User talk:Begoon/Archive 19

Thank You
The Guidance Barnstar
 * are very welcome. Thank you for thanking me with such a nice 'trinket'... -- Begoon 06:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:BRD
Hi, Begoon. Regarding this revert, the text in question was added two weeks ago, so Ythlev's removal could be considered the R step. Kanguole 08:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * have a point - I missed that, so arguably it could be. I'll self revert, since there's a discussion on the talk page, and if it's disputed it's probably better out than in until consensus is reached. The little embedded mini-fight about organisation/organization is rather annoying though - that kind of thing ought to stop. -- Begoon 08:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, there's been a tedious low-level ENGVAR war on that page for the last two months, and it does make normal editing difficult.  Kanguole 09:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Oops...
Thanks for reverting my misunderstanding. I happened to overlook something :-\ Awesome  Aasim  02:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok. What did you "misunderstand", why was your edit summary "restore last good revision", what did you "happen to overlook" and what were you trying to do with the edit? -- Begoon 02:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
You are most welcome sir. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC) 
 * Thanks. -- Begoon 18:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Boards of Ed pro
I was just about to do the same thing for the same rationale, thanks! Ping me if it gets disputed and we can take it to AfD. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Heh, great minds think alike (or is it "fools never differ"? I always forget.) I imagine some well meaning IP will turn up and de-prod to preserve the knowledge for the good of the encyclopedia, but, yeah, if I see it first I'll let know. Cheers. -- Begoon 19:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Whoomp, there it is. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Revisions and Thank You!
Appreciate your understanding and please know my Reason stating Typos, was submitted in a manner reflecting the highest level of good faith. The first grouping of "edits" before the mistaken typos, I thought failed saving & defaulted (and didn't Publish) after realising they were cited sources and/or after reading from the following source, the flow and POV. I'll be more alert and careful! Sorry to cost you time revising, but thank you. I'm more than willing to clean up any future mess as specified, and sorry to cause any inconvenience.

As for typos, maybe you can help me: Parties and "pan-blue" were the "typos" which I referred & I meant to send/publish. Could you, when you've a moment, please, pointe me in a direction re style use and Political Party/ies {yep, keyboards & AI), but also curious as many publications differ re when and where to use the proper Party v. party, capitalisation of individual Political Parties and if Wiki uses specific guidelines per nation and Party when discussing.

I thank you again for your patience and understanding, I wouldn't try to slip something past the keeper under false pretences, Maradona Hand of God style or stealthily, and whilst I was incorrect, know it wasn't a nefarious act. Between the Autocorrect and GOTV hours, I think the combination and patterns are clear: No more Editing when my brain is in Camp.Mode {worthless}, runs on reserve power (heroic amounts of Green Tea) and the body through muscle memory! Cheers for revising everything, your very kind approach and helpful tone! It really means a lot. Regards, PVH 🤙 PVHenry (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I recognise all of the words you used there, but it will take me quite some time to work out exactly what you mean by them all in that particular order, and which bits are important... I'll take a stab at a couple of answers in the meantime: &bull; That's fine, I never suspected any sort of "false pretenses" or anything "nefarious"... &bull; Well - I'd write "political party" but "Conservative Party" in the pretty universal English way of capitalising words when used as proper nouns, but not when not. (see how the linked article handles it) Does that help? Let me know if there's anything else in your text that needed an answer and I missed. Thanks. -- Begoon 06:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Have a look
Take a look at the history of the page, as Jimmy will surely do from time to time. That's why I made a separate heading. Jehochman Talk 14:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's nice. Don't waste your time here though - I only have a few page watchers and we usually talk about boring stuff here. Get back on stage, your audience awaits you. -- Begoon 15:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * , I already gave you the links to our non-free content rules, on your talk page. Did you read the material I linked for you: Non-free content? That contains the answers you are looking for. -- Begoon 16:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * No problem. 9 versions looks like a lot of uploads, but they are mostly small, 2-minute, incremental changes. Svg lends itself to that kind of incremental improvement far better than other formats for illustrations like that, and the results are usually superior, and scaleable. -- Begoon 16:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

AKS471883
Hi Begoon, after the warning you gave here, has now again made a large number of changes to the List of countries and dependencies by population. Some are obviously legit, others not, so instead of using time and time again to check every single change, I have followed the spirit of your message and reverted it all, hopefully forcing them to communicate. Regards! --T*U (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing that. I think it will be the only way. I intend to use simple revert comments like "Not a minor edit, see previous warnings", "Unexplained alteration, see previous warnings" etc. If they don't co-operate after a reasonable amount of that then seeking sanctions may be the only option remaining. It's simply unfair to everyone who watches that article for them to ignore all pleas for co-operation, and it's been tolerated long enough, in my opinion. -- Begoon 11:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

continued...
I really think we're going to have to take this to ANI. It's beyond a joke. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah - I hear . Let's just give it a few more days - there have been a couple of tiny signs that just might see the light - although I agree that they are really already well over any tolerable limit. -- Begoon 16:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the tolerable limit had expired bay at least August 2018. As of now, there are 6 requests for him to use edit summaries. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'll obviously support a call for some action at ANI if you file one. My preference would be to wait until, say, Monday, just in case the consistent reversions do force them to change course, but if think we've waited long enough then I couldn't blame you for going ahead. In either case I'd prefer it if you could file the report, because [a] you will be more easily able to describe the issues with altering sources/templates (I'm late to the party and you've been trying to get  to play fair for, like, ever...) and [b] I think I already filed about 4 or 5 ANIs in the last 2 weeks, which is more than I did in the last 2 or 3 years... Thanks. -- Begoon 18:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to leave it until Monday but I've started gathering stuff. On ething that is confusing is that there are two messsages on his talk page in April about appealing a block by OTRS but I can't find record of a block in his block log. I'm sure I've been to ANI about this before, but maybe that's all just my defective brain. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a bit confusing, yes. He doesn't seem to have ever been blocked, so unless it was to do with being affected by IP autoblocks I'm not sure what that could be. It could easily be an innocent mix-up, or it could be something less wholesome, say sock-related - but we simply don't know - so AGF it was the former, I guess. I do suspect he doesn't always edit logged in, but I've not really looked for concrete evidence of that, so it's just a suspicion, and even if he does edit logged out it doesn't have to be for nefarious reasons - it could just be carelessness or not fully understanding you shouldn't really edit logged in and out in the same place. The problem, and major frustration, is he never communicates at all - so we're guessing about most things... I don't think he realises that the lack of communication itself will count heavily against him in any impartial assessment... -- Begoon 19:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, and a search for AKS471883 at AN/ANI comes up with nothing - but Mediawiki search is pretty crap, so that's not cast-iron gospel.. -- Begoon 19:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * But here's a clue what the UTRS stuff (and maybe the "language/communication issues") could be about (AKS471883 does have ip-exempt, seemingly because of this) : User talk:Beeblebrox/Archive 41. Just call me Sherlock... -- Begoon 19:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems that some people never learn. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. I actually edit conflicted with on the reversion, and couldn't add the AIV report, because you already had... It's mind-bogglingly stupid, because  obviously enjoy updating the figures, and for the sake of a little effort, a bit of consideration, co-operation and discussion they are going to end up blocked indef if they just carry on regardless. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  -- Begoon 05:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You dropped this \ … hang on, asyouwere, thought we waz at reddit. cygnis insignis 14:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * oh thx ¯_(ツ)_/¯\ (...sometimes there's just no escape...)  -- Begoon 15:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * am granpa, but i lik the bred … ┬──┬﻿ ¯\_(ツ) cygnis insignis 15:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * -- Begoon 15:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Off-topic, but related, what on earth do make of the IP/IPs who keep changing ...600 to...601 and back again on a semi-irregular basis (for Indonesia?)? It's bewildering - the strangest thought I had was that it's almost as though they are using the changes as some sort of "signal" like something out of a cheap spy novel, or to communicate something else. (but I do sometimes have an odd imagination about mundane things...) As I say, I'm bewildered. -- Begoon 06:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Good catch on the grammar
Good catch on the grammar of the sentence at Maanbumigu Maanavan. Unfortunately, at the time of placement of the comment, I was more irritated by the frequent unsourced edits than the grammar to notice. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertsky (talk • contribs) 07:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * welcome. I guess I should really also mention that I dislike the use of "flop", "bomb", "blockbuster" etc, even when that's what the source uses - the source is often writing in a mass-appeal, tabloidy way, particularly with bollywood etc., and I'm not particularly keen on us emulating that style as an encyclopedia. Just something to consider... -- Begoon 08:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Shame I can't email you, but
I was thinking of blocking a certain editor for hate speech. Have I missed something and shouldn't? Doug Weller  talk 14:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If mean the author of this and this then I wouldn't really discourage at least a very stern 'final warning' and I wouldn't argue with a block either. A warning does seem unlikely to have much effect though, sadly, since the user appears to have been popping in and out with their idiosyncratic nonsense for about 10 years and no amount of explaining what wikipedia is for seems to have got through to date. The previous stuff hasn't generally seemed quite so xenophobic as the current chain of diatribes, though. If, instead, you meant the author of what you removed here, I think you already blocked them in April, for 3 months.  -- Begoon 15:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The former. I'll continue to think about it. Thanks. Doug Weller  talk 15:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And that talk subpage. CSD as an attack page or take to XFD? Doug Weller  talk 15:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And its 'parent'. I'm torn - maybe we should ask them what it is intended to achieve? The answer could be... illuminating... (but almost certainly very long) -- Begoon 15:18, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think he has. on the talk page:"     Please show me a solution. In hosting the Dangerous verses on Wikipedia. Europe and the US need to be protected from the Muslims. These parasites have already destroyed Undivided India that ranged from the Borders of Iran to Indonesia and onwards. They are already causing problems in Europe and the US.
 * These are inputs for you to watch youtube videos, like The Social Contract website, Youtube, such as, The Islamic Doctrine of Migration, and myriads of others. Just search Youtube with the string "islamist sharia jihad Europe USA". You will come to know yourself. I am not trying to make you aware of the dangers! I am eager to make all readers of wikipedia aware! No born Muslim can be a Muslim who doesn't obey the Dictats of Koran! :-) :-D . Islam is a Political Ideology, not a religion!"  Doug Weller  talk 16:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Look, I'd just delete it and block for a month or two - there's nothing really ambiguous - but that's me, and I'm very intolerant of this kind of hateful crap, and quite impetuous in how I'd deal with it, so perhaps that's too unilateral. Probably best to xfD, I suppose, reluctantly... -- Begoon 16:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeffed by Drmies. I think that's warranted. I'd accept an unblock with a permanent topic ban.  Doug Weller  talk 16:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Thanks to for taking that action.  -- Begoon 16:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Happy to be of service. I gladly block racists. Misogynists. Sexists. Homophobes. Islamophobes. Antisemites. In fact, I forgo my usual $5 for such blocks. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh you all need to decide whether that user page needs to be deleted. It's gross enough to delete but I'm going to drink coffee and play with the kids. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I'll CSD it, and see if anyone rejects that because it's not 'purely' an attack page or for failure to cross an i or dot a t... -- Begoon 17:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ...and, I should be less cynical... deleted within moments by - ty Blade. -- Begoon 17:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries. This isn't a forum for ranting about various religious beliefs or their practitioners, clearly not aimed at improving Wikipedia. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 17:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks again - might want to get the talk page too, which is now just a sad, lonely mini-rant without its parent... -- Begoon 17:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * All set. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 17:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Your kind (if possibly misguided) words have been duly entered in the Great Register
EEng 19:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Sarcasm?
Now that's sarcasm :)   ——  SerialNumber  54129  16:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment. -- Begoon 16:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * No problem. It seems relevant and well sourced enough to me. could reword it a bit if you think it's too negative in any way. -- Begoon 09:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

An Ice cream for you!


Lakshmisreekanth (talk) has given you vanilla ice cream! Vanilla ice cream promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else vanilla ice cream, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

'''Thank you for your notable work on several files. Here's a small treat especially for you!''

To spread the goodness of vanilla ice cream, you can add {{subst:Vanilla ice cream}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Lakshmisreekanth (talk) 05:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Soapbox
Found out the answer for this. Accounts are Anoop Balakumar, Anoop Balak and probably more, endorsing Dileep and Akshay Kumar, Jack Daniel, Janapriyanayakan, abusing Shah Rukh Khan, and same behavior on talk. He is abusively using multiple accounts and should be blocked indefinitely all accounts. May be a check-user will help find more. BTW, this person is definitely a Malayali and not a North Indian or Hindi-speaking native, although he pretends. 2405:204:D08E:C5:B43C:80F3:D6E7:D6C0 (talk) 10:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I knew about the first one. I don't care where people come from, I care what they do. Let's see what they do after the block. As you say, it's not hard to spot. I just said this on your talk page, but I may as well repeat it now you're here: I smiled because I did wonder if the two IPs were both you but decided to be careful... No problem at all with you reverting in that case, and I agree with your assessment of that user. Volunteer time is precious and I intensely dislike users who flagrantly waste it with selfish, agenda-driven nonsense like theirs. Thanks for the notes, and thanks for your contributions. Cheers. -- Begoon 10:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC}

Editing the GA nominee template
Begoon, I was surprised to see Legobot choking on a GA nominee template just now, and it turns out the reason was that it had been neatly reformatted with each parameter on a new line (you did the reformat when you were adding talk-page archiving in this edit.

Unfortunately, the bot wasn't designed to handle the extra hard returns, since the GA nominee template is supposed to be generated by substituting the GAN template, and that creates a set format using one long line. (The bot has lots of expectations, and not much flexibility if it finds something not as designed. If we ever get a new bot written, things shouldn't be so challenging.)

I don't imagine you run across this template very often when you're doing your very helpful editing and updating (currently 500 articles have it, and the number fluctuates as articles are nominated and reviews are completed), but I thought I'd warn you just in case you run across this template again. In this case, the bot was trying to update GA nominee now that a GA review has been opened for the article in question, and it wasn't until after I removed the hard returns that the bot was able to insert the "onreview" status. Thanks, and sorry to bother you! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , how bizarre, I've never come across that behaviour before. I'll certainly bear it in mind - and thanks for taking the time to let me know. Cheers. -- Begoon 07:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Mouni Roy
I wonder why you have to revert my good faith edit which restored a pre-existing source supporting content which you deleted citing ref spam. I respect your work here, but this kind of reversion to good faith edits of mine makes me sad. And all you did was to move it to a section which you could have done without undoing my edit. That's kinda uncool. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I pressed the easiest button for my workflow, which happened to be 'undo'. If that makes sad then I'm sorry - but if all you're upset about is that the summary says 'undid' and you got a notification, and not the actual substance of the edit then I find that an odd thing to worry about, personally. It happens to me the other way round all the time and I don't usually give it a second thought. My edit summary even asked whether you (or anyone else) agreed with what I did - an invitation to freely alter it (or so I intended). Should I be similarly "sad" that you pinged me from a "null" edit summary there to say exactly what you said here? I'm not, because it's not the kind of thing that bothers me. I confess to being a little mystified overall... -- Begoon 12:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the apology. It is not about "Undos" and "Reverts" only, which, like any other user, happen to me a lot. I still don't understand why you have to press "Undo" just to move a reference from lead to section without adding/deleting anything extra. Not questioning your "workflow", but I believe that's how it could have been done, using the "Edit this page" button. I got upset especially since in your previous edit you deleted the same ref citing "irrelevant refspam", which I clarified as necessary in this edit. When you reverted again, I felt you have something against my edits. Anyway, let bygones be bygones. Regards. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I certainly don't have "something against" your edits. I'm not shy, and if I have "something against" an edit then you can generally assume that I will make that pretty clear. If, instead, my edit summary says "then maybe here?", as it did on this occasion, you can assume that I'm inviting collaboration/correction. As for why I used undo - well, it gave me an open edit window with an easy diff to copy/paste from, despite the intervening edit, and notified you that I'd made a further change, with a summary inviting feedback - all of which I thought would be good things, not causes of distress. I'm genuinely sorry if you were "sad" or "upset" - that was not my intention at all. -- Begoon 14:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's totally OK mate. You are one of the users whom I trust and typically don't even check your edits. But since today you mentioned, ref spam, I thought of checking it properly so as to root out a possible old spammer. BTW, I thought this vandalism caused you to delete the ref initially. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
A token of friendship.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC) 