User talk:Bleubeatle

Talkback

Hello, Bleubeatle. You have new messages at Gene93k's talk page.
Message added 02:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Eurovision articles

Something has to be done about this. There are so many not-notable articles of groups that were in Eurovision, with members of the project saying there are notable just because they were a part of it. That is completely incorrect, and quite laughable, in my opinion. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter. Best, Statυs (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with you. That's what I've noticed. Also there seems to be a lack of improvement or additional content on these articles beyond their Eurovision venture. I saw many other AfDs that had a similar situation to these and were about the contestants who competed in notable entertainment competition events(American Idol, The X-Factor, etc.). Perhaps notifying the WikiProject Music page in the future would be best as they may have better knowledge over this matter. But notifying them now would be too later and may be deemed canvassing but a deletion review is always open. Bleubeatle (talk) 11:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Remaining calm would be good as well. If there is something that's being failed to understand from both parties then perhaps some assistance from a neutral non-involved outside party would be better. A deletion review could be beneficial as well so I'd suggest not trying to engage any further if it leads to that. Bleubeatle (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this is really a huge issue. I've seen many Idol and X Factor contentedness deleted for the same reason. Apparently, it "doesn't appl"y to Eurovision. Statυs (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Still like comparing apples to oranges. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Right. American Idol "was the most watched TV series from 2005 to 2011". Statυs (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

What does apples to oranges mean? Bleubeatle (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

He is saying, basically, that Idol and X Factor are nowhere near as important or on the same level as Eurovision. Statυs (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I can see all aspects to this. Idol and X Factor are mainly viewed in their respective countries, although here in the UK they tend to show UK X-Factor and American Idol (not sure why we get to view American Idol when we can't vote in the show). The shows and their participants are notable in their respective country - it is the winner of those reality shows that then becomes globally notable. Eurovision on the otherhand may or may not be the same. The participants at Eurovision are sometimes well-known globally some are not. But the contest on a whole is viewed globally (125 million approx) thus giving the participants instant notability at the moment they perform on stage. Wesley Mouse 13:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

But American Idol is also viewed my millions too. Bleubeatle (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Still a basic American affair. Eurovision is broadcasted troughout Europe and other parts of the world.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

American Idol may be viewed by millions too, but not as near as many as Eurovision. Idol is viewed in the US, UK, Ireland and probably Canada too. But not everyone watches it in the other countries, compared to the viewers in America alone who would have more reason to watch the show. Eurovision on the otherhand, is watched in near enough as many nations as what the Olympics are broadcast in - eclipsing the viewing figures 10-fold to what Idol receives. Wesley Mouse 14:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on biased users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Wesley Mouse 12:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There was no canvassing going on. Provide diffs explaining where I notified this user of canvassing? Bleubeatle (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

::Of course, I was about to provide the diffs anyway, but then my talk page was inundated with messages and distracted me. Posting a comments at request for closure could be perceived as pushing for a rapid closure and speedy deletion of an article - thus canvassing. You then posted this comment in response to this post - again canvassing support to have a decision go into your favour, rather than allowing a process to take its course and a community to reach a mutual decision. I personally feel that both the AfD's as a result have now been contaminated and escalating matters to ARBCOM is the only final solution to this whole ordeal. At least by going to ARBCOM we would know either way how we should be conducting Eurovision related affairs and creation/deletion of articles. Wesley Mouse 12:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I can understand your frustration from being accused of canvassing by someone Wesley Mouse but throwing WP:Boomerangs won't help anyone at all. I don't find this warning you sent here helpful. Only distressing. And you seem to have taken my post out of context which seems unpleasant. Please refrain from doing these things again. Instead of making direct accusations, you could've just asked and I would've explained it to you thoroughly. Bleubeatle (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh; no, no, no, no, no... Leaving a message on Requests for Closure is certainly not canvassing. If it was, why would it even exist? He didn't spam, campaign, or vote stack to get the AFDs closed. Statυs (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I did state that the post at RfC could be perceived, I never said it was canvassing. The above isn't a warning either, it is suppose to be a caution (at least that is what the template portrays it as being). Cautions are informative and advice a person of a situation, a warning is more severe. Wesley Mouse 13:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well I don't seem to like how you left me that message and made an accusation of canvassing as I have not done anything that relates to that. Bleubeatle (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You couldn't leave a proper message to the user? Maybe something that doesn't say: "Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on biased users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view." You still have yet to prove how making a closure request (whether it be wrong or right) is canvassing. Statυs (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with Status here. That was a little rude Wesley Mouse. I checked your talk page just now and another user committed something like this too but you found it offensive. So why try it on me as well? Bleubeatle (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you cap or remove this the same. Statυs (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll just let the user think about what he did first. Removing talk page comments can sometimes hurt/offend people which will just provide disruption. So I'll let the user learn from his mistakes for now :-)Bleubeatle (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Apologies I have just noticed the three diffs are in the wrong order pertaining to the context. Why would someone go to RfC to request an AfD to be closed, with the reason of "they have both been open for over a week"? It is clear that neither AfDs have been over a week long, and going to RfC could be perceived as trying to get a discussion closed prematurely - and naturally that closure would cause a result of the cases whether it be delete or keep. In my eye, that is canvassing for an action to be taken earlier then the timeline for the procedure to take place. The only reason I have known an AfD to be closed before the 7-day time limit is if there is a clear WP:SNOW decision. As neither of these have a clear snowball decision then to request an immediate closure is premature action. Wesley Mouse 13:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect in doing, but not canvassing. Statυs (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm moving this to another page. Please don't be offended guys. I just want to resolve this matter alright? Thanks :-) Bleubeatle (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think taking matters to ANI is the best option either. Whatever happened to resolving matters as adults first? As we are just getting somewhere peaceful with this. Wesley Mouse 13:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I know but I think we need some assistance from a non-involved admin for these AfD discussions since it doesn't seem like its going anywhere. I'm just worried. Anyways I gotta go now. Perhaps some rest would be beneficial. I'll come back later though. CheersBleubeatle (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, so we need MEDCAB (apparently) which helps to resolve disputes and would probably clear up a lot of grey areas. ANI is for reporting misconduct. It has already been made apparent that the above notice may have been issued incorrectly as it was intended to be a helpful caution not a severe warning. Why have you made matters worse than they need to be by getting ANI involved? And you named a user at ANI and failed to notify them about it - which everyone knows that if we mention a user in a comment at ANI that isn't listed, that we are suppose to let them know about it. Wesley Mouse 13:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I just did now :-) Bleubeatle (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I have struck-out the comments about canvassing for now, as it may be a misunderstanding/misinterpretation of what you may have intended to ask at the request for closure page. It did come across as a bit canvassing, but the way Status has explained things has helped to clear up that fuzziness (thank you Status BTW). There is a clear amount of confusion surrounding Eurovision articles and whether they should be included or excluded as articles. And this is a matter of great concern, as nobody seems to have a clear understanding of the guidelines, and it has been established there are loopholes within the Wikipedia guidelines already. The best way forward and solution to this would be to request comments at the mediation cable portal - we do need to establish what is the correct procedure for these cases. WP:ANI from what I gather is for reporting users, WP:AN is for help about article and/or procedures. By going to ANI, everyone listed (including yourself) is put under scrutiny and users could end up with wrongful blocks imposed on them, when all that is needed is for a dispute to be resolved. Wesley Mouse 13:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much Wesley Mouse, I appreciate us having this discussion. I really didn't mean to place a post at WP:ANI. I am just so sick and tired of arguing. I've been a user here since 2007 and I've never had any feuds with other users so I panicked and decided to carry it at WP:ANI for further assistance since I am not familiar with handling disputes at all. I am really trying my very best to stay civil and assume good faith but this issue has made me quite frustrated after reading the replies from you and BabbaQ regarding the AfDs for The Suntribe and The Mullans. Please don't feel offended since I'm not trying to ban any of you. I just wish for this to be resolved in a civil manner. I don't want anymore disputes, that's all. Bleubeatle (talk) 06:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry too much Bleubeatle, every one of us are getting a bit frustrated at the moment, must be something in the air. I am more so with all the added pressure volunteering at the Olympic and Paralympic Games - which you are aware that I am doing. But sometimes, and don't take this offensively, but sometimes you do carry out actions the wrong way which fires up arguments. I'm not blaming you for that, as I went through a similar phase when I first joined Wikipedia. I was going to wrong venues on Wikipedia, reporting disputes to WP:ANI when I should have gone to WP:DR. Reporting IP vandals at ANI when I should have gone to WP:AIV; plus many more actions that I did wrong in the past which looking back on them now where rather pathetic of me. You have been a user much longer than I, and should really know the correct places to go to by now; and that did get me wondering if there was hidden motives behind every action you carried out. Think about it the other way around, if you were in my shoes and another user who was here longer than you started to carry out wrong actions - how would you feel? Hurt, frustrated, angry, upset, maybe even depressed.

We need to draw this to an end somewhere, and start talking like adults - if we can't make ourselves understood, then try and simplify words so they are understood. May I suggest we also withdraw the ANI and work this one out peacefully. Come to WT;ESC and take part in the project reform discussion if you like - I bet you'd even have some valid ideas to put forward too. Anyhow, take care and drop by my talk page for coffee any time. Wesley Mouse 12:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This post even after Wesleys words to you concerning accusations and the tone of your posts, I have to still be in doubt that you understand why Wesley is concerned about your editing style. I will however AGF here but I am telling you Bleubeatle that it will take time for me to be able to trust your true intentions. Because in the last few months you have started threads with a very accusive tones towards both me and Wesley and you seem to be unable to keep a discussion on a civil level at times and often threats with ANI, and then when it is over and done with you apologize and tells us that it wasnt your intention to cause disruption and then you do it now again. I hope I can feel that you are not after causing disruption and drama and wanting to influence a closing of AfD by bringing them up at threads such as ANI, I am still 50/50 on my verdict concerning that. I don't want anymore disputes, that's all you say Bleubeatle, but now you have to prove it too by not doing hasty decision and threats. Just wanted to tell you the blunt truth so we now were we have each other. Have a nice day.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Everyone could use a little lesson in civility, and in canvassing. Mouse, you were clearly canvassing. I'm guessing you now get it and won't do that in the future. Bleubeatle's posting about closing the AFD was unnecessary, but clearly not canvassing. You don't need to ask to close AFDs, they all get closed, btw. All of this was already covered in the ANI. Babba, comments like this [1] are simply wrong. You are all fully capable of discussing these things like adults, as most of the time you do, but it seems like you are just wearing on each other's nerves and taking things out of context. Maybe a little air gap would be helpful, as would dropping the stick and walking away from this issue. It gets to the point that who is wrong or right is meaningless, it is over, move on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)