to stay organised. Begoon^talk 08:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheeky-chastised, check. Just right now there's that copyvio dude about, and enough fights get started without me being involved lately.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your request in the lab. Begoon^talk 16:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CVU Medals

I've replied at WP:GL/ILL - nice job. Connor mah 04:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your reply there :-). I've added the "bevel" effect to the lettering on your CVU files - if you wanted to add it to the "quadrants" its the same "sliver of black on right, white on left" principle basically that I used in mine. Any other depth or relief comes from just keyline colour or the gradient hitting the outer rim. Begoon^talk 13:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]