User talk:Wesley Wolf/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

April 2012

WikiThanks

WikiThanks

In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.7.19 (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Newlines and template names

There are multiple problems with this version of Template:Macedonia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest

1. The name parameter must match the template name. Notice the redlink at the top left corner
2. The template is adding newlines to the bottom of the articles
3. There is no space between the flag and the name, which is not the format used Macedonia vs. Macedonia.
4. The use of <small>...</small> is deprecated in favor of {{small}}

Please tell me why we want to have redlinks, extra newlines, and no space between the flag and the title. Frietjes (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

responded on my talk page. Frietjes (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest templates

Just wondering how you can call the edits that Frietjes did to some Eurovision templates disruptive.

The differences between this and this are don't appear to be anything major. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see the discussion and agreed consensus at WT:ESC. The new format has been agreed upon, the alterations that Frietjes (talk · contribs) has done are fixing things that aren't broken - including the removal of category tags that were already in the original templates. As CT Cooper (talk · contribs) pointed out, Frietjes should have engaged in discussion first, and must refrain from making further alterations. Also, it may be worth noting that Frietjes has been warned from other editors in the past for altering templates mass scale without discussing changes first - he had also been blocked once before for such actions. Wesley☀Mouse 19:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see any removal of categories in the edits I looked at. Can you point me at an example? Thanks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the user kept pointing out in his own way that having such codex as <noinclude>...</noinclude> on any template was against Wikipedia guidelines. Despite the fact that <noinclude>...</noinclude> hides any category tags, and prevent them from being merged into a template itself. I also asked the user to engage into discussion about his suggestions, but instead of engaging in discussion, he re-reverted things. Now forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that is a big no-no, as that kind of behaviour is encroaching pre-emptive edit warring. I had invited the user to engage in the original discussion at WT:ESC so that he may put forward his ideas, but he refused to do so. It was at this point that I did a bit of investigative work, and noticed the user had a history of mass-scale editing templates without checking with projects first. His archives alone hold several "unofficial" warnings, and one block for such actions. Personally, before I go ahead and make mass changes on any article/template I would put forward my suggestions to the relevant project team first, and allow a consensus to be decided. The new format for these templates came about due to duplicate templates being created by a user without seeing if they were warranted first. The debate lasted week, and a consensus was built to have the new format, which is the one being rolled out currently. I had sought permission from a senior member of the ESC project first before going ahead and rolling out these new templates. Wesley☀Mouse 20:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The same user is now accusing me of "threatening to have him blocked". I have never threatened such actions towards the user - and find his allegations unjustified. I had however, engaged in discussion to find common ground, as per Wiki-policies. In my discussion I made the user aware that I knew of his disruptive warnings issued to him in the past, and that I also noticed he had been blocked for such actions. It was a precaution measure, not a threat. As you can see here I was polite in my original request. In this post I politely asked the user to put forward his ideas to the project talk page. Wesley☀Mouse 20:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is an example of the "noinclude" thing I spoke about. The user also changed the small tags, which their version didn't even make footnote text small, but rather kept it the same size as the rest of the template. Wesley☀Mouse 20:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

All I'm seeing with the <noinclude> changes are that the spaces & blank lines between }} the noinclude tag are being removed.

With the small tag changes on the below section, I'm just seeing a slight change in size and both versions are smaller than the main list text. I'm guessing that the display of this must depend on the web browser used and is affecting you more than it does on my web browser. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

With you pointing out the web browser issue, that would explain the text thing. For some reason too, Google Chrome now has Wikipedia with a blue background, this only happened earlier today, and is seriously causing my eyes to go all wonky. Plus the fact I've worked 24 hours non-stop (with 6 hours sleep in-between) rolling out the new formats. I'm not sure with the noinclude thing though, It did appear as though they had been removed, but again, that could be my eyes playing tricks on me, especially with the extensive rollout exercise. Am I right in thinking though, that Frietjes should have engaged in conversational dialogue first, before jumping into re-reverts? Anyhow, I feel pooped after doing 50+ "country in Eurovision" templates. I need to top-up with caffeine, and then start on the annual templates. Set myself a weekend deadline, as I'm busy on 13 and 21 April, doing a 2-part training exercise for my London 2012 volunteering thing. Wesley☀Mouse 22:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I see that there was some discussion. Yes, best not to go back & make re-reverts until things have been sorted out in the discussions or can end up with a WP:3RR situation. -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a question for you. Was your only objection to this edit the replacement of the <small>...<small> with {{small|...}}? The removal of the extra space between the end of the template and the <noinclude> is actually very important. If you have extra space in there, then you can get blank space at the bottom of the articles. Where did Frietjes say that "having such codex as <noinclude>...</noinclude> on any template was against Wikipedia guidelines"? All I saw was Frietjes telling you that there should not be a newline before the <noinclude>. Looking further, it appears that Frietjes listened to your concerns about the use of the {{small}} template in this next edit, since he/she used "belowstyle" instead to make the font smaller. Is there a problem with that edit? The use of html tags, like <small> is basically deprecated, since they cannot be easily changed using personal style sheets. The use of templates, like {{small}} is better, since one can add a css class to that template, and the user can override it with personal style sheets. I can have my bot go through and fix the <small> tags and the newlines, if there are no further objections. I, personally, don't think we need a lengthy discussion at WT:ESC, since the changes are not really related to the discussion there. And, because the changes are keeping with the broader site-wide MOS and are (in my opinion) rather uncontroversial. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of something rather urgent at the moment, and will respond fully when I get time. Wesley☀Mouse 18:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You may find in reading the conversation above between myself and WOSlinker (talk · contribs) that the debacle has now been resolved. Wesley☀Mouse 18:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did read it. I am seeking some further information. My question is if you continue to have any objections to edits made by Frietjes to the ESC templates. In particular, the removal of the extra whitespace between the end of the template and the <noinclude> tag. Also, it wasn't clear if you still object to the replacement of the <small>...<small> with {{small|...}}? It would be good to know before I have a bot fix them. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

OK now I am able to fully concentrate on your questions and reply accordingly. It appears that you may have misunderstood the entire debate here, which is perfectly understandable as so much sporadic dialogue took place. These template discussions began almost 2 months ago, when another user started to recreate templates for Eurovision articles with duplicate information as to ones that were currently in use. This lead to a lengthy debate at WT:ESC, in which members of the project then discussed ways to improve the current templates. Not A Superhero (talk · contribs) mocked up a couple of designs, and presented them to the project talk page. After weeks of discussions, a consensus was finalised to use these new formatted template designs. I then went on to contact a senior member of the project to see if it would be OK for myself to begin the very arduous task rolling out these new templates - to which was agreed.

It was only when I was in mid-flow (after almost 16 hours of work into this task) that Frietjes then started to alter some of the templates. I asked him/her for what reasons the alterations where being made; but instead of him engaging into discussion first (which is the correct procedure) s/he went to re-revert things and then engage discussion (incorrect procedure). As WOSlinker (talk · contribs) rightfully pointed out, Frietjes actions could have resulted in 3RR violations.

In regards to the small text issue, I explained to WOSlinker (talk · contribs) that Frietjes suggestion didn't appear to shrink text down, whereas <small>...</small>, did make the text small. WOSlinker pointed out that this could be an issue with my web browser, which I accepted that may be the case. Seeing as things appeared to have been resolved after conversations between WOSlinker and myself, I felt the matter had been resolved now - but apparently not, now that you have decided to raise the issue once again. Wesley☀Mouse 19:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

So, do you continue to have any objection to (a) the removal of the blank space between the end of the template and the <noinclude>, (b) the change of <small>...</small> to {{small|...}}? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Would it be OK to wait until the rollout exercise has been completed first, before you operate the BOT to make those changes? I've pre-written the HTML coding for something like 100 new templates, and still need to add over a third of them yet. Would make more sense to allow the rollout to complete, then run a BOT to iron out minor details. Wesley☀Mouse 19:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. the blank space between the end of the template and 'noinclude' was already created in the prototype HTML coding, to which I have used to write up all 100+ templates. So as far as I was aware, that is how it was suppose to be. Wesley☀Mouse 19:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I can wait say a week to run the bot. However, it really shouldn't matter if you are only making new ones, since I can always re-run the bot. I already have the code to remove the newlines, which is a fairly common issue. Many times it's even worse with several blank links, rather than just one. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

I may not be able to physically buy you a beer, but I think this is the next best thing. Great job on the new ESC templates  [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 20:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

+1 from me. Good work Wes. CT Cooper · talk 21:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Awww thanks guys. The remaining ones will be rolled out today. Then after that, its up to everyone to tweak them accordingly. Wesley☀Mouse 09:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm did you know I'll be in London this Friday 13 April; nudge, nudge - wink, wink; and could easily be tempted to stray into a pub or three for real-life beverages. Wesley☀Mouse 11:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Bit too far for me:) I'm currently writing down some instructions for AWB.-- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 12:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank youuuuu AxG. I got brave and threw myself in the deep end - it was a case of sink or swim, and I swam. Manages to replace articles that had Template:1981 Eurovision Song Contest entries with Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1981. Even figured out how to add the template to song articles. I feel really proud of myself. Wesley☀Mouse 12:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't do anything. It's Kosm1fent that deserves it. Great that is works. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 12:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia who is right? Europian Union or You?

It is Republic of Macedonia even wiki claims for this form of name.--109.242.108.54 (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

In response to your title question, at Wikipedia that would be the Arbitration Committee and their decisions. – Kosm1fent 04:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Kosmo for handling that one for me. I'm quite shocked to be honest that an IP has the audacity to blame me making the rule, when in fact it was ArbCom's decision. Wesley☀Mouse 09:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

As the IP has re-reverted (technically gone beyond the 1RR restriction) then they are prone to block sanctions, according to the guidelines at WP:NCMAC and also ArbComs decision. Wesley☀Mouse 10:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup, try to report the user to WP:AN...? I don't know the proper procedure. – Kosm1fent 10:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll test the waters at the help desk. Surely someone there will know which way to go. In my eyes, there's 2 options here - 1) IP blocked for 1RR; or 2) semi-protect the articles the IP is edit warring on over Macedonia terminology. Wesley☀Mouse 10:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

No surprise when I looked at the IPs location, that they are from Greece. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 22:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

They've been issued with a 1RR warning for what they have done. And also added to ArbCom's watch list for potential violators of WP:NCMAC rulings. If we catch the IP reverting any Macedonian articles again, we've to notify ArbCom immediately, so that they can sanction a block. Wesley☀Mouse 12:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry.

I spent the entire week logged out without noticing, and didn't realize there was anything going on about the templates. Is there anything left to do? Sorry. Not A Superhero (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Not to worry. They've all been done now, and the rollout is completed. Wesley☀Mouse 19:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Congratulations, Wesley Mouse, you've recently made your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia! Thank you for all your hard work on templates and navboxes, and for all your great contributions. Way to go! :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this award. Wesley☀Mouse 15:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

An award for you

Golden Wiki Award Thanks for your recent contributions! 67.80.64.128 (talk) 01:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the award. Wesley☀Mouse 10:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Eurovision templates

I noticed the huge TfD for the Eurovision templates, and thought I'll mention that at least Template:Israeli Eurovision Representatives was not fully replaced with the new/old templates, it is still for instance on Izabo. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted, thanks. I even used AWB when rolling out some of the template change-overs; and still one article slips through the bot's net. Corrected it now. Wesley☀Mouse 21:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it's far from being the only one. Perhaps this template wasn't replaced at all? --Muhandes (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

What the heck is going on? They should have all been removed/replaced with the newer all-in-one versions as per consensus exercise at WT:ESC. The new template is Template:Israel in the Eurovision Song Contest. Wesley☀Mouse 21:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I spent a little under 4 days creating 100+ of the newer versions, and rolling them out across their relevant articles, as per agreement on the project talk page. It is looking like the ones you've listed are articles relating to the artists. The rollout was replacing templates across country, songs, and annual contest articles. The artists, shouldn't have had any of these templates whatsoever, as they are covered with succession boxes. I might investigate who has been adding them to artist articles, and give'em a prod. Wesley☀Mouse 21:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed problem now. I've opened up all the obsolete templates that are up for deletion, and checked the "what links here" and replaced them with the newer versions. Wesley☀Mouse 23:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Eurovision Categories

Away until May! May as well not wait, I think we can do it. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 22:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

What I was thinking of as a start, was to make sure all the articles had Category:WikiProject Eurovision to start with. And then figure out what recategorizing we could use. Perhaps, Category:Eurovision by year; Category:Eurovision Artists xxxx and Category:Eurovision Songs xxxx (where xxxx represents the year). Wesley☀Mouse 22:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Get well soon!

I didn't realise you're sick today. Take a rest, drink lots of fluids and you'll be feeling fine in no time!!! – Kosm1fent 17:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Kosmo. The phrase "feel like death warmed up" is just how I'm feeling right now. I was on Games Maker training Friday, and then took in some tourist sites too. Wandering around, when the weather was having sudden hot/cold spurts could very well be the cause of this cold coming on. I've drank 5 pints of water in the last hour alone. Wesley☀Mouse 17:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the whether is a bit funny at the moment. I hope you feel better soon, Wes. CT Cooper · talk 17:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

PRODs & JESC 2012

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hey Wesley, what's up? I don't know if you are aware that you can contest PRODs just by removing the tag (providing an explanation in the edit summary, of course). There is no need for a deletion debate in the talk page, save that when the article (any article in the same position as the co-host's one) goes through WP:AFD (where it takes place at an appropriate page). Also, as you can see, the JESC 2012 article is now protected, so no more IP editors adding unsourced content for a while. :) Cheers. – Kosm1fent 17:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You what!? I know all about removing the PRODs. However, before I started to work on expanding the article I noticed users contesting deletion. The PROD itself does direct users to the article talk page to support or oppose the deletion nomination if they wish. So really Kosmo, a discussion there is very appropriate. I commented it should be kept, and after reading the guidance connected to the reason you gave for deletion, I further commented to explain that the reason may be incorrect. I'm actually quite annoyed with the way you have belittled me in written text both here and on the article talk page now. Wesley☀Mouse 17:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The PROD template directs users to either the edit summary or the talk page in order to explain why they objected to the article's deletion by removing the tag (which you didn't do, otherwise the article would have been deleted in seven days whether you objected or not – the only way you can effectively show your objection to a PROD is to remove the tag). – Kosm1fent 18:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that you cannot object or support a PROD by mere discussion. Support means that you keep the PROD tag or place an {{Proposed deletion endorsed}} template; object means you remove the tag. I'm just explaining how this thing works, because it seems to me you are a little bit confused. – Kosm1fent 18:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ARGH I FRIGGIN HATE EDIT CONFLICTS! LOL. I don't even know why you raised all this one up to be perfectly honest. The deletion nomination was resolved, and the article expanded before you decided to poke me with poorly worded advice. I've come across a few speedies in my time on here, and noticed several times users would either engage in a discussion about it or just delete the PROD tag. That is a choice between individuals. As BabbaQ and an anon user initiated into debate objecting to the delete, then I also added comment; as at that time I hadn't even thought about expanding the article. Then after posting my objection of deletion, I then thought "hmm perhaps I could expand it". In expanding it, I had removed the PROD tag, but then an edit conflict happened, and the PROD tag reappeared. Checking the page history, you had removed the tag during the time I was in mid-editing. Somehow between you removing it, and me saving the expanded article, the tag decided to show up again. Anyhow, as far as I'm concerned the issue is over with now. And please, don't feel as though I'm having a dig at you, as I ain't - I'm just a little narked off at people talking down to me all the time like I'm an imbecile, both on here and in real life; and the wording of your original post was like the straw that broke the camels back. Wesley☀Mouse 18:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

:::I think the best thing in future Kosmo would be to only offer advice and guidance on specific policies to myself, if I ask for them. Don't go posting them under the assumption that I appear to be confused in your eyes. That is bad judgement towards people and goes against AGF doesn't it!? Wesley☀Mouse 18:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the misunderstanding is my fault, you were brought to the discussion by BabbaQ who urged people to help save the article, it was him who didn't know he could object to the PROD just by removing the tag and providing an explanation. I just realised, LOL. Cheers. – Kosm1fent 18:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't get what you mean by the last sentence. A bad judgement is also assuming that I offered advice on bad faith. – Kosm1fent 18:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Ignore me Kosmo, I'm just a little narked and maybe have bitten too hard. The cold symptoms are still looming over me, and I'm stressing out over my next trip to London this Saturday - I have a funny feeling I'll be turning up to training coughing and sneezing throughout it all. Wesley☀Mouse 19:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No problems Wesley. I understand how you feel, I'm quite illness-prone myself (of the sore throat variety, uhh). Hope you are back to 100% very soon. – Kosm1fent 19:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll swap with you; would rather have a sore throat than bunged up sinuses. I've just had to force myself to spend £90 (roughly €110) on a return ticket to London for this weekend. If the Olympic organisers had given ample enough notification, like they have done with the other training sessions, I could have easily saved myself £30 (€37) through advance booking. That difference could easily have gone towards a posh meal and a few drinks in a nice part of London hehe. Wesley☀Mouse 19:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh that's a big difference alright; aren't those training sessions scheduled months in advance? Because if they are not, that sucks. By the way, volunteering in the Olympics is something I would love to do. If only I wasn't 14 at the time Greece hosted the Olympics... (and I'm pretty sure we will never host them again, LOL) – Kosm1fent 19:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Normally they do inform me months in advance, although apparently they are obliged to give 5 weeks notice of a training event. I was told in 4 November 2011 about the first training event in Wembley on 4 February 2012. Then on 29 November they emailed about the second invite was sent for training on 13 April. In January I was invited to attend another training session on 21 July 2012. But this one for 21 April, I only got notified on 2 April. Not even 5-weeks notice really. Reality is starting to kick in though, as I start to attend more and more training sessions - getting exciting but scary at the same time. Didn't they have Youth Volunteers for Athens 2004? I know London 2012 has Youth Volunteers aged between 14 - 17; they are dealing with simple tasks but are just as important as any other. Wesley☀Mouse 19:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh sweet, a day before that and the notice could have been mistaken as an April fool's joke. :P However, there are youth volunteers?! I didn't think of that back then, LOL. In fact, I never attended any of the big events Greece hosted; the Olympics, ESC 2006, the 2007 UEFA Champions League Final... and I regret it now. – Kosm1fent 19:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Well if you're lucky and feel like a big adventure, then you could look into 2020 Summer Olympics. Baku, Doha, Istanbul, Madrid, and Tokyo are candidate cities (the links will direct you to the bid articles for each city). And seeing as Madrid came third in 2012 bidding, second in 2016 bidding, they are now favourites for 2020; as are Istanbul. Wesley☀Mouse 19:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Istanbul would be perfect for me to attend an international event for once; never been there before, heard it's beautiful and is not far away from my hometown (Thessaloniki). – Kosm1fent 19:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

My fingers are crossed then in the hope Istanbul win the bid. And who knows, I could be tempted to do another Olympics by then; the sound of volunteering in the heat of the sun sounds like heaven. Wesley☀Mouse 20:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ESC template

Hello. I haven't been following the recent changes in the ESC project but I would have to wonder what is the point of listing songs and participants if they cannot be linked to that article? That's never the purpose of a template. In this instance only country in esc by year pages benefit, same as before. Also, in most awards templates I've seen subjects are linked as many times as they are mentioned because if that template were to be on the page of the subject then only the first mention of the name would be bolded, which doesn't look good or highlight the involvement.GreekStar12 (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You may wish to visit the project talk page at WT:ESC where you will find a very lengthy discussion regarding the reformatting of ESC and JESC templates, which resulted in how they look now. As per guidance at WP:LINK, if a template contains the same information then only the first mentioning of that information should be linked once, to avoid overlinking. In the case with Template:Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest, both Anna Vissi, and Sakis Rouvas have participated more than once for Greece. Only their first appearance would require a wikilink, any other appearances for Greece would be unlinked. As you can probably imagine, there are over 100 templates, and a minor tidy up exercise is scheduled to start to de-link anything has has been duplicated more than once in each of the templates. Hope this answers your questions. Wesley☀Mouse 23:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I went over the discussion and I can't seem to really find any sort of consensus on anything. If these new templates are now the new standard then why are they only being used in only a third of the articles that they cover? (the years) but not the artists and songs? If that's the case then what is the point of even including them? By regular standards any template mentioning a subject can/should be included on that subject's main article. I'm not arguing with you, I'm just not really clear on what the consensus is here, if there even is one.GreekStar12 (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The full and very lengthy discussion can be found here. Another user on the project redesigned the format, following a debate over ways to amalgamate the templates so that navigation and updating them was easier. After a majority agreed the newer versions were better, then an exercise went underway to create the new templates, and roll them out across all articles. Now I know they appear on all the articles, as I personally spent 4 whole days manually adding them, making sure every song, and country had them - artists don't need them as they are covered by succession boxes. I think you may be getting confused with what is expected from manual of style. A template should only link a person once. If that person(s) name appears more than once, then only the earliest mention would get a wikilink, and the rest would remain in plain (unlinked) text. Wesley☀Mouse 00:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Carrying on from what Not A Superhero said on the Wiki Eurovsion project page, fantastic sorting out the templates. I must stop being the only one awarding "barnstars" (gah, horrible US spellings) to you. Spa-Franks (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Aww thanks Spa-Franks. We could do with sorting out recategorising things though now, and that itself will turn into as monotonous and arduous task as the template rollout was. Wesley☀Mouse 20:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision: Discussion on recategorizing

Hello,

There is currently a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Recategorising on the proposal of recategorising following the rollout exercise of the new navigation templates (navboxes) within Eurovision articles. The consequences of this discussion could have a large impact on how articles are reorganized in future to provide an easier index system, so all project members are invited to participate in the discussion.

You are receiving this message since you are listed as a member of WikiProject Eurovision. If you are no longer interested in contributing to Eurovision articles, please remove your username from this page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Eurovision at 22:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC).

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	All's well that ends well--I hope it ends well, anyway. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the star. Wesley☀Mouse 01:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

TUSC token 26247aacdce1675081106c64442ca28d

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Hisar (city)

Hello! I saw this article about my city. It was full of wrong information, violating copyright laws by directly copying data from websites and providing information that was not useful. So, I have written it from scratch providing as much relevant information as I can along with citations. Now, the article is complete according to me and I have nominated it for good article and I want you to review it. Please let me know if there is anything missing or anything relevant or anything not following Wikipedia standards so that I can correct it. And if everything is correct, then please review it and approve its nomination. Thanks. Vishal14K 12:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Vishal14K

Cute (band)

Hello. Just letting you know that I've removed the speedy deletion tag on this. I see you've applied it twice, thinking that it was wrongly removed. The notice said, If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please remove this notice, so it's right to remove it; it's only an Articles for discussion type-deletion where you can't remove it, as far as I'm aware - a speedy notice says that no discussion is needed, it's uncontroversial. In this case, you knew someone disagreed, making it controversial. To continue pursuing deletion, you should have used WP:PROD, or preferably gone straight to AfD.

This page didn't meet the speedy deletion criteria, i.e. it is not a page ending in (disambiguation) and with only two or less entries, and it is irrelevant whether it is orphaned; most disambiguation pages are, there are very limited reasons why an article should link to a disambiguation page (see MOS:D if you're interested in the details). This page doesn't meet the dab guidelines though, as it is an incomplete disambiguation, i.e. a disambiguation page with a disambiguator in its title, i.e. the word band in brackets. This information is already at Cute (disambiguation), and so Cute (band) should redirect to the relevant subsection of that dab. Send me a message if you think I've got confused or if you have any questions. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hiya, thanks for contacting me about this. I was also under the assumption that it was only on Articles for discussion type-deletion that the tags couldn't be removed. However, after I looked into it, it appears speedy deletions also come under the same rule, especially when Twinkle has the {{subst:uw-speedy1}} code, and it is also listed at WP:WARN. The thing that concerned me is there is already a disambiguation page at Cute (disambiguation) which is covering the same issue. A discussion took place at Cute (Japanese band) in which a user asked if they should create Cute (band) disambiguation page. But before I got chance to let them know a page already existed, they rushed ahead and made it anyway. Wesley☀Mouse 17:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Wesley. It should be a useful redirect. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Problem with Template:History of Georgia

Hi! I'm writing to you as you seem to have handled a recent conflict at Georgian Orthodox Church quite well, and I am in a bit of a conflict with User:GeorgianJorjadze, who was part of this conflict, over this template. I would greatly appreciate it if you, along with other users, could come have a look at it.

I initiated a discussion there on the talk page before changing the actual template, and started implementing the changes only after getting feedback from the other interested participant. I feel some changes are objectively needed to bring this template to the standards present in other similar ones, and have explained them in more and more detail as the discussion progressed, while GeorgianJorjadze mostly stated his preference for the old version. He's reverted any attempt I, and another unrelated contributer, have made at changing the template. Confronted with particular problems, he fixed them partially on his own rather than trying to work out a compromise version including some of my changes, as I did repeatedly with his own. After his last revert, instead of answering my arguments for the changes, he went to ask an admin to protect the template on the grounds that I am edit warring (User_talk:Wifione#Template:History of Georgia). I don't accuse him of edit warring, rather of poor ability to negociate compromises and admit he is not the only editor with rights on that template. For information, the version as it stands is his (he last reverted it to how it was before the discussion started, removing also the changes he had made), you can find my last attempts in the article history (last one is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:History_of_Georgia&oldid=491463391). I've exposed on the talk page reasons for all of them, last one is the most detailed. I would also appreciate if you (and other editors) could comment on a possible change of image (from the old map now used to the georgian coat of arms), for the sake of consistency with similar templates, and the inclusion or not of dates (I proposed a version with, but am rather neutral on the subject). In any case, I won't edit that template again until other, less partial, users, come and give their opinion on the matter. Thanks a lot!--Susuman77 (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Susuman77,

Thank you for contacting myself about this issue. Has anyone thought to highlight examples of other templates similar to this one, so that GeorgianJorjadze can see how they are suppose to be styled? Template:History of France and Template:History of the United States are a couple of examples. It could be a case that GJ isn't aware of how templates are suppose to be set-out. Perhaps another suggestion would be to provide GJ with a link to manual of style too. I'll add the template to my watchlist though, and will keep monitoring what happens. If you still require me to open a friendly discussion on the template talkpage, then I'm happy to do that also. Regards - Wesley☀Mouse 22:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I've just found a few other history templates that also have an ancient map instead of the coat of arms - Template:History of Greece, Template:History of Ireland, and Template:History of Kazakhstan all have maps on them. So this could be a tricky one after all. Have you offered a compromise in doing a double image, similar to how Template:History of France has? You could have the map and the coat of arms side by side. Wesley☀Mouse 22:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Further help on how the templates should be listed can also be found at Template:Region history. If you stick to how they have things listed, then you would be following perfect guidelines, and GJ would have to reside to the fact he cannot change without going through the official procedures. Wesley☀Mouse 22:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks a lot for your answer! I'm aware of those other templates with maps, and they're part of the reason I won't fight tooth and nail over the image. My issue with this particular one is more that it represents the whole Caucasus, and that Georgia, or former Georgian states, are not labelled in a visible way. I put those arguments forward but could not convince him. For the rest, I also keep referring to similar templates, but to no avail. As for the Template:Region history reference, looking at it, it stays very general, does not address hierarchy between headers and data, do I'm not sure it can be relevant to this discussion. Anyway, I put forward rational arguments about the need for better headers, chronological order, etc. to no avail... Now he's asking people in Georgian to come help him. I'll wait and see what other editors have to say on the matter and come back to you if needed, if you don't mind...--Susuman77 (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

When you say he is asking people in Georgian, I'm assuming you mean in written Georgian? If so, that is a violation in itself, as he knows and has been warned before about not commenting in English. Wesley☀Mouse 22:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look at Template:Region history, and there is a brief introduction next to it, on how the template works. The parameters that have "data=" can be changed to a different header as long as it is in relation to the template subject. You can have upto a maximum of 99 subheaders; but I think 99 of them would make the template a little long. Wesley☀Mouse 23:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Georgian Orthodox Church". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 17 May 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 11:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Warning about disruptive editing on Georgian Orthodox Church article

Please do not make blind reverts. You have deleted properly cited content. The content I added is not part of the as yet unaccepted proposed mediation, there has been no dispute about that content, and you have no right to attempt to freeze all of the content in this article at your whim and until your whim is directed elsewhere. Your own words in the talk page have made numerous points about making the scope of the discussion narrow (about it just being over the interpretation/definition of the word "autocephalous", etc.) so why are you now trying to expand any editing conflict to include the whole article? Meowy 18:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It is your edits that are disruptive. You know full well there is a dispute case on-going over the content, which according to WP:PREFER the article needs to be left in the version prior to the dispute taking place. And to use your IP instead of your name in an evasive sock-edit, isn't the wisest of moves. Wesley☀Mouse 18:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You know very well that WP:PREFER applies to articles which are protected. This article is NOT protected, nor was the section in which I made the edit subject to any current talk page discussion. Stop your threats and your bad faith accusations and your invalid reverting. Meowy 18:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Some delectable tea you!

Your idea for getting a cup of tea is an excellent one; here's a cup to start you out. No sense in getting frustrated by Wikipedia. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

sluuuuuurrrrrrppp ahh thanks. I've just had a phone call off my brother-in-law asking if I fancy a beer; I'm taking him up on the offer and having a pint. Back shortly. Wesley☀Mouse 19:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Strawberries from Tbilisi

Sorry if I've worded my last comments to you in an unpleasant way, Wes. To explain myself, I was just feeling frustrated by the way your last comment reignited tensions, even though it was not its intent. Indeed you could not know I had done some research of my own about editors involved here. I never thought you were acting in bad faith or with bad intentions, only that bringing up the past in a section where people are, as of now, really trying to help more sourced material into the article, is not constructive. I am really sorry that you and Meowy cannot get along no matter what, because behind his rough behaviour and disregard for some processes (sorry Meowy if you read that), I believe he can contribute much to this article and beyond. We can disagree about that, of course.

Anyway, this is already getting too long, so, as it is long overdue, let me bring you some...

Friendship Strawberries! Here, we love them mixed with Matsoni, but enjoy them as you wish! --Susuman77 (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the strawberries, and no need to apologise. It is hard to judge the tone of a conversation just by looking at its written format. That may be skill that some users may lack, but I wouldn't like to put my life down on that either. I don't know why Meowy has been so abrupt with me lately though, and it does worry me quite a lot. His behaviour towards me has been like this for months now, and started off at Eurovision where I was informed about his past, and I was shot down and executed by Meowy from that moment on. Although he did state months ago that he would no longer converse with me... I knew that promise of his wouldn't last long. Like you said, he probably is a good-hearted soul in real-life; but on here, well there seems to be some bitterness that seeps out and that needs taming down, before he causes himself any harm. Wesley☀Mouse 19:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, shortly, Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot#How to cope... Would you agree to just strike out all comments (yours, mine and his), from your 16:52 answer to me? If so, I'll ask him the same. Thanks for taking this step anyway!--Susuman77 (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I've removed comments of my own that may look like they aim at a user and inserted small text to state that I have moved such comments. Anywhere that meant me removing an entire comment, I have done the same but left my name and time stamp there, so people know that I did say something at some stage. Covering my back so to speak. Wesley☀Mouse 19:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks quite good to me. I've just asked Meowy on his talk page if he would do the same. I'll keep you informed.--Susuman77 (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

That talk page is starting to get big too, so I'll start an archive and put all the older posts between 2004 - 2010 in it. Wesley☀Mouse 20:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Please do not archive the GOC talk page - the content may be useful during the ongoing discussion and it is easier to refer to it when it is all on the one page. Meowy 20:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Wesley, for having played your part in getting the situation under control! You deserve more strawberries or coffee in the future. And yes, after reading it, it looks like a lot of the old discussions are relevant to the ongoing disputes, and contain possible references or sources, so I agree with Meowy that it's better to keep it on hand for now, even if the page is rather heavy. Also, thumbs up to Meowy for wording this concern here in a polite way; hope it can signal the dawn of a new era in cooperation between you two...--Susuman77 (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Flowers

Hi Wesley Mouse - I don't believe we've ever crossed paths before, but I noticed your recent post to Meowy's talkpage and wanted to offer my condolences. It may seem odd coming from a total stranger, but still wanted to say... I am so sorry. Take care, Kafka Liz (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm awfully sorry to hear about your loss. I was happy a minute ago to have gotten this stupid talk page under control, and now it doesn't matter at all anymore. My thoughts are really with you right now, and I wish I could be of comfort to you in any possible way. Don't worry about us here and all this futile drama, and take care of yourself and of your loved ones. Sincerely, Susuman77 (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to hear about your loss Wesley. As you know, I'm under a lot of pressure right now with exams and such, but your news reminds me that there are far more important things in life. Don't worry about Wikipedia stuff during this time; we will understand if you want to be elsewhere, and I'm still keeping an eye on things even if I'm not editing much. My thoughts are with you and you're family. Best wishes. CT Cooper · talk 21:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, man... :( Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you to all for the kind sincere words. At this sorrowful time, they touched my soul with warmth, comfort and happiness. I'm now at the stage where I can't sleep so I'm just sat here reading and re-reading all your lovely comments, and just gazing at articles, talk pages, and editors that I've interacted with over the last few months. Wesley☀Mouse 01:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

WM, our commonality is User talk:Drmies, where I sometimes talk and always stalk. I saw your message there. Words cannot do the job, but you are in my thoughts. As CTC says above, Wikipedia is really the least of your concerns. I've been there and I understand the sleep issue etc but, please, try: your body will tell you when. And if you cannot then you must at least eat. I wish you well. - Sitush (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you. It all just came so sudden, and literally stopped me in silence. Sure has made me look back on things though, and reflect on the errors, and I do intend to revisit anyone who I may have cross-swords with on here, and show my sincere apologies to them for being such an asshole. You know, people always told me that it would take just one sudden burst of shock to make me see life in a different angle; and this certainly has done just that. I should take time away from Wiki, but at the moment I'm feeling lost, so came here to just try and get my mind off the sorrow. Wesley☀Mouse 01:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

If you need us, we're here. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Likewise, please accept my condolences and those of the entire Wikimedia Foundation for your loss. Take all the time that you need, of course, those of us around here will keep things running in your absence, but know that you are cared for and will be missed. Let us know if there's anything we can do to help in the interim. My best wishes in this time of sorrow and loss. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Wesley, I am very sorry to hear about your loss. I wish that you and your family will find the strength to cope with this tragedy. It is the sixth sudden loss of life I have heard within the past 2 hours. My heart goes out to you. :( --Kober^Talk 09:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

Please, Wesley, accept my condolences for your loss. It is always a big sorrow to have the person so dear passing away and there is nobody that would not agree. Sorry for that, but I usually do not other discussions before I post the issue. I would really consider that in these cases it is better to stay away from internet activities as this. Hope you can join as fully soon. Aregakn (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Aregkan for altering the previous comment, most noble of you. I wish I could stay away from internet activities, part of me know I should and focus on things closer to home at this moment in time. But part of me also needs to take my mind off things, which is what I have been doing, going through all my contributions and re-reading everything. Strange, I know, but it is helping me through the grieving process. Wesley☀Mouse 02:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

More flowers, mowrrrr!

	Flowers!
	Let me offer my belated condolences to you and your sister. Losing a beloved person is always extremely difficult, here are some hyacinths to ease the pain. Be strong. – Kosm1fent 06:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Kosmo, and they are her favourite flowers too. Wesley☀Mouse 13:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Although I have recently experienced the loss of my mother as well, the pain is unique for all of us, so it is difficult for anyone to truly understand the pain you feel right now. I wish you and your family strength and peace during this difficult time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Georgian Orthodox Church, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Sorry

image

My deepest condolences, Wesley. I was shocked when I found out but could not post a note on your protected page until now. It is in moments like this that we realize what matters the most in life. Be strong and thank you for all your work on these pages.--Krosenstern (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

My Condolences

Dear Wesley, it is just now when I heard this tragic news. I want to express my condolences to you and your family. I am very sorry for your loss and I wanted you to know that, even though we don't know each other in person. Such loss is a huge tragedy for every human. Stay strong. My deepest condolences once more. Regards. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Regards

Hey Wesley. I have not talked to you in a while as I was away for some time. Are you well? I hope everything went smoothly and you are slowly recovering. I see that you have continued to edit pages so that's a good sign : -). Regards.--Krosenstern (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: I'm sorry, I just saw your edit summary about the funeral and realized that its not yet over. Stay strong.--Krosenstern (talk) 08:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Krosen, yep I did a bit of editing over the last few days, trying to take my mind off things, which it did help slightly. The funeral has now took place, and its back to business. Although I might take it easy for a few days and stick to editing topics that I am more familiar with and avoid areas that I might get too-deep over my head. Keep in touch yeah!? And if you're interested in joining a project, there is always room at WP:ESC, and we'd all be glad of the extra help. Wesley☀Mouse 20:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Controversy

I can't do anything at the moment, I'm on my phone and ready to watch ESC and I'm away from the computer. Sorry. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 18:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I'm about to watch it too. Beers, snacks, and TV volume turned up veerrrrry loud - check! Hopefully everyone will be watching it too, so the article may go into a state of sleep for a couple of hours. Wesley☀Mouse 18:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

3RR

[1] This appears to put you in violation of 3RR. I'd ask that you consider reverting yourself, and continue discussing this issue with Eugen and I on the article talk page. Khazar2 (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately 3RR hasn't been breached, as the removed content is still in dispute discussion, and is exempt from 3RR rules. But thanks anyway. Wesley☀Mouse

Well, it's always possible that there are exceptions to 3RR that I'm not aware of, but I don't appear to see it in WP:NOT3RR. Khazar2 (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Its quite understandable, but I have come across a similar scenario as this several times now, so I know 3RR hasn't been reached. However, as yourself and Eugen both re-added the information 3 times despite the reasons for removal on the edit summaries, could be seen as tag-team editing and therefore you'd both be in breach of 3RR yourselves. Wesley☀Mouse 19:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is getting increasingly ridiculous. Per WP:TAGTEAM: "Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil. Care should be made to frame assertions in an appropriate way, citing evidence in the appropriate venues, following our dispute resolution process." I barely know who Eugen is; the idea that I'm conspiring with him against you is a reach. Khazar2 (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• I never accused you of tagteaming. I said the fact two editors reverted the same content could be seen as tag-teaming. Now if I said has been seen as then that would be an accusation; however I never said that so no accusation has ocurred. Wesley☀Mouse 19:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of twenty-four hours for violating the three-revert rule on Eurovision Song Contest 2012. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You were told of your violation and asked to self-revert. Your understanding of the three-revert rule is off; the fact that an item is being discussed on the talk page does not give you license to repeatedly revert efforts to change the article. -- tariqabjotu 19:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wesley Wolf (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I fail to see how 3RR has been breached, when firstly 3RR means an editor must not make more than three reverts, only 3 reverts where made and not a 4th. Secondly, the edit summaries alone explain that the content inclusion is still being discussed at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2012#Criticisms and controversy; Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2012#Loreen gets criticism from Azeri official and Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2012#Proposed addition of new content on human rights. As no conclusion/consensus has been reached yet, then the details where purposely being omitted from the article. Wesley☀Mouse 19:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

At this time I am not willing to unblock, given that the further conversation indicates you still seem to consider it important to have your version in place while discussion occurs. Also next time, if you believe a potential BLP issue to be occurring but other editors disagree, it is best to bring it to a venue such as the BLP Noticeboard for more eyes, rather than presuming you are right. Your block expires soon, good luck in the future. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You're probably not counting this revert. -- tariqabjotu 19:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Erm that edit you've just referenced isn't even connected to the content removed on Human Rights. That edit was correcting a living persons name as it appears on the source used for that particular section. The section on human rights have only been removed 3 times thus far, and I did leave messages on Khazar2 (talk · contribs) and Eugen Simion 14 (talk · contribs) talk pages, explaining to them why the content on human rights isn't being included at this current time, and that they may wish to engage in the on-going discussion regarding this the human rights issue on the article talk page. Wesley☀Mouse 19:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

That comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. That edit wasn't really a big deal, and I don't care for it either way. That is just what permitted me to use "three-revert rule" rather than "edit warring" in the block reason; it honestly had/has no bearing on the validity of the block.

Cutting to the point, you just can't have it both ways. You're trying to lawyer your way out of a block for violating the three-revert rule because you supposedly only made three reverts. However, above, you claim that because Khazar2 and Eugen Simion 14 have both reverted the same content, they are "in breach of the 3RR [themselves]" -- even though together they've only reverted twice. You, on the other hand, have actually reverted four times (again, if counting is what you're looking for). The fact that the reversions were regarding different content does not change anything. The fact that it is being discussed on the talk page doesn't change anything. It's a clear-cut violation. And you have not demonstrated in any way that you see a problem with what you did or indicated that you'll stop. On the contrary, while you have accused Khazar and Eugen of tag-teamming, you have attempted to ask someone for assistance. And then given a chance to revert, you claimed, somewhat arrogantly, that you are exempt.

I can't and won't reject your unblock request, but you really don't have a leg to stand on here. While you're blocked, please re-read Wikipedia:Edit-warring and the relevant section on the three-revert rule. -- tariqabjotu 20:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't comprehend how I have tried to lawyer my way out of something - what do you mean? As I pointed out, I never accused the two users of tag-teaming, the words I used was their reverts could be seen as tag-teaming, which isn't accusing anything of the sort, but merely an observational statement. If however, I was to have said "the users are being seen as tag-teaming", then that would have been an accusation comment. As far as I knew about 3RR it meant reverting the same content on an article, not different content on the same article. And to say that I have shown indications that I won't stop reverting is very false. I was still discussion with issue with Khazar2, and would have self-reverted if Khazar2 provided clear reason for it. As for contacting AxG for advice, I did that as most users on this project know that I suffered a bereavement last week when my mother sadly passed away; and the funeral itself was earlier this week. People who know of this, also understood that I'm not fully focused on a lot of issues, and probably be prone mistakes. Asking another user (in this case Axg) for advice is plausible due to this circumstance, as I felt that I may have been unfocused on the situation and wanted to seek an opinion just in case. Wesley☀Mouse 20:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm extremely sorry to hear that, Wesley. I know from recent experience how devastating the loss of a parent can be. Though we've disagreed today, I'll look forward to working together in the future, and I promise on my end to try to do a better job of it. Hang in there, Khazar2 (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Khazar for the kind words there. Yes, it is proving to be more difficult coping with the loss than I thought it would be. I was always under the impression that removing content from an article, when a discussion about whether to include it or not is still on-going, was perfectly acceptable. Editors discussing it so far have been in mixed opinion over it; some say no it shouldn't be there as it isn't in connection to the article subject and would benefit inclusion in an article such as Human Rights in Azerbaijan or Azerbaijan in the Eurovision Song Contest where the contents main issue fits into those article subjects better. Yet some other editors have said that a small inclusion should be added to ESC 2012 page - which there is coverage of the human right issue near the top of the article under "Venue" (why its there God only knows). Wesley☀Mouse 20:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I've just found the comment posted by CT Cooper (talk · contribs) that states the Human Rights content "should not be re-added without a major re-write, some relevance to the actual content, and talk page consensus". Bold, revert, discussion would come into force (I think) here; as yes a new section was re-written added with some relevance included in the re-write (which I assume comes under BRD). However, the third part of the condition "and talk page consensus" still hadn't been reached, nor did either user put forward their suggestion to the talk page thread to seek a consensus - therefore in removing the content I was sticking to the decision for it not to be re-added. I would assume that as the conditions set out on the article talk page had not been adhered to, that the new inclusions could potentially be viewed as vandalism - although I treated them as good faith edits, in case the users weren't aware of the conditions set out on the talk page. Wesley☀Mouse 22:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am not infallible, but I do think it is sensible that content that controversial should be fleshed out on the talk page and added when a clear consensus has formed, particularity on an article this high profile. However, I would not recommend reverting an editor beyond WP:1RR on a human rights section unless the content violated WP:BLP in serious manner, and would instead focus attention to the talk page. As for the vandalism issue, yes they should be treated as good faith edits since they are a million miles away from vandalism - vandalism is a deliberate attempt to damage the project (and is distinct from edit warring or going against what other editors say e.t.c.), something established editors are extremely unlikely to be doing. CT Cooper · talk 23:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm too involved too review the unblock request, but I think this block was heavy handed. If Wes did not understand 3RR someone should have taken a moment to correct him before the block, not afterwards. The discussion on this is ongoing on the talk page but now Wes can't participate for a day which is not very helpful. The first revert that allegedly tipped this over into a 3RR violation was reverting a change on content about a living person which removed some changes which deviated from the sources, so it may be exempt under WP:NOT3RR #7, although I admit whether it is "contentious" is a sticking point as the content wasn't particularly controversial. However, I would still argue in favour of discounting it in spirit as i) it was on a unrelated issue which hasn't cropped up again, so it was not edit warring and ii) the change was appropriate under WP:BLP policy and does not fall under the type of reverts that the community wishes to discourage. If Wes agrees to stay within 3RR, or possibly 1RR in future, then the preventative nature of the block is redundant and hence I see no reason for an unblock request to be denied. CT Cooper · talk 23:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course I agree to sticking to 1RR, although I allow at least 2RR in extreme circumstances. When the discussion on the talk page about these issue where raised, and a decision to omit them for the time being while consensus was built; then I assumed that removing the re-added content was within talk page consensus to keep the details omitted. I thought the revert for a spokespersons name shouldn't be counted due to it being BLP, but I couldn't pin-point where I had read it before - so to show the link for WP:NOT3RR#7 is a kind helpful refresher; thank you. I am slightly disappointed that things have escalated this far, and agree that someone could have had the courtesy to correct myself before the block and not afterwards. I wish I could continue the current debate about this content on the article talk page, but as I am blocked this cannot be done. Also, the block has prevented me from continuing work on the project newsletter, which I had planned to complete the final draft tonight, so that it allowed enough time for another editor to proof-read it before publication. Alas, this is now on the back-burner and delaying things slightly. Wesley☀Mouse 23:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

He was given a chance. He was told "Well, it's always possible that there are exceptions to 3RR that I'm not aware of, but I don't appear to see it in WP:NOT3RR," to which he replied "Its quite understandable, but I have come across a similar scenario as this several times now, so I know 3RR hasn't been reached." What else did you expect me to do? I don't think he would have changed his mind about the acceptability of his actions until he was blocked. And, even then, that didn't occur until he was pressed about it. -- tariqabjotu 05:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

He clearly didn't understand how 3RR operated, so it should have been explained to him that it didn't need to be separate content to count, but that didn't happen - the WP:NOT3RR was clearly not the cause of the confusion so is beside the point. I don't see anything before the block was issued which justifies assuming that Wes wouldn't listen to a simple explanation, so I stand by my assessment. CT Cooper · talk 13:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Well that has just confused me even more than what I already was to begin with. This thread is headed 3RR in relation to the 3rd revert of the human rights content. With the wording of the original comment posted by the user, I replied back politely that I couldn't see how I have exceeded 3RR when the revert I made was the 3rd one on the human rights issue. The user then replied back (still in regards to the human rights issue) with "Well, it's always possible that there are exceptions to 3RR that I'm not aware of, but I don't appear to see it in WP:NOT3RR". Seeing as we were both still discussing about the human rights issue and nothing else, then the referencing of 3RR was in that regards nothing else; hence my reply of "Its quite understandable, but I have come across a similar scenario as this several times now, so I know 3RR hasn't been reached." - I had an inkling that I hadn't gone over 4RR on this issue. However, I then get blocked stating I had exceeded 4RR, and then told a previous edit in regards to the spelling of a living person's name, was being counted as part of the 4RR. When I questioned about this mysterious 4RR, I get told my reply was "somewhat tongue-in-cheek", and that the edit regarding the name change "wasn't really a big deal". The editor then went on to say that they don't care for it either way and that it was only being counted to assist in highlighting the "three-revert rule" blocking reason; rather then an edit warring reason. To me personally, that alone looks like a grasping at straws manoeuvre to cover someone's back; rather than look at the facts and determine whether or not 4RR had occurred. The fact that I was sounding vague should have been a trigger point to someone that there is an air of confusing somewhere, and politely explained the issue to me, rather than block first ask questions later. That kind of behaviour is what's commonly known as "locking the stable door after the horse has bolted". Wesley☀Mouse 13:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been reading the above discussion in the process of reviewing your unblock request. Please first allow me to offer my condolences, as the loss of a parent is difficult indeed. That being said, with the business at hand, I'm somewhat concerned that the language of your unblock request seems to regard three reverts as an entitlement. Realistically, there are very few good reasons to revert even three times. If you revert once, and the matter's still disputed, it's generally time to start a dialogue rather than reverting again. Someone who disagreed with you on the first revert is unlikely, in the absence of discussion, to suddenly agree with you after the second or third. Do you understand, then, that edit warring can be harmful even if it does not technically breach 3RR? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh gosh yes, I do understand where you're coming from with your latter question. What I found confusing is that a few days ago one editor added something about human rights to the Eurovision 2012 article. I sat myself on the fence at that time and weighed up all sides of what was being suggested about the content. After much deliberation I had commented that the topic on human rights was very controversial and with the excessive detail that was originally being added, didn't really suit the articles main subject. This point was also raised by a few other editors too. The discussion was still on-going and as CT Cooper pointed out (and I also linked to his comment) that the information was omitted for the time being so that a diplomatic discussion could take place to resolve the issue.

Now Khazar2 may not have been aware of that prior discussion at the time when he added more human rights content to the article, and rightfully I did a WP:BRD and left a note on the users talk page explaining the reason for the revert and invited him to participate in the on-going discussion on the article talk page. However, he never engaged in discussion and re-reverted my actions instead. Now correct me if I'm wrong but that action by Khazar2 is BRDR, and as the policy states the second R should never have taken place, the user should have engaged in discussions; and that never happened until after I boldly reverted again.

The other thing concerning is that an edit that I made in regards to a living person has also been taken into account and thus making me look like I done 4RR, when really that 1st edit (from what Cooper said) is something to do with NOT3RR#7; and after reading that part on 3RR, it does make sense - if you know what I mean. Anyhow, if I knew I had done something seriously wrong, then I would have happily put up with the punishment and allowed the block to run its course. However, as I had a small inkling that something wasn't quite adding up, then I had to put forward my case to show that I disagreed with the way this block was enforced to begin with. Wesley☀Mouse 03:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

On my part, I do apologize for my single revert; it was wrong. At the same time, though, I'd like to humbly suggest you take a minute to review WP:BRD, particularly WP:BRD-NOT:

• • • BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.

• • • BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.

• • • BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.

-- Khazar2 (talk) 07:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

What are you implying? You may be misinterpreting my words. I never said BRD is a policy nor have I used it as such. Why is it that every time I reply to a question that someone has asked me, that my answers get thrown out of context? I used BRD as an example, not a policy or excuse. My reply to the admin's question was that I reverted your original insertion using BRD, and I was further detailing what had happened. In a way, we're both at fault in a few areas. As you rightfully have said, you were wrong for the single-revert. Instead of doing a single-revert it would have been courteous to engage in dialogue at the article's talk page, to which I made you aware of immediately after you made added the new content. But rather than taking that action you re-reverted and then only engaged in dialogue after the second removal. I too was wrong in the 3rd revert; yes I left a message on Eugan's talk page asking them to self-revert it and again making him aware of the same discussion in progress. Impatience got the better of me, and I ended up reverting it back myself - which at the time I thought was the correct thing to do as it was content that had been previous advised to keep omitted whilst the discussion where still in progress. The other disturbing factor is that my 3rd revert of that content has been classified as a 4th edit; and it wasn't anything of the sort. The edit in regards to a living person's name (Aleksey/Oleksiy) was within #7 of WP:NOT3RR. The official EBU source listed the spelling as Aleksey; yet an editor changed it to Oleksiy. The latter spelling may be correct, but as the EBU source is official and being used as a reliable source for that section I changed it back - especially when we are dealing with a BLP issue there. Wesley☀Mouse 13:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to get overly bogged down here, but if you read what you wrote directly above me, you wrote "Now correct me if I'm wrong but that action by Khazar2 is BRDR, and as the policy states the second R should never have taken place, the user should have engaged in discussions; and that never happened until after I boldly reverted again." Twelve hours later you say I never said BRD is a policy nor have I used it as such. I'm sorry you feel your words are being misinterpreted, but you can see how the rest of us can get confused. Khazar2 (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• So sorry for getting my words mixed - geeze considering the circumstances here and the hell I've been through the past 2 weeks, it is easily done. I meant policy as in guidelines - its just my terminology that I use policy for both meanings. Sorry that you don't understand my jargon. Wesley☀Mouse 18:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I feel that my comments and explanations are being misinterpreted, which may be a fault of my own, in finding it difficult to explain clear enough. The further conversations that I have had in regards to this issue are not an indication of myself indicating my version is important. I would like to highlight that the version of having the human rights details omitted for the time being, isn't even my version; but a version of a wider consensus of the project, to which I was abiding to that decision by assisting in the removal of such content.

As I have tried to explain a few times prior to this, Human Rights content was added to Eurovision Song Contest 2012 article, and a few editors on the project expressed deep concerns about the wording of the content, as it was written in an objective point of view, rather than a neutral point of view. One editor in particular advised that the details should remain omitted from the article, so that a discussion could take place in order to work on a re-write of the content - posting the proposed variations to the article's talk page first. A user posted a re-write directly to the article itself, and therefore did not comply to the decision of posting it to the talk page first, as set by the wider community. By removing the content and courteously invited the user to participate to discuss the issue, I was abiding to the decision set by the project community; and was in no way whatsoever, trying to indicate that the omitted version was a version of belonging to myself.

CT Cooper very kindly explained and highlighted the revert of a living person's name as a BLP issue, and that the edit in regards to the living person shouldn't have been counted as part of a 4RR violation. The list of spokespersons on the Eurovision 2012 article is as shown on the official Eurovision website, and I used their list as a citation to show that the details were correct in accordance to the officials. The change of name by the user deviated away from the actual citation, and thus the reversion was justified - or so I thought.

In all honesty, the reason given for this block is for exceeding 3RR by doing a 4th revert that shouldn't have been counted, and therefore kept me on the borderline of 3RR - if I was to have made another revert on he human right issue, then yes I could understand the reason for blocking as justified and would have taken the punishment accordingly. Now the unblock request based on an invalid 3RR reason is being decline, despite the fact that I haven't even exceeded into a 4th revert. Wesley☀Mouse 15:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Sandboxes

Could someone be so kind to explain why I cannot edit my own sandbox area? I know there is a block in place which is due to expire in approx 1 hours time. But I thought that a user could still edit their own pages and nothing else. I could have used the duration of this block to continue the draft edit of the WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter, which a version exists at User:Wesley Mouse/sandbox/10 - it would be nice to be able to continue editing that section as it has nothing to do with editing articles. Thanks you - Wesley☀Mouse 18:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Map looks good

See section heading, are you going to add it? :) -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 16:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm starting to get very brave at these being bold moments - so on that note me thinks I should do it, obviously give it a section heading and a itsy-bitsy-teeny-weeny write up of a paragraph-sized proportion. Wesley☀Mouse 16:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation!

Just wanted to say thank you for the invitation for the Eurovision WikiProject! I'd happily join! :) Dfizzles (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	Thank you for replying and answering my query and solution on the List of Eurovision Winners' talk page! It really advanced my knowledge of Wikipedia maps for the future, even if it seemed not to. Cathairawr (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you; and you're very welcome. Glad that I was able to assist, although I did read my comments back to myself and started to wonder if I had gone way too in-depth with it. Wesley☀Mouse 22:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - June 2012

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the blue bar.

This Newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC). If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list.

Woohoo, check me out - creating my first newsletter publication, and successfully getting a bot to issue it out. Right now, I feel like a child on Christmas morning. Oh my mother will be looking down on me with pride right now :-) Wesley☀Mouse 00:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Well done on successfully re-distributing the WikiProject Eurovision newsletter after two years. CT Cooper · talk 00:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ooooo brownnnnnnieeeeees! Now I feel hungry. Thank you though, and it was a nice learning exercise for me too; and believe me I learnt a lot of things with resurrecting it. Now I know how to do funky tables in collapsible thingy-me-bobs. Already set the template in my sandbox for the July edition - see I'm well organised and plan in advance. Promise not to let you down on this, and the newsletter will be a regular monthly item once again. Wesley☀Mouse 01:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Any idea as to why my signature is messing up?

I followed a tutorial to edit it.

The 'Cathair' should be bold and Dark Green - linking to User Page, and the 'awr' non-bold and ForestGreen - linking to Talk page, and the cross should be Red and bold leading to my contributions. I presume I have coded all correctly in HTML. It just will not change colour. Thanks.

Cathairawr✝ 19:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) HTML isn't international friendly: ya gotta use "color", not "colour".  ;) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Writ for dealing with this on. Much appreciated. Wesley☀Mouse 10:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I award Wesley Mouse this barnstar for continuing to make fine contributions to Wikipedia despite having to deal with personal difficulties and then being put on trial by other users in twenty-four hours of hell. Wesley, your work is still greatly appreciated, so keep it up! CT Cooper · talk 19:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I hope I'm not overloading you with awards, but I thought your recent contributions combined with your recent difficulties deserved a barnstar in itself. I have to say I was happy and somewhat relieved that you just got-up and carried on after your recent block. CT Cooper · talk 19:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Ohh thank you ever so much, keep the awards coming. One can never receive too many awards; they are a good moral booster. Wesley☀Mouse 13:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

General Eurovision Chat

Hey, just thought of asking around for theories as to why Ireland and the United Kingdom done so well pre-21st-century, and have suddenly went downhill, any ideas?

Cathairawr✝ 14:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I'll have to be cautious here, just in case anyone notices that a forum discussion is taking place here, as it is frowned upon due to some guidance at WP:NOTFORUM. In answer to your question though, I don't think there are any suspicious theories really. Ireland did well in 2011 (8th place) and the UK has done well too 5th (2009) and 11th (2011). This year was unfortunate for the UK in all honesty, a weak ballad performing first, which then got itself lost with the 25 powerful and memorable songs which followed it. Look at Hungary this year. Their song was well linked across Europe, but due to an early running order it too got lost in the plethora of entries which followed. Sweden was an obvious winner from the start, and I even predicted it would win from the moment it won Melodifestivalen earlier in the year. Wesley☀Mouse 14:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, and thanks a lot for that page, had no idea there was such page stating what Wikipedia was and was not. Yeah, I suppose you are right, Euphoria was an excellent performance.

Cathairawr✝ 16:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Permission for User page

Hello, now I am somewhat beginning to be active on Wikipedia, I am trying to create a user page. I understand basic Wikipedia coding, however when it comes to HTML on User pages, I'm basically blind as a bat - I know the odd Colour changing and Bold type of techniques. Anyway down to main point. Would it be okay, if I copied a bit of your code (your navigator containing Olympic countdowns)? I am able to spot where to change things in a code, as in what to replace etc. However, to create a code, I have no idea whatsoever. Cathairawr✝ 17:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

By all means, yes. Although you will need to delete the part about being a volunteer at the Olympic Games, which is there as I shall be at working at the games this summer. Wesley☀Mouse 17:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for giving me permission to copy part of your user page! :) Cathairawr✝ 17:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

Before removing a category from an article, as you did to Template:Eurovision Song Contest 2012, please make sure that the subject of the article no longer belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories should only be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. Wesley☀Mouse 14:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly sorry for my English. This is wrong

You look:

Languages

Türkçe:(Template)

Հայերեն:(Template)

Français:Article

Кыргызча:Article

‪:Norsk‬:Article

Português:Article

Русский:Article

Suomi:Article

Svenska:Article

Türkçe:Article

Українська:Article

All eurovision 2012 songs pages have same wrong.

Esc2003 (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You may think it is wrong, but a WikiBot added the categories in the first place. If a bot added them, then they would be correct. These bots add new categories over a period of time, and when instructed by the project of the relevant language projects. So in time, each of the languages will add their category to the template too. No need to rush, patience is a virtue. Wesley☀Mouse 15:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The English language version of the template Template:Eurovision Song Contest 2012 has been adapted into 2 other languages (tr:Şablon:2012 Eurovision Şarkı Yarışması şarkıları and hy:Կաղապար:Եվրատեսիլ 2012 երգի մրցույթ) and incorporated onto those respective Wiki projects. The language translation has nothing to do with articles. Wesley☀Mouse 15:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Protection requests

Your ESC 2013 protection request has been answered with one month of semi-protection. That may do for now, since we are still experiencing the wave of activity following the 2012 Contest and things may yet calm down a little. I dealt with your earlier JESC 2012 protection request as I haven't edited that article much at all, and I feared nobody would answer it. I thought protection to December was overkill at this point, but I gave a month. CT Cooper · talk 04:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. 1 month for JESC might be logical after what I've found on the internet. Seems the deadline has been extended to 29 June, as the EBU are 4-short of the 11-minimum requirement for the contest to take place. A decision whether to cancel the contest will be made on that June date. Malta and Cyprus are definite no-no; Italy and San Marino are no debuts; Serbia and Romania have announced they won't return; and Lithuania/Moldova haven't made their minds up either way yet. But the only sources that mention all this is Eurovoix.com and Janelaesc.com; both of which appeared in that list the EBU published months ago. Wesley☀Mouse 04:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I see. I'm not hugely into the Junior Contest, but it will be a real shame if it goes the same was as the Eurovision Dance Contest. I hope the EBU find enough participants. CT Cooper · talk 04:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Project Eurovision RFC discussion reminder

WikiProject Eurovision: This is a reminder to all members of Project Eurovision, that there is still an ongoing RfC discussion taking place at the project talk page. It is vital that everyone participates in this discussion, as it concerns the future manual of style and article layout in regards to Eurovision Song Contest by Year and Junior Eurovision Song Contest by Year articles. This is your ideal opportunity to contribute suggestions and ideas on a major issue, which will reflect on the way these articles will be written in future. Thank You! EdwardsBot (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Eldar and Nigar PROD

I think you have misunderstood my intention with that post. I fully agree with you that both their individual articles and the duo article should be kept. But in my opinion if the user still think that either the separate articles or the duo articles should be up for AfD, then I think its more logical to nominate the separate articles. Even though I believe that both the articles would be kept and so would the duo-article. So I am in no way in favour of deletion otherwise I would not have removed the PROD.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments at RfC

I have commented, you did a good job standardizing WP:ESC's articles, it was about time! Cheers. – Kosm1fent 19:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Fanx, I do like to try my best, even if I do doubt myself at times. Comments like that emphasis that I am doing something for the better. Wesley☀Mouse 19:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	for successful defence of Ell&Nikki Zymurgy (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you ever so gladly. This sure did come as quite a surprise. I only did what I felt needed to be done, and that was to save an article from being deleted. Its just a shame the nominee couldn't comprehend the number of people who wanted to save the article, and still attempted to canvass different rules to try and get people to change their votes. Wesley☀Mouse 10:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's one for you to ponder over

Hi, yes I appreciate that. Yes perhaps a mention that Esctoday.com has made it clear that no new countries are likely to enter the contest any time soon because of membership issues or being outside the EBU Area. Perhaps stating that repeated inclusions of countries such as Kazakhstan, Kosovo and Qatar in the Eurovision Song Contest 2013 article without proper sources of EBU membership could be seen as vandalism. Just a suggestion.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

A discussion concerning Ell & Nikki are ongoing here, Wikipedia talk:Notability (music). Also I have made a request that the Ell & Nikki article is fully protected until consensus has been reached. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

That's clear signs of disruptiveness and screams our canvassing on all levels. The user has said that they had no intentions to have the article deleted, and yet they nominated it - contradictory or what? The AFD was a clear snowball consensus to keep, and despite that, the user appears to be unable to drop the stick and get on with editing articles. They probably won't cease until they finally get the article deleted. Although saying that, as long as people remember what was noted at the AFD, then the user is just pursuing a losing argument. Wesley☀Mouse 14:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes the user seems unwilling to move on and just respect the Keep consensus. Instead trying the "back door" for it to be deleted. Yes Wesley there is no chance of it to be deleted, clear community consensus for Keep and WP:MUSIC backs the article up. Yes if the disruptiveness continues we should report it. But let's hope the user sees reason and moves on ASAP.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could leave a message on the users talk page explaining the situation in a honest way. So the user realizes that canvassing and disruptive behaviour only lead's to blocking in the end.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Its not just the continuous canvassing for deletion via other pages that's a problem, but the fact that some kind of "clutching at straws" tactic is being played here. Firstly to tell users there is no intent to delete, and then go against their own words and AFD it, is a contradictory. People provided valid reasons why the articles shouldn't be deleted, and that they met criteria for notability, and despite that, more desperate attempts to sway voters the other way occurred by finding any guidance possible that they felt would force a deletion to happen. WP:BIO1E was one example of this, and yet that guidance is for event articles and not BLP's. Ell & Nikki are a BLP article, and therefore WP:BLP1E would be the guidance to work on, and even the criteria there states the article fulfils notability. I even noticed the same user posted a demand to the closing administrator to reopen the case because only people from WP:ESC cast votes. That is just outrageously wrong, anyone can vote/discuss. And not only that, the accusation that only project members voted is also a lie, as I counted 5 votes from WP:ESC members, and 4 from members from other projects. I don't really want to go down the route of reporting disruptiveness, but if things continue to get out of hand, then I will seek advice as to what action needs to be taken. Wesley☀Mouse 14:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh and in response to the suggestions for the newsletter, yes I agree they could do with being included in there somewhere. I'll probably put the Kazakhstan issue under "ESC 2013" section, and the Ell & Nikki issue under "project news". Wesley☀Mouse 15:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The user continues in the same "im not to blame for anything you are the bad guys" style as I have seen so many times before on Wikipedia. Anyway im over it. And will not respond to the user anymore it is like responding to a wall it seems unfortunatly.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Good work

Good work on the early Eurovision articles, but can I ask, why the use of 'favorite'? As a European event, this surely is more closely related to British and Irish English ('favourite'). Also maybe '#AAAAAA' would look better than black in the Scoreboard. This maybe an opportunity to role out the ImageMap for the infobox. Wikipedia is slow for me, so I think I'll be off to bed. :) -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 23:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I left a note on your page, as I spotted the strange phenomena via your edit summary. But thankfully, I have noticed the "favorite" has been written on a large chunk of the articles, so I'll keep an eye out for that, and fix'em in the process. Will check out this #AAAAAA thing too. Wesley☀Mouse 23:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

One more thing, should the scoreboard text be at the top of the scoreboard (as separate text), or in the top left box? -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 18:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh I'm guessing you are referring to the 56 article? I was testing out something, seeing how it would look using that blank box, by inserting the scoreboard text. At first I liked it, but now that I've placed the text at the top as a separate text, which I think looks more professional. What do you think? Inside the box, or outside of it? Wesley☀Mouse 19:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh and while you're online, what do you think to the article's I've worked on so far (1956 - 1962). Greater improvement, or not bad!? As I told Cooper earlier today, I'm thoroughly enjoying myself revamping all these older articles. Never knew how much fun it would be, and I'm learning more about ESC, the host cities/venue etc, than I originally thought in the process. And not only that, all this rework has boosted the assessments up from start to C class. If it can do that to these older articles, just think what impact it would have on the recent ones. We could be looking at a load of GA's on our hands. Wesley☀Mouse 19:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Just looking through, seen a ''"''[[Un premier amour]]''"'' on the 62 article, 1 to many double apostrophes their. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 19:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Plus I'm not sure italicising songs is the manual of style to be used: "The titles of articles, chapters, songs, television episodes, and other short works are not italicized; they are enclosed in double quotation marks." -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 19:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Heehee, thank you for fixing it for me, I must have been having a blond moment on that one. I didn't know about the italic thing, thank you for pointing that one out to me, I'll avoid italics in those scenarios from now on. Wesley☀Mouse 19:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

re: gender

Please do not take my comment as any kind of aspersion. Wikipedia is an inherently pseudonymous environment. You and I can pick any username we like without regard for gender, race, creed, national origin or any of the other statuses that have historically given people trouble. And while some people do pick usernames which are related to their real names, that is a minority position. Most users pick names which are not the same as their legal identities.

Rather than make mistakes about something as close and personal as gender, I try to make it a personal rule to avoid making the assumption in the first place. I simply do not consider gender relevant to the discussion and choose to work around it. I wish that the English language had a gender-neutral third-person pronoun but we don't. ("Xe" never caught on, "it" carries other emotional baggage and pluralizing to "they" is grammatically incorrect.) The least-bad choice we have is the deliberately ambiguous and somewhat clumsy "he/she".

My use of "he/she" was not a personal statement directed to you but a universal practice that I apply when talking about any user here. (You might find a couple of slipups in my contribution history but I really have tried to make that a strict rule.) If my use of "he/she" caused you trouble, my apologies. It was not directed at you personally. Rossami (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I myself have got people's gender wrong on many occasions. I find template {{gender}} very useful, although it relies on people specifying their gender in their preferences, and if they don't, I use (s)he. CT Cooper · talk 17:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That is quite understandable now, looking at it in a different way. I apologise for being abrupt over the gender issue, I suppose one could say I was being a bit female-divaish lol. Wesley☀Mouse 18:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Re:Eurovision infobox

Ah yes, a little trick I did for the first contests, the year= parameter in the infobox I replaced with уear=. The difference being is that the Latin 'y' as normal, but I've used a Cyrillic 'у', looks almost the same, but display different formats. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 19:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ahhhh, oooooooh, now that is very clever trick indeed. I will have to remember that when I start to do the JESC articles. Don't know if you want to start rolling out the other maps too, that way it will make things even easier as I start updating other articles. Wesley☀Mouse 19:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Unrelated to the Infobox, but remember to use 'and' in general sentences and not '&' whilst you revamp the pages. ;) -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 19:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't altered any text that was in the original article formats, just moved paragraphs around into the new format. Any usage of & will have been there prior to the revamp. Wesley☀Mouse 19:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

ESC2012 article is currently having its GAN review. Some iron things to iron-out, and the article should pass the GA :-D Wesley☀Mouse 19:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

SK Aaigem and the other football clubs

(edit conflict) I've done another search on google for SK Aaigem, and defined the search for books and newspaper clippings, and a success too. 4 books, 1 newspaper article. Wesley☀Mouse 15:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, how do you do that kind of research, I don't find the books! I want to go tomorrow morning to the local history circle, that's only opened on Sunday, but therefore I need to find the books of SK Aaigem, FC Mere, FC Edixvelde, Oranja Erpe and Olympia Erondegem. But how can you search on books and newpaper clippings on google??? Klodde (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It depends on which version of Google you are using. I have a registered G-mail account with them, and so I have a personalised Google page, with the various options across the top of their homepage "Search - Images - Maps - Play - YouTube - News - Mail - Documents - Calendar - More (Translate - Books - Shopping - Blogger - Reader - Finance - Photos - Video)". However on the non-personalised accounts, you just search as normal, and then on the left-hand side of the search results should be the same list. Wesley☀Mouse 21:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Before you respond to what I wrote on WikiProject Eurovision Page

Due to the over-heatedness of this discussion, I have chosen to hide it rather than delete it entirely. To view the conversation simply click on the show button

Hi, I just want you to let you know before you read what I have written there is that I just wanted us to come to an understanding. I wrote what I felt with this whole situation. You don't have to agree with any of it at all. Just please don't misjudge me anymore. At the AfD discussion page I was not trying to be negative or rejecting people's "Keep" votes. I thought that it would be a great place to carry a discussion so whenever people posted "Keep" I replied and tried to converse with them with a "Comment". Remember when you were looking for charting positions to put on Nigar Jamal's article because someone suggested that her article should be nominated for deletion instead? I replied to your post didn't? See, that's what I was doing. I was trying to converse and not disagree.

Anyways you are probably not going to like what I wrote at the WikiProject Eurovision page but I'm not stopping you from reading it. If you don't like the rest of it just ignore it all so that we can end this (I couldn't make it anymore civil but I tried to by editing it a few more times but CT Cooper managed to take a snippet). I'm not going to bother replying to anymore silly non-sense crap about how wrong both us were in that section of the page. Trust me, if you really wanted this to end then you would know best not to bother anymore.

One last thing, just please let me discuss this with other users alright? There are still some unanswered questions that were not properly discussion on that AfD and this has nothing to do with notability. So please I'd appreciate it if you guys stop monitoring my contributions and making suspicious sections on each other's talk page. I don't want to take this to the dispute resolution board alright? :-) Bleubeatle (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

"Trust me, if you really wanted this to end then you would know best not to bother anymore.", what kind of comment is that really? Now Bleubeatle if you are truly wanting this dispute to end please stop with these kind of comments to users. Just letting you know that they are not in your favour.BabbaQ (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

"Just letting you know that they are not in your favour" So you don't want this to end at all? What I meant is don't bother replying, geez. I'm glad that you came over to this page to read this. I suggest you avoid replying anymore before it gets out of hand. Go ahead if you want to reply on the WikiProject Eurovision page but I'm not going to be part of it. No thank you :-) Bleubeatle (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

And please don't bother replying on my talk page. What ever CT Cooper said about violating WP:Civility and ending it with my own terms. I don't care what he/she's talking about. So if you have anything else to say to me forget about it. I'm not going to bother replying to anyone of you anymore. Goodbye. Bleubeatle (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It's he. CT Cooper · talk 12:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks BabbaQ and Cooper. I really don't know what to make of Bleubeatle's statement above, as it clearly doesn't make any sense to me. But hey-ho diddly-do, as long as if someone know's what he's going on about, then that's fine with me. Wesley☀Mouse 10:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Just want to give you the notice of this discussion at the bottom of the discussion board [2], now they have some idea that the Ell & Nikki article should be merged into the song article. It becomes more and more like a school class were the school bully gets his way by repeating himself over and over until the others budge.BabbaQ (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ohhh dear! (sigh) There's a well-known saying that could be adopted in this situation right now. Give someone enough rope, and they are sure enough going to hang themselves. This could very well be the case with the schoolyard tactics being played in the discussions. Its evident that the articles won't get deleted/merged as they fulfil a plethora of criterion set out in WP:BLP1E, WP:N, and WP:BIO1E, and probably a ton of others too. So perhaps sitting silently in the background and watch the turn of events as they happen is the best solution for now. Who knows, people may have a "eureka moment" soon, and realise what we've been trying to say all along. Wesley☀Mouse 11:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A merge of the article would be totally confusing and unecessary. It would also be like saying that ALL eurovision winners should be merged to their winning song article. No matter what they have achieved outside of Eurovision. Ell/Nikki has done a few other things besides winning, otherwise why they would never had been performing in the ESC 2012 final. For me the biggest issue with this is that the user in question seem to use the "ask time after time and never stop"- way of handling this. And I think it is inappropriate to give in to pressure from ONE user, just to make a user stop asking on different boards to have the article deleted or similar. Anyway for this article to be merged into the winning song article there should be a clear consensus which is highly unlikely to ever happen.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I have now left a last message to the user in question about the troubling behaviour. I can only hope that the behaviour will change. In other case I would support some sort of Ell & Nikki ban for the user.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a Ell & Nikki topic ban is something that could be atleast suggested if this continue.

Time stamping for archive purposes. Wesley☀Mouse 21:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

ESC 2012

I will go a little bit slow with the review. It will be over in link 3-4 days though. Tbh, the prose is good and I am satisfied (even though sometimes is rough to read), just we have to lift it in several places. But reference formatting = mess. But I think in the end everything will be fine ;) ! — Tomica (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

OK sure, that's fine. I expected the review to take a while, as there is a lot to check (I'm assuming). This is the first time I've actually nominated any article for a GA review, so I do feel a little nervous. Hopefully I can learn from the review in the process, so that I can improve all of the other articles, with the aim of nominating those in the near future. The reference formatting is confusing though I must admit. I always thought a reference had to be placed at the end of a sentence relating to it. I never knew that the same reference may be duplicated in several sentences of the same paragraph. That I have now implemented, and formatting the references in other areas too. Thank you for contacting me this way though, as it has help to ease some of the nerves away. Wesley☀Mouse 23:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry. I remember my first article nomination (even though i don't edit those kind of articles anymore, i am into music now), I was so freaking nervous :) but don't worry. I see that you want to resolve the issues as longer as possible, so that's what I appreciate. And yeah trust me, there are a lot of stuff to learn with GA's, FA's ... even I don't know all of them. Anyway, I was about to ask you what do you think about this year's Macedonian entrant Kaliopi. I really think she deserved more than 13 :/ (actually should be 12, but stupid EBU). — Tomica (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you; yes I do trust you that there is a lot to learn with GA's and FA's. I have been looking at the five remaining sections still to be reviewed ("Results"; "Scoreboard"; "Other countries"; "Other awards"; and "International broadcasting"). I'm assuming the results and scoreboards sections would not need much reviewing, as they are self-contained and with references. I've just done some minor wording improvements to the "other awards" section, based on the ideas you've mentioned for previous sections so far; and I am just about to do the same for the other sections still to be reviewed. As for the Macedonian entry this year; yes she was very good. I liked the song very much; and ranked it in my personal top-10... 1: Estonia, 2: Spain, 3: Sweden, 4: Serbia, 5: Azerbaijan, 6: Macedonia. Wesley☀Mouse 00:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

ESC 2013

Well I got some information for Switzerland in ESC 2013. Shall I create an article? Eurofan2005 (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Not yet no. I'd suggest submitting a request at the project's article request page, for consideration. It could be a case of creating an article too soon, and it could end up being deleted without probable cause (another words with a lack of information). Wesley☀Mouse 14:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I created. I thought that it wouldn't be a bad idea. Eurofan2005 (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Ahh!!! This is why so many editors get a little temperamental at the creation of new articles. People ask if one should be made, and instead of waiting for a reply back, they go ahead and make it anyway - which makes the question redundant. I'll add a redirect on the new article so that it doesn't get deleted. Wesley☀Mouse 14:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Already re-directed it. Not enough to stay as its own article at the moment. Totally agree with Wesley. — Tomica (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you (Благодарам) Tomica. Wesley☀Mouse 15:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hehe. No problem ;) ! — Tomica (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I added some information for the venue of the ESC 2013 which I found from here ;) Eurofan2005 (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Ahh nice one. Although, the article is already using the original source from Swedish newspaper redan förberedda på schlager-EM 2013 Expressen; who are mentioned in the Eurovisiontimes source that you've added. Wesley☀Mouse 15:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Inter Milan

Hi,

The article move appears to be incomplete Inter Milan - no content! Rgds, Leaky Caldron 18:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Give me chance, I'm still in the process. I got distracted by a phone call. Geeze lol. Wesley☀Mouse 18:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Wesley. I hope this doesn't come across as harsh, but I think you should probably refrain from closing RMs until you become more experienced in that area. Your close at Talk:Inter Milan left me concerned for a few reasons: you didn't correctly understand why you couldn't move the page (it had nothing to with the page being semi'd, it was because the page was move protected and because the redirect had a non-trivial history), and you just left the page for others to tidy up. If you close a RM as "move" an admin is not just going to come along and make the move for you, the steps here and here. Also, I understand that RM is often backlogged, but that is often due to lack of participation rather than lack of closers. Lastly, I do appreciate the effort and intentions, I just think you need more experience. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 06:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Its not come across as harsh. However, I do feel disheartened that my efforts to be seen as a helpful editor are being shunned and I'm virtually being told to refrain because I am "inexperienced". Nobody can really determine who is and isn't experienced. Some people are quick learners, some take time to learn. I read the RM procedures (Wikipedia:RMCI#Non-admin closure and Wikipedia:RMCI#Cleaning up after the move) thoroughly and completely understood them. I asked another admin user about the RM's, and he did state that I should do the easier ones (ones with clear consensus) to begin with. This action I did, and hadn't noticed the semi-protection on the article at the time, which is just a minor hiccup, nothing that deserves a post like the one above. Remember we are suppose to assume the good in people, and I personally feel that some of the choice of words above don't give that impression of assumption, but rather like a principle reprimanding a school kid. When I noticed the semi; I told the admin I had previously spoke to about it, and he said that he would take a look at it and sort it out; and then let me know. I can only assume that this hasn't been so, and it has left it to look like I am just leaving tasks unfinished. On that note, I would appreciate it if comments that are assuming I'm inexperienced be kept to oneself, as they can be hurtful to an editor and deters them from ever wanting to help out ever again. Wesley☀Mouse 10:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• If I gave the impression that I thought you weren't trying to be helpful, I really must apologise; it's clear you were trying to be helpful and had the best intentions. Also if I came off as if I was reprimanding a school kid, I would again say sorry; that is not the tone I was trying to convey. In regards to experience, I do understand that people can learn at different speeds, but I had a look at your talk space contribs and saw you had contributed to less than 10 RMs before you began closing them – I don't think it's incorrect to say you aren't very experienced at RM. This isn't a knock on you (I would say the large majority of editors, including admins, aren't) and it isn't to say you aren't experienced in other areas of Wikipedia. But your reply to me here doesn't really assuage my concerns, I'm afraid. You still seem to think that you couldn't move the article because it was semi-protected, even though I've just explained the actual reasons above. I really don't want to discourage you; you seem like a great editor and RM is in need of more regular contributors, I just think it would be better if you gained some more experience by participating in RMs before you started closing them. Jenks24 (talk) 10:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Came across this via User talk:Dennis_Brown. Although I'd agree with the comments about making sure you know the processes involved I wanted to say that I think the close itself was perfectly proper and quite reasonable for a non-admin close as the consensus was abundantly clear. RM is often backlogged and non-admins closure certainly help. I'd start out with the very obvious ones first (which I think this one was) until the regulars get to know you and respect that you know how to close as RMs and article titles have had some sticky problems in the past (such as the recent arbcom case). Dpmuk (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Dpmuk, it is so nice to see/meet new "faces" around here, makes me feel so welcomed indeed. I understand and wholeheartedly agree with your comments and suggestions in your post above. Like Dennis advised me, only start on the easier/obvious ones - which is what I did. I avoided any complexed ones as if they were the plague. This Inter Milan one I thought was simple, clear consensus etc. But then I could not find the move option, but had noticed the page was semi-protected; so assumed that the semi was the reason the move function was unavailable. Now I understand there is something called "move protection" too, which I need to look out for - although I don't recall seeing anything about move protection in this particular scenario, which has still baffled me as to why the move function was missing. IF it is still OK, I don't mind helping with some of the RM's, and assist with any backlogs if and when my assistance is required. Regards, Wesley☀Mouse 00:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - July 2012

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

• Op-ed: A call for editorial input in developing new Creative Commons licensing

• News and notes: "Mystical" Picture of the Year; run-up to Wikimania DC; RfA reform 2012

• In the news: Wales enters extradition battle; Wikipedia's political bias

• Recent research: Edit war patterns, deleters vs. the 1%, never used cleanup tags, authorship inequality, higher quality from central users, and mapping the wikimediasphere

• WikiProject report: Summer Sports Series: WikiProject Athletics

• Featured content: A good week for the Williams

• Arbitration report: Three open cases

• Technology report: Second Visual Editor prototype launches

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

hi soo i wanted to say thx and which u luck thx for all your hard work Wwecenarules (talk) 05:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you. Wesley☀Mouse 13:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)