User talk:CT Cooper/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

About an edit summary

Greetings Cooper, and welcome back. Is calling the (former) owner of Panathinaikos, Giannis Vardinogiannis, a "son of a b**ch" ("poutanas gios" in Greek) at this edit summary okay? Would it be possible to hide that summary? Cheers. – Kosm1fent 12:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:REVDEL we are not allowed to use revision deletion to remove what they call "ordinary" incivility and personal attacks - although the exact meaning of this is not clear. If it was just a random insult I would say no, but because it is directed at a living person, hence making it a liability for Wikipedia, and looks a little threatening, I have removed it. CT Cooper · talk 12:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I thought it went beyond ordinary incivility, that's why I reported it. Cheers. – Kosm1fent 12:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Panathinaikos revdel

Hi CT. I saw you revdeled a few edits. There is this one also which calls someone a crook in the edit summary (apatewna). Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the user has made a reappearance. I have deleted it and left a note. CT Cooper · talk 13:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:45, 25 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) 00:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC). If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list.

How weird it must be for you to see one of these appear on your talk page, after 2-years lol. I can relax now knowing the messengerbot worked. Wesley☀Mouse 00:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I've not previously used EdwardsBot, but it seems to work well. Good work! CT Cooper · talk 00:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for opinion

Hi. Since you recently made a WP:EL related edit on another article, I thought that maybe you could provide your opinion on Talk:Victor Schnirelmann. We have a dispute with regard to appropriateness of some external links, and a substantiated third party opinion would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Grandmaster 12:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to help but my previous encounters with Meowy (talk · contribs) probably means he won't consider myself to be in a position to give a neutral third opinion, and so with apologies, I must decline. I'm sure there are other editors who would be happy to help out, and if talk page discussion doesn't work out, then I would look at leaving a message for directions/extra help on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. CT Cooper · talk 15:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I posted a message on WP:ELN, but it did not generate much response. I understand why you prefer to refrain from commenting, I completely forgot about your previous interactions with that user. Sorry for disturbing, and thanks for taking time to respond. Regards, Grandmaster 17:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Not to worry, you're welcome to drop-by :) CT Cooper · talk 19:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

ESC 2012

Hello Christopher. I hope you are doing well these days. I want you to ask you why Macedonia is not labeled as 12th on the ESC since it got same points as Romania. Aren't countries with same points ranged by their alphabetical order or maybe that's from official ESC site or maybe other rules by EBU. Thanks — Tomica (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Tomica. The score and place given matches that by the EBU on their website - see here. In order to prevent ties occurring the rules specify that if two or more countries tie in points then the country that gets the most sets of 12 gets the higher position. However, strangely the 12 points table says that Macedonia got two sets of twelve points while Romania got just one set, so the former should have the higher place. I'm not sure what is going on there. CT Cooper · talk 13:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, Macedonia got 2x12 points from Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, while Romania only 1x12. A user told me that the ranging is like that because for Romania voted 14 countries and for Macedonia 12 countries, however, tbh I find this rule awkward. Like, shouldn't in that condition be reversed, I mean Macedonia got 71 points with only 12 countries voting, while Romania got the same amount of points with 14 countries (12 MK, 13 ROM). I don't understand the f EBU rules. — Tomica (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I have left a note on the ESC 2012 talk page about this, to find out what is going on. CT Cooper · talk 13:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Other people are confused as well, but probably we will hear opinions soon :). — Tomica (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Trivial sections being re-added

Trivial sections on winners of OGAE and Marcel Benzcon (or however you spell the name) awards keep being re-added to ESC 2012, despite the fact you have removed them several times previously based on the fact they are not permitted per WP:TRIVIA. I explained to the user who re-added them again, that they may appear on other year's articles at the moment, but they have been purposely left there, so that project members all have some sort of clean-up work to do while we are in transition period between 2012/2013 seasons. I think I shall add something regarding these types of sections to the newsletter, and have removed the OGAE/Marcel content from all articles they appear in so far, tagging them as WP:TRIVIA. Wesley☀Mouse 11:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I have left some further pointers on Bleubeatle's talk page. The sections are trivial, but I don't think WP:TRIVIA actually applies here. WP:TRIVIA is for article sections actually titled "Trivia" or "Other information" which usually contains extra information about the topic in bullet points, where it should be removed or integrated into the article. That isn't the issue here, instead it is just that the ESC articles can't contain all the information known on a contest, so more trivial information should not be included at all. CT Cooper · talk 12:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Well BigHaz (talk · contribs) has just reverted your actions on Eurovision 2010 - 2012 articles; with a very sarcastically worded edit summary too. I left a polite note on their talk page; but got an even more sarcastically worded reply back, both in their edit summary and talk page response. I'd revert things back again, but after what happened last time; I'm being wise to avoid such action. Wesley☀Mouse 12:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is best to leave it for now. On policy, I do find the contempt shown towards core policy pretty troubling here, particularly when it comes from established editors. Pretty much the first rule on Wikipedia is if you add or restore material other than "Paris is in France" content, you should cite it. If individuals insist on having it in there, so be it for now, but they have take responsibility in properly sourcing what they add. CT Cooper · talk 14:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I may have just had one of those "light bulb over the head" moments. You mentioned on the project talk page about getting RfC involved, which I agree wholeheartedly, that it has come to the stage of getting some decorum back in place across all articles. Once we know the outcome from RfC, and their suggestions of layout; would it not be a good idea to create a mock-up article based on their suggestions, and have it like stored somewhere on the project page. That way others have something to refer to as a guidance tool. And on that subject, perhaps creating a list of reliable sources that may be used to cite references could be placed somewhere on the project, again as a "quick reference guide" - as we seem to get the same questions over what should and shouldn't be used; year after year after year. Wesley☀Mouse 15:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good idea. I will get the RfC started now to get the ball rolling. CT Cooper · talk 19:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've created the RfC. I usually wait a little bit before stating my opinions to ensure safe separation of my role as the RfC creator and that of a participant with my own opinions. CT Cooper · talk 20:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm just having a read of it now, looks very good. When a layout guide is finally agreed for Eurovision by year articles, then I'm assuming the same style would be implements to JESC by year articles too, as they are identical with exception to the Junior word. Wesley☀Mouse 20:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I presume so. CT Cooper · talk 20:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I've just added my 2 pence worth to the RfC. This could be an interesting thing to happen to the project, but something that is well overdue to get people to finally cooperate and singing off the same hymn sheet. Wesley☀Mouse 21:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Complete voting history

Hi Cooper, I've noticed a lot of the Country in ESC articles have been getting en-mass inclusions of complete voting history (such as this). I've done a quick sweep and removed ones that I found, but I fear (after the 24-hour of hell last time) that people may start to get picky and report me again, even though I am removing obvious trivia and nonsense. Any suggestions? Wesley☀Mouse 18:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It is easy to get into an edit war with unregistered users as they don't tend to communicate. It would be easier to justify reverting that user if there was a clear consensus on the matter. I have raised concerns about WP:NOR in this area, and I have attracted some limited agreement. Since this is clearly a matter which needs urgent attention, perhaps a fresh thread at WT:ESC would be a good idea. CT Cooper · talk 20:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I may just refrain from opening a new thread at WT:ESC for the time-being; especially when there will be an RFC covering these type of articles in due course, at which stage this can then be raised. I've also done a sweep and removed section headers that were wikilinked with Marcel, and added a "further information" hatnote to each of those sections as an alternative method. Fingers-crossed people will adopt that idea on future articles. Wesley☀Mouse 20:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You probably do have a point there - I deliberately narrowed the RfC to ESC by year only for now so we do not get overloaded. There is already a thread on this at WT:ESC but no clear consensus has been reached. Perhaps that will do for now, unless the issue gets out-of-hand. CT Cooper · talk 23:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding my grammar and wording errors on my ESC edits.

Sorry to bother, but before I go around replacing my errors, does this seem and look good to you?

• XX on the Semi Finals denotes auto-qualification. This could be due to two reasons. One being - if a country had won the previous year, they did not have to compete in the Semi Finals. The other being - back in the 2005-2007 era, countries who were not part of the Big Four and placed inside the top ten did not have to compete in the Semi Finals the following year. The top ten countries outside the Big Four along with the Big Four countries were automatically qualified. If, for example, Germany and France placed inside the top ten, the 11th and 12th spots (presuming they were not part of the big four) were advanced to the following year's Grand Final along with everyone within the top ten.
• XX on the Finals denotes an unsuccessful attempt at qualifying to the final.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathairawr (talk • contribs)

The first issue is that some of that information isn't applicable to all pages, and shouldn't be there when it isn't. On the grammar, only proper nouns should be capitalized and "semi-final" and "final" are the usual forms on Wikipedia articles. Also, it could flow a little better in places. CT Cooper · talk 21:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I believe I have made it flow better, and removed capital letters where appropriate. I will also look at the tables on their pages to see which of them is applicable. How about this?

• XX on the semi-finals denotes auto-qualification. This could be the result of one of the following two reasons; if a country had won the previous year, they did not have to compete in the semi-finals the following year. The other reason being that back in 2005-2007, the top ten countries who were not members of the big four did not have to compete in the semi finals the following year. If, for example, Germany and France placed inside the top ten with Spain and the United Kingdom finishing after 15th place, the countries who placed 11th and 12th were advanced to the following year's grand final along with the rest of the top ten countries.
• XX on the finals denotes an unsuccessful attempt at qualifying to the final.

Cathairawr✝ 16:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is better now. Good work! CT Cooper · talk 17:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I've just had another brainwave idea regarding these, that may be a huge improvement overall. Instead of using XX and two different meanings (which may confuse the average Joe); why not have:

• AQ denotes auto-qualification. This could be the result of one of the following two reasons; if a country had won the previous year, they did not have to compete in the semi-finals the following year. The other reason being that back in 2005-2007, the top ten countries who were not members of the big four did not have to compete in the semi finals the following year. If, for example, Germany and France placed inside the top ten with Spain and the United Kingdom finishing after 15th place, the countries who placed 11th and 12th were advanced to the following year's grand final along with the rest of the top ten countries.
• DNQ denotes an unsuccessful attempt at qualifying to the final.

Good improvement!? Wesley☀Mouse 02:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does make it easier to understand. Good thinking Wes. CT Cooper · talk 13:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, great improvement! I will be happy to help in replacing the others by these ones. Cathairawr✝ 13:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Project newsletter resurrection

Cooper, I left a reply at Talk:ESC2012 about the resurrecting of the project newsletter. I really don't mind getting my teeth into operating that on a solo-basis, with prior training if necessary - helps me focus on something and take my mind off other stuff; plus keeps me out of mischief too. Anyhow, I've had an attempt at making a prototype of the newsletter which can be seen here. Let me know what you think, and if you feel there could be new features or minor tweaks needed. Cheers. P.S. hope the exams ran smoothly for you. Wesley☀Mouse 00:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

My exam went very well thanks. I've looked at the newsletter, and I think its good - I think keeping it simple and easy to write every other month or so would be a good idea. I can see there is more to be added, but I think part of the problem with the older version is that we put too much in them. CT Cooper · talk 12:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah so glad the exams went OK for you - I was thinking about it all morning. As for the newsletter, I agree that it needs to be as simple as possible; easy to read layout; and avoiding gimmicky stuff. What I'm thinking of doing (if its possible) is having a talk page area specifically for the newsletter, where members can then request anything they wish to be included the subsequent editions - a bit like a newsdesk. How would I go about doing that? Wesley☀Mouse 13:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The section at Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/Newsletters#Suggestions took that function, although few people ever used it, even though it was linked from every newsletter sent out. In any case, I'm happy to revive it. CT Cooper · talk 13:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

A-haaaa fandabbydosey (spell checker has recommended that fandabbydosey should be spelt "understandability" - huh?). Right I'm looking at the link you've just provided - I think I have a cunning way to get members to start using that more often - leave it with me. Anyhow, I'll start to update the page and add my name to the list of coordinators; and get cracking on the new edition ready for 1 June release. What I'll try and do is get the newsletters sent out on the 1st of every month (setting a deadline for next issues on the 25th of every month - gives me ample time to write up the newsletter then). As its already the 25th today, I'll do the revival issue brief going off-the-cuff with information so far; and include info about ESC 2013 once we know the winner on Saturday. I'm guessing I use messenger bot to post newsletters out to members? Wesley☀Mouse 13:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's a draft version of the June 2012 edition of the project newsletter. Once the contest final has finished tomorrow night, I shall finish off the editorial, and prepare it ready for distribution. Wesley☀Mouse 16:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the bot messanger should work okay. One of us can ask for a log-in to bypass the approval process if this is going to be a regular thing. On the newsletter, good work, it seems to be coming together. CT Cooper · talk 19:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, a log-in to bypass approval sounds like an excellent idea - how do we go about getting that done? And thanks for the praise on the newsletter - my aim is to keep on top of this, and keep it running for a long time. This gives me something to focus on, and like anything that I take pride in, I look after it and continue to work hard on it to a high standard. I'm even thinking of initiatives to encourage current project members to recruit new members. Will keep you informed on that in due course. Wesley☀Mouse 23:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Update - I've done a few more tweaks to the newsletter, and think that I've now mixed together a good combination of items which may make the newsletter interesting to readers; and hopefully they'd look forward to reading future editions. One section that I'm thinking of is "an interview with..." section, where we'd randomly select a member of the project and give them a chance to introduce themselves to other members of the project. The aim of this is to add a sense of community spirit, bringing people closer together as a team. Not sure if it is permitted with Wiki rules - but I'm willing to put my neck on the guillotine, and test it out. Wesley☀Mouse 08:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm back again! Thank you for being so patient and understanding Cooper, much appreciated. I am a little concerned at a comment posted at ESC2012 talk page though which is obviously a comment jibbing at myself. But c'est la vie, nothing can be done I guess. Now time to get this newsletter finished off - 24 hours behind schedule :( Wesley☀Mouse 19:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Final draft of the June 2012 newsletter is ready for inspection. When you get a spare moment, could you be so kind as to proof-read it for me, and correct any errors that you spot. Thanks Wesley☀Mouse 20:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, if any more conspiracy theories are levied on the talk page by anyone, I will make clear that misrepresenting the opinions of other editors, or assuming they have ulterior motives, is a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF (which are policy) respectively. In response to this, it is rather mute now, but users can only edit their user talk page when blocked, to allow for block appeals. As for your second question, there was, in the form of StatusBot (talk · contribs) and several successor bots a long time ago, but they were shutdown for making too many edits. A status option built in to the MediaWiki software has been made and can be found here, although a large minority in the community are fearful (excessively, in my view) of Wikipedia becoming like Facebook, which makes deployment here far from certain.

On the newsletter, I will try and give it a read through tommorow at some point. CT Cooper · talk 21:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, I have had too many distractions and had forgotten about it. Will try again tomorrow. CT Cooper · talk 00:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I've just been granted access to EdwardsBot for the purpose of issuing the newsletter en-mass. This newsletter revival is definitely becoming reality now. Wesley☀Mouse 16:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. On another point, even with the news on the RfC getting a prominent place, I'm sure some editors won't bother to read it so a separate note at a later date might be appropriate. CT Cooper · talk 20:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

That could be an even better idea actually; notify everyone twice about the RfC (newsletter and separate message). That way people can't say they didn't know about it, as they will have been told twice. Wesley☀Mouse 21:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC) - EDIT: if everything is in order with the newsletter, am I safe to instruct the bot to send it out? Wesley☀Mouse 22:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would think it was safe now that everything is in order. CT Cooper · talk 23:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Cooper, I'm wondering if now is the ideal time to send out a reminder to everyone about the RFC that's still in progress. It does seem that discussion went well at first when the notification went out in the newsletter, but now its gone all quiet again. I don't mind getting EdwardsBots to issue it out, or if you prefer MessageDeliveryBot. Wesley☀Mouse 15:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, within the next few days it might be a good idea. I don't mind which bot is used. CT Cooper · talk 15:34, 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) 14:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, CT Cooper. You have new messages at Zymurgy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time.

Hello, CT Cooper. You have new messages at Zymurgy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time.

Time stamping for archive. 23:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Eurovision RFC

Hi Cooper, I've had another good read at the latest suggestions on the project's RFC thread. In looking at those ideas, I have a mock-up article via this sandbox of mine (using 2012 as an example) to see how it would look. Would love an opinion from yourself when you get a moment. IMHO the mock-up looks like its now gaining weight to a GA-standard(ish). Wesley☀Mouse 21:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. I do quite like that version, although there may still be potential for further improvements as the RfC progresses. CT Cooper · talk 13:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course, I agree about the potential for further improvements. I know its only in my sandbox, but as more and more ideas are put forward, then the sandbox can evolve to show the ideas. Perhaps I should place that sandbox link to the RFC, and then people may play around with it and test ideas for layout? Wesley☀Mouse 13:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, feel free to advertise it. CT Cooper · talk 14:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

A bit off tangent here, but I've just been viewing the page layout at WP:OLY and WT:OLY, and I must say they are pretty impressive and easy navigable too; especially their talk page which also has cool boxed headers for, "Alerts; Assessment; Manual of Style; and Peer review". I'm wondering if something similar would work on WP:ESC, or is it a big task to try an implement? Wesley☀Mouse 20:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

We already have alerts and an assessment department, although the latter isn't used very much. We could have our own manual of style on Eurovision article writing style e.t.c. although it would take time to develop. I think our project is too small to have our own peer review page, and requests for assessment in the assessment department can potentially fulfil the function of providing feedback on article quality. CT Cooper · talk 22:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah fair enough, I didn't know we had most of those pages already. Although once these RFC's have completed, the manual of style one would come in handy; as a storage area for placing the mock-up article templates, which we had previously discussed about. Wesley☀Mouse 23:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I've just done a skeleton version of the ESC by year article via my sandbox; done a bit of shuffling around with the sections, grouping them into relevance for easy flow of reading. I'd appreciate your valued opinion on this, before I advertise it to the project via the RFC section. Thanks, Wesley☀Mouse 18:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a good template to me. The only thing I would say is that there is no clear place for the incident/controversy stuff to go, although it might be best to leave that out for the moment as consensus on having its own section vs. having it elsewhere seems to still need ironing out. CT Cooper · talk 22:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I totally forgot about the incidents section. Anyhow, I've now included that section, and also created a template version for JESC too, but naturally a slimline version. ESC by year template and JESC by year template. I'll add those to the RFC for people to have a look at, and cast opinions. If everyone is happy, then I'm guessing the RFC will be one of the quickest to date. Wesley☀Mouse 00:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I've left another suggestion on the RfC in regards to commentators. Do we really need to list commentators on articles? For one, the list on all 57 articles are incomplete, as it is known the contest is broadcaster across the globe. And not only that, would residents of Slovenia (for example) even know or want to know about a commentator from New Zealand, Ireland, etc. And, trying to source a list of commentators isn't an easy task, so a full removal would take a lot of source finding burden off the project. Wesley☀Mouse 12:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I will have a think about it and then leave a comment on the subject at the RfC. CT Cooper · talk 13:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

SPI inverstigations

Is is normal for an SPI investigation (let's say this one) to spend 3 days without a clue of someone seeing it? Just saying it might have been a busy weekend for all 16 SPI clerks so that none of them could spend a grand total of 100 seconds for a visit and a comment. Thank you and cheers. – Kosm1fent 17:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

No it shouldn't be as far as I'm aware. If no one has responded by tomorrow morning, I will leave a comment. CT Cooper · talk 23:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Have I ever told you how awesome you are? Thanks a million. – Kosm1fent 14:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

(cough cough, Mr Kosmo) 'Twas I who suggested seeking advice from Sooper-Cooper (I think that should be your new nickname Coop), may I be awesome too? LOL Wesley☀Mouse 14:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for warm messages. If there are any more socks, then it may be quicker just to let me know about them, and I will take appropriate action. I haven't been called Sooper-Cooper on Wikipedia before now, but I have no objections to being called that! CT Cooper · talk 15:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course you may, Wesley. :P Cooper, your proposal sounds marvelous. At least the most obvious socks will be passed directly to you. :) Thanks! – Kosm1fent 15:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Eurovision AFD's

Just to inform you that Bleubeatle (talk · contribs) has nominated Ell & Nikki for deletion, with the reasoning that they are solo artists and not a duo act, and there is a discussion going on about it. Wesley☀Mouse 14:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. CT Cooper · talk 19:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Have also made a comment on the talk page concerning the barnstar situation. Which in my opinion seems like an overreaction from Bleubeatle. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. CT Cooper · talk 23:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The user continues in the same way as before. Blaming everyone else. Im over it. He can take it to the dispute resolution board if he feels like it. But his behaviour is out of line. Hope you agree with me on this?.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the main problem here is communication. He doesn't understand what we are saying, and we don't understand what he is saying. I'm trying to help him understood policy and how things work, and I hope I'm not fighting a loosing battle. CT Cooper · talk 10:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The main problem seem to be that the user is failing to understand the guidelines and community rules overall. Anyhow I am not going to be involved in discussions with that user anymore. It's like talking to a brick wall unfortunatly. Good luck!--BabbaQ (talk) 11:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that that seems to be the cause of the problems here. His recent statement at WT:EURO has been interpreted by me to mean he is going to drop this attempt to make us all admit our apparent wrongdoing, so hopefully things will be calmer now. CT Cooper · talk 11:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunatly with his latest comment to Wesley, it seems the user will continue without wanting any kind of ending or resolution. Threats as I see it is usually not made to bring ending to a dispute. --BabbaQ (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

He seems to want it to end, but on his terms only. I have read the comment he left on Wesley's talk page, and the violation of WP:CIVIL is noted, but I have already decided to ignore it - I will leave it to Wesley to deal with, as it is on his talk page. CT Cooper · talk 11:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I will not respond any further either. Only acknowledge to the user that his behaviour isnt helping him. Anyhow this discussion, started by the user concerns you.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

User:GrandTorino7

Hi there COOPER, VASCO here,

thanks for your assistance in this matter (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GrandTorino7), but we will NEVER WIN unless the other person wants to (he does not!). In the previous accounts, the "user" talked little, but still did, now it's "screw you all come and get me".

And he's living up to the promise he made one month ago or so (of creating account after account after account). After six years in WP, i realize that there is NO DIFFERENCE between a block or a ban, so why care? Believe me, if i was an admin (thank god i'm not most people would say, me included sometimes!) things would be much worse for these "users" (but worse for WP in general i must admit).

Attentively, have a good week and keep it up - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliments. The final resort in stopping this socking spree would be to mass semi-protect problem articles, making it more difficult for him to create socks to edit such pages. CT Cooper · talk 15:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the user is editing a variety of articles, with the absolute majority of them being broadly related to Greek football, so semi-blocking will certainly not be effective. The only effective way I see when dealing with persistent socks is block them after the first quacking signs so they know that block evasion will be shiftly discovered and dealt with. SPI reports unanswered for 3 days don't help... Cheers and thanks again. – Kosm1fent 15:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, be on the look out! CT Cooper · talk 16:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Found this one for your eyes only (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/46.198.110.136), cheers! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked, thanks. CT Cooper · talk 12:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Here's a cupcake to show regret for my absolutely dreadful behaviour two days ago and my thanks to you for swiftly blocking another sock of Antony1821. Keep up the good work! – Kosm1fent 13:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the cupcake, it tasted very nice. On review, I wish to apologize for being a little too heavy handed in my response. I should have guessed something was getting you down. Are you okay now? I can delete that part of the discussion if you like. CT Cooper · talk 13:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, I'm feeling much better (it was GrandTorino7 + extreme heat + exams which raised my wikistress level to "high" – still I should have reacted more appropriately). Again, I'm so sorry and please delete those horrid comments of mine (I'm too ashamed to even read them now...) Thanks and cheers! – Kosm1fent 13:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Well you won't have to now (unless you dive into the page history), as I have removed them. I hope your exams have gone okay, and all the best. CT Cooper · talk 13:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

My exams have not even started yet. :P But I feel more relaxed already. – Kosm1fent 13:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I had my exams recently, and I understand they can be very stressful. Don't worry too much about Antony1821; other users are dealing with it and I have blocked the entire IP range he appears to be using for 31 hours, which should slow him down for a bit. Best of luck! CT Cooper · talk 14:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for everything! – Kosm1fent 14:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, CT Cooper. Please check your e-mail – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the e-mail is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Time stamping for archiving purposes. 15:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Maintenance tagging

G'evening Mr C,

A quick note (hopefully) to inform you that whilst doing my usual rounds checking ESC articles, I noticed Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest had no sources whatsoever, and not only that, it also had an artist (Inna) added as 2013 participant, as well as a long section on the year by year history of their participation. Anyhow, to cut a long story short, I've used the EBU history pages to add sources; but in doing that I found Romania's 1993 and 1996 article also has dead or no sources. So with stumbling upon that, I am assigning myself a task of checking each and every 4500+ articles and going to add maintenance tags. Then I can put something in the next newsletter, to instruct project members to work as a team and find sources for them all. I'm a slave-driver I know, but how else are they suppose to work as a collaboration if they don't get the odd prod in the right direction from time to time. Wesley☀Mouse 22:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of Eurovision articles are in a poor state of repair, as I noticed when I was doing some re-assessments the other day, and many hands will make light work. CT Cooper · talk 10:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

OMG! Did you know that the "history" and "rules" sections on the ESC 1956 article are completely copied word for word from the EBU website. I only noticed this while testing to see what the earlier articles would look like using the proposed layout style from the RfC. How has that never been noticed before? Anyhow, I'm going to do an entire re-write, thicken up the article a bit more (as the proposed layout seems to do this too), and then rectify the article accordingly. Do you think I should rollout the layout style across the older articles (50s, 60s, 70s, and probably 80s), and see if other articles have potential copyvio text issues? Wesley☀Mouse 17:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Poke - just re-highlighting this message, in case it got lost in all the other messages that got posted afterwards. Wesley☀Mouse 19:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Goodness, that is rather alarming. I have looked out for copyvios on the Eurovision articles from recent years and have managed to neutralize some and warn the editors responsible. Any improvements in layout to the earlier Eurovision articles is welcome, as many of them are in poor state, and there could well be more copyvios out there. Good work spotting these copyvios in any case. CT Cooper · talk 19:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

OK I'm on it. Will keep me busy and out of mischief for a few days/weeks/months at least. Wesley☀Mouse 20:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done - ESC 1956 completely fixed and rewritten. What do you think? Huge improvement? Wesley☀Mouse 20:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I like it on the whole, a great improvement. I have to say I didn't know that they never fully disclosed the results for the first contest. CT Cooper · talk 21:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done - ESC 1957, ESC 1958, and ESC 1959 too. At first I wasn't too sure about including a location map for the host city along with a brief info-paragraph about the city on these articles, but now that '56; '57; and '58 have been done, it does look good. Adds a bit of weight to the article, and also adds insight into the host city (using text from the article relating to that particular city). Gives the general viewer the option to find out more on the host city, if they so choose. - I'm wondering if those articles need to be reassessed, as they are start-class, but with the added weight to them now, would they not be ready for a C-class? Wesley☀Mouse 23:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the number of columns in the refs sections is excessive for the number of references, and should probably be reduced for now. On the brief introductions to the city, they are better than nothing, but should probably flow more towards the contest itself rather than giving a general description of the area. Yes, I would support raising the article's from Start-class to C-class. CT Cooper · talk 04:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed the reflist columns, and the location paragraphs. I've now included details on the host city, and then flow it into details on the host venue itself - which ties them together nicely. Also found a reliable website that has the entire list of conductors for the years when ESC had them. Some articles already list conductors, while some don't. This website will be able to bridge that gap, and keep things consistent. Overall, 1956 - 1962 articles have been tidied up, and they look a lot more encyclopaedic in content value, with each of the having a standardised layout look, making it easier to find section, regardless of the year. I must admit, I'm enjoying this work, and learning things about historical ESC in the process. Thank you for having faith in me on this part of the project. Wesley☀Mouse 18:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome Wes, keep-up the good work. CT Cooper · talk 18:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Now, here is what I call a major improvement to any Eurovision article so far. ESC 1965 (before) and ESC 1965 (currently).  :-D Wesley☀Mouse 18:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I concur! CT Cooper · talk 18:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I've just rolled out the new layout onto the 2012 article. It looks that good now, that I'm tempted to seek GA-class for it. What do you think, should I or shouldn't I? Wesley☀Mouse 14:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It's look good, but you will be amazed what GA reviewers will find wrong with an article. Certainly the references will need a full sweep before a nomination, but even a GA nomination fails you can still get valuable feedback. CT Cooper · talk 21:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Incident

Would it be possible to take a look at 1 and 2 please. I'm pretty much certain that WP:BRD hasn't been followed, plus a possibility of breaching 1RR on articles relating to Azerbaijan. Thank you, Wesley☀Mouse 02:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Meowy (talk · contribs) is under a one revert per week restriction on all articles per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 and this, and this is pretty clear violation of these restrictions. Combined with the uncivil conduct towards you, which is also prohibited per the restrictions, I would suggest filing a report at WP:ARE. CT Cooper · talk 04:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Questions about Wikipedia & SuggestBot

Hi, we’ve been running a research experiment with SuggestBot and would like to ask you some questions about Wikipedia and SuggestBot. You can find more information and the questions on this page. It should take less than ten minutes to respond. We would greatly appreciate if you had the time to participate! Regards, Nettrom (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I've answered. CT Cooper · talk 08:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Corrections

Hi, I made again some articles in English. Can you please correct them?

• SK Aaigem
• KRC Bambrugge
• KFC Olympic Burst
• FC Mere
• FC Edixvelde
• FC Oranja Erpe
• KVC Erpe Erondegem
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KFC_Olympia_Erondegem&redirect=no
• Template:Football clubs in Erpe-Mere

thanks Klodde (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I will get myself a drink and look at them now. CT Cooper · talk 01:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Would you like a helping hand Cooper, I'm struggling to sleep, so I don't mind. Wesley☀Mouse 01:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay feel free. CT Cooper · talk 01:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I'm looking at the template one, and I think it can be modified into a similar style as Template:Premier League, as all the clubs in the Belgian template are in the Belgian Provincial leagues, so that gives me something to work off. Wesley☀Mouse 01:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look at SK Aaigem, took my time on it, and did some re-structural work on the paragraphs, to make it look more grammatically correct. Only thing is it has just one source, so I've put a maintenance tag as a reminder, and hopefully encourage other editors to contribute sources to it too. Wesley☀Mouse 02:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Good work Wes with the project tagging and copy editing; I have finished copy editing all the other articles listed as well. I am also concerned about sourcing, and fear that someone will come along sooner or later and nominate these articles for deletion. Local football clubs ought to be notable in my opinion, but while villages, towns e.t.c. tend to get a free pass, there is a lot of controversy on the English Wikipedia about the inclusion of articles about local organizations (schools, restaurants, football clubs e.t.c.). Please ensure the articles pass Wikipedia:Notability, then they should be fine. CT Cooper · talk 02:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll do some digging into sources for them, I'm sure good'ol google should produce something that'll add V and N to them. I've also added the articles to my watchlist, just in case some meanie PRODs them. The next 24-hours I should have those articles reffed up to the rafters. Wesley☀Mouse 03:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Good thinking. CT Cooper · talk 04:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I've hit a brick wall in finding sources for all these articles. Google search for the first 4 on that list only produce links to the official websites (all in Dutch) and a handful of links to YouTube for some reason. The three that follow on from that list are clubs that have now closed, and no results come up whatsoever, not even websites for them. I think that those articles are going to have a short lifespan if nothing else can be found. Do you think we should notify the creator of the articles, and see if he can find reliable sources to include in the articles? Wesley☀Mouse 15:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I ringed to the Royal Belgian Football Association myself, there they gave me the dates of foundation of the 7 clubs, I don't know how you can put it in the article.

• http://www.kvc-eendracht-nieuwerkerken.be/IMAGES/Algemeen/PDF/de%20eendrachter.pdf (A pdf page of the football team KVC Eendracht Nieuwerkerken that describes FC Edixvelde

• http://www.fcmere.be/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=223&Itemid=197 Description of the current football grounds of FC Mere you see also the grounds of FC Edixvelde FC Oranja Erpe and KVC Erpe Erondegem

• http://www.bloggen.be/erperondegem/archief.php?ID=255924 Description of the former mergers between FC Oranja Erpe and KFC Olympia Erondegem, Description of the absorbation of KVC Erpe Erondegem in FC Mere (one bourd member left)

• http://www.nieuwsblad.be/article/detail.aspx?articleid=BP28713C another article about: Description of the former mergers between FC Oranja Erpe and KFC Olympia Erondegem, Description of the absorbation of KVC Erpe Erondegem in FC Mere (one bourd member left)

• http://www.voetbalkrant.com/nl/nieuws/lees/2008-10-18/krijgt-erpe-mere-1-grote-fusieclub Description former mergers between FC Oranja Erpe and KFC Olympia Erondegem, older article so they are talking about merging KVC Erpe Erondegem, FC Mere, KRC Bambrugge, SK Aaigem, KFC Olympic Burst

• http://www.webnieuwserpemerelede.be/index.php/201107317295/Erpe-Mere/Weinig-enthousiasme-voor-fusieplannen-voetbalclubs.html 31 july 2011, an article about merging FC Mere, KRC Bambrugge, SK Aaigem, KFC Olympic Burst, but they mark they disagree in that article, in the article that is already sourced december 2011 they agree to merge in 2015

• http://www.webnieuwserpemerelede.be/index.php/200905033010/Erpe-Mere/Akkoord-voor-fusie-tot-een-voetbalploeg.html 3 may 2009 they announce that KVC Erpe Erondegem is absorbated by FC Mere and that there are future plans for merging FC Mere, KRC Bambrugge, SK Aaigem and KFC Olympic Burst, they describe again that FC Oranja Erpe and KFC Olympia Erondegem merged already before in KVC Erpe Erondegem

sorry if there are mistakes in my Englisg but I tried to describe what is in the articles, now you can see what you want to add.

thanks for helping Klodde (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No worries about the English, Klodde. You do very well to make yourself understood, which is a good thing. I'm assuming these clubs all have club badges (logos)? Only reason I ask that, is because articles on English Football Clubs all have their logos appear in the infoboxes too. This would be something to look into, once we can find more sources to add to the articles. The other concern is you mentioned you telephoned the clubs yourself for information. That would be original research, and go against no original research guidelines. If other editors knew the articles where written purely on original research, then they would just get deleted as quickly as they were created - and I would hate to see all the hard work you've put into these to vanish in an instant. Wesley☀Mouse 15:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The Royal Belgian Football Association is the most reliable source you have!!! The lady on the phone looked in the club information on there PC and also in an old book of The Royal Belgian Football Association, maybe I can call her back and ask what is the name of that book? For KRC Bambrugge there is a book where I found information, the name is: Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis van Bambrugge, it's written by Jules A. Colen Klodde (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It is worth remembering though that these teams are quite old and only the tip of the iceberg is online - books, old newspapers, and other online materials can be used as sources too. If possible, if someone living locally can retrieve such materials, then more sources might be found. CT Cooper · talk 15:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You've just given me an idea there Cooper. Google now allows people to search newsspaper clippings and books that are available online. I'm sure they could be used, as long as the appropriate cite news or cite book tags are used. Wesley☀Mouse 15:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

http://img.2dehands.be/f/normal/107196320-bambrugge-bijdrage-tot-de-geschiedenis-j-colen.jpg for KRC Bambrugge

Klodde (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

(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)

• KRC Bambrugge logo: http://cache.images.globalsportsmedia.com/soccer/teams/150x150/15873.png
• KVC Erpe Erondegem logo: http://blogimages.bloggen.be/erperondegem/P16-244e9c6da93989c7597e33de87ee0203.jpg
• FC Mere logo: http://blogimages.bloggen.be/hokalken/248-7513e7003abb87b0774b4344a242506c.JPG
• SK Aaigem logo: http://www.zamante.com/content/photos/201101/zi34dlzvcml.jpg
• KFC Olympic Burst sort of logo: http://www.voetballinks.be/images/logos6/03901.jpg

Klodde (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll see who can create those football badges into SVG (vector) format. Looking at the image used for Arsenal F.C., they are done in SVG format, and the licensing shouldn't be a problem as long as they are accredited properly. Wesley☀Mouse 16:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I've added all the sources that were provided above to the relevant articles. Although at the time I noticed all of them had PRODs added to them. I informed the prodder, and was advised to remove them, but regardless of that advice, they go ahead and nominate for AFD instead. So I literally fuming with rage at the underhandedness, despite the fact that I have explained why sources hadn't be added at the time. If you have any ideas then feel free to implement them. Wesley☀Mouse 17:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

This AfD seems a little hasty to me, particularly as we are dealing with a new user. All I can suggest is adding as many refs from third-party sources as possible to the article as required by WP:N, and hope for the best. CT Cooper · talk 17:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It is hasty yes. Kosmo added the prods, and I explained to him that the user is new and not fully aware how to add refs, and that the refs are here on your talk page. Kosmo advised me to remove the prods and add the refs myself, and that he would consider nominating afterwards. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but that implies he is waiting for the refs to be added before making a decision, right? But instead of waiting, he just goes behind my back and nominates anyway before I had even started to add the refs. I'm literally pee'd off at the ignorance. Wesley☀Mouse 17:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Are they crazy, can someone here explain me why, this is so disgusting? They really don't know how much time I putted in the articles to translate and write them. He putted 5 of the 7 articles on the deletion list. SK Aaigem FC Edixvelde KVC Erpe Erondegem FC Mere FC Oranja Erpe Klodde (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry Klodde, I am just as annoyed at the way this has been treated. I'll do what I can to oppose the deletions, but I'm no superman, so can't promise that my arguments to keep them will get listened to. Like Cooper said, we need as many sources as possible, and add them to the article very rapidly. Wesley☀Mouse 18:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

In Dutch wikipedia they give people 2 times to discuss an article before deletion. Very rapidly? Why the're is so a hurry in deleting articles on the English wikipedia. I really don't understand it. If it was a bad and short article, I could understand. But in this case I don't Klodde (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I ring back to the Royal Belgian Football Association, and ask the person to send me an official mail of the Royal Belgian Football Association with all the information about the clubs. But please ask that people te wait with deletion! Another proposal is a merge of the 7 page in one page.

Example:

Football Clubs in Erpe-Mere

KFC Olympia Erondegem

History

etc...

if they don't delete Burst and Bambrugge, adding Aaigem and the 4 others on one page could avoid deletion.

What do you think?

Klodde (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, don't panic. Articles for deletion (AfD) discussions have to last at least seven days, so the articles aren't going to be deleted immediately. As for your suggestion on a merger, notability is judged on a per page basis, so even if the clubs are not notable enough for their own article individually, they may be notable enough for a collective article. If the AfD doesn't go your away, I would suggest having a go at creating a merged article. CT Cooper · talk 18:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I send an email to info-en-qwikimedia.org with the following information, I don't think there is more possible that I can do

Hello,

I'm writing about the articles that can be deleted in 6 days:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SK_Aaigem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Mere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Edixvelde http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Oranja_Erpe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVC_Erpe_Erondegem

there was a problem with the source, I have send an email to the Royal Belgian Football Association (KBVB) to ask them to confirm the information. That it's certain that the information on the wikipedia page is correct. I send the mail from my emailaddress (my mail) to dpffootbel.com and to affifootbel.com I asked them to send a copy to you're emailadress. The mail is written in Dutch, but that won't be a problem because there are enough Dutch-speaking users on wikipedia to translate the information. I hope you can help me.

Greetings (my name) ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Klodde )

From: (my email) To: dpffootbel.com Subject: Bevestiging stamnummers, oprichting en andere informatie (dringend!) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 16:57:41 +0200

Hallo,

DRINGEND WANT ARTIKELS DREIGEN BINNEN DE WEEK VERWIJDERD TE WORDEN OMDAT ER EEN PROBLEEM IS MET BRONVERMELDING!

ik werk mee aan wikipedia maar ik heb een probleem. Ik heb van 7 voetbalclubs een pagina gemaakt maar er is een probleem met de bronvermelding.

Het is absoluut noodzakelijk dat er een email komt van de Koninklijke Belgische Voetbalbond zelf om te bevestigen dat de informatie klopt.

Het gaat over stamnummers:

• 3901 Koninklijke Football Club Burst

aangesloten bij de KBVB op 20 augustus 1943 (kan u deze datum bevestigen?, heeft u eventueel de oprichtingsdatum van de club)

• 4057 Football Club Mere

aangesloten bij de KBVB op 31 maart 1944 (kan u deze datum bevestigen?, heeft u eventueel de oprichtingsdatum van de club)

• 4141 Koninklijke Voetbal Club Erpe Erondegem OF Koninklijke Football Club Erpe Erondegem (kan u aub de juiste naam van deze club geven), het vroegere Koninklijke Football Club Olympia Erondegem

aangesloten bij de KBVB op 3 oktober 1944, 1999 fusie met FC Oranja Erpe naar Koninklijke Voetbal (Football?) Club Erpe Erondegem en opgeheven in 2009 door opslorping door FC Mere (kan u deze datums bevestigen?, kan u de volledige datum van de fusie in 1999 geven?, kan u de volledige datum het opheven van het stamnummer in 2009 geven?, heeft u eventueel de oprichtingsdatum van de club)

• 5343 Koninklijke Racing Club Bambrugge

aangesloten bij de KBVB op 24 juni 1950 (kan u deze datum bevestigen?, heeft u eventueel de oprichtingsdatum van de club)

• 7017 Football Club Edixvelde

aangesloten bij de KBVB op 1 april 1967 en opgeheven in 1999 door opslorping door FC Mere (kan u deze datum bevestigen?, kan u de volledige datum het opheven van het stamnummer in 1999 geven, heeft u eventueel de oprichtingsdatum van de club)

• 7329 Football Club Oranja Erpe, stamnummer opgeheven in 1999 door fusie met Koninklijke Football Club Olympia Erondegem (kan u deze datums bevestigen?, kan u de volledige datum het opheven van het stamnummer in 1999 geven?, heeft u eventueel de oprichtingsdatum van de club)

aangesloten bij de KBVB op 4 mei 1969 (kan u deze datum bevestigen?, heeft u eventueel de oprichtingsdatum van de club)

• 7938 Sportkring Aaigem

aangesloten bij de KBVB op 13 juni 1973 (kan u deze datum bevestigen?, heeft u eventueel de oprichtingsdatum van de club)

Dit is heel erg dringend en belangrijk! Want men zou binnen de week de geschreven artikels kunnen verwijderen omdat men niet genoeg bronvermelding heeft. En de KBVB is de officieelste bron die er is. Wat er ook bij kan is het boek met de stamnummers, hoe dit heet en wie dit geschreven heeft want iemand van jullie heeft dit in een boek opgezocht. Zou u aub deze mail kunnen beantwoorden, mij een mail sturen op (my mail) en een kopie sturen naar het emailadres info-en-qwikimedia.org Die kopie naar dat emailadres is absoluut noodzakelijk omdat ze een rechtstreekse email van jullie nodig hebben.

Alvast bedankt

MVG (my name)

Klodde (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If others don't participate then the AfD is likely to be re-listed and you will have even longer than six days. Even if that doesn't happen, the availability of sources and a good effort to improve the article may attract the sympathy needed to get the article kept. Failing even that, the merge proposal is still a possibility. CT Cooper · talk 21:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm uncertain and I'm really afraid that Kosm1fent will delete it. Nobody supports him but maybe he convince the administrators to delete. He has much persuasiveness and maybe the administrators agree with him. I didn't hear anything from Football Association.

Klodde (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a little bit far-fetched. Firstly, Kosm1fent doesn't have the power to delete an article, only an administrator can delete. Secondly, you can't really accuse Kosm1fent of persuading administrators to agree with him, it is just wrong to make that assumption about a user. Besides, as much as I disagree with the deletion nomination Kosm1fent has made, I cannot see him canvassing administrators to back his decision to delete. I did mention to Cooper a few days ago that I had concerns about the articles, and the fact they lacked a lot of sources, which would make them targets for deletion. However, there is now a lot of references been added, and if nobody has commented on the AFD's, then the decision making admin would look at the article and make a decision based on criteria. So don't panic. If they do get deleted, then look at it as a learning curve in article writing, don't let it beat you up with disappointment. Wesley☀Mouse 16:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi CT, you told me "If others don't participate then the AfD is likely to be re-listed and you will have even longer than six days." Can you please ask a delay then. Today I ringed back to the "Belgian Football Association" to ask them about the email I send Thursday. The service "receive emails" forwarded it to the service "communication". So they gave me the telephone number of the service communication. So I ringed that service and a person told me he will answer the mail in the end of the week but first he has to take contact with the service "assignment" of the matricule numbers. So it's normal that this take a couple of days. It would be ridiculous that they would count the 7 days on wikipedia and that for example the 8th day I will receive confirmation of the Football Association and that it's too late to save the article. I really try what I can. Klodde (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I have left a note on the AfD. I don't think it will be a problem. CT Cooper · talk 12:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

@Klodde: Accuracy is not the problem. Notability, on the other hand, is. The articles require significant coverage in reliable third-party sources in order to be kept. Also, sources need to be published in order to count as reliable, so personal e-mails do not justify notability no matter where they come from. Unless they can give you a list of published sources (anything from books and newspapers to websites), the e-mail will not be of much use to you. Regards. – Kosm1fent 18:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Kosmo, you may have got the wrong end of the stick here. Nobody said Klodde would be using personal emails as sources. I know there is a lot been said in this thread, but sometimes taking that extra moment to read it does help. Both Cooper and I mentioned about books and newspaper clippings etc, which can be used as sources. Klodde nominated himself to email the football association for details of books/newspaper clippings, so that we knew exactly where to start finding other notable facts, and reference the newspaper/book details that have been mentioned in the email. Note, the email isn't being used as a source, just the details within it being used to assist editors to find sources. Wesley☀Mouse 18:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh okay, I interpreted GTranslate's jibberish wrong then. Sorry! – Kosm1fent 18:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Some posts related to a misunderstanding have been removed from the record following mutual agreement between the authors. 13:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't follow this discussion any more, to be honest it's too difficult to understand what Kosm1fent and CT Cooper are saying. The Royal Belgian Football Association is the most notable source that exists. Klodde (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about the above, just keep doing what you were doing. CT Cooper · talk 21:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SK Aaigem

I have made a proposal to userfy the articles, in other words move them to your userspace e.g. FC Mere would be moved to User:Klodde/FC Mere. This will end the AfD and allow you to continue improving them in peace. When they all have enough sources, you can move them back to the mainspace. Would this be okay with you? CT Cooper · talk 12:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about my late reaction, I had a very bad evening today. If you can save the information in that way, a userspace is good then. I don't know how it works but I think you can arrange it? Today I received an email of wikipedia:

• Nothing received from Royal Belgian Football Association (KBVB) to date - note if the whole e-mail is in Dutch and does not show the urls of the pages it may go to the Dutch list, which English volunteers cannot access. If you can get a reply and put [Ticket#2012060710007867] in the subject line, it will be linked to this thread. Yours sincerely,

So I ringed and sended a new mail to the (KBVB) to tell them to add that ticket in the subject name. Just patience I think ;)

Klodde (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I will be happy to userfy the content, although the closing admin of the AfD will probably do it before me. Keep persevering in finding sources, and hopefully this will go somewhere. CT Cooper · talk 21:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I received an email of the Belgian Football Association, I think we have a really good source now:

http://www.foot100.be/lexicon_der_clubs.htm

that's a book about all the Belgian Football Clubs that had a matricule by the Belgian Football Association,

so the source is good for all the pages, I think it could be enough with the sources that we have already:

Name of the book: LEXICON DER CLUBS aangesloten bij de K.B.V.B. sinds 1895

The book used the following sources (the same sources can be used for the 7 articles!):

• All official information published in La Vie Sportive and Sportleven since 1898 (Sportleven is the official association magazine of the Belgian Football Association)

http://poll.footbel.com/nl/KBVB/publicaties/sportleven.html

• The Procès-verbal of all the meetings of the Executive Committee of the Belgian Football Association since 1895; http://www.belgianfootball.be/en/rbfa-commissions

• The archive of millions of pages of nearly 11000 clubs retained by the Belgian Football Association

• The historically proven discoveries of members of FOOT 100. http://www.foot100.be/voetbalmag.htm (Title: LEXIKON DER CLUBS AANGESLOTEN BIJ DE K.B.V.B. SINDS 1985

Author: Foot Centenaire Description: An excellent who's who of every Belgian club that has ever existed ! Three large size HB volumes with in total over 600 pages. Published in 1998. Country: Belgium Availability: Special order) http://www.heartbooks.be/catalogue.php?cat=soccer&subcat=s021

Do you think it's enough? Klodde (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

A book is usually a very good sign, although my only concern here is whether the book is third-party, as only third-party sources "count" when it comes to passing Wikipedia:Notability. I think an argument could be made that as it is published by the Belgian Football Association, and not the football clubs themselves, it does count. If this book is combined with a few other separate sources not from the Belgian Football Association, then there should be a good case for passing WP:N. CT Cooper · talk 15:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Except for the third-party concern raised by Cooper, I could raise another one: The "lexicon" is a directory with every club registered in the Belgian Football Association, right? If so, it is not considered "significant coverage" for one club, although it could be helpful for verification if the article is kept. Cheers. – Kosm1fent 15:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• KRC Bambrugge is not on the deletion list, but fot that one there is a third source: Book: Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis van Bambrugge, writer: Jules A. Colen, 1984

I'm also certain FC Edixvelde whas in a book of Nieuwerkerken but I have to find out which one. Tomorrow I will maybe visit the "local history circle" to look in some books there. I think ref improve|date=June 2012 could be deleted on the page of Bambrugge if someone can add the Lexicon and the "Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis van Bambrugge"

Klodde (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

KRC Bambrugge is not nominated for deletion because it appeared in the Belgian Cup. Regards. – Kosm1fent 16:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

University of Southampton

My apologies, I was not aware that it was a convention to include duplicate information in the 'lead'. I am new editing articles on Wikipedia so please excuse my mistakes. However, the fact that the University of Southampton was the first university to be granted a Royal Charter was indeed already included in the article; the first line of the subsection headed "University" read "On 29 April 1952, Queen Elizabeth II granted the University of Southampton a Royal Charter, the first to be given to a university during her reign". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.250.86 (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, welcome to Wikipedia. No worries but the content you cite is there as I added it last night. The previous version just said she gave a Royal Charter with a date. In any case, I would strongly recommend continuing to use edit summaries so users understand the changes you are making. CT Cooper · talk 08:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok thank you for your welcome and your advice, it is much appreciated. Of course, now I know how it works I will continue to use the edit summaries. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.250.86 (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Happy editing! CT Cooper · talk 17:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for taking the time to respond to our questions! They definitely help our understanding of how SuggestBot can help Wikipedia's users work better. Nettrom (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! CT Cooper · talk 20:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive and uncivil behaviour

Cooper,

Matters over at Talk:Ell & Nikki are getting beyond a joke now. The same user is throwing false accusations and asserting a very impolite manner towards others. The same user has even admitted to being purposely uncivil towards another, and that now casts doubt in my eyes, whether they are also purposely being uncivil with everyone else taking part in the discussion. Twice now on that talk page, the user has demanded a user leave the discussion, in the same manner that they "demanded" you leave the discussion at another talk page. And not only that, the constant repetitiveness remarks of telling people to "read again, what they wrote" or "read more slowly, what they wrote", is outright blatantly telling someone they are illiterate. I don't wish to be going do the escalating route, but the way they are behaving is slowly forcing me down that path. Regards, Wesley☀Mouse 12:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunatly I have to agree with everything Wesley is stating above.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I was expecting worse to be honest, and to be fair to Bleubeatle, he did say just a "few users", which is accurate, although I'm coming to the conclusion that there is little chance of a consensus emerging for a merge, mostly because the issue is now so polarized. Wikipedia is not supposed to be about winning, but even I who have expressed limited support for a merge, fear that a merge will have undesired social consequences of users believing they have conceded to inappropriate behaviour, and Bleubeatle possibly thinking that the methods he used to get a merge to occur weren't problematic.

On the question he asked, I don't get many of his points on the group vs. collaboration issue really because a group is a type of collaboration, so approaching the issue as if they are mutually exclusive is logically flawed. Furthermore, it is clear they were a group - the question is whether they are/were a group of enough significance for their own article. What he was asking for sources of isn't clear - there are more enough in the article already. In any case, while calling him silly is uncivil, calling the question silly isn't - I consider his description of it as "immoral" and "demeaning" to be dramatization and won't comment further on that. On the whole, I don't wish to sound mean, but I think he has played the "my feelings are hurt" card too many times now, and done so generally in response to criticism rather than incivility. My sympathy is lowered even further by his comments at WT:EURO, where he straight-up said twice that he didn't care about my feelings.

As for the reading issue, I have probably told people myself to re-read things if they completely get the wrong end of stick - if I did so, it wasn't because I thought they were illiterate. The reality is though that myself and other users find Bleubeatle's difficult to understand at times and vice versa appears to apply too - I suspect he is not a native English speaker, as that is the most likely good faith explanation on why he repeatedly misrepresents policy and what people say. There is nothing wrong with users who are having difficulties in expressing themselves editing, and I'm always open to being more patient with non-native English speakers, but there does come a point where this project has to draw a line on when communication difficulties cause excessive levels of disruption to collaboration.

I'm confused about the sentence "I was merely being uncivil in my response because all I wanted was to ask if there are any more sources(or links) so that I could understand the user's answer more and to be sure that they are an official group and did not just collaborate for this contest." He does know about the civility policy as shown by comments on Wesley's page earlier on, though I wouldn't assume that this was some kind of admission as the word "uncivil" really doesn't fit in here - perhaps he meant "civil" but hasn't noticed the error. This sentence makes even less sense given his criticism of Wesley's "incivility" in the same post.

His comments about people "leaving" aren't very helpful, although again to be fair to him, they are not phrased as a request - but given his earlier behaviour I can see why people will see them that way. I think he is actually trying to calm things down, but actually doing the opposite in practice; he still doesn't seem to get that throwing accusations and negative words at people isn't a good calming method.

I'm not commenting further at Talk:Ell & Nikki for now, but my my main two suggestions are is to be as calm as you can with him and ignore posts from him which don't contribute to the discussion. As I said earlier, this might just be too polarized at the moment to go anywhere, so it may be better to let it die. CT Cooper · talk 14:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Really good summarization of the situation and I will not respond any further and hopefully Wesley will follow that suggestion too. Great. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a very good summary, I agree. His behaviour is getting to the point of making blood boil, but I have to disagree that he may have worded "uncivil" incorrectly, and probably have meant the opposite. More so with the way he has worded things to others too, even at yourself Cooper. The discussion needs to be back on track, but I don't hold much prospect of that happening any time soon, not unless Bleubeatle realises that he cannot go throwing accusations at people when they are merely answering (or trying to answer) his questions as clear and concise as possible. I'm surprised with his recent behaviour too if I'm being honest. The user has never shown signs of acting in this way in the past, s/he is generally quiet and placid towards others. This sudden reversal of attitude is triggering off slight alarm bells. A person's behavioural pattern to suddenly change like that can either mean they are going through difficult situations, and unintentionally taking it out on others; or their account is being compromised by another without them even knowing. Wesley☀Mouse 15:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes, I think I may have read it wrong - it does appear to be a justification for incivility. As for his behavioural patterns, I wasn't familiar with him before the WP:V issue over these awards, although I have looked through his Talk: and User talk: space histories, and I can see where your coming from on his present and past behaviour, as he has in the past shown a good understanding of what others are saying and of policy. I can't say whether his account has been taken over by another party; it has happened, but it is unlikely. CT Cooper · talk 16:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll give him a couple of days to settle down; and then I'll post a carefully worded message, and see if he is OK really, and that nothing in his personal life is causing him to stress out at people on here. It could be a case of him needing someone to talk to, and I know that we're not here to play council to folk; but sometimes action like having a small council session, can be beneficial to the community too. I found it hard to talk to others in real-life after my mother passed away; yet I felt so much at ease and comfort discussing with a small few on here. So perhaps Bleubeatle could do with knowing that there are people here to help him and that we're not "out to get him". In the meantime, I'm making huge progress with the article improvements; travelling through Eurovision history faster than red-bull-fuelled Concorde lol. The next edition of the newsletter is coming along nicely too, although nobody has requested anything to add to it yet. Hmmm, perhaps you would like to write a small editorial for it? If so, the draft is in my sandbox (#10). Wesley☀Mouse 16:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That is very thoughtful of you Wes, and it is certainly worth trying to see if there is anything that could improve relations as this is going nowhere productive at the moment, which is very sad. Bleubeatle needs to know that we are not out to beat him or drive him away - we are just having difficulty seeing eye-to-eye on this issue. If both sides are reassured of each others motives and become less suspicious, then we should be able to consider his merging proposal on its merits and nothing more. CT Cooper · talk 18:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, on the editorial, I would be happy to do that for you. CT Cooper · talk 18:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

What a lovely editorial piece, and cleverly worded too. Something which needed to be said I suppose, and so far (even from the revival edition) the newsletter does seem to impact people, and they take heed of what is said in them. I see the GAN is under review, and with good hopes from the initial comment by the reviewer. With a bit of cooperation, I think we could see the first Eurovision by Year article reaching GA status (I say first, as I have had a look at the GA's on the project and haven't noticed a single annual page in there to date). If GA is gained, then it shows that the new page layout has massive impact. Something which the rest of the project should take pride in, and be inspired to maintain the same layout throughout. Wesley☀Mouse 18:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you; I'm glad you like it. Yes, I can confirm that that no annual page has ever achieved either GA or FA status - hopefully that will change soon. The Eurovision Song Contest article used to be an FA, but was stripped of it quite a while ago now. CT Cooper · talk 20:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

A few minor issues so far with the GAN, but ones that can (and have been) easily ironed out. The ESCToday dead links is a main concern, and I have informed the reviewer about them losing 12-years of work; and that another website (ESCDaily) has similar articles which could easily be used to replace the dead links. Seeing as we knew the ESCT ones were reliable at the time, then we can safely say the ESCD one's will be an ideal back-up option for this circumstance. Only thing is, there's loads of them. Could do with an extra hand resuscitating the dead. Wesley☀Mouse 20:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

All deadlinks have single-handedly been brought back to life. Found the exact same articles from ESCdaily, ESCxtra, and EurovisionTimes; so replaced accordingly. A couple of links didn't really need to be replaced, as they already had other "duplicated" links covering the same details, so removed the dead duplicates, leaving the live ones intact. Wesley☀Mouse 21:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That's good to hear. I will try and provide help if I can, although I'm going to Berlin next Wednesday for three days in which I will be unavailable, and I have lots of things to do before then as well. In the meantime, fingers crossed for success here. CT Cooper · talk 22:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a convenient time to leave, since Antony is surprisingly inactive nowdays. :P Have a nice trip! – Kosm1fent 07:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I will! CT Cooper · talk 08:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I was going to write the words of council to Bleubeatle once the weekend had passed. However, after noticing this post from him, I felt that the time had come sooner. So I posted this lengthy piece to him. Now I know he was online at the time, as he's done other edits after the post was made. So I'm not sure if he's taken notice, or just not bothering to reply. But either way, at least we can say that tactful approach has been made, and in a polite/civil manner. If Bleubeatle views the context as offensive or uncivil, then I would be very shocked and stunned as there has been nothing uncivil written in my message. Each and every word is sincere and came straight from the heart (and believe me, it a hard thing for me to write from the heart). Wesley☀Mouse 16:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

He may still be thinking about how to respond, but even if he doesn't respond directly, it was still a helpful act as you suggest. For now, I would recommend waiting to see his next move. CT Cooper · talk 16:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC over UK band Blue's ambiguous title

Welcome back on British soil Chris, hope Deutschland was "sehr gut".

Just a quick note to let you know there is an RFC going on at Blue (English band) (that's UK's 2011 ESC entry). Some bright spark submitted a move request from Blue (group) to its current title, due to (group) being ambiguous; even though (English band) is even less distinctive. During the RM, I pointed out several beneficial factors including comparing various other names against the 5 criteria at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Blue (boy band) seemed to fulfil all 5, where as Blue (English band) fulfilled 3 of the 5.

At the RM several of the (English band) supporters, had took into account that boyband would be just as good, and we were all still working on a compromise. But despite that going on, someone closed the RM down because there was support for (English band) title, and didn't take into account that a consensus discussion was still in progress regarding other title variations. Personally, I feel the RM was prematurely closed down, and as a result have opened an RFC for other editor's views on what article name should be used. All the sources on the article refer to the group as a boyband, the article alone and the individual BLP's for the band members refers to the word boyband. Plus the group have established themselves for the past 10 years as a boyband globally. Surely all those facts should scream out to people the obvious boyband is the correct title? Anyhow, if you could be so kind as to have a glance and put your twopence-worth then I'd be truly grateful. Wesley☀Mouse 14:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Berlin war fantastisch!

I don't have a strong opinion about it to be honest, although I thought group was fine, and given that they represented the UK at Eurovision that ought to expand their scope to being British rather than just English. I might comment at some point, although you seem to be winning the argument at the moment as it is, as boy band makes more sense in this case. I understand that a future boy band group called blue might be formed, but policy does not allow for pre-emptive disambiguation, so unless there actually is another group that passes WP:N, it is irrelevant. CT Cooper · talk 15:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Cenk Uygur

Why are you in love with this guy so much? A you a turk living in Germany? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

If you are here to build an encyclopedia, then who I am isn't important. What I have told you on your talk page stands, so I suggest you spend some time reviewing the behavioural and content policies of this project. CT Cooper · talk 21:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK pic

Thanks for your note. I was under the misconception that it has been resolved. I'll provide the remaining info. --DoscoinDoon 07:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've provided info for most of the images except the following:-

• File:Jack Gibson, The Doon School.gif - I found this image here and have been unable to ascertain its author or date. But considering his living years, it's likely to be out of copyright.--DoscoinDoon 08:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• I will respond to your talk page on Commons, so everything is together. CT Cooper · talk 11:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

A small issue from the past

Remember the IP you blocked a week ago for being a sock of Antony1821 (here)? Well, now it's back and making similar edits. When you get back from your wikibreak, can you please deal with it? Thanks. – Kosm1fent 13:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

JamesBWatson beat you to it: [1] Thanks anyway. :) – Kosm1fent 11:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm back again now. I couldn't find any more, but let me know if there are. CT Cooper · talk 13:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back! :) – Kosm1fent 14:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Good to be back. CT Cooper · talk 15:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like he's back with another IP from the same provider (46.198.28.49), making edits of similar to previous socks of Antony1821, for example [2], [3], [4] and introducing false information to football biographies, for example [5] and [6]. What to do? – Kosm1fent 18:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked that particular IP for six months and reverted all its edits. Looking at Special:Contributions/46.198.110.136/16, it appears that a large proportion of edits from this range are by this user, so given his persistence, I have taken things a step further and blocked the entire range for a month. There is a strong potential for collateral damage, which is why I'm limiting it to a month, but this should stop or slow him down for a while. CT Cooper · talk 18:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You are God. Kthanksbye. Don't worry about collateral damage; if there is any, it will show up within a month. I hope that will teach the dude a lesson, although I doupt he is ever going to listen. Thanks again! – Kosm1fent 18:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

May I direct your attention to this IP by the same provider doing edits of a similar style to Antony 1821: [7], [8] and [9]. Please keep an eye on this user for further incriminating evidence or block him if you feel like it. Thanks! – Kosm1fent 16:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP as it is clearly another sock. I've also blocked the range at Special:Contributions/176.92.75.146/16, as again it is quite clear that he has edited from this range before with other IPs. CT Cooper · talk 21:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Cooper! As you can see, there is no stopping him – but we can at least slow him down if we remain vigilant. Cheers! – Kosm1fent 06:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Agenda 21 - June 2012 Edits

Good work on the edits to Agenda 21. I think the article is coming along. There's still some work to be done on the opposition section. Also, I'm thinking about replacing the UN flag with the Wiki Box for books. Agenda 21 is a book complete with a cover, ISBN number, author is United Nations, it has a publication date, etc. My schedule is hectic for next few weeks so might not get it up there until then. Thoughts?Justanonymous (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't really thought of it as a book, although I suppose it is one, and a full infobox is better than just the flag. If your up for it feel free to be bold. CT Cooper · talk 16:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

TheShadowCrow

Hi. I noticed your warning on talk of TheShadowCrow (talk · contribs). I was actually going to post there a warning about his inappropriate edit to the WP:BLP article about Teimour Radjabov, [10] but after seeing your warning I realized that it is not an isolated episode. He was actually warned that this is an arbitration covered area: [11], and the edit to Teimour Radjabov was done after your warning about BLP violations. What should be done in this situation? Grandmaster 17:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about his recent edits. He has had more than enough warnings, and the warning I gave him was given as a final warning. I therefore I'm blocking him for 72 hours, not a very long block, but long enough to get the message through. I did consider WP:BLPSE to blanket ban him from editing all BLPs, but I thought a block was enough for now. He does seem to have a particular problem with Armenia-Azerbaijan releated content, so WP:AA2 restrictions also remains an option. CT Cooper · talk 18:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking prompt action to resolve the BLP violation. Since this is not the first time TheShadowCrow does that, I filed a report on him at WP:AE, so that the admins could decide if any AA2 restrictions are necessary. Grandmaster 19:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Azerbaijani image issues

Cooper, It has come to my attention that several images of Baku Crystal hall could be in breach of Azerbaijani laws and violations of Wikimedia rules. According to the guidelines at Commons:Freedom of panorama#Former Soviet Union images such as File:029BakuCrystal.JPG, File:Crystal Hall Baku Inside.jpg, and File:Baku Crystal Hall 7 May 2012.JPG could face deletion. Is this something we would need to raise awareness elsewhere? It also means Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2011 would need to be reviewed, as there are images from Armenia. Also Eurovision Song Contest 2002 (Estonia), Eurovision Song Contest 2003 (Latvia), Eurovision Song Contest 2005 (Ukraine), and Eurovision Song Contest 2009 (Russia). Images of buildings are not permitted for those nations either. Wesley☀Mouse 10:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The images can be moved to en.wikipedia, where fair use applies, I suspect with no problems – the only criterion which needs some discussion before that happens would be #8. Cheers. – Kosm1fent 11:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they could be. There isn't a clear consensus on how to deal with FoP issues on the English Wikipedia, with mixed practices of uploading such images both as free and non-free. The confusion is shown through the mash-up template on the issue such {{Non-free architectural work}}, {{FoP-USonly}}, and {{FoP-US}}. I have argued that actually the Foundation's definition of free content does not mention countries and per Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights only US copyrights matter on the English Wikipedia, and since there is freedom of panorama for buildings under US law such images are free on the English Wikipedia. The problem with Commons is that they demand images be free in both the US and the country of origin, making the lack of FoP in the former Soviet Union a problem. This is a third rail issue on both Commons and the English Wikipedia, with it being further complicated on the latter by being mixed-up in the general debate on if the English Wikipedia should respect non-US copyrights (Jimbo Wales is an advocate of doing so), and I've been thinking about requesting a community wide RfC to agree on how we will deal with FoP on the English Wikipedia. In the circumstances I would advise being safe and uploading the images as non-free, although such use may only be justified per WP:NFCC on articles on the building. CT Cooper · talk 11:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Reply

I'm still very curious about your ethnic backround.

On the Victor Ortiz page someone else already claimed that the source DOES back it up, so the person removing it should have given a reason why it was being removed.

Nearly all kickboxing articles are very poorly written and sourced and lack lots of information. It's my goal to fix that someday, but it would take a lot of work for articles no one really reads.

Cenk has nothing to do with AA.

The issue on Cenk was "repeated editing" and the one on the chess player was "saying opinion in the summary." These are different. Me and Grandmaster debated over something in the AA area before but no rules were broken and we discussed it on talkpages. So I don't see why I should be banned if I hadn't broken a rule twice. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I find it very disturbing that an editor is questioning the ethnic background of another editor in what can only be deemed as a racial attack. How is someone's ethnicity going impact a way they work on an article? On the 23 June 2012, you came out with a double attacking remark to CT Cooper, by saying Why are you in love with this guy so much? A you a turk living in Germany?. That comment alone is a personal attack as well as a racist attack. Anyone else caught doing such actions would have been blocked for those alone. CT Cooper is an established editor who knows how to contribute to a high standard on Wikipedia. He knows that everything written needs to be verified by reliable sources, something which most editors on here knows are vital for encyclopaedic accuracy. A simple word of advice, think what you are about to say to someone before actually saying it, as you could end up getting yourself into far deeper trouble than its actually worth. Wesley☀Mouse 15:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

As Wes says, your persistence on wanting to find out about my "ethnic background" is troubling, and could be considered harassment; posting personal information about individuals which they have not chosen to disclose is strictly forbidden - so I wouldn't go down that road if I was you.

On Victor Ortiz, the source given has no mention of the content you added, and I don't see how that observation can be disputed. You will need to present a new source before re-adding it.

On Cenk Uygur, the content you added was related to the Armenian Genocide, and on WP:AA2 the topic areas for which sanctions covered are defined as "Topics related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts", which I interpret to include Armenian Genocide related content. You were edit warring on that BLP, but the primary reason you were warned was for inserting original research into the article in violation of WP:NOR and the WP:BLP policies, and soapboxing another BLP policy violation on the talk page. On Teimour Radjabov, you were blocked for making further BLP policy violations in both the edit summary and in the article. A common theme runs through here - a serious lack of respect for WP:BLP policy. As I said on your talk page, you are not going to be spoon fed policy, and once warned that they are violating BLP policy editors are expected to familiarise themselves with the policy and avoid further violations - you have had plenty of time to do that, so I consider your attempt to create a distinction to be wikilawyering. I should point out that receiving a warning before being sanctioned or blocked is a courtesy, not an entitlement - the blocking policy requires that admins take steps to educate users about policy and warn that their behaviour may lead to a block, but no warnings are needed at all in the case of established users who should know better or very serious violations of policy. CT Cooper · talk 17:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Reply 2

I find it funny that your other half is calling me a stalker, when in truth it is you who is stalking me. I'm merely taking note of that fact. Since you want to get in my business, I thought I'd see who you are. I find it a little strange that a German cares so much about a racist talk show host, a racist chess player and AA issues. Therefore I'm assuming you must be a turk living in Germany because Germany has a high population of them. And of course you saying what you are "isn't important" sounds to me like you don't want to say because you're embarressed how easily I found out. Not that I'm demanding you disclose what you are. I'm asking out of curiousity.

Someone else in the history of Victor Ortiz claimed that the source DOES confirm the info. Whoever was removing should have explained why, like you did.

How does the Armenian Genocide fit into the azeris? They didn't have anything to do with that and I don't see what confirms it's a part of AA in your link. Neihter does Cenk. My punishment for BLP was the three day ban. My punishment for what specificly happend on the racist chess player's page was 6 months from AA articles. This seems highly over zealous. It's as if you're hoping I'll lose interest in it by then, so the azeris can still pretend their chess hero isn't a racist. In fact this whole thing hides the fact people like Grandmaster are basing their lies that Radjabov's words were, loosely construed, OFF OF NOTHING.

There is also no reason why we should hide the President of FIDE saying the racist rant wasn't acceptable. Accept to make the azeri look better. Hmm...

Also, this was formerly on the page: "President of FIDE Kirsan Ilyumzhinov condemned possibly Radjabov's words as "not permissible".

The bold part doesn't make any sense at all. It's clear azeris have vandalized the page, but since no one cares about Radjabov besides them, they've gotton away with it. I may have violated BLP, but that doesn't change the fact my edit was better and Grandmaster's edit removed referenced information. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh that made me laugh. I love the remark "your other half is calling me a stalker". Please tell me when I called you a stalker? I used the {{tps}} template which is there to show that I was watching this talk page, and responded to a post on a user's talk page that I get along with very well and consider to be a good friend in the Wikipedia community. And to call me "other half" is a little over-zealous in all respect. What gave you the assumption that CT Cooper and myself are in a relationship? Very bad assumptions on your part, but ones that did make me laugh nevertheless.

You also still demand that CT Cooper must be a "Turk living in Germany". Have you actually taken time to read Cooper's main user page? You will notice by reading that alone, that Cooper is British, he mentions that fact in his introduction about himself. So your other remark posted above of "sounds to me like you don't want to say because you're embarressed how easily I found out", is very clear that you didn't "easily find out" anything, as you obviously haven't read Cooper's main page, which you have answered the ethnicity query. On that note, I'm going to go back to doing something more constructive around here and improve articles to an encyclopaedic standard, while drinking coffee and giggling at the most funniest comment I've ever seen. Thanks ShadowCrow for actually putting a smile back on my face. You truly have made my day. Wesley☀Mouse 09:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If you're ability to read my userpage reflects on how you read up on policy, then that does explain a lot. WP:HOUNDING allows the checking of user contributions for violation of policy, and your past edits have put you under a lot more scrutiny. If you learn policy and stick to it, then you won't hear from me or another admin again, but until that happens I'm not going anywhere. It is patently obvious that the only reason you were "curious" about my ethnicity was due to your intent to use it as an ad hominem method of discrediting the actions taken to ensure you follow BLP policy. The Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy explicitly forbids this - you have managed to violate a good few bullet points at WP:NPA#WHATIS. Given this, I am giving you a final warning on this matter. If I see a single edit from you which involves disparaging another editor because of their background or any hounding of other users for information about their ethnicity or similar, then you will blocked for a significant amount of time, or indefinitely for serious violations.

Armenian Genocide falls under "related ethnic conflicts" in the definition I gave in the previous reply, given that Azerbaijan is discussed in that article and are even mentioned in the lead on Armenian Genocide denial, so content related to the denial is definitely covered. I will respect a community consensus or an Arbitration Committee ruling that Armenian Genocide is not included, but nothing else, so as it stands if you edit content related to Armenian Genocide, you may be blocked for violating the restrictions placed on you. Even assuming that it is not covered, editing on the edge of a topic ban has been strongly frowned upon by the Arbitration Committee - the idea of topic bans is that you find something completely different to edit. Actually the six month restriction has been imposed so that after six months you will have a chance to demonstrate that you can edit in the AA topic area within policy - if there reason to believe that won't happen then the restriction can easily be extended or made indefinite. CT Cooper · talk 11:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Eurovision 2012 GA review.

Good evening buddy, hope you're doing well.

I'm starting to have deep concerns about the GA review for ESC 2012 article. Its been weeks now, and nothing has been finalised. Tomica has said the only remain issue is referencing, and once that has been fixed, along with these tables then it would be a pass. Tomica also says we can continue with the review while we are still trying to reach an agreement on the split jury/televote tables, but I feel that those tables may fail the GA as a result. What do we do? In 2009, the EBU made the breakdown of results available for public viewing, and have been used as references on the 2009 article. But this year, those breakdowns seem to be withheld, and therefore making the tables semi-dubious. Would hiding them into a collapsible table, like I previously mentioned about London 2012 page using, be a way around this issue? Wesley☀Mouse 17:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm doing very well, thanks, and I hope you are as well.

GAs, unlike FAs, are not supposed to finished and can have less important sections missing and this would fall into that. One possible solution is to just leave the section out until a consensus is reached, however if that action is contested then it could derail the GA, as articles have to be stable to pass WP:GACR. Simply collapsing them could be a good compromise, and I presently think it would be okay under MOS:SCROLL, though others may disagree. Worst case scenario, if the GA fails, then that will give unlimited time to resolve this issues and the article can be re-nominated and swiftly promoted after a short time - unlike AfD and other some processes, swift re-nominations won't cause a fuss from what I've seen, as long as any concerns of the previous nomination are resolved. CT Cooper · talk 20:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Following on from this discussion, I've played around with an idea in my sandbox, to see how the article would look if we placed split result tables into collapsible tables only. Let me know what you think. Wesley☀Mouse 23:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it looks quite good, and should work okay. CT Cooper · talk 15:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Cool, I'll be bold and implement them, see how people will react. A different note, is it possible for IP's to contact me via the email method on here? Just that the IP that accused me of vandalism on JESC 2012 yesterday has emailed me, their IP address came up as the correspondent in my email inbox. I always thought IP's couldn't use the email box. Wesley☀Mouse 15:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

No, IPs definitely can't email users - I have just tried e-mailing you logged-out myself and it didn't work; only usernames with validated e-mail addresses can send e-mails. The only explanation I can think of is that he found your e-mail address somewhere and e-mailed you directly, or he has now registered an account. If was sent though Wikipedia the text like as follows should be on the bottom of the e-mail:

“ --

This e-mail was sent by user "<<username>>" on the English Wikipedia to user "Wesley Mouse". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

The sender has not been given the recipient's e-mail address, nor any information about his/her e-mail account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this e-mail or take any other action that might disclose his/her identity. If you respond, the sender will know your e-mail address. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>.

”

Also, in Wikipedia e-mails the headers will always show the username of the sender and recipient in the To:/From: boxes. CT Cooper · talk 16:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, the email reads as follows,

“ --

Moldova96 (users personal email address is also shown at this point)
Why do you keep un-revising the article back. If it has been confirmed by broadcasters that they will not be at the contest then it is not un-neccesary, we know that Bulgaria, Latvia and Lithuania have confirmed that they will not be at JESC 2012 then why not add more detail to the reason for withdrawal. I also feel that it is interesting for readers to find out who were approached by the EBU and have said no to taking part, it adds more detail to the page and keeps it up to date. Finally the information on non-returning countries, if the website has had confirmation from broadcasters that they will not be taking part then that will not change. People are interested to see which countries will come back to the contest.

Thanks

This e-mail was sent by user "46.208.230.176" on the English Wikipedia to user "Wesley Mouse". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

”

Hope this helps. Wesley☀Mouse 16:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Now that is strange; I have checked that 46.208.230.176 (talk · contribs) is definitely not an account (as people registering accounts that look like IPs has happened), and from what I can see it isn't, so it is not technically possible for him to send e-mails that way. If it came through Wikipedia, the e-mail must have been sent by Moldova96 (talk · contribs), as it is a bit of coincidence that this is an active account, even if it hasn't edited JESC articles. Otherwise the user somehow e-mailed you directly. Perhaps leaving a polite note on their talk page might get some answers. CT Cooper · talk 16:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I've replied back via the email, and politely asked if they are the IP address or user Moldova96, so that I can figure out how they have obtained my personal email address. Wesley☀Mouse 17:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

In light of a previous comment, I thought I'd send a cupcake to my "cupcake" to simply say Thank You! for all the assistance and guidance you kindly offer, to help me gain more experience as an editor on Wikipedia. Wesley☀Mouse 12:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. CT Cooper · talk 12:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm in total shock at the edit summary accusation from an IP towards myself (as shown here). How is my revert of content that is clearly excessive classed as vandalism? Can the edit summary be hidden? Anyhow, I've told the IP, and provided them with links to familiarise better with what is and isn't vandalism. I knew though, as soon as the semi-protect ended on JSEC 2012 that IP's would start to excessively add total crap to it again. Should we re-semi it? Wesley☀Mouse 18:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

There have been quite a few edits by IPs since unprotection, but one disruptive edit is not going to justify re-protection. You were right to warn the IP, since your edit clearly wasn't vandalism, although I should point out that making incorrect statements about others edits is not vandalism either, as long as it is done in good faith, which we have to assume was the case here. The definition of vandalism is very narrow and doesn't include personal attacks, incivility, edit warring, or most other policy violations - only deliberate acts to damage the encyclopedia count per WP:NOTVAND. I can't revdelete the edit summary, as it probably wouldn't meet the criteria given at WP:CRD. CT Cooper · talk 19:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Please could you review this when you get a spare moment. Thank you, Wesley☀Mouse 00:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

Hello, CT Cooper. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Bleubeatle (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Not impressed to say the least, but I have responded. CT Cooper · talk 00:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Ell & Nikki debate - part II

Cooper, I think I should make you aware that Bleubeatle has dragged you into an old debate at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#About to attempt a merger proposal. Need to clarify if it is necessary? and has failed to notify you of this. He is still casting false accusations about other editors. He also stated that he had no intentions to have the article deleted, but then trips up on his own words by saying "Unfortunately, the deletion discussion didn't turn out as a planned". All this is now becoming disruptive and distressing to some editors too. Wesley☀Mouse 20:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I think he continues to miss the point on the AfD - whatever his intentions there, he made no mention of a merge in his statements on that AfD, so people were reasonable to assume deletion was what he wanted, and his only policy based argument in favour of deletion was WP:BLP1E - so of course the responses he got were about that! I have interpreted his withdrawal/deletion of the hostile paragraph in his first statement as showing the intention of wanting to go forward constructively, and not to regurgitate false accusations against me and others. I have however advised him to hold off for a bit longer. CT Cooper · talk 21:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Wise decision I think. It was BabbaQ that brought this to my attention initially, and I was mortified when I noticed you had been dragged into the debate and spoken about behind your back without even been told about it. What did please me is that Bleu referred to my lengthy post on his page as a "kind". I nearly choked with pride at that. Wesley☀Mouse 21:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I have made my stance very clear now on the discussion board. But if you two can reason with him/her then im only glad. But I feel drained by the discussion with the user and is unwilling to continue with it. Hope you understand my stance. Sincerely.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You're not the only one feeling drained by all of this. I had a sleepless night because of it, and now feel very groggy and ratty due to the lack of sleep. I spent an hour last night reading the original discussion thread at WQA, and pre-wrote my report dissecting every sentence in detail with my response. But have just a few moments ago posted a more brief and to-the-point version instead. Wesley☀Mouse 20:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I was busy doing other things today and I admit I havn't given it much thought since yesterday - perhaps I'm just too used to this kind of thing. I have made some minor grammar corrections to the drafted response that Wes has put together. One suggestion I would make on mentioning WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E is to note that his comments were rebuttaled by me and others at the AfD, and Bleubeatle response has been to side step such rebuttals and to repeatedly cite WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E again multiple times without answering the points that other editors have said, potentially being a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue. Also, he was told not to alter comments after others have responded before now, and the fact he has ignored this is also frustrating. CT Cooper · talk 21:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my draft, it is a bit 'War and Peace' sized, but I felt every sentence needed to be dissected to fully paint the picture of true events. I must be honest though, that all of this has made me physically ill. Last night I couldn't sleep a wink, I was still awake at 11am this morning, and only managed to grab 4 hours nap this afternoon. Since then I have been vomiting as a result of the worry and stress that he is putting me through with all of this. As if I haven't been through enough as it is lately with bereavements in the family (my uncle passed away 2 July); and the all the preparations for London 2012 in 19 days time is starting to takes its toll too. Which reminds me, I could do with my talk page being kept a close eye on, while I will be busy during my volunteering stint, or perhaps semi-protected for the duration. Wesley☀Mouse 21:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that, but I am doubtful this will get very far in his favour, so try not to worry too much. I will keep an eye on your talk page for you, so best of luck with the volunteering. CT Cooper · talk 22:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Bleubeatle is now preaching that I should behave and basically just understand that Ell & Nikki will be merged and that I should stop the "inevitable from happening". I find the post an attempt by the user to provoke reactions from me, and a clear personal attack. The funny thing is that the post is filled with "tips" on how to behave that Bleubeatle himself doesnt follow at all. And that you Cooper and Wesley just follows my lead and are in the evil pact against Bleubeatle.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest just ignoring it, as that it what I've decided to do; Bleubeatle claims he understands but his actions and other comments speak much louder. Unlike the other threads, he wants our attention here and if it is denied then that will put the point across effectively that we don't want any more time wasted on this drama, and that we are not going to co-operate with such behaviour. If a third-party intervenes then I may respond to them, but there will be no need to respond to Bleubeatle directly. CT Cooper · talk 10:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I wish I had read this part before I commented on it. Oh well, but I had to say what needed to be said. I've informed how much distress this has put me through. For the second night in a row, I have been unable to sleep worrying myself sick about all of this. Why is someone fabricating so much lies? Do they not realise that the truth would only come out in the end? Everything that has been posted on talk pages are accessible by anyone in the entire world. If this escapade doesn't cease soon, then I will be considering further action and go to ANI if needs be to get the matter resolved once and for all. I am even tempted to strike the user off the project members list for their disruptive behaviour, but not sure if that is allowed. Wesley☀Mouse 15:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

There aren't any firm rules on control of project membership as far as I'm aware. As membership of a project only demonstrates interest in a particularly topic, and gives no additional rights or privileges, in practice it is left to individuals to decide to join or decide to leave, with the exception of removing indefinitely blocked or banned users, or those who are inactive. One could argue that a member could be removed against their will if there was a very strong and clear consensus to do so, though I don't think that would achieve very much, so I wouldn't recommend going down that route.

As I said, he clearly isn't listening to reason on this matter and continues to make hatchet job accounts of what other editors have done or said, and since he wants our attention, I would suggest denying it from now on in order to make our position very clear. If further disruption occurs WP:ANI/WP:RFC/U will be the final resort, though in such cases we will need to present a strong case and be able to explain our actions, as we would get as much scrutiny as he. CT Cooper · talk 16:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the membership side of things, I wasn't 100% sure, so thought I'd test the waters, so to speak. And yes, a very valid point in denying our attentions. But I am one who at times can find it a struggle to bit my tongue. A spade is a spade to me, and I say things sometimes as it is. It is a big bad world out there, and people are always whining and moaning about a lack of respect and whatnot. But what those people fail to grasp is if they want respect, then they should give it back in return. Treat those in the way you wish to be treated in return - a good motto that I was once told. Something that springs to my mind right now is this. (expanding) - I have just thought of one thing though just as I saved this. Everything that we're being accused of, the accuser is actually guilty of himself, which amazes me in all honesty. A user posts comments to which others respond back to, and those responses make sense and show no signs of wrong doing. However, when the same user then tweaks/redacts some of their comment that has already been responded to, then it makes us look like the idiots, a vindictive tactic if I've to be brutally honest. Wesley☀Mouse 16:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I find Coopers approach the best way to handle this. Total silence. Not any more interaction with the user such as responses to any further comments from the user. Unless a third party comments on the issue or similar.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps if the disruption continues a Ell & Nikki topic ban or similar could be a solution.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Cooper, even though you politely informed about redacting/hiding comments, the user has replaced them back again. I have swiftly intervened and reverted it back again. This is now getting out of hand. Wesley☀Mouse 19:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this. As long as he doesn't surround my and others comments with collapsible templates, or make similar redactions, then I don't have a problem. That said, I don't know why my comment is split in two, so I have moved his remark that split them down. CT Cooper · talk 00:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries about that. I have however, had a diplomatic idea which I may propose on the WQA thread, but would like to put it forward to yourself first for an opinion.

Proposal

The WQA report to be withdrawn on the following conditions...

• All involved parties to refrain from making comments about users in regards to anything relating to the afd/merger issues, whether they by naming them directly or inadvertently naming in the context of 'a user' or 'the user'.
• Any previous posts to be placed in a collapsible box with a brief explanation as to why that has been done - thus wiping the slate clean, so to speak.
• Postponing any merger proposals for at least 4 months minimum - gives enough time for the dust to settle.
• Any merger proposals connected with Ell & Nikki to be supervised by an uninvolved administrator.

If there is anything else you can think of, then feel free to list them. Wesley Mouse 15:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I am sticking to my decision not to respond to Bleubeatle directly in the WQA thread, since I don't think much I say will be listened to by him, and I think his most recent comment, although civil, again displays that he just doesn't "get it". That said, I will be happy to accept a voluntary agreement beyond my position, and the above terms are acceptable to me on the whole, although it needs to made clearer in point two what "any previous posts" refers to, as I don't see any reason to collapse related content on my user talk page or in the archive - stuff at WT:EURO, WT:ATA, WP:EAR, and WP:WQA however is fine. CT Cooper · talk 17:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the pages at WT:EURO, WT:ATA, WP:EAR, and WP:WQA are what I meant for collapsing comments. User's personal talk pages would be at the discretion of the particular user if they wish to hide them or not, and shouldn't be forced into it otherwise. Wesley Mouse 17:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I agree to the proposal. If BabbaQ and Bleubeatle also agree, then it can go into effect. CT Cooper · talk 18:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not 100% in agreement yet. I would like to add another point to this proposal as well.Bleubeatle (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Just so you guys know, you are free to disagree. I can change them around until you guys agree with it.Bleubeatle (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks like that we have agreed on the proposal, with the cooling off period mutually agreed to be 6 months instead of 4. What do we do now then? Do we need someone to acknowledge it and close the WQA down and then start to implement the hiding of previous posts at WT:EURO, WT:ATA, WP:EAR, and WP:WQA etc? Wesley Mouse 23:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

To avoid any disagreements I would like a clear confirmation from all parties that an agreement has been reached. After this, anyone one of us can hide the old posts and provide a reason - a brief statement about the agreement will be sufficient, and the wording shouldn't be contentious. CT Cooper · talk 08:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Ilham Aliyev

Hi. What do you think of this: [12]? I think it is a WP:BLP violation, especially considering that the sources used are tabloids like Daily Mail. Grandmaster 08:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It is difficult to say, I wouldn't say it is a blatant violation, but the use of the term "expert" is problematic as the sources don't appear to use this term and the content in general seems to bare little relation to the issues the sources actually discuss. The wording is also problematic as it seems to regard his uncontested rule and human rights violations as indisputable facts, which they probably aren't. Even in the lead it needs to be more clear on what these "human rights violations" are, and directly use examples from source, rather than such vague language. Furthermore, the Daily Mail is a unreliable in my opinion, but that view is not held by all, and it is frequently treated as reliable. On the whole, I think this needs to be discussed on the talk page and Yerevanci (talk · contribs) should be willing to have such a discussion, with the content removed per WP:GRAPEVINE as "poorly sourced" until consensus is established. CT Cooper · talk 08:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the word "dictator" is a label, and as such should be avoided. Grandmaster 12:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Potentially yes, although like with the word "terrorist", its use may be okay if assigned to particular groups, organizations, governments e.t.c. Although weasel words are more accepted in the lead per WP:WEASEL, "many in Azerbaijan" is still problematic in my opinion, firstly because it begs the question on what do people outside Azerbaijan think, and I would at least go as specific as "opposition groups in Azerbaijan" or something like that. It should be noted though that my interpretation of Wikipedia practices and policy is far from infallible, and others can disagree. Feel free to request another opinion if you like. CT Cooper · talk 19:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks very much for your help. Grandmaster 19:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#RfC on the article layout of Eurovision Song Contest by year articles

Good afternoon Cooper,

Seeing as the RfC was started a month ago, and some sort of decision made on article layout, which consequently are in the process of being rolled out. I was wondering if we're safe to assume the RfC has reached a conclusion and can be closed accordingly? Its just that Spa-Franks has initiated a new discussion in regards to other articles such as Country in the Eurovision Song Contest by Year and Country in the Eurovision Song Contest, and articles covering National Selctions, such as Melodifestivalen. Also reopening a previous discussion regarding templates, which had disheartened me a little at first seeing the overheatedness of the previous debate and the length of time spent to conclude it, not to forget the many man-hours I personally put in reformatting them and rolling them all out. Wesley Mouse 14:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

There are a few things there isn't complete agreement on, such as some details on participants, and some ideas for spokespersons were never fully explored. However, the discussion has died down and we have still made good progress, so I would accept that its time to close this and move onto other things. CT Cooper · talk 11:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

A valid point there on some grey areas. Although based on suggestions made so far on the RfC which have been implemented into layout design of some of the articles, they are greater improvements overall. ESC 2012 is set to receive its GA this week (apparently) and that article is also using the layout based on those RfC suggestions. Which in my opinion, if those suggestions become a main factor for the GA then it would stand good steed in other discussions to come regarding layout style. Wesley Mouse 11:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It will be very useful to have stronger agreement on article layout and a GA article to showcase this. CT Cooper · talk 12:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Well a reminder has been sent to Tomica about the review, seeing as it started exactly a month ago. I've also posted on the GAN talk page, where one reviewer has also posted a reminder to Tomica, as the last known comment from Tom was 1 July. Pyrotec has said s/he will pick up the pieces if Tomica doesn't finish the review this week; and further added that the article does meet GA criteria, with exception to references at that time, which some had raw links, or missing data from the cite web tags. I spent a good couple of hours fixing those yesterday, so if they were the only remaining obstacle and have now been fixed, then I can't see anything else to fail GA for it. Wesley Mouse 12:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Excuse my language, but OMFG! Eurovision 2012 article has passed, its a GA - oh I feel so proud now. I'm that chuffed I just had to come and let you know personally. Wesley Mouse 21:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations on pulling it off. CT Cooper · talk 23:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Incivility issues

Cooper,

Today is technically my last day of regular daily editing on Wikipedia, as I'm off to London tomorrow ready for my first London 2012 Games Maker shift on Saturday. Don't worry, I will be trying to log-in on shift-days off just to check on messages, and sort out the newsletter. However, I was wondering if you could just cast an eye on this when you get a spare moment, as I fear that another editor may be bullying or being uncivil towards two other editors. Anyhow, take care of yourself - and I'll hopefully chat to you at some point during the Olympic and Paralympics. Wesley Mouse 15:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I think he was talking about this edit, and to be honest I agree it was an unnecessary edit as it made no difference to how the article is displayed (not to mention the standard now is "File:", referring to the file namespace, which was re-named from the image namespace when it was realized that this namespace hosts more than just images), and even it wasn't, a minor edit checkbox should have been ticked or an edit summary provided, so to give editors a reason not to bother looking at it. While I would have still left a more friendly message, it was just blunt and too the point, and said that the edit were inappropriate - they made no judgement on the intent of the edit, so it was not an accusation of bad faith. The subsequent comments by him are more problematic in my opinion, but there is no need to escalate this further - I would suggest ignoring them and moving on. CT Cooper · talk 21:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Wessex Connect

As you are an admin, please could you move Wessex Connect back to Wessex (Bus operator). My reason for this is the name Wessex Connect is no longer being used, so this makes the name incorrect and misleading. Thank You Mark999 (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The bold, revert, discuss cycle applies here. You were bold and moved a page but another editor objected and reverted the move - now discussion is required before any further action is taken. The reason for objection could be easily fixable, such as updating the lead to reflect the new title, but more other reasons for objection could exist - for instance I will point out that bus is not a proper noun and should be in lower case. The way to discuss page moves is via Wikipedia:Requested moves - I will file a nomination on your behalf now. After some time has past, the move discussion will be closed and the move will take place if there is consensus. CT Cooper · talk 19:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Gulf War Syndrome

It would be useful if you could give some input if you have time. Thanks! --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to make comments on the content dispute itself, otherwise I will loose administrator impartiality on this article. However, I'm happy to help try and resolve this issue through making suggestions on what direction those involved can go. I see you have tried mediation, but I can find no record of a mediation request in the archives at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases. If a request has never been filed then perhaps it is time to file one. If that fails, formal mediation can be requested. I suspect that when the article is unprotected edit warring will just resume again, so I may extend the protection if this remains unresolved. CT Cooper · talk 19:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is that the article keeps getting protected, yet nothing gets resolved. The issue just seems to be one anonip editor who keeps edit warring, pov pushing and generally ignoring wikipedia policy in order to push a certain unsupported viewpoint. --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Indefinite protection is not good, but it is a lesser evil compared to edit warring. If it's a user behavioural problem, although from my general observations I think it is more a content dispute, then WP:ANI and WP:RFC/U are available. The former would establish whether the community believes that anyone is behaving inappropriately and that administrator intervention is justified. CT Cooper · talk 22:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

TheShadowCrow

They're at it again, this time here with Ataturk. 150.203.35.193 (talk) 04:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have taken appropriate action. CT Cooper · talk 19:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

London's calling

Righty-o Cooper,

I'll be setting off on my big Olympic volunteering adventure later today. Start my first shift on Saturday, yes I am nervous as hell. I've pre-drafted the project newsletter in my sandbox, and have invited AxG to write up this months editorial (if he's remembered). Hopefully, if everything goes to plan, I should have a spare few hours on Monday so that I can get the newsletter issued out to members. I'm aiming to log into Wiki on my days off, just to check up on messages etc. But if you could be so kind as to keep an eye on my talk page, and answer any queries on my behalf, then I'd be truly grateful. Feel free to inform people where I am, in case they hadn't noticed it plastered on my talk page already lol. Take care, and chat to you at some stage during the games. Wes, 05:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Best of luck and I hope all goes well. I will keep an eye on your talk page in the meantime. CT Cooper · talk 10:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I've arrived, settling in nicely, and decided to bring my laptop too. Thankfully there's wifi access. Wesley Mouse 16:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, wifi seems to be becoming a standard feature of venues these days, which is highly convenient to us Wikipedians. I'm glad it's going well. CT Cooper · talk 17:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hiya Cooper, only me, live from London! lol. When you get a moment, could you review the draft editorial piece for the newsletter. Then I can get it sent out later today. Thanks buddy, Wesley Mouse 12:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It appears I'm too late! I was rather busy this evening, but the published editorial looks good to me - nice work. CT Cooper · talk 22:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Not to worry. I started to panic as I'm on an early shift tomorrow, and knew I'd benefit from an early night. But alas that hasn't happened now. I'm too bloomin hot, and can't sleep. Plus I got accused on an Olympic article's talk page about being a liar and not being a volunteer. I got really gobsmacked by it, even though I had informed people at WP:OLY that I would keep my editing on London 2012 related articles to a near minimum to avoid COI, and also fix spelling/ref error etc which shows I hadn't added content to the pages. Anyhow one argument got a little overheated, as I had mentioned about confidential documents that I am privy to, but explained I couldn't provide them here on Wiki as 1) it would be original research, 2) COI, and 3) I'd probably have made the front page headlines of The Sun for being the volunteer who leaked confidential data. People went off on one at me trying to put words into my mouth that I never said. An IP has even stated they had access one page a few days ago. I asked how could they have done when it has only just been made public today, and said that the only way they could have accessed it is if a) they work for LOCOG, b) are a volunteer like myself, or c) have hacked into the system - and I did stress that C would be highly unlikely. Are those statements of accusation towards another? They don't look that way to me, but hey - I'm off to make some cocoa and try and get some sleep. Speak soon! Wesley Mouse 22:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope you're managing now, since the Olympics are so close. I think accusations that you are lying without evidence violates WP:NPA, and I hope there is no more of that. CT Cooper · talk 19:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't too sure if comments like that would be NPA. However, I provided the link to Games Maker portal which all the volunteers have access too. All it shows is the main log-in page, so they wouldn't have been able to get into the system, but it shows evidence that I am telling the truth about being a GM. And yes, I'm settling in nicely - I feel like a local in London already, picking up the accent quiet easily so that I blend in lol. Wesley Mouse 20:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to sound like a pain, but one by following me here is a tad stalking in all honesty but I'm not too bothered about that. But the main worry is that you have just assumed badly that I was referring about you, when it is clear I wasn't. One should never jump to conclusions without checking facts. And if you read my post above more carefully the line reads "I got accused on an Olympic article's talk page about being a liar and not being a volunteer" - please tell me where in that line did I mention an IP or anyone for that matter - I said I got accused; and I even told you on that talk page that it was another user who accused me, not you. Please stop twisting words out of context; its is not amusing. And by reopening an old debate that has clearly died a natural death isn't exactly getting over it now is it?Wesley Mouse 18:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's an easy on for you Cooper. Talk:Independent Olympic Participant went through a merger discussion, but it has now been resolved and is a snowball oppose. I don't know if they can be non-admin closed. Wesley Mouse 22:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I've closed it as there clearly wasn't going to be consensus for such a merge. CT Cooper · talk 22:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have two days off now, yippe! Oh what to do... I might pretend to be a tourist tomorrow, although I am also tempted to catch the eurostar and have a day out in France. Wesley Mouse 22:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I arrived here from the merge close, and found that my conduct was possibly being discussed (or at least mentioned). Someone else may have accused Wesley Mouse of lying, but if he was referring to me it is based on a poorly worded part of a comment, which I revised immediately after noticing the accusation that I was accusing someone of lying. Regarding access to the london 2012 page (which in my opinion was closer to accusing me of lying than anything I wrote was to accusing anyone) I provided a diff of me adding the link in a comment which was based on the content of the link. I agree that the discussion got slightly too hot near the end. (For this reason I intended to cease commenting until further information was revealed, but that happened very shortly afterwards.) The relevant discussion is here. 88.88.162.69 (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't find the comments Wes was referring to, so thank you for pointing me there. As you say, this seems to be misinterpretation from ambiguous wording, so it is probably best for everyone to move on. CT Cooper · talk 19:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Anyway I am done with editing Wikipedia for now (nothing to do with this, I just suddenly feel that want to take part for a week or so, perhaps every two years). To Wesley Mouse: I would very much appreciate if you could acknowledge that I had access, probably due to some error when the page was newly created. Thank you and good bye, I enjoyed most of our discussions. Enjoy your time as Games Maker 88.88.162.69 (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office ^connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for letting me know. CT Cooper · talk 10:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Northwestern High School (Hyattsville, Maryland)". Thank you. User:Maryland Pride seems to have had trouble dropping this notice on your talkpage. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 10:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know - I have responded. CT Cooper · talk 10:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi mate. Do you think it's possible you could trim your opening statement a bit? It's just we've gone ahead and put restrictions on the filing editor to keep it concise, and it's not fair if they get a short amount of words (2000 characters) and everyone gets more. It's a bit new with DRN - we only implemented it today...sorry to be a pain. Thanks for understanding :-) Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 11:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

That's okay, I've gone ahead and put in a shortened version. CT Cooper · talk 11:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks mate, most appreciated. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 12:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Palo Alto High School

Hi Chris, There is a request for assessment for Palo Alto High School on the project page, and I was about to assess it now however I have some concerns and was wondering if you could give your opinion on it before it is assessed. On a cursory glance the article looks C class (or maybe B-Class on a good day) - It is quite long, most of the contents is referenced etc. However on closer inspection it is actually full of irrelevant information in fact I am very tempted to delete the Academic Achievements, College Readiness, Standardized testing statistics and Campus traditions sections in their entirety. There also appears to be quite a lot of original research within the article. Normally I wouldn't hesitate in doing it straight away, however it is the bulk of the article and I have a feeling that the article's editors could get quite angry with such a huge change and just start reverting it. It should be noted that the majority of edits are from IPs or from little used accounts (revision history)

I reckon therefore that the article is therefore still Start class, but I don't know the best way to go about approaching this. Any thoughts? Thanks Glanis^Talk 19:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Glanis. I agree that there are plenty of problems with the article as it stands, with the "bad stuff" gone it may be a reasonable C-class article. I would suggest posting some comments summarizing your concerns on the talk page, leaving it a few days, then deleting the content as appropriate. If there is opposition it will just have to be dealt with as it comes, although dealing with it will be easier if there is a justification and place for discussion on the talk page ahead of time - I will place the article on my watchlist. CT Cooper · talk 22:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Project Eurovision

Hi Cooper,

I've completed the task as mentioned on the project talk page, in regards to making skeleton article pages. Do they need some sort of protection level adding to them now? Also I've noticed that there is a new protection level starting soon - WP:PCPP. They will come in handy for Eurovision by Year articles once they are implemented, as they are suppose to reduce vandalism. Could be something worth investigating further. Wesley Mouse 22:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, good work. Pre-emptive semi-protection is not normally allowed, barring exceptional circumstances, and the relatively low profile nature of these pages mean that putting them on our watchlists should be sufficient. I agree that pending changes (a form of flagged revisions) would be very useful on Eurovision articles, but its use on articles is currently disallowed until the community decides whether to accept it on a permanent basis or not. The history of this feature has been somewhat controversial, and there are some die-hard opponents. CT Cooper · talk 22:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Ahh I had read the community discussion on PCPP, but it looked that lengthy and complexed that I swiftly ran away from the page lol. My head is mashed to pieces with all the work going on at the OPK that I don't think I could take additional reading material into my brain just yet. Got another couple of days off - hallelujah! Going to watch some of the swimming events tomorrow, and hopefully diving too. Wesley Mouse 22:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Have fun! I watched the men's synchronized diving today - obviously a little disappointed that Tom Daley and Peter Waterfield didn't do better. Well, hopefully Team GB will do better in the diving tomorrow. CT Cooper · talk 23:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Admin needed

Could you weigh in here with a tweak to a template? Only if you agree of course. (BTW, shame you couldn't make it to DC). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, nice to see you again. I have weighed in on the discussion. On Wikimania, yes it is a shame I couldn't do it and I realise that I missed out on meeting lots of people I would have liked to have met that weren't at Wikimania 2011, including you! However, my submission and my request for a scholarship was snubbed and as a student, I couldn't justify paying out for the flights and accommodation with my own money with nothing to present. I therefore decided to save-up for Wikimania 2013 in Hong Kong and I hope you will be able to make it! CT Cooper · talk 20:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I will certainly be in Hong Kong (RL work permitting) - it's only just round the corner from here. I had a chat with the people responsible for the scholarships. Seems they received around 1,500 applications and only had 80 to hand out. Don't take it too hard - not like the beds in the hostel ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

1,500 sounds like a huge number, although I believe only about a third make it past the first round (described by others as the "spam filter"), with many candidates "trying their luck" and having little or no contributions or interest in the movement. That said, demand is still clearly much higher than supply, and I try not to be bitter about how it went - although some discoveries of mine have shaken my beliefs on the fairness of the process. I only got a partial scholarship in 2011 when I financially really needed a full one then, due to lack of clarity on how the review process worked. In the end, my parents took sympathy and offered to pay out their own money, and I was left with a choice of either accepting that money or declining the partial scholarship. After many years of contributions to Wikimedia and a popular presentation waiting to be presented at Wikimania 2011, I felt badly let down there, and I would rather not have found out that some individuals had managed to get a full scholarship two years running (2011 & 2012) - I'm sure they utilized them well, but that wasn't very fair in my view.

Anyway, I'm moving one and saving up for 2013. I don't have any firm plans on re-applying for a scholarship - I may only go for a partial scholarship to cut my fight costs due to my apparent poor chances of getting a full one and the added flexibility of allowing me to choose where to stay, when to fly e.t.c.

In any case, I look forward to seeing you in 2013, should you come. I hope the hostel wasn't too bad - the beds for the dorms in 2011 were okay, though the place was falling apart, and I was part of about a lucky third in the dorms which got air conditioning. CT Cooper · talk 13:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Good thing I was given a bottom bunk - at my age I wouldn't have been able to climb up to a top one. Apart from that, as it was free, I can't complain too much. If I can find cheap enough accommodation, I'll head for Honk Kong under my own steam - I would like to see some scholarships being allocated to some Thai Wiki editors next time. AFAIK I was the only person resident in Thailand at Wikimania 2012. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a shame, possibly because few established Thai users applied - Sky Harbor (talk · contribs) has said a similar thing about the Philippines. I would suspect participation from Thailand will be better in 2013 simply because Hong Kong is much closer than Washington. I'm working on my travel plans to get there, and it looks like I might be going to Hong Kong from London via Istanbul with Turkish Airlines to get a cheap flight. I've found some cheap(ish) accommodation in Hong Kong - wm2013:Accommodation is very useful even if its a little dated. I'm however waiting for news on the use of university dorms for 2013, of which there should be plenty this time, to see if I can get an even lower quote. Accommodation will be a large cost for me in 2013, since due to the distance, I will be staying for over a week to explore the place as well as attend the conference. CT Cooper · talk 22:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

User:TheShadowCrow

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheShadowCrow - I've blocked him for 1 month (and the static IP for 3) for editing as an IP during the last block that you gave him, and wanted to ping you about this. Your's was an AE block, and if you feel it needs to be modified, feel free to do so. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I thought the block was appropriate in the circumstances - although next time it may well be indef. CT Cooper · talk 22:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Signatures

Cooper, Quick question. Are images allowed to be used in signatures? I have read WP:CUSTOMSIG and it explicitly states no, but I have been engaged in a discussion at Talk:2012 Summer Olympics medal table#Rank numbers wrong and have noticed User:Phizzy has replaced the link to their talk page with this image. I'm assuming the rules are different for different users based on how long they have been a member of Wikipedia. Wesley Mouse 21:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the rules are the same for everyone regardless of their record. This seems like a none borderline case to me - image transclusion is not permitted in signatures due to the technical problems they can cause on talk pages, their vulnerability to vandalism, the fact that they drain server resources, and various other issues. There is a clear note at Special:Preferences as well stating not to use images in signatures, although confident established users sometimes innocently overlook these things. I would suggest leaving a polite note on the user's talk page stating that they the use of images is not allowed in signatures, briefly explaining why, and asking them to make alternations. Very rarely will users refuse to comply with such requests. CT Cooper · talk 23:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Heading towards an edit war

Hi Chris. FYI. (I'm not going to risk any possible sanctions myself by reverting again). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The user is clearly somewhat confused here, and I would suggest taking a firm but friendly approach. I agree that the article as written was not appropriate, but I would be extermely careful about using rollback and page protection tools in a dispute in which you are involved - as if you are ever challenged, you will need a good explanation. Perhaps leaving a more detailed note on what they are doing wrong with the article content's - shortcuts and Wikipedia jargon such as "notability" tend to overwhelm. CT Cooper · talk 20:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. However, somebody else appears to have reverted it anyway, so it seems to have resolved itself. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Tile Join again, probably.

The user Elsebeen, attacking my userpage and talk page and the Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse article again. Thanks!! o0pandora0o (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, another obvious case. Blocked. Thanks for letting me know. CT Cooper · talk 19:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Rock on, thank you! o0pandora0o (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	This is just a token of appreciation for the fine work you've been doing all over Wikipedia. Thanks for always being there when needed! – Kosm1fent 18:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad I could be of help. CT Cooper · talk 19:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Somebody is baaaaack...!

Quite possible our friend Antony1821, he's returned with a proper account, GrandGhost (talk · contribs). Apart from the obvious username similarities to GrandTorino7 (talk · contribs), this recently-created account has been doing edits of similar style to football biographies [13][14][15][16], clubs [17][18] (the latter being an unconfirmed signing – his specialty). Could you please check it out? Thanks! – Kosm1fent 16:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Yes, this was very obvious - the similarity of the username plus the choice of "ghost" suggests he is not making much effort to conceal himself. Blocked and reverted in any case. CT Cooper · talk 21:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a million. :) – Kosm1fent 21:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Cooper, can you please check on GrandOSFP (talk · contribs)? I'm currently on vacation at a place with a sketchy GPRS connection, so I can't check on his contribs right now. However, his username and editing scope leaves me a duck impression. In any case, I'll be back in the afternoon, so I'll be able to check him better. Cheers! – Kosm1fent 09:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm back. Here are some interesting diffs: [19][20][21][22]. – Kosm1fent 15:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Blanket reverted and blocked. Thanks for the heads-up. CT Cooper · talk 18:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Greetings again Cooper, how's things? :) Take a look at this IP: 46.103.30.33. Same provider as the ones Antony1821 used and similar editing habits [23][24]. Would you check it out? Many thanks, again and again! – Kosm1fent 10:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the range for a month, since he seems to have edited from this range previously. I've checked 46.198.0.0/16 (talk · contribs) and 176.92.0.0/16 (talk · contribs), both of which have been used since the range block came off, but only some edits by 176.92.104.25 (talk · contribs) are suspicious. CT Cooper · talk 19:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Take a look at this IP as well 178.128.75.123 (talk · contribs) – the provider may be different and it's been inactive for a week, but the edits are similar (see [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] – ducking like crazy). My guess is that he used a different computer, so it's worth checking if this IP needs a block. Thanks again and cheers. – Kosm1fent 05:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I will keep an eye on all of these ranges for some time. CT Cooper · talk 18:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Cooper. Have a look at this IP: 46.198.27.45. Same provider and similar edits ([33][34] – only provided 2 diffs because he's only made 6 edits by the time I'm sending you this message) Please check it out. Thanks! – Kosm1fent 14:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seems there are multiple IPs on this range which have probably been used by him. I have blocked 46.198.0.0/16 (talk · contribs) for 3 months - longer than before as this is the third block on this range. CT Cooper · talk 16:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. Same deal with 176.92.97.63 – same provider and similar edits ([35]) Could you check it out? Thanks! – Kosm1fent 14:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, previously blocked and clearly still being used - so I'm going for three months here as well. CT Cooper · talk 16:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Advice on mergers

Cooper, hope you don't mind me asking for advice on article mergers. At Talk:Grethe and Jørgen Ingmann the original nominator has closed the merger discussion even though only one other person has clearly cast a !vote to merge while two others were discussing options etc. The nominator has also carried out the merger. Is this general practice for a nominator to close down such discussions? Wesley Mouse 23:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't a merger. It was a re-direct. Aren't they different? But I'm not sure if it was a general practice as well. I could undo it now if it wasn't. I could list the discussion under this page instead if it would help but the person who cast the vote seemed to be right. A merger is not necessary. Bleubeatle (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the problem Bleubeatle - you had originally opened the discussion as a proposal for merging. However, the outcome so far was for redirect - meaning you may have incorrectly closed a merger discussion. That is why I'm asking for an opinion here rather than chasing around the houses at help desk etc. Wesley Mouse 23:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes certain discussions may not have the intended outcome. It can occur in both AfDs and AfM(articles for mergers).1 Bleubeatle (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I know that outcomes can differ, I ain't that daft lol. But the original thread was for a merger proposal, with the outcome being something different - thus meaning that it would most likely have needed a non-involved to close the merger down and carry out the redirect. Wesley Mouse 23:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That link you've provided Blue has answered my question. Look at all the AfDs, RMs and PMs (page mergers) - the user closing them down and dealing with the redirects are someone not involved in the !vote process nor are they the nominator. So it would seem that you have closed the merger and carried out the redirect incorrectly. Wesley Mouse 23:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Wesley Mouse.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Would you guys like me to ask someone at the help desk while you are waiting for CT Cooper to respond?. Bleubeatle (talk) 01:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to get help desk involved. I posted the advice here, so please do not redirect my questions of advice elsewhere without my consent. Wesley Mouse 01:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I think its right that someone independent closes discussion, although the lack of any extensive debate, with everything hinged on one user's comments, mean I think one has to be an emphasis on the word "rough" in the "rough consensus" that has been determined. CT Cooper · talk 16:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

This managed to resolve itself amicably in the end. An independent user has now re-closed the merger and done the appropriate clean-up exercise along with it. Wesley Mouse 16:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision: Recent changes

Hello,

Please note that there have been some changes to operations surrounding Eurovision articles, these being that:

• Template names have now been modernised and/or megred into super-templates, for example Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest has now been merged into Template:Eurovision Song Contest making it even easier to find everything under one template. If you are planning to create a new template, please keep the standardised titles in mind. Other templates have been modernised and a full list of them can be found here.
• The Eurovision Song Contest and Junior Eurovision Song Contest articles have now been standardised to keep a consitancy throughout the project and to the genral reader too. Skeleton article drafts can be found for Eurovision Song Contest by Year and Junior Eurovision Song Contest by Year.

If you have any questions, please ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision.

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 EdwardsBot (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC) on behalf of Project Eurovision

Eurovision articles in AfD crisis

Cooper,

It has come to some members concern over the number of Eurovision-related articles that are suddenly being AfDed. The majority of users expressing a delete !vote are constantly stating that articles on Eurovision participants/songs are not notable as they are a one-off event and are not trying to push for those articles to be mass-deleted and merged into Country at Eurovision articles. If this gets the go ahead then it would be a horrific blow to the project as a whole. Is there anything that we, as a project team, should be doing to prevent this and keep the Eurovision legacy alive? I have even been accused on canvassing by one user because I notified a fellow project member of two AfD discussions taking place. Those allegations alone have deeply upset me as I have never nor would I ever dream of canvassing for a vote - I did notify a user who I noticed was actively editing at the time about two AfD's - and that was only done in the hope that they too would help spread the word about the AfD taking place - which they did do, thankfully. Wesley Mouse 11:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the us vs. them mentality which seems to be being pushed here is unhelpful, as it is likely to harden opposition and it therefore goes against consensus generating process which this community runs on. Project members' views do actually vary on this topic - we have just allowed one merge to go ahead and another might well of done if the discussion hadn't blown-up - in any case, I don't have a particular strong opinion. In a pragmatic sense, the information might be better displayed in a merged article, and biographies of which the sources are all on one event don't work that well - which is why WP:BIO1E et. al. comes from. That said, WP:MUSICBIO allows biography articles for participation in a major music event - which undisputably includes Eurovision, so this claim that project members are actively defying notability guidelines is nonsense. Yes those arguing delete can say WP:MUSICBIO is discretionary, with the "may be notable" bit, but the wording at WP:BIO1E means the same argument also applies there - a high level participant in one highly notable event can still have a biography under this guideline. "In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." Ultimately, there isn't a clear answer and its a matter of interpretation. I would lean on the view that the country by year articles count as a the "separate articles", making a biography unnecessary if it only covers content from one event. However, if there is anything other event worth discussing in the biography articles then I would firmly vote keep - this really needs to be done on a case-by-case basis - no mass deletions. The potential for a slippery slope is a concern, but one that should be manageable - people have tried to get country by year articles deleted before and the results have been firm keeps.

I've already looked at the canvassing allegations - I do think it is a bit bizarre for someone to throw out an accusation then refuse to either defend or withdraw it, leaving it hanging, and people doing this is a bit of pet hate of mine. Clearly it is the accuser that should be dropping it, not the receiver. In any case, canvassing guidelines are open to interpretation, but to avoid any accusation of canvassing in the first place I would avoid leaving messages on particular individuals talk pages inviting them to participate in an AfD - even if it is worded neutrally and done with the intention of getting a third opinion rather than specific delete or keep votes. Messages at WT:ESC are clearly acceptable, and should be just as effective. CT Cooper · talk 12:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

"the information might be better displayed in a merged article" is exactly what I think should, eventually, be done. I nominated one sole article for deletion, and then noticed that there's a lot of articles in the same shape. I don't see a reason why there can't just be an article about each group that were a part of ESC, unless, of course, they have enough notability to have their own article; which I think would be doing things after ESC and having some sort of success. Best, Statυs (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but that is your opinion Status. Their are other users with other opinions and you have to respect that. Consensus on these things needs to be done. For me it is pretty clear that a participation at Eurovision which is the worlds biggest and most viewed music competition were all the contestants represent an entire nation are notable. You dont, and that is what is needed to be discussed further.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I am seriously thinking that ARBCOM is the only way forward here now. The same disputes arise time and time again, and the same bickering and frustrated remarks ends up being the outcome and we never reach a clear decision as to what should and shouldn't be happening. In my opinion going to ARBCOM will allow a community-wide intake on this, and we'd be able to get a more experienced outlook on if there are exceptional circumstances to Eurovision-related articles. There are points at WP:BAND that would clearly allow such articles to be warranted for inclusion. Yet some find loopholes in the system to counteract those points. For example:

• Point 1 "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself"... Eurovision-related articles may fulfil this criteria as a participant for Eurovision Song Contest are published on a variety of reliable sources including Eurovision.tv
• Point 2 "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart"... Eurovision articles clearly fulfils this criteria as the participant and their song will clearly chart in their respective nation. And depending on how popular they are after the contest have been known to chart in other countries too.
• Point 4 "Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country"... Well this one is self-explanitory. There are several Eurovision related websites most of which are reliabel and contain details on a participant of the contest. However prior to the 2012 contest in Azerbaijan, some of those websites where victim to Internet hacking and had a lot of their content erased. ESCToday.com was the worst hit as they had 12-years of work erased within a matter of seconds, and the content wasn't able to be retrieved.
• Point 9 "Has won or placed in a major music competition"... Eurovision alone is a major music competition, so that fulfils the latter part of that. No matter where a participant finishes they have achieved a "placing".
• Point 10 "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications)"... Eurovision is a televised show, and a participant performs on that show in order to achieve a win.
• Point 11 "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network"... Prior to the Eurovision most if not all European music networks whether it be radio or television have a dedicated section to Eurovision.
• Point 12 "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network"... Eurovision Song Contest, broadcast via the EBU's Eurovision Network, is a substantial broadcast televised across the world and viewed by 125 million people. A performance is given its own feature segment in the contest, whether it be the first song to perform or the last - it has still featured. Wesley Mouse 13:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As I've said on the AfD, I don't think notability is the issue - but speaking as someone who on the spectrum of all Wikipedia editors is inclusion leaning, there are other factors which must be taken into account, which is why I am being open minded about a merge, though not blanket deletion. I follow what happens at WP:ARBCOM and I would avoid them like the plague - they take up no more than a dozen cases a year these days anyway, and will only accept a case if all over avenues have failed. If this really cannot be resolved peacefully, then other venues need to be tried first. WP:MEDCAB has now been shut down unfortunately, but WP:DRN, WP:RFC, and WP:MEDCOM are available. CT Cooper · talk 13:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Um guys. I don't think this is good idea. We could be causing disruption on CT Cooper's talk page. Bleubeatle (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It's okay Bleubeatle, but this discussion should perhaps be on the AfDs themselves, rather than scattered across many talk pages. CT Cooper · talk 13:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Could Bleubeatle please explain why he has mentioned CT Cooper at ANI and not notified him about it here? Wesley Mouse 13:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I was about to. Bleubeatle (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Statυs (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I have a bit of a busy schedule coming up shortly and will be away for most of the early-late evening. The ANI is worrying me, as now I won't be able to respond to any subsequent comments in my absence, and fear that I could end up with another block as a result. Wesley Mouse 14:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

One or two canvassing issues which are days old isn't going to get you blocked. I suspect this will blow over fairly soon. CT Cooper · talk 14:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Wessex Bus

New website of Rotala PLC and Wessex showing clearly no more Wessex Connect. My reasons being bus stops, buses and website no longer saying Connect so in my opinion this is the common name. I admit council websites are still showing connect at the current time, but the main sources and customer facing information no longer says connect, so I deem to keep the connect part would be confusing. Mark999 (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the main name is Wessex, not Wessex Bus, so I still not following why this title has been chosen. If it was for disambiguation, then this was not the correct way of doing it - it should be "Wessex (something here)". You have also not answered my main point - why was the page moved to a new title without any discussion, or even a clear justification on the talk page, so soon after a failed move request? CT Cooper · talk 19:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

They refer to themselves on the website as Wessex Bus, same as Preston Bus and Diamond Bus. Part of Rotala PLC rebranding. Mark999 (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll get to the main point here - moving an article knowing that other editors object and overriding a discussion just a week before is a little discourteous and is opening the door to edit warring - this project runs on consensus; it would have been a simple process to make another move request to the title you choose. On the merit of the move itself, you say they call themselves Wessex Bus - where? The page header here says Wessex Bus in the header, but everything else says just Wessex. And in any case, why does the article still call them Wessex? CT Cooper · talk 19:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This page http://wessexbus.tvstest.com/about/AboutWessexBus_12.html called about Wessex Bus, the facebook and twitter pages are called weesexbus too. Mark999 (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a pattern of them using "Wessex Bus" in titles but just calling themselves "Wessex" in text. However, I think Wikipedia doing this is likely to cause confusion. The article should clarify the issue in some way - the opening for instance could be along the lines of "Wessex Bus (abbreviated as Wessex)...", to make things clearer. On the move itself, I won't revert it, but due to the lack of any consensus, don't be surprised if another editor comes along and reverts it. CT Cooper · talk 21:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Misha B

Sorry to bother you, but I need help.

I have requested the re-opening the Dispute Resolution mechanism for the Misha B article @ Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 38 as the debate about neutrality has really flared up. on User talk:Steven Zhang who closed the original Dispute Resolution based on my suggestion...no one else in the dispute contributed.

or should I go to formal mediation?

I make no pretence that I am a fan, I guess the majority articles about (living) people are started and mainly contributed by those who are 'fans', but my contibutions have been done in good faith regards neutrality (as a newbie I have made mistakes...like not spotting blogs) I always take personal criticism and attacks maybe too seriously but I have said I welcome genuine verifiable editing contributions from others, even when they remove my contributions, which can be seen from page history.

Bias about bullying

Biased and promotional

DRN

Misha B Layout Structure

Why does the Misha article read like a magazine article?

Too much information and way too biased

WP:NPOV/N is probably your best bet here. Steven Zhang ....*Which I have followed

In the mean time I would very much welcome a neutral viewpoint from someone not involved in the article.........Zoebuggie☺whispers 02:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem, I'm happy to help, but I would rather review this is full before commenting, and I'm too tired now to do that properly. I will try and have a look tomorrow and leave some suggestions that come to mind. CT Cooper · talk 20:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Me too, I am exhausted :) look forward to your neutral feedback, good or bad for me ;)...Zoebuggie☺whispers 21:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well the edit history and the talk page both indicate some disagreement - but nothing massive and persistent, and I would say that this is still a long way off justifying formal mediation. From what I can read you appear to want some content on bullying accusations included, bear in mind that biographies of living persons is a very sensitive area on this project due to concerns about libel, and people will be instinctively opposed to a large amount of content on such an issue. That said, one or two other editors have made comments which are not very helpful - and seem to indicate a failure to assume good faith. I would suggest ignoring such comments, and try to find agreement - perhaps a compromise of a few sentences verses a full paragraph, rather than having an all or nothing discussion? To be honest, I'm not sure what the exact differing views are here, as it can be a challenge to follow what is going on on the talk page; perhaps you could provide me more details on what the disagreement is? Also, it would be appreciated if all editors properly indented their comments. CT Cooper · talk 20:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciation :) Thank you. I actually never wanted to include the controversy section. My general feeling was as it was most likely a false allegation, surely it's better to not even include it. But others did - so I wrote it, because if someone had swing the axe then I thought it ought to be me as I knew both sides of the story and if it had to be there then I wanted to make sure the whole truth as my POV sees it was there.. It is a copy of one on the The_X_Factor_(UK_series_8 Controversy section) which I also mostly wrote replacing the one sided piece before. Two recent editors (plus one last month) believed what I wrote was biased and wanted to add (not that clear) stuff from her early teens. Heated arguments/blp issues/ my personal health not good ➻ part of the reason for my call for help. Update I posted the same issue on the BLPN, but added the Controversy section of the article to get opinions. The result the whole section has now been removed :)...little muted complaint from the more established editor - waiting for the storm from the others.

I am still concerned about the unproven allegations on the talk page, some are pure fiction but Bryan did say 'At school I was bullied & I’d bully people myself, but I’m a different person now' ....This was before she took up singing seriously aged 14, as 'my way of understanding myself'. So how old was she, when she got bullied & bullied back 13, 11, 10? about the age when she discovered that not only her father abandoned her but also her mum, to be raised by her wonderful aunt in a tough neighbourhood. “Everyone has a past and people make mistakes – I’m proud to say that I’ve learnt from mine”. Basically two the editors think it should be included in her early life in a more negative way. Me I think its irrelevant, its a bit SPS and BLP...more I want to delete all the accusations from the talk page if I am correct about them breaking the BLP rules, but if I do it...the will be an white wash outcry. Q. What to do about the Bully comments on the Talk page, can they be removed and how?

My fellow editors think that I am utterly biased in favour of the subject and they think it totally affects my contributions - I only want to add fluffy nice things and never contribute the hundreds of non existent bad stories (except today the was, which I have passed on to the Controversy section on the The_X_Factor_(UK_series_8) talk page. I am a new contributor and I have made mistakes like not recognizing blogs once I found out they were not reliable. Also I am naturally fluffy and due to my obsessive nature searched and added a lot (and due to ignorance added some quotes from positive music reviews, the not being any reliable bad ones), so much that other editors complain about the amount, my bias as they see it and the number of citations (and bundling). This is especially true in the the Musical style and influences section (on other pages its often called the Artistry section, but that was deemed too fluffy). They say that the article is fan site, I am obsessed or working for her PR. We are all biased, I am open and aware about mine (I have seen lots attacks against this artist on many forums) but on Wikipedia I have always tried to be neutral. Every editor is sure she knows the truth, but other editors might see a different "truth." Q. Is the page too biased? ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 19:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the background info. I don't know the subject well enough to say if the articles involved are too biased or not, and if my role is to be that of an uninvolved admin, I can't make firm rulings on content, although I can help mediate and generate some agreement as needed. I will say that controversy sections should be added with caution - there use is controversial and can be an indication of an unbalanced article. It is often better to integrate negative information into the rest of the article's sections as appropriate, particularly on BLP articles, where such information usually fits into appropriate segment of someone's life.

On the talk page issue, removing comments is generally not appropriate barring the most exceptional of circumstances. My first strategy would be to ignore off topic personal remarks, and failing that leave a polite note on the editor's talk page telling them to cease making discussions personal on an article talk page, and even failing that WP:WQA is available. CT Cooper · talk 20:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That's sound advice. I needed that :) The two more vocal editors have been quiet atm. But if they strike up again, and it becomes messy I would be grateful of your mediation skills. But I will follow your advice as best I can. Two of us think a link to the now shorter section on the The_X_Factor_(UK_series_8) would be enough. I have probably been over sensitive, atm all is quiet........Zoebuggie☺whispers 21:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest 2013

Cooper,

That IP who keeps removing the Armenia content from ESC 2013 has now reverted again for a fourth time, and has exceeded 3RR not to mention disruptive editing. 4RR edit. Wesley Mouse 18:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The IP has done enough reverts to get blocked, and everyone else has stayed within 2RR, so a report to WP:AN3 would be appropriate. However, due to some confusion Armenia ended up being twice mentioned in the article - in the participating countries section and in other countries, so with the IP removing the former it is still in the latter. I prefer returning countries be mentioned under participants, but I think discussion with or without the IP is the best way to settle this, so I have started a thread on the talk page. CT Cooper · talk 18:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think there is a language barrier with the IP as there are a number of warnings posted there and they never acknowledge them, even if we invite to engage in talk page debates. I learnt my lesson from last time to avoid any RRs and stuck within 2RR. I can't get over the fact that I wrote an article though, I must have read it gosh knows how many times in the last hour. Wesley Mouse 19:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It's possible there could be a language issue - although in the past I've had similar cases then found the user could speak perfect English. I don't see any loss in making an invitation - if the IP chooses to ignore it, then it will have to be dealt with as appropriate. In any case, we at least need to agree with ourselves on where this content should go. On article writing, yes, I frequently love going back and reading what I've written somewhere. CT Cooper · talk 19:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

anna vissi

regarding the removal of some information from Anna Vissi, these were quotes from articles aimed to harm Vissi's reputations, by a small amount of the press. These were repeated, by persons fans of other artists, in Wikipedia, in various occations with not a good reason, and not having to do with the actual biography. As there are some quotations about Vissi failing in some occations, there are 10 times more facts of the contrary. For example while "To Vime" was claiming that vissi's careers was failing, the fact from IFPI was that her album that was released at the same artist was the biggest selling album by a female artist (2x Platinum), and while to Vima claimed her show not to be financially succesful, yet it was the most succesful of all the shows in Athens at that year.

I would prefer if wikipedia stayed in facts rather than speculations, not taking advantages from unprofessionals. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.12.93.214 (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The material is referenced, hence it's valid for Wikipedia inclusion. Verifiable is more important to Wikipedia than "fact" or "truth" if it cannot be backed up. Canterbury Tail talk 12:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless you can present a policy based reason for removal, then the content has to stay, since as Canterbury Tail says, it is appropriately sourced in line with Wikipedia:Verifiability. The Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that Wikipedia articles fairly represent the views of reliable published sources, and selective removing of content which contradicts a fixed opinion is in violation of this policy. In any case, when removing content, you should give a reason for removal in the edit summary, as failure to do so makes your edits difficult to distinguish from vandalism. Also, once it is clear that other users object to your changes, you should start a discussion on the matter at Talk:Anna Vissi to reach a consensus. You may also want to read the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline, as this guideline requires that while editing articles, editors put the interest of the encyclopedia above other causes at all times. CT Cooper · talk 13:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Antony1821 and his cronies

Hi there CT, how's it going?

Per this message i sent to our good friend Kosm1fent (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kosm1fent#User:Antony1821), think you can accomodate? This guy will never leave, never ever it seems :( It would be a good thing if he was here to help, he's not!

Have a nice weekend, thank you very much in advance - --AL (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I blocked that IP range, this being 46.198.0.0/16 (talk · contribs), on 8 August 2012 for 3 months, meaning there shouldn't be any more edits from that IP address for some time. Let me know if there are any others that you spot. Range blocks have been very effective here, although there have been two complaints of collateral damage on this range. CT Cooper · talk 15:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Many thanks, now NOT in advance :) Keep it up. --AL (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

  You're welcome. CT Cooper · talk 19:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Our Sound Contest 2012

Cooper,

Details have been released about the first Our Sound Contest (now been renamed ABU Song Festival). There are 26 songs from 15 nations been selected, and the contest is being held on 14 October 2012 in Seoul, South Korea. Official website contains all the details. I've never created a new article before so could do with some tips please, that is if we need an article for this now. Thank you, Wesley Mouse 20:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Well Wikipedia:Your first article goes over the basics, and WP:LAYOUT may be worth a read too. I would suggest drafting it in your userspace first and then moving it when you are ready. The key thing is to ensure that there are plenty of references to multiple third-party reliable sources, so there is no dispute on if the topic passes WP:N - once you have done that, it should normally exist without any issues. CT Cooper · talk 20:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh thank you, I will have a look at those links. Yes, sandbox sounds like a logical plan too, so will do it that way first. There appear to be a few sources about the contest, so that should help too. Do we keep the layout for Our Sound in the same way we have for ESC/JESC? Also location maps, not sure which one I would need but I'll figure it out as I go along. Would I need to design a template infobox for these contests too? Wesley Mouse 20:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, keeping a consistent layout if possible is a good idea - although I wouldn't be too rigid about it, particularity if the format of the contest is significantly different. I wouldn't bother with infoboxes for now - Our Sound doesn't for instance. Once multiple articles are established the creation of templates here and there will become appropriate. On the side note, Arab World (MENA) Song Contest seems to have been left bare for a while - the article has been around since 2008? Perhaps its time for AfD unless there is significant coverage of this apparently aborted proposal. CT Cooper · talk 20:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

In my sandbox test (User:Wesley Mouse/sandbox/12) I've used the Eurovision infobox for now, it seems to cover everything the same which is good. That Arab World contest didn't even lift off the ground and got abandoned - so AFD sounds good. Wesley Mouse 21:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The only possible problem is that the Eurovision infobox has the Eurovision heart at the bottom, although given that this new contest's logo also has a heart, I think this is a trivial enough issue to overlook for now. I will get to work on the AfD. CT Cooper · talk 21:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm giving WP:PROD a go first as this ought to be non-controversial. CT Cooper · talk 21:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. The draft article for Our Sound is coming along nicely. I need to re-write the format prose though as it current a copy/paste of the "about the show" section from ABU website. I'm hoping that once I get the rest of the article sorted I should be able to find the ideal wording for format. Wesley Mouse 21:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, what do we do about the contest logo? The logo image can be found here, but I'm not sure if we'd be breaching copyvio if we uploaded a version on Wikipedia. Wesley Mouse 21:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, one should be included, but don't upload it until the article is moved to the mainspace - once it is go ahead with upload and add it to the infobox. It will have to be uploaded locally as non-free content - makes sure you make the appropriate selection at Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard and follow the wizard through to the end. CT Cooper · talk 21:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Draft article ready for checking before I wikify it as my first ever official article. Would you be so kind as to have a look and alter any parts you feel needs fixing. Thank you. Wesley Mouse 00:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I've given it a quick copy edit. My only concern is a lack of third-party sources in there to demonstrate that it passes WP:GNG - there are hardly any besides those purely about Seoul. Those from the EBU and Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union probably won't count. CT Cooper · talk 12:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that, there are other sources about, I'll dig them up and add to the draft. Only concern is one of the sources is from the German Eurovision website eurofire.blog.de (and the blog in the title is what concerns me). Also this Our Sound contest is proving to be a bit of a ballache now. There are two contests on the same night - a radio one and a TV one. The radio festival have announced the 26 participants/songs. Whereas the TV festival have only confirmed 6 participants - no songs. The former is a competitive show with prizes, the TV event is non-competitive. I'm wondering do we need two separate articles or hold details for both under one article? Wesley Mouse 12:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

With the current situation I would lean towards being conservative and sticking to one article - it could always be split-up later if needed. CT Cooper · talk 13:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

What a difference a day makes. There are more reliable third party sources for the festivals now, even ESCKaz have details and the website for the host broadcaster (which I hadn't used before). Anyhow I think I've got an article ready; international broadcasters have been added. And yes, I think a combined article will be better for now - we don't need a participation map for it then (saves on space). Wesley Mouse 13:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been brave and bold. Here is the new article ABU Song Festivals 2012. Feeling like a real established editor now I've made my first article teehee. Wesley Mouse 16:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Good work, there should now be enough references to please anyone who might have otherwise taken it to AfD. CT Cooper · talk 16:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I worked around the infobox issue by replicating the Infobox Eurovision template and making necessary tweaks to suit Asiavision better. The participation map section as been removed on the new template, and the participating countries duplicated with one for radio and one for tv. The logo upload was more simple to do than I had thought too. And now that more sources are starting to report news on the contest it should be easily updated/expanded. I've classified it as future-class, is that correct or should it be start or C? Wesley Mouse 16:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Since its a future event, future-class is correct for the moment. In October after it has all happened and the dust has settled, the article should be given an appropriate class rating, probably C or B-class. CT Cooper · talk 16:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Please may I ask for some assistance on the article's talk page. There is a user having a go at me over sources. I have explained twice that of the four sources they added, two of them wouldn't open, one of them was already being used (thus a duplicate source), and the other linked to a facebook page. No matter how many times I try and explain they get all ratty towards me - and I can't think of the bloomin links to provide to further explain what I am trying to say to them. Thank you. Wesley Mouse 21:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be making slow progress, and while I have left one short comment, I don't think my intervention will be necessary nor helpful at this point. I know its a challenge - but try and be as patient and calm as you can, since this will probably get the most helpful responses and he is ultimately editing the article for the same reason you are. CT Cooper · talk 21:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm slowly losing the will to live now. Just been accused of reporting the user for vandalism, but I haven't reported anything of the such. I have noticed my twinkle option has malfunctioned when it comes to reverts, the first time I press "revert agf" it is fine. The second time it shows "vandalism" even though I have clicked "revert agf". This isn't the first time its happened either - a similar malfunction happened once before, I think I mentioned it to you a while back - but clearing my cache sorted it out. But for the life of me, the user is just our of control, being uncivil (even if s/he is getting overheated in a debate). I'm at the point where I am going to just say one final blunt remark and then leave them to wallow in the after thoughts of it. Wesley Mouse 22:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not following half the conversation to be honest, particularly this apparent claim of two separate contests, perhaps leaving a neutral note at WT:EURO would be a good idea, as I'm think others would probably like to comment. CT Cooper · talk 22:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It has got me, as the sources the user is providing are only recently published ones and don't really clarify anything about the history of the show. ESCTodat published the news back in 2007 (as far as I remember) and stated the ABU were to create a version of ESC and calling it Asiavision. But since ESCToday got hacked into earlier this year, that article no longer exists. So with that, its now using commonsensical to work out that all the show names are related, and who they are related to. We know that a company called Asiavision Pte created a contest called Asiavision, and then renamed it Our Sound. We then know from sources that Our Sound 2011 was scheduled to take place during the 48th ABU General Assembly. Now is the ABU didn't own Our Sound, then why would they hold a contest at their general meeting? And now this year, 2012, the contest is going ahead during the 49th ABU General Meeting. So the three show names logically are connected to ABU. Wesley Mouse 22:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity how would you define "ownership" in regards to articles? The way I see it is someone who prevents others from editing an article by whatever means. I've just been accused of "owning" this ABU article because I won't allow all their edits to be reinstated. Yet I haven't said all, just some. As I have mentioned on the talk page, when I noticed the new editions added I obviously checked the sources to make sure they verified the edit. At the time two of the sources wouldn't even open and gave 404 code. Now as that was the case I couldn't verify if that particular section was fact or fiction - so removal was the right thing yes? Since then one of the sources can now be viewed and I have said the edits to which that source were referring to could be readded as there was verification to collaborate truth. But I don't know if it is possible to readd sections of an previous reversion, while keeping other section omitted. The user is now demanding that ALL their edits get restored despite the fact a content dispute regarding those very edits is still ongoing - to me that demanding is "ownership", but I'm not overly sure. Wesley Mouse 14:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think asking a revision be reinstated nor objecting to such a proposal is an indication of article ownership in itself - only that of a content dispute. Article ownership is objection to allowing someone to edit the article at all, and the fact you are both willing to discuss this indicates no article ownership issues here. CT Cooper · talk 15:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

May you please intervene now as an admin on the discussion!? Things are getting entirely out of control. I offer suggestive compromises, but they keep being thrown back in my face and I feel like I am being silenced now as the user has opened a 3O knowing that I won't be able to participate for the next two days. It is most unfair that a 3O would be allowed to go ahead when I won't be able to answer any comments/questions that an uninvolved party posts. Thank you Wesley Mouse 12:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm too close to you and this dispute to be considered uninvolved, and even if I wasn't, admins cannot arbitrate content disputes and while Ruslanovich (talk · contribs) may have caused frustration, he hasn't done anything justifying admin action. I wouldn't worry too much of the 3O issue - it may take some time for a response, although if there is a quick response, the person responding should take note of your absence, and they are not arbitrators anyway - the dispute will not be resolved without a consensus among the entire party. CT Cooper · talk 14:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You'll be please to know we have managed to resolve the issue on ABU contest now. I kind backed down a little, but threw in a proposal of my own too, which made it a win-win all round. Now we're working together on how to word each section. There is confusion over listing of international broadcasting though. Sources show participating nations and broadcasters next to them, but the user is saying we shouldn't list them as the source doesn't prove anything. He also states that such a list would mislead readers into thinking a network is broadcasting the show at a specific time, yet there are no times shown on the list. We already know Australia defer broadcast of ESC, yet we list them into articles, so why would we treat ABU shows differently? Wesley Mouse 20:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad that progress is now been made, hopefully meaning that this can be resolved without escalating things further. I don't see any issue with listing countries that defer broadcasting - any such issues can always be noted in the article. CT Cooper · talk 20:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Maryland Pride

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Gyrofrog (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Have a nice time!

Hope you have a nice time in Turkey. Have you read up on the article in preparation yet lol. But aye, enjoy, don't worry too much, and I'll try not to break anything around here while you're away. Wesley Mouse 21:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Yeah, I've taken a look. I'm sure you can handle things while I'm away, but I should be popping in occasionally anyway - happy editing! CT Cooper · talk 22:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Antony1821, again

Greetings CT Cooper, I hope you are having a great time in neighbouring Turkey! Sadly, it appears that our old friend Antony1821 has returned with this IP address 46.103.80.134 (talk · contribs). Due to your absence, I notified WP:FOOTBALL instead (here), but please take action if you see it first. Thanks! – Kosm1fent 18:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Kosmo, you could always see if one of the other admins on Project Eurovision would be able to help while Cooper is away on holiday. I'm sure they won't mind on this instance. User:Foxj is also an admin, who would most likely help you out. Wesley Mouse 19:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I thought of that, I just posted a notice in a more centralized place so that the first willing FOOTY admin will take action as soon as possible, LOL. If it fails and I don't get a response soon, I will send more "intimate" messages to people. Cheers! – Kosm1fent 19:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

This is another range I have previously blocked, but the block has expired after a month. I have re blocked it for 3 months. CT Cooper · talk 18:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Do I need to tell you again how awesome you are, especially now that you are on vacation and you reacted so swiftly, while nobody from the WikiProject replied? Thanks, and have fun at Turkey! – Kosm1fent 04:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI, there is this IP address which Antony1821 seem to have used on 23 August (178.59.197.118). Cheers.– Kosm1fent 16:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome as always. This seems to be a new range and I have gone ahead and blocked it for 1 month. CT Cooper · talk 19:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• May i interrupt? Found this one chaps (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/178.59.172.74). Why are we bothering when the "person" himself has told he will not stop, with socks or other types of clothing? Happy vacation Cooper, happy week Kosm! --AL (talk) 01:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Greetings AL, CT Cooper just blocked this range for a month. Cheers! Also thank you Cooper, as always. :) – Kosm1fent 04:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
    • OK Vasco, I reverted his edits. BTW: [36] So yeah, I feel that we know the dude already and follow every footstep of his. We are a good team. Cheers and thanks everyone. – Kosm1fent 05:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

ProjectEurovision members list

Hi Cooper, I'm doing a manual check on the membership list and moving members with no Eurovision-related editing in the last 6 months to the inactive list. I have noticed some haven't touched an article for two years, do I just remove them completely or still list them as inactive? Plus did you get the email? Wesley Mouse 20:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this. I deleted the requirement for editors to be active on Eurovision articles a while ago becaue it was easier to check if someone had just made an edit somewhere and people that I removed from the members list which remained active in other areas tended to add themselves back. I don't have a strong opinion, but the inactive list would probably be best for now. CT Cooper · talk 20:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at my e-mails since going on holiday but I will try and access them now. CT Cooper · talk 20:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2) Your review is required and will be greatly appreciated :)

Hi CT Cooper ! I have started my second editor review at Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2). I will be greatly delighted, thankful and valued to have your review for me regarding my editing and possible candidate for Adminship. I see you also evaluate possible candidates for Adminship as you had chosen to do so on Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination, so do evaluate me too! As you are a experienced and long term Wikipedian so i have asked for your kind review. Take your time to review my editing and give the best review that you can :). Feel free to ask me any questions you would like to on the review page itself. It will be a great honor to have you review me for which I will truly feel appreciated and helpful! I always work to improve Wikipedia and make it a more better place to be for Everyone :). Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello there,

You now have a good number of reviews, so I'm not sure there is much I could add, and I'm on holiday so It would have to wait a few days anyway. If you want any specific advise, feel free to ask. CT Cooper · talk 21:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Archive

Can you create one for me now? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

There's also a few thing's I wanted to know:

• What will the date be when I can edit AA articles again?
• Can I edit Armenian articles that involve sports and aren't political?
• Can I edit an AA talk page to make an edit suggestion? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm on holiday and restricted to an iPad meaning I cannot do more complex tasks such as talk page archiving. I will happily do it for you when I return home in a weeks time.

To answer your questions, the restrictions came into force on 29 June 2012 and was timed to last six months, meaning they will have expired by 30 December 2012. I hope that if you do resume editing in that area that the restrictions do not have to be reimposed or worse. Sports men and women and other general sports articles which happen to be based in Armenia, as long as it does not concern any political or cultural controversy, should be okay although you should still exercise caution. The restriction includes talk pages so unless it's something completely non-contentious such s fixing grammar issues, then no. CT Cooper · talk 19:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Caution is why I'm asking you; I'm grateful you've given me another chance and I don't want to blow it.

What if I made my edit suggestion on the talk page of someone who specializes on the topic or edits the article and then they could make the choice themselves if it should be included or not? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I welcome your caution and your decision to ask for clarification on anything you didn't understand. I'm afraid I'm going to have to answer your question with probably not - your restriction includes all discussions in the topic area and even approaching another editor to make suggestions is a violation. If you are passionate about making this particular suggestion I would recommend holding the thought until the restrictions expire. In the meantime you have a chance to prove yourself in other topic areas. CT Cooper · talk 20:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --TheShadowCrow (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Rfc at WT:ESC on project reform

Hi Cooper,

Hope Turkey was perfect for you, and that you are now fully rejuvenated. London 2012 was wonderful too, and I'm now getting back into the normal routine (it does feel weird being back home). Anyhow, the RfC on Project Reform seems to have closed itself down and I haven't a clue how that has happened. What would you suggest we do now - reopen the RfC, close it official with a summary and perhaps proceed further if the number of !support is greater than the !oppose. I did make a bold move by modernizing the project main page, which since that being done, three new members have joined the project - so a little sprucing up seems to be working. Anyway, I await further instructions from yourself before I make any more bold moves. Welcome back! Wesley Mouse 20:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, it's nice to be back. You've done a very good job with improving the content at WP:EURO, so thank you for doing that, as well as cleaning-up the membership page and inviting others to join the project.

A bot will automatically come along and remove an RfC tag once it has been present for thirty days, which is what happened with the one on project reform. You can get around this problem by simply re-adding the RfC tag. It so happens that when you messaged me, I was in the middle of starting the RfC on the Country in the Eurovision Song Contest that was promised and is now posted. Given that that is now going, it makes sense to formally close the project reform RfC and focus on that - I could close it and provide a summary if that is helpful. I don't see any real consensus on the project reform RfC, but in any case, further discussion is needed on how exactly the project would be reformed - specific details on what parts of the aims/objectives to be changed would be a good idea. Either a more specific project reform RfC should be made after the country one has gone its course, which would have the advantage of allowing the AfD drama dust to settle on this issue, or if is seen as urgent and we can manage two RfCs at once, start a new one right away. CT Cooper · talk 20:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind acknowledgement on improving the content at WP:EURO. I had a brave moment and after being force fed the "inspire a generation" motto at London 2012, I thought I'd put that into practice here too by sprucing up the main page in a bid it will inspire the next generation of editors to join the project. I did add a countdown to contests on there, and I don't mind keeping that maintained as each contest ends and new ones begin.

As for closing the project reform RFC, yes that would be helpful if you could formally close it for me and include a summary. It would probably make sense for someone who I regard to be a senior member of the project to summaries the rfc. So again thank you for offering to do that. I've started to contribute to the new rfc, and hope that I am putting across some good points on there. Also while you were away, it was noted that we're apparently misguiding the general user on Eurovision by Year articles when we use a flagicon and then the host broadcaster in the infobox (for example SVT). It has been suggested that we remove the flagicon and replace it with the broadcasting company name in full. I started to alter some articles to show how they would look. Would we need to implement this across the board? Wesley Mouse 21:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh PS. I don't think we will ever get the old AFD think raised from the grave anymore either. After Bluebeatle came to my talk page trying to drag up the past, he also went to ANI and reported you, BabbaQ, and myself without notifying us again. An uninvolved admin swiftly intervened and closed the ANI immediately, and gave Bleubeatle a final warning about hounding the three of us. He's been told not to edit any articles that we edit. He has since removed the warning from his talk page and replaced it with a rather unusual notice to editors, which is clearly worded in a way that it aimed at the three of us. BabbaQ took offense to the notice, but I have chose to ignore it on the grounds of the proverb "give someone enough rope, and they are sure to hang themselves". Wesley Mouse 21:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I do particularly like the countdowns - they're a nice touch.

I will try and close the project reform RfC this evening. I saw the flagicon debate and I have no objections to the change - unless there are any clear objections, rolling this out across the board is a good idea.

Yes I saw the Bleubeatle (talk · contribs) saga from Turkey, and I'm glad it was quickly dealt with by an admin. He really had this coming to him, and have no sympathy anymore. The notice he put up was silly, but I agree with ignoring it. However, this idea of not being willing to talk to anyone but wanting to edit is a non-starter on a collaborative project. His future on Wikipedia will either be him learning to take responsibility for his actions, while collaborating and accepting the social norms of this project, or no future at all. CT Cooper · talk 21:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I've just had a thought about this new rfc. Would it be best to point out that the rfc is not just for ESC by country, but also JESC by country, and any other contest by country that is relating to the project such as ABU Song Festivals etc? Just in case Ruslanovich has another wobbler over project ownership. Wesley Mouse 21:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that - I've added a note. CT Cooper · talk 21:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Project Euro

Cooper,

I've had some more inspiring ideas for the project that I'd like to put across to you for brainstorming thought, if I may.

1. A project barnstar which I have noticed other projects have unique ones, while we don't seem to have any. The barnstar name could be along the lines of Europedian Award; which can be awarded to editors who have shown outstanding contributions/help to the project.
2. A revamp of the project newsletter, to make it more simpler to edit, but at the same time enticing to the eye and grabbing the interest of the recipient to read it more. (I'm thinking of requesting some help from a Signpost editor for inspirational ideas on this task)
3. The creation of a mini-news bulletin template which can be used to send out urgent notices to project members outside of the normal monthly newsletter cycle.

What do you think? Wesley♦^Mouse 19:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the creation of a barnstar is a great idea. The name Europedian Award could work but I think many would associate with Europe/Euro related content, and perhaps something more plain such as the "Eurovision Award" would work better. I'm open minded about revamping the newsletter and a news bulletin template would be a good idea. CT Cooper · talk 21:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

OK cool. I'll do some research homework into creating barnstars, perhaps the name WikiProject Eurovision Award is more logical. Also I'll do some research into creating the news bulletin, and contact one of the editors at Signpost for inspirational ideas on revamping the project newsletter too. Wesley♦^Mouse 21:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Can you pay attention to my discussion with Mcanmoocanu? He sounds pretty hostile and already said something kind of insulting on my talk page. I think he's going to break a rule soon. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of edit warring going on here, which puts you both at fault I'm afraid - so as a result I'm issuing a warning to both of you that further edit warring may lead to a block. Edit summaries are there to state what changes you made to the article - not to talk to other editors, and definitely not to throw insults. Talk:Paul Malignaggi is there to resolve disagreements with article content - please use it, and come to a consensus before implementing any changes. If you can't reach an agreement, I would suggest asking for a third opinion. CT Cooper · talk 20:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Help

Since you have a zero tolerence on socking and vandalism, can you get rid of this guy?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/31.111.1.148

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/31.111.106.31

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/31.111.49.231

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/31.110.118.169

AKA, the IP names on some of the following pages. Tends to use words like "retard" and "spastic" a lot. Materialscientist has banned him many times, but never for long or permenantly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Calzaghe&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carl_Froch&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vitali_Klitschko&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dariusz_Michalczewski&action=history

--TheShadowCrow (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The last one on the list of IP's has already been blocked for personal attacks. Wesley♦^Mouse 17:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

"can you get rid of this guy", this made me laugh. :P – Kosm1fent 19:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately assassination is not a profession of mine, but this seems to be a known user called UkBoxen (talk · contribs) who is probably just trolling you. Since he is editing from clearly defined ranges that have been previously blocked, I have blocked 31.111.0.0/16 (talk · contribs) and 31.110.0.0/16 (talk · contribs) for 6 months and 1 month respectively, based on level of use and previous blocks. Let me know if there is further trouble. CT Cooper · talk 20:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I need a wikibreak

Cooper,

I'm taking a couple of days break from Wikipedia, after the outburst that just occurred by some numpty on Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2013. Excuse the language, but it seriously pisses me off when someone comes from out of nowhere and starts to disrespect my intelligence. A break is the only solution to cool things down before I give myself a hernia. You know, sometimes I wonder if people care that I was a GM (short for Games Maker) and still in stress-mode lol. Talk to you soon! Wesley♦^Mouse 17:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read all the discussion, but my first impressions is that it's something rather trivial that has been over discussed. I should be more active on Wikipedia again next week, once I have returned to university and settled down - I've some last minute things which have bogged me down this week. I look forward to working with you again soon; enjoy the break. CT Cooper · talk 18:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't keep away long enough. Must have been the full moon that put me in a right grumpy mood, as I feel fine now. Anyhow, think you might want to check this edit summary out. A bit of an obvious attack on certain editors if you ask me. I thought I removed him from my watchlist, but that appeared on there and well you know curiosity killed the cat lol. Wesley♦^Mouse 02:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't pay too much attention to it - given the two day gap between placing the retirement template on his talk page and on his userpage, he seems to want attention, and this continued silliness once again demonstrates that he, quite frankly, is not ready for Wikipedia. CT Cooper · talk 10:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Cooper, sorry to post this on here, but I am now having serious concerns that a certain user is purposely victimising me on the project. The fact that the user did the same actions last year, and now continuing to do it again this year not just on Talk:ESC 2013, but also at WT:ESC. The behaviour is most certainly feeling like cyber-bullying, and I don't know how much more of it I am prepared to take as it is seriously distressing me to the point that I feel like quitting the whole project because of the individual. Isn't the whole point of Wikipedia to provide encyclopaedic content, and for editors to express their opinions on matters via the talk pages? It is impossible to hold a broad discussion where everyone is welcome to express an opinion, if one editor shuns them down as soon as an opinion is cast. It is most certainly the behaviour of someone trying to silence another just because they hate them, and I won't tolerate such behaviour from anyone. Wesley♦^Mouse 15:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

While I was a little concerned about Tony diving back into source reliability given that's what caused the trouble before, I think we should hear him out - unfortunately Tony interpreted your first reply at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2013 to be shutting him down, even if you didn't mean it that way. I'm not calling it even, because Tony's later comments were an escalation that was unhelpful and unjustified, but you do both seem to be accusing each other of the same thing - not tolerating other's opinions. I can't mediate because of my past conflicts with Tony, but I would suggest to you let go of your suspicions towards each other and find common ground. Tony is blunt, but I don't think he is driven by blind hatred of anyone. I have detected a behaviour change in terms that he choose to took to the talk page first, rather than as an afterthought in past cases, which indicates to me that he has listened to past criticism. In any case, try not to take what he says to heart. CT Cooper · talk 20:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure really. There is definitely more to it which seems to be getting missed. Yes, I appreciate he initiated discussion on the talk page first, which is good. And yes, I may have been a little blunt at first, but then I took it upon myself to investigate his concerns thoroughly to which I did provide a brief summary of my finding - although Xelela (I think that's how its spelt) posted a comment directly under mine which Tony may be assuming s/he made the entire summary and not myself. But nevertheless, I did put across my opinion based on the findings. Tony never took my words as an opinion, and literally threw them back into my face in a "I don't care what you think" kind of attitude, and I don't find that cooperative to be honest. And it isn't just on there either that he has gone about with that attitude towards myself. He did the same on WT:ESC too, in a reply to a suggestion that I made. He made a comment which clearly was a sly dig at my suggestion. When I questioned him on that, he twisted my words and tried to deny he said any such comment, and then launched an uncivil comment about my reading abilities (again). All I have done is put forward every time my opinion on ideas/suggestion - and I do look at what everyone suggests and weigh them up in a realistic manner. After all, isn't it best to think realistic and get things right the first time, rather than be irrational and have to reopen the suggestion box to fix things at a later date? It would be nice if someone just told him to back off from me for a while and at least allow me to hold an opinion without him throwing my ideas onto the scrap heap before anyone has even had chance to make a decision for themselves. Wesley♦^Mouse 21:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't interpret the comments by Tony at WT:EURO in the same way you do. Tony does sometimes completely miss the point of what people are saying, which has been a cause of tension with me in the past as you will know. Really the only answer is to be very patient and persue until it gets through. Other than offering to divert the conversation away from personalities, there is not very much more I can offer other than to try and work with him as best I can. CT Cooper · talk 10:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You've got a good point there Cooper. Perhaps I should use more simplified English, like a parent does when they are talking to a four year old lol. It could be a case of him not understanding my vocabulary. But I am right aren't I, in having a realistic approach when it boils down to the way we address content on article and layout styles? All this "Inspiring a Generation" motto that I've had drilled into my head during London really did put the way I think into a more larger perspective. Its a known fact that Eurovision (especially in the UK) has become a laughing stock; and from my time on Wikipedia I have witnessed other Wikipedians that don't understand the contest, take the mockery out of members on WP:EURO. Its all that what made me think now is the ideal time to start turning that around and show people that we are serious editors, and that Eurovision is more than just a piss-take. And the only way we can do that is if we start being strict within ourselves, and evolve the project for the good, even if it means bending some rules in the process to get to the main goal. Wesley♦^Mouse 12:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Well said. Yes, I realized since I joined the project many years ago that there was a gulf between WP Eurovision and the rest of Wikipedia in many different areas, and over time that problem has been addressed and we are still working on it even now. I also agree that there is a problem with other Wikipedians not taking our work seriously and thinking that we are either a group of rebels, a joke, or both. I myself have been questioned many times on what I edit in real life and I have sometimes received funny faces when I say "schools, Eurovision, and a few other things". CT Cooper · talk 12:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Well if I may, I shall take it upon myself as an ambition to get things turned around. About time we shown people that we are here for serious business and not to be laughed at. I could end up ruffling a few feathers in the process, but if its to get people to pull together in the long-term, then so be it. Not sure if you noticed, but Tony did leave another nasty remark to me, and has actually refused my polite request for him to retract some of the hurtful comments he made. What happens now, do I have to request an admin to remove those comments for me? Anyhow, I've left him a blunt but realistic comment, and hope that he takes some positivity from it, rather than negativity. He's probably a good guy deep down, but his approach towards others when they express an opinion is most unhelpful and something that can actually tear apart the ambition to get people working together in a positive manner. Wesley♦^Mouse 00:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I myself have began to loose patience to be honest, since his return to editing Eurovision areas has started a lot of unwanted drama, and despite some improvements his recent anti-Wesley crusade seems to demonstrate that lessons have not been learnt well enough. I would suggest just letting him leave, if that's what he wants to do. CT Cooper · talk 21:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh I just wet myself laughing at the "see you in hell" remark. Considering winter is approaching, I think hell would be lovely and warm this time of year. I'd love to know why he has such angst against me, when all I've done is discuss his views and weigh up the pro's and cons of them. Isn't that the logical thing to do? Anyhow, I have another burning question to put forward regarding ABU 2012 page. I think I may need to look into splitting the document into individual radio and TV contests, as more and more details are coming out for them both (mainly on ESCKaz of all places, they seem to be the ESCToday of the ABU world). It would be good to implement a participation map like we do on ESC articles. But I cannot find a map that covers Asia and Pacific together. Any ideas how to work around this, or people to contact in order to get one set up? Wesley♦^Mouse 22:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't say exactly why Tony has it in for you so much, but previous conflicts and your willingness to challenge his position are probably key causes, with the latter being the case with me last year. His edits outside Eurovision are almost entirely solitary, indicating to me that he just doesn't like debate. His claim of you being Eurovision dictator is psychological projection in my opinion, since from when I joined the project up until last year he was more than happy to dictate how Eurovision articles were to be made, with him getting used to getting his way with edit warring if necessary, and a preference to use the talk page to make announcements on how things should be, rather than to start a discussion - which was why I was initially pleased by his apparent change of behaviour.

On the ABU issue, since they appear to be separate contests and already have separate navigation templates, I think an article split is a good idea. I'm not into participation maps, but AxG (talk · contribs) is, so asking him to create one for the article(s) is my best suggestion. CT Cooper · talk 13:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

With you putting it that way, I can see now why he behaved in the way that he did. Did strike me as odd being referenced to as a dictator, when I couldn't see any signs myself. With you pointing out his previous editing patterns certainly explains it all now. If he didn't get things done his way then he basically pull up his defences and fire random arsenal for no reason to try and scare the other person (myself) away, in order to get his own way again. I'm glad I stood my ground now. Confused me to be told I wasn't prepared to discuss anything, when on the contrary I was engaged in the very discussion.

I've posted a note on AxG's talk page about ABU maps. Then I'll look into splitting the article. I'm assuming I take out the TV or Radio parts and place them into a new article, and then page move the original one to a new name? Wesley♦^Mouse 15:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would probably be the simplest way. The re-direct for the old article title should probably go to the more significant of the two contests, whatever that be. When copying content around, bear in mind Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. CT Cooper · talk 16:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles have been split successfully. And thank you for the autopatrolled rights, only just spotted those on the watchlist. Most kind of you. Wesley♦^Mouse 20:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. CT Cooper · talk 21:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you a ninja?

Quite possibly, considering that you identified an IP (possibly) used by Antony1821 before me. xD – Kosm1fent 08:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Not quite, I was checking the status of the blocked IP ranges and I found that one had recently expired - so I checked to see if there had been any activity from Antony, and there had. I have therefore renewed the range block for three more months. CT Cooper · talk 08:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! – Kosm1fent 08:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much!

Getting so tired of the tilejoin attacks on my page, Thank you so much for the indef protection!!! o0pandora0o (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. My mistake was not to do it earlier. CT Cooper · talk 18:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Temporary reduce in editing activities

Cooper,

Just to keep you informed, I was involved in a serious hit and run accident on Saturday evening that could have killed me. Thankfully I have a broken left big-toe and right elbow. But editing will be reduced as I'm trying to do everything left-handed which isn't easy. Wesley♦^Mouse 11:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Nasty, sounds serious enough to me - I hope whoever is behind the hit and run is caught and dealt with. In the meantime, best wishes on your recovery. I will try and look after things while your editing is limited. CT Cooper · talk 12:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for rollback

User:Acathine

• Acathine · (talk · contribs · deleted · cross-wiki · wikichecker · count · pages created · auto edits · logs · block log · rights log · google) · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi) (assign permissions) (^{r · p · f · c})

This is a new alt account (now main account), experienced with Twinkle/STiki (other account). I have a history of vandalism reverts over the past few days on this account. I can confirm my other account name via email if you wish - my other account has an extensive history of fighting vandalism, however for personal reasons I am unable to disclose the name publicly (hence verification via email only). If you have any queries about my request, please do not hesitate to ask. ~Acathine~ ^Talk 13:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If this was your first account, I would say this is premature. However, if you could disclose your former account with an e-mail, I will probably grant this request. CT Cooper · talk 13:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Email sent. ~Acathine~ ^Talk 14:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, seems all in order to me. I will grant your request and assign your new account with rollback. CT Cooper · talk 14:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, your time is much appreciated. ~Acathine~ ^Talk 21:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama and football stadiums in Greece

Hey! I see you are an expert on copyright issues – your presentation about the freedom of panorama is fascinating. I'm now convinced that Greek law is weird. :P I took a photo of Skoda Xanthi Arena yesterday (I expected to take photos of footballers as well, but they wouldn't let my camera in during the game... how nice) and, since uploading it to Commons is out of the question, can I upload it here and under which licence? Cheers. – Kosm1fent 17:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Same with Xanthi's clock tower, which I also took a picture of. What about it? – Kosm1fent 17:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you enjoyed my presentation; it's good to know it's still proving educational. As you might already know there is no freedom of panorama in Greece, meaning Commons is off limits to photographs of Greek statues and architecture unless they are out of copyright - the stadium wouldn't be, but the Xania clock tower might be - it will depend on when the architect(s) died. According to Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, in Greece copyright expires 70 years after the death of the architect(s), reduced to 50 years if the death(s) were before 1943. Unless you have precise information or the clock tower is a hundred years plus old, then it has to be assumed to be copyrighted. The good news is that FoP issues are now more organized on the English Wikipedia than they were when I did my presentation, and consensus was recently established that only US copyright law matters here. Therefore, since the US has FoP for buildings, pictures of Greek architecture and sculptures can be uploaded locally as free content under a free license of your choice - just also add {{FoP-USonly}} to such uploads. I hope that helps.

Yes, I recently found out myself that they are extremely touchy about taking cameras into stadiums - particularly if your lumbering a DSLR about. I managed to get away with it at a rugby game in the Wembly Stadium over the Summer, but I haven't dared try again. Some sports tickets have terms and conditions which state that any unauthorized photography is copyrighted with the management, or as was the case with the Olympics impose a restriction that any photography is only releasable under a non-commercial license. The latter has resulted in legal threats against some users with uploads from Olympic games on Commons as the licenses there have to allow commercial use, however it is questionable on if such conditions are legally watertight - a test court case is needed to find out! CT Cooper · talk 22:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much! While the stadium is of course copyrighted, I found out that Xanthi's clock (it's not called a tower) was built in 1859 – I think we can safely assume that the builder, a tobacco merchant called Hadji Emin Ağa, has been dead for a long time. By the way, I've heard the issue with photographs taken inside the venues during the Olympics – that's annoying! And while I understand that a DSLR camera may look intimidating and way too professional in a stadium, mine is not a DSLR (albeit just us bulky), so how would those thick security guards understand that my camera costs 120 Euros and it's in no way capable of captioning as quality photos as photo agencies employed by the organizer? Sorry for the rant, and thanks again! – Kosm1fent 04:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That's good to hear. If you upload pictures of the clock onto Commons, make sure that you mention its age in some way within the description - otherwise someone will almost certainly nominate for deletion.

The rugby match I attended at Wembley said that small cameras and mobile phone cameras for personal use were tolerated, although it didn't specify what a small camera was, and I suspect anything larger than a compact point-and-shoot would cause problems if noticed. I took in a DSLR with a large lens, and although I wouldn't call it professional because it didn't cost thousands of pounds, it was rather fortunate it wasn't spotted. For a football game in Southampton I went to, there was a blanket ban on any photography, whatever camera you were using. CT Cooper · talk 11:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Some questions

Hello.

I'm making a reference for a page and I'm confused about what I put for the accessdate. It's October 12 where I live, but the Wikipedia time is already October 13. Which should I use?

Also, do you know what happend to the medal template on this page? The critera isn't supposed to be on the left and the colors became more smaller. It's supposed to look like this. It's strange, because that page used to have to exact same problem, yet seems to have fixed itself despite no one editing it. Both pages use the exact same template and I haven't seen this problem on other pages with the same template. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC) Well, the second problem fixed itself after I edited the page, but do you know what the problem could have been based on the way I described it? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

On access dates, I would always stick to Wikipedia time i.e. UTC, but it doesn't matter that much.

I'm not sure what it could be, since changes to the page shouldn't happen without editing except with changes to images and templates, but neither of these seems to be the cause here. My only two suggestions are would be that it could be cache related, or a bizarre quirk/bug with MediaWiki. CT Cooper · talk 19:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for desalinization

Hi CT Cooper, would you mind desalting Piyush? An uncontroversial RM to move Piyush (name) there has passed, but I'm unable to carry out the move. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Y Done CT Cooper · talk 19:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Secret_Army_for_the_Liberation_of_Armenia&diff=517061666&oldid=517061053

Pretty sure this is a violation of both WP:NPOV and WP:WTA --TheShadowCrow (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Bit shocking to see that added to an article, but to add a bit of light humour to it, we are getting close to the Halloween season, so all sorts of weird spooky folk will be "raising from the underworld like Zombie's" lol. Wesley♦^Mouse 15:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, clearly. Fortunately the account has been blocked and that addition reverted. CT Cooper · talk 17:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about E4024. Read his summary. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't see what E4024 has done wrong to be honest. S/he has removed content that wasn't even sourced for starters. S/he may have done with being more tactful in the edit summary and point out the content was not sourced rather than be personal(ish) with propaganda remarks, but perhaps it was their blunt way to get the message across. I'd ignore it for now, unless the matter raises its head again. Wesley♦^Mouse 21:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been threatend with being banned for doing more or less the same thing. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Wes that there could have been a better choice of edit summary, but while this user has been previously blocked and keeps receiving warnings, this particular case isn't actionable. The key difference between this case and the ones you appear to alluding to is that the user was referring to an organization, not a person, and WP:BLP applies to the latter. The WP:MOS and WP:NPOV only apply to actual article content. CT Cooper · talk 13:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

With regard to TheShadowCrow, and considering his last two blocks for the duration of 1 month each, don't you think it is time to extend his AA topic ban to indefinite? The original ban was for 6 months: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive117#TheShadowCrow. Grandmaster 08:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I was already thinking about, and I have now gone ahead and implemented it. CT Cooper · talk 11:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Pete Townshend

Hi, Christopher. I notice some determined vandalism of the Operation Ore section of the Pete Townshend page. Do you suppose you could protect just that section of the article? You may recall that the wording of this section was developed and accepted by consensus after an extended discussion. Pkeets (talk) 05:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I've put the article back on my watchlist, since given recent events in the UK, this could well flare up again. There seems to been only one account causing trouble recently, which I can block if it returns. I will also protect the article if necessary, but the current level of activity doesn't justify it under current policy even for a WP:BLP, and unfortunately it is not possible to protect individual sections. CT Cooper · talk 09:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

ABU Radio Song Festival 2012

Hello, hope you're well.

A quickie to let you know ABU Radio Song Festival 2012 has finished, and not half caused confusion. Prior to the contest the ABU stated gold award meant winner. Now gold award means second place, silver award 3rd, bronze award 4th, and two new awards have been implmented - Grand Prix for 1st and Jury Award for 5th. Anyhow, I've updated the article, but will leave it to you to double check and do any general tweaks that are required. I've had to duplicate the infobox though, as the radio festival is now every 2 years, while TV every year. Naturally one infobox can't cover both; so a split for TV (for annual navigation) and Radio (for biennial navigation) was the only solution. The next radio contest will take place in Australia in 2014, so I'm wondering if we need to do a creation protection on ABU Radio Song Festival 2014 to avoid premature creations, a bit like we have on future ESC annual pages. Wesley♦^Mouse 16:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information - I could fit in a detailed look some time next week, although my initial impressions of the nearly finished article are positive. On creation protection, I'm hesitant as there isn't any clear precedent for this contest on when such articles should be created, which is something I can normally fall back on if any protection is challenged. For Eurovision a new year article is created as soon as the previous one is finished, and that could be followed here, except that this content appears to be biannual rather than annual. CT Cooper · talk 19:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I've had time to think on this a bit more now. As there is a lot of information out there on reliable places for us to fill in the unknown gaps, we should be able to work on a parent article ABU Radio Song Festivals, and then redirect the 2014 one into that until we get closer to the time to remove the direct and start work on the article itself. Wesley♦^Mouse 21:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the page for now, although the creation of a re-direct is somewhat effective at preventing premature creation. On the WT:EURO, I had taken an approach of initially stepping back so I don't dominate the discussion, but since there hasn't been any real discussion, I will try and revive it with some comments of my own soon. CT Cooper · talk 21:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

OK I've cleaned up both ABU Festival pages, now that the contests have finished. Although the paragraph on both about broadcasting, I am not too sure about how I've worded it. The source states both contests will reach an audience of 2 billion compared to ESC's 100 million. I've tried to word it without copying the exact text by stating 2 billion compared to ESC's which is twenty times less at 100 million. Does that count as OR even though the source confirms the figures, and I've just added an obvious mathematical statement to avoid copyvio? Wesley♦^Mouse 18:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Simple mathematics is acceptable under WP:NOR per WP:CALC, so it should be okay, and as you say it is important to re-phrase things to avoid a copyright violation issue. Unfortunately I have seen a good few ESC users who don't do this very well at all. CT Cooper · talk 19:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Pheeeeew! That's good then, thank you for clarifying the matter. There's no more information out there in cyberspace that I can find to expand the article any more than it currently is. But I'm pretty certain they are both ready to be reassessed from C to B, and then my main aim, GA submissions (I do love a good GA, especially after ESC 2012). I'll wait until you've got a spare moment to have a glance at them though before I brave the old GA gauntlet once more. Wesley♦^Mouse 19:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I will try and have a look some time this week. CT Cooper · talk 13:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Overall, the article is well written and I think it could easily make GA status. Once you submit it for GA, someone with a more a sensitive eye will look over it. The only major problem I encountered was with the images - one is uploaded locally and looks dodgy, so I have taken it to WP:PUF. The other is on Commons and has no evidence of permission, so that has also been tagged. CT Cooper · talk 10:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for having a look into those for me. The images are what are on the respective artist's articles. I wasn't too sure about them myself, but went bold and placed them onto the articles. Wesley♦^Mouse 13:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Newsletter ideas

Hi Cooper,

I've done some changes to the newsletter and aiming now to use it as a project tool to remind members of any articles that could do with being cleaned-up etc, and also to remind of on-going situations for current articles (such as ESC 2013 etc). Is there a way to find out which articles on the project are in serious need of a clean up? Or would I be best checking the suggestion bot thing, and go off that? Also, would you like to write the editorial piece this month? Wesley♦^Mouse 21:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a good idea for the newsletter - this tool is the obvious answer, although it produces a lot of data to be sorted through - is this what you were referring to? Other than article alerts and manual searching, I can't see any other way of doing it. I would be happy to write the editorial for this month, although I would need to think of something to say. CT Cooper · talk 21:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that tool is just the thing that will help. Although it doesn't appear to have updated itself since May 2010. Has that thing gone dormant, and if so, how do we reactivate it? Wesley♦^Mouse 22:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yes, that was a slight oversight on my part. The bot has been offline for two years, and I don't think there is much hope of getting it back. The only possible solution is to get someone to create a new bot, but that isn't viable in the short-term if at all. CT Cooper · talk 16:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I suppose then, suggestion bot is the only viable solution!? Seeing as that does produce a list of articles, which I can manually add ProjectEurovision-related articles to the newsletter. Wesley♦^Mouse 17:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

If you mean User:SuggestBot, I thought that only worked with people. CT Cooper · talk 17:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. I know it only works for people, but luckily I've signed up to it, so I get a copy of suggestions (majority are all Eurovision-related) so I can rely on the list that I get, and manually pick out the Eurovision articles for the purpose of noting them on a newsletter for project members (just in case they all haven't signed up to Suggestion bot). Wesley♦^Mouse 17:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I see. That could work very well. CT Cooper · talk 17:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, cool. I get a list from Suggestion bot every fortnight, so that should be frequent enough in order to collate the articles for this project off of it. I've just looked at the last two suggestion posts that I received and listed all project articles from them onto the upcoming edition of the newsletter. Hopefully this now should get members working effectively and also help Wikipedia too in getting articles improved faster. Which in turn will show the wider community that this project does take its work serious. Wesley♦^Mouse 17:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Any more thoughts on what to say in this month's editorial section of the newsletter? Wesley♦^Mouse 09:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

One or two ideas. I'm planning to fit in some time to write it tomorrow. CT Cooper · talk 18:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Done, as promised. I hope you like it. CT Cooper · talk 19:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Ahh it looks good. A few Pearls of Wisdom in there too to get some thinking. Thank you. Wesley♦^Mouse 10:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

User: TheShadowCrow

Hi there. As an admin who has to deal with the above user from time to time you have to see this contribution, of course in case you have not done so yet, to understand better with whom you are engaging... All the best. --E4024 (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was similar comments elsewhere that drew my attention to this user. Strangely enough, he is quite productive in other topic areas - his judgement only goes out of the window when he enters the AA-Turkey topic area. If that wasn't the case, he would have probably been indef'd by now. CT Cooper · talk 12:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox problems

The question is when including the following information in a infobox of a US school known as Baltimore City College:

• It is correct to include region as Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, and Northeast or relate to a certain part of a city or county known as Northeast Baltimore or Northeast Baltimore County of the school location or address of the infobox.
• It is correct to include the school education system as mixed-sex/gender, secondary, and tradtional; which means it doesn't relate certain educational programs such as Advanced Placement and Career Clusters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stokeswiki (talk • contribs) 16:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I forgot about your message, so apologies. To answer the first point, there is no strict rule on it although I would personally argue that it is superfluous as most addresses in real life do not use such terms . On the second point, the school type and the sexes accomadated should be dealt with separately - see The Petersfield School for an example. As you will see, there are separate parameters for type and gender - there is no fixed rule on what term to use either - both mixed-sex and co-educational for schools with both boys and girls are fine for example. I hope that helps. CT Cooper · talk 16:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Doon

Do you reckon The Doon School is near the GA threshold? Any suggestions? --Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  19:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't give an instant opinion, since I haven't looked at the article in a good while. My instinct would say its getting there, but there many be a few things which need work. I would suggest first looking at my last assesssment at Talk:The Doon School/Archive 2#Suggestions for GA and seeing if everything has been resolved from then. After that, I can give the article another look, although for GA I would have a think about starting a peer review. CT Cooper · talk 15:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a re-look at the suggestions and get back to you. Thanks! --Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  16:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at your suggestions now and want to get something out of the way once and for all. Do you think the image used for Doon School's founder File:SRDas.jpg should not be there on the school's page? It should probably be removed but I do see a rationale for use on Doon School's page, as he was the founder. I am confused regarding this issue. What do you think? Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  19:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I say it should be removed because I think it fails the WP:NFCC - yes, he was the founder but there is no essential need for readers to see what the founder looked like, so unless the image itself was discussed extensively in the article, its inclusion is inappropriate. CT Cooper · talk 19:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Will remove it then...Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  00:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The College of Law name change - 'The University of Law'

Hi CT Cooper

I have previously contacted you for advice on editing the College of Law Wikipedia page - are you still the best person to speak to regarding this?

We have noticed that a user has kindly updated the College's title to 'The University of Law' - it has recently been announced that the College has been awarded university title (here's a link to the press release: http://www.college-of-law.co.uk/university-title/)

Although this has been announced, the College will not actually be rebranding to The University of Law until early 2013. I'm a bit concerned that the name change on the Wikipedia page may cause some confusion among visitors to the page - would you recommend that I change it back to The College of Law until such a time that the rebrand takes place?

Let me know your thoughts!

Thanks Bryony — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryonybennett (talk • contribs) 09:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, in my view it depends on the circumstances. If the official name hasn't change, then the Wikipedia article should stay at the old title until the actual date that the name is changed. If its just the re-branding that won't take place to next year, then the current article title is correct. Looking at the press release, I would say we have the latter situation here - and due to the disruption it can cause, page moves should be kept to a minimum. CT Cooper · talk 19:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Get well soon

Hope you get well soon...! :) --Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  22:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. CT Cooper · talk 22:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Someone is baaaack (#2)

Greetings Cooper, long time no see! After months of peace and quiet (and after waking up from yesterdays JESC rage...) I saw this message from AL. It seems our old friend Antony1821 has returned with an IP whose range I believe you blocked in the past (176.92.216.225) with some of his familiar kind of disturbing edits ([37], [38], [39], [40], [41], while most of them are possibly harmless pcupdates, although I didn't check their accuracy). Would you please take a look? Cheers and thanks! – Kosm1fent 08:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the range for a year, given that it is now clear that he isn't going to stop using it any-time soon, and rollbacked all of his edits given that he is banned and cannot be trusted. Several range blocks are about to expire so I'm going to have to keep an eye on those ranges to see if he returns. CT Cooper · talk 15:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much (again)! Also, get well soon! Cheers! – Kosm1fent 09:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness as usual. Feel free to let me know if he re-appears anywhere. CT Cooper · talk 20:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding misusing Wikipedia

Oh dear, I had no idea. Thank you, for the wake up call. I'm sincerely sorry for misusing Wikipedia, not to worry I shall find an alternative. Much thanks for your co-operation. I shall continue to try and help towards Eurovision related actions and knowledge. Shadowtiger97 (talk) 06:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have unlocked your sandbox and blanked the inappropriate content. You are welcome to use the sandbox for improving the encyclopedia. CT Cooper · talk 20:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

did you vote?

hi there, your vote in ArbCom elections triggered a spoof CSRF alarm. Would you be so kind as to please confirm that you actually voted? :) Apologies for the inconvenience. Pundit|utter 07:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem; not sure how I managed that. Yes, I did vote and I even recorded how I voted in a Word document. CT Cooper · talk 09:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Kingswood School

Thanks for the reassesment. I've update the project banner in line with your rating of the school's importance. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thank you for spotting my mistake. CT Cooper · talk 17:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The return of a sock

Hi Cooper, hope you are alright. Would you kindly check out this IP's edits? (46.103.96.227) To me it looks like another one of Antony1821's socks with his trademark kind of edits ([42][43][44]). Thanks! – Kosm1fent 18:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Come to think of it, you blocked that IP range before. – Kosm1fent 18:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that range had been unblocked a while ago and that people were editing from it, although they didn't appear to be Antony, which is rather annoying because it means any block applied to that range has a high potential for collateral damage. Unfortunately though, such range blocks are the only practical and effective way to stop him so I have re-blocked the range for one year. In meantime I have taken the liberty of giving your the rollback right so you can revert the edits of vandals and sock-puppets more easily - see Wikipedia:Rollback - but don't use the right for reverting constructive edits and never use it for edit warring. I have also given you the reviewer flag, which will allow you to approve edits by new and unregistered users on pages subject to pending changes. Let me know if you want either right removed for whatever reason. CT Cooper · talk 00:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your swift response and for granting me the user rights. I've used the rollback feature before on Twinkle and it has served me fine; not sure if I really need it, but thanks nonetheless. About the reviewer flag, I was meant to request it soon, although pending changes protection has yet to come up in the pages I usually edit. Thanks again, and cheers!!! – Kosm1fent 07:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's greeting and

	Best wishes
	for the holidays and 2013 from a warmer place than where you are ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the warm greetings, Kudpung. I look forward to working alongside you on the Scholarships Committee! CT Cooper · talk 21:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, bit of a coincidence, that ;) I'll be in the UK end January for just a couple of weeks. Maybe we can grab a beer somewhere. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't live in London unfortunately, and I will be returning to Southampton in early January to continue at university. However, I will hopefully be coming to the January London meetup - see meta:Meetup/London/65; you are welcome to attend. CT Cooper · talk 12:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas
	May your Christmas sparkle with moments of love, laughter and goodwill, May the year ahead be full of contentment and joy, May the good times and treasures of the present become the golden memories of tomorrow, A Very Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2013 to you and your family. Wesley♦Mouse 14:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and happy new year to you too Wes! I hope 2013 will be a good year for WikiProject Eurovision. CT Cooper · talk 15:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

One for you to look at

Hi Cooper,

Hope you had a lovely Christmas, and looking forward to see what 2013 has in store. As you know, I was a volunteer at he games, and some of them formed together to make the Games Maker Choir who released the song I Wish For You the World. However, I noticed that the producer of the song (Richard Chance) may have edited the song article (see here). When you get a moment, would you be able to look into this for me? Thank you in advance. Wesley♦^Mouse 13:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It is probably him, although the possibility that it could be an imposter/admirer cannot be ruled out. In any case, the user's edits are minor and don't seem to be causing a problem at the moment, so I will leave it at giving a standard welcome template. If the user starts adding heaps of promotional content or similar, further action will have to be taken. CT Cooper · talk 12:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor

Can I attract your attention, as an objective editor, to this article. We need objective users like yourself a lot in this area. Thanks for your probable contributions and wish you a very Happy New Year. --E4024 (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy new year to you too. I have had a look at the article, and there is no major problems by the look of it, although looking at the talk page some editors' approach to editing in this area does seem problematic. CT Cooper · talk 12:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The return of a sock

Greetings Cooper, and a very happy new year! It looks like Antony1821 is back with another IP (78.87.154.160) and edits such as [45], [46] and [47]. Cheers! – Kosm1fent 14:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello again; happy new year to you too! This is an interesting one - he hasn't used this range before and unfortunately this IP address gets a lot of traffic. I will range block for 1 month and then we see what happens. CT Cooper · talk 17:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Very well, I will monitor that range once the block is over and get back to you when needed. Thanks!!! – Kosm1fent 21:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Pete Townshend

Hi, CT. Could you have a look at the Pete Townshend talk page, please? Someone has left a possible libelous comment under "Not enough coverage of guilty plea." Thanks. Pkeets (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that - I have dealt with it. CT Cooper · talk 12:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Pkeets (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)