This is an archive of past discussions for the period January - March 2017.
Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

January 2017

Orphaned non-free image File:Conchita album cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Conchita album cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 6:17 pm, 30 January 2017, last Monday (4 days ago) (UTC+0)

February 2017

Question

Hey Wes, I have a question. So an IP user recently has been changing the songwriters names on Never Give Up on You. I always reverted the edits, but then he messaged me saying that he was one of the authors, and he was changing his stage name to his actual name, because it was what he wanted listed. I told him it's a conflict of interest if he edits the article, and we can't just take his word for it since we needed published sources regarding information. So he then sent me links of articles that refer to him by his real name rather than his stage name and told me to add it to the article for him. You can read it all on my talk page. I'm not really sure how to go about with this, and was wondering if you could give me some advice on it. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 11:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I've intervened, and issued a COI warning on the IP talk page. Also I've tagged both the article and its talk page with COI notices. Wes Mouse ^Talk 12:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Wesley Wolf,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 811 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

CSS styling in templates

Hello everyone, and sincere apologies if you're getting this message more than once. Just a heads-up that there is currently work on an extension in order to enable CSS styling in templates. Please check the document on mediawiki.org to discuss best storage methods and what we need to avoid with implementation. Thanks, m:User:Melamrawy (WMF), 09:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 01:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Award

		The Music Barnstar
		Hi, Wesley Mouse. I'm a huge Junior Eurovision Song Contest fan and it almost seems like you've been the reason for every existing page related to it. The diligence award seems appropriate for the hard work you've put into the many pages which have been benefited by you. Congratulations.

Wow this came as an unexpected surprise. Thank you Tuxipedia (talk · contribs) for issuing this award. I appreciate it so very much. Wes Mouse ^Talk 13:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello Wesley Wolf,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 811 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Escpedia

Hi Wes, I'm just asking about JanelaESC, one of the listed reliable sources. It currently redirects to their new website, Escpedia. I don't know whether the new website is still able to be considered reliable. I didn't want to simply change the external link without first asking you.--Tuxipedia (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tuxipedia: leave the link as it is on the list of reliable sources. Project coordinators check those and change them when necessary. Wes Mouse ^Talk 17:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Wesley Mouse: That's handy to know. I won't change the already existing link. However, should Escpedia be added in addition to JanelaESC? --Tuxipedia (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tuxipedia: No, do not add Escpedia in addition to. If JanelaESC is redirecting to a new website address, then any checks will be made upon the next review of the listed sources, and any amendments will be made thereafter. The day-to-day running of the Project space is overseen by project coordinators. From what I have noticed, you appear to have made several edits within the project space (such as this edit and this one). Project members are encouraged to be active on the project talk pages, and avoid altering any of the project main space unless any consensus has been reached as a result of debated content at WT:ESC. Wes Mouse ^Talk 02:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

You may also wish to note that material such as that found at User:Tuxipedia#2000s and User:Tuxipedia#2010s is not permitted, per WP:UPNOT and is advised that such content be removed with immediate effect. One needs to remember that even though it is a user page, we do not own our user pages, and that they must still comply with Wikipedia regulations. Wes Mouse ^Talk 02:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

March 2017 WikiCup newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:

Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.

The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.

So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk page refactoring

What are you on about I've done something wrong I haven't done anything? Crawford81 (talk) 1:25 pm, 19 March 2017 (UTC+0)

Note on Boriso-Glebsky

About this, I know (believe me i know) that it gets very frustrating to deal with conflicted editors. There are really two optimal outcomes here. One is that the conflicted user comes to understand what they should do, and becomes a productive (but limited) member of the community, and the other is that they keep editing aggressively and they get swiftly blocked/TBANed/indeffed, with little drama. The latter outcome gets complicated if any of the non-conflicted editors who are involved, start acting badly (people will point that out at ANI and it can derail the thread) So please remain calm, and please remain focused on content and content policies at the article and its talk page, and deal with behavioral issues at the user's Talk page. Please. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I already had dealt with the situation on their talk page. Although they posted a comment on the article talk page, so I merely duplicated my response in the bid s/he finally got the hint to ease off on the conflict-editing. I think s/he now understands the trivial and press quote issue, and does seem to agree with the renaming of "prizes" to "awards and achievements". Looking at the rest of their suggested rewrite, some appear to be copy/paste - but I'm sure I could fix that problem and write the content neutrally. Anyhow, I am more than happy to work on the article, incorporate their "ideas", bring it to Wiki-standards, and hopefully thus restore peace back to the whole ordeal. However, you have removed my comments on the article talk page without my permission, which goes against WP:TPG refactoring. Wes Mouse ^Talk 22:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I saw that too. I am just addressing your comment on the article talk page. Thanks for keeping watch over this article!! Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I appreciate that you are addressing my comment on the article talk page, but removing it without my permission is a breach of WP:TPO. I would appreciate that it was reinstated, and the correct procedures carried out in handling it - such as {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}} - per guidance at WP:TPO. Wes Mouse ^Talk 22:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

If you want to get wikilawyerly, i removed it per TPG (discuss content not contributors on article Talk pages) and NPA, which says the same. I have added the widely-used template below, since it seems required to show you that discussing contributors, not content, is not best practice, and simply removing them is commonly done. If you want to dirty your hands by edit warring to restore your inappropriate comment, knock yourself out. I won't re-revert. But it will only hurt you if you want to bring administrative action against the conflicted editor. (I speak from a lot of experience in dealing with conflicted editors - you want to go into administrative action with clean hands). Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Jytdog. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Nikita Boriso-Glebsky that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message below. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Seriously? Now that is just pure childish behaviour. All you had to do was ask me to remove the comment myself. As an experienced Wikipdia, I would have expected you to know that by now. Wes Mouse ^Talk 22:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

And for the record, I doubt it would go to admin intervention now for severe coi-editing. The user has now started to discuss edits on the talk page. OK they took it upon themselves to insert the content after a compromise was reached - hence the warning they received. But now that I have said I would incorporate their suggestions into the article. Then no COI has been breached. Although looking at the suggestions in more depth, a lot of it is poorly translated from their original sources, which is worrying. Wes Mouse ^Talk 22:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, you are making it clear that you want drama. I have no appetite for it and a lot on my plate in WP. I will unwatch the article and leave it to you. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Er, I'm not wanting any drama. Although it looks like you are the one acting like a diva. All I said was refactoring comments is not permitted. If my comment on the talk page was inappropriate, then you merely had to come here and ask me politely to remove it - and I would have complied to the request in a peace and civil manner - as that is the kind of person I am. Sheesh! If anything did go to admin, they'd probably kick off more at the fact you removed my comment, than to kick off at what I wrote. If you have a lot on your plate, then take a wikibreak and have a coffee. Don't be getting all frustrated just because things are stressing you out. Anyhow, as for the re-write, would you place all the awards in a nested table or in bullet-list per talk page suggestion? Wes Mouse ^Talk 23:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Wesley Mouse did not attempt to justify his actions. He's merely pointing out that he would like to be treated as a regular, which he is. This means it's not appropriate to remove his content without asking him first, and it's provocative behaviour to template the regulars. Whether or not his comment was justified, yours are not. --Tuxipedia (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Formatting & Guidance

Hi @Wesley Mouse: It can be reasonably frustrating attempting to fix "Country in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 20XX" articles, as people often make a hash of things. I've been thinking about the current information in place at Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/Format and Guides, and I believe it could be useful to write an article that explicitly tells the user how these articles should be written. I'm willing to write a draft, and I would not publish this without consensus from you and the team, but I still felt it would be important to consult you first and find out whether it's a good idea or not, as this is right down your alley. If you give me the thumbs up, and I won't be offended if you don't, I'll gladly get to work in my sandbox. Or perhaps you'd prefer to do this yourself. What are your thoughts? --Tuxipedia (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tuxipedia, I'm assuming you mean creating a skeleton article like we have for the annual contest pages? (JESC version and ESC version) I see nothing wrong in doing the same for other aspects, if it will help assist editors on how to present the perfect article based on Wikipedia policies and manual of style. Wes Mouse ^Talk 21:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

An idea on the draft titles, if I may!?

Just throwing titles into the pot, so to speak. Wes Mouse ^Talk 21:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. You're right about the skeleton article concept; that's exactly what I was thinking of. I'll keep the draft in my sandbox until it's ready to be used. By the way, I doubt I expect I'll only be able to write a guide for Junior Eurovision articles, rather than Eurovision articles, simply because that's where my experience lies. Cheers. --Tuxipedia (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tuxipedia:, it has only occurred to me today that there is an ongoing exercise of layout formatting for the [Country] in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest articles. And when I say ongoing, it has got to be well over a year since I made a start, and slowly working my way through them all. List of complete and incomplete can be found at User:Wesley Mouse/sandbox/10. Wes Mouse ^Talk 02:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Wesley Mouse: I was vaguely aware of it, but I'm more familiar with the articles divided by year than the country's summary. All the same, once I'm content with the ones I'm currently working on, I'll attempt to familiarize myself with it. By the way, I'm keeping the page I'm working on at my sandbox, so if you want to look at it and correct mistakes or anything like that, feel free. Until such a time as I shift the content out of the sandbox, you are more than welcome to make any necessary edits. I'm actually going to go with something that's more elaborate than the skeleton articles we already have in place, as things vary too much for a single exemplar article, taking factors into account such as internal/national selection. Best wishes. --Tuxipedia (talk) 06:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tuxipedia: I'm setting my goal to have the rest on that list switched to the new layout format by the end of the weekend. I had noticed you've made a start on MOS:BOLDAVOID on some of the country articles (such as this one). There is no urgency in correcting those at this time. The articles that have switched to the new format are already MOS:BOLDAVOID-free. Any that are not, are still in the list of incomplete, but will be bold-free in a few days. Wes Mouse ^Talk 14:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Reverts

So, I assume, you will revert any edit I make? --Tohaomg (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tohaomg: Please assume good faith. I am not reverting every edit you make. I have thousands of articles and pages on my Special:WATCHLIST. The two edits that I reverted, were done so legitimately. The map edit was reverted, due to the fact we do not use that version - and I noted that in my edit summary. The second revert was done, because you placed a massive piece of content into an article, and the content went against WP:NOTGALLERY. So both reverts I made were done in compliance with policies and previous discussions. It is not my fauly that I'm an experienced editor who has a keen eye on details and making sure Wikipedia core rules are being adhered to. Wes Mouse ^Talk 22:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to check out my contributions and you will see that I have been highly active and extremely busy right across Wikipedia, updating articles, carrying out merge proposals, nominating articles for deletion that fail WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO, amongst other duties. Wes Mouse ^Talk 22:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Somehow you managed to do 3/4 of all my edit reverts ever in 4 days. That is what I meant.

In case of reverted edit about the new host. It seems to me, every newspaper in Ukraine have already written about this. Is it possible all of them are wrong?

In case of a gallery. You linked to a rule WP:NOTGALLERY which states "Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of...". Maybe my english is not perfect, but I understand "not merely" as meaning "not only", so this rule mean an article can not consist only of a gallery, but can contain a gallery as one of its parts, can't it? --Tohaomg (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tohaomg: Which reverted edit about the new host? And gallery sections are meant to serve an encyclopaedic purpose - as long as they are kept simple and not depicting every single bit of data. Otherwise it becomes overkiil and abusing the purpose of having a gallery in the first place. We shouldn't be using a gallery as a means to pad-out articles. A lot of decision making done when looking at edits and deciding if the content is of use or violating one or more policies. WP:NOTGALLERY is also linked from WP:GALLERY, which does state that:

Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons. Links to the Commons categories can be added to the Wikipedia article using the {{Commons}}, {{Commons-inline}}, or {{Commons category}} templates. One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons.

When you say new host, I assume you mean this revert? Again, I noted in my edit summary why the content could not be included. So please, don't be assuming or trying to imply that I am maliciously reverting all of your edits; as that is not the case and portrays you as assuming bad faith. Considering we are both editing the same topical area, then naturally any edit, from any user, on any article I have on my watchlist is going to show. I regularly check my watchlist, and review edits. I read the source about the new host, and even that report said it was "speculating". If a source is speculating, then we cannot accept it as being reliable. You may also wish to know that I have several user access levels, including autopatrolled, pending changes reviewer, rollback, and new page reviewer. So my knowledge on policies and when to apply them is of vital importance. Wes Mouse ^Talk 23:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I still consider images of all the building which hosted Eurovision could be interesting for some readers. Maybe I create an article List of Eurovision venues which consists of a table with one of the columns for images?

About the hosts. You wrote in summary "stipulates it is only spculating". Not being a native english speaker, I had to use Google Translate, which translated it as "assumes it is only their point of view". If it is a right translation, then I do not know which sentence in the source made you think that way. --Tohaomg (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tohaomg: We can't have an article that will consist of only images of venues. It goes against the same policies as having a gallery section. If you created one, you'd have fuelled up a storm from the deletionist who would be jumping onto it like ants to sugar, nominating it for deletion per violation of WP:GALLERY and WP:NOTGALLERY. Procedures must be applied, which I have carried out. The fact that a gallery of some nature is required, then we use a template positioned at the bottom of an article, that links to a gallery section at Wikipedia Commons. That is how we handle cases like this. Wes Mouse ^Talk 23:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I meant something like this article, but about Eurovision venues. --Tohaomg (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tohaomg: something like that would not work, unfortunately, and would end up being merged into the current article on host cities, and then the images removed again - most likely by the admin user carrying out the merge as part of their closing down the articles for discussion - and using the same rationale that I have pointed out above. Like I said, I have now addressed the matter in the correct way, and placed {{Commons category}} to the article, which directs people to Commons:Category:Venues of the Eurovision Song Contest. Wes Mouse ^Talk 23:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Then I will create an article in Commons and write there all the text you have removed from english wikipedia page. --Tohaomg (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tohaomg: No! Stop!! Commons is for images, not for writing articles. Oh my days! Wes Mouse ^Talk 23:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Article like that does not belong to commons? --Tohaomg (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tohaomg: That is not an article. I'm starting to lose the will to live here and gaining a headache. Commons is for images and galleries, not articles. Wikipedia is for articles, not galleries. If a gallery is required, the correct policy is to place a template at the bottom of an article, to inform readers that the gallery is located at commons, along with the page link/ That is the policy I have followed, and I am in the middle of tagging venue images with the category as we speak - well, trying to if I wasn't being interrupted by trying to prevent you from causing chaos avoidable mistakes that could probably get you caught up into unwanted trouble because of minor errors. Bloody hell, I'm trying to help you here! Wes Mouse ^Talk 00:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You only need to read Commons:Welcome to learn that it is a media file repository. Wes Mouse ^Talk 00:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Why can't I just move the gallery you deleted from enwiki to the separate page in Commons which would contain only a gallery, like pages commons:Euro or commons:London are? --Tohaomg (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

For crying out loud - Tohaomg. How many times must I spell it out? You cannot move the deleted gallery, as you would be creating an article in a part of the Wikimedia Foundation that is not suppose to contain anything that resembles an article. A gallery already exists at commons (Commons:Category:Venues of the Eurovision Song Contest) which contains all of the venues. We can't write any prose into it, as that would turn it into an article. If you are failing to grasp the concept here, then perhaps backing away from it before accidentally wandering into trouble. Wes Mouse ^Talk 00:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, let consider that question to be closed, in spite I still do not understand why commons:Euro can exist and commons:Eurovision venue does not. What about the host? Where did you read they are "assuming it is only their point of view"? --Tohaomg (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tohaomg: commons:Euro and the commons category I've created for ESC venues are the same conceptual thing. You'd be basically duplicating something that already exists. Now if you don't mind, I am in the middle of tagging those images so that the job is done sooner. All these interruptions are slowing down the process. Wes Mouse ^Talk 00:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, could you please explain what sentence in the news article source about new host made you reject this source? --Tohaomg (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tohaomg: not right now, no! Like I said just a few moments ago, I am in the middle of doing something more important. Or did you miss that part about me being in the middle of doing something hence I am rather busy! And these interruptions are slowing me down and frustrating the hell out of me. I will answer your question when I am free and able to do so. Wes Mouse ^Talk 00:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tohaomg: Right, I have now managed to tag venues over at commons - which was a headache of a job. Now for this question on the hosts. Firstly, the source is rather dubious, and I doubt it is a reliable one either. The source itself said no other details added - which made the claim inconspicuous, And if she is the fourth host, then don't you think the EBU or eurovision.tv would have been the first to announce it, and not a website that is dubious? Even after all these days that have passed, none of the more reliable sources have published anything about a fourth host. So it makes the one you found to be dubious, doubtful, and speculative. Wes Mouse ^Talk 00:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I will agree with it. But there are so many obstacles I am not aware of, so many rules I am not aware of, so many tiny details in rules I am not aware of, so many details in common practice I am not aware of. I have little knowledge about how english wikipedia works. So in order to stop wasting my time making edits which will be reverted and to stop wasting your time reverting my edits, I will cease to edit english wikipedia. Sorry for wasting a lot of your time. --Tohaomg (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tohaomg: nobody is saying you are wasting time. You are welcome to continue editing. Of course there are so many things out there that we do not know or understand, but quitting just because we don't understand them is cowardice. As humans we will make mistakes, whether in the real world or here at Wikipedia. It is learning from those mistake, that gives us the knowledge and the understanding we thrive. I was new once, I made so many mistakes on here, that I got annoyed with myself and threatened to quit. But I didn't! I stuck to it and learned from my mistakes - and it is that what has made me the kind of editor I am today. Bloody hell, I've lost count how many of my edits have been reverted in the past, all because I made a mistake and didn't fully understand a rule or policy. I had a few of my own edits reverted today, because of a silly mistake I had done. But I haven't gone moaning to the person who reverted me. If I don't understand why an edit of mine was reverted, I will ask, and try to understand where I went wrong, and then learn from that mistake so that I don't do the same mistake again. So don't give up! Make mistakes, learn from them, seek advice, ask about policies, ask about rules. When in doubt and you don't understand something - then just ask. Everyone is here to help. Wes Mouse ^Talk 00:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I was not "moaning" to anybody! I started this discussion to figure out the truth, there is a proverb "Truth is born in conversation", but then I understood what a giant iceberg english wikipedia rules are, and I figured you would be more useful editing than answering all of these questions I ask. And I think I have already pissed you off pretty well. --Tohaomg (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

OK Tohaomg calm it down just a little, and don't be taking my words out of context. I was not proclaiming you to be "moaning". So please, don't twist my words to make them look as if I was implying something else. And I'm not pissed off either! All I was trying to do in the comment above was explain why we can't have galleries, advise on how we handle those issues, and the actions that I was currently undertaking to bring procedures into operation. You was the one getting all flippant at the advice I was helpfully trying to provide for you. I could see that you did not understand the rules and getting confused. I'm no longer going pass on my knowledge to people. If anyone wants to screw things up and then end up getting themselves into bother with admins or worse still, being blocked for making continuous errors, then that is their problem. Wes Mouse ^Talk 01:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if I said something wrong, I did not mean to. I understood you. I will stay and keep on asking. I just made conclusions from words "Oh my days!" and "not right now, no!" that this conversation was not quite a walk in the park for you. --Tohaomg (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

By the way, are you coming for Eurovision to Kyiv this year? --Tohaomg (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I was actually logged into commons working hard, and not here at Wikipedia. And every time you made a new comment, it flagged up an alert, so I was having to leave commons to come here and reply, then return back to commons to continue the busy work I was carrying out. As for Eurovision, unfortunately, I won't be coming to Kyiv. In fact, I have never yet attended an actual contest, as my real-life schedules can be rather busy. Hopefully, if they ever come to the UK again, then I may consider treating myself to a ticket to attend a final. Wes Mouse ^Talk 02:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

If you change your mind, it will be pleasure for me to meet you offline. --Tohaomg (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Blick's article

EBC gave another interview in Deutsche Welle in which they say Blick misinterpreted words of their chairman and they are not planning sanctions on Ukraine. How to phrase it right in the article? --Tohaomg (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

This is quite a simple case. If the source misinterpreted, then it needs to be removed, and the content relating to the sanctions. Wes Mouse ^Talk 15:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Voting History

I understand from your comment on my talk page that you've been slaving away at calculating the points given to different JESC countries. I understand that Wikipedia is not supposed to have statistics, but is there a sandbox where ALL data on countries giving points can be placed? That way, you would avoid having to do this every year. You'd only have to add the points for that year to the already existing data. If this could not be placed on a Wikipedia sandbox, at the very least, hang onto the data, or give it somebody else. It's the product of a lot of your time and effort, and deleting it would be a loss. Up to you. --Tuxipedia (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tuxipedia: the voting history are allowed on the articles, something which I am highly familiarised with, and have been on them ever since WikiProject Eurovsion began in 2003. They come under as WP:CALC which is exempt from original research. The content is also brief and must only show the top-5 results, which is what they do - anything more than that would violate WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. So as much as I respect your concerns, but the voting history does not violate any of Wikipedia's policies. We cannot store full voting history in our sandboxes to making calculating any easier, as that would go against WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Thankfully, calculating ESC is easy as that is done courtesy of ESC Database. Pity that there is nothing similar for JESC. Which is why the JESC ones are done manually every year. Thankfully though, I have kept the data stored on my computer, as I do not wish to repeat the exercise every year. Simply adding onto the stored data should make updating them easier. Wes Mouse ^Talk 00:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft article update

Hey @Wesley Wolf: Congratulations on the new username. I'm glad to hear you've held onto the data this year. By the way, would you mind checking out my current draft, as I despise the phrasing of the second sentence. I expect you'd probably have a better idea than mine. Cheers. —Tuxipεdia^(talk) 11:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tuxipedia: thank you for the congratulations on my recent name change. As for the draft, it is coming along nicely. Only thing I would change is the information you have written on lead section - it is misleading, and not following the advice set out per WP:LEAD. You've written:

"In the lead section, it is generally best when the information is kept general, and not convoluted with dates, national selection results and artist details. Therefore, it is suggested that all content within the lead section is kept as concise as possible. Because including contentious information would require citations, which is best avoided if possible as per WP:LEADCITE, specific details are best omitted"

The lead section should not be kept with "general information". It can include dates, national selection results, and artist/song details. And it does not matter if the section contains contentious information, as the lead is summarising the main article content anyway, so any contentious information would be written in the main body and citations within the main article. WP:CITELEAD is basically to avoid placing citations in the lead and infobox areas. These to sections are summary works of all content in the main body - where the citations are suppose to be contain. Other than that, it looks good. Wes Wolf ^Talk 10:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)