User talk:Pr3st0n/EuroArchive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Italy Petition

 no further action
I've come across an online petition to bring back Italy to 2010 contest. OK it's sounds unreal; but I signed it for a laugh. Just think, if they do come back in 2010, those who signed the thing, will feel like they had something to do with it. Petition link here http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/italy-to-participate-in-eurovision-song-contest-2010.html (Pr3st0n (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC))

I signed it as well, there was another header about this last week here, but it was removed because of WP:NOTFORUM. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: IPs Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2010

 no further action
Consider raising this at WP:ANI. Cirt (talk) 01:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me out with this situation Cirt. I have posted a complaint about the IP user via WP:ANI as you kindly advised me. In the complaint I have mentioned that you have been so kind as to help me with this ongoing situation. I hope this is OK. Kindest regards (Pr3st0n 04:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

Estonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2010

 no further action
I removed Estonia from confirmed participants, because it's not comfirmed neither by Estonian National Broadcasting or Estonian media. The website which was a reference is fan-made. There's no reason why Estonia shouldn't participate, but as long it's not comfirmed by ERR it shouldn't be on that list. So I hope now you won't put it back there :). Andry2109 (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm really really sorry if you found this arrogant or something. I didn't mean it as it might sound. Sorry for that. I know there's no reason why Estonia shouldn't participate and I'm quite sure Estonia will. But as long as ERR hasn't said this to public we don't have any proof. And proof right now is what we need for reference. I hope you understand what I mean. There's 20 other countries who also will participate and we all can be quite sure. But as long as we don't have anything to put as reference, they're not confirmed. :) All the best, Andry2109 (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision

 read

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletters


Eurovision Inside Scoops

 no further action
I will be using this section of my talk page to share any inside gossip on Eurovision with other editors who are interested. These scoops come courtesy of my cousin, who works for the EBU in Switzerland, and naturally have been leaked to me in confidence, prior to any official Press Releases. (Pr3st0n 12:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision articles

 no further action
A second RfC has been started on sourcing for Eurovision articles, you can view it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision articles. This RfC is critical as it will help determine how current and future Eurovision articles are sourced, and as much participation as possible is needed for a consensus to develop. You are being notified as you are listed as an active user of Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision, and hence the results of this RfC could have a large impact on the articles you edit. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've left some comments in regards to this via the relevant section as per link. (Pr3st0n 14:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

Italy in the Big 5

 no further action
Hi. Firstly, your use of capital letters to shout on my talk page is not going to gain you much respect. Differences of opinion on Wikipedia are resolved through consensus and discussion: not through shouting in caps. Secondly, you mentioned that you had discussed the point with some other editors who agreed with you, but you failed to provide me a link where I can see the discussion. Please do so, because I would be very interested to read it. Thirdly - okay, for now I have left in the information about Italy being part of a possible Big 5 (pending discussion) - but I have revised it so it conforms with the tone of a serious Featured encyclopædia article, instead of reading just like a message board post on a Eurovision fan site. EuroSong talk 13:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly I don't use capital letters to shout - I use them to stand out more - If I wanted to shout I would do it in voice, not text; and the occasions I chose to shout in text I do it in BOLD CAPITALS. Secondly, the discussions with other editors was done via a users talk page, via the ESC talk page, and also via email. One user in particular said that Italy wasn't a part of a big 5, and proof was needed to back this up. I then liaised with another editor, and it was decided that if I could find any sourced proof about Italy being a part of a "Big 5" then I should add it to the ESC main article - this was done in accordance. Then we found a random IP user kept removing it. And thus a semi-protection request was issued on the ESC article. You have since stated that you're the one removing the article about Italy being a part of a Big 5. There are several reliable websites which provide proof that Italy IS part of a Big 5. I can understand that Italy hasn't participated in ESC since 1997; but seeing as this information is valuable, it should be included in the article as it provides valid information and resourcing for people doing research into Eurovision. After all that is what Wikipedia is all about - providing Encyclopaedic information for those doing research online. (Pr3st0n 20:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC))
Hi. Sorry it's taken me a while to get back to you: I've been busy in real life. Okay, some things to mention.
1) Regarding your shouting in caps - your definition of using caps to "stand out", while labelling bold caps as shouting, is yours alone: I think you'll find that most people on internet forums see mere caps as shouting. In addition, I see from this edit that you did indeed consider your original words (and means of expression) too rude, and retracted it to sound more polite! But anyway - no harm done, I accept that you did not intend to be rude.
2) All discussions involving disputed edits should be done in plain view. It's no good saying that you were talking with other editors by e-mail. Wikipedia is built on consensus within the community. Surely there may be some perfectly valid points made in your private e-mails: however, if no-one else can read them then they won't do much good!
3) To quote you: "Then we found a random IP user kept removing it... You have since stated that you're the one removing the article about Italy being a part of a Big 5"
This is entirely incorrect. I do not edit under an anonymous IP, and those previous removals of the information were not done by me. I removed the information one time - editing under my own name. This now explains your original rude shouting, telling me not to remove the information "ever again". You clearly thought that I was in some petty edit war with you: however, you were mistaken, and you still are. I by no means stated that I was the one removing it all along. You should get your facts straight before you start making bold assumptions.
4) You state that there are reliable websites which provide proof of the accuracy of this information about Italy. But you seem to have missed my original point entirely. I am not disputing its accuracy, or its verifiability. I am questioning whether it is correctly placed in an encycopædia article. Please see WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
5) Your statement: "After all that is what Wikipedia is all about - providing Encyclopaedic information for those doing research online." - proves nothing. Back to my original point: the information is well placed in the article about Italy in the ESC. However, in the main article, it is out of place. As I have previously stated, there are many other true facts about the ESC which are verifiable - but do not belong in the main article. Please try to understand the issues here.
6) Your recent message left on my talk page stating that "a final decision has been made" is - to put it politely - garbage. Camaron expressed a "third opinion" (his words). While his opinion is indeed valuable, and I am interested in reading it, he is not an appointed judge in any way, and the issue is by no means settled. We need to have a community consensus - and we do not yet have that.
EuroSong talk 11:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
P.S If a community consensus agrees that the information about Italy being a possible Big 5 member should be in the main article, then I will accept it graciously. Hey, I may even agree with it, because someone makes some valid points. I have no personal stake here, other than to write a great article. It's just that I will not accept one single user (you) trying to steamroller your opinion through.
OK EuroSong, now you're the one being petty and rude; to which I shall turn a blind eye to and bid you peace in your life ahead.

1] I never have intentions of being rude - perhaps I should point out that I do suffer with Bipolar (which is clearly shown on my User Page), which can come across as moody at times, and even once I've noticed a Bipolar mood has kicked in, I always return to the comment and edit it in a polite way, as in the instance with this edit.
2] I would like to add that following your accusation to me saying I was shouting, I felt an additional edit was required to show the fact that I wasn't shouting, just making certain words stand out from the rest. Most discussion about Italy and Big 5 where done in open view; you merely need to look for them; they are in the obvious places afterall.
3] When you quoted me on: "Then we found a random IP user kept removing it... You have since stated that you're the one removing the article about Italy being a part of a Big 5", please tell me in which part of that have I link you with the random IP user? All that meant was A random IP user made edits; then you state you made edits also. I never said you and the random IP are the same person. I never even said you was part of a petty edit war - if I even as thought you were I would have said so. I would like to add that I never ASSUME, as it makes an ASS out of U and ME.
4] Yes I asked Camaron to make a third opinion, seeing as he is the main person in control of the WikiProject Eurovision. With this in mind, I would say that his word is "valid" if not "final".
5] Throughout my conversations I have been as polite as possible, its in circumstances where users start to patronise me that I get narky, which is something we all do - at the end of the day we are protecting are personal pride. Which is why I sense that is the way you are behaving now - although you do seem to use a tint of bullying within your manner of words and the way you portray them in your comments.
6] In all honesty EuroSong, you should back down I feel, and just agree to disagree. The article about Italy IS in the right place, and provides useful information to those who view the page for research. End of discussion with you! (Pr3st0n (talk) 12:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC))

I quoted you as being rude because your tone was originally rude. I'm a person who calls a spade a spade. I'm sorry to hear that you have bipolar disorder. I'm not in the habit of always looking at a person's user page before I leave them a message, so I did not know. With this in mind, I do understand that there may be times where you express yourself a certain way, and then later regret it. Anyway, as I already said, there's no harm done.
I'm sorry you consider me rude towards you. I do not mean to be. I simply say things as they are.
Additional: I see that you are now complaining to other users about me. Obviously you have taken something the wrong way. Would you please tell me precisely what I said which you consider bullying? If you tell me what you have taken offence at, then I will be in a position to reply - and perhaps clear up anything necessary.
Your statement about the random IP making edits - and then me making edits (false actually - I only removed the information once) - was certainly written in such a way as to link the two of us together. It is to be strongly inferred that when you wrote that, you were saying that I was the one making all the edits. If that is not what you meant, then I am sorry that there was a misunderstanding. If it is indeed the case that there was a misunderstanding, then - as above - there's no harm done when we both recognise it as a misunderstanding :)
Just because a person is the primary administrator of a WikiProject, that does not make their word "final" on all things relating to that project. You may be interested to know that the current Eurovision Song Contest article was 95% written by me. In 2006 it was in a very poor state, so I completely re-wrote it - put it through a peer review, made many improvements, and succeeded in getting it recognised as a Featured Article. So by that logic, you may say that my word could be final on anything to do with the article! But Wikipedia does not work like that. There's an established principle that no-one "owns" any article (or project), and... much as I would have to defer to a community consensus on the ESC article which I did not agree with, Cameron would have to similarly stand aside if such a consensus relating to the project differed with his own viewpoint.
Sure, we can agree to disagree: but the final say on the information about Italy will lie with consensus. You wrote: "The article about Italy IS in the right place... End of discussion with you! " - and yet you say my attitude is "bullying"? Sorry pal, but using caps for emphasis and then saying "end of discussion" is no recipe for you to get your own way - here, or anywhere else.
You may be interested to know, by the way, that since I cleaned up the Italian information and corrected the capitalisation, I have a lot less objection to its presence in the main article. I'm really not overly bothered now, one way or the other - it's just that when I have another user who stamps his feet over a particular issue, then I do have to pay it more scrutiny than I would otherwise do. EuroSong talk 16:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Gareth. I'm sorry I have not replied earlier: I have been quite busy in my offline life! Just wanted to say - apology accepted. As I said, I'm perfectly well aware that on the internet it's very easy to have misunderstandings, and often it's the case that both parties have good motives, but they just come across wrong! No bad feelings are held at all - I consider the matter behind us. And yes, of course I am happy to be friends. All the best.. EuroSong talk 13:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll on reliable sources for Eurovision articles

 Participated in Straw Poll
The second RfC on sourcing for Eurovision articles has now being running for several weeks, you can view it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision articles. In order to help gauge the spread of opinion and draw conclusions from this discussion a straw poll has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Straw poll. All project members are encouraged to read the RfC thoroughly and then cast their votes as they see fit. Rationales are still encouraged in the main discussion area above the poll, and participants can add appropriate new sources or options to the poll as they wish. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Italy in the Big 5 (again)

 no further action
Hi. I'm really sorry, but I have had to remove the information about Italy in the (possible) Big 5 from the main article again. The reason is that there is currently quite a strong opinion among a few critical editors that the ESCtoday and Oikotimes websites do not qualify as Reliable Sources for articles. Whatever the merits of this opinion, it has unfortunately yet to be proven that they are. I just want you to know that personally, I do believe that ESCtoday and Oikotimes are reliable sources - and I had no problem with the sourcing of the information about Italy from Oikotimes. But until such time as either a) People accept Oikotimes as a RS, or b) The information about Italy appears on eurovision.tv or ebu.ch (or some such other official media site), then it will have to stay out of the article. It is with regret that I do this - especially considering our past argument about it, after I had decided that I did not have a problem with the information in the article. But I thought it only proper that I let you know here. EuroSong talk 22:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know... I've not been able to access the Internet for 3 weeks, due to techincal problems with the hrd drive on my laptop which went corrupt, and had to be repaired. Got so much to catch up with. Cht soon OK. (Pr3st0n (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC))