Talk:For Life (Isis Gee song)

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• Poland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:Poland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008

Poland

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles

Eurovision

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Eurovision, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Eurovision-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EurovisionWikipedia:WikiProject EurovisionTemplate:WikiProject EurovisionEurovision articles

Songs

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 November 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

The critical response to the performance has been sourced now. If no response received in 1 day I will remove the boxes. Eurovisionman (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old Edits

Other entries about eurovision songs have information about the response by critics? Is there any reason this information was deleted? Please discuss here.

Polishchick99 (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just read what the bbc said, all true. Isgreatestman (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the info, until someone provides a valid reason why it shouldn't be there. Valid comment as she came last due to a bad performance. Polishchick99 (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BBC

Repeating the discussion Talk:Isis_Gee#Comments_by_BBC, just because someone says it doesn't mean it's worth adding. Part of WP:NPOV is giving undue weight to nonsense. Besides, that is a description of her, not the song so it would belong at Isis Gee not here anyway. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, it is about the eurovision entry. This is a competition and he is probably one of the most well known comentators for the competition. Her performance was very bad and it is a review of it. I call for it's inclusion and do not revert edits without contributing to discussion and gaining consensus. Isgreatestman (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

me agrees with ya Daveo212 (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

man...... critical review by an experienced eurovision commentator who will probably be the impetus to restructuring the whole voting system aint trivial...look at how his comments were taken seriously http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/27/russia http://music.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2282297,00.html Daveo212 (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion about Eurovision do not belong in this article. Insert it at Eurovision if you want. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've semiprotected the article to stop the sockpuppet army. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no response

As you understand, verifiability is important. As such, the media response to the manipulation if Youtube and wiki was sourced to a Polish magazine published by edipress.com. As a respected magazine with a large circulation in Poland this is considered to be a reliable source). The statements in question were proven in the article and cannot be considered to be rumours. The comments sourced as per reliable source by BBC host who is well respected as a commentator of eurovision who has been written up in UK newspapers over the past few days were written in a non-POV manner and provide more sources for her performance which came last. As Eurovision is a contest that Isis Gee tried to win her results ( place and critic of performance ) are not given undue weight. The article already went through WP:3O and User:Kevin Murray supported removal unless sourced. This was not completed as User:PrinceGloria and yourself have not responded to my points. In face, although User:Kevin Murray removed the false and unsourced Polish mnationality of Isis User:PrinceGloria and yourslef reverted versions that included a unsourced material and false statements about her position in the contest which violated WP:BLP.

I ask Ricky81682 to add to the WP:3O initiated by User:Kevin Murray and stop wasting admin time with entries such as this. Would some other admin like to get involved and settle this again?

Eurovisionman (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 3O was at Talk:Isis Gee. These are supposed to be separate articles. Shifting the comment from one to the other because people have commented there and not here is not the way to go. I still feel that a source that cannot be seen outside the UK that is a direct translation that no one else has commented on is not a reliable source. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

24th place

@Onceloose: Could you explain why Isis Gee should have finnished last. There were 25 countries in the run and she finnished 24, the Untited Kingdom did last. So she came second-last. Pink Evolution (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isis Gee came joint last. I see you were involved in some sort of dispute before please do not vandalize this page. Onceloose (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's me vandalising?xD See here. Greetings, --Pink Evolution (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten both Isis Gee and For Life (Isis Gee song) in a way that hopefully you two will be happy with. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! And I hope that Onceloose knows that this is a big step in his direction! Because I was right by facts, he was wrong. Pink Evolution (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

Protected per a complaint at WP:AN/3RR. Please ask for the protection to be lifted at WP:RFPP as soon as anyone can provide a complete reference on the question of how the song was rated in the Eurovision song contest. This was the question causing the dispute. For details see this link to the 3RR noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion thread moved here from User talk:EdJohnston

Please continue to present evidence here on the article's Talk page, not on my User talk. Nobody has joined this thread yet to support the 'tied last' argument, so I hope those editors will offer their reasoning too. If no agreement can be reached, an article WP:RFC might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Life (Isis Gee song)

Guten Abend EdJohnston,

you protected the page For Life (Isis Gee song). But your explanation is wrong. There was no source in the article because Onceloose deleted it. Here you can see just one place 24 (-> second-last), and that's poland. There is also just one 25th (-> last place) and just one 23rd place. This is the official website of the Eurovision Song Contest. However, you read the comments of onceloose and the edithistory you can see he always reverted with no helpful comments against me and an other user had try to find a compromise declaring the equal number of points onceloose didn't accept. I please you to revert to last version before onceloose. Greetings, --Pink Evolution (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page you cite above seems to show 'For Life' in 24th place. I don't see anythiing about 'tiebreak' there. Why not continue this discussion on the Talk page of the article? I will unprotect if it seems that the two sides are making a good faith effort to resolve the problem. Also I hope you will draft up some proposed new text for the article to explain the situation, as well as a new reference that is properly formatted. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you don't understand. If there are 25 participants, one got 25th place, the other 24th position, place 24 can't be the last in no way- also not in a joint! You could call the edit vandalism if you'd like to do. And does it make sense to talk about vandalism?, -- Pink Evolution (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for protecting the page. There was a source on this version here that I put in after I was asked by both users (strange isn't it) to help them. At Eurovision 2003 [1], there was a tie for 11th place and the scoreboard showed both countries with the same points and place (11th). At this years contest, the tie was broken, I don't know why, but it was, and the three teams with the same amount of points (14, tie for last) were split up into 23rd, 24th, and 25th [2] (its sortable). If it was an unbroken tie like Onceloose believes, then they would all show 23rd as their placing. Onceloose refuses to accept this even though it is on the official site. I added the reference in, but he simply removed it. I mean how does he explain this edit [3]? It seems that he may have a problem with the artist/song because the only way he will accept the wording is with the word "last". I mean who's version was more neutral [4]? (respond here) Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are more important things you can do to advance wikipedia as spent your whole time to discuss whether a country in one of 53 ESC's finnished joint last or second-last especially the rankings in this case seem to be disposal of the EBU (but we had to accept that!). It's just a pitty to see how vandals, pov-pushers and trolls (like onceloose how you could see in his comments) are able to vandalise articles though undoubtable sources were given and will be supported by administrators. --Pink Evolution (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Onceloose, unless you provide a source that says something other than 24th which is not last, then you have no case. You have the burden of proving your case. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that the edit made by GRK1011 here: [5] shows that the song finished 24th. Whatever method they used to break the points tie in the contest doesn't really matter. Even if it was alphabetical as Onceloose suggested in other talk pages, the official standings shown in GRK's properly cited link show the song at 24th. The referenced edit gives both perspectives as well: that the song was 3-way tied, and that the official results show it 24th of 25. I believe the current version to be inappropriate, as it has replaced a properly cited fact with one that has not been cited, nor supported by any other editor. As such I would request the Protecting admin to restore the cite-supported text. Arakunem^Talk 23:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting links, nicely summarized:

2008 Results showing a tie for points (not in dispute) with a definite ranking for all songs suggesting the tie was broken via undisclosed means: [6]

2003 results from the same contest, showing 2 songs tied in points for 11th place, and with their final standings showing they finished in a tie. [7] This indicates that when songs finish in a tie that is not broken, their standings clearly show they are tied.

As the 2008 results do not show such a tie in the final standings, I believe the cited fact removed by Onceloose to have been removed inappropriately per WP:V. Arakunem^Talk 00:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Text

I propose the following text for the Eurovision 2008 section:

"For Life" received 14 points, causing a three way tie, in the final of the Eurovision Song Contest 2008, only receiving votes from the United Kingdom and Ireland. When the final results were officially posted, Gee placed 24th in a field of 25.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.eurovision.tv/page/the-final-2008|title=Eurovision Song Contest 2008 Final|date=2008-05-24|publisher=''Eurovision.tv''|accessdate=2008-08-28}}</ref>

This removes the reference to the tiebreaker, as we really have no info about what was done or how it was done. The text I am proposing is fully supported by cite: There was a points tie, and the official results show the song placed 24th. If anyone has an alternate version, supportable by cite, which I don't see the current version being, please propose it below. (Use the blockquote tag for nice formatting :) ) Arakunem^Talk 00:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about this?

At the final of the Eurovision Song Contest 2008, "For Life" was awarded 14 points, causing a three way tie with Germany and the United Kingdom. When the final results were officially posted, Gee placed 24th in a field of 25, only receiving points from the United Kingdom and Ireland.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.eurovision.tv/page/the-final-2008|title=Eurovision Song Contest 2008 Final|date=2008-05-24|publisher=''Eurovision.tv''|accessdate=2008-08-28}}</ref>

Reworded sentences to introduce final before what it placed and to avoid an awkward comma situation. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please avoid referencing any "tie", and simply say "...the same amount as the songs representing Germany and the United Kingdom. The official Eurovision Song Contest website announced the For Life's final placing as 24th among 25." Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, new proposal with that in mind

At the final of the Eurovision Song Contest 2008, "For Life" was awarded 14 points, the same amount as the songs representing Germany and the United Kingdom. When the final results were officially posted, Gee placed 24th in a field of 25, only receiving points from the United Kingdom and Ireland.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.eurovision.tv/page/the-final-2008|title=Eurovision Song Contest 2008 Final|date=2008-05-24|publisher=''Eurovision.tv''|accessdate=2008-08-28}}</ref>

How about this? With "the website announced" I felt like we were being sceptical, I believe that it is obvious if you watch the final too. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was she announced as 24th on the TV show too? I am sorry, I do not really remember, I only remember I thought we did come joint last... Where did all the controversy come from, is there an official source providing Isis' result as last? PrinceGloria (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the points, the user who is causing the rewrite has no evidence. Every source we find says 24th. It actually seems like original research to say there was a tie since I haven't found that anywhere either. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the show were just always first three places announced, also in the end. But the scoreboard showed at first germany, then poland and even then the united kingdom although germany reached it's fourteen points after poland and the united kingdom, the united kingdom at first. This means they were ranked by positions! Pink Evolution (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So.... do we have an agreed upon paragraph here? (latest version bolded above)Arakunem^Talk 23:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so, also, the one editor who was making the big deal is almost definitely a sock of a user who was blocked months ago for the same type of thing on this article and has been reported. Besides that, I think everyone seems to agree on the bolded wording above. It should go on both Isis Gee and For Life (Isis Gee song). Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll leave this up a bit longer for any objections, then post the editprotected tempate here. The main Isis Gee article is not protected, so that edit can be made any time. Arakunem^Talk 13:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree

Every source says the place as the three entries that tied for last place are listed in aphabetical order.

NO PROOF has been put forward to say there was a tie break for last place. This is not even stated in the competition rules. Whereas all media sources say there was a tie for last place.

Until that this 'tie break' occured the last three entries tied for last place and were listed in alphabetical order at the end.

Please not that this whole issue was stared by a user who was involved in an edit war and blocked for vandalizing this page. Onceloose (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any actual sources? PrinceGloria (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look above, there was no longer a dispute and consensus was reached. There were no objections for several days so it was assumed that the problem had been settled. The wording says nothing about there being a tie breaker, just the announced placings. Also, like PrinceGloria said, you have failed to provide any proof of "all media sources" siding with you. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Onceloose: if you have sources that say that they are tied and listed alphabetically, please list them. That will help the discussion tremendously. The only sources I can find (as a disinterested party) say: Yes, they tied in points, but all 3 have definite finishing places, unlike previous years, where the final results clearly listed songs as being tied in both points and placement.

The editors on the talk page agreed to remove the reference to a tie-break, as nothing really shows what was done or how it was done. But the official site shows a song in #23, #24, and #25. It doesn't say how it placed them thus, whether it be alphabetical, or some other undisclosed means.

Therefore, the cited text in the article is supported by the official site. If there are other reliable sources (e.g. not blogspace) that show differently, then that information can be factored in. Arakunem^Talk 18:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why oh why is Checkuser taking so long? :( PrinceGloria (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted on suspected socks, but they seem to be taking their time. Was that the right place for it? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so. I will have to dig back to see how we handled it specifically with the last time we've had Polishchick on board, but IIRC there was a massive amount of admins involved, a lot of reporting wherever we could and still we had to wait for checkuser results for some days... :( I was told it's just how the procedure works - sloooooooooooooooooow. I explained it to myself that it is to prevent abuse of this feature. PrinceGloria (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I see that Marc only actually filed for "suspected sockpuppets" rather than RFCU, I will see if I can get down to generating RFCU, but I also think mobilizing the admins who helped with previous instances of this sockpuppetry act could help solve it. PrinceGloria (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to get him for disruptive editing or removing a sourced statement? Would that be quicker? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really, Marc is an admin and I believe he could just take care of that... I'd file for everything at once, Wikipedia is getting slowed down by bureaucracy so you need to fire on all fronts and be pretty nagging to get results. I will try to support you, I just need to finish sth. Do file everything you find appropriate, including WP:RFCU, and inform admins previously involved and those dealing with Eurovision stuff. Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note at WP:Suspected sock puppets/Onceloose about some further data that might allow an RFCU to be filed. Checkuser cases usually ask for some evidence of abuse to be submitted. Another idea for resolving the dispute here is to file an article RfC. Consulting the admins who previously worked on this article would also be worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<indent reset>Suffice it to say the user's entire edit history concerns edits to this and the Isis Gee article on this very issue, and discussing it over other pages. This is a single-purpose account, just like the previous accounts identified as Gary's sockpuppets. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks

Reading the above it seems that Prince Gloria is not acting in good faith and mounting a personal campaign of harassment. I am not a sockpuppet and am only calling for a source to explain why Isis Gee didn't come last? I think it is sad that a contributer must comply by the opinions of prince gloria or have to prove oneself to her in order to edit. It seems that while she is not able to provide a valid source explaining why isis gee didn't come last she is mounting a personal campaign against me. I think she doesn't have a source but is simply trying to buy time.

After I am proven to be a valid user I will ask for the above user to be blocked permanently for breached of wiki rules and harassment. Onceloose (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough, previously identified sockpuppets of Eurovisionman Isgreatestman were also for some reason convinced I am female (which I am not, in case anybody cared). Kind regards. PrinceGloria (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are still waiting for your source and an explanation why Isis Gee didn't come last. Onceloose (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Official Eurovision Song Contest Scoreboard, from the official eurovision.tv site. See column "Place". PrinceGloria (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And actually, we are still waiting for Onceloose's source that states she came in last. We have ours, which he seems to ignore. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Onceloose, thanks for coming back here to discuss. All we have to go on is what the official site says. That the 3 songs tied in points is clear. But the official site for 2008's contest, in the "Place" column, shows a single song in 23, 24, and 25th place. The official site says 24th. They did not say there was a tiebreaker, as you have pointed out, and the text saying there was has been removed from the article as part of the discussions here. The Eurovision 2008 template (at the bottom of the article) that all EV collaborators on Wikipedia have agreed upon, shows the song listed as 24th. The infobox for the song says 24th.

The official site for previous years, when songs have tied, shows them to have the same place in the "Place" field (2 songs finishing 11th in 2003 for example). That year, they did not rank them alphabetically, they both finished 11th. Doesn't that suggest that this year, for whatever reason, and by whatever undisclosed method, that they arrived at a definite finish rank for all songs?

The text that was discussed here doesn't speculate about what the judges did behind closed doors. It merely states: 3 songs tied for points, which is true, and that the official site says that the song placed 24th, which it absolutely does. The text can certainly be modified to point out that not only did the 3 songs tie, but they tied for last in points.

But the official site says the final place was 24th, so however it got there is not for anyone to speculate. Maybe it was alphabetical, maybe they applied the tiebreaker rules, maybe they went by some other criteria. Unless we know for sure, we can't put it in the article. All we can go on is the official results which say 24th. I invite your thoughts on my comments. Thanks! Arakunem^Talk 13:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty I have is that as far as I can see there was no tiebreak and as far as I can tell the countries were listed in alphabetical order.

Looking at the edit history it seems that there was a major POV issue with this article insinuating that Isis Gee is the best thing since sliced bread. Pink Evolution has been blocked for adding such material and being very aggressive and trying to control the edits on this page. Now she is harassing me with superfluous allegations of sock puppetry etc.

Having watched the coverage Isis Gee's, performance was very poor and she came last with regards to points. The wording from Pink Evolution ( who has a proven bias) makes it sound as if the performance and position was not as bad as it was. This is not a fansite but an encyclopedic entry and as far as I can see all the additions by Pink in the past months have been POV from a fan and she has bullied people that disagree with her/him.

I am happy to add the information IF and only IF you can prove that there was a tiebreak. If the points are the same she came last as it said in the newspapers. It should not be so difficult to find the rules that prove a tiebreak occured. Judging by the bullying I have received and the record of non-POV edits by Pink I am right to be suspicious. If it is true, the information should be easily found to prove a tiebreak.

Onceloose (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the fact that the song is listed on the EV site in 24th place? However it got there, do you agree that the site does say that? Because that's all the article was saying in the "other version". Do you have proof that the judges just listed the songs alphabetically? All any of us have is what the site says. Tied for last in points, but yet ranked 24th. Arakunem^Talk 17:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Onceloose seems to be the bully here. I was the one who accused him of sock puppetry and all he does is complain to others that Pink Evolution has been blocked. That is a personal attack on her character, stating that every edit she makes must be wrong. Stick to relevant topics please. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is all getting old. We've been there all before, and we're just going through the same old tactic adopted by previous sockpuppets of the same user (I mean the user, I sure hope sockpuppets do not have any split personalities between them). I am fed up with WikiBureaucracy, there are so many admins involved and somehow nobody can perform a simple checkuser - not to mention check the obvious burden of proof that the user indeed repeats the same, rather disruptive, routine. Actually, he or she even seems to sustain an argument started by his/her previous incarnations (accusing the article of positive POV). PrinceGloria (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]