User talk:Begoon/Archive 18

Regarding reverting of the edit made to Genie (feral child)
Hi, I found that you had reverted my edits to the above article, despite adding those names with sufficient references. You mentioned in your edit summary to see the Talk page and its archives, however upon looking I could not find anywhere it was mentioned not to add the real names of Genie or her siblings, parents or relatives. Can you provide me an exact link to the section you were referring to in you summary or explain me in brief about it? Also, I see that you removed my edit summaries from my edits to that page. Can you tell me why did you do that? Thanks a lot for your guidance! Justlookingforthemoment (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * edits and their summaries were removed here as "Serious BLP violations". If you follow my suggestion to "See the talk page and its archives" from my edit summary, the first thing you should see is a warning box at the top of the talk page reading "The real name of this subject is omitted due to Wikipedia policy on the privacy of names." For more details you can see this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and various other discussions from the talk page and its archives. I'll be archiving this section later today. Thank you. -- Begoon 23:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I see, from the deletion log, that Slp1  deleted my edit summaries since it violated RD2 of WP:CRD. However, I am utterly confused. Because what it says about does not match with the edit I made. Let's evaluate it one-by-one.
 * "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little or no encyclopedic or project value" - The edit I made was neither Grossly insulting, nor degrading nor some offensive material which had no encyclopedic value.
 * "violates our biographies of living people policy" - I am coming back to this later.
 * "This includes slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value, but not mere factual statements, and not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations." - The adding of names wasn't a slur, smear. grossly offensive, was NOT something that had no encyclopedic value. Neither wasn't it a "ordinary" incivility, personal attack or conduct accusation.
 * "When pages with grossly improper titles are in question, the page names may also be removed from the page creation, move, and delete logs." - The page wasn't moved or the title edited, so I hope here no issues.
 * Now, coming back to WP:BLP Violation, I guess the violation which I did was against WP:BLPNAME. Lets evaluate each sentence one-by-one here.
 * " When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." - True enough, and that's why I mentioned her (Genie's) real name ONLY ONCE at the beginning of the article, and mentioned in all other places as "Genie" only.
 * "When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories." - True again, and that's why apart from sources in The Guardian, I cited another source from Country Historian, Created by Will Johnson a professional Genealogist. Maybe, am I missing something here?
 * "Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value" - First of all, her parents and brother were all directly involved in her life. And YES, it does add significant value by providing a very important information. (IMO, a person's real name is an important information.)
 * "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced." - Her father, mother and brother did play an extremely significant role in her life, and hence they are neither low-profile, neither loosely involved, nor not-notable. All of them were sourced (with 4 to 5 citations) from all kinds of established and reputed media, journals, and news sources. There were a hundred other sources available on different other websites, but I did not cite, as there's absolutely no reason for citing fifty sources for a single line (just think about it, LOL!).
 * So, I hope I made you clear that I did not intend to make any mistake from my side. If I did, I am extremely sorry. I did my best in providing an explanation from my side, and hope you do it too. If you agree with me, then I think we can work on restoring the edits. If not, then I will learn something from you which will help me in editing article in the future. After all, I am a newcomer with just above an year and less than 1000 edits, whereas you are on this platform for more than 10 years! So, I will be happy to be helped. Thanks a lot in taking out your time to read this! Justlookingforthemoment (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no implication on my part that you did anything deliberately malicious - I have absolutely no doubt that you did what you did with the best of intentions. What I won't be doing is arguing the toss about the revision deletion or trying to get the edits reinstated. I agree with the revision deletion - the 'canned' reasons are unfortunate and impersonal, but I wouldn't take them to heart. I do not agree with any of those names being mentioned in the article. As I mentioned above, I'll be archiving this section shortly, and I'd appreciate it if you leave the matter there - if you want to have a discussion/wikilawyer about the merits you can try the article talk page, but I won't be having it here. Just consider this, though - why is it important to you to know or include a name? You can know everything about the situation and the complete story without knowing any of the names. If you later found out one of the names was different to what you originally imagined or discovered a new name then so what? What difference would it possibly make to anything about the situation/story? They are utterly beside the point and completely irrelevant and unimportant, and if there is the slightest chance of hurt or distress by mentioning them then why do it? To satisfy the idle curiosity of someone reading a web page? Really? Think carefully about that - but I'm afraid that as far as I am concerned, the discussion here is finished. Don't take any of this personally - it's not meant that way - it just isn't a discussion I want to have. -- Begoon 09:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

You closed the discussion in the previous section, and I am not satisfied yet - I did not consider it nice to edit that discussion which you closed, so I felt it better to start a new one, anyway. A thing from your reply post which I cannot get at all - is this:Just consider this, though - why is it important to you to know or include a name? Do you seriously mean, WHY? Well, Why not? Name is the BASIC IDENTITY of a person. It is the "name" of the person, something which he/she is often called by other people, is known by other people around, and it serves as a legal identity proof - A person needs legal permission to change his/her name - legally. Everyone in this world is known by their "NAME" - All famous celebrities, common people, friends, relatives, You and I - all are known by their names. Why would someone say Michael's wife or Michael's father repeatedly when it is known that their names are Amanda and John respectively. I would prefer calling "Amanda" (anyhwhere - be it an encyclopedic article or in real life) rather than Michael's wife repeatedly. The only case where the latter has to work is where the name is NOT KNOWN - So it will be okay to call X's father (where X is a person whose father's name is not known) - but not certainly Genie's father in the article. I hope you get my point, and you are not angered by my new reply which you intended to be finished. Don't take any of this personally - it's not meant that way - its just a discussion I want to have. ;-) Justlookingforthemoment (talk) 11:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding reverting of the edit made to Genie (feral child) - 2
 * I don't know your real name, and it would make absolutely no difference to me if I did. If you don't understand that then I probably can't make you understand. All the things you wrote above about legal names, identity etc. are utterly irrelevant to the basic fact that knowing a name makes absolutely no difference to understanding a narrative or a situation. Anyway, I really am closing this down now - it's not going to go anywhere useful, so respect my closing, please. Thank you. -- Begoon 11:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Wipro logo
bsd. Hi, I hadn't noticed that the gradient is actually an embedded raster, sorry about that. I extracted it from company material, so it should be accurate though. In keeping with quality edits, although it's probably not needed, the file is under a PD-USonly license, which doesn't fall under CSD#F5. --Ben Stone 18:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * - oops, my error with the F5, I've undone that. If you "extracted it from company material", you should link that material as a source. What concerned me is that the colours are inconsistent with the logo on the company website (orange dots rather than yellow, etc), although now I dig deeper I see they offer 2 versions: https://www.wipro.com/brand/, a "website" version and a "print" version. Presumably you used the latter. I'm glad I went there, though, because "corporate-bullshit-speak" is a source of constant amusement to me, and "Building on the universal form of the circle, the radiating rings of dots around our Wipro name suggest all the many connections that our brand creates for our customers. Together, they convey a sense of outward motion, propelling us into the future that we define together. The colors of our brandmark also speak to our character – highlighting our reliability and authority.", "The multi-colored dots convey a dynamic energy and optimism. With the simple strength of the Wipro wordmark and the evocative interplay of form and color, the elements of our logo unite to suggest the new world of connections that Wipro champions." are awesome examples. -- Begoon 03:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * LOL, I skipped the BS page, so i missed this incredible gem. I don't envy whomever's job it is to come up with this pile of nonsense. Imagine doing that for a living. BTW, i went back to check the vector, and they actually overlaid those yellow dots on top of the gradient, i guess somebody started creating a vector and just gave up. --Ben Stone 03:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Image guidance for Internet Archive scans
Hi, I saw you did a retouch of my John Leamy uploads on Commons—thanks for that. Since I'm sure it'll come up again, is there a best procedure when uploading images taken from Internet Archive book scans? What I've been doing so far is downloading the torrent with JPEG2000 scans, converting it to PNG using ImageMagick, setting it grayscale and cropping with GIMP, and then perhaps exporting to JPG depending on the kind of image it is. You mentioned thumbnails of PNGs are more blurry; how does that work? Kim Post (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 're doing that correctly. Some people don't bother to download the scan archive (or know that they can) - that you do so is good. The retouch on the 'mansion' lithograph was just a black level boost to bring out the detail. The mediawiki 'blurry' png thumbnail issue is annoying, and longstanding. Png is a lossless format, unlike jpg which degrades when edited, so keeping lossless png 'masters' but using a jpg copy for thumbnailing is a workaround. Mediawiki sharpens jpg thumbnails, but not png, often resulting in annoyingly, noticeably 'blurry' png thumbnails by comparison. See and phabricator: for more on this issue of 'blurry' png thumbnailing by mediawiki. -- Begoon 01:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Logo Format
I understand that the preferred format for images is SVG or PNG and I have been looking to update jpg logos where possible. However, the only way I seem to be able to do this is to upload a new file (as a version update can only be performed using the same file format). This results in an orphaned image with no links to it (and ultimately automatic removal). Is there a better way for me to do this? Greenguytroy (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, there really isn't. Unless the content is 'photographic' then png is indeed often better, with svg better still, provided it's a proper, faithful vector svg, ideally from the owner or their website/documents. But if replacing one format with another then yes, one file will need deletion. I wouldn't worry about it too much though - the end result is a better image in the article, nobody minds doing the deletions because the folks doing them understand why, and no 'server space' is 'wasted' because separate images and different versions of the same image are all the same thing in that respect - they are never really deleted, just removed from general view; they are kept for history audit purposes and so that they can be restored if necessary.
 * Always keep in mind, though, that the most important consideration is appearance of the image in the article, not 'format for the sake of format', so you'd never, for instance, replace a high quality, faithful jpg with an inferior quality png version just because it's png. -- Begoon 10:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Greetings.
Thank you for your respect and warning, from now I try to correct my behavior.--Z1381 (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, but really, do need to pay attention to what other experienced editors are telling you. The behaviour on Commons that got you blocked there was just really very silly, and I wouldn't like to see the same thing happen to you here. -- Begoon 12:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank You
THANK YOU @Begoon Sir, for your Valuable time for wasting on me to correct myself a. I try to Upload as much as possible original Quality .svg file as like you. I begging you Sir, Please Don't ignore me, as much as possible revert my mistakes on Wikipedia. Last December I forget to reply your your chat due to My semester exam. Sir, Please help me to make mayself correct on wikipedia. Thanks Regards. ---Kulbhushan Jhadav (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've corrected another 10 of your svg uploads, and marked 3 for deletion, but I can't keep following you around and cleaning up your mess if you just ignore all the advice you are given. Why didn't you answer my question about the account? It seems fairly obvious to me that you did previously edit using that account, and honesty about that may count in your favour. Should I just have that investigated, quite possibly resulting in you being blocked, or, per:- "Sir, Please help me to make mayself correct on wikipedia. Thanks Regards.", do you now want to "come clean" about this? -- Begoon 12:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @Begoon Sir, I don't want to lose my current Id. I've have learned pretty hard lesson through that id using slang words against Senior Admins, I changed my behaviour but I can't recover my old id.Now its Upto you.As Judgement you may block this id also. One Request from me, Sir please don't block My IP address. Thanks --Kulbhushan Jhadav (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are you making this so difficult? Just give a single word answer: "Yes" or "No". Did you previously edit using the  account? -- Begoon 13:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. --Kulbhushan Jhadav (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for that, well I can't promise what anyone else will do, but I won't personally seek to have you blocked right now, although you really do deserve it, because I believe you probably do have good intentions. However, do always pay very close attention to the advice you've been given, and follow it - don't upload crap svg files, and use the proper, example non-free use templates which you've been shown - every time, without fail - and never abuse people,as you did with the account, or I could very easily change my mind. -- Begoon 14:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)-- Begoon 14:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

IEEE Education Logo File
Thank you for your help! Steveewatkins (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Correctly license tagging non-free images can be a bit daunting for new editors. It's always a good thing to ask for help if you're unsure, because it prevents problems later. Thank you. -- Begoon 03:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

History sections
Hi Begoon, if you think adding the word "history" improves the Golf article, that's fine. Just so you know, it was added by a block-evading user who has obsessively added unnecessary blank or unsourced "history" sections into about a thousand articles over the past year or two, as well as re-wording and refactoring many section names to include the word "history". Some have been from that now-indef-blocked JohnLickor372 account, which was itself not blocked at the time, but there's very strong evidence that they were evading previous blocks of IP numbers. See Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010. There's a bit of a more intense blocking and clean-up operation going on at the moment, so you might see some more similar reverts. The number of times their edits have been actually helpful is very low. I've mostly been undoing them for that reason, and to try to discourage them from continuing to evade blocks and edit, as described in WP:BMB. Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've seen that exact disruption before - it can be very annoying. If you want to remove it again, be my guest - just beware "cutting off the nose to spite the face" is all I'd advise. Thanks for the note. -- Begoon 18:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's fine really, and thanks for the advice. I've left a few of their changes when they seemed to be clear improvements, though again that's not so often. The golf article looked like kind of a coin toss, and in that case I've usually gone with how the original author wrote it. Since there are literally thousands of edits to check, it's good that there are other editors like you to double-check. In case you or anyone you know has some extra time, a few of us are coordinating the efforts at User talk:NinjaRobotPirate and User:IamNotU/History cleanup. Thanks again... --IamNotU (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!

 * Note to any passers by who might be confused about 'Queens' being named by and after people: this concerns Queen Elizabeth 2 (ocean liner)

I yield to your more superior knowledge of grammar! ;-)

I didn't quite understand your second point, did you keep the edit or it reads just fine as it was originally? Satyris410 (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The second edit was when I realised that, as well as "was" being singular, "time" and "naming" seemed, to me, better as singular too. I'm certain about "was" but I'm still not absolutely certain it shouldn't be "times of the namings". It's a tricky little sentence but I think/hope the grammar is correct now, although I actually would have preferred to reword it to avoid the complexity/ambiguity altogether, but I couldn't quickly come up with anything that wasn't even more convoluted. To see the overall difference between how it was "originally" and how I left it, look here: . To see just what I changed from your edit, look here: . Thanks. -- Begoon 01:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually - how does "Queen Mary, in 1934, and Queen Elizabeth, in 1938, were both named by and after for contemporary spouses of reigning monarchs: Mary of Teck and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, respectively."
 * sound to ? -- Begoon 09:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sounds perfect. When you said about rewording it, I thought that a complete rewrite might sort things out in the easiest fashion.
 * Hmm, named after or named for? Satyris410 (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Named for - I did think that at one point, but then forgot - I'll change it. -- Begoon 20:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Images
The images are live. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_electronic_cigarette_aerosol#Formaldehyde It took years of effort to create that article. QuackGuru ( talk ) 04:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Very nice indeed. Good work. Reluctant though I am to say this - I wonder if I now prefer the white background for the two 'formaldehyde' 'pen' images, even after all the trial and error... It looks fine as it is, though - just thinking out loud... -- Begoon 05:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Another image with a white background worked for the main e-cig page. I have made about 10,000 edits to one topic area. Most of the articles have the same writing style. My writing style. I got one subpage to fix then I am done. As usually, others don't want me to fix the problems. QuackGuru ( talk ) 05:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So when I see you still editing/creating e-cig articles in 12 months time I should remind you that you said you were done? -- Begoon 05:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If others agreed with me I would of been done already. Others are refusing to allow me to remove policy violations. QuackGuru ( talk ) 05:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Missing comma?
Hi Begoon, thanks for your ANI defense of my punctuation. I sent a clarification of the sentence concerned to cygnis on his talk page: You wrote: "I might have put a comma after 'categories', to emphasise that style of oration and avoid that misread." This was in relation to my: "There are numerous question marks in regard to your prose, your inventing grammatical categories and then claiming they require commas and so forth". I had another look at this, again supposing the other person was right, but then, also again, I saw that what I had written was as intended. The three elements are "your prose", "your inventing grammatical categories and then claiming they require commas", and "so forth" – not "your prose", "your inventing grammatical categories", and "then claiming they require commas and so forth". So the missing comma would be following "commas" and not "categories", but its omission was again intentional and I don't think any serious ambiguity resulted. Jorm's misread owed to the partial quote, not to a missing comma. He said he'd had second thoughts about his comment, and this was before yours. I didn't figure my clarification rated getting posted at ANI, and I suppose you likely agree. There are things I've felt like saying at ANI, but EEng suggests that I stay away from there and from AE, and I haven't had any reason to doubt his word on that. Sometimes the ANI or AE talk page (or "the Teahouse" or "the village pump" – why the capitalization discrepancy on those?) has seemed like an appropriate place for a question – of which I've had several – but it also says I can ask an administrator. Could you field one or a couple of questions privately (email) or semi-privately (on-wiki)? Thanks again. –Roy McCoy (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Roy - don't take this the wrong way, but pretty much the whole point of my comment there was to demonstrate how pointless I found the discussion. Now, let me be clear - I dislike poor grammar, and approve of efforts to improve it. However (and it's a big however), I also reserve the right to point and laugh at those who obsess over it. I guess what I'm saying is that I can't think of many things I'd be less keen on than becoming some kind of "grammar referee" or even sounding board. I don't really do wikipedia related email anyway - and I'm afraid I'd probably be a poor choice for this 'role'. Sorry if that's not much help. By the way, EEng is a wise voice - listening to what he says is generally a very good plan. -- Begoon 13:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem – but I wasn't thinking of grammar questions at all (though I did parenthetically mention "the Teahouse" vs. "the village pump"). Cheers, Roy McCoy (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And if you view the discussion as pointless, you presumably approve of my not lengthening it further at ANI. –Roy McCoy (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I do approve, and I apologise if I misunderstood you. My talk page is always open for anyone who just wants to get a second opinion or even just chat - I can't promise to be particularly wise, or even particularly interested in everything that might end up here, but you are always welcome, and I'll usually have something to say, the value of which will vary... -- Begoon 14:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, and you haven't said anything meriting an apology. As I consider posing a question to you, I have the feeling of there being a WP lesson I haven't learned, and find it possibly impossibly (!) difficult to learn, about "dropping the stick" and "walking away from the horse carcass". It's just very hard for me, that's all, and as an apparent ANI frequenter you've likely had occasions to observe that a lot of other people are the same way, and maybe even worse than me in that regard (though you don't know about me). So many people seem to run into problems here – more so than generally, I think. Anyway, to get to one of the two sticks/carcasses unfortunately still on my mind at the moment, an administrator claimed not to understand me at an AE case I brought last month (my first and only, the ANI case being my first and only there too). It wasn't unusual if she really didn't understand me, as apparently no one did, with no one apparently having taken the trouble to consider the diffs submitted but preferring to immediately leap into the talk-page dispute concerned (which won't interest you) and find something wrong with my behavior. I had informed myself that something such would likely happen, that my own conduct would come into question, that a boomerang might occur, etc. – but I still expected that my complaint would be considered, which it didn't and still doesn't appear to have been (this is the second carcass, actually). I thought this administrator had participated in a remarkably biased way, and I wanted to discuss the matter with her to the end of her understanding what the "something" she had insultingly referred to was about. She, however, refused. I think you can understand how and why I would have a question or questions following this. I guess I could say, mainly (assuming this administrator knows what she's doing and is aware that she doesn't actually have to communicate with anyone regarding her administrative conduct): Why do these regulations continue to exist if they're not being enforced? My best guess at this point would be that administrators wouldn't tend to enforce things regarding themselves if they didn't have to, and they supposably don't have to in a case such as this. But it's still pending in my book, whether I should walk away from it or not. Do you have any observation, wise or otherwise, to make on this? –Roy McCoy (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, a few initial observations (and I take no position on who, in any of the dealings you point me at, was "right" - that may be unknowable, and is unimportant here): 1. Brevity. Learn it. People will not read and assimilate your message if it's presented as a wall of text. Your filing at AE was impenetrable. Your message here is 400 words in one great big dollop when 50 would probably have done, 100 should be ample. I cannot stress this enough. The only way to communicate effectively in this environment is to learn how to be brief and to the point. I know this, because I am too wordy myself, and have to maintain constant awareness of that. Be brief, but don't sacrifice clarity - it's an art, and I'm still working on it... 2. A forced or co-erced apology has no value whatsoever - so don't try to force or co-erce one. Giving them out is another matter - apologise freely when warranted. 3. Ealdgyth, in my experience, is a good, fair, open and understanding editor and admin. Nobody likes to be brow-beaten. 4. Don't wikilawyer. People don't like it, you're never as good at it as you think you are being, and it will be a barrier preventing you from reaching your goal(s). 5. You're expecting this - learn when to drop a stick. You have to let things go. In any given day there will be a few things that don't go your way. That's fine. Leave them in the past. Sure, learn from them, but don't go on and on about the same thing incessantly. People will tune you out, and if you just drone on over their out-tuning they will make you go away. 6. Humour. When things don't go as you wish, see the funny side, and be seen to see it - there generally is one, the art is finding it. 7. Nobody likes a poor loser or a smug winner. It's best not to even view things in terms of winning or losing. 8. Earn respect, don't demand it. 9. Wikipedia doesn't do "justice". Don't expect it or bemoan the lack of it. Certainly never chase it retrospectively.
 * Now I'm not saying you are 'guilty' of any of these things but they are all aspects that sprung to mind reading what you pointed me at. Trust me on one thing though - there is nothing more guaranteed to alienate you from people here than a perception that you are beating dead horses. People dislike this enormously because they have a limited amount of time and effort they can spend here and they don't want to waste it, as they see it, by having to explain the same things repeatedly to someone who won't accept them. and 10. Did I mention brevity? So I'll stop - and hope nothing I said offended you. -- Begoon 16:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, not at all, very helpful, many thanks. "That's (just) the way it is." In this case, however, Ealdgyth was neither good, fair, open, nor (assuming good faith) understanding. I am now thanks to you able to drop this one, however. I assume that the policy concerned simply isn't enforced. –Roy McCoy (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "That's (just) the way it is." is actually a pretty good, but partial, summary of what I'm saying. If you can't accept "the way it is" then you'll never fit into it and have the opportunity to be a part of shaping "the way it is". Wikipedia is full of people bemoaning "bad admins", "admin haters", "bias", "unfair policies" etc, etc... None of those people - not one, not ever, is part of driving the changes for good that do happen. -- Begoon 16:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Check. –Roy McCoy (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you know how I might have inadvertently deleted your reply to Valetude? I'm mystified, as I didn't even see it – all that was there was his original post. I've recently had my preferences set to watch pages I edit (I just now turned that back off), so... Oh, maybe I get it. I must have turned off "Watch this page" and hit "Publish changes", and that reverted your reply? That would seem most probable, except "Watch this page" is still checked. Oh, but if you reverted my "edit", you turned "Watch this page" back on too! Ha ha. Anyway, sorry. It was an odd coincidence. It takes such a short time to turn off "Watch this page" that I still don't think I'll start checking "Show changes" before registering such a quick change. –Roy McCoy (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * " I must have turned off "Watch this page" and hit "Publish changes", and that reverted your reply?" - Probably something along those lines - don't worry about it, mistakes happen. Two things that can help:
 * Preferences-Editing (Special:Preferences) - Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary
 * Signature reminder - put this in your common.js file: -- Begoon 10:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, also for reverting my similarly unintended deletion of EEng's comment on his page. I think I've now finally realized I can just click on the star at the top of a page to watch/unwatch it, which should avoid this happening again. I don't remember having seen or noticed the preference for the edit-summary prompt, but will look for it now... Hmm, "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" is already checked. I guess maybe I'll try your second thing, then... Okay, the file didn't exist, I created it and put your suggested text in it. Thanks again. –Roy McCoy (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Queen Soraya
I find your reversion of my new lede to be quite unjustified. Every statement comes directly from the material in the main body. (I have received many thanks for my extending of ledes). Valetude (talk) 05:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you want me to say. I find things like " describing a largely unfulfilled life. ", " It was widely acknowledged, however, that Soraya was the love of his life.", to be needlessly judgemental and editorialising in nature, and this applies to the tone of much of your addition. Frankly, and don't take this the wrong way, I couldn't give a monkey's if you won "lead writer of the year", I look at each individual article/edit on it's merits. You can feel free to revert me, or edit what you added taking note of my concerns - I leave that up to you - I'm not going to argue about it, having had my "say". I'm particularly unimpressed when people tell me how good they are, by the way - I've always found that the "best" people find no need to proclaim themselves so - you might consider different ways to announce yourself when opening a discussion in future. Thanks for stopping by. -- Begoon 05:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)