Jump to content

User talk:Begoon/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

​

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Begoon! I am PrincessofLlyr and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

PrincessofLlyr royal court 12:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Advice

I see you seem to be very concerned that your comments won't be given due consideration. From my experience one key way to add weight to your comments is by developing a good history on mainspace edits. Regards.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

replied on your talk (despite what I say in my edit message ! :) - maybe I'll get the hang of all this eventually... Begoon (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Saw it. And good luck.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - I may need it - I have an inability to keep my opinions secret :) Begoon (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Michael

I'm from this school, and I'm trying to help to keep the page clean. I have it on an RSS feed on my computer. I was the one who made the page to look as large as it is, so please don't give me any warnings. I care about my school! Thanks Again. Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.228.22 (talk) 10:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page - sorry, confusion caused by an edit conflict - my apologies Begoon (talk) 10:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Is there any way that we can lock the page so that only a few people can edit it? Thanks. - Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.228.22 (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
The page was already semi-protected yesterday by an Administrator, because of the high level of vandalism. This means that edits from anonymous users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has ten or more edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed, are not allowed, now. I think this will help enormously - as 95% of the vandalism on the page has been from unregistered, anonymous IP addresses. It does mean you will need to get an account in order to edit the page, but you can ask for help from another registered user in the meantime, while you wait for the 4 days/10 edit qualification period of your account. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Begoon (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks so much! My friend who rides my bus has an account called weatherrules, so I'll just get him to help for now. Thansk Again. Michael — 72.95.228.22 (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

--I also granted you the reviewer permission for the upcoming flagged revs trial. Take a look at that link to get to know it and let me know if you don't want it (some people are refusing it in protest). Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem!

({: (mustache) —Tommy2010 13:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw someone comment somewhere that you "must be doing something right when they vandalise your user page" - still nice when someone watches your back, though Begoon (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Yup! And yesterday I had someone try to get my password (: it freaked me a bit :x but all's good now —Tommy2010 14:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry - apparently that happens a lot - probably just another Tommy who wanted the name - all they do is click the forgotten password link, but the email comes to your registered email address, so it doesn't do them any good - Begoon (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I did at the time.. but it was definitely a troll :O. we all learn from mistakes I guess right? —Tommy2010 15:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
It's often the only way I learn !! Begoon (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Monsignor Bonner High School

This was such a mess that I looked back through the history and found that nothing constructive, but a great deal unpleasant and unconstructive, had happened since April, and decided the best thing to do was to delete it and restore only the revisions up to that point. I have noted what I have done on the talk page. I have also extended the semi-protection to August, which should take us past the end of the school term, when with luck the vandals will have something else on what passes for their minds. I don't think there's any point adding {{pp-semi-protected}} - anyone who tries to edit will see a notice anyway. ({{pp-protected}} will only display on a fully-protected page). Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I agree - the only reason I added it was because at the last school page that needed semi-protecting where I was involved, when no template was added at the time of protection, they seemed quite disappointed, and actually requested it - Talk:Quigley Catholic High School#protection - ({{pp-vandalism|expiry=whatever|small=yes}} worked on that semi protection) - regardless, it can't get vandalised by IP users, they are starting with a "clean" version, and that's what matters  -  Begoon (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Cymemblem.gif

Done. Thank you for this svg-"upgrade" (Maybe, we will just delete raster version) --AS sa 20:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I tried {{vva|}} which works at en, but I didn't try {{vector version available}} !! I feel silly now I see the answer was in English !! Thank you for the help.  -  Begoon (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

vector.css

Hi, I've partially copied your vector.css, but I'm expanding the search suggestions in a different way, with a little hack for IE, because otherwise I was able to click only on the left side of the search box in order to type something. With your solution I have to click in the upper half of the search box, in IE. Can you take a look at User:Virgolette/vector.css please? Any advice will be really helpful. Thanks. --Virgolette (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well - your code is more elegant than mine - I could never get it to work properly in IE - but I don't use IE much, so I lived with it. If you are asking about the Search label, then the only other solution I can think of, other than your setting it to white, which "cuts up" what you type, might be:
 /* ugly IE hack */
     #simpleSearch label { display:none !important; }

which is even more of a hack because it hides it completely !!
Apart from that, as I say - your solution is much simpler and elegant than mine anyway.

I also use 

// START focus in search bar when ANY page loaded
 
addOnloadHook(function() {
document.getElementById("searchInput").focus();
});

in my vector.js to give the search bar focus on each page load, but you may not want/like that.  -  Begoon (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I liked your version so much I stole it: !!! see - vector.css
The only thing I can't work out is how to reposition the suggestions on the Advanced Search Page - the problem being, I think, that left gets set in an Ajax call to mwsuggest.js when you start typing, and the div.suggestions isn't inside any of the search divs - I haven't had time to pull it all apart - I can live with it since I rarely use Advanced Search.  -  Begoon (talk) 09:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer! Few things:

  • I didn't noticed the problem in Special:Search. I've added this:
.page-Special_Search div.suggestions { margin-left: 11em !important; }
now it works, but obvioulsy you should not use the 1° search box on the left when you are in Special:Search (who do that anyway?). I'll try to find a more elegant solution.
  • I've tried display:none for the search label, but it's not working with IE; my hack is to stretch the S e a r c h so you will be able to click anywhere inside the search box to activate it using IE. The problem now is the white text when I enable the gadget to set the focus on the search box of the main page only: if I start typing the search label don't disappear; I think this is a little bug of the gadget and will be solved soon or later.
  • I've tried "focus in search bar" for all the pages but it's really annoying for me.
  • I've noticed you tried the second part of my css: unfortunately you need to add a line in your .js page, save it, refresh, and only then you can try the css, otherwise the right group of tabs will collapse. Details at my vector.js. You can avoid to try it again, there is a screenshot of how it works.

That's all for now. Bye and thanks again. --Virgolette (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Perfect .page-Special_Search was the container it needed - thank you - you are a star !
I don't know why display:none isn't working for you - it works for me in IE8 :-( Did you try:
#simpleSearch label { visibility: hidden; }

I get the non-disappearing label bug in both IE and Chrome - that's why I've hidden it.  -  Begoon (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I've tried 'hidden', and also combinations of 'z-index' (and even 'opacity'). I'll try to do some "vector experiments" in my portable MediaWiki installation, but it'll take weeks... Bye. --Virgolette (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This works for me in IE8

ok - I took your entire vector.css and copied it into IE8 to make changes in preview
I made the label colour blue so I could see what was happening, and this makes the label invisible in IE8 for me: 

/* Ugly IE8 hack. I need this to make the search box clickable.
        Probably not working with JS gadgets like 'Focus the cursor in the search bar' */
     #simpleSearch input#searchInput { z-index: 99 !important; }
     #simpleSearch label {
       letter-spacing: 1.2em;
       z-index: 0 !important;
       color: blue !important;
       filter: alpha(opacity=0) !important ;
     }

I could control the opacity all the way from 0 to 100 like that
but display:none !important works for me (needs !important to override inline style) in IE8
and visibility:hidden works (with or without !important) for me too in IE8, so who knows what result you'll get...  -  Begoon (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The 'filter + z-index' solution works with my IE8 but not with Firefox 3.6.3 (Windows XP). Ok, I give up for now. --Virgolette (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

For opacity you need to target all the browsers differently, I think: linky 

filter:alpha(opacity=0);
-moz-opacity:0;
-khtml-opacity: 0;
opacity: 0;

 -  Begoon (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It works! Now I can avoid the white text. Thank you very very much. --Virgolette (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
You're very welcome. I'm glad I could contribute something, given that, in the end, I mostly stole your solution !!!  -  Begoon (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Received Vandalism "charge" on edit of The Book of Eli

It was NOT vandalism! I added two to three sentences to the plot line, which was neglected. Please check again before you accuse me of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.25.229 (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Was the next edit after that with "(my apologies - error)" meant for me? If that's the case then my apologies, back to you. Was in a rush to defend myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.25.229 (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was meant for you. I reverted my edit within 30 seconds and apologised to you in the edit summary both at the page and on your talk page. I'm apologising again, since you may have missed the other two. It was an error on my part, and I hope it hasn't upset you too much. Mistakes happen, but I'm never happy when I make them. As to checking - yes you are correct, I checked too late. You certainly have no need to apologise back. I remove vandalism, and bad edits with a semi-automated tool, and occasionally I make errors. On this occasion, you may laugh, I assumed, without checking properly, that your edit was to a biblical book, rather than the movie. As soon as I realised my stupidity, I corrected my mistake.

I do hope you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia despite my idiotic revert of your edit - and thank you for taking the time to discuss this  -  Begoon (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries, mistakes happen when we're only human :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.25.229 (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for being so understanding. I took the liberty of having a quick glance at your edits, and I certainly would not wish to upset an editor who is making such a positive contribution to the encyclopaedia. If there's ever anything I can assist you with - please let me know here, and I'll be happy to help  -  Begoon (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Have something shiny!

The SVG Barnstar
For speedily replacing my JPG with an SVG, and for all of your other fine work with images. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Why thank you sir, I'm honoured. Happy I could help. :-)  -  Begoon (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah...typo

Thanks for catching it on Royal Australian Navy. :) -- saberwyn 22:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome - I currently keep all the pages I've ever edited (even vandal reversions) in my watchlist (650+ right now, so I'll have to do some trimming out of the less interesting pages in the medium term) - so that's why I noticed the diff.  -  Begoon (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Bread

I'm responding to your message on my talk page, I understand you have reasons for removing my link, but how was my edit "reverting established editors"? —JonathanDP81 (Talk | contribs) 11:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL... It wasn't. You're an established editor. I reverted you. I don't think it's polite to do that without leaving a message - so I left you a message.. Isn't English a wonderful language ?  -  Begoon (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

elisa

hi, i agree with the idea of neutral, that is why i contributed, the negative is all that is represented in these sections (how many times can you use the word abuse and talk of the family without using the word love?). i also understand this is an encyclopedia, however, it is a major resource for people looking to understand and learn, without multiple views it becomes not a good resource. i can participate in the discussion, my concern is that there isn't any.

also, i do have an account but forgot to log in, is there a way to link them after the fact? i know this is a tech question, but thought you might know.

thank you, elisa

article:incest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.82.131 (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are concerned that there is no discussion on material you wish to add, then you can start the discussion. But the place to do that would be on the talk page - not in the article. You would also need to bear in mind that discussion would be about what should be added to the encyclopedia, so be prepared for your ideas to be challenged or dismissed by other editors, especially if you can't provide reliable, published sources to back them up.
Discussion about articles is welcome, but it always needs to be relevant to the encyclopedia article, since that is the purpose of the site - you can't use the talkpage like a forum, just to discuss your ideas. If it's just general discussion you want, I'd suggest searching for internet forums on the subject, where you could develop your ideas with others. You might find some mainstream backing for your ideas that way, and then you might want to bring them back, with reliable sources, to discuss adding them to the article here.
You are correct - Wikipedia is a major resource for people looking to understand and learn, and that is why you will find that people here are always insistent that material added is reliable, and supported by fact. If there are different views on a subject, supported by reliable sources, then our articles should present them all - and cite those sources. What the articles cannot, and must not do, is present every idea held by every individual. That's called Original Research, and it's not allowed because it would make the encyclopedia unreliable as a reference.
With regard to posts you made while not logged in - I'm sure nobody would object to you adding a signature to them, and explaining you made them while logged out, and you can link to them from your user page if you like - but I don't think there is any way to have them moved to your registered user's contribution list. That's just my understanding though - you could ask that question at WP:Helpdesk for a full, official answer. I hope I've been able to help in some way - feel free to ask any more questions here, and you'll find most established editors "don't bite". thanks  -  Begoon (talk) 22:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Invitation

An invitation from WikiProject Malaysia

Invitation from WikiProject Malaysia
Hello there from {{subst:BASEPAGENAME}}! From your recent Malaysia-related edits or other activities, you have been invited to join WikiProject Malaysia, a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated to Malaysia. You may join this WikiProject by adding yourself here!


BejinhanTalk 06:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks so much! I'm not very good at Wikipedia templates... anyway, I've copied over the code. Thanks again! Btw, I'll really appreciate if you can join the project. :) BejinhanTalk 05:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Happy to help with the template - I'm not very familiar with them myself, so it took me a while to spot the missing } which was causing the <table> tag to not have a matching </table>, in the rendered HTML, thus leaving the table open to "swallow up" other content on the page.
I'll join the project, but I can't commit to specific tasks at the moment, since the time I am able to devote to Wikipedia is currently unpredictable due to work and RL pressures. I hope that's ok.  -  Begoon (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Sure, that's fine. We don't have any rules that require that. :) Thanks for joining. BejinhanTalk 09:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Your question at my RfA

Hi Begoon! I appreciate the question, but could you clarify what you mean by "assess"? I just want to make sure that I answer the question correctly. Cheers. :) Theleftorium (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for taking the time to ask - I'll try to clarify a bit... What I'm hoping to get is some idea of your general 'take' on that discussion, so that, in the event of a putative similar discussion pertaining to an admin decision you might have to make, when policy is maybe open to interpretation, I'd have some idea of how you'd approach it, and what factors you would consider. I realise it's a bit theoretical - but it shows a scenario where policy is maybe not absolutely clear, and in copyright situations I don't think that's altogether rare.  -  Begoon (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Do you think it could also be an idea to have this clarification with the question if you think it'll help people understand your answer?
Oh, I see. Thanks for the clarification! As a non-native English speaker I really appreciate it. ;) No, that's probably not necessary. I think I can make the answer understandable without it. :) Theleftorium (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome - sometimes I'm a bit more wordy than I need to be, so I have no problem clarifying. Best of luck with the RFA.  -  Begoon (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit

Appreciate the courtesy and agree with your Rolling Stones edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.224.219.195 (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Joan of arc

Discussion moved to Talk:Joan_of_Arc#Was_she_raped

Hi, I added two more links which include articles from people(Mr. Williamson and Mrs. Frohlick) who have very good knowledge about Joan's life. In their article, they prove that she was not raped. One of the reasons is Joan's own sayings and another is mistranslation of Isambart's words mentioned by Pernoud in his book.I am going to a new house, so i wont access to net for some days and i wont be able to take part in the discussion.--Joan2011 (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying.
There's no hurry, time limit or deadline here on Wikipedia, so if you're going to be away for a while, that's fine - the discussion will still be there when you can get back to it. Don't feel that something will be "finally decided" in your absence - Wikipedia is not like that - you can come back and pick up discussions any time if you have something to add. I always find that the discussions I get most from here are the ones I go into with an open mind - I don't always go away from them with the same ideas I took in, but I often go away wiser. There are lots of good people who edit here, and their main concern is that what goes into the encyclopedia is fair, balanced, and verifiable.  -  Begoon (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Can I add the reasons that prove her virginity without removing that sentence(e.g her words that her body was never corrupted and mistranslation of Isambart's words)?--Joan2011 (talk) 06:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm copying this to the article discussion page, because that really is the place to continue it - splitting the discussion between there and here will not help achieve consensus. Please continue the discussion at Talk:Joan_of_Arc#Was_she_raped. Thanks  -  Begoon (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Malaysia July 2010 newsletter

The Malaysian WikiProject
News
Issue 1 • July 2010 • About the Newsletter

News

  • Collaboration of the Month: WikiProject Malaysia's July 2010 Collaboration of the Month is East Malaysia. Nomination and voting for August's Collaboration of the Month has begun.
  • Article Sibu by-election, 2010 has been promoted to GA status. Congratulations to all those involved in helping the article reach that status!
  • Please watchlist WikiProject Malaysia's talk page and plan page to keep up-to-date on the latest changes that is happening. No more updates would be sent to the respective members' talk pages other than the project's monthly newsletter.
  • The list of Malaysia-related Featured and Good articles have been updated at the recognized content page. Please help to update the Did You Know articles list.
Archives • Newsroom
Newsletter written by BejinhanTalk .
Newsletter delivered by ChzzBot

Plainwell, MI

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Plainwell, MI, you may be blocked from editing. You are vandalizing the page by blanking entire sections and violating 3RR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.120.170.5 (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - your message has been noted. I certainly shan't be reverting that addition again - that would be edit warring. I am most grateful to you for bringing this to my attention. I'm not quite sure where you see it as 3RR, though - but there's a noticeboard where you could report that if you feel very strongly about it.  -  Begoon (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Your comment at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MGA73

Re this diff: Glad it made you smile :) That was part of the intent of course, and also to reductio ad absurdum a bit the oppose votes, which I think are ridiculous. People are afraid of him being a temporary admin? That just doesn't make any logical sense. And opposition based on lack of edits to en.wiki? Admin bits are about trust. This guy's an admin on two other projects, and those projects haven't gone to pieces from his presence as an admin there. I also think the oppose based on his unwillingness to use ALL the admin tools is so far out of logic as to be hysterical. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well of course. I was reading some stuff at another site recently about a contentious RFA here. To cut a long story short, the argument went:
  • Well, obviously that whole thing was a joke - it's so clear an idiot could see it.
  • Yes, I agree - but we're talking about Wikipedia here - he should have realised they default to no sense of humour.
Sadly, I found myself unable to convincingly disagree - reductio ad absurdum is great unless the person you're reducing it to has no sense of the absurd (or fails to realise they are being absurd).
But we live in hope...
(I'm also a little worried that a true application of reductio ad absurdum on the wikimedia servers could cause some sort of snowballing implosion that would worry most theoretical physicists - but that's probably a discussion for another day...) -  Begoon (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and sorry, yes, obviously I agree with your other points - I supported. I don't for the life of me understand this "find a procedural reason and oppose every RFA I can" mindset. We're not giving these people nuclear weapons for fuck's sake - we're agreeing to their offer to help maintain the site, and affirming that from what we can see of their history to date they are unlikely to do that badly, or cause us to regret trusting them. Because we could never just ban a rogue admin, could we? Oh, hang on............ -  Begoon (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
That's excellent. I love it. I'll just pose the following question rhetorically, because I know you know the answer:
  • You said: "That was part of the intent of course," - do you realise just what a small percentage of the people reading that comment would have inferred that intent?
I'm willing to bet that even I, with my cynical outlook, would be appalled at the real answer to that question  -  Begoon (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, even though I'm fairly cynical, I'll say it's probably 1/3rd of the audience. It might be a lot more. I don't know. Lampooning the mainstream thought is a healthy thing, even if they don't get it. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok - I'll give you 1/3 - after all it is (and I'm completely serious here) an intelligent audience. That's the disconnect for me. Intelligent audience, willing to accept, time after time, silly objections. I guess I just don't see it as necessary to be quite so bureaucratic and process bound. Still it's heading for success, so maybe my concerns aren't necessary, and it's only a small minority - which you'll always get.  -  Begoon (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Cross browser column formats

Discussion

I've taken the liberty of reconstructing the old conversation (from page history) below.

I'd be grateful if we could discuss this here, since you don't seem to like leaving discussions on your talk page, and I'd like other input too.

I've noticed you're still using {{Div col}} on many articles, despite it not working in IE/Opera.

I think it's important, where we can, that we support all browsers, as best we can, so to that end, I've just altered around a dozen of these which you added recently - there are, I think, more.

I do understand that doing this as you are improves the articles for Mozilla based browsers, and has no detrimental effect on the others - but it just seems such a waste if it could be done cross-browser to start with. The articles look so much better after your edits in Mozilla browsers, that it's a real shame IE/Opera users don't see the improvement.

Here's an idea - if the problem from your point of view is that the cross-browser alternative is unwieldy and awkward - maybe we can come up with a template that makes it easier to implement - just a thought - I'm not sure how practical that is without looking into it. A very quick look shows me that:Template:Multicol might be an easier option, though it still requires manually signalling column ends, like this: 

 {{Multicol}}
 This text appears in the first column.
 {{Multicol-break}}
 This text appears in the second column.
 {{Multicol-break}}
 This text appears in the third column.
 {{Multicol-end}}

You can have any number of columns. Each column will be the same width, equally dividing the available horizontal space. Each column has a small right margin (20 pixels), creating a "gutter" that prevents text in one column from touching text in the column to its right.

The previous discussion is below - I've invited the other editor to comment - I think it's important to get as broad a view as we can.

thanks  -  Begoon (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


PREVIOUS DISCUSSION:
Columns in "See also" at Sahara

from this diff:[1]

Hi

I noticed you replaced the 
{{col-begin}}{{col-break}}
structure on Sahara with 
{{Div col|2}}
, because that article is on my watch list.

I just thought I'd leave you a quick note - sorry if you already know this.

Whilst {{Div col|2}} does produce better columns, it doesn't work on Internet Explorer/Opera browsers, so users of those browsers will see one column on Sahara in "See Also" after your change. The previous {{col-begin}}{{col-break}} structure is clumsy, but it does seem to work on all browsers I tested. See Template:Div col for details.

I've changed it back for now to using {{col-begin}}{{col-break}} so that it works cross-browser.

thanks - Begoon (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Oman

from this diff:[2]

Hi!

I reverted your recent change to Oman - the change appeared to have little or no visual effect on most browsers, but introduced an incompatibility with a major browser, Internet Explorer.

Cheers, TFOWRis this too long? 10:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Oman (again)

from this diff:[3]

Hi

The reason I reverted you was because I had tested it in a variety of browsers - including Internet Explorer (I also tested Firefox and Chrome, on Windows and Linux). Trawling through your talk page history I now realise that you had been warned about this issue immediately prior to my post here, and that you were shown an alternative. Under the circumstances, I'm trying really hard not to view your change as disruptive.

I'm also concerned that your level of discussion doesn't seem to extend further than summaries. While edit summaries are good (and preferrable to no edit summaries) they are no substitute for proper discussions on your talk page or on the talk page of the article concerned. Deleting other editors' comments with a vague, ambiguous comment ("All browsers are not compatible") is not a discussion.

Cheers, TFOWRis this too long? 10:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Since the opportunity for discussion was not followed up, I've collapsed the previous discussion section so that it doesn't overwhelm the page. I'm disappointed that the discussion wasn't taken up, but note that at least one edit was subsequently tried in the cross-browser compatible style, which I find encouraging. Hopefully that means there was at least a little point to this effort at communication.  -  Begoon (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

92.251.27.110

Mr Begoon

There were 30000 seethings of a person similar to diana princess of Wales —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.27.110 (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello
I appreciate your comment - but unfortunately I have no idea what it means.
If it relates to a theory or rumour you wish to add to the article on Diana which I recently reverted, and the comment I left on your talk page, then all I can really do is encourage you to stop making such unsubstantiated changes.
I'll leave another welcome message on your talk page with some links that might help you as a new user.
If you still have any concerns feel free to ask questions. Thanks  -  Begoon (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

shut up jerk

Do you actually believe Charles/Diana had a daughter ? Yes If not, is it just a misunderstanding of the article that's causing you to keep making that change? No it is not a misunderstanding —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.27.110 (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah - ok, I see now - sorry, I misunderstood the situation.  -  Begoon (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Coding question

I've been following the World Cup articles and I had a weird thought. You seem to understand a lot about programming, so I'd like your thoughts. Would it be possible to add Scout uniforms to Template:Infobox WorldScouting, like as in Template:Football kit, or are there too many variables (long and short sleeves, shorts and pants, male and female)? I don't want you to actually have to muck with the thing, but is it feasible and do you know anyone who understands the underlying coding? --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the coding is probably too bad - where you'd have to spend time is identifying and creating your own set of these: Template:Football_kit/pattern_list, and as many of these as you needed:
etc...
Then, with all of that done, you'd have to code the infobox on each article with patterns and colours, like this (1F24B4 is the hex colour code):
{{Football kit
|alt        = Jersey with blue and white vertical stripes, blue shorts, and blue socks
|pattern_la = _white_stripes
|pattern_b  = _whitestripes
|pattern_ra = _white_stripes
|pattern_sh = 
|pattern_so = 
|leftarm    = 1F24B4
|body       = 1F24B4
|rightarm   = 1F24B4
|shorts     = 1F24B4
|socks      = 1F24B4
|title      = Principal
}}
It would be a pretty time consuming job - most of it the donkey work of colour selection and pattern creation. Pretty involved, but if someone has a lot of time to kill...
Strikes me it could be a pretty big job just compiling the list/description of all the individual uniforms to begin with - depending on how much of that you already have... -  Begoon (talk) 09:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm gonna start one in the incubator, then. Nice thing about the 'pedia, I don't have to have everything complete, someone who knows will come along and post what they know! ;)--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Created it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Article incubator/Template:Infobox WorldScouting uniform--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Begoon/Archive_1&oldid=1091494612"