User talk:Begoon/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit this archive page. To start a new discussion or revive an old one, please use the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

​

I have added material that is correctly sourced and have removed any promotional and non-neutrally worded information from before. Why does this keep being removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bycapricelingerie (talk • contribs) 13:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'd already replied on your talk page: User talk:88.211.31.174. I suggest you read that message which explains more, but basically, you are removing sourced content and references, and making a significant change to the article without discussion. You need to discuss this at Talk:Caprice Bourret before adding it again, or other editors are likely to revert it too. I hope that helps to explain it - please take some time to read the links I posted on your talk page too. Any further discussion should be at Talk:Caprice Bourret. I'm afraid also that your current Username may be in violation of username policy because it's a promotional username. See Wikipedia:Username policy. Sorry.  Begoon^talk 13:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, no vandalism intended. I was reading the dates on this page incorrectly. Thought I was making an accurate correction. I caught my mistake, but it was already corrected. Apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibert7 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem - we all make mistakes - I make more than most :-) I guess you changing it twice was what confused me. I've removed the warnings from your talkpage since it was obviously a misunderstanding. Thanks for letting me know - Happy editing...  Begoon^talk

Thanks for the job. I´m SP WP user, so when you need any translation (from english to spanish) ask me. It´s more likely you find me there. I´m not sure I´m so good translating backwards, but if I can help you, great. See you. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 06:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, no need to thank me - I didn't do anything except talk about it - User:Shandris did all the work. Glad you got what you needed.  Begoon^talk 08:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Begoon. I had a question. Is it possible to start a club on wikipedia? For example, I was interested in starting (or contributing) in political discussion. The discussion could just be a civil debate about our views and opinions around wikipedia. Is there anything like that or can I start anything like that? ChaosMaster_Chat 01:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Not really, I don't think - per WP:NOTAFORUM. IRC might be suitable, or you could find one of the many existing forums on the net and and join up. If you didn't want to do that, you could set up your own forum with some cheap web hosting and invite your friends along - that's a lot easier than it sounds, actually. There are projects on Wikipedia, but they are for a group of editors who use those pages to collaborate on encyclopedic work, so not suitable for the kind of general conversation I think you're describing. In general, if it's not about improving wikipedia, then it's discouraged here. WP:NOTAFORUM does say, " There are also a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate.", but I don't know where these are, or what they cover, or indeed if they still exist - you could try asking at the reference desk, someone there may know. In general, though, if discussion isn't directly related to improving wikipedia, then it's discouraged as against policy. Exceptions are made for a very limited amount of chat on talk pages, but that's like the "chat" you would have with fellow workers in the lunch room, and once that becomes too excessive it violates WP:MYSPACE, and is not permitted, the same way your boss wouldn't let you chat about politics all day instead of working. Sorry if they weren't the answers you were hoping for - but I hope some of it might be helpful.  Begoon^talk 03:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was helpful. I had a feeling that there really wasn't anything like what I was looking for on wikipedia. I just wanted to put my doubts to rest. Thanks for your help (again) though. *runs off to google to find a forum* :) ChaosMaster_Chat 19:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem - happy to help. As I said to you previously, my talk page is a pretty open place: if I can help, I always will, and I have a (very few) (talk page stalker)s who may even help you if I can't. I do know you remember me saying that, because you also seem to have remembered me saying you didn't have to bring beer (lol) ... don't worry - nobody brings beer...sniff...  :-) Happy editing - see you around, again...  Begoon^talk 14:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Lol, its wasn't my intention to not bring beer... It's just, I drank it all on the way here. *Buuuhhhrrp* Excuse me! :P ChaosMaster_Chat 00:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir Begoon, I'm Shiaislam2010 From Kuwait (really i am a Shi'a muslim a twelver shia muslim) My real name is 'Ali Jawad Al-mo'men . I really like the thing you wrote to me . But i was Just creating an Article of Shi'a Muslims In theKonw World whats the problem with that Tell your real name sir Begoon (I Know You're From USA). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiaislam2010 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. As I explained in the edit summary, the existing figures have a reliable source: http://pewforum.org/newassets/images/reports/Muslimpopulation/Muslimpopulation.pdf, and the numbers you added have no supporting source. If you want to change sourced content, you need to provide an updated, or better source. See WP:CITE. The chart I removed, because it's not useful with the variations in the ranges of figures from the sourced content. If you want to discuss changes like that, please do it at Talk:Kuwait. As to your other questions, where I am from is, frankly, not important, but it's no secret that I'm English, living in Australia. My real name? Well, that certainly is of no importance. I hope that makes things clearer for you. Enjoy your editing.

Thank you, also, for noticing the 2 extra templates I inadvertently pasted when replacing the figures, and correcting that error. I appreciate that. I removed the "see also" link to the mosque, because it's not really appropriate to link to one stub article for a religious building/site as a sub heading for a section discussing all religion in Kuwait. Imagine how many sub headings there would be if we linked to one place of worship for each religion mentioned in the section, which is what would be needed for fair balance! Just not practical, or necessary.  Begoon^talk 10:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Begoon,

Just a quick query, I noticed you had taken my links of referencing the international grading and syllabus scheme (AAP) set up by the Pole Dance Community website. You have stated that this is it due to being a commercial site when it is actually a trade body. I am new to wiki so am a little unsure how it all works? There are other links to commercial sites such as Miss pole dance World?

Any advice you have for me would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Sam x Artofdance Sam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artofdance Sam (talk • contribs) 15:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Begoon,

I will do some more research using the info you sent me :)

--Artofdance Sam (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Art of dance Sam

Hi. Yes, it can all be a bit bewildering when you are new. I understand that, and I'll try to explain what I can. The website you linked to has advertising, a shop, and paid membership/benefits. All of these things are covered by WP:ELNO. Also, it does not appear to be suitable as a reference for any of the reference insertions you made, or add any value to the article. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, and you have attempted to insert many links to the same site in different ways, and contexts. This behaviour can look like attempted spamming. I'm sure that's not your intention - but that's how it's likely to appear.

The bottom line is this: If you've come to wikipedia to try to insert a link to a website because you want a link, then you've misunderstood how it works - and your additions will quite likely be reverted. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and references and links are included only when they add to the encyclopedic content - not to increase exposure of a website.

Where you refer to the other link, firstly, you should read WP:OTHERSTUFF, which explains that just because other stuff exists, it doesn't justify another case. Secondly, in that particular case, the links support the encyclopedic content referring to a worldwide event, and are thus not comparable to a link to one of many local/regional organisations such as you added. Again, Wikipedia is not a collection of links. I'm sure you can understand that if every organisation offering training or insurance etc. was permitted a link, wikipedia would cease to be an encyclopedia, and become a link farm. That's why the policies exist, and that's why they are enforced.

I hope some of that explains things a little better for you.  Begoon^talk 16:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, I should add that I note you have just added to your userpage that this particular website under discussion is your own. That being the case, you should also take note of this:

You may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, you must exercise great caution when editing on topics related to your organization. Please do take the time to read the stuff I linked to. Thanks.  Begoon^talk 16:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for the info, although I am not associated with the organisation, I do pole dance. The problem is that there are many pole competitions which front rather dodgy establishments. This organisation actually does good things for the sport. There is no need to promote the site, as far as I know as long as you click pole dance the IPDFA site pops up. It would be great if I could get advise on how to highlight this competition as a legitimate pole sport event. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolette Tay (talk • contribs) 06:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. My personal opinion is that you're overdoing it - creating 2 articles and inserting multiple links into the main Pole dance Article. I haven't seen anything in your references to indicate that this is anywhere near that notable. Where you ask for "advise on how to highlight this competition as a legitimate pole sport event", you're really misunderstanding something. Wikipedia isn't here to "highlight" things or draw attention to them. That's called promotion. It has no place in an encyclopedia, which should contain neutral, 3rd party information on notable facts relevant to the subject, with no undue weight. It's a common misunderstanding - many people come to wikipedia to attempt to gain exposure for an organisation, or an opinion, because the site is so popular. If you take the time to read the material I've linked you to, I hope you'll see that is the wrong way to approach it. The organisation may well "do good things" - but does that make it as notable as your additions suggest? Probably not. Look at the Pole Dance article history, and see the number of additions that have been completely removed - many on several occasions. Your entries were not removed completely - I edited them down to what seemed a fair and balanced amount of coverage in context. Once they begin to look like spamming, other editors may well take the same view. I won't remove or edit your entries again, because I've given my advice, and you must decide what to do yourself. I'm sorry if that wasn't the answer you were hoping for - and remember, it's only my opinion, so holds no more weight than anyone else's really.  Begoon^talk 07:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

*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)

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)

I thank you for your advice (and sorry for the long delay). I do understand what you are trying to say, and in some instances, I would agree that it would be better to leave the situation alone, but I think it would be better to solve the problem so it won't occur in the future on a separate article. I decided to ask for a third opinion instead. Maybe it will help, maybe not. Thanks for your advice though; and if all else fails I will probably default to it :P ChaosMaster_Chat 02:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That's ok. A third opinion is a good idea. It's something I've suggested in the past when 2 editors can't agree, and it can be very helpful. I hope it is in this case. I linked your talk page discussion from your 3O request, in case it wasn't obvious Begoon^talk 03:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

I've replied at WP:GL/ILL - nice job. Connormah 04:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

Thanks for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. Thanks also for your words of praise - that was very uplifting! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome - the praise was just telling it as I saw it. Congratulations on your success.  Begoon^talk 16:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I used the coat of arms you uploaded for the navigation template but someone removed it because it is not permitted in templates "per the WP:NFCC #9 criteria". Bejinhan talks 14:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok - yes, that's right. I didn't think of that.  Begoon^talk 14:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I found an orb with the star and crescent that should be ok - better than no image at all?  Begoon^talk 14:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Haha, ok. It should be fine. I think I'll use it for the rest of the templates. Bejinhan talks 03:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you are a member of Wikiproject Malaysia and have worked on the Malaysia. May I suggest that you try to get the wikiproject to edit some important Malaysian articles that link from the main Malaysia page, but are, in all honesty, terrible? The Malaysia page was very good, and people have obviously spent a long time working on them. However, this came at the expense of articles like Culture of Malaysia, which is about the same length (if not shorter) as the culture section on Malaysia. Other articles like Healthcare in Malaysia also need help. A lot of this could be done by simply shifting information to the articles, as I have recently attempted with History of Malaysia and Demographics of Malaysia. Just my thoughts. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a very active member, most of my available WP time is spent on graphics related work. I'm sure that, rather than relaying through me, the other members of the project would be happy to discuss your ideas at the project pages. I have noticed you have done a lot of work on the Malaysia page the last day or so, and, whilst I haven't had time to examine it in detail yet, it does look beneficial in terms of cleaning up. I noticed from your user page you are in Australia. Which part? I've lived here for 15 years now, but I'm English originally.  Begoon•talk 10:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'll post the idea there. My edits on the Malaysia page were based on trying to improve its quality, I based the ideas of what should be in the article mostly on the featured Australia and Indonesia. I've made sure that no information was lost when editing, if you check the history of History of Malaysia, Demographics of Malaysia, and States and federal territories of Malaysia I made sure all information was included there, often by editing information from Malaysia into those articles. I'd like to see Malaysia become a good article sometime. I'm from around really, but I consider myself a Brisbaner more than anything else. Don't live there now though. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. You'll get more eyes on your comments posting to the project pages. I've had a bit of a better look, and I think what you've done is good. It certainly needed trimming, and basing the format on the other featured articles is something I tried to encourage when editors wanted to make previous alterations, so I'm all in favour of that. I can see that you haven't lost any info - and I agree with moving excessive detail to sub articles. I'll probably see if I can do a quick run through for typos/copy editing, because a 2nd pair of eyes never hurts - but that won't be today.  Begoon•talk 13:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I wasn't particularly concentrating on the way I wrote things. The economy section could use a similar trimming and shifting of information, and the current culture section needs trimming, then expansion on other aspects under different subheadings, so I might do that sometime (pity the weekends almost over). Other sections could use some expansion, and the Science and Technology section doesn't have enough to stand alone right now in my opinion. Seems like a long term thing. Maybe the article should have a to do list? I'm sure one could be knocked up, including stuff from the July 6 review. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't comment yet, it's great! (and sorry if I've given offense, things are just now turning around for me)--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 05:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No offence given that I'm aware of (I could look for some if you like...lol). The Tibetan logo was a quite easy trace, for a quite pleasing result.  Begoon•talk 22:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Why attack me when I have made efforts to compromise while others try to put Criss Angel in a negative light, which violates NPOV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.251.53 (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for your note. I think you may be confused - I haven't attacked anyone. I left a warning on your talk page because you seemed to be in danger of breaking the 3RR rule. I noticed because that page happens to be one of several hundred on my watchlist - that's all - I have no real opinion on the content of your edits, that should be discussed at the article talk page, not here. Just a little note for the future, please leave new messages at the end of the talk page, and remember to sign your messages. I hope that helps to make things clearer. Thanks.  Begoon•talk 03:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Great minds think alike--though some think a bit faster than others. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • No problem. It was seriously bugging me on my watchlist.  Begoon•talk 03:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting to carry out the GA review. We have noted the points on your list and will address them accordingly as quickly as possible. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 07:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you also for your exceptionally quick and thorough review and for passing the article :) Kindest regards, --Kudpung (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I enjoyed it, because it is a good article, and I hope I was able to contribute a little along the way.  Begoon•talk 12:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)