Talk:Hersi Matmuja/Archive 1

Herciana or Hersi Matmuja?
A user has moved the article name to Hersi instead of Herciana. But nowhere does it state that her name is Hersi. Could someone make a decision on this. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Simple, the commonest usage from an English-language source. Eurovision.tv uses Herciana, whilst esctoday use Hersiana. Oikotimes use Hersiana and Hersi within the text, with RTSH using Herciana and Hersi. So we have: Herciana, Hersiana, and Hersi. I'd personally go with eurovision.tv and Herciana.
 * One more thing, a user has changed the translation of the song on numerous pages to 'The anger of a night', which goes against what eurovision.tv calls it. --  axg //  ✉  ]] ''' 21:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I suggest then that the name of the article is changed back to that. And that the translation is removed and the user doing so is told to stop.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * She has said to esctoday.com (link) "My official name is Hersiana Matmuja but many people call me Hersi, it's just my short name.". So Herciana is surely an error, we have only to decide if call her Hersiana or Hersi (this last one I think is the way she prefer to be called, as we can see on her Facebook profile and fan page). --ale83_webmaster (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Also in an interview to Eurofestival Italia (link) she has confirmed that she prefer to be called Hersi and also, if you see the video of her presentation in the final of the Festivali i Këngës, two hosts call her in that way (link, minute 0:03 and 1:08). So I think that there are no more doubts about how to rename this page. --ale83_webmaster (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In Festivali i Këngës she was credited as "Herciana Matmuja", she was also credited the same way on Eurovision.tv. It doesn't matter if Hersiana is her official name, for example, Katy Perry, Perry isn't her "official" name, it's Hudson. The article should be titled Herciana Matmuja because that's the name she's performing under. Jjj1238 (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Only in this year Festivali i Këngës she was credited as Herciana, instead in the last two year she was credited as Hersi (see the videos: 2011 and 2012), so it can be also a simply error on the tv graphic. The eurovision.tv website, then, has simply copied the information by RTSH and however also this site can be wrong (see, for example, Mariya Yaremchuk that on eurovision.tv is called Maria). --ale83_webmaster (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A graphic error is extremely unlikely, also, other reliable sites such as Wiwi Bloggs, Eurovoix, and Escxtra all call her by Herciana. Not one foreign language wikipedia calls her page Hersi, so the true controversy here should be rather, calling the page Herciana Matmuja or Hersiana Matmuja. It doesn't matter if she was credited as Hersi in previous years, she's credited as Herciana this year and that's what we should go by. It is also extremely likely that Eurovision.tv is wrong considering it is the official website of the Eurovision Song Contest. The thing with Mariya Yaremchuk is different. Mariya's native name, Марія, can be translated to Mariya or Maria, since it isn't in our alphabet. Similarly to how Natalia Valevskaya is created as Natalia rather than Nataliya which is a direct translation. Also Svetlana Loboda, she is Svetlana rather than Svitlana, the direct translation from the Ukrainian language. Jjj1238 (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In your opinion, which is the source for Wiwi Bloggs, Eurovoix, escXtra, etc.? All of them have simply copied what RTSH has written on the tv graphic (and also for eurovision.tv is so, because they take infos from national public TVs). And then this Wikipedia voice is not about 2013 Hersi (or Hersiana or Herciana) Matmuja, but it's a general voice about her, indipendently from this year Festivali i Këngës; so we can't rename it every year or every time that someone use a different version of her name. The only one who decides which is her stage name is her and she has said that she prefer to be called Hersi. Last thing: Марія can be only transliterated with Mariya, Maria is the transliteration of Маріa, so there are two different things. --ale83_webmaster (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ale83, you do not move the articles name again without a consensus. Right now as JJ1238 says Herciana seems to be the only reasonable name and in likeness to the other Wikipedias.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * However when Eurovision comes around and her stage name for the contest will be revealed and she has decided to compete as Hersi or similar it could be discussed if the article should change its name. But even then I see it as highly unlikely that it will be changed as her normal stage name is Herciana etc... --BabbaQ (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is my last post only to say that I have moved the voices only after I have searched sources and seen what is the right name and published them here, not before. I'm happy to discuss with people that have different opinions on concrete bases, but if you think that this voice should be called Herciana and you don't have any concrete source to support your thesis, you're free to do it, but you well know that it's completely wrong. And it's also very ridicoulous that you say that, even if her Eurovision stage name will be corrected in future, you can think to discuss only IF to change it here, but also in that case you have already decided that it will not be changed, because for you her stage name is Herciana. Where?!? I have showed several sources that her stage name is and it has always been Hersi, please find me at least only one source where her stage name is Herciana (obviously referred to period before the Festivali i 52-të i Këngës) and I'll agree with you. --ale83_webmaster (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Then I guess the discussion is closed for now. I only follow Wikipedias general way of deciding the name of an article. You can check out all the other wikipedias as well if you do not believe me. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Especially also since it is mentioned twice in the article that she is sometimes referred to as Hersi I do not see the problem. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You continue to not reply to my question. Other Wikipedia pages are not a source, they can be also a simple translation of this one. And, if you don't understand it, the problem is that Herciana is completely wrong: her name is Hersiana and her stage name is Hersi. Stop, there are no other versions of her name! But you can call her as you want, it don't change my life if in a Wikipedia page there is an error... --ale83_webmaster (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see that discussion with you is two steps forward and one back. So I will drop out of it so you can discuss it with someone else. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Talking to the wall is a waste of time... Bye! --ale83_webmaster (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

We don't decide the name of the article, it's down to the common name: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change."

Matmuja is not particularly known worldwide to Anglophone people, Eurovision has a lot of fan sites that can call her by her nickname, but eurovision.tv being the official website of the ESC and the reliable source here, is calling her by her full name. --  axg //  ✉  ]] ''' 23:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Everything right in what you say, but if in two interviews she herself has confirmed that between Herciana and Hersiana the second version is the correct one, is there a much more reliable source than this? Have I to try writing to her and ask this question to her directly? Or you can do it youself, if you'd like. --ale83_webmaster (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But there is a huge difference between naming the article Hersi Matmuja or your question now Herciana or Hersiana. The second one is simply a spelling issue which can be fixed if needed I guess. --BabbaQ (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said yesterday, I have asked directly to her which is her right name. As you can read here (the conversation is in Italian), she has confirmed to me that Herciana was only an error of the TV graphic and that her real name is Hersjana (so with S and also J instead of I) Matmuja, but that she prefer to be called Hersi. So now, as you can see, I have done my best to solve this problem, then you can decide what you want to do. In my opinion, the best thing should be to move this page to Hersi Matmuja again (specifying that her real first name is Hersjana), but since my opinion is not important at all for you, you are free to do what you prefer. Best regards, ale83_webmaster (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are again misunderstanding its not that I dont care about your opinion it is that a Wikipedia article has to follow the official name of a singer. And since Eurovision.tv obviously is naming her Herciana Matmuja for the moment it is I guess the best to not change that. If anything you do not respect the opinion of other users but want your way or no way. Anyway I will leave this discussion and not respond further to your comments. If another user can establish that Hersi is her name then fine by me but from what I can see Herciana is the name that should be used. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't have to reply to my other comments, because I won't write any other comments after this one. I have proved you in every possible ways that the word "Herciana" is an error (that also you in the 01:20 UTC comment said that can be fixed), but you still say that this is the name that should be used, so I really don't know what else to write to convince you or other users that have your same opinion... Farewell! --ale83_webmaster (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Good Morning Everyone. Weel the right name is Hersiana (or Hersi) and not Herciana. There are two interviews that prove it: 1. 2.

Also the official Eurovision website corrected her name: Thanks for the attention — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gianluca 74 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well this one is pure and simple, and I fail to comprehend why there is all this fuss over who's right and who's wrong. It's like saying is a glass half-full or half-empty... both would be correct, it is just down to how a person views the perspective.  If she was credited as Herciana, then the article should use that name (see MOS:BIO).  However, if other versions are also used, then mention these in the lead section.  At the end of the day, we must be seen as adhering to Wikipedia naming policies, and if we cannot be seen as doing that, then we are failing as editors.  Time to drop this drama and move on.  And a reminder to, please make sure you stick to a neutral point of view on articles.  It is a policy which we are suppose to be following.  Also we shouldn't be publishing original research, everything must be verified especially with biographical articles, which have much stricter rules that we're to follow.    Wes     Mᴥuse   00:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * As I wrote above, I promised not to partecipate more in this discussion, but, at this point, I can no longer remain silent.
 * First of all, I'd like to respond to BabbaQ, who also said that he wouldn't have written anymore here, but then he has gone to other users' talk pages (Materialscientist and Wesley Mouse ones, always if I haven't seen some other ones) accusing me of absurd things.
 * good manners - If you read my first comments in this talk page, I think I couldn't be more polite than I was. Only after you have accused me to edit articles without discussing before in talk pages and after you have refused any kind of dialogue, saying that the sources that I showed weren't reliable and that however essentially only you could decide if edit the article or not, I got a little bit nervous, but I think it's normal in a situation like this... But nevertheless I never offend someone. Where is rudeness in my comment on Materialscientist's talk page? If I asked an intervention by him, I don't think I was so stupid to offend him... The only comment that I could avoid was that on my talk page where I said you ironically that you was right and that the singer herself didn't know which is her name, but I wrote this only because I saw that it was useless discuss with you. Anyway I've already apologized to you yesterday and, if it's necessary, I'll do it again.
 * POV pushing - If I have understood well, you mean that I would have obliged someone aggressively to edit the article second my personal point of view. It's obvious that it isn't so, since I edited the article only one time and, after you reverted the edit, I haven't edited it anymore, but I have only discussed here about the possible edit (without considering that I wasn't talking of my point of view, because everything I said is supported by a source). Furthermore here I read that POV pushing is "used to denote the undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas": for you to write the right name of an article about a living person is an undue thing or represent a minor or fringe idea?. Then I also read that "calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil" (so, who is the rude now?) and that POV pushing is referred to articles "and generally does not apply to talk page discussions". So it's clear that you are completely wrong.
 * multiple user - You in a comment, talking about me, say "they" and "the user/users". So are you istilling the suspect that I use more than one Wikipedia account to support my thesis? And where you see this? Even because I don't see anyone who has helped me or agreed with me here...
 * putting pressure on other websites - You are explicitly saying that I "have even convinced several ESC sites to change the name". Do you know that this thing has a precise name, defamation, and that, at least in Italy, it's a criminal offence? Until now we have "joked", but now you're addressing to me serious charges that you have to prove. Which would be these several sites that I would have "corrupted"? About this point, I require an answer or apologies from you! Just because I'm speaking absolutely with good faith (despite of what someone claims here) and I haven't anything to hide, I can say that the only person I have contacted was the author of the article on eurovision.tv, but, as you can see yourself here (after your allegations it's better to specify that I have only darkened my real name and my photo for privacy reasons, then nothing else has been modified), I have not convinced or obliged anyone to do something they didn't want to do. I've simply asked her, after showing also to her some of the sources that prove what I say, to correct the error if she thought that something was wrong and I've also suggested her to ask a confirmation directly to the singer (she has asked it to the RTSH instead). Furthermore, as you can see, today I've contacted her again to clarify also to her that I haven't obliged anyone to do something that they didn't want to do and I've also said her that she could edit the article again if she thought this, but she hasn't done this (and haven't replied to me anymore, but I can understand she didn't want to be involved into the child plays of an user that has accused me of the most absurd things).
 * After doing this, now I talk also to other users and I'll try to recap shortly the situation, showing all the sources that prove everything I talk about. I clarify that I knew that original researches can't be used as sources into the articles, but I thought that at least in the talk pages they can be showed and assumed as reliable with a bit of good sense. Anyway, let's go on...
 * HERCIANA - This version of the name has been used exclusively by the TVSH on the screen graphics during the Festivali i 52-të i Këngës në RTSH (video). After her win in the contest, obviously several websites have used this version to talk about her participation to the next Eurovision Song Contest, including the official one. But if you do a search, you can't find any other event where the singer is called in this way. Also the RTSH, despite of the screen graphics, never used this version, but the two host of the contest always called her Hersi (see the beginning of the video above) and also the website of the Albanian public TV always refers to her as Hersi, except for only a page, where in the list of the participants is written Herciana (but is written also that with Edmond Mancaku has sung Saviana Verdha, instead of Entela Zhula, and this mistake has been copied also on eurovision.tv website), but where in the title is written Hersi again. Then the fact that on an interview to esctoday.com (check the dates of the interview and of my first edit on the Wikipedia article to see that I absolutely couldn't convince anyone to edit the name) she said that Herciana is not her name has opened my eyes and let me think that could be a mistake and after a my question she confirmed to me that the screen graphics was wrong. Now I know that my conversation can't be used as a source, but the esctoday.com interview can be used, and then, as I said, there is only one source (then copied by others) where the name is Herciana. So let's see the other versions and the sources that prove them...
 * HERSIANA - The already mentioned interview and the one to eurofestivalitalia.net are already two reliable sources, in my opinion, where she herself says which is her real name. I think that I can also find some other reliable source to prove this version but...
 * HERSJANA - ...but she herself said to me that her real name is Hersjana (with "J", not "I"), so I try to find some reliable sources to prove this version and... I find her Google+ account (I don't know if this can be considered as a source, but I show it for further information), a document by the music school where she studies, an article by an Italian news agency, and tens of other articles and web pages talking about concerts and musical contest where she partecipated in Italy. So now I think there is no more doubt about which is her real birth name: Hersjana Matmuja. And I think that, between all these sources, there is at least a reliable one.
 * HERSI - Let's see now her stage name. I think that the phrase written at the beginning of the Wikipedia article "known also as Hersi Matmuja or simply as Hersi" is already completely right, so we have only to decide if use this name as the title of the article or not. Second the MOS:BIO, "the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known". Now, as I've seen, she in Italy is known as her birth name (as an opera singer), while in Albania is known as Hersi Matmuja (as a pop singer). This last thing is proved by the two already mentioned interviews (where she said to prefer this name and confirmed this also to me), by her Facebook profile and official fan page (and ReverbNation one), by the screen graphics of the Festivali i Këngës 50 and 51, by the eurovision.tv article (if you still consider reliable that), by the official Festivali RTSH website (click on her photo to see information) and so on. So I think that also here there are no more doubts about which should be the name written in the title of the Wikipedia article.
 * So, finally, I think now the first thing should be done is to replace Herciana with Hersjana and then to decide which name should be used as the title. Obviously this second my opinion, then I wait also yours (including the BubbaQ one, who I request to comment again here) and we'll take our decision, I hope together. Then, if you are still convinced that nothing has to been edited, I'll give up, but I'll wait and I'm sure that sooner or later you will be obliged to edit the article. If it won't be so, I'll pay a beer to each of you... 😜
 * Best regards, ale83_webmaster (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I promised myself not to reply here anymore, but oh well. How about this Ale83, right now we'll keep the title as it is, since it is how she was credited at Festivali i Këngës 52, and if it actually was a graphics error I'm sure we would've heard something from the Albanian broadcaster apologizing or something like that. When Eurovision time rolls around and we see if she's performing under Herciana, Hersiana, Hersi, or Hersjana, we will change it to that, since there's no doubt she'll be most well-known for participating in Eurovision. Anyways, Hersi or Hersi Matmuja is mentioned in the article so I don't exactly see the problem. Jjj1238 (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Jjj1238 is right, Herciana should be the name considering that we have not heard anything from the broadcaster. And I have said it before that if she participates in Copenhagen as Hersiana/Hersi then perhaps we could have a discussion concerning the name change. Even though I am personally not sure it would be changed even then but that is a question for the future. Also the names Hersiana and Hersi is mentioned in the article so it is not like we deny that there could be several spellings/names of this singer. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Jjj1238 is right, Herciana should be the name considering that we have not heard anything from the broadcaster. And I have said it before that if she participates in Copenhagen as Hersiana/Hersi then perhaps we could have a discussion concerning the name change. Even though I am personally not sure it would be changed even then but that is a question for the future. Also the names Hersiana and Hersi is mentioned in the article so it is not like we deny that there could be several spellings/names of this singer. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Ale83, you are POV pushing. POV pushing is not just on article pages, but can also be done via talk page discussion too.  Several editors have pointed out that the first source from the Albanian broadcaster stipulates the artists name as being spelt Herciana.  Eurovision.tv (which is the official source for the contest) also used the same spelling variant.  There are also strict policies and guidelines that we are to adhere to on Wikipedia, especially when it comes to dealing with biographical articles such as this.  If we do not stick to those rules then we'd be running the risk of blocking sanctions for violating policies that we are suppose to be following rigorously.  The fact that Ale83 keeps pushing for different variants of the artist's name to be used is pushing for a specific point of view, and this is what BabbaQ is probably referring to.
 * Ale83 has used good manners, and I can see that clearly. However, some of the things the editor has said may have been misinterpreted as he is not a native English speaker/writer.  So we all need to be extremely cautious and if in doubt, ask Ale83 to elaborate more into what he has written.  As for multiple users, that is a serious allegation to be making, and if one is in doubt, then submit a request at WP:SPI.  The allegations of "putting pressure on other websites" is open to interpretation to be fair.  Ale83, you have admitted yourself that you contacted Herciana personally, to clarify her name.  And you did also state you made comment posts on various websites, so really you have made contact with such websites, whether it was to put pressure on them to change the name spelling is ambiguous, but you cannot have a go at others for assuming such allegations.
 * The fact of the matter here is the name is unlikely to be changed from one spelling variant to a different version without consensus. The current version is fine as it stands.  However come the day of the contest itself, if a different spelling is confirmed/used, then we may review this matter.  For now, change is not and will not happen.    Wes     Mᴥuse   16:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I take note of your positions and for the moment I accept that you don't want to edit the article. I'd like only to say few things to close the matter for now.
 * Beginning from the end, I'd like to specify to Wesley that it's true that I contacted the singer personally (to ask her which is her right name) and also the eurovision.tv editor Olena Omelyanchuk (to ask her to correct the mistake, if she thought that there really was something wrong in her article), but I never said that I "made comment posts on various websites", because I never did it.
 * To Jjj1238 I'd like to say only that sincerely I never heard about a broadcaster apologizing for a screen graphic error, so it can't be completely excluded, especially if the singer directly confirmed that this happened.
 * To BabbaQ, apart from seeing that Wesley has had to explain and justify his allegations in place of him, I'd like to understand, really, why he still says that, even if the Copenhagen stage name of the singer will be different from Herciana, for him perhaps we will be able to have a discussion for changing the name here, even though he is personally not sure it would be changed even then . This thing make me laugh and I think that this can be considered really a POV pushing, since other user (including Wesley and Jjj1238) are not of the same opinion and you have already repeated this thing several times.
 * Furthermore I've already said that the main problem is not that Hersi Matmuja and Hersi are already mentioned in the article, but the presence of a wrong name as Herciana and mainly the complete lack of her birth name Hersjana. Since there is no source that her birth name is Herciana, but there are some sources that her birth name is Hersjana (that I think you consider not reliable, isn't so?), can at least her birth name (in the proper field) be changed or added?
 * Today I've found on her Facebook official fan page a link to her official website (where oddly she is named Hersi Matmuja). Can at least this be added to the article in the proper field?
 * Said this, after you will answer to these few questions above, I promise that I won't talk anymore about this matter in the future if there won't be any important news, nor I will contact anymore someone out of here about this matter, but I will write here only new sources in case they will be published. Best regards, ale83_webmaster (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ale83, now I have to tell you once and for all to move on, please. You are only making it worse for yourself with your comments such as the one about me. Yes of course Wesley felt he had to explain everything to you once again, as you have made it impossible for yourself to even try to understand what I am telling you. You seem to be unable/or unwilling to understand the concept and guidelines of Wikipedia concerning biography articles even after three separate users tried to explain it (not only me). Wesley of course felt he had to step in to try to explain to you again exactly the same that we had tried to explain to you previously. But I can tell you this, unlike Wesley I have a very low threshold of patience for users causing unnecessary drama as you are doing now. So I will not look at this talk page again until May because I feel the concern has been dealt with in every way possible. If you feel the need for drama and meta-discussions go ahead you are only causing yourself and your reputation harm. Im out guys. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But, if you read my comment, you see that I have already moved on. I have written "Well, I take note of your positions and for the moment I accept that you don't want to edit the article", what else should I write? Then in the comment about you I said only the truth and Wesley didn't have to explain to me the concept and guidelines of Wikipedia concerning biography articles, but your serious and false allegations against me. Anyway I don't have anything more to say, because it's useless talking with you who think to decide also what other users can say to others or not, so I'll let you have fun with your wrong edits. --ale83_webmaster (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm pretty sure it's a violation of WP:NOR and WP:COI to both directly contact the person AND to ask a source to change the spelling on their article as you did with the Eurovision.tv author. It is original research if she told you herself because her official name is unpublished and unverifiable; we need third-party sources to verify. However, I agree that the page should be moved to Hersiana Matmuja with an S. In my opinion, this esctoday article explicitly confirms that the spelling must be with an S and not a C. (Not Hersjana with a J, because all the sources are in Italian; it could be a spelling variation.)
 * However, it's also extremely unethical to contact a source to change a fact (even one as banal as name spelling) to conform with an argument on Wikipedia, as what you, Ale83, did regarding the Eurovision.tv article. Considering you said you had contacted the author of the article to make a change in the spelling, we cannot ever use that article as evidence for Hersiana's name's spelling.  Mr. Gerbear | Talk 22:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Mr. Gerbear, I'm pretty sure that we've agreed here that the page should remain Herciana Matmuja until we see what she's performing under for Eurovision when the time comes around. She is probably most well-known as winning Festivali i Këngës 52, where she performed with the name Herciana, whether it's her real name or not. If you truly believe that the article should be renamed to Hersiana Matmuja, I'm open to having a discussion over it, but right now I'm pretty sure Herciana is the only reasonable one, and I'm pretty sure some other editors who've contributed in this discussion agree with that. Thanks. Jjj1238 (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Mr. Gerbear, as Wesley explained to me, I already understood that original researches can't be used as sources on Wikipedia, but I contacted the singer only to know which is her right name and so to start a search of sources of the version she would have said to me. Instead I don't think that conflict of interest concerns my case, because I don't absolutely have any personal interest that the article was edited, but I would have only liked to give to the Wikipedia users a correct information. As regards the mail I sent to the eurovision.tv editor, I know that this is not very ethical and probably I made an error doing that, but this was the only way to let reason some users who still now don't read the sources I showed and still now say that I contacted more than one website to make change the singer name. I could also not to say this thing and probably at this time the title of this article would be already changed, but I said it just because I'd have liked to be completely transparent, unlike some others who talk about this matter also out of here. And just for the record, I wouldn't like to polemicise further, but only to let see to all the other users how one user works on Wikipedia, in the same link you can also read how this user only few hours ago stated that he would no longer read this talk page and then out of here talks about your comment giving suggestions to other users about what to do... --ale83_webmaster (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mr. Gerbear and the source he provided where they explicitly ask her about the spelling of her name. That should be enough to clear this up. Pickette (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

But this is were we now encounter a problem. It has already been established that a Wikipedia user contacted one source's editor in regards to the spelling of a name. Because of that action, it now makes any other source's that are also doing the same to be rather dubious. What's to say that editor's from other sources have not been contacted in the same way? Like Mr Gerbear rightfully pointed out, because of the unethical actions to contact a source in order to change a fact as banal as name spelling, so that it conforms with an argument on Wikipedia, does make subsequent sources seem dubious. And assuming those source's are innocent and have had no contact, makes it extremely difficult to prove. Unless we ourselves contact them to confirm that no Wikipedia editor has contacted them, and again that puts the entire situation into conflict of interest. If Ale83 hadn't decided to email the editor at Eurovision.tv, then we would not be in this situation. The only way to avoid COI now is to wait until the contest and then make adjustments accordingly. Wes    Mᴥuse   16:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how anything above applies to an interview where they explicitly ask her what the spelling of her name is and she responds with an answer. Pickette (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind mentioning that her birth name is Hersiana, but since she performed under Herciana, I think that should be the title of the page. Jjj1238 (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is quite simple, Pickette. Ale83 has already admitted that he contacted the editor at Eurovision.tv, which Mr Gerbear acknowledged was an act of conflict and now make the source from the official Eurovision website unusable on any Wikipedia article.  It is like when we discovered that Mr Gerbear is also an editor for ESCUnited.  Because of that, any articles published by Mr Gerbear on ESCUnited, are unusable on any Wikipedia article, because of conflict of interest and technically self-published sources.  There is no evidence to show that the editor from ESCToday is also the same editor (Ale83) from Wikipedia.  We cannot ask Ale83 or even the editor at ESCToday, because of the strict outing policy.  Because of the multiple actions that Ale83 has carried out, it has now made it impossible to determine if any source that holds an interview regarding the spelling of a name, is genuine or has been influenced by means of contacting a source's editor and/or if the source reporter is a Wikipedia user.  The only way we can now determine such without violating Wikipedia rules, is by having to wait until the contest itself.  This is how serious, complex, and difficult this case as now become - all because of the action of one individual.    Wes     Mᴥuse   18:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily agree with the above because I think if the artist herself confirms her name in an interview then that should be enough evidence to rename this article, but in March, Eurovision.tv will have all of the official info after the broadcasters hand it over to the EBU. Pickette (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And I'm assuming that you can 100% confirm that A) the artist was indeed interviewed, and B) the interviewer for ESCToday was not also an editor from Wikipedia? I suppose we could always ask one of the Wikimedia Foundation Trustees to assist us with this matter.  At least if they would be willing to investigate all this, then we'd me maintaining neutrality and avoid conflict of interest, and ousting.    Wes     Mᴥuse   21:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Can I say only a thing, since you are talking about me? If you have an objective view (without being influenced by anything, what I did, etc.) of all this talk page, it's very simple to see if I'm telling the truth or not. The interview was did on 29 December and I posted it here already in my first comment on 30 December, instead I contacted first the singer and after the eurovision.tv editor one in the afternoon and one in the evening of 31 December, so it's impossible that I could influence in any way the esctoday.com editor. Then it's also quite clear that I'm not the esctoday.com editor (or of any other ESC website, but I'm simply an ESC fan), since his/her name is Gafurr Sahiti, who I think is from Albania or Kosovo (searching this name on Facebook, I find an user who have as profile picture an Albanian eagle with a T-shirt on which there is the Kosovo flag), instead I already said I'm Italian (and my name is quite simple to understand: Ale -> Alessandro). But anyway I don't have any interest to let you use the esctoday.com article, because for me also Hersiana is wrong (since I know that her birth name is Hersjana); it's only to let you understand that it's very simple to see that I'm telling the truth and I haven't asked any other source change. And a last thing: in my opinion, saying that now it's impossible to determine if a source is reliable or not is how to say that this Wikipedia article can also be removed... Excuse me for the intrusion and now I leave you discuss among yourselves. --ale83_webmaster (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This user has admitted to contacting Eurovision.tv and now somewhere in this war of words someone has extrapolated this to every single ESC website, which is absurd in my opinion. If the integrity of ESCToday as source for information is being called into question, then some actual proof will be needed otherwise these are just baseless allegations. Pickette (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding what I mean, Pickette. I'm not extrapolating this entire episode. But the fact that conflict has happened at least twice for this particular case, it now makes it harder to believe if it has happened elsewhere too. And neither you nor I can verify that it hasn't happened without having to contact each website personally (which would then put us into COI) or physically checking that neither Wikipedia editor or website editor are the same people (and I mean people in the plural context). Doing the latter puts Wikipedians at risk of being outed and that is not fair to the Wikipedian. And all this has happened because of the fact that a Wikipedian has already contacted a website personally. Puts everything into a dubious perspective from herewith in regards to this particular case. To put it a different way, it is like the old story "Peter and the Wolf", which if you are familiar with the story, then you would understand exactly what it is I am trying to portray across here. Wes    Mᴥuse   23:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And which would be the second time the conflict happened? When I talked with the singer I asked myself to her to know which is her name, not to say and decide myself to/for her how she should be named. It's not so difficult to understand... This is certainly an original research and can't be used as a source, I understand that, but it's nothing else than this. Then, if I wanted to hide something, I would never say you that I contacted the eurovision.tv editor, so I don't understand why now you are painting me as some kind of conspirator. On the contrary now I really suggest that at this point it's better for everyone to left the things as they are for the moment and to decide later when Eurovision come around. Even if I'd like to know a thing: even if in May we will know which is her stage name, how will we do to know which is her right birth name? --ale83_webmaster (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oy, Ale83, cool it. Remember, civility in these parts.  The two conflicts that I speak of are 1) when you contacted the singer, and 2) when you contacted the editor at Eurovision.tv - both are conflicts of one kind or another.  Nobody is painting you as some kind of conspirator. But if you feel as though people are, then that poses a question of guilt on your part; not ours.  If you are familiar with the story "Peter and the Wolf", then you would understand the way that I am seeing this entire case.  In that story Peter would always tell the villagers that there was a wolf coming, when in fact there was not.  Over time the villagers no longer believed Peter.  When a wolf was about to attack the villagers and Peter cried wolf, the villagers no longer believed him - and then it was too late.  It is this behavioural pattern that I am now being cautious of.  The fact that you pushed for the article to be spelt a specific way, and then went about this by contacting both the singer and then a website editor, does start to pose doubts on whether other websites have been compromised.  And I do not mean by you personally, but this entire talk page is visible to other's too - and there is nothing to say that someone who has only read all of this may have also contacted other websites.  And thus, we're none the wiser, unless we physically investigate the matter, and in doing that we would all then have conflicted the case, we would have made all sources unusable, and more importantly contaminated sources/reliability.  And please, Ale83; do not tell everyone that they must now leave things alone and no longer discuss the issue.  It is not your right to silence editor's.  If they wish to continue engaging, then they are at free liberty to do so.  If you wish to cease discussing the matter, then you are welcome to - but that choice is yours to make.    Wes     Mᴥuse   00:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Where you saw that in my last comment there was no civility? I have only and simply explained a thing and I didn't want to criticize someone. I wanted only to say that the two conflicts are completely different (even if also when I contacted the eurovision.tv editor I didn't obliged someone to do something she didn't want to do, just for the record). And I never said to someone to not discuss anymore here, but I have simply joined your position and suggested (that is different to say what to do) to leave the article as it is for the moment, just as others of you did above in the previous comments. --ale83_webmaster (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I do want to make it known in this discussion that Jjj1238's comment above (22:45, 4 January 2014) saying that consensus had been reached about the page name is untrue; the fact that discussion is happening means that it absolutely has not been decided yet. Unfortunately, even with the source, status quo needs to be kept until consensus happens to change it. Just for the record.
 * Anyway, imo, even if the eurovision.tv editor was contacted, ESCToday has not. The fact that one of the questions was explicitly to clarify Ms. Matmuja's name should be a good enough source.  Mr. Gerbear | Talk 16:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I resume this discussion only to show two sources that I have just found among the others and that, in my opinion, can be used to prove definitively at least the birth name of the singer. The first one (page no. 4) is from the website of the Rome music school where she still studies (Conservatorio Santa Cecilia) and, as you can notice, there is written also her identification number; the same thing happens with another document (page no. 18) taken from the website of a school in Tirana where students study Italian language (Instituti Italiani i Kulturës), and this source can be used also to confirm her birth place and date (since in the whole Wikipedia article there is only one source, unlike for example the Swedish version one, where there are 14 sources). These two sources are official sources that can't be absolutely edited under request and I think that more official than these there would be only her ID card. Then, responding to Mr. Gerbear who talked about Hersiana and Hersjana as only a spelling variation in Italian (for the record, J is not a letter of the Italian alphabet) the singer herself, this time publicly and without no one has asked something to her (regarding me, I was very busy in the last two days, so I can't be "the guilty"), today has written on Twitter (status) saying again that her birth name is Hersjana and that she prefer to be called Hersi.
 * Only one last thing, that is no related with the topic: in addition to the lack of more than one source in the article, I see also that are written wrong information, like the fact that "at a young age, her family decided to move to Italy", instead, as she said in more than one interview (1 and 2), only her five years ago went to Italy to study (where already lived two her aunts). --ale83_webmaster (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have non-name information to clarify with sources, such as for her living in Italy, there should be no problem being WP:BOLD for those.
 * However, I don't think Italian-language sources are reliable enough for her name in English Wikipedia, only because transcription to Italian might change a native spelling to fit the orthography, and especially since Italian has rules with the pronunciation of the letter c before an i. Not sure if it applies, but this doubt is enough to disqualify this source, even if it is official.  Mr. Gerbear | Talk 03:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Mr Gerbear is right about transcription potentially having a change in native spelling. Take British and American English, which have transcription changes. Earlier, Ale83 spelt a word using American English (criticize), yet in British English it would be spelt (criticise). Both variations are correct and both words mean the same thing. So Hersjana (which I am assuming is the Albanian spelling) and Herciana/Hersiana (being the English variation) to me would therefore make all correct. However, as we are dealing with English Wikipedia, then I would be more inclined to use Hersiana rather than Hersjana. Although I am still dubious with sources for this particular case now, especially after the "Peter and the Wolf-esque" conduct carried out for 2 of them. Sorry, but one does air on the side of caution when unethical conduct has been used previously. The only way my mind will be put at ease now is if we went down one of the resolution paths as suggested below. Wes    Mᴥuse   04:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, Mr. Gerbear, so you suggest me to edit without any problem all the information that are not related with the name issue, right? Regarding spelling versions (like criticize/criticise), I use for some words, for those I'm not sure of their translation, a dictionary to translate them. So, if I do some edits and you see some errors, you can correct them of course. --ale83_webmaster (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, so I have expanded and corrected the information in Early life and career, adding some other sources (and avoiding to use those that talk about the name issue). I have also added some external links, taking inspiration from this other Albanian singer's article and inserting the singer official website and her official accounts on the social networks. Please, check if something is wrong (specially for my not perfect English) and, if it's so, feel free to correct the errors. Thanks! :-) --ale83_webmaster (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've removed all the overlinking though per overlinking manual of style. Really we're only suppose to link to something once.  So the repeated linking of Festivali i Këngës, Eurovision Song Contest 2014, Albania, Copenhagen, and Denmark, were unnecessary.  Apart from that it looks good, well done.    Wes     Mᴥuse   19:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :-) Ah, I'm seeing this thing only now. But is it sure she is a singer/songwriter, as written in the infobox? Because, if I'm not wrong, I haven't ever heard about songs written by her. --ale83_webmaster (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that singer/songwriter is a generic genre term used on Wikipedia to cover both in "one aspect".   Wes     Mᴥuse   00:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Resolution process
We really need to draw closure on this matter, as it is become highly unproductive and we're clearly hitting a deadlock situation. The only way forward from here it to either get Wikimedia Foundation involved, seek advice from uninvolved Wikipedian's via means of a third opinion, take this direct to dispute resolution, or waiting until the EBU have published confirmation. Has anyone thought to check the EBU website to see what information they hold, by the way?. Trying to resolve this case between us mutually and without bickering doesn't seem to be happening. Especially with the way events have unfolded by means of unethically contacting singer's and websites. A lesson that I hope we've all learnt now. Wes    Mᴥuse   01:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, both of you Wesley and Ale83. It is time to move on. We will know in only a few short months. You are both welcome to take it to resolution because frankly I do not care anymore as I am not involved in this discussion anymore. However, why take the time to continue this bickering as you Welsey states, to reach a agreement on something that we will know for sure in a few months time. I think it is great that you two get along and try to find resolution and that new expansions has been made to the article etc.. But this continued name controversy is getting really ridiculous with discussions going on soon for 2 weeks. I will not look at this talk page again because I find it to be on the verge of a circus. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Whoa, Babba. Where did that come from, mate?  I wasn't bickering at all in my comment above.  At the time I made the post, we had reached a deadlock situation.  So I came up with that idea as a way of drawing a peaceful and diplomatic closure - one way or another.  But somehow, we've managed to get through it, which is good in a way.  My only worry with everything is the manipulation of sources.  Which makes me, personally, dubious of any other sources in regards to this case.  Hence my reference to "Peter and the Wolf", which is what this situation reminds me of.  You know me enough by now to know that I dislike going down resolution processes, purely for the fact they tend to turn nasty and into unwanted cyber-bloodshed.  The fact that everyone appears to have found a mutual and cooperative path here, is something that should be welcomed with open-arms.  At least it means we are discussing the issue civilly.  You should be grateful of that.  And yes, it does make perfect sense to wait until May - I've always agreed to that 200%.    Wes     Mᴥuse   00:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And what is the resolution here? As far as I'm concerned there was no legitimate reason given for not using the ESCToday article as a source for her name. Pickette (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In case you missed it, there was a reason, Pickette. The element of doubt.  It only takes a few people to doubt something, and then it puts whatever is being doubted into questioning.  The matter at hand here is the conduct in which this was carried out on a few sources, and that places doubt on whether the same has happened to subsequent sources too.  It is perfectly good from someone to say they have not manipulated other sources, and we'd have to take their word on that.  But when they have been dishonest not once, but twice, by admitting they manipulated sources, then it puts doubt on other aspects.  Taking word that someone has not manipulated ESCToday's particular article is going to take one hell of a leap of good assumption.  I'm not prepared to take that risk based on the say-so, purely because of the dishonest conduct.  The only way you or I would ever know if the ESCToday source has not been manipulated, is if we were to email ESCToday themselves seeking confirmation.  And in doing that we would then be on dangerous conflict of interest and original research (as in we've had to investigate that source is pure and not contaminated.  The way to avoid those issues is if we sought assistance from someone higher up in the Wikimedia Foundation to investigate this on our behalf.    Wes     Mᴥuse   14:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said before, there is no legitimate reason given for not using the ESCToday source. It's one thing to disqualify the Eurovision.tv source (which I'd say is iffy considering that website is run by the EBU and no proof is given that this user is actually the one who inspired them to change the naming in that article) but to disqualify all sources on purely doubt around that is uncalled for and I don't think it is justified at all by anything you have said above. Pickette (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're not getting the vital point here, Pickette. The user openly admitted they had contacted the singer personally, thus breaching original research.  He then went on to use the original information which he has personally obtained to get the editor at Eurovision.tv to amend their news article.  That in turn contaminated a sources and prevented us from using it - because it was altered based on original research which the Wikipedian had personally obtained.  That is 2 dishonest and unethical practices to have undertaken.  The fact the Wikipedian lied in the first place to say the information was correct, only to then admit they had instructed a website to correct a spelling error based on their original research, puts other sources into dispute.  Answer this question honestly, Pickette.  Do you hold any evidence to verify that the user has not contacted personally the editor at ESCToday to get them to change the spelling based on their original research, apart from taking their word for it?  And to be fair, they have been dishonest twice so far, so what's to say dishonesty hasn't continued.  The only way we would be able to clarify they are telling the truth is if we ourselves contacted sources to verify non-contamination.  And we cannot do that, as we would then be breaching "original research".    Wes     Mᴥuse   18:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ESCToday is considered a reliable source for information on Eurovision articles here. They conducted an interview with the singer where she clarified the spelling of her name. If ESCToday is being accused of being an unreliable source that fabricates information and interviews, then evidence must be provided and we should not use that website for any information then. Extending an issue with one source across to all sources doesn't make any sense especially when it can't be proven that the user who contacted Eurovision.tv was actually the reason why the name on the Eurovision.tv article was changed. There are accusations being made against the EBU and ESCToday without any actual proof. Pickette (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Without any actual proof? Are you for real? The proof is above, Ale83 gave the confession himself. Or have you chosen to ignore that? Wes    Mᴥuse   22:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I am for real. I'm aware of the doubt about Eurovision.tv and the Facebook correspondence but I'm unaware of how that disqualifies ESCToday as a source for her name when the subject matter of the article in question was an interview with the artist herself where she confirms the spelling of her name. Where is the proof that ESCToday is an unreliable/questionable source? I've asked for this proof several times now. Pickette (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd just kinda but in here, if that's ok. I kinda agree with both of you, but for different reasons. Pickette, I agree that I don't understand why the Esctoday source isn't capable of being used just because the user contacted a Eurovision.tv writer. Wesley, does that mean we can no longer use any source related to Albania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014 because we're assuming there's a possibility that the user contacted every other Eurovision blog/news website? I don't understand. But also, I do think the page should remain Herciana has she performed under the name Herciana Matmuja in FiK, and I think it's safe to assume she'd perform under the same name for Eurovision. Since she did say her birth name was Hersiana I think it would be ok to mention how her birth name is Hersiana, yet she performs as Herciana. When Eurovision comes around and we see whether she performs as Herciana, Hersiana, Hersi, or Hersjana, then we can rename the page. That's just what I believe. Jjj1238 (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying we can't use any source for Albania. What I am saying is that any source regarding her name is now dubious.  Purely because we have no proof to say that Ale83 has or has not been in contact with other sources.  He virtually swore blind that he had not contacted anyone.  Then he point-blank lied to all of us when he admitted that he had A) contacted the artist and B) contacted Eurovision.tv and forwarded the originally researched "evidence" he had personally obtained.  Because he had contacted the artist made the situation original research.  Because Eurovision.tv altered their report based on the Wikipedian's original research, then meant that the very Eurovision articles was now based on original research that was provided by a Wikipedian - thus conflict of interest and contaminating a source.  Ale83 swears blind that he has not contacted other sources with the same Facebook "evidence".  Yet are we forgetting that he swore blind to us once before, only to admit he lied to us from the start.  So I'm afraid, his actions has left in doubt as to whether other sources connected to the artsist's name have been contaminated.  We have no proof to verify if he has or has not contacted them, and thus we have no proof to verify if those sources are innocent and pure, or manipulated by one person.    Wes     Mᴥuse   00:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Which policy supports such an action? I've read the conflict of interest policy and I can't find anything that says all sources regarding a particular subject should be ignored because of one incident regarding a specific source. Pickette (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about policies? It's the principle of the matter here.  One user led us to believe one thing, only to admit to us later that he lied to us the whole time.  And now we are expected to believe everything else is true when they already lied to us not once, but twice - and deceitfully at that.  Did Ale83 admit to contacting Herciana via Facebook or not?  At first he denied any contact, then admitted contact.  So why would one lie in the first place?  It has put a very large element of distrust in anything else the editor has said to us regarding the singer's name and the fact that he says he has not contacted any other sources.  Sorry, Pickette, but I cannot believe his sole word now, for the fact he deceitfully lied to us twice before.  The only way we could every find proof that no other sources have received contact from Ale83, is if you, I, or a fellow Wikipedian emailed all the websites for confirmation that Ale83 has not been in contact with them or sent them copies of the private Facebook conversation between he and Herciana.  And if we did that, then you and I would be undertaking original research.  However, if someone from Wikimedia Foundation contacted them, then no original research has been breached by a Wikipedian.  Besides, read what Coop has said below.  This article is move protected and has advised that we now wait until the contest itself.  So I would say this is now case closed.    Wes     Mᴥuse   01:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I entirely disagree. It's illogical and absurd to disqualify all sources regarding a particular subject based on one person's actions with one source. Everything else is just assumptions. On top of that, I fail to see any argument that discredits an interview with the actual artist which was conducted by ESCToday. Unless you can prove that ESCToday fabricates it's interviews with artists, then I see absolutely no reason why that cannot be used as a source for her name to clear up this issue. Pickette (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not illogical and absurd. It is called being cautious, in case you are not familiar with that word.  One person has been severely dishonest and has taken away my trust in them and anything that they have said or done since their deceitful conduct.  Can you prove that Ale83 has not contacted any other sources?  Can you prove that the editor at ESCToday and Ale83 are not the same person?  So I am well within my right to disqualify any other source, as a precaution, until someone can prove that Ale83 has not contaminated other sources.  Tell you what Pickette, if it bothers you so much, go an email all the websites and clarify that Ale83 has not been in contact with them.  Because right now, you are not doing a good job at convincing me that he is now telling the truth or that other sources regarding her name are safe.    Wes     Mᴥuse   02:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Wesley but that is kinda illogical, you're purely just going off of assumptions that Ale contacted these sources with no proof. I don't know if I'm wording any of this correctly, but I don't think we should deny use of articles purely on assumptions, that are most likely completely false. Jjj1238 (talk) 02:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

But it is not illogical. Assumptive, maybe. But can you blame me considering Ale83 barefaced lied to use twice about this already? What's to say that he ceased lying or that he has continued to lie and is pulling the wool over our eyes? Can you confirm that he is telling the truth? If one is familiar with Peter and the Wolf then one will understand where I am coming from here. Prove to me that Ale83 is no longer lying, and I will be convinced that sources (expect the particular Eurovision.tv one) have not been manipulated by the aforementioned editor. Wes    Mᴥuse   02:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

And proof is the whole issue here. There is no proof to say Ale83 has contact other sources, there is no proof to say he hasn't. However there is proof that he has contacted at least two sources, by his own admission, and there is strong proof that he has lied to us about contacting those very sources. Wes    Mᴥuse   02:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I just feel like that's always the case though. Like in every article there's always a possibility that someone tampered with a source and there's always the possible that someone didn't. I just feel like this isn't necessary, that's all. Jjj1238 (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In what instances did Ale83 lie in this discussion? The user has been characterized as a liar but when I read back the comments above, the user seems actually pretty upfront about the things they did. Pickette (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * For fuck sake I am getting a serious headache over this. Pay attention and read what has been bloody written below by CT Cooper.  This article has been page move protected anyway.  Cooper also advised that we wait until a few months (which I assume he means wait until the contest).  I feel like I'm being beaten up like a piñata at a kids party.  I am perfectly entitled to hold my own opinion.  An editor has been dishonest with their conduct.  I do not like people who lie or are dishonest.  I'd rather people be up-front and truthful.  We cannot categorically prove that Ale83 has manipulated other sources, nor can we prove that he hasn't.  We can only go off what he has said and done in the past.  Those actions is what raises elements of doubt.  The only way doubt will be removed is when we see the contest itself.  And that is what has been suggested by a few editors now.  So drop it, wait till May.  Time to stop wasting energy on this and plough it into something more useful like improving other articles.    Wes     Mᴥuse   03:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wesley Mouse, no one forced you to come and comment here, you do it at your own will. If you feel this is a waste of time and that you are getting beaten up, please take your own advice and go improve other articles. Pickette (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I will not. If I wish to come here and comment, I will do.  And it is clear that time is being wasted.  The fact that you are not dropping this, nor taking on board the advice given below.  You kept asking for proof.  Well then find some proof to clear my curiosity that no other sources have been contaminated.  Or would you rather I hold your hand while we thrash this one about?    Wes     Mᴥuse   03:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wesley Mouse, you called the user a liar and I was just asking you for clarification to understand your point of view. If you can't conduct yourself in a civil manner then that's not my problem. Just like you feel you have the right to comment here, so do I and other users. Pickette (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course there is clarification in the comments above. Ale83 provided links several times and never implied that he had contacted Eurovision.tv.  Nobody even mentioned that Eurovision.tv had suddenly "edited" their article with a name change around the same time that Ale83 has been in contact with the singer.  If you read his comments dated 4 January, in which at point 1 of his comment he then states he had contacted the editor at Eurovision.tv to instruct them to change the spelling of the name.  That was the first time anyone had even mentioned or even knew the EBU article had been altered.  Then further down the discussion, Ale83 then contradicts his own admission by saying he only contacted the EBU asking them to make the change but not convincing them to do it.  Er, he gave them a copy of his Facebook discussion - that in itself is forcefully convincing something into your own favour.    Wes     Mᴥuse   04:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, timeout! This (discussion) leads nowhere still after a month or so. I say lets all disengage from discussing it further until we know for sure. And frankly I find it weird that user Pickettes still goes on and on and on about this considering the earlier discussion. It is starting to look really ridiculous. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Frankly BabbaQ, I don't really care for your opinion about my comments here - I didn't insult anyone, I just sought clarification on something that was unclear. And I'm still unsatisfied with the explanations I received but I wont continue this discussion when people are using profanity and being rude to me. Pickette (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't have worded it any better myself, BabbaQ. I had disengaged on 9 January, only to acknowledge Coop's recommendation (shown below) on 25 January. I did find it strange that the minute I reappeared, albeit to acknowledge Coop's post, that other's seized the chance to refuel a debate, knowing perfectly well what my stance is on this matter at the moment. I think this discussion should be officially closed, and given a hiatus of a few months as suggested below. Pickette, stop the incivility towards BabbaQ. It is not nice to tell someone that you don't care what they think. And no profanity was directly aimed at you. You do have a habit of reading a comment and assuming that things are aimed at you, and that is a pity. When someone says "for fuck sake", it is term a person used when they are frustrated at everything. A bit like a highly expressed sigh. It's almost like saying "crying out loud" or "what on earth is going on". Nobody used profanity at you. Wes    Mᴥuse   16:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wesley Mouse, you replied to my comment above when you came here to acknowledge CT Cooper's post and now you and BabbaQ are telling me to move on? Please take your own advice - I wasn't having a discussion with myself here. BabbaQ was dismissing my comments and I was communicating that I didn't care for their dismissal and that I have a valid opinion on this subject - what is uncivil about that? What I find uncivil is aggressive and rude posts that use profanity - just look at your own posts in this discussion before you lecture me. It's a shame that if I don't agree with you on a matter, you make me an enemy but whenever I agree with you I'm treated as a friend. Pickette (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hang on a minute, reverse back and look again. The profanity is not directed at you.  The fact that you have assumed it was is a shame.  We do not have the right to restrain someone's rights of freedom of speech or freedom to express.  If you think my comment was rude, then you have not come across the rest of the Wikipedia community who are by far more brutal.  And nobody was lecturing you either.  This isn't the first time that you have demanded that I change my personality.  What gives someone the right to do that?  Have I ever told you to change your personality?  No.  Spend time in other areas, Pickette, and you will see that there are by far worse editors than I.  People who are more bullish and defamatory than I.  Like you once said to me, you do not know me, nor do I know you.  I am me, if people don't like me for who I am then that is not my problem.  People take me as they find me - warts and all.  Who are we to judge someone just because of the way they conduct their persona or how they handle situations?  Everyone is unique in their own way, that is the fun dynamics of human civilisation.  No two people are the same.  You know, I found Cooper a very sincere person on here, and now that we've become friend's in real-life, I have found him to be even more sincere, helpful, and understanding.  And I'm sure that he has grown to see me for who I am in the real-world too.  Sure, there will be times that you and I disagree on matters, and there will be times we agree.  That's the dynamics of human life.  If we have mixed opinions, then deadlock or more commonly known "agree to disagree" occurs.  And that is when parties either find compromise or at least try to understand each other's perspective.  If a lack of understanding happens, then seek simplified clarification.  I had simplified many times by explaining that I saw all this issue as being similar to the fable "Peter and the Wolf".  Those who are familiar of that story will understand how I perceive this matter as it currently stands.  In order to convince me to see it differently, requires cooperation.  And at the moment nobody has ever stepped forward to convince me that no further deceit has been carried out by an editor who has already been deceitful twice before.  My trust in that person has been tarnished all because they have been dishonest on more than one occasion.  Prove to me that the dishonesty ceased, and I will be happy to accept that other sources are safe and not been tampered with.   Wes     Mᴥuse   17:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wesley Mouse, I never demanded that you change your personality nor did I discuss anything about your personality - I was having an on-topic discussion about this singer's name which you were actively engaging me in. Pickette (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You did make such demands in this conversation. It is cleat that both you and I are strongly opinionated characters, and that's a good trait to have as it keeps a debate healthy and shows all spectrum's of a topic.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I sense that you're more the passive persona whereas I'm more the assertive character.  Yes, there have been times that I've agreed with your views, and there have been times I've disagreed.  When we have difference of opinion, we have engaged in discussion.  I try my hardest to explain myself clearly, but that can be difficult when conversing in written format that has no vocal tone or facial expressions.  As you may have noticed in this very discussion, I made reference to a novel, to give a better understanding into how I seen this entire matter.  That was my personal opinion on how I felt things had turned dubious because of unethical conduct by one person, which in turn took away my trust in their motives or assumption of goodwill.  Once someone lies and takes away my trust, then it takes a lot to regain it.  I'm sure you and other's have been through similar scenarios in real-life, where someone has been dishonest to us in a major way and we have found it hard to trust that person.  That is just my view on this.  If honesty ws there from the start, then I would not be in this situation now.    Wes     Mᴥuse   18:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wesley Mouse, I disagree entirely with your opinion on this matter and I find that the reasons you give for ignoring all sources related to the subject of this singer's name to be illogical. In my perspective, this user was interested in correcting what (s)he thought was an error with the article. I can't find any proof that this user was a liar or deceptive, rather they seemed pretty upfront that they were in contact with the singer and that they had even contacted Eurovision.tv. It's illogical to state that this user has contaminated the entire internet on the subject of the spelling of this singer's name. One can make such accusations against all kinds of sources for any particular subject if that's the case. My main concern is that ESCToday, which is widely used on Wikipedia as a source for information on Eurovision articles, is essentially being accused of having fabricated an interview with the artist without any proof. This is my perspective on this situation. I don't come here to insult other users or make rude comments and I really didn't have any plans to continue posting here after your last comment before BabbaQ criticized only me as a driving force for continuing this discussion. I don't associate demanding someone to change their personality the same as asking someone not to be rude. If you have anything else to say in regards to me personally and not about the subject of this singer's name, I'd prefer it if it was on either my talk page or your talk page. Pickette (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, please call me Wes. I hate seeing my full title being used.  Secondly, I can see why you disagree, as not everyone can see things the same way as I do (if that makes sense).  I'm not saying the ESCToday article is fabricated.  What I have said is that I am now dubious of other sources regarding the singer's name, because of the unethical conduct that was carried out in the first place.  On 30 December, Ale83 asked if anyone would like him to contact the singer personally.  Before anyone could even say yes or no, he went ahead and did it anyway and on 31 December was expecting us to use a screenshot of the conversation as a verifiable source.  That action he did was original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia, as you well know.
 * It was not until 4 January that he then admitted he'd contacted the editor at Eurovision.tv shortly after he'd had the conversation with Hericana, and provided them with the same screenshot that he provided to us. As that evidence was original research, it also meant that Eurovision.tv's re-edited article was based on that very "original research", thus a reliable source had become contaminated.  As it had been "contaminated" by evidence supplied by a Wikipedian meant we could no longer use it as a source, as that would in turn violate conflict of interest.  If you recall, we can no longer use sources from ESCUnited that have been written by Mr Gerbear, purely because of the COI and self-publishing policies.
 * If Ale83 was open from the start that he contacted the editor at Eurovision.tv then the element of trust would not have been tarnished. However as he refrained from informing us about his actions for almost a week, made me personally no longer trust.  And that was further enhanced when he later stated he was not "convincing Eurovision.tv to make the adjustment", which contradicted his initial admission of 4 January.
 * To put it in a different hypothetical way, if I told people for days that I am actually royalty and people believed in it. And then I later stumbled upon myself and the truth came out that I was not royalty - people would find it very hard to believe anything else that I may say afterwards.  That is what's happened here.  Ale83 led us to believe one thing, only to stumble upon himself days later with the real truth that made his original action a lie.  So when they further say they are now telling the truth about not contacting other sources, I find it harder to believe because of the dishonesty used previously.
 * And like I have tried to explain, the only way my curious and dubious mind will ever be at ease is if we:
 * had verifiable evidence that proves no other sources have received this screenshot or similar email enquiring contact from Ale83 or
 * we waited until the contest itself when we will know for certain how the singer's name is spelt.
 * And as neither you nor I have that evidence that clears up point 1, then it leaves us with no other choice but to follow point 2. For all I know, the interviewer from ESCtoday could be the same person as Ale83.  Do we know if both people are not the same?  No we do not, so it still doesn't clear my dubious mind.    Wes     Mᴥuse   20:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, Wes just disengage and stop communicating on this talk page for now so the discussion dies down it just goes back and forth :) And Pickette, please do not take everything that happens here on Wiki too seriously. I was perhaps harsh in my comment but you are no better in your communication with me or Wes. It is time for us all to disengage from this discussion. I will not respond more after this comment and I hope Wes will not do it either. Going back and forth about this and also the comment I made makes no sense right now. And it is obvious that no consensus will be reached until May!. :) I will see any further comments from any of us as proof that that person wants to continue bickering and fighting and I will lose respect for that person. So please do not disappoint me guys :)--BabbaQ (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Page move protection
This page has been move protected by for an indefinite period. It is unlikely that the page will be moved or the move protection removed until there is a clear consensus regarding the article title. If it remains the case that there is no consensus on the issue, then the current title will probably remain. In any case, cut-and-paste moves are not allowed as they cause lots of problems, and are difficult to fix if not dealt with quickly, so please don't try and get around the move protection this way. I have no opinion on what is the correct title, except that I know a lot of energy is wasted endlessly discussing the article titles for a lot of subjects in which multiple names exist. Londonderry/Derry and Burma/Myanmar are infamous examples. If all relevant names are in the lead, it matters little. I would suggest leaving it for a months and coming back to it. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 11:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable to me. The wait will be the wisest option for now, and it's not that long now anyway.    Wes     Mᴥuse   11:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is what I have been trying to say basically since day 1 of this discussion. Anyway the user who contacted sites etc has not done any edits since 8 January so I guess the user is taking a much needed break from Wikipedia. It was a long time ago that I seen anyone POV pushing to that extent. Anyway, lets now all take a big breath and wait until freaking May!!. :)--BabbaQ (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't see any administrator forcefully closing this discussion down unless things really get out of hand, but I can't see this discussion going anywhere productive any time soon either. If there is no emerging consensus in the next week can I suggest agreeing to disagree for the time being and setting a date to re-start the discussion. At the very least the whole issue with ale83 and sourcing should have diminished by then. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In the words of Josh Dubovie, that sounds good to me!  Wes     Mᴥuse   21:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good :)--BabbaQ (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments by CT Cooper
I've decided it would be better if I became more involved here. It means I surrender any right to take any admin actions in regard to this dispute, barring exceptional circumstances, but there are other admins to do that and seems clear that further input is needed here. I've reviewed the above conversation in full and my observations are as follows:


 * As I've already said, the page will and should not be moved until there is some kind of consensus. There clearly isn't at the moment.
 * It is very unlikely that anyone from the Foundation will get involved here. If this dispute can't be resolved through "regular" discussion, now or in the future, then other forms of dispute resolution should be looked into. The final resort is arbitration but I highly doubt it will come to that.
 * I don't see any major issue here in regards to the biographies of living persons policy. Spelling someone's name differently to how they would like is not libellous. Also, per WP:BLPGROUP, the BLP policy does not normally apply to organizations as a whole, including websites. However, I would still advise editors to be careful before accusing websites of malpractice of any kind – particularly as the actions of may have brought outside attention to this discussion.
 * I don't believe that policy has anything specific to say on the appropriateness of contacting sources to request changes while arguing for said changes in a discussion, so some interpretation is needed. I believe that it violates the spirit of WP:NOR, WP:SELFPUB, and arguably WP:NPOV for editors to influence the content of sources, whether that be by contacting the publisher to make "corrections" or writing the sources themselves. Per WP:COI, it's very important that there is a clear separation between those writing an article and the topic itself – so contacting the article subject directly would also be inappropriate.
 * An article talk page is not the best place to discuss the conduct of a specific individual. That said, while I believe we should assume good faith in the actions of Ale83 as a new contributor, I do think it is appropriate to ask that he does not do this again, or at least, he must be immediately upfront on any such actions in the future.
 * I can see both sides to the arguments over what sourcing to accept. I think it's unlikely that all sources on the issue should now be disregarded because of one incident. However, WP:BURDEN could be applied to argue that the burden is on those arguing for the use of the source to prove that it is reliable and so hasn't been "contaminated". However (x2), I can't see that being realistic and really if we regard a source, such as ESCToday, as reliable to start with, that means we presume that they do proper fact checking and wouldn't just take someone's word for it when receiving a request for a correction.
 * I continue to recommend that we leave the article where it is for now and come back to this at a future date. However, if we must tackle this now, I suggest we re-start the discussion from scratch and come to a decision based on WP:COMMONNAME. In other words, we analyse all relevant reliable sources and make a decision based on which name is most commonly used. While not ideal, it would be easiest if we just let the whole incident involving ale83 go and act as if it never happened. If there is no clear precedence among reliable sources for a particular name, I would personally argue for the official name, whatever that is, to be given precedence. However, if no agreement can be reached on that premise, or on what the official name is, then the current title will have to remain.

Comments about my observations are welcome. However, please bear in mind that some of my warnings are pre-emptive and unless indicated otherwise, I'm not directing any of my comments at a particular individual. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 22:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Of all the points above, #3 was one of my underlying worries. Even if Ale83 may not have contacted each and every single website (apart from the 2 he mentioned), I was concerned about outside attention which we cannot see.  People who just come and visit, read, and move on without a comment.  And Ale83 did say he was questioning the spelling of her name purely so that this Wikipedia article can be corrected.  So the chances he mentioned us to those sites are highly probable.  As for #4, that was the primary issue I was trying to get at, and thank you to Cooper for wording it more simpler than the way I went around the houses.  And that is what placed high elements of doubt and suspicion on if the same actions had continued or not, if that makes sense?  All I was seeking were clarification for peace of mind's sake.  I believe the idiom is "once bitten, twice shy".  I just felt discouraged that my air of caution was not taken seriously.  After all we are here to be seen as professionals producing near-accurate articles.  When a source that we use becomes changed through an editor's influence, then we are not maintaining neutrality; we are trying to get our own point of view in place by influencing reliable sources and putting that reliability in jeopardy.    Wes     Mᴥuse   23:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The names and spellings of all of the performers and songs as they will appear in the contest will be listed by the EBU on Eurovision.tv in March after the delegations meeting. I was just concerned mostly with the fact that a source we consider to be reliable for Eurovision related information was being ignored and that the source actually featured an interview with the singer herself where they explicitly ask her about the spelling of her name. It wasn't really open for the author of the article to change the spelling of her name if they were indeed contacted by Ale83 unless it's being implied that ESCToday fabricates interviews. Pickette (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * And not just the fact that the reliable source is being ignored, but the specific content is, in which the artist's name's spelling is explicitly identified. (As an aside, I have since been able to speak with Albanians off-site who said that Festivali i Këngës had a bunch of screwups with their on-screen graphics when it came to spelling.) I'd also like to point out that the Festivali i Këngës show is a primary source; ESCToday is secondary, which does take precedence, especially with the clarification provided in their content. All this should be sufficient proof. Otherwise, it really would be assuming that ESCToday fabricated the interview, which is illogical.
 * By-the-by, status quo right now is unsatisfactory as it does not state that her name could be spelled Hersiana. I understand that the page title cannot be changed, but the lead has to at least, for now, state this spelling variant.  Mr. Gerbear | Talk 08:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Mr Gearbear. It has been explained several times why we can not use any if those sources. And it is not "illogical" it is logical. And the article states that she is also named Hersi etc. That several users keeps on dragging this subject back and forth is for me the only illogical thing about this article.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Pickette, Gerbear - the source is not being ignored. The source is being questioned, especially after unethical conduct has been carried out by a Wikipedian twice before.  Assuming good faith here, and the source was used.  And then it later came to light that the source was yet another one that Ale83 had managed to influence, or if the interviewer was in fact Ale83 himself.  How would you feel then?  You'd feel lied to for the fact that an editor stated all the time that they had not influenced it, only for the truth to have come out in the end that they did.  Ale83 has done this to us twice already, which makes it harder for me to believe that he hasn't done it a third time.  And even if he hasn't done it a third time, what is there to say that unseen eyes have viewed this very discussion and taken it upon themselves to find out?  It's like CT Cooper rightfully pointed out, Ale83's actions may have brought outside attention to this discussion.  And we have no proof to verify if that has or has not happened.  If one is aware of the ripple effect, then this is exactly what has happened here.  In sociology, the ripple effect is observed as how social interactions can affect situations not directly related to the initial interaction, and in charitable activities where information can be disseminated and passed from community to community to broaden its impact.  Ale83's contact with the singer, then passing their findings onto Eurovision.tv, was the start of the ripple.  Do we know for certain that information hasn't been passed onto other's?  We have no proof to say it hasn't.  However, we do have proof to say it has been done at least once already.  And people say that I'm being illogical.  There's your logic!    Wes     Mᴥuse   12:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to say, first off, that it is extremely unprofessional to say that users such as Pickette and I are "dragging this subject back and forth". This is called reaching consensus; our opinion is no less valid than yours, BabbaQ.
 * For me, the fact that the ESCToday interview explicitly stated her name's spelling, independent of whatever Eurovision.tv said, is enough. (In fact, Eurovision.tv only says "Hersi" while ESCToday only says "Hersiana".) You know very well that it was I who even pointed out Ale83's conflict of interest, and I know the gravity of such things. However, the CoI should not extend beyond Ale's contact to Eurovision.tv. We are not here to speculate to such lengths.  Mr. Gerbear | Talk 18:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I call it as I see it. I think it is more unprofessional to continue discussing a subject which had been discussed for over a month and questioning the sincerity of several other users when it comes to the sources and the actions of user Ale83. Yes everyone is entitled to their opinion and no one has said that you can not state your opinion from what I can tell.All I am pointing out is that dragging this name dispute back and forth is in my opinion unnecessary because of the discussion history above. Several users have in a friendly tone described why we can not use the sources. I see now that you have agreed to that as well. Good. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * BabbaQ, if there was nothing left to discuss then no one would be writing anything here. The discussion above didn't end with a conclusion; the point of view that the sources should be disqualified because of potential tampering is only one opinion here - not the conclusive result of the discussion. Urging people to stop discussing the matter doesn't seem really helpful at all. At the end of the day, the article name will stay but that is a compromise everyone is making and at least in regards to myself, not because I agree with the other perspective. Pickette (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I havent urged anyone to stop discussing it. I have urged everyone to use common sense and read trough the earlier discussion and realise that perhaps it is for the best to let this discussion rest for now considering that we have discussed this S or C subject for over a month without consensus. But I can see that I have hurted a few egos by pointing out the obvious, but I call it as I see it and always will. The truth hurts I guess.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well good for you BabbaQ, give yourself a pat on the back. Pickette (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually appreciate and respect people who say things as it is, rather than people who bubble-wrap things and talk behind closed doors. Honesty is the best policy of them all.  BabbaQ is a prime example of the type of person that I respect, purely for he is honest in his expressionism.    Wes     Mᴥuse   12:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To Wes, thank you :) And to Pickette, please move on now. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I also respect honestly, but I don't respect being rude for the sake of being rude. Bye to both of you. Pickette (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Considering that you are being rude for the sake of being rude I guess you do not respect yourself?.. hmm tricky situation for you. OK kiddo lets move out of the sandpit and perhaps act your age. I have no interest in a meta-debate with you.. play somewhere else. I will not respond further, your ego has been hurt (obviously) and I think you probably need a few weeks to heal. OK so this discussion did not go your way.. boo freaking hoo, go and cry somewhere else and stop acting like a kindergarten bully. Adios.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Is that the pot calling the kettle "black"? You have been as equally rude too, Pickette. I, like BabbaQ, have spoken with honest. I too call things as I see it. If reading truth hurts, then you are of free will and adult enough, not to read it. We read what we choose to read. Simple! Wes    Mᴥuse   16:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's nice. Take care. Pickette (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm is the lowest form of intelligence and wit. Now we know what level you are at, thanks for enlightening us.  Best wishes.    Wes     Mᴥuse   17:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you recognize that, I was worried based on the majority of your posts on this page. Pickette (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh no need to worry about me, I don't require people to hold my hand in discussions as my intelligence appears to be far higher than that of yours. Happy Days!    Wes     Mᴥuse   17:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ouch Wesley Mouse. You got me there. Are you done now? Pickette (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Pickette, I see that you enjoy continuing picking fights. But isnt it time to perhaps move and and swallow your pride or whatever the issue is :) --BabbaQ (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, all of you are being extremely unprofessional, and this passive-aggressive thread is not what Wikipedia is about. Wes, Pickette (and I) are speaking honestly of our viewpoints; of course you respect BabbaQ's opinion more as you agree with it. We have all been speaking honestly in this conversation and it is with great concern that you, the de facto head of Wikiproject Eurovision, seem to not be respecting everyone's viewpoints equally. You should be above this petty squabbling. Pickette, you really should not have made such a passive-aggressive statement, especially considering the circumstances of you and Wes's disagreements in the past. BabbaQ, you need to understand that even if things look resolved to you, other opinions matter just as much; you were being extremely dismissive. To all of you: There is no need to mock the intelligence of anybody else in this discussion. That's extremely petty.
 * I only agreed to the below resolution because, obviously, each of the parties involved in this argument refused to relent, and the resolution is a fair compromise. I would not have agreed if all that comes out of this discussion is all this. Honestly, if this keeps happening, where all discussions turn unhealthy, no wonder this WikiProject doesn't have more active members. I have tried working with all of you, but all this WikiProject seems to be doing is fostering bad faith.  Mr. Gerbear | Talk 22:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ETA: And now I see Wesley and BabbaQ have been making disparaging remarks about other users on each others' talk pages? Really? I suggest you all retract your statements. Your pretense of honesty is only valid until it crosses the line of civility. So much for just dropping it. How unprofessional of you both. "Low level of intellect"? "The little puppy"? You both have crossed the line, especially you, Wes. You really should know better when it comes to insults of intelligence. I am ashamed to have ever been part of any constructive conversation with either of you.  Mr. Gerbear | Talk 05:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh look, another pot calling the kettle "black". You have the audacity to give me a lecture, yet you yourself have the nerve to use insults and refer to me as the "de facto head of Wikiproject Eurovision".  Get a grip and move out of my face.  And how ironic that you read a comment and make an incorrect assumption.  I was talking about my real-life work colleagues, and my new husky puppy that my fiancé bought me.  Oh the joy and laughs when someone reads a comment and hasn't the foggiest clue what it is about.  Specsavers, anyone?    Wes     Mᴥuse   09:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Defer until March
Looking at the above I think the chances are low that a consensus will be formed any time soon. Opinion is clearly just too well split for that to happen. I think the best solution for now is to end this discussion with an agreement to do the following:


 * 1) End the discussion with a no consensus for a move result. The current article title will remain for now.
 * 2) Immediately add the variant of her name, Hersiana Matmuja, to the lead, so that the article title becomes less important.
 * 3) Re-visit this issue in March, once the full list of participants in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014 has been released.

Can we agree to these points? CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I would agree to this. Does the move protection stay until March? I should assume so.  Mr. Gerbear | Talk 18:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree to that as well. If only to stop the POV pushing. Great.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't think it's likely that the move protection will be lifted until there is a consensus on the name. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 19:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I can agree to the points above and return in March when there is indisputable information directly from the broadcaster and the EBU. Pickette (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree to this too, considering that I did state several times now that the only way my peace of mind would be settled would be when the name is officially presented at the delegations meeting in March. By which time I would even accept the name that is presented at that time.  And thus I would not need to even participate in new discussions in March.    Wes     Mᴥuse   12:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please indicate if I'm mistaken, but I believe everyone who participated in the above discussion has agreed to the above points. I therefore now consider them in effect; I will implement point two now. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 15:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are very observant ;). Yes do that.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, by the above discussion I meant the very long winded one in the two sections headed and, but thank you for the compliment. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 15:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for your assistance.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As Mr. Burns most infamous phrase goes; "Excellent!". Coffee break all round?    Wes     Mᴥuse   16:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)