User talk:Jochem van Hees/Archive 2

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Your Teahouse question
Did you ever find the answer to this question?

Which is actually two questions.

I wouldn't know how to answer but I was looking at the archives and saw that no one responded.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah! I asked again at . I ended up creating a template for it to make it easier: Template:Title language. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I should probably add this to the archive even though we're not supposed to.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  15:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit!
Thank you for the edit to the Eurovision Song Contest 2023 page, changing the phrasing to "Did not qualify" rather than "Not qualified" - I was responsible for making that original edit, it originally said "Eliminated" which is even less appropriate. Thank you for updating the phrasing!
 * No worries! And thank you too actually, because I was the one who initially put "Eliminated" there. I didn't think much about it at the time, and your edit prompted me to rethink it. This really is the best part about wiki editing :). &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep! Everything is just small incremental changes :) -ASHEIOU   (THEY/THEM • TALK)  23:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Add Israel to the list
You're right, but why will Israel host Israel Calling if it doesn't participate at Eurovision? Adir David (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but it's not Wikipedia's job to make those kinds of assumptions. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Please delete Croatia or add Israel back to the list!
Please delete Croatia or add Israel back to the list! Dora is also an event which is connected to Eurovision. If you'll not do so, I will open a new discussion in talk page! Adir David (talk) 05:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The talk page is a more appropriate location to ask for that anyway. I'm not sure why you're asking me; I don't own the article or anything. If you post on the talk page, a broader range of people will be able to see it and respond to it. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Memo
Ktkvtsh  (talk)  05:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter Issue 49
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Dino Jelusick
Hi @Jochem van Hees, in your last edit on Dino Jelusick, you suggested that instead of reverting, I should find a reference that supports content you added to the article. While I could certainly do that, I would like to point out that it's never the responsibility of other editors to do your work for you. If you wish to add content to an article, the onus is also on you to provide supporting references; you shouldn't insist that another editor do so instead of reverting. Every editor is no doubt busy with their own work on WP, and looking up references for every random, unexplained edit is not a requirement. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * you're right, per WP:BURDEN. But reverting carries responsibility too (see Reverting). Any edit carries responsibility.
 * I'd like to point out that it wasn't actually me who made the infobox change initially (otherwise I would have done it more properly), but some unregistered user. I saw the edit, took one minute of my time to verify it, and moved on. I don't remember why I didn't add the source to the article.
 * I missed your revert at first, but when I later saw it, it didn't make sense to me because it only made the article worse. The only explanation you gave was that the reverted edits "do not improve the article", which is just as helpful as giving no explanation. Per WP:REVEXP, it's good to explain why you reverted in the edit summary, to avoid situations like this where you have to get back to your revert later and spend more time on it anyway.
 * And of course you're not obliged to look for a source, but you're also not obliged to revert. I think that if you don't know if someone else's edit is good or not, it might simply be better to assume good faith. Otherwise you might inadvertently make the article worse again and also potentially scare off well-meaning new editors.
 * Lastly, and I know this is just a minor thing, but I'd also like to know why you reverted the other edit, which you never explained? I did that for MOS:LINKCLARITY (which I also mentioned in the edit summary); the link that is currently in the article does not make it clear what it's actually linking to. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the thoughtful response. I'll reply to you in point form, so we can more easily keep track of the topic:
 * "reverting carries responsibility too" – I'm sure it does, but what responsibility are you pointing to here?
 * "it wasn't actually me who made the infobox change" – noted; thanks for pointing it out.
 * "does not improve the article" – agreed, that is a sloppy summary, and I should have done better.
 * "you're not obliged to look for a source, but you're also not obliged to revert" – these are not equivalent, so I think you are making a false comparison. I am compelled to revert if I feel that an erroneous edit has been made—that is the duty I assume when I place an article on my watchlist. This has no bearing on whose responsibility it is to provide a reference for new content, however.
 * "good faith" – again, this doesn't seem relevant: I didn't assume bad faith either—I simply concluded that the edits weren't helpful, which isn't the same thing.
 * "potentially scare off well-meaning new editors" – this is true, on the other hand, and I need to keep that in mind.
 * what is the "other edit" you are referring to in your last point? Can you please provide a diff? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks for your response. With the responsibility I mean the standard responsibility that comes with any edit, as well as the stuff explained in Reverting. I just realised however that it's an essay, not a policy or guideline, but it is something I tend to follow.
 * But yeah if you actually think that someone else's edit is wrong then it makes sense to revert it. I initially thought that the problem was just that the info wasn't mentioned in the article body, not that there was anything wrong with the change itself.
 * With the "other edit" I'm referring to, where I put the word "first" within the wikilink to make it more obvious what it links to. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for linking Reverting, I'll give it a read.
 * "the problem was just that the info wasn't mentioned in the article body"—that's correct, and I deemed that a sufficient reason to revert, for reasons explained earlier—WP:Burden.
 * As for the other edit—I didn't think the change improved the wording of the sentence, that's why I reverted it to the way it was before.
 * Cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I still don't know why you again think that the change is "unhelpful". I did not change the wording of the sentence at all. I only made the link comply with MOS:LINKCLARITY. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I see that now. I'll fix it. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Ukraine in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2023
Hello. Can you please fix reference 26 (tables in Voting)? Markverona (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Done, thanks. I keep forgetting that. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)