User talk:RebeccaTheAwesomeXD

Welcome![edit]

Hello, RebeccaTheAwesomeXD, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as The Smile Shop, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Tea House, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Cindy(talk) 15:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from The Smile Shop, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion and appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013[edit]

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with The Smile Shop. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Cindy(talk) 16:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with The Smile Shop. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. —C.Fred (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, RebeccaTheAwesomeXD. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article The Smile Shop, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

This message is based on your claim of authorship over what you describe as an "official photo" of the Smile Shop, File:The Smile Shop.jpg. —C.Fred (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Michele xD.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Michele xD.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:The Smile Shop.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:The Smile Shop.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 07:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Michele Perniola backstage at the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2013.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Michele Perniola backstage at the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2013.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 07:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Eddie Money, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Ilya-Volkov-2014-charity-show-o9-9.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Ilya-Volkov-2014-charity-show-o9-9.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:JESC 2013 Sweden backstage.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:JESC 2013 Sweden backstage.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 00:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. There was no citation to verify your fact about a different Cypriot broadcaster. Also the citation for the UK, it does not say that the BBC used the term "never". The BBC just said they are not likely this time. Wes Mᴥuse 22:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Wes Mᴥuse 22:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014 and Azerbaijan in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Wes Mᴥuse 18:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Barbara Popović and Ilya Volkov (singer), without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 20:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Eurovision 2014[edit]

I've reverted your addition at Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014. Please refer to the discussion at Talk:Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014#possible hope for norwegian participation for information as to why the Oikotimes source regarding TV2 Norway has been deemed unreliable. Thank you. Wes Mouse 16:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing protection templates[edit]

Hello,

Please do not remove protection templates from protected pages, including those under pending changes, as you did here. This action will result in pages being incorrectly tagged and categorized. Fortunately, a bot has re-added the template automatically in this instance. CT Cooper · talk 23:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RE: JESC 2014[edit]

Um, I'm not sure I know what you're talking about? { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 19:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also I was wondering on articles such as Julia Kedhammar and Sophia Patsalides where do you find the sources for their birthdays? { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 19:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal in JESC 2014[edit]

I wonder if Portugal should do one of the following:

National selection (like they did back in 2006 & 2007)
Internal selection

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm Wesley Mouse. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014 without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Wes Mouse 13:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Wesley Mouse. I noticed that you made a change to an article, I Am Changing, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Wes Mouse 13:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vincenzo Cantiello[edit]

Please do not change Cantiello's birth year to 2000 anymore. Sources say he's 13 years old which would make him born in 2001. Also, do you actually have sources for all these birthdays or do you just make them up on your own...? { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 00:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, I've learned on various (J)ESC websites that he was born in 2000, making him 14. RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)RebeccaTheAwesomeXD[reply]

Firstly, please maintain civility towards fellow Wikipedia's. Secondly, these "various" JESC websites may have their information incorrect, which we do need to bear in mind too. On Wikipedia, when dealing with biographies of living people we have to tread extra carefully with information regarding people, so that we (Wikimedia) can avoid any potential lawsuits from such people for writing false information. It is likely that Vincenzo was born in 2000 and be 13 at the time of the website printing his story, and then turned 14 days afterwards. However, it would be ideal to double-check dates of birth from more official sources and not just taking for granted what various websites report. Wes Mouse 22:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok Wesley, this was my mistake. I'm pretty sure sources said that Vincenzo was 13 years old, yet in a source published by JuniorEurovision.tv it stated he was born in August 2000 and is actually 14 years old. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 22:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, sure. Still in his teens, I guess. RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)RebeccaTheAwesomeXD[reply]

Rebecca, consider this a second warning about civility towards other editors. It is clear that the way you worded your reply was sarcasm and a sly dig towards another editor. Always assume good faith and avoid snide remarks, even if we do feel overheated. Wes Mouse 23:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014[edit]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to San Marino in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Wes Mouse 23:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider this your final warning. You've had more than enough previously. Your contributions are welcome, but editors are expected to observe Wikipedia:Verifiability and if you continue to not do so I may place a block on your account. CT Cooper · talk 14:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Date formatting[edit]

Rebecca,

I just wanted to raise a matter with you regarding the formatting of dates. Per WP:DATE and in particularly WP:STRONGNAT, the date format is suppose to be day before month (1 October 2014); unless the article concerned is USA-related, in which case it would be month before date (October 1, 2014). Please make sure when adding dates on Eurovision articles that the correct format is used. Thanks. Wes Mouse 00:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014[edit]

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Josie Zec does not have an edit summary.Why delink the song title, when it is clear an article will be created for it in due course? In future it would be helpful if you stated the reasons for your edits in the edit summary so that people know why you are doing such edits.

The edit summary appears in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Wes Mouse 09:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014[edit]

Rebecca, your constant disruptive edits on various (Junior) Eurovision Song Contest pages have gone on for too long. I explained to you why the page should not be named Around (Julia van Bergen song) yet you completely ignored me and this was just the final straw. I now will begin speaking with some other advanced editors of Eurovision-related pages and discuss if there should be some consequences for your actions as you've been warned many times already. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 11:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikibullying and disruptive editing. Thank you. — Wes Mouse 15:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neatsfoot (talk • contribs) [reply]

I'm sorry, Wesley. I didn't know what I was talking about! RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)RebeccaTheAwesomeXD[reply]

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - Issue 42[edit]

Project Euroision News: Issue 42
Brief headlines Repeated policy breaking and several other issues are causing great concerns within the project. A few active debates taking place across the project that require urgent attention and participation from many members.
At the time of publication the project statistics were as follows
Number of articles	Good articles	A-class articles	Feature articles	Require improvements	Number of members
5509	25	0	4	2332	80
_{You may now unsubscribe from receiving Project Eurovision News, whilst still maintaining membership within the project itself. To unsubscribe, click here.}

This newsletter was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of Wesley Mouse 08:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring and original research[edit]

Your recent editing history at Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Rebecca, I have informed you via my talk page about adding original material especially when it concerns living people. There is also a hidden notice on the article informing people not to add names of commentators unless there are sources to verify the content. You have now gone over the three-revert rule by reverting 4 times. Wes Mouse | chat 20:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca, you have been told by multiple editors not to add unsourced additions to the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014 article, but yet you continue to do so. This has resulted in you entering into an edit war which is not allowed on Wikipedia. If you disagree with what those editors are saying, such as on their interpretation of WP:V and WP:NOR, then please start a discussion on a talk page. Otherwise, please stop re-instating the content to which others have raised objection – continuing to edit war will result in your account being blocked. CT Cooper · talk 21:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wesley Mouse:For your information, I learned from ESCKAZ.com that Sofia Tarasova would announce the Ukrainian votes at Junior Eurovision 2014. I also learned from Junior Eurovision's Twitter page that Eliias would read Sweden's results. RebeccaTheAwesomeXD

Rebecca, that's great if you learned your information from there, but you can't just write something without providing sources. If you heard these things from esckaz and twitter, then you must cite where you got your information from. If you constantly write things without providing sources, people will assume that it's all original research, they'll remove the content, and eventually you'll just be blocked from editing. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 00:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Jjj1238 said, learning this information is great, but if you do not use {{cite web}} to provide sources for where you learnt this information, then people will just assume it is original research and continue to remove the information in contest against what you are adding. You already noted via my talk page that you realise how serious it is to violate the original research rule, and that you do not wish to be blocked for breaking such rule. If that is so, then you seriously need to demonstrate this by citing your information - perhaps having a read of Help:Referencing for beginners would be a good start so you become familiar in how to add sources. Also use the edit summary before saving your changes. This helps other users to see what and why you have made such changes to any article. One thing we are not is mind-readers. But remember to keep your edit summaries civil, and not like you have done in the past using such phrases as "I hate when articles have issues". If an article has a maintenance tag on it, then that's for a reason to help Project Eurovision know which articles need attention and improvements made, in order to bring them to Wikipedia's high standards. IF an article fails to meet general notability or any of the other core rules then it will be subject to deletion, and we don't want that to happen, do we!? @RebeccaTheAwesomeXD: I strongly urge that you have a read of the fundamental rules of Wikipedia and what it is we as editors are expected to be doing before continuing to get yourself into so much trouble and potentially blocked from future contributing. Wes Mouse | chat 11:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes[edit]

@RebeccaTheAwesomeXD: a little tip for you. When adding hatnotes like you did here], there is actually a template that should be used which is {{main}}. If you click on that "main" link and follow the instructions, then you'll have a better idea on how to use it. The last 2 articles I've corrected for you on this occasion. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 18:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision Song Contest 2014[edit]

Rebecca, I'm confused as to why you swapped "woman or man" around so that it read "man or woman", on the article Eurovision Song Contest 2014. The swap was unnecessary. Also the article itself is under active review for Good Article Status, so I would recommend holding off from further editing on the article, so that the reviewer and nominator can carry out the reviewing process. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 23:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Jackie Evancho, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. Musdan77 (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca, please do not deviate away from what the actual source states in regards to the track listing for JESC 2014 album. The source used verifies the entire listings, and the edit that you made deviated away from that, which is not abiding to the verifying policy. You are aware of these rules by now, so continued breaking of them will only be seen as deliberate disruptive editing. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 18:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Wesley Mouse. Your recent edit to the page Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014 appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The verified source does NOT use the word day within the title. If you continue to violate verification rules, you will be blocked. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 20:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - Issue 43[edit]

→ Issue 43 ← Headlines Quality as standard: a few Eurovision articles have been nominated for FA status and one is promoted to GA. Let Junior Eurovision battle commence! Project membership breaks through the 100 barrier.
At the time of publication the project statistics were as follows
Number of articles	Good articles	A-class articles	Feature articles	Number of members
5590	20	1	4	109
• HOME • TALK • PORTAL • NEWSDESK • UNSUBSCRIBE • ARCHIVES • • Published by the Eurovision WikiProject •

This newsletter was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of Wesley Mouse 13:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014[edit]

Rebecca, I've told you several times why you do not need to continue to disambiguate "Diamonds (Federica Falzon song)" and "Diamonds (Rihanna song)" yet you continue to do so. This should not be a big problem so I don't understand why you keep readding it after I keep telling you not to. So please don't make this bigger than it already is since you're basically super close to getting blocked from editing. I'm going to remove this and if you readd it again I'm going to have to report you. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 21:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from People of the Sun (Betty song). When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. These templates are importance as they help to provide statistical data for the Wikipedia Community and for WikiProject Eurovision, and should not be removed, unless the problems they address are resolved. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 16:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Betty (singer), without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 08:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Game Over (Josie Zec song), without resolving the problem that the template refers to. This may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 23:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rule breaking[edit]

Rebecca,

Seriously, you need to stop breaking the same rules over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. You've been warned god knows how many times about no original research, you alone also promised not to break that rule. Yet you have repeated breaking it time and time again. You have been told about removing maintenance tags, and I also explained to you why there are on articles, and why they are very important. Again you keep ignoring what people tell you and just do what the hell you like anyway. Wikipedia has these rules in place for a reason. A maintenance tag that are there to adding information to the Wikipedia Community, so the database knows just how many of the 4,000,000+ articles need some improvements in order to being them to good article or feature article quality. When you remove these tags without fixing what it is the tag is asking for, you are basically putting the article in serious trouble of being deleted - do you want all the work you have done to be gone forever just because of these silly little errors, errors that people are telling you to stop doing. I shall say this in words you have said to me once or twice... I will get angry if you continue to break them. Now please, start to take more time and take notice to what people are advising you to do. Read the rules if you have to. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 23:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RebecceTheAwesomeXD:Holy poop :(. RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)RebeccaTheAwesomeXD[reply]

So by deleting the last message, I am going to take it that you fully understand how much serious trouble you are getting yourself into, and that if you break one of those rules again, that you are prepared to be blocked from editing for a period of time, so that you reflect and learn from your bad editing practices? A reply would be nice. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 16:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaTheAwesomeXD:No, please! Don't block! I'd have nightmares!!!! :( RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)RebeccaTheAwesomeXD[reply]

OK then. So if you don't want to be blocked, then start paying attention and don't remove tags from articles. Don't add original research. Keep checking the Project talk page more often for updates. Check the Project itself for things that need doing and the rules that need following. If you do all of those, then you will end up hassle-free and not being told off for doing things wrong all the time. Agreed!? Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 13:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely :) RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk) 13:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)RebeccaTheAwesomeXD[reply]

So happy that you finally agree. You may have noticed too that the Eurovision Project issues a newsletter (you have a copy above). When these arrive on your talk page, click on the "issue number" link and it will direct you to the full newsletter. Please view the newsletter (but do not edit it, as only the news team can do this). In there is where we inform members of project and contest updates, and also a selection of articles that need more work doing to them (this is based on the tags from articles, that I keep saying should not be removed). Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 15:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca you used bold text on Italy in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest. The project do not do this method on country articles, so it would be appreciated if you could continue with the method that is used and not bold such text again. Also see Talk:Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2015#Twitter regarding the use of Twitter as a source. Those tweets are no longer being used, as the national broadcasters have not confirmed anything. The EBU cannot decide who will be present, they only invite the broadcaster. It is the broadcaster who make the final decision. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 18:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Eurovision - Urgent Message[edit]

Dear Project Eurovision Member,

There is a serious discussion been created at the WikiProject Eurovision talk page that requires utmost attention from all, or as many members as possible, as this could bear a huge impact on the project as a whole. Please click here to read the discussion, and participate peacefully. Thank you.
This message was delivered at 04:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC) by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of Project Eurovision Newsdesk

Nomination of Sarah and Julia for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sarah and Julia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah and Julia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 17:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah and Julia will NEVER qualify for "deletion!"RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)RebeccaTheAwesomeXD[reply]

Rebecca, please maintain civility. Do not use capitalisation as that is seen as "shouting". Have you forgotten our conversation the other week about rule breaking? Be careful as if you continue to show disruptive behaviour, then you will be blocked from editing. The article is currently being discussed for deletion, and if it does not qualify for the general notability guidelines, then it will be deleted. So far it is looking like it will get deleted as it is failing the policies on notability. Wikipedia does not need an article on everything - that is a core rule around these parts! See WP:NOT. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 13:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fear not, Wes! For I hate when certain articles get deleted. RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)RebeccaTheAwesomeXD[reply]

Please do not make personal attacks towards editors, especially threatening a user like you did in this comment. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 14:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, Wes. It's just that... I've always hated when articles I make get deleted. That's why I want all articles I create to stay on Wikipedia forever. RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)RebeccaTheAwesomeXD[reply]

And it is also that Rebecca. Not everything deserves to have its own article. That is why there are these rules, so that we only create articles for things that are notable. Crying out loud, if we made an article for any random thing, then there would be useless articles on what people did on a daily basis. Don't always create an article if you know it stands a chance of being deleted. I think it is high time that you read carefully Wikipedia:Your first article, before writing any new articles. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 05:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - Issue 44[edit]

→ Issue 44 ← Headlines Review of 2014, and a look ahead to 2015. Voting fraud from Turkmenistan and Bosnia-Herzegovina at Türkvizyon 2014 Udo Jürgens winner of Eurovision 1966 dies aged 80.
At the time of publication the project statistics were as follows
Number of articles	Good articles	A-class articles	Feature articles	Number of members
5620	21	1	4	111
• HOME • TALK • PORTAL • NEWSDESK • UNSUBSCRIBE • ARCHIVES • • Published by the Eurovision WikiProject •

This newsletter was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of Wesley Mouse 18:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm Geniac. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Glen Powell, but you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Geniac (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article deleted[edit]

Oh no! I'm doomed! DOOMED! Sarah and Julia has been deleted :( RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)RebeccaTheAwesomeXD[reply]

Well I can only say, I told you so, that it would be deleted. The article received 6 delete !votes, as it failed 3 core policies - WP:GNG; WP:ROUTINE; and WP:MUSICBIO. Before rushing to create an article in future, perhaps you should read carefully things to learn before creating your first article. And especially if it comes to articles on living people, then you must read notability guidelines are an urgent priority - otherwise you will find your creations being deleted because they may have failed all the rules and policies. Another good bit of advice for you Rebecca, read and learn about what Wikipedia is not; as you will be surprised at the things you will learn from that. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 12:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! :( RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)RebeccaTheAwesomeXD[reply]

And now what are you saying no for? Rebecca, you have been told time and time again to be more careful and to follow all the guidelines and policies; otherwise you will end up making a lot of people very angry, and ultimately having your editing privileges indefinitely blocked. You are a member of WikiProject Eurovision, you receive the newsletter that keeps you updated. You even promised me that you would be more careful in future and follow the rules carefully. Sometimes we have to stop and think, are what we creating going to fail any guidelines? If you think it could, then post a new comment at the bottom of WikiProject Eurovision talk page. Someone will be happy to take a look, and see if what you are proposing is worth having an article. Wikipedia does not need everyone, it is us who need Wikipedia. And if you're going to be childish and start having tantrums every time something doesn't go the way you like it, then perhaps it is time to take a break and rethink what it is you want in life. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 13:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should acting like it's no big deal. RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)RebeccaTheAwesomeXD[reply]

The basic idea is that this is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias present only information about things that have historical importance, not information of current importance. See WP:RECENT and also WP:CRYSTAL. I always ask myself if proposed information will be of interest to general readers in 20 years. If not, it probably belongs someplace else. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - Issue 45[edit]

→ Issue 45 ← Headlines Project Eurovision Cup launches 1 March. Sources come under review with one now banned. Assessment of articles. Eurovision pre-selections are in full swing.
At the time of publication the project statistics were as follows
Number of articles	Unassessed articles	Good articles	A-class articles	Feature articles	Number of members
5836	52	21	1	4	93
• HOME • TALK • PORTAL • NEWSDESK • UNSUBSCRIBE • ARCHIVES • • Published by the Eurovision WikiProject •

This newsletter was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Eurovision at 11:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please add sources when making changes[edit]

Hi, in this edit at List of Bear in the Big Blue House episodes you changed the S5 end date from 2007 to 2006. The article is entirely unsourced to begin with, which is problematic, but changing values that don't appear consistent with the existing content isn't much more helpful. If you have access to an episode list that meets reliable sources guidelines, then it would be great if you could verify the dates in the article. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Eurovision Cup - March 2015[edit]

WikiProject Eurovision Cup

March 2015

Dear Project Member

This is a reminder that the first Project Eurovision Cup begins on Sunday 1 March and will run all the way through until Tuesday 31 March. The aim of the competition is to help improve many of the articles within Project Eurovision that would have been otherwise left neglected, by carrying out as many objectives as possible. The more objectives you do, the more points you will earn. So have you got what it takes to be crowned Project Eurovision Member of the Month? Click here to sign up.

The Project Cup judges, Wesley Mouse and CT Cooper, wish you all the best of luck.

This notice was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Eurovision at 16:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Mary-Jean O'Doherty[edit]

Please note that you should leave an edit summary each time you make a change to an article. When you make a change as significant as altering a date by several years, it is even more more important. When you change or add a birth date for a living person you must additionally use an inline citation to verify this. You have been editing Wikipedia long enough that you should already know these things. On what basis have you decided that her legal surname, or even birth name, is Vasmatzian? There is no evidence that I can see that it is, and she certainly never uses this on any of her official websites. Please read WP:BLP for our policy on the biographies of living persons and WP:VERIFY for our policy on verification and citation to sources. Voceditenore (talk) 07:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Voceditenore: you're fighting a losing battle with this one, I'm afraid. See the plethora of warnings posted above about similar issues, including reminders to use the edit summary, and BLP warnings. This one will never learn, and even when I took it to ANI I just got told to "shut up and move on". Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 11:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Mouse, after leaving this message, I subsequently saw all the above warnings. RebeccaTheAwesomeXD, if any further inappropriate edits are made to this article, I will take the article and you to the BLP Noticeboard. If it persists, I will personally bring your problematic editing behaviour to the attention of administrators. It is completely unacceptable. Voceditenore (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RebeccaTheAwesomeXD, as you have once again added an unsourced date of birth to this article with no edit summary and no comment on the article's talk page, I have reported the article and you to the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard here where you are welcome to discuss the issue. Voceditenore (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support the position taken above - if there is doubt or dispute about a DoB or the reliability of the source used to support it, we MUST per WP:BLP omit it from the article. If you continue to add it back in violation of that policy you risk being blocked.--ukexpat (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. @RebeccaTheAwesomeXD: if your insert unsourced contentious material into Mary-Jean O'Doherty again, in violation of WP:BLP, you will be blocked from editing. CT Cooper · talk 18:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also wish to bring the following to your attention:

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

CT Cooper · talk 20:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RebeccaTheAwesomeXD, at 18:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC) CT Cooper warned you that you would be blocked if you re-added the date of birth. An hour later at 19:45 (UTC), you re-added it again anyway [1]. When that was reverted by another administrator [2], the IP 112.208.61.89 re-added it yet again [3] and then added the O'Doherty's name and the spurious birth date to 1982 [4]. If you have been editing while logged out to evade scrutiny and continue your edit warring and BLP violations, cut it out now. Not only will it not work, you will find yourself indefinitely blocked from editing. Voceditenore (talk) 07:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaTheAwesomeXD: you really need to start paying attention and taking notice of what experienced editors are telling you and of the numerous warnings you have been issued in the past. You promised me a couple of months ago, that you would start to use the edit summary, that you would now be careful on your editing especially in BLP areas. Yet looking at the evidence that @Voceditenore: has provided above, shows signs tha tyou do not intend to stick to your promise and will go to any length to continue the disruptive behaviour. As a result, I would not hesitate to give my full support for your editing privileges to be blocked for an indefinite period, so that you pay the consequences and learn from your actions. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 14:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you leave me no choice:

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. CT Cooper · talk 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear now that a block is the only way you're going to get the message here. Please note that as a result of this block you are now personally banned from editing the English Wikipedia for its duration. Evading this block is strictly forbidden and will, at a minimum, result in the block being re-set. You are welcome to edit after the block expires, but please bear in mind that if I or another admin have to block you again, it will be for significantly longer or even indefinite. I would suggest spending this week reviewing some of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, including the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy.

Note to admins: This is a "normal" block and not an AE block, as I thought that would be overkill at this stage. CT Cooper · talk 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CT Cooper: it would appear that Rebecca isn't just adding unsourced DoB's on Mary-Jean O'Doherty, but also at Jesse Money too (diff) of which I have reverted based on the findings above and of course the block imposed earlier today. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 23:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And at Ula Ložar too, in which she made the singer older. Maybe this calls for a BLP topic ban or AE sanction to prevent her from adding or altering DoBs on BLP articles. Any views on this, @Voceditenore:? Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 23:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wesley Mouse: You guys are wrong. Ula Ložar was actually born on January 24, according to jescipedia.[ https://www.google.com/calendar/event?eid=cXJpdDBjY3ZqNW51bXFmdDNjOGNzOTZtaGdfMjAxNTAxMjQgZW84ZTkzN2xyOGVxcnJiZW1xcGZwMGpoaW9AZw Jescipedia is right]. RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)RebeccaTheAwesomeXD[reply]

@RebeccaTheAwesomeXD: Firstly, the source you provided there is from Google Calendar. Anyone, even yourself, could create such document which means we cannot use such source as reliable. Secondly, we cannot use Jescipedia either, per WP:CIRCULAR. We are dealing with living people here, and therefore everything we write about them has to be 200& air-tight accurate - otherwise if we write something that is profoundly wrong about them, then they are within their right to take legal action against Wikipedia and/or the editor who added the incorrect material. Do you really want to be spending time in a courtroom through stupidity? Do as CT Cooper advises, take this one week block as a valuable lesson and read all the policies and rules. Otherwise you will only find yourself blocked forever. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 02:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wesley Mouse:I have an idea, Wes. Why don't you remove the birth date from Ula Ložar. RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)RebeccaTheAwesomeXD[reply]

@RebeccaTheAwesomeXD: I am not an administrator, as you claim in this edit summary. And I had already removed the date of birth from Ula Ložar before you gave the idea, because there are no sources to verify any date of birth whatsoever. And that was after I reverted your untruthful account of the singer's date of birth. Seeing as you have been told by a real administrator to read the policies and rules on BLP articles - have you actually read any of the policies and rules yet? Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 17:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca, I decided not to impose further sanctions beyond the block as I wanted to see how things unfolded on this talk page. So far, I'm not very impressed with what I've seen. If you add the birth date to a biography of a living person you must source it per WP:V and WP:BLP. Whether you think the birth date is "accurate" or "true" or not is irrelevant. Failure to do this will result in an on-the-spot block and/or additional sanctions, including potentially been banned from editing biographies of living persons entirely. Do you understand? CT Cooper · talk 17:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015[edit]

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Giannis Karagiannis, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 10:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CT Cooper:, clearly the one-week block has not taught a lesson, as more unsourced additions of dates of birth have been added. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 10:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{{Ping:RebeccaTheAwesomeXD}}} FYI, I just added Giannis' birth year. RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)RebeccaTheAwesomeXD[reply]

Rebecca, you may not put any aspect of a living person's date of birth—even the year alone—unless you add a reliable source to verify it. How difficult is that for you to understand? Where did you get the birth year of 1994 for Giannis Karagiannis? And why are you trying to ping yourself on your own talk page? Voceditenore (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ban from editing BLP content[edit]

As a result of this edit, you are now topic banned from making any edit to any biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people (BLP content), broadly construed, for a period of six months. The imposition of this sanction is authorised under WP:NEWBLPBAN, and violations may result in further sanctions, including a potential block of up to 1 year in length. Information about appealing this sanction can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and modifications.

Since you make constructive edits on non-BLP content, I've decided to implement a sanction rather than simply blocking your account again. However, if you violate these sanctions, I will impose another block. Alternatively, if you choose to edit constructively on non-BLP content from now on, I may consider lifting or loosening this sanction in the future. CT Cooper · talk 20:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait! Can I still edit articles about music events? RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)RebeccaTheAwesomeXD[reply]

Yes, but only non-biographical content, such as the countries participating, songs being entered into the contest, the venue etc. Adding, removing or, editing material about specific living people such as commentators, spokespersons, and presenters is not allowed. For some guidance, read WP:TBAN but replace "weather" with "living or recently deceased persons". The only current exemptions which apply to your ban are given at WP:BANEX. If you are unsure if an edit you are about to make violates this topic ban, then please ask me first, before making the edit. CT Cooper · talk 21:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca, @CT Cooper: warned you that you cannot edit any BLP articles, as you are banned. This edit is on a BLP article. You have breached your sanction, which may now result in you being blocked for a long period. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 10:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was tempted to give you the benefit of the doubt for this one violation, but given that's it an alternation to birth dates, the exact thing you were sanctioned for, it clearly was no accident. CT Cooper · talk 12:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating the discretionary sanction imposed above on the page Vahe Tilbian, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. CT Cooper · talk 12:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Rebecca you really are not learning anything about your ban here, are you? @CT Cooper: told you that you are not allowed to edit ANY articles on living people. You have already been blocked twice, first for 1 week, and recently for 2 weeks. The recent block has expired and you continue to edit BLP articles.

You cannot edit ANY article on a living person. Don't be acting shocked if you end up with the next block being for a month or even longer. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 09:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. CT Cooper · talk 17:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

We can continue playing this game as long as you want to, Rebecca. But just for your information, the next block will be 3 months, and the following for 1 year. CT Cooper · talk 17:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - Issue 46[edit]

→ Issue 46 ←

Headlines
• Australia join the Eurovision family and will compete in Vienna. • Project members urged to familiarise themselves with WP:BLP policies. • Project templates have been revamped and renamed. • Registration for the next Project Eurovision Cup opens.

At the time of publication the project statistics were as follows:

Number of articles	►	6031
Unassessed articles	►	0
Good articles	►	21
A-class articles	►	1
Feature articles	►	3
Number of members	►	99

• HOME • TALK • PORTAL • NEWSDESK • UNSUBSCRIBE • ARCHIVES •
• Published by the Eurovision WikiProject •

This newsletter was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Eurovision 10:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Eurovision Cup - April 2015[edit]

WikiProject Eurovision Cup

EuroCup II

Dear Project Member

The winner of the first Project Eurovision Cup is Jjj1238, who achieved an outstanding 108 points. Androptrnt finished in second place with 30 points, and Moldova96 in third with 15 points.

The second contest has begun, with participants from the first contest automatically registered. The EuroCup II will run from 1 April to 30 June, to allow people to get articles reviewed for GA or FA status. The aim of the competition is to help improve many of the articles within Project Eurovision that would have been otherwise left neglected, by carrying out as many objectives as possible. The more objectives you do, the more points you will earn. So have you got what it takes to be crowned winner of the next Project Eurovision Cup? Project members who wish to participate have until 18 April to sign up.

The Project Cup judges, Wesley Mouse and CT Cooper, wish you all the best of luck.

This notice was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Eurovision at 10:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring again[edit]

Please stop edit warring on the Jackie Evancho concert tours page. If you can make a reasoned argument on the Talk page to support what you wish to do, please do so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I wanted the last column in the "Awakening Tour" section to read Orchestra is because I wanted that to be like the other sections ("Dream With Me Tour", "Heavenly Christmas concerts", and "Songs from the Silver Screen Tour"). Cuz if that column was labeled "Musicians", then I wouldn't know what kind of group it refers to. RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)RebeccaTheAwesomeXD[reply]

Then the heading has had the intended effect of alerting the reader to the fact that this tour uses a completely different musical group than Evancho's previous tours. It certainly should *not* be "like the other sections". The footnote explains and describes what "musicians" means here, and so I cannot understand why you keep deleting this important material from the footnote. If you want to discuss this further, please discuss it on the article's Talk page, rather than here on your own Talk page, so that other editors can participate in the discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers: you might want to pay attention to a thread below. Rebecca has been blocked for 3 months after violating her BLP ban for the 4th time. So she won't be able to join any discussions that you are inviting her to participate in. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 13:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 7 May[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2015 page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Eliias has a new single coming out.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Eliias has a new single coming out.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. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 14:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BLP edits despite ban[edit]

Rebecca, I thought you would have learnt by now that you cannot make a single edit on articles about living people. You have already received 3 blocks for such editing, first was 7 days, followed by 2 weeks, and recently 1 month. @CT Cooper: warned you the next would be 3 months, and this edit is probably a contender for such as it is on a BLP article. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 23:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. CT Cooper · talk 21:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Blocked indefinitely[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. CT Cooper · talk 21:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty clear now with your recent use of a sock-puppet that you have no interest in following the rules of this project – you have been given enough chances to change your ways. I am now blocking this account indefinitely, meaning you are now indefinitely barred from editing the English Wikipedia in any capacity – edits by yourself on an IP address or another account will be reverted on sight. If you wish to have this block overturned, then please make your case on this talk page.

Note to reviewing admins: This is a "regular"/non-arbitration enforcement (AE) block, which will run concurrently with the 3 month AE block imposed earlier. CT Cooper · talk 21:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please, undelete Mishela Rapo! RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)RebeccaTheAwesomeXD[reply]

Decline reason:

No. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note to admin the article was deleted per G5 of speedy deletion. RebeccaTheAwesomeXD has a BLP ban against her, and recently indef blocked due to the sock-puppet of RebeccaTheMegaAwesome (talk · contribs), and thus evading blocks. The article noted above was created by the sock, and thus violating the BLP sanction. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 00:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Quick question Wes - how do I delete my account? RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)RebeccaTheAwesomeXD[reply]

You cannot delete your account. And if there was a way to do so, it would make it look very dodgy on your part. This account was blocked for 3 months because you broke the BLP ban for the 4th time. You then got naughty and made a new account, RebeccaTheMegaAwesome (talk · contribs). That was obvious you, and you did that so you could continue editing. Doing that was a very bad thing to do, and resulted in both your new account and this one being blocked forever (indefinitely). What you should have done was learnt from your lessons, and stopped editing articles about people. Then people may have started to gain trust in you as a user again. And creating Mishela Rapo under your new "sock-puppet" account of RebeccaTheMegaAwesome, broke your BLP ban imposed on this account. The chances of any account being unblocked is highly unlikely. And I wouldn't even think of trying to edit accounts whilst signed out using your IP either, as that would still be evading, and you'd end up with that being blocked too. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 00:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea! Hey Wes - can you delete my first account, as well as my sockpuppet? RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)RebeccaTheAwesomeXD[reply]

I can't delete anything, I'm not an administrator. And even if I could, I wouldn't carry out your request, because I can no longer trust you. If you had your accounts deleted, then what is there to say you would come back and carry on disrupting and not following policies. You have done wrong, and you were warned for over a year now to get your act together. Instead you ignored everyone, continued to violate policies, and you must now live with the fact you have been blocked because of your actions. The end of your time at Wikipedia is of your own doing. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 11:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further socking[edit]

Seriously, Rebecca! Are you really that dumb? You have now just informed us that Red Plastic 12000 (talk · contribs) is your original account, which was blocked indefinitely on 9 August 2013. Which means that RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk · contribs) is a sock-account, and RebeccaTheMegaAwesome (talk · contribs) a second sock-account. After this revelation, the chances of you ever being trusted again are highly unlikely.

@Berean Hunter:, @CT Cooper:, or @Huon: - this is needing severe admin action, and I'd even go as far as revoking talk page privileges. Berean, I have pinged you into this conversation, as you were the admin to have indef blocked the now revealed sockmaster, Red Plastic 12000. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 11:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no abuse of talk page access. The original account and all socks are blocked, and it seems unlikely they'll be unblocked again any time soon. Wesley Mouse, I'd suggest simply removing the talk page from your watchlist. By the way, WP:NPA holds for attacks directed at blocked sockpuppeteers, too. Huon (talk) 12:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well the no abuse of talk page access can easily be argued. More so now that is has been revealed that this account, which was thought to be the original sock-master, is now a sock-puppet in its own right, with Red Plastic 12000 become the new sock-master. RP12000 has their talk page access revoked. Surely that should carry onto all of its associated sock accounts. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 12:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wesley Mouse: Drop it, Wes. They're blocked, and there's nothing more to do here. Spend your time and energy on looking for new socks on the articles they frequented instead. Thomas.W ^talk 13:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock me early!![edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Can you please end my block right now? I'm very angry!! RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)RebeccaTheMegaAwesome[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Huon (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Proposed deletion of The Smile Shop[edit]

The article The Smile Shop has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Largely unreferenced, no indication of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Huon (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RebeccaTheAwesomeXD, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Wes Mouse ^Talk 02:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RebeccaTheAwesomeXD, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Wes Mouse ^Talk 11:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RebeccaTheAwesomeXD, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Wes Wolf ^Talk 16:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Det ar dit vi ska cd cover.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Det ar dit vi ska cd 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]