User talk:Begoon/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

​

Jimbo's page

Hello, and Happy New Year! Trivial matter, but I re-wikilinked Happy New Year! (including the punctuation) after creating a redirect because I thought it looked slightly nicer with the whole thing linked. Please feel free to revert me if you liked it better the other way. Take care. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You actually beat me to it. I was just deciding whether the fun was worth the effort of fixing the black "!", and had decided, since it was Jimbo's page, and very visible, that it was worth it to make it look pretty. At which point I noticed that you had already invested the 20 seconds of effort I had spent 5 minutes thinking about. If that makes sense... Enjoy the rest of your New Years Day. Begoon ^talk 08:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Addendum - because knowledge is to share. I also discovered something interesting and potentially completely useless during this. I tried to do a null edit to your new redirect page, to leave an edit summary like "good call" or something. I must have failed to put any extra whitespace, because the edit didn't save. However, the page was added to my watchlist. So today's utterly useless lesson from playing with a wikilink is that a failed edit still adds the page to your watchlist. Begoon ^talk 08:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have also been stymied while trying to do null edits in the past. I didn't know it would still add it to your watchlist though. There is no such thing as useless information, only information that you haven't had to use yet. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing (because it's not important enough for me to spend ages looking at the MediaWiki code) that the software is clever enough to ignore anything like whitespace after a redirect, because anything after a redirect directive is, by definition, never going to happen (you've been redirected...). That's probably the reason my null edit wouldn't "stick". And yes, I agree about "useless" information. Unfortunately, as I get older, I find I can store less information "locally" in my head, so storage space is at a premium. Now - if only I could control what does get kept "locally" I'd be ecstatic.
Or, would I? Sounds like it could end with the same problem as occurs with physical things. As soon as you throw it away, you realise how you could have used it, or discover a need for it... Begoon ^talk 09:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic Kitty!

I don't suppose you have a doggie doing something as cute. I would love to have it if you do. Happy New Year. Mugginsx (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't - but, as a special treat, if you can get a pic of your favourite pooch in the right position I'll see if I can animate something for you. Can't promise it will be as good as "Kevin" though - he just seems to "work" for some reason. Everything just worked with that pic. Happy New Year. Begoon ^talk 00:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful!. I will look for pic. May take me some time. Thanks so much! Mugginsx (talk) 10:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year, by the way!

You're back!?! Hope 2012 is great for you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Dipping my toe back in is a better description, see here to save me retyping. I'm also pretty busy in real life just now, so my time available for here could be a bit "sporadic". Happy New Year to you too - hope all is going well. Begoon ^talk 03:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of rollback

Please do not revert good faith edits as you did at Yale University. Rollback is only supposed to be used for vandalism, And I have reverted my edit back to what is is. If you continue to use rollback in such a way it will be revoked. If this is disputed, discuss with me, rather than revert. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 05:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Abhijay, I reverted your edit because there was absolutely no sensible way that your addition was a valid citation for the content in question. I'm not removing content in that edit, just an unsuitable reference. There is no need whatsoever for me to discuss edits like that in advance. You should remove it yourself now that it's been pointed out that it's a football reference and nothing to do with what is being stated there - overall University status as part of a big 3. There's a discussion on the Article talk page. Go there and explain why you think this is a suitable reference if you like, but please don't pointlessly over-react like this.

Now, a couple of other things. I am a rollbacker, but I never use rollback - it's disabled in my user JS. I often use Twinkle for it's rollback-like capability. On this occasion, I believe I used the feature to indicate I believed your edit was in good faith, although I did not agree with the edit you made as a useful citation source for the article in question.

All of that being said - never post a message as rude, impotently threatening and factually inaccurate as the one here to me or any other editor until you have very carefully checked your facts, and are very sure you are correct. Ensure you understand the policies and what has actually happened before you react in an aggressive or defensive way. WP:BRD might be a good place to start. Better still, don't be aggressive or defensive at all, there really is no need or benefit. Slow down and think a bit more carefully before reacting. That's just advice. I believe it's good advice. YMMV. Begoon ^talk 06:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This has got nothing to do with over-reaction, what are you even talking about? I've had experiences such as reverting a Good faith edit using Twinkle, and then an editor complained to an admin , because even if you are still a Rollbacker, you cannot use it to revert good faith edits, even when using Twinkle. So there isn't aggression or exaggeration in this case. Even if I have made a gentle mistake, it's my problem and it's up to me to correct it. Simply reverting it as a good faith edit is only going to end up leading you into trouble, just as how I did. See WP:RBK. It clearly states that Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool. When in doubt, use another method of reversion and supply an edit summary to explain your reasoning. In this case, even if you are a rollback and use twinkle to revert good faith edits, you risk losing them. End of discussion. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 07:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The reason your "warning" was inappropriate, and annoying, is that I haven't made any incorrect changes to any of your edits or "abused" anything anywhere, and you should have understood policy and standards of politeness. It would still have been a badly worded, unnecessarily threatening warning even if it had any validity. The fact that it didn't just makes it more so. I actually don't technically "care" if you want to post stuff like this on my talkpage, because I'm big enough to take care of myself - what I do care about is the implication that you might be treating other, maybe new or inexperienced users in the same way. That worries me, in a situation where we need to keep and encourage editors, new and old.

I thought I'd explained above that I don't use rollback. Instead I do "use another method of reversion and supply an edit summary to explain your(my) reasoning.", as you suggest in your bolded policy quote above. The other method is called Twinkle. On this occasion I think you will find I included a perfectly clear, helpful edit summary, as I try to do always. If you'd like to find someone to have a pointless argument about rollback Vs Twinkle with, I'm afraid it won't be me, sorry. Understand first, though, that the main point with the rollback regulation is to avoid the lack of summary with rollback of good faith edits. Twinkle addresses that shortcoming by providing an edit summary option, and goes even further by describing the edits as good faith in the summary - a lovely, friendly feature which I use whenever it's appropriate (and, as you can see from the edit in question, used on this particular occasion). Understand also that Twinkle does not use rollback. It uses javascript, and is completely independent of the rollback feature and permission.

However none of that addresses the main issue - which is your poor reaction to having a reference you added removed because it didn't provide citation for the content in question. It would serve you well to get over that sort of reaction in my opinion, and I honestly don't think that annoying people with impotent, baseless "threats" and "warnings" is helping you, or anybody else. Anyway, that's all the advice I have for you now. Thanks for the note. Begoon ^talk 07:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail

Thanks George. I'm going to reply here, because there's no need to do this by email, though I appreciate why you thought it might be best, and thanks for the consideration.

George, if you can format that discussion better, please do, and thank you. I looked at it, and decided that, with replies within my comment, it would take me too long. As I say, format ahead - you have my permission to move my comments to help the format, in case you're concerned about talk page rules and not editing comments. Thanks Begoon ^talk 01:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Closing of PNM Abroad

Hi. I just wanted to acknowledge that I made a mistake when I wrote that "noone seems to think" when your last comment clearly argues against a redirect, and I'll adjust my phrasing accordingly. However, even taking that comment into consideration I still think that there is a firm enough consensus to redirect. Cheers/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. No problem at all, it's not a major thing. It just feels slightly odd to me, that, without any RS provided to demonstrate that the organisation is in fact a part of the political party rather than just a blog/website, we now have a redirect which someone may take to imply we think there is a connection (and a searchable article history, for those who know how, at the redirect, containing much puff, doubtful claims etc...). Probably I should just look at it as ensuring that a search for "PNM Abroad" will just go to "PNM", which it would probably have done even before the redirect, through search. Thanks again. Begoon ^talk 11:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You've got e-mail!

Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I do... and I replied :-) Begoon ^talk 11:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I replied to your second email too :-) Begoon ^talk 05:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Melissa

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you! It is perfect. I hope I followed you instructions correctly. Mugginsx (talk) 09:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. That's exactly what I asked you to do. Hopefully, that's enough, but if anything else is required re. copyright it should be easy enough to provide. Begoon ^talk 10:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Begoon - one last request

I cannot put it on my user page no matter what language I show in edit mode the pic does not show. Sorry to be a dummy. I just "copy" other pics from articles. Do not actually know how to do from original upload. Any size will do from largest to smallest. Thank you so much. Mugginsx (talk) 10:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I thought last requests were usually cigarettes? Anyway, before you do anything drastic -  User:Mugginsx#Melissa.

You can move that around as you wish, and adjust the size if you like: 600px in the code means 600 pixels wide, etc... Begoon ^talk 10:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Beautiful! Thanks you so much! Mugginsx (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Re-written entry in RFC section of Talk:Storm in a Teacup (film)

Green Cardamom has recently rewritten the proposed entry to avoid OR. I wonder if that changes your mind. --George Ho (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No - it's fine, question is ok, my comments still stand, I just reformatted the proposed addition so the refs show up properly. You shouldn't be shy of adding your opinion, either. Begoon ^talk 07:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Yale University

Hello Begoon, I'm here to notify you that I have responded to your message at the talk of Yale University. Apologies for the rant earlier. I understand I went a bit over the line and lost my cool, but I'm really sorry. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 10:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the Yale thing in a few minutes. Don't worry about the other stuff - all in the past. Begoon ^talk 10:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC).

Ok sure, no biggie. I'd find something discussing the actual 'concept' of it. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 11:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I just edited my post there - if you read it again you'll see I'm suggesting that first you need to decide if you are using the term correctly in this general way and it's not being "stretched" to apply in a different sense here. That I don't know, because I'm not familiar enough with the subject. If it is correct, common usage, then maybe the statement doesn't need sourcing there, in the lead as it is. It does seem odd, though that you would have trouble finding a source if the usage was so common. You'd need to wait and see what other editors there think, though - it's just an opinion. Begoon ^talk 11:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The cat and the furrier (Kürschner, Malaysian: pembuat pakaian bulu?)

[1]Answer

.

--Kürschner (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.

This brought a big smile to my face...

"He who has a fair cat / should not bring a furrier into his house."

I think Kevin will be perfectly happy with this particular furrier.

Regards. Begoon ^talk 08:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

My condolences

Thank you for saying hi, and I am sorry to hear of your loss. When I saw you were down, had to come by and check on you. I wish the very best for you and all those you love.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Everything will be fine, it generally is. It's the time between now and then I have to deal with. Some things happen in the middle of it, like, you know, when someone responds so generously and quickly, that it restores your faith. A bit. Thanks Chris. Begoon ^talk 12:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hope I can help in some small way. If there's anything I can do, please let me know.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

External link mistake

Good Morning, I apologize if adding the external link was not allowed. I am new to working on blogs and websites; I am learning how to add links to my page so I will be more careful in the future. Have a good day, dodgeram50 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodgeram50 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. No problem at all - I see you did it in a couple of places, but don't worry, it's fixed up now. It can all be a bit bewildering when you're new here. I'll drop a few more useful links on your talk page. If you get stuck with anything, just ask for help - and never forget to enjoy editing here - that's the point. Have fun. Begoon ^talk 16:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Toy Story 3

Hey there, I've added a discussion on the Toy Story 3 page. Just thought I'd let you know. Charlr6 (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I replied there. Begoon ^talk 14:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced yeti stuff

Ah, edit conflict because I was typing out a longer revert message ("rv; unsourced (nocturnal, "one weakness is stated as heat", "first official sighting", "only show itself to those who truly believe in it"), repetition (Newman's mistranslation) and misuse of source (Bigfoot sightings in all states, not Yeti)") - the editor was clearly trying to attach some sources by putting unfootnoted links at the bottom, and the "fun facts" link was a mirror of a National Geographic article which seems reliable enough. I agree that there's nothing salvageable in there, though. --McGeddon (talk) 11:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just looking at the links. We should leave him a note. Begoon ^talk 11:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and do that now, to spare us another edit conflict... --McGeddon (talk) 11:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Unlucky. I needed to read this first. I posted, then reverted. Yours is more detailed anyway. Cheers. Begoon ^talk 11:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

D'oh. Sorry to have wasted your time there. See you at the next edit conflict. --McGeddon (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

DRV

A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Kenya Airways Flight 431

My intent was not to deface the Kenya Airways Flight 431, although I can see how you might interpret it that way. I wanted to raise the issue because the error was on the main page, and I didn't know of the WP:ANI page, so I figured a big bold message at the top of the Kenya Airways Flight 431 page would get somebody's attention who would then correct the problem. Thanks for fixing the main page. I have a shared IP address that changes occasionally, so messages directed to this IP address may not go to me, but to somebody else in the building. 30 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.9.53 (talk)

I think you may have misunderstood. That's exactly what my reply said, that:

• you were trying to escalate the issue
• you were right to do so
• the issue would not have been fixed without you

I also mentioned that a better way could have been to raise an ANI discussion, and went on to thank you again. If you think I implied any other motive, such as "defacement" then I apologise for what must be a failure by me to convey my sentiments clearly. Begoon ^talk 03:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I did not misunderstand you. I merely stated my original intentions - which you clearly deduced. Thanks for the info about WP:ANI, which I might use if I get my own account someday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.9.53 (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Great. Thanks again for the report that caused the error to get fixed. That's what matters. Incidentally, you don't need an account to post at WP:ANI (except for some brief periods when I've seen it semi protected because of vandalism). Additionally, for future reference, another user has pointed out to me here: [2], that errors on the main page get quick attention if reported to the right section of Talk:Main Page - so that's some more useful information for both of us. Begoon ^talk 04:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yale

Thank you for being a helpful contributor with me on the Big Three article dispute Begoon. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 09:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome. Hope things are going well with all the new users you are helping out when they first start to edit. It's a very important time for Wikipedia to make a good impression on new editors, and it's important work that requires a lot of thought so that we don't lose new contributors. It needs experienced editors like you making slow, careful decisions. See you around. Begoon ^talk 09:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Abhijay likes this.

George Ho

Hi

I noticed the note you left on George's mentorship page. Before I discuss it with him, can I check that Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_1#Lois_and_Clark and related discussions are the issue?

One of the things I've been trying to get George to do is to discuss any deletion listings before going ahead, and I've suggested how he can do this. It seems to me one of the problems here is he is being too literal again, and starting many discussions at once, so it seems like "forum shopping". Does that seem right to you, or am I missing more?

George has to bring xFD noms to the mentorship page for now, before listing, so there shouldn't be too much issue there at the moment, but we do need to talk about appearing to "forum shop" or keeping "rephrasing the question."

The last post by Dennis Brown in that discussion is very perceptive. Begoon ^talk 01:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi : )

First let me give you my praise and appreciation that you are helping others by being a mentor. Mentorship can be far too unappreciated a way that Wikipedians contribute here : )

Back on topic : )

Yes, that discussion, the talk page discussion that preceded it, and among other things, requesting various some unlikely redirects to be created (looking rather close to being WP:POINT requests). As well as this new wikiproject for couples. (Which could appear as another way to push a POV.)

While I would like to think that this is well-meant, this really does appear to be (among other things) forum shopping.

And in reading his interactions with others, it really feels like behind this is: "I want what I want. Your arguments using policy can have the effect of me not getting what I want (as has been forcefully shown to me in the past). So rather than actually try to understand what you have to say, I'm going to try to use your words to find some wikilegal way to game the system to get what I want."

I say this to not be insulting to anyone in any way, it's merely my impression.

And I hope that I'm wrong and this is merely the sincere attempts by a well-meaning editor. (I'm a huge fan of WP:AGF.) Unfortunately in this case, I'm doubtful.

I would agree that Dennis Brown's post was perceptive (It's why I didn't feel that I needed to comment more in that discussion - he had it covered well.)

I welcome your thoughts on this, and hope this helps. - jc37 02:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It helps, thank you. Yes, it can appear exactly like that. George is extremely literal in the way he reads policies and comments, so often it appears he is wikilawyering, when, in fact he is just trying to explain his point of view. However, yes, he does need to drop the stick quicker on occasion. It's my opinion that George does mean well, but I agree that more effort needs to be made to actually understand objections properly, rather than try to "work around" them. We're just over a month into the mentorship, so hopefully we can get on top of this. Begoon ^talk 03:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Remember George is on the autism spectrum. He was very brave, and told us onwiki, and while it's not an excuse for disruption (and I don't believe he's ever used it in that way), we need to be aware that it's like someone telling us they are blind and use text-to-speech. We wouldn't show them pictures to try to explain something. He can only work in the literal - he actually has great difficulty in imagining an abstract, and treats illustrative examples as the real thing. He takes what people (those he has regard for) tell him as reality, as the true version. So when he appears not to be dropping the stick, he's actually trying to work out why he's suddenly got two versions of reality that don't match up. He really struggles with the concept that anything that can be interpreted more than one way. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Post at Moni's page

Hi begoon - just alerting you in case this is of interest to you. User_talk:Moni3#Work_proceeds. Cheers Manning (talk) 03:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I replied there :-) Begoon ^talk 05:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Update - I felt it was time to centralize this ANI analysis discussion. Please feel free to join me at User:Manning Bartlett/Moni3 ANI analysis. Manning (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Manning - I'll watchlist it now. Begoon ^talk 02:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

A note

Hey, I read your comments on my user talk page and I did give it some thought. I have decided to return back. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 01:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Good. I'm pleased. We've all done what you did in the heat of the moment - I did it myself, a couple of years ago. We just learn from it and carry on. That's the only way that makes any sense in the long run. Have a read of the "Other Duck" page linked from the userbox on my user page. You don't need to defend yourself if you think you're acting in good faith - let your actions speak for themselves. Begoon ^talk 01:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. And I'm over it. I have to admit that I was upset, but really in that situation both of us were wrong in the first place. But what can I say, you cannot change the way of the other editors, they have to change it themselves. It's editors such as them with the constant accusations and always thinking that they are right, and failing to see that he/she was wrong in posting inflammatory messages at my talk page, and marking my comments as vandalism : ([3]). I wonder how many people have been driven away by his/her attitude. But anyways, I took your advice and I have decided to come back. Lets hope he doesn't come near me ever again. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 01:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The past is generally the best place to put little blow-ups like this. See you around. Begoon ^talk 01:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Last but not least, check this ([4]). Look at the garbage he posted about me. Let's not bring up the whole issue over again. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 01:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The past is generally the best place to put little blow-ups like this. See you around. Oh, sorry, did I post that twice? Begoon ^talk 01:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah you posted twice. Take care. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 01:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You take care too. Nice to see you back. Begoon ^talk 01:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your kind words in support of my RfA, which was successful and nearly unanimous. Be among the first to see my L-plate! – Fayenatic L (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Newstraitstimes new.jpg

You can go to my talk page if you want, but this would be best discussed here then. This file is known to be ineligible for copyrights due to lack of threshold of originality in the United States. Just one question: is this image eligible for copyrights in Malaysia? --George Ho (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a copyright expert, but I think it might be. That shouldn't affect our ability to use it as a non free logo with a FUR though, as I understand it. More importantly though, it wasn't the current logo, see File:New Straits Times.png and www.nst.com.my. I replaced it in the article.

I will confess, though, that I think the non-free image area is a minefield, and totally incomprehensible to a new user. There seems to me no way a new user could have uploaded the new file and provided all the licensing and FUR required without a lot of research and frustration. I know some people are working on better upload "wizards", and, the sooner the better, I say. </rant>Begoon ^talk 03:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Even if eligible in Malaysia, that one is ineligible for copyrights in the United States. See File:BBC.svg. --George Ho (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, you can ask in WP:MCQ. --George Ho (talk) 03:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know that, but my concern is for new users. If we improve the quality of information we get at the time the file is uploaded, by asking the right questions and making some answers compulsory, then the time that others, like you, need to spend on all the licensing issues would be substantially reduced. Anyway, that's my off-topic rant for today... (I just lost all my internet for a few hours because of a network outage, so I'm grumpy...) Begoon ^talk 03:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

To make yourself more comfortable, I changed tag to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. --George Ho (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for fixing up the image page too. {{keep local}} is a good idea, I did that for the same reasons on the Malaysia Coat of Arms, here: [5]. I generally don't do SVG conversions for files like that straight away because it's ok as it is, and there may be an official version in a pdf or company brochure. If we can use something provided by the actual organisation, that seems better to me. Tagging it is fine though, someone may do it as it is in a category now. You can see the blurb I helped write about this here: [6] under "General SVG requests:". Begoon ^talk 04:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I do have one, slightly odd question for you, though. You've untagged the old file as it's PD in US - that's fair enough. Do you think it is any use? Should we keep it? This is not a licensing question - I'm asking for your opinion. Begoon ^talk 04:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Both images can be kept here just for historical purposes. Free use in English Wikipedia; for Malaysian Wikipedia, if you have Malay or Malaysian language installed, try fair use there. --George Ho (talk) 05:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree - no point in deleting it, and that's good research you did on the change date. It's a horrible, low-res image though, so if I ever do see a better version of it (unlikely) I'll replace it. Begoon ^talk 05:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I renamed the old one, found some larger versions, and uploaded one that needs cropping I can't do right now - see File:New Straits Times logo 1965–2011.jpg and its talk page for details.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow! That's beyond the call of duty - thanks, Jeff. I used one of the gifs you found: File:New Straits Times logo 1965–2011.gif for the article - far better than that lousy jpeg. Thanks again. Begoon ^talk 01:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Ideally, we can get an SVG from a tracing from the full page scan, but I don't have the software for that here. Given the GIF, the JPEG can.go, right?   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I tagged it for SVG conversion already - I could do it, but not straight away, and see above on my thoughts for SVG logos, and the steps to take (instructions at WP:GL/ILL [7]). As far as I'm concerned the jpg is useless now, yes - I tagged it obsolete. Begoon ^talk 02:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool. FYI, TinEye is great for finding bigger/better versions of images.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've used that before, but I often forget it. What's also useful is that you can drag images from one browser window to the Google Images search bar in another, which can be really helpful for stuff like the link I generated for this discussion: [8]. Begoon ^talk 03:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's one you can research: Copyright law of Malaysia. --George Ho (talk) 10:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

...And another one: [9]. --George Ho (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've read some of the first one before, but not all of it. The second one looks interesting. I'll read it later, when I have some time. Begoon ^talk 10:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The Beatles

I wonder how you can talk about The Beatles' article when you have made no edits at all? Interesting, no?--andreasegde (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a mystery, isn't it? Thanks for dropping by. Begoon ^talk 22:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Article restructuring at the Beatles

There is a discussion taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 01:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Gabe, see the message a few above. I have better things to do here than deal with that sort of crap, however prolific and valuable the contributor may be, so I'll have to give that a miss for a while. My apologies. I do actually think your change is an improvement, though, I should add that here, or I'd be being rude. Begoon ^talk 02:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason why you can't weigh-in there without being rude. Sometimes group-think takes over, and page ownership, and the only way to rectify the stituation is fresh perspectives. FYI, I've done my fair share of edits to the article as well as anyone, so I do appreciate your sympathy even if I disagree with your unwillingness to state your case as you see it, where it needs to be stated. — GabeMc (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Per above: don't let Andrea scare you away, be bold! — GabeMc (talk) 03:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Gabe, you are absolutely correct. I'm not unwilling at all, and I don't get "scared" about words on a screen. It just comes down on the wrong side of the profit/loss equation in my mind when constructive discussion there gets disrupted in such an abrupt fashion, and then carried off the page to here when I don't "take the bait" there. I'm currently trying to give silly things like that a bit of a wider berth. I'll probably chip in when I've read it a bit more closely, I've only really looked at the "shape" of what you did. You've done a lot of good work there. Begoon ^talk 03:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I hear you. Wiki needs to be put in perspective. I've just seen many good editors bullied away from articles by "veteran" editors, and it's not right IMO. The project is supposed to be fluid, and crowd-sourced. — GabeMc (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice point you made to Joe, you took the words right out of my mouth! — GabeMc (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, he seemed genuinely concerned about it, and that is wrong. Nobody should be reticent because of perceived ownership issues, and if I see it, I won't let it go unmentioned. Begoon ^talk 01:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, about one of your mentees

Hello Begoon, thought I'd leave a quick note to point you at this discussion one of your mentees initiated, apparently on a spur of the moment (it doesn't seem very well thought out). There's nothing wrong with it, or with his behaviour, just as of yet, but seeing as how I noticed he's under mentorship for whatever reason it might be a good idea for one or two of his mentors to monitor the discussion. Cheers, Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. It is appreciated. George has very bravely been open with us about some problems he has editing, often seeing things very literally, due to his being on the autism spectrum. It's somethng we're aware of and working with, but sometimes he can seem to tend to "think aloud" a bit when he's trying to explain or reconcile his thoughts. I think that's what's happened there, and I'm grateful everyone seems to be being very constructive. I won't add to the confusion by sticking my nose in there, but do appreciate the note.Begoon ^talk 22:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)