User talk:CT Cooper

Click here to leave me a new message.

New sources debate at JESC 2012

Cooper, there is an on-going discussion at JESC2012 talk page, regarding the use of a possible new reliable source. The website (as mentioned on the talk page) is one listed in a Eurovision-Promo sites via the EBU. However, we're not sure if it should now be used or not, despite there being a comparison between the new site and currently used reliable ones. Would it be possible to cast your eyes over there, and add your views on the matter? Thanks - Wesley☀Mouse 22:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I will try and respond this weekend. CT Cooper · talk 21:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Commented. CT Cooper · talk 20:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Update on Finnish broadcast for Eurovision

Hello

Hope you are well, I've been having a little bit of trouble recently with a user, I've managed to find a source from someone via email regarding the years TV1 and TV2 broadcasted the Eurovision Contest for Finland, however this user says that is not a reliable source but and original source and therefore has refused me accsess to update the Finnish Commentaters. I was wondering if I could have your opinion on it please?

Take care and Regards - Mrluke485 (talk) 16:34,(UTC)

It would be nice to have informed me Mrluke485, if you was to lodge a complaint. I had explained very clear that no original research is permitted for Wikipedia, I even provided links to assist you with this. As you received the email privately it isn't sourced, and therefore is classified as original content. Wesley☀Mouse 16:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Cooper, here are the conversations in chronological order between Mrluke and myself, regarding this matter:

• 17:04, 1 March 2012‎
• 17:11, 1 March 2012‎
• 17:15, 1 March 2012‎
• 17:21, 1 March 2012‎
• 17:24, 1 March 2012‎
• 17:38, 1 March 2012

Hope this helps with the understanding the situation in full. Wesley☀Mouse 17:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Verifiability policy demands that article content be based on published sources, with it stating that "It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question." Since private e-mails are not published, they are not suitable for sourcing. Furthermore, as Wes says, this also arguably goes against the Wikipedia:No original research policy. CT Cooper · talk 21:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cooper, I came across a source, http://www.viisukuppila.fi/phpBB3/post979721.html#p979721 mind if I ask if this would this source be classed as a reliable source?

Regards and Greetings Mrluke485 (talk) 22:00,(UTC)

(talk page stalker) Forum links are not considered as reliable sources per WP:USERG. – Kosm1fent 22:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that forum links are not suitable except in very limited circumstances. CT Cooper · talk 23:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I did point out to Mrluke that forums are not suitable either, and he did say that he understood the point, at the time. Wesley☀Mouse 12:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

In light of the Finnish broadcasting changes, learning the information has come from a private email. I am now concerned about the other unsourced changes that Mrluke is now doing regarding commentators on various Eurovision articles. I hope they are not being made based off a private email too. Wesley☀Mouse 15:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It does rather concern me also. CT Cooper · talk 17:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this could do with a mini-training lesson, to assist him, so that he can learn the correct method, and prevent making this same mistake again. Wesley☀Mouse 18:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Mrluke has added loads of new details regarding commentators across many Eurovision articles that aren't backed-up with reliable sources. I'm afraid as a precaution, I am going to have to remove those additions, until we can fathom where he got them from. I've also done some background checks, and noticed that User:Carlos MS appears to be leading Mrluke astray which is troublesome in my opinion. Carlos MS also told me that its "better an original and reliable source than a non-original and non-reliable one" and also said that I'm "taking it too strictly" in regards to abiding to WP:NOR policies (full convo can be found here Wesley☀Mouse 18:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I have left a note on MrLuke's talk page. CT Cooper · talk 19:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Coop. I've got both Carlos and Mrluke on watchlist, so will keep an eye on things for a few weeks just to be safe. Wesley☀Mouse 20:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Coop, user Carlos has added unsourced information again - however, I have finally got him to see sense and understand the vitality of reliable sourcing when it concerns adding content about living people. This got me thinking, and I was wondering is there some sort of checklist that he could refer to, whenever he finds information and isn't 100% certain if he can include his findings or not. If there isn't, would it be fine for me to devise some sort of checklist (in my sandbox for now) which users who are not familiar or confident about sourcing for living people. Wesley☀Mouse 20:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

No checklist comes to mind, but feel free to create one and is would be helpful. CT Cooper · talk 21:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Does WP:REFSTART cover everything? If so, then I have stumbled upon an checklist-sort of article. Wesley☀Mouse 21:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does cover the bases and will serve as a good reference page, though I would always by default also refer users to the policies themselves e.g. WP:V. CT Cooper · talk 20:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage engagement strategy released

Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyeswikimedia.org.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't done very much new page patrolling in a long-time, but I will look into it. CT Cooper · talk 14:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Eurovision representative templates

Cooper, there's a small selection of "Country" Eurovision Representative templates been created over the last 48 hours. Is there really a need for them? As each country has a template that shows each year anyway; and these new templates are just taking the piss (for better way to phrase it). Here are the ones that have been created so far:

• Template:Albanian Eurovision Representatives
• Template:Armenian Eurovision Representatives
• Template:Azerbaijani Eurovision Representatives
• Template:Czech Eurovision Representatives
• Template:Georgian Eurovision Representatives
• Template:Israeli Eurovision Representatives
• Template:Moldovan Eurovision Representatives
• Template:Montenegrin Eurovision Representatives
• Template:San-Marinese Eurovision Representatives
• Template:Serbian Eurovision Representatives

I'm going to leave a little message to the creator of them, and see why they have been created when we already have templates like Template:Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest that are covering the same details. Wesley☀Mouse 17:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I do agree that we need to keep the lid on the number of template navboxes, and the mass creation of such templates without consensus is problematic. I put a lot of effort last Summer into standardizing the template names, and if more templates are to be created they should have standard and sensible names, which these templates currently don't. Not to mention the images in the templates are overkill. Currently these templates overlap with "Country in the Eurovision Song Contest", and really either these new templates should list purely the contestants for each country (in perhaps the same style as Template:Venues of the Eurovision Song Contest), or they should go. However, what somewhat swings me against them is that we already have succession boxes for the contestants for each country. CT Cooper · talk 17:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on this Coop. I'll go ahead and nominate each for speedy under T3. Duplication and hardcoded instances; and instead of posting individual speedy notifications on the users wall, I will attempt to group them all under one notice. Wesley☀Mouse 18:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you might have difficulty getting that through, since while they are overlaps, they are not duplicates. I would recommended discussing it at WT:EURO, and if necessary, then taking it to WP:TFD. CT Cooper · talk 19:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am adding this messege I send to Wesley Mouse, I would appriciate your response for that...

Why did you remove all the templates I have made??

A. There is NO such templates, I made a template for ARTISTS and you mentioned the template for YEARS, I know it is very usefull because not everyone want information about years.

B. There are not templates connected to artists, you can check every artist and see that after what you have done you can't go through sevral artists from the same country.

. Most important - besides adding templates I made changes because there are couple of formats for the bottom list of the artist before and after, so I wanted to go over all the artists to have the SAME format, why ruin that?

Please fix this issue, I can't find any reason why not let me do job, and as I said, I wanted to do it for ALL the Eurovision artists (Hundreds of them!).--123o (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ref links style on Eurovision articles

Cooper, I have noticed some of the ref links across Eurovision articles are only showing the URL address, and no other details about name of website, author, access date etc. So what I plan to do is check all of them, and include those missing bits of information, thus keeping a consistent look throughout. Wesley☀Mouse 18:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is a common problem. Please go ahead and fix them if you have time - though I would recommend using templates such as {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}} when possible. CT Cooper · talk 21:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll do them as and when, otherwise I'd get fed-up trying to get them all done at once. Found a useful reftoolbar which I'm now using, and it sure does speed up things, as well as gives a constant layout too. Wesley☀Mouse 21:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The Doon School

Hello C.T.,

I have made considerable contributions to the Doon School page and would like to make it a showcase article. I'll be grateful if you can tell me what the procedure is? Or, if I'm not asking for too much can you take a look at the said article and do something? thank you very much. DoscoinDoon (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

A lot has changed since I last looked at the article. I will try and digest was changes have been made and make some suggestions on the talk page. CT Cooper · talk 19:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, it is hugely appreciated :)

DoscoinDoon (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

MOTDs (This space for rent)

You may have noticed over the past few days that the MOTD that you link to on your user page has simply displayed a red link. This is due to the fact that not enough people are reviewing pending MOTDs here. Please help us keep the MOTD template alive and simply go and review a few of the MOTDs in the list. That way we can have a real MOTD in the future rather than re-using (This space for rent). Any help would be appreciated! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 18:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I will look into it if I have a spare moment. CT Cooper · talk 19:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

ANI report on User:123o

Hello CT Cooper. I write to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an involving 123o (talk · contribs); in which I classified yourself as a witness. Wesley☀Mouse 02:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

What needs to be done next

Hello there. I would like to continue working abit for the Eurovision project and I see the templates subject is too tricky. Can you give me some ideas what can I do besides that? Thanks, --123o (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

A decision has not been made yet on the templates front, and we are still having a discussion on how to organize things. Please see WT:EURO#Albania example of combined templates for the ongoing discussion; you would be welcome to contribute with your own opinions and ideas on how this issue should be resolve. As for other things to do, there are always plenty of articles which need improving. I was going through the countries in the Eurovision Song Contest articles the other day, and found many with missing references, poor quality of English e.t.c. which need clean-up. By the way, you are currently not listed as a participant in WikiProject Eurovision. If you want to be, please add yourself to Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/Members. CT Cooper · talk 16:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs I'm a Joker Korake ti znam This Is the Night (Kurt Calleja song) The Extraordinary Tale of Nicholas Pierce (Novel) Verjamem Per sempre (Nina Zilli song) Georgia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 Run & Hide Beautiful Song Be My Guest (Gaitana song) Maatraan Tiramolla Stay (Tooji song) Unbreakable (Sinplus song) France in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 Love (Sasha Son song) Me and My Guitar (Tom Dice song) Sound of Our Hearts Mundu eftir mér

Cleanup Luis Cobos Arman Whenever, Wherever Merge Mrzim spore stvari Pig cruelty Byzantine university Add Sources Euro Neuro Ann Christy (singer) Southern Islands (GPU family) Wikify Happy Home High School Springfield School Karachi Storm King School Expand Margot Hielscher LaLa Love Gilbert Carter High School

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision: Discussion on the use of navigation templates

Hello,

There is currently a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Template duplications on the future use of navigation templates (navboxes) within Eurovision articles. The consequences of this discussion could have a large impact on how these templates are organized, named, and used in future, so all project members are invited to participate in the discussion.

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

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Eurovision at 15:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC).

Errors In Message Delivery

Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that although most messages were delivered (see contributions) some errors were encountered while processing your delivery request (WikiProject Eurovision: Discussion on the use of navigation templates). Please deliver the messages to the following users manually, if you wish, because the bot was not allowed to do so:

• Phanuruch8555 - User is blocked.
• WilliamF1two - Connection error.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot at 15:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC).

I must have forgotten to remove Phanuruch8555 from the bot list; the other user seemed to have it delivered fine. I have manually delivered the message to two users who have recently signed-up and who were not on the bot list. CT Cooper · talk 15:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Current Armenia debate at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2012

Cooper, there is a debate going on about this alleged petition from Armenia. I'm slightly concerned though, as the user who is adding more deeper analysis (Gamesmaster) is from Azerbaijan, and alarm bells are ringing in my head as to why there's this impulse all of a sudden to go deeper into the negativity about Armenia. The user is aware of my concerns, as I have expressed them on the article talk page. Could you be so kind as to glance an eye over proceedings, and intervene if necessary. Thanks - Wesley☀Mouse 17:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think in general it is a good idea to bring-up user's nationality in the middle of a content discussion, as it does personalize a discussion and usually doesn't result in positive outcomes. Just because someone is from Azerbaijan or Armenia doesn't mean they edit with a particular mindset, and if someone is editing in a non-neutral way it is better to talk about how there edits are biased rather than how they are biased. I may comment more at some point, but at present you both don't seem to be too far apart on the actual content questions. CT Cooper · talk 21:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what you say there about bringing up nationality. Normally something like that doesn't bother me in the slightest, I'm not racist, nor racialist; in fact I don't hold prejudices on anything - I'm open-minded 100%. I just found it a little strange that a reason for Armenia withdrawal was already added by someone else of non-Azerbaijan nationality, and then from out of the blue, an person from Azerbaijan nationality adds new details about an alleged petition, which only a few 'dodgy' websites have published. Looking on this from a different angle, if it was the other way around, people would again have similar doubts. That's why I tried as best as possible to word my comments tactfully without coming across as being racist. There are a few other editors taking part in the discussion that appear to have doubts of this inclusion of petition stuff. Hopefully common ground can be found. If it gets out of hand, then I may just sit back from it. Wesley☀Mouse 21:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Coop, after reading this, I think something urgent needs to be done. Appears Gamesmaster may have been warned once for trolling Meowy across several articles that have connections with Armenia and Azerbaijan. There's even discussion about possible SPI (what ever that is). Wesley☀Mouse 23:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The "war" over Armenia-Azerbaijan content has been going on for years, and making things more peaceful is a challenge which I cannot resolve myself. While I don't like digging-up past unpleasant incidents, I think I should do in this case to show that this has been an issue on Eurovision articles before and that this is more complicated than it might first appear. Firstly, a few editors involved in this discussion are named as under supervision per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#List of users placed under supervision, and the related restrictions are still in force now, including on Eurovision articles with content on Armenia-Azerbaijan relations. I have previously had to request enforcement of these restrictions following Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 5#Dealing with criticism and controversy, and this request can be found here. However, Meowy's approach to things does seem to have improved somewhat, following recently coming off a long-term ban. CT Cooper · talk 00:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Ooooo it has gone on for a long time - tut tut. Well seeing as you've been aware of it for sometime now, I'll gracefully step back. Last thing I want is to be caught up in the crossfire of a previous spat. Anyhow, its almost 00:20 and my bed is begging for me to sleep in it. G'night Cooper, and I'll speak more on the 'morrow. P.S. I've been drawing up a draft paper-based copy of that checklist we spoke about a few days ago. I'll work on getting the "draft" version onto my sandbox, and let you approve it first before I put it out into the ether. Wesley☀Mouse 00:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

If you do have some idle time and want to waste it perusing the history of one of the Eurovision articles (2009 I think) you will see that a while ago I had a run in with an administrator who objected to my removal of a pov tag that he had added to some content without giving an explanation about why he felt that content had pov-issues. He then put it back and, even when asked, still refused to explain why it was there, saying "there is no requirement in policy or guidelines which says you have to post on the talk page every time you tag an article". He then complained about an "I have already explained why, until he provides that proper justification, it is reasonable to assume bad faith is behind his repeated insertion of the tag." comment I made in the article's talk page, alleging that I was being uncivil by failing to assume good faith. I got blocked, the invalid tag was of course later removed, and the content it had tagged is (last time I checked) still there. Since that administrator was one CT Cooper, perhaps he can confirm it is still there. So I hope CT Cooper's approach to things has also changed. Meowy 20:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

No Meowy that was not what happened. Firstly, I have never taken any admin action against you at any point, so I'm not sure what the repeated emphasis to me being an administrator both here and in past are supposed to be about exactly. The admin who blocked you in response to my arbitration enforcement request just happened to be the first admin to review it, and was not of my choosing, so any implied conspiratorial elements to your past blocks lack foundation.

Firstly, the claim I added a "POV tag" is inaccurate, I added the specialist tag {{criticism section}} which I thought was self-explanatory on what the problem was. The number of controversy sections in Eurovision articles has gone down over the last two years, hence resolving the issue in many places; the Eurovision Song Contest 2009 article does still have the section without the tag (the tag was removed when re-naming the section "Controversies and incidents" - rather missing the point), but removing the section will require a lot of re-organization which is not a priority at the moment.

You removed the tag without providing a clear reason, and I responded by restoring it saying that its meaning was clear. While I acknowledge that it would have been better for me to lead the way by starting a discussion at the first sign of dissent, you clearly violated your editing restrictions by reverting twice and through failing to explain the removal on the article talk page until the second revert, and I will not take responsibility for other editor's being unable to follow restrictions placed up them.

Since the issue occurred on multiple articles, I started a discussion centrally at WT:EURO and cross-posted a link on all applicable article talk pages. You claim that I did not provide a justification for adding the tag when asked, and even claim that I "refused" to do so. Actually, I provided several paragraphs worth of a justification when starting this discussion, with specific comments on the ESC 2009 article. Your response to my explanation was at best, non-constructive, and barred little relation to what I actually said, as the record at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 5#Dealing with criticism and controversy clearly shows. You pushed the idea that I was editing in bad faith and trying to remove "inconvenient" from the article, and you hence violated the civility policy by claiming an editor holds views they do not in order to malign them, and furthermore, violated WP:AGF by assuming bad faith based on false claims which were not backed-up by any evidence. This behaviour was repeated with the ironic suggestion that I thought that other editors were not acting in good faith. Your accusations against me were then successfully debunked by AlexandrDmitri (talk · contribs).

The enforcement request also makes clear that you were violating your editing restrictions in other places, which means even if none of my conflict with you had ever happened, a block would have still been justified. This comment alone was enough to justify a block in my view. At the end of the day you choose to violate your editing restrictions, and you were then caught, and dealt with appropriately. A clear notice was left on your talk page when the restrictions were imposed, and given the catalogue of violations in your edit history from 2009, I think it is fair to say that you knowingly ignored them, so I offer no apologies for requesting enforcement. That said, if the enforcement action was wrong, then you should have appealed to the Arbitration Committee, rather than continuing to dig by engaging in sock-puppetry.

The comment I made earlier which you took objection to only mentioned you once, and it was in a positive way. I certainly hope I was not being over optimistic by suggesting that your approach to things has improved. Attempting to defend your editing habits of 2009 is not going to be anyone's interest, including your own. CT Cooper · talk 00:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Your reminder of what I still think was an abuse of sanctions was never going to be seen as a constructive act by me. To mention that past incident, in which you were involved, in order to influence a current discussion was a mistake on your part. As for the incident, you added a tag to the Eurovision 2009 article without explanation. You admit that. You say that you thought it was self-explanatory, yet when my question on the talk page indicated that at least one editor thought it was not self-explanatory, you still refused to give an explanation. A tag without a talk-page explanation means nobody can know why the tag is there, or what alleged problems there existed in the article that needed to be fixed. I repeatedly asked you for a reason for the tags insertion. You repeatedly refused to give one on the articles talk page. When I removed the tag you, rather than following the constructive route and just give an explanation for the tag being there or just let the tag go, turned it into a personal battle-ground by vindictively exploited my existing sanctions to get me blocked. And that tag you insisted should remain, insisted to the extent that you got another editor blocked over it, was eventually removed without any questions from you and the supposed "controversial" content still remains in the article. Also, the criticism tag has on its description page the following: "adding this template to a section without opening any discussion of the matter on the article's talkpage may result in the template's removal from the article" - so, edit restrictions aside, I was right to remove it and you were using it incorrectly. Meowy 00:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

But it wasn't Cooper who brought up that incident first, it was me. I was querying GrandMasters actions because of the nature of this Armenia-Azerbaijan thing, and noticed that GrandMaster is from Azerbaijan. I originally informed Cooper, that I found it strange that someone from Azerbaijan would have an impulse to include Armenian details in such graphic details. Cooper told me that it wasn't a good idea to bring-up user's nationality in the middle of a content discussion, as it does personalize a discussion and usually doesn't result in positive outcomes. And from that point, I started to do a little detective work of my own, to see if my suspicions where correct or if I was prejudging things too much. It was through my detective work that I found this incident report at ArbCom. I didn't know at that time Cooper had previous involvement in the case. It was only when Cooper explained things to me, and provided details, that I then realise his involvement. Thanks to Cooper I was able to get a gist of the full picture of what had happened in the past, which in turn eased my previous misconceptions. So you can't blame Cooper for bringing up the past, when it was I who was being inquisitive about something I found. Wesley☀Mouse 00:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I did provide clear justifications for my actions WT:EURO, so I am not following this continued claims that I didn't. They appear to be based on the technicality that I placed the comments at WT:EURO rather than Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2009, which I think most people will regard as wikilawyering. You were placed under restrictions because of a history of inappropriate edits to Armenia-Azerbaijan articles, and you proved that such restrictions were justified by continuing to violate policy on Eurovision articles and elsewhere, and you are now demonstrating to me and other editors why they are still needed. If such behaviour is repeated, I will not hesitate go straight back to WP:AE as needed. Arguably, the regurgitation of the accusations against me that led to the original enforcement action is a violation in itself, with this situation aggravated by the fact you have so recently come off a two year block. I have no regrets about informing Wes about the history because I thought that he had the right to know about what happened in the past, and I didn't want to leave him the dark. I was not trying to turn him against you or anything like that, and if I was, why would I say that you had improved? CT Cooper · talk 01:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The tag advice states quite clearly that the explanation should be placed on the talk page of the article it is place on, not on some other article's talk page. That policy violation was yours. And your explanation placed on that other article was added after both your insertion of the tag, your reinsertion of the tag, and your initiation of the complaint against me. That "improved" comment you made here was very condescending. Your threat speaks for itself and I have no doubt that you will carry it out so I will try to have no further interaction with you or with any Eurovision-related article. Meowy 01:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

And that is why I cross-posted on all involved article talk pages re-directing people to WT:EURO, which is the central discussion page for Eurovision matters. Was following a link a major inconvenience? The is a textbook example of wikilawyering. You were sanctioned for violating your edit restrictions and a listable number of policies many many times, as I explained above and on the arbitration enforcement request, something which you have not attempted to rebuttal in this discussion. I think the facts speak for themselves. CT Cooper · talk 01:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

If you look at my supposed "many many times" they are almost all as a result of run-ins with administrators and, except for one BLP issue, none one of them was as a result of content added or removed from articles. That is why I am certain you will carry through your threat if pushed - so I will not be contributing anything more to the Eurovision article. I fully accept I am entirely to blame for every single editing mistake that I have ever made and that every block I have ever received was fully justified. AGF that. Meowy 01:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

If you accept the blocks were fully justified, which does rather contradict previous comments on this page, then I see little point to this discussion. I don't dispute that you are editing in good faith; your passion on Armenia-Azerbaijan issues is clear, even if this passion have often overrode attempts to stay within policy. Where you choose to contribute to is up to you, though I think editing in area outside Armenia-Azerbaijan issues altogether might be beneficial, as ArbCom have encouraged other users in a similar position to yourself. I would not "carry out" my "threat" unless I had the evidence to do so, and that existence of such evidence is ultimately in your hands. CT Cooper · talk 13:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I would appreciate your comment on the issue in question. Me and Wesley Mouse don't seem to understand each other well, even though I think our position on content is quite close. In fact, the present situation is reminiscent of the past problems of similar nature, i.e. it is about choosing better wording for controversial info, and what should and should not be included. A third party opinion would be highly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Grandmaster 01:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I will try and comment some time today. CT Cooper · talk 14:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we are close to solution now, and managed to resolve our differences. But your opinion will be appreciated nonetheless. Grandmaster 16:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I have commented; I don't strongly disagree with what is proposed. CT Cooper · talk 18:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Grandmaster 23:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Removal of content

CT Cooper, as explained in my edit summary, the post you have now twice deleted was made as a response to you having mentioned me and wikilinked your prior involvement with me. So, please either delete that mention from the thread you have just archived (i.e. delete everything in the "The "war" over Armenia-Azerbaijan content has been going on for years...." post except the first sentence) or reinsert my reply to your post. Meowy 20:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, Meowy, if you insist - I will restore all the content, and give a reply in due course. Though you may not agree, I declined to give a response in your interests as well as mine, but so be it. CT Cooper · talk 20:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

If you had waited an extra minute (or I had been an extra minute earlier) you would have read the above request before you had archived the thread. The proposal still stands - delete your mention of me and my response to that mention can also be deleted. Or, if you feel my description of what happened is inaccurate, by all means give a reply in due course. Meowy 20:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not censoring my comments about what happened in the past, so barring asking for another admin to intervene, I will take some time out to respond. CT Cooper · talk 21:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there was anything wrong with what CT Cooper wrote about a previous incident. If you notice, I highlighted a previous incident that I found through an investigation trail of my own. As I have only been a member of Wikipedia since August 2011, he was responding to what I had pointed out to him, to inform me that he already knew of the 2009 incident. I see nothing wrong in Cooper providing the information that he did, as it allowed me to understand fully what had happened in the past. Wesley☀Mouse 21:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

But still you wanted to censor mine. :) True, it is your talk page - but if you start to refer to incidents that happened a long time ago in order to influence current editing discussions, then it is right that I should have the space explain what those incidents actually were. Meowy 23:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Meowy, in light of the way you are currently giving lip to people, including CT Cooper, as well as purposely unsigning subsequent comments on the article talk page, one can see why you received the original sanctions. And you say you learnt from old mistakes? Wesley☀Mouse 00:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Cooper, I have asked that Meowy cease interactions with myself, following this statement from him. I know under some circumstances it may be unavoidable due to the nature of the project, and fully accept that. I hope that I'm not in the wrong by asking such request. Look forward to your reply in due course. Wesley☀Mouse 00:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Things I really moving too fast for me to keep-up, and it is too late in the evening for me to digest this now. Though, I would suggest interactions stop on User talk:Meowy for the moment as they clearly are not going anywhere. CT Cooper · talk 00:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Replied

Hello, CT Cooper. You have new messages at Teles's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Hopefully these have arrived at a perfect time for you. Strawberries are delicious, and bring happiness to anyone who loves to devour them. Wesley☀Mouse 00:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Wes, that makes me feel a lot better. CT Cooper · talk 00:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Anyhow, I'm off to bed, got an early start tomorrow - and I still haven't got off my lazy arse and done my London 2012 Volunteer homework yet. We was told at the last training event, to learn how to sign our name and 2 greetings using BSL, as we're going to be tested at the next training session on April 13. D'ya think I'd get away with the middle finger, and 2 finger-gesture as a greeting signs? LOL. G'night! Wesley☀Mouse 01:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)