User talk:Pickette/Archive 1

Welcome
Hello, Pickette, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! CT Cooper · &#32;talk 17:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style

{Example} in the Eurovision Song Contest {Example Year}
I'm doing it by countries because the Templates, for example: Belgium in the Eurovision Song Contest has strikes, so I can easily add the 'Prev' and 'Next' fields for missed contests. --  [[ axg ◉  talk   ]] 20:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - March 2013
This newsletter was delivered manually by Wesley ♦Mouse 04:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Elitsa & Stoyan
Hi Pickette,

I noticed that you placed a one-source only tag on the aforementioned article. Just wanted to let you know that if you come across similar articles, that it may be easier to be bold and improve the article by adding additional citations rather than placing tags upon them. On this occasion I have expanded the article myself and included new citations, as well as improving the article lead. Regards, Wesley ♦Mouse 14:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are able to develop this article into something that isn't a repetition of Elitsa Todorova and Stoyan Yankulov, then power to you. In my opinion, this article is entirely redundant and I don't agree with it's existence. If something like this can exist here, then your project should create these articles as well: Esma & Lozano, Koza Mostra feat. Agathon Iakovidis, Nodi Tatishvili & Sophie Gelovani, Adrian Lulgjuraj & Bledar Sejko. Pickette (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you may be getting confused with WP:GNG for article creations. A few members of the project held a similar discussion a few months ago regarding Ell & Nikki.  One editor argued that the article should be deleted and its content merged into Eldar and Nigar's individual articles.  The conclusion was that all three articles warranted inclusion as they were covered by GNG guidelines.  The same would apply here in regards to Elitsa & Stoyan.  They warrant articles for each member of the duo, to provide any details that they may have done as individual people.  Looking at the individual articles both Elitsa Todorova and Stoyan Yankoulov started their professional careers as individual performers since 1990, and so they warrant individual articles to cover things they have done between 1990 to 2003.  Both performers became a duo in 2003, and then went on to sing for Bulgaria in 2007 and will do again in 2013 - thus we need an additional article under their duo act name to cover things they have done whilst being a duo act.  The other articles that you have listed though are not covered under GNG guidelines, as there is no reliable evidence to confirm those artists have continuously performed under their respective act names - and thus having indivdual articles for them is more suitable.   Wesley ♦Mouse 16:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I still find the existence of all three redundant and unnecessary, but if it is supported by rules and guidelines then so be it. However, I don't think I'm responsible for developing these articles, which is why I posted that template. Pickette (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Allow me to simplify the explanation for you, to clear up any confusion on the "redundancy" of these three articles. The purpose for the individual articles of Elitsa Todorova and Stoyan Yankoulov would be to cover their personal data in more detail, such as the work they have done as individual people - seeing as they have both had solo careers since 1990.  Their articles would cover in brief information about their forming of a duo act in 2003.  Then we'd have the duo act article Elitsa & Stoyan which would provide details of their duo career since 2003 in more detail.  We did this for Ell & Nikki - their individual articles provide details of their solo careers, whilst the duo article provides details of their career together as a duo.  I'm slightly confused as to why you feel you are not responsible for developing articles?  By becoming a member of Wikipedia (albeit voluntarily), then we are responsible to contribute to the improvement of articles.  Some members will contribute to any article, while some will only work on article genres that they have a better knowledge of (these are people who tend to join WikiProjects).  Members of Project Eurovision have been known to collaborate as a team on the improvement of all articles under the scope of WP:ESC.   Wesley ♦Mouse 10:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the third article makes sense the way that it has been explained, however, at this point it just has redundant information on it. Anyone who goes to Elitsa Todorova or Stoyan Yankulov will read the exact same information that is on their combined article. The same goes even for Ell & Nikki. It doesn't provide any new information that hasn't been (or can't be) simply covered on their individual pages. I just find this to be common sense, however, if there are policies that support the existence of this page then I won't argue against it. I'm confused why you think I'm obliged to edit these pages and develop them. I don't think I'm required to do so. I proposed this article for deletion and it didn't go through so then I added a template that would inspire others who are more interested and passionate about this topic to develop this article into something. I'm not a part of the Eurovision project and no offense but I don't think someone can just tell me what pages I should or shouldn't be editing/developing especially when my edit was harmless and resulted in someone else (you) developing and making this page better. Pickette (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Head's up
Pickette, just a little head's up advice from one Wikipedian to another. Be careful not to retaliate with such angst like you did towards this IP user. Although they too were just as bad with their edit summary remarks, we need to remember not to be just as uncivil in return, and try to demonstrate good faith. Its actions like this that can cause battles, which would be easier avoided if we were to be polite. Sometimes it is always best to ignore nasty remarks from editors, whether they are an IP or not - never feed the trolls. Just thought I'd be helpful, as I have seen people get blocked in the past, as the IP's can be a bit petty with things like this. Wesley ♦Mouse 19:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see how that can be interpreted that way but my intention was to get an explanation for such a characterization of my edits. But thank you and I'll take your advice into consideration in the future since this user should have avoided such a personal dig at my work here. I've faced unregistered users in the past insulting me and I know it's not worth it to engage in that type of behaviour. Pickette (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for sorting out the running order for the final of ESC2013. I had mentioned on the talk page that I'd sort it out, but alas I was beaten to it LOL. You're very quick aren't you!? Wesley ♦Mouse 01:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't see it. Sorry. Pickette (talk) 01:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just removed your duplication of information that had already been added. See, that's what happens when we don't pay attention.  Slow down, no need to rush, there's plenty of project members around to do their fair share of work too.  Believe me, people notice these things, and they'd start to take advantage of your good nature, and would expect you to do everything - I should know, been there myself!  Was left to remake 150+ new templates last year without any ounce of help.  Took me 25 man-hours to complete the task, and a further 5 hours rolling them out.  It was only after I had wasted all that time, that someone told me I could have used WP:AWB to speed up the process.  I learnt the lesson the hard way that day, I tell you!  Just remember, its team work, there's no I in Team.   Wesley ♦Mouse 01:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I did notice it, you removed it before I had a chance to however. Pickette (talk) 01:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, I might have a job for you, if you fancy giving me a hand with it of course? Its a major task rolling out the new layout style on all the annual contest pages, which I had started last year but then I had to put it on hold while I was volunteering at the London 2012 Olympic & Paralympic Games.  Let me know if you're interested in giving me some help.   Wesley ♦Mouse 02:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm not really interested in working together with you on a specific thing. I don't have a problem with collaborating with others but based on how you write to me, I think you have some kind of issue with me and I'd rather avoid that on here. I'm sorry I edited the Eurovision Song Contest 2013 page with the final order before you had the chance to. I didn't see your post on the talk page and to be honest I don't think it's really a big deal about who got to do it, if that's the problem here (?). And about the Georgian page, I missed the edit you made but I saw the one you did on the Irish page so by the time I went back you had already edited it out. I think you make way too many assumptions about my intentions when I make edits based on how you preface your advice, which comes off very condescending rather than helpful. Pickette (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That is rather harsh Pickette, and I find your comments very distasteful to be quite frank. Considering that I'm an established Wikipedian I have merely offered you valuable advice in terms of editing styles etc.  Everyone has been a newbie at some stage in their editing life, including me.  I wouldn't want any new editor to fall foul of editing misfortune due to their inability to know all the policies so rapidly.  There are loads of Wikipedia rules out there that even I am still learning, and I've got sack loads of editing contributions, 3 GA's and 3 new articles in my portfolio.  Sorry that you feel as though my advice is condescending.  But to be fair, you don't know me too well, not like the rest of the members of Project Eurovision.  You don't know that it has been a year since my mother passed away, you won't have even known that I was a Games Maker at London 2012.  Nor would you have known how respected I am as a member of Project Eurovision.  As for the job I spoke of, it was for Project Eurovision anyway and not a job of my own.  It is to improve all the annual articles based on the layout style that was agreed upon by consensus back in July 2012.  But if you don't want to be seen as helping a project, then why bother editing other articles for the team then - your ways are rather selfish!  Give other members of the project a chance to do contribute to ESC2013 articles too, and not hog all the work for yourself.  Its team work!  I give up with you, seriously I do.  Farewell, and if you need any help, don't bother asking me for it.   Wesley ♦Mouse 08:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, I don't know you and you don't know me either. I can only judge on what I see in the interactions here. I contribute however I can. I don't block other people from editing or complain about how other people got to edit a page before I did. I really don't care. I edit and update pages when I feel it's necessary and I don't mind discussing edits either if there are any questions. But what I do have an issue with is when someone comes on my talk page and starts giving me orders about how I'm expected to edit certain pages, or automatically assumes the worst in what I do here like that I'm trying to start an edit war with them or accuse me of not being open to teamwork because I decided to edit a series of pages that are otherwise neglected based on the state I found similar ones in the past year and in previous years. I don't really mind if you don't talk to me, you're the one who is constantly in contact with me. I've never asked you for help and I've never contacted you so I'm alright with that. Pickette (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - May 2013
This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Russia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2013, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Channel One (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, I'm Wesley Mouse. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Eurovision Song Contest 2014 without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! ''The websites used for Hungary and Latvia have been used in the past and are amongst the list of Eurovision-related websites that the EBU have endorsed (see archives of WT:ESC). As for Oikotimes, they are allowed to be used as long as they quote a source within their report. This was agreed approx 12-18 months ago via Project Eurovision members.'' Wesley ♦ Mouse  17:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I explained exactly why I removed it. Maybe you should've taken a second to check it out before immediately reverting my edit. Pickette (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You'll find I did check the sources thoroughly before reverting. ESCHungary and Eurovoix have been proven to be 100% reliable in the past, and they are endorsed by the EBU too (as reported by the EBU months ago).  Oikotimes is semi-reliable, and I explained that above.  Also note that the above is a pre-written template notification, and I cannot re-word what it says prior to sending it.   Wesley ♦ Mouse  17:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they are reliable but none of those articles actually confirm participation. And Oikotimes did not reference a source. Pickette (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And just in case you were wondering, I use Twinkle functions with all my edits, and not manually like majority of users. I also have rollback rights which is similar to Twinkle, and I use AutoWiki Browser for mass additions, such as rolling out templates across a multitude of articles at rapid speed.  These are useful tools, maybe you would like to enquire about them somewhere and see if you're able to have them too.  And I am not going to argue with you on the sources Pickette.  They are reasonable enough, which is why I restored them back.  I think I've been an editor and member of ProjectEurovision long enough to know what I'm doing by now.   Wesley ♦ Mouse  17:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oikotimes quote "Panorama.com.al" as a source within their report. So the Oiktoimes source is reliable enough for that reason.
 * Hungary - ESDaily.com make a quote from MTVA (Hungarian national broadcaster). So for now that can be included.  As has already been pointed out to you several times, as long as a source is reliable then it can be included in the article.  We don't have to wait for the final participation list to be published later this year to cite confirmed countries that have been reported via reliable sources.  Also eschungary.hu is the official Eurovision page for Hungary.
 * Latvia - Eurovoix are reliable, and in their report they quote LTV as a source of their report.  Wesley ♦ Mouse  18:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oikotimes is actually referring this this which claims that Albania should withdraw from the contest. Their whole article is opinion based. And the other two both claim that those countries are "likely" to participate. Well in theory, all countries from this year are likely to participate. And just because you've been here for a while doesn't mean you don't make mistakes. Pickette (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - June 2013
This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Irony
I am quite baffled at the irony lately. You have just said on WT:ESC that you don't really know what my question was. Yet in the previous comments you knew exactly what I was talking about by the fact you chose to ignore my comments regarding civility such as "You should stick to discussing the matter at hand rather than me as a user. Pickette (talk) 4:27 pm, Today (UTC+1)" and "I've simply been discussing this OGAE matter here. I never made a personal remark about you or discussed anything other than the topic of this particular discussion. Feel free to re-read this discussion. Pickette (talk) 5:20 pm, Today (UTC+1)" and "I wont comment on that because I'm not going to derail this discussion with stuff like this. I've done nothing wrong here and I've stayed on topic. If you have a personal issue with me, you can comment on my talk page. Pickette (talk) 6:04 pm, Today (UTC+1)".

But out of politeness I shall repeat the question just in case you missed reading it in the plethora of other posts on the talk page. I stated that I found some comments you addressed to me as being over-condescending. For example, you made it out that OGAE sources should be mentioned elsewhere other than Eurovision-related websites. But if one was to use logic, then one would expect to find OGAE solely on Eurovision-related websites, as OGAE an organization for Eurovision. Which was a point that myself and our Israeli colleague (אומנות) also pointed out. But the remark you made I found patronizing as if to make me look like a simpleton.

I also stated that I have tried several times in the past to be polite with you, and even helpful at times. I even offered olive branches of peace with you, and yet every time I have been noble enough to attempt to re-patch the collaborative and civil efforts between us, you would throw them back in my face with such angst - and I felt discombobulated by this. All I asked was why you behaved like that? If someone calls a truce and is attempting to make amends, then why obstreperously continue to make sly rude remarks to them? Isn't working peacefully not better than being at each other's throats every time? An administrator has even noticed your bad behaviour towards myself, and contacted me privately out of concern. But I have told them to let it drop for now, as I don't think it would be fair to escalate this matter further; and we both end up having accounts blocked indefinitely for something which we could easily have resolved ourselves - amicably. It has been noted by the same admin too that you tend to be rather shrewish in response to any comment I make on talk pages, yet complaisant in responding to other editors remarks. It's like that well known proverb, "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.". I treat people with politeness and sincerity, yet if one chooses to reject the sincerity, then I will treat those how they have chosen to treat me.

I wish to continue with the OGAE discussion at hand, and avoid derailment of the discussion. But this can only be done if we both agree to be civil with each other, and put the bad times behind us, and start anew. I have already shown willing to do so, by agreeing to remove all comments I have made on the Project Talk page that has derailed or may come across as personalising. The ball is now in your court whether or not you too wish to accept the truce and do the same action. Wesley ♦ Mouse 18:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I was defending my perspective on the OGAE matter which you challenged. I didn't think my messages were condescending at all, it was my opinion on the matter. I think you might be interpreting disagreement with your opinion as some kind of personal attack on you. If OGAE is important enough to be included as it's own section and written about in great detail, then why doesn't any non-Eurovision related website cover that material? If it's being treated as some kind of accolade, I would expect it to be included in a foreign press article or for any other source to actually validate that voting as some kind of achievement. That was my point and none of it included any reference or digs about you or at you. If the majority disagrees with my opinion then I don't have an issue backing away from that.


 * I've already explained previously that I thought your advice was coupled with a preamble that made assumptions about my intentions and came off rather condescending. It seemed like you were ordering me around about what I have to edit and contribute to when you came to my talk page to inform me about the Elitsa & Stoyan article and then you hinted that I was trying to start an editing war with you over the Elitsa Todorova and Stoyan Yankulov naming on the ESC 2013 article. And then you accused me of not being open to teamwork because I decided to edit a series of articles. And despite all of this I still attempted to have discussions on Eurovision related pages, but you engaged with me in discussions like these. You've been hostile with me at any moment where I disagree with your opinion. Also, if an administrator has concerns over my behaviour, then they can contact me. I don't appreciate being discussed behind my back because there are obviously two sides to this story. I don't accept your proposal for peace because I reject your characterization of my actions and the list of critical remarks you make before such a proposal. I don't seek you out on Wikipedia. Most of these discussions have started from replies you've made to something I've commented about. And then you transition that discussion into how I'm a mean and rude person towards you. If you find me so disrespectful and uncivil and can't get over the fact that we don't get along in discussions that are neither about you nor me, then don't talk to me. What else can I say? Pickette (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your accusations are just absurd. I never accused you of edit warring over Elitsa & Stoyan.  I was only being helpful to you at the time, pointing out a similar scenario; all in good faith, in case you were not aware of such similar cases.  I have never ordered you about whatsoever, I have however, politely asked if you would like to help me on something a while ago.  A simple "no thanks" would have been sufficient.  But no, you had to personalise it and insult me - where is the civility in that?  Are you always that hostile in your remarks to people, even when they are asking a polite question?  I also gave you a heads up on an issue, when you made a horrid remark to another editor.  And you even said then "thanks, I shall take your advice on board".  You have already noted yourself, that you take things too personally especially when it comes to your work on Wikipedia.  But there is no need to be so brutal and vicious in your remarks to people.  What ever happened to the core policy of assuming good faith?  It is clear that you have some sort of civility issues, and I don't know what else to do to even try and be reasonable and cooperative.
 * Anyhow, people can't say I haven't tried over and over to call a truce with you. Especially when it is not unappreciated by the recipient. That is more hostile not accepting peace from someone who is clearly trying.  So if that be the case, I would appreciate if you no longer discussed anything with me, anywhere.  I don't really want to escalate matters further to places like WP:DR, WP:3O, or WP:ANI, as that wouldn't be fair on you.  So I think a mutual interaction ban would be the better option.   Wesley ♦ Mouse  21:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The way you characterize things is just beyond me. Honestly, I can take responsibility and admit that I may have made one or two comments that were out of line in regards to you but you have shown absolutely no accountability for what you've said; you just deflect and then blow anything I say out of proportion. You should check that Elitsa Todorova and Stoyan Yankulov discussion again because you were nothing but hostile towards me. And lets not be melodramatic, I didn't make a "horrid" comment to another editor. It was a question that had the potential to become an argument and I was recognizing that it was better to not have said that in order to avoid a potential argument. If you wanted a "truce", then maybe you shouldn't have given me a laundry list of how awful of a person I apparently am according to you as a preface to it. You've said before that you'd leave me alone and that you have given up on me. I hope that is true this time with your interaction ban suggestion because I'm sick and tired of this. I've even started avoiding coming here for days and editing less because of it. Hopefully this is the end to this. Pickette (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi
Hello Pickette, I saw the continuation of the conversation on the Eurovision-Project talk page and afterwards on Wesley talk page. Now I saw you concluded to not participate on dicussions but only contribute to articles. So I need to tell you that I think it's a shame and can complicate things. Just after you said you will leave (discussions), you both manage to reach some sort of understanding and forgiveness; Wesley said he understand how you got upset and that he also value your work very much, and you said as well that you understand how he got offended. I don't see a reason that you can't keep contributing your valuable opinion - even if just to make at least one comment and don't engage in discussions with others, if you prefer to maintain an interaction ban.

Public discussions already suppose to be only about articles-subjects and are handled in totally public pages. Even if it slides to more personal matters which deviate the discussion, it's still possible to slide over it and wait for others opinions that will bring back the focus on article-matters and possibility to reach some collective agreement. Furthermore, if you make or wanna make a contribution which is challenged by consensus or by someone else's different opinion - anyone but you can present his view on the talk page and why he is objecting your edits (for example) - which will make it very difficult and underprivileged for you to make at least some contributions that will stick around.

It's very difficult to contribute while totally depriving yourself access to discussions in order to explain your contributions and trying to make your own input to make a change. And as you know, there are still issues that need to be discussed and improved - in articles that you are interested to contribute as well. So I think you should keep participating also in discussions whenever you see feat and feel you can give a positive input - both for your sake and for the articles sake; the more views and opinions - the better for the progress of the articles and easier for you to contribute.

Anyway, even if you decide not to - I understand, wish you to keep enjoying contributing, and hope that at least you keep considering participating in discussions again sometime in the future.

And to clarify, I don't have self-interest to adress you - as some of your views are opposing mine, and some agreeing, which is also why I think you are neutral, honest and valuable for the benefit of the ESC articles. Finally, in addition to Wesley's final appreciating comments on your work, I also wanna let you know that I appreciate a lot your hard-intensive work on articles and your opinions. אומנות (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Austria in the Eurovision Song Contest 2013
Oh come on!! I thought Austria would win this year!! So sad :( -cries- Red Plastic 12000 (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sincere apologies Pickette, but I have removed the image that the above user had added to his comment, per WP:COPYVIO, just so that you don't end up getting in trouble as a result of it. Hope you don't mind.   Wesley  ☮  Mouse  22:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is independent of your personal opinion though. The article has to be informative and your edits made it less so, which is why I undid them. I'm sorry your favourite song didn't do better in the contest. Pickette (talk) 04:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Your recent editing history at France in the Eurovision Song Contest shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Wesley ☮  Mouse  18:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm reverting vandalism and unsourced content and I haven't done it more than three times. Be careful with your warnings. Pickette (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The warning was issued to both parties involved, not just yourself. It is procedure, so please do not take it personally.   Wesley  ☮  Mouse  19:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The other user hasn't reverted more than three times either. Pickette (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually they have done three. But read the wording again, it isn't saying 3RR has been breached, it is just a caution that 3RR is on the verge of being breached.  Personally, I think the warning template generated via Twinkle needs to be re-phrased, as even I thought I breached 3RR the first time I received the above worded notice.   Wesley  ☮  Mouse  19:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Reverting vandalism is not edit warring. Do you believe the information the other user is adding is accurate and can be backed with a source? They are adding false information to this page. Pickette (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding what I am saying Pickette. Have I mentioned anything along the lines that says I endorse the edits that IP has made? No. What I have done is follow procedure by issuing the IP a cautionary reminder that their actions are on the verge of 3RR and edit warring. As they are engaged in that action against you, then a copy of the notice is sent to you also. But the notice is in no way stipulating that you are starting the edit warring. The content the IP is adding is clearly misleading, but nevertheless they should be warned accordingly; you've warned them twice for vandalism, and therefore a 3RR notice needs to be issued to them too, so they are aware that they could violate a serious rule if they attempt to ignore what you have warned them about, and re-add the content again. Are you really so pissed off because it is me who issued the notification? What if it was a different user who issued it - would you be as this hostile to them too? Wesley ☮  Mouse  19:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * What is hostile about questioning what you've done? The other user is responsible for vandalizing the page, you should go and warn them if you're concerned and interested in informing them about breaking rules. If I'm reverting vandalism, then there isn't an edit war. That user is just being disruptive. Pickette (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually I found your use of phrases "Be careful with your warnings", as well as the entire comments on your previous 2 remarks to be somewhat tongue in cheek. And as I have said to you twice now, I have informed the other user of the same notice as used above - but I am only following protocol by informing you also as you are the other user involved in their edit warring.  And no, I do not mean that you are edit warring, what I mean is their actions are causing you to clean up their mess.  And actually, the onus was on you to also notify the user that they were on the verge of 3RR as well as warning them about vandalism.  If that was done correctly in the first place, then maybe I wouldn't be here now finishing off what should have been done correctly to begin with.  Perhaps familiarising with warning templates at WP:UW and what you should have issued at the right time would be an ideal start.   Wesley  ☮  Mouse  20:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Well who asked for your help? If I needed help, I certainly wouldn't have asked you given the history between us. You try to help but you just create more problems. You should respect the interaction ban which I've felt you've violated three times now by reverting one of my edits, editing my talk page and now placing this warning on my talk page. Pickette (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I beg your pardon? Who on Earth do you think you are to speak to me as if I am a piece of shit!?  Did I say I was helping you?  No!  You have yet again wrongfully assumed and casting malicious allegations.  Are you forgetting that we are dealing with a site that is openly viewed by anyone?  I have all the 4000+ articles for ProjectEurovision on my wishlist, and I always check the diffs on such articles whenever any have been made.  And no I have not violated anything three times.  I am allowed to edit articles on Project Eurovision.  It was you remember who said you would no longer work on Eurovision articles.  I have not reverted any of your edits, I have only improved articles - so you can retract that vicious remark you cast right away.  Secondly, per WP:COPYVIO I was within my right to remove that image that a user posted on your talk page.  So again, you can retract that vicious statement immediately.  And thirdly, I have NOT issued you a warning.  And also the interaction ban is NOT official.  Do us a favour, leave me well alone, including anything that I am working on.  Comprende?   Wesley  ☮  Mouse  21:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * When I read this I just had to laugh. I should leave you alone? That's rich. You're the one constantly sticking your nose in my business and things I'm involved in. I actually want this to stay on my talk page and my archive for future reference. And FYI, I never said I wouldn't edit Eurovision articles. I said I'd leave the Eurovision Project so I wouldn't have to get your letter every month. Pickette (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you proud of being a bully Pickette? Because that is the way you seem to be portraying yourself.  You are always being so god damn rude and vicious towards me as an individual.  No wonder I end up losing my rag with you, because you treat me in the same way.  Or then again, maybe you like bullying disabled people!?  Read asperger syndrome and bipolar disorder and then maybe, just maybe, you will actually understand WHAT kind of person I really am.  And if I choose to remove MY comments that I made, then I am allowed to do so.  So I would appreciate that you undo your action.   Wesley  ☮  Mouse  21:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This just keeps getting better. What are you going to accuse me of next, kicking newborn kittens? I'd like to know exactly how I've bullied you as a disabled person? Pickette (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

A BARNSTAR for you!

 * Thank you for your kind words and know that I also appreciate your contributions! Thank you for your sentiments and I wish you the same. :) Pickette (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you! And I hope to see you keep contributing and improving as much as you can as you did so far. I was off from wikipedia for a little and didn't work nearly as much as you, but I will try to keep contributing more. :) אומנות (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Commentator columns
Please do not initiate an edit war with me, it is not clever nor professional. All the other articles use a div col of 3 and not 2. Earlier articles used table format, but they are in the process of being changed into div-cols too. We are suppose to maintain a consistency look as best as possible on all Eurovision by Year articles. Your reversions are starting to look as if you are illustrating a point, in a personal point of view, purely because you don't like it, or that you are just refusing to "get the point". If you don't like it, then open up discussion at WT:ESC for the wider project to discuss the matter. But I think you'll find the majority prefer a 3-col split. Wesley  Mᴥuse  17:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not refusing to get any point, your trying to maintain what you like across all articles and I disagree with that because I believe my solution makes this section in particular easier to read and also look nicer. And don't tell me that it's consistent across all articles, it's only consistent now because you've made it that way after editing those articles just recently. If you go anywhere previous to 2010, the commentators sections are all in different formats and some are even in tables. Besides, 2013 and even 2012 in particular have a higher volume of text in those sections than in previous years so cramming all of that text into three columns looks ugly in my opinion and makes it harder to read. Pickette (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * For your information, it is not me trying to maintain what I like. The use of 3cols was agreed at the RfC, and is also evident on the skeleton articles which the project use as a guide. WikiProject Eurovision/Eurovision Song Contest and WikiProject Eurovision/Junior Eurovision Song Contest.  The fact that it has not yet been done on all other articles, is because other issues arise which take members off course of implementing the agreed change.  So sorry to say, you are actually deviating from something which was agreed, and therefore being disruptive.   Wesley   Mᴥuse  17:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just read the RfC for when you created that template and the amount of columns for commentators was never discussed. So what's the reasoning behind it now? I don't understand why you have to be so unaccommodating for things other people try and do and then make a big deal because it doesn't conform to something discussed over a year ago when circumstances for that might have changed. This section has a lot of text and it is hard to read when crammed into three columns. Pickette (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you always have a habit of making false assumptions of people? First you accuse me of "trying to maintain what you like across all articles" and state you are not refusing to get any point, only to contradict your statement with "I disagree with that because I believe my solution makes this section in particular easier to read and also look nicer" which is demonstrating illustrating a point because you do not like when something does not go the way you like it to.  That kind of charade needs to be nipped in the bud, as it is not cooperative or professional.  And other users are now starting to notice your bad faith attitude towards myself too.  Personally, I think the number of cols used should be dealt with on a page-by-page basis to maintain neatness.  But unless the wider project agree to that, then we're to continue with the 3-col split, as shown on the skeleton templates - which were approved when they were in sandbox-mode, prior to them being published onto the project template guides.  And also to accuse me of being "unaccommodating for things other people try and do and then make a big deal because it doesn't conform to something discussed over a year ago" is yet another demonstration of your bad faith attitude towards myself as an editor.  I have never 100% unaccommodated anything.  You only need to see all the discussions I have ever taken part in to find that I remain open-minded on any suggestion, and I research such suggestions via my sandbox to see if any are feasible and would dramatically improve an article's layout.  If they do, then I support any suggested changes, if they don't then I oppose them.  If a suggestion gets repeated days/weeks/months down the line, after they have already been tried and tested, then I will stick to my original decision that I will have made the last time any such suggestion was made.  If you wish to open a new debate at WT:ESC regarding divcols and treating them on a page-by-page basis, then you would gain my support for such suggestion to be implemented.  I have no reason to support you, considering the way you have treated me in the past, but as I can see your suggestion working, then I would support you at a debate held on the project talk page.   Wesley   Mᴥuse  17:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The other thing that you also need to bear in mind is that any one can add content to Eurovision articles without consensus. But when it comes to changing an article/template layout style, then such suggestions need to be put forward to the rest of the project by means of starting up a debate at WT:ESC for input of others, before jumping the gun and altering layout oneself.  This has been raised more than once on the project talk page.  If changed to template/article layouts are to be made, then firstly those suggestions need to be raised on the project talk page first for other project members to discuss.  We cannot just go ahead and change them without seeking input from others.   Wesley   Mᴥuse  18:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You should know a thing or two about bad faith because from what I've seen, every argument, disagreement or fight that happens across the Eurovision articles always has one common denominator and that happens to be you and trust me, that has definitely not gone unnoticed by anyone. I hope you've learned that people aren't interested in agreeing with you and partaking in your bashing of another user on various talk page discussions or even on their personal talk pages like you did when you spoke to Mr. Gerbear a week ago on his talk page. And yeah I did see that because I went there to apologize for my comment in our previous discussion in which you initiated making personal comments and then I see your comments yet again talking about me and keeping my name in your mouth.


 * I'd like to know who approved these skeleton templates? I have yet to see anywhere where at least a few people have said in agreement that they endorse using three columns in the commentator section. Pickette (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * And there we go again with yet another uncalled for personal attack. Are you always so obnoxious with people who are able to hold a valid debate and who may not always agree with you?  For crying out loud, you make me laugh sometimes!  Once again you cast a false and uncalled for accusation regarding me and trusting you.  Have I ever stipulated or shown signs of distrusting you?  You'll find that the answer is no.  And I'd be shocked for you to find any evidence of such behaviour from myself.  And not only that you have the audacity to say that people are hating me?  Are you for real or on a different planet?  I've been around long enough to know that nobody hates me around here, well apart from you of course, and that has been clear from the start.  I took a long period of time off wikipedia to work at the Olympic and Paralympic games in London.  And when I came back I noticed you being a new arrival to the project, and you made many a suggestion and forced them into your favour.  Upon my return, I started to debate any suggestions openly, which is what we're suppose to do to build a consensus (in case you had forgotten), and every time I pointed out a flaw in any of your suggestions, you would turn it around in my face and start to attack me.  We're here to build an encyclopaedia, not attack people just because you are not getting your own way.


 * You are clearly demonstrating diva qualities, and it is not a cooperative attitude to have towards fellow Wikipedians, especially if you intend to gain their support for future suggestions that you may have. That kind of behaviour only alienates yourself from others, and sooner or later they will only start to disagree with anything you suggest.


 * What I chose to say to Mr Gerbear has no business of yours. And if you do wish to raise an issue with that, then I could raise the same against you, as you also have spoken nastily about me on other talk pages behind my back; don't think I hadn't noticed them.  I could have reported all of them when I noticed, but I acknowledged your right to freedom of speech - the same right to which ever human being holds.  I said the things I did to Mr Gerbear, because he understand my personal circumstances and I found him easier to discuss my concerns with him, as he is honest with his words, and I respect that.  So who gave you the right to tell me to force me to be silent?


 * Wikipedians who have known me a long time around here also know of my personal circumstances, and I frequently have chats with them via their talk pages or private email. That is because I value and respect them for their words of wisdom, and the fact they speak to me with dignity (something which you could do with learning to do).  And since when did I become your personal skivvy?  You want to know who approved the skeleton templates.  Why is that?  So you can start slagging my name off to them as if I were a piece of shit?


 * The only clear way forward for you Pickette, is to do the right thing, open a new debate at WT:ESC (which I advised you many times now) and it is the courteous thing to do, and then allow the rest of the project to decide whether or not a new suggested change will work out or not. One user behaved like you once and mas-created new templates and demanded the older ones be deleted.  They were soon put back in their place by members of the project, and were reminded that they should have opened a debate first, not go on their own accord and do what thou wilt.  Changing a layout style without seeking opinion from others is demonstrating ownership of articles, and neither you nor I OWN Wikipedia.  So my final advice, if you wish to discuss changes, open a new thread at WT:ESC.  Any more uncalled for attacks, and I will escalate matters further.   Wesley   Mᴥuse  18:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * What valid debate are you holding? Your claiming something has been decided by consensus but have yet to produce any evidence where at least a few people have stated that using three columns in the commentator section is a layout feature that should be consistent across all articles. What suggestions did I make upon my arrival to this project that I forced onto other people? In case you haven't noticed, I've always asked about things that I would consider radical changes or things that could be controversial in the appropriate talk page. This situation that we're currently discussing is one I didn't consider to be such a big deal that someone would undo my edits and then argue that three columns are necessary layout feature to a section as decreed by a project discussion that has yet to be produced. And I can reference the Elitsa and Stoyan article again where I added a template that advised that the article needed sources. You came to my talk page and lectured me about how I should just fix the article myself and avoid such templates and used comments that seemed like you were ordering me around. Just a week or two ago you added a template to the Valentina Monetta page about the lead being too short. Well then, why didn't you expand the lead? Go ahead and do it and avoid adding such templates to articles. Lead by example rather than dictating what others should do according to your opinion.


 * I'd like to make it clear that I never said people hate you. You like to say I make assumptions but you are definitely the king of doing that. You've been involved with many arguments and fights not just with me, but with others and that's a hard thing to miss. You rarely ever take responsibility for your behaviour and whenever you are reprimanded, you add some commentary about how you're the innocent party in all of this and that the other person is mainly responsible for everything. Who was responsible for the discussion last week about Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein and Kosovo turning nasty? I stuck to the material and I aimed my criticisms at the project, not you. I could see you angling for a way to insult me and criticize me from before Mr. Gerbear intervened and then you just went for it afterwards and it was pretty pathetic.


 * Also, please give me one example of where I've talked about you negatively to other users. I'd like to read that. You're trash talking knows no bounds and if you have nothing truly offensive to say, you start making up stuff like how I emailed you nasty emails. After you accused me of such a thing, I knew you and I would never get along because of your ability to make up such a character assassinating accusation, post it left and right to everyone and then stand by it and claim that my username was attached to those emails.


 * I don't go ahead and do damaging things to any of the articles. I expanded the commentators section in the 2013 article and when I was working on it the months before the contest, that section was split into 2 columns and it was easier to read. I'll respect the consensus but I'd have to read the evidence of one first. Pickette (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You're doing it again, putting words into my mouth, or twisting my comments out of context. Can you not read, or do you like to twist things around to make yourself look like the innocent victim? What are you going on about a valid debate I am holding? I said that you need to open a debate at Project Eurovision, I did not say I personally am holding a debate. You now accuse me of "claiming something has been decided by consensus". Did I mention consensus? No. What I did mention was that one editor went about en-mass making changes to template/article layouts. That editor was then told off for such actions, as s/he was told that "consensus should have been sought before the templates were created, so agreement on if they were needed, and if so how they should be presented, could be reached", regardless of if they felt it wasn't going to be a big deal. What may not be a big deal to one person, could be seen as a big deal to another. That is why we (as a project) start up talks no matter if we personally perceive any changes as being "not such a big deal". It is common courtesy and respectful to everyone that is involved in the project. To just make a change because you felt it "wasn't a big deal" is selfishness.

And get your facts right first Pickette. I never forced demands on you regarding the Elitsa & Stoyan issue, and everyone noticed that I was only offering constructive advice, nothing negative whatsoever. It only turned negative when you chose not to assume that my intentions were of a good nature, and then started to personalise remarks towards myself. If someone did that to you, would you just sit back and let them do it? I pretty much doubt so, you'd defend your dignity. Which if you are that blind to notice, I was defending myself each and every time you personalise remarks. If you don't wish for me to be so brutally outspoken, then you should not chose to take that path yourself and be so brutally outspoken to me either. I respect everyone and anyone who shows respect in return. You have not demonstrated that towards me, on the contrary you have what appears to be tendencies to dismiss anything I say and twist remarks and assume bad faith of anything I do. Going back to the Elitsa scenario, I only advised about the template and said that you could have fixed the issues yourself, if you wished. I never forced demands that you had no other choice but to fix them. The same goes for Valentina Monetta, yes I placed tags on them as a reminder for myself and anyone else who may be watching the page. I do have a busy real-life too you know, something which I would have expected you would also have. At the time I was busy and doing a general scout of articles and placing tags upon them. This was so that the Project Clean-up list can be maintained and updated. Everything needs to be accounted for, in case you had forgotten, so that the project statistics are as near 100% accurate as possible, that include any articles that require cleaning up.

And now you make a u-turn on a serious attack again. You now say you never said people hate me!? Excuse me, but in your own words "You should know a thing or two about bad faith because from what I've seen, every argument, disagreement or fight that happens across the Eurovision articles always has one common denominator and that happens to be you and trust me, that has definitely not gone unnoticed by anyone" You've basically put words into other's mouths by implying they too distrust me. I'm sure if they knew that you were putting words into their mouths, that they'd be reporting your ass rapidly. What you have done is called slander.

As for the Kosovo debate, no I was not criticising you or your edits. And others even noticed that I was note doing such actions. You probably felt I were, but I can correct you that I was not. I was however, discussing the issue and providing policy-based evidence, to which you dismissed every time I presented them. Mr Gerbear and BabbQ both agreed on some of the points I made - did you miss those? Most probably you did, as you were more than likely on a one-vision tunnel looking to find words of my own that you could take out of context, and then twist them with an aim to get people to turn against me. They are actions of a bully. And yes, I called you a bully, I am not afraid to say that, because the way you are treating me is seriously distressing and I will no longer sit back and allow you to continue to bully me any more.

And you want me to give "one example of where I've talked about you negatively to other users". Are you for real? I may have wandered into one of your entrapment tactics once before, but I will not fall foul of it again. You know full well to whom you have slagged me off to. And if you are that forgetful of remember who, then it is showing more and more just how devious and spiteful of a person you really are. And for the record I do not make character assassinating accusations on anyone. If it is anyone doing such action, it is yourself. Like you seem to love telling me time and time again, "get over yourself". Wesley  Mᴥuse  20:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You initiated this discussion with a claim that my actions were against the project consensus from a template that was agreed upon and you invited me to start a discussion about the matter with a warning that such a discussion would be pointless since a majority has demonstrated a preference for the use of three columns. I've asked you several times to produce evidence of such an agreement within the project that was supported by the users and you haven't produced that. What you have done is reverted my edits and then further edited another article to back up your consistency claim. Citing an example of another user's disruptive editing is irrelevant to this because after you started this discussion with me, I've stopped editing any of the pages I previously did in reference to this issue and am now engaging you in conversation about it. I'm not going ahead and changing things and I wont until this is resolved. Besides I was only going to edit 2012 and 2013 as they are more text heavy. Earlier contest editions have commentators in tables.


 * I have all of my facts straight and in my opinion, it is you that is twisting facts and incapable of discussing anything with me without introducing personal issues and insults. I don't have an issue with BabbaQ and Mr. Gerbear agreeing with you and in my opinion, I was not going against policy because in case you didn't notice, Mr. Gerbear agreed with my suggestion that more caution should be taken with the sources from fansites. But you transitioned that discussion into labeling me as some kind of rebellious Wikipedia user who does things against policy and is here to be destructive. You were the only one saying that and nobody was agreeing with you. In fact, Mr. Gerbear even reprimanded you afterwards which inspired your personal talk page message where you tried to justified your behaviour and blamed me to which you got no response and no agreement again. And please don't call me a bully. If anyone has demonstrated bully behaviour here, it's definitely you.


 * And of course you're too above finding an example of me trashing you across Wikipedia to various users - another unfounded accusation/insult. I can tell you that I've never spoken a word about you if you were not involved in the conversation. It is you who feels the need to go and recruit some kind of support or justify your actions to other users and throw me under the bus at the same time with your rotten and fake accusations, such as inventing fake malicious emails that I sent to you. And lets not forget your emotional blackmail tactics that an admin even found to be low and out of line that you tried to use on me. AndrewRT reprimanded you, you went and justified your actions while trashing me. Mr. Gerbear reprimanded you and there you are again trashing me. And then you trashed me at the Project Eurovision talk page as well. I can admit I've made mistakes in that past regarding our exchanges (and I'm sure this admission will be milked - you always take sincere admissions like this and twist them into another insult or blow them out of proportion and extrapolate), but you take the cake when it comes to actions that are totally outrageous. Pickette (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm covering a lot of issues here that you have raised in your last response, so this is lengthy. And to be fair to you, I have split each section into smaller sentences so that may comprehend what it is I am saying better.


 * Claims
 * I never initiated this discussion with a claim that your actions were against the project consensus, nor was a consensus reached preceding the discussion regarding templates. And that is very clear.  This again is demonstration on how you misconstrued my comments and twist them into how you would rather they be perceived, instead of how they are actually being addressed.  I initiated this discussion stating other articles used a divcol 3 split rather than a divcol2, and that not all articles had been updated with the new divcol 3 layout, but they were in the process of being done.  Yes, earlier articles have commentators in in tables, but they are yet to be converted into divcol 3 lists.  Not everything is done instantaneously, everything takes time, and we roll out conversions at a time that is convenient to our real-life schedules.  Other editors have assisted with the roll out in their own time too.


 * Accusations of being pointless
 * I never issued you a warning that a discussion was "pointless". I did however, say that some of your remarks and behaviour feels to be "point".  If you cared to read WP:POINT you will have understood exactly what it was I were addressing, rather than decide to make up your own meaning of my words.


 * Examples of previous discussions
 * I mentioned about the discussion over templates as an example. Both this discussion now, and the one about templates have similar connections.  By that I mean, an editor went ahead making layout changes without seeking consensus from the project.  No matter on whether we personally feel a change is a big deal or not, it is considered polite to address suggestions to the rest of the project for their opinion on them.  Only because such alterations will bear impact on other articles - past, present, and future.  That is why it is vital an editor is required to open a discussion.  And I advised you to do such action by creating a new thread on the Project Talk Page, to which still hasn't been done.  So either you do not wish to find out the views of others, or you just enjoy this antagonistic approach towards myself.


 * Provision of evidence
 * I do not need to provide evidence of any such argument. You are capable enough, are you not, to browser through the talk archives and see for yourself.  Do you really require me to hold your hand 24/7?  And you do like to remind me that you are capable of checking contribution histories of users and their talk pages.


 * Seeking opinion of others
 * And again, I have explicitly stipulated to you, that I personally would prefer that the layout of commentators be divided until suitable columns, based on neatness. However, it is not my choice to say "yes, go ahead and make the changes".  We need to put forward the suggestion to the rest of the project first, so that everyone has their say on the matter, and then we all know that commentator sections on each article will be treated on a page-by-page basis, and not a uniformed layout on every article.  I thought you of all people would have preferred that option, and I did state that I would support you if and when you put forward your suggestion to the rest of the project.  And no, you may not have all your facts and opinions straight.  Like you remind me, we do not know each other personally.  So you cannot judge me at face value, nor can I judge you either.  Everything I have said to you has been made in good faith.  The fact that you appear to have misconstrued them into bad faith is of your actions, not mine.


 * False accusations
 * And I did not name you personally when I made the remark about people being destructive on Wikipedia. When I made those points, they were at everyone in general.  That too is clear in the fact that I said in my comment "you, I and everyone".  But you twisted it and omitted the fact I included "everyone", and made it look to others that I was targeting you and you only.  Sorry, but that was not the case, and the evidence is in black and white to prove that you are wrong with that accusation.


 * Retracting comments
 * I have also asked you several times to retract some words that I felt were personal attacks. If anyone were to ask me of such request, I would be courteous and oblige to their request by asking them which comments they felt were inappropriate, and at time gave them permission to "strike-through" any of my comments that offended and/or hurt them personally.  And after that I would apologies to the user.  As I asked you politely to remove comments in the past, I would like to know why you chose not to acknowledge my request?  If it were you to have asked me, then I would have been obliged to accept your request and remove any comments that hurt you.  If you don't ask, you don't get.


 * Kazakhstan, Kosovo, and Liechtenstein
 * Mr Gerbear actually agreed with us both, not just with you. As did BabbaQ.  In fact both of those editors and myself all said that Kosovo and Liechtenstein should stay on the article, and agreed with you that Kazakhstan should be removed.  That was a win-win compromise for both yours and my suggestions.  It should have been at that point when you should have let the case close, not antagonise it further.  And even Mr Gerbear pointed out that fact to you.  He even told you off for the uncalled for remark you aimed at me.  Why didn't you apologies for that comment or better still remove it?  If another editor told me off in that way, then I would have A) apologised to everyone, and B) removed the derogatory remark.  Again, it is polite, respectful and courteous.


 * Bad-mouthing
 * And how can you have the bare-face audacity to lie and say that you "never spoken a word about" me to anyone else? The wording in your remark in the conversation I provided a link to above, is clear as the sky is blue that you were talking about me (albeit without naming me) and that emotional remarks which you made were also clear that you hold hatred towards me.  I have never recruited support or justify my actions to others.  If something distresses me, then who else am I going to address my concerns to?  I'm not exactly going to go down to the pub and talk to my best friend or even discuss it with my partner before we go to sleep at night.  Naturally I am going address my worries with other Wikipedian's, who will have a better understand and knowledge of Wikipedia and its atmosphere.


 * Emails
 * As for the emails, I made that clear that I was also concerned, because I believed you when you said you never sent them.. However, emails were sent and it was only fair to investigate how they were sent if you had not sent them yourself. Surely you would have appreciated someone helping to clear your name.  That is what I was doing, trying to establish the truth as to who sent them, if it were not you who did.


 * Accusations of blackmailing
 * There have been no emotional blackmails, and no admin has even commented on such issues either. So where on Earth you came to that fabricated conclusion is beyond my knowledge.  I have explained my feelings to you, with hope that it would provide a better oversight into me as a person.  But alas you chose to make it look like emotional blackmail, again a demonstration of your lack to assume good faith in people.  You'd rather accuse people of being guilty, before establishing motive or reason to see if they are in fact innocent.  That is more pathetic than any of the things you've accused me of doing.  Mr Gerbear never reprimanded me, he actually told you off, and I quote he said "Pickette, that was uncalled for".  Now the last time I checked, your name is Pickette, mine is Wesley Mouse.   Wesley   Mᴥuse  21:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This discussion is pretty pointless. You have an excuse and a deflection lined up for everything you've ever done and of course I'm the bad person in all of this and you've done no wrong but be a responsible and well-meaning editor here. Maybe I can break things down for you as well:
 * And there wee go again, another prime example of bad faith against me. You accuse me of making excuses!?  You accuse me of making you out to be the bad person!?  Nobody is perfect, not you, not I.  We all make mistakes.  But to blatantly cast assumptions without knowing a person is absolutely uncalled for, and intolerable.   Wesley   Mᴥuse  00:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Claims
 * From this discussion:
 * Wesley Mouse: "For your information, it is not me trying to maintain what I like. The use of 3cols was agreed at the RfC, and is also evident on the skeleton articles which the project use as a guide."
 * Wesley Mouse: "So sorry to say, you are actually deviating from something which was agreed, and therefore being disruptive."
 * If such agreement exists, I wont start a discussion rather I will respect the decision. But you referred to an RfC that has no mention of that which you claim was an agreement.
 * Firstly; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 8. Several editors stated they prefer column list rather than table layout.  Three users Mrluke485, Cathairawr, Jetro, and Not A Superhero, liked the table version, and at the time I did jump the gun and start converting commentator sections into table.  But at the same time tested out the 3-col split version on ESC 2012, to which Sims2aholic8, CT Cooper, and Kosm1fewnt all liked that version better than table-format.  And so I intended to fix my previous eagerness, but with real-life distractions completely forgot to finish off the task I had started.  CT Cooper also noted in his summarising of the RfC that "extensive discussion with various proposals being made, none of which got a clear consensus - with proposals to have these lists on separate pages or to keep them where they are but with more compact formatting". I was not sure what he meant by compact formatting, and asked him to elaborate further, to which he said "div col split method like the version used in ESC 2012", which at that time was a 3-col split.  And further down in his summary he states "Other issues: Need established for an RfC on "Country in the Eurovision Song Contest" articles. Skelten draft articles have been created: one for the ESC, and one for the JESC."  Therefore approving the method in use, as well as the skeleton drafts, to which he referred to.  CT Cooper was the administrator who started the RfC.   Wesley   Mᴥuse  00:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Accusations of being pointless
 * From this discussion:
 * Wesley Mouse: "If you don't like it, then open up discussion at WT:ESC for the wider project to discuss the matter. But I think you'll find the majority prefer a 3-col split."
 * With that remark I was not implying anything would be pointless, and this is yet another prime example of you twisting my words out of context. If you were not overly sure what I was trying to imply, then why didn't you ask me to elaborate more, and avoid making a potentially false accusation.  I was urging you to open a new debate about div-cols, but also pointing out that not everyone may be inclined to see your point of view, in the way you would hope.  And I did state that I would support your suggestion, in the event people didn't like your proposal.   Wesley   Mᴥuse  00:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Examples of previous discussions
 * I don't have plans to carry out editing these articles in such a massive way without discussing. I made two edits that were reverted because of an apparent agreement that advises that things should be done differently.
 * Apologies if I didn't make myself clear enough in my statement regarding this issue. The debate I referred to was just an example of the way a similar scenario concluded.  I thought it would be helpful to make you aware of that discussion so that you may see similarities between what went on back then over changing of templates without checking with the project first, and this current issue of changing a layout style without making a suggested proposal to the project first.   Wesley   Mᴥuse  00:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Provision of evidence
 * I'm asking for evidence because the areas you referred to did not contain the information you've referenced here. I'd avoid a discussion and respect an agreement if I can see what you're referring to.
 * I have provided links in my replies above. There are some evidence though that I cannot share as they were sent via private discussion, and I don't know how to share an email on a talk page like this.  Plus there were discussions which are archived, and I haven't a clue where to start looking for them, as it was so long ago when the discussions were held.   Wesley   Mᴥuse  00:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Seeking opinion of others
 * I've asked for evidence that states clearly how things have been agreed to be done. I agree it's an issue that I've changed things if they were agreed to be done a certain way by several people but I haven't seen anywhere where such an agreement has taken place.
 * See comments at "Provision of evidence" and "Claims".  Wesley   Mᴥuse  00:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * False accusations
 * From the Kazakhstan, Kosovo and Liechtenstein discussion
 * Wesley Mouse: "Although perhaps it is because I am the editor who is participating in this debate and has providing compelling evidence in terms of Wiki-rules that urges you to be combative?"
 * This is when you started directing the discussion into personal matters making your involvement seem as the reason I'm even debating the issue.
 * Sorry, I was asking a question in that remark, not casting a personal attack. If you would prefer me to re-word it, then by all means I shall do so.   Wesley   Mᴥuse  00:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Wesley Mouse: "Achieving a high quality and standard is something that is part of Wikipedia's goals in life, and in order for that to be achieved requires the help from people like you and me. I would have thought people would appreciate that someone like myself thrives on keeping up that high quality - obviously I am wrong, and a high standard isn't what people are aiming for. And yes, the things you wrote did come across as disrespecting the project, and it did upset me to see you word things in that way; hence why I got all brutal in my responses, as I was protecting the project on a whole and not just the sources and content."
 * This was insulting as a whole. You place yourself on such a high pedestal and flat out say that I or maybe all users in that discussion were not there to maintain a high standard.
 * It was not meant to come across as an insult to you or everyone. The point I was trying to make was that I thought the primary objective of all Wikipedians was to produce a high standard of article writing.  The fact that I felt a high standard of contribution was a mandatory requirement for becoming a Wikipedian, was the reason why I was also protecting the project by trying to help maintain that high standard.  And I was wanting to clarify that if the primary objective of all Wikipedians was not to write to a high standard, then I misunderstood what was the actual prime goal for a Wikipedian.   Wesley   Mᴥuse  00:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * False accusations
 * My personal policy is that if you didn't want to say something then you shouldn't have said it. I can accept an apology but if things continue to be out of hand, then I would like to refer back to comments that were made and archive them for the future if necessary.
 * I think we both share the same personal policy, albeit worded differently. My motto is treat those how they treat you.  Another words, if they get all "bullish" with a bad-ass attitude, then I will converse with that person using the same attitude they used.  OK, at times I can be "to the point" with words and call a spade, a spade.  But my parents raised me to speak with honesty, as people always respect to hear the truth, even if at times it may be brutal.  If you do not like that approach, then please let me know, so that I can act accordingly towards you.  It is your utmost respect that I wish to admire, not this current fiasco.  Perhaps that is the main issue, we're too alike that our personalities have clashed?  I'd love to see your view on that.   Wesley   Mᴥuse  00:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Kazakhstan, Kosovo, and Liechtenstein
 * From the Kazakhstan, Kosovo and Liechtenstein discussion
 * Mr. Gerbear: "Now both of you need to stop. Pickette, that is uncalled for. And Wesley, you need to realize that everyone is here on Wikipedia to help, and that consensus may change with regards to what sources are credible. and not Both of you are accusing each other of bad faith and that's not ok."
 * Sure he reprimanded me, I never said he didn't but he also slammed your assumptions and commentary.
 * Actually he wasn't slamming my assumptions and commentary. I knew what Mr Gerbear was referring to, as it was something he mentioned to me once or twice in the past, purely because he understands me personally, and knows almost everything about me so that he could make judgement himself.  He and I have had many a tête-a-tête, as I feel comfortable opening up to him and talking about personal issues that I'm going through at home.  Although the latter part of his comment made no sense.  "Not Both of you are accusing each other of bad faith and that's not ok".  Because he had previously informed me thathis English is not that good (via a discussion on the project newsletters) I automatically assumed it was a typing error and should have read "now both of you are accusing each other of bad faith and that's not ok".   Wesley   Mᴥuse  00:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Bad-mouthing
 * In a conversation you're involved in? Certainly I will defend myself against your bad-mouthing. That doesn't change you actively taking it upon yourself to bad-mouth me in a conversation I'm not involved in. That's low and undermining and you've done that on several talk pages that I can immediately refer to. And it would've been fine to apologize for your behaviour but you made comments directly attacking me and putting me down to other people which I find tacky and offensive.
 * What do you mean by "in a conversation I'm involved in"? That felt as though you would go out of your way to attack me in any conversation I had involvement in.  I don't feel that I've bad-mouthed you, but then there have been times that I've wrote whilst half-asleep, and only notice when fully awake exactly what was written, and by that time it's too late as you or someone else had already responded.  I haven't bad-mouthed you as such in conversations with others, just trying to explain scenarios, and I do inform whoever I am in contact with, where they can find the conversations to make judgement for themselves, in case I may have misinterpreted things.  That is why I always go to other users, for clarification that I am not seeing things and to see if they interpret meanings behind some of your remarks, in the same way I did.  50% of the time they agree, 50% they disagree.  But at the end of it, there is agreement.  And I will admit, you have said yourself that at times you feel some things you said were a bit too harsh.  Which brings me back to an earlier point I made.  If both of use felt something may have been harsh, or if one of us pointed out a harsh comment the other had made, then why didn't we retract/remove such comments?  I had asked several time, but you didn't appear to be forthwith with such requests.  And as such, I decided to never self-withdraw any remarks of my own that I later felt were probably too harsh.   Wesley   Mᴥuse  00:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Emails
 * I don't believe they exist. I think you invented that just to make your bashing a bit more sweeter to the user you initially posted it to and then when you got caught you didn't want to admit they were fake. And how are we supposed to clear my name after an accusation like that? There are so many policies that prevent you from posting anything from those emails. Let's just call it what it is: malicious character assassination. You didn't like that on Project Eurovision both Mr. Gerbear and someone from outside of the Project (AndrewRT) both reprimanded you for your actions and you wanted to shift all focus and turn them against me by inspiring sympathy from both of them and manipulating them. I'm so grateful they weren't duped by you.
 * They do exist, but I don;t know of a way to forward those to anyone without disclosing my personal and private email address openly and thus run the risk of outing - which is prohibited and could lead to indef blocks. Although I did appreciate and believe you when you said you never sent them.  What worried me is who did send them, and how did they contain your name if they never came from you.  But I do find it horrific that you are calling me a liar in saying I "invented" the story, and especially trying to imply that others "caught me out" when nobody said such thing.  Everyone was just as equally concerned about the emails and how they could have been sent in your name if you never sent them.  So please, retract that horrid statement, as I am not a liar.  And it isn't fair of you to be saying editor's called me a "fake" when they never said any such thing.   Wesley   Mᴥuse  00:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Accusations of blackmailing
 * From your talk page
 * Wesley Mouse: " I don't think you'd live with yourself if your actions towards me resulted in me causing self-harm. Your behaviour is making me feel intimidated, and making my experience on Wikipedia unpleasant and discouraging me from editing entirely."
 * Drmies: "Threatening self-harm as a result of someone else's actions is not acceptable: it's a kind of emotional blackmail. If indeed someone would want to harm themselves or others as a result of Wikipedia conversations and conflicts, they should probably find other things to do." Pickette (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, Drmies knows me well enough. He was very supportive at the time my mother passed away, and even to this day we have the odd chat and always ask how each other are doing.  He even asked me how my volunteering went at London 2012 Olympic & Paralympic Games and we have recently spoke about my next volunteering excitement for Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games.  He also knows how overly-sensitive I can be, which is why he made that advisory comment about threats of self-harming.  It was his way of basically trying to get me to calm down.  The fact that you are not aware of the previous history between he and I, would explain how you could have easily misconstrued his meaning.   Wesley   Mᴥuse  00:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how I got into this; I'd rather not be. Pickette, please don't use out-of-context comments in a new context. Wesley, please don't take everything personally. Pickette claims to have an editorial judgment/reason for doing something a certain way and says the RfC does not forbid it (did I get that correct?), you say the RfC did settle it. Seems to me there is an easy way to settle this: settle it right there where the RfC took place and invite the other participants. And do it neutrally, without jabs, from either side please. Let's not get too worked up over a column or a div or whatever. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * From what I gathered, yes Pickette does claim to have an editorial judgement/reason for doing something a certain way and feel the RfC does not forbid it. However that particular RfC closed over a year ago, in which there were proposed ideas with editors torn between two ideas.  I did a test-drive of them both, and the idea of using bullet-point list split into 3 columns was given more "open-armed" favouring than the table-format version.  During that RfC drafts were done based on editor's suggestions, and the admin who initiated the RfC liked and approved the draft versions, which were subsequently then added as template guidance for the project (ESC and JESC).  If you note, both of those guidance templates use a 3-split column format as favoured at the RfC.  I appreciate and actually favour Pickette's suggestion of using discretion to determine whether 2 or 3 columns should be used, depending on a neatness perspective, and I advised Pickette that if he wished for his suggestion to override the RfC choice, that he was more than welcome to start up a debate via the project talk page for others to add their input - which is only fair considering members of the project participated in the RfC in the first place.  We would be in the wrong to deny them the right to review a particular style of which they once favoured.   Wesley   Mᴥuse  01:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry this is very delayed but I have been very busy. I don't mind asking others for their input, I just wanted clarification of why my edit had to be reverted according to something that was agreed upon when such a discussion never touched on what should be a dead set format for this section. Wesley Mouse, I don't really have a lot to add to anything I wrote above. When I edit articles, my intention is to make things better, not to destroy the work of others. And when I suggest things, I'm arguing for them because I believe it would be beneficial and not because your the person arguing against me. I don't want constant fights all of the time and I thought that after our interaction ban I could potentially collaborate with you on friendlier terms, but I'm very weary of your intentions based on things that have happened in the past. I can put aside personal insults or offensive comments but to accuse me of sending you malicious emails to a complete random user who happened upon an RfC at Project Eurovision is very undermining of me as a user here. I know you've said you have doubts about those emails being from me, but I don't understand why the first mention of those emails existing didn't happen in a conversation with me. There is just no possible way those emails can have my username attached to them because I didn't know emailing a user was possible on Wikipedia. Also, I highly doubt someone accessed my account to send those to you, there is no evidence of that being the case and I haven't changed my password since I created this account here. So I just want an honest explanation and perhaps we can put this negativity aside. Pickette (talk) 08:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I appreciate and acknowledge that when an user makes edits in terms of improving the wording of any content is reasonable, and if other users have grievance, then they would need to air those grievances via the article's talk page and/or on the talk page of the user who made the edits. However, when it comes to making alterations in terms of article layout, then those ideas would need to be raised via the project talk page first, in order to seek opinions/views of fellow project members; establish a consensus, and then roll out the changes if consensus was in favour of such action.  On this occasion, that was never done.  The significant changes were made without seeking opinion of others first, and that was my great concern.  Only because a similar scenario occurred once before, and it was stressed by an administrator as well as other project members, that making huge layout changes without seeking project opinion first was deemed as disruptive behaviour.  Personally, I see no problem with using discretion, but as it has been stressed out by others that project opinion needs to be sought first, then I see reason to abide to that point raised by others.  Like I said, if Pickette were to raise via the talk page, of this new suggestion to use either 2 or 3 split columns depending on neatness of presentation, then it would gain my 100% support, even if others disagreed with the proposal.  I've already opened a project debate via the talk page regarding the project starting up its own A-class review board, as that is the courteous thing to do when it comes to making suggestive proposals that bear an impact on the project as a whole.  As of yet nobody has participated in the discussion to date.


 * In regards to the email issue, I apologise if Pickette found my action of speaking to another user as being "undermining". But at the time, I felt anxious and feared contacting Pickette personally regarding the matter, purely because of the hostile behaviour at that present time, and I thought that Pickette would start being aggressive towards me if I were to have raised the matter directly.  Which is why I raised the issue with another user in order to get the matter off my chest, and seek advice on how to get an investigation started or if the other user had a better solution to offer.  Neither of which were provided in the end, and it left me none-the-wiser of what action needed to be taken.  Yes the emails were made, how it is possible for a user's name to be shown as the addressee when that person never even sent them is disturbing though, and I guess the answers as to how it was done will never be known.  I'm sure that Pickette as well as myself would love to know the answers, but alas as so much time has now elapsed, then neither of us will never know who did send them and how they managed to fraudulently manipulate an email addressee so that it shows someone else's name.   Wesley   Mᴥuse  14:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the emails, there's very little I can say. I've not read them, and even if I had, I'm not technical enough to snoop around in them and find out anything about provenance. It's possible that someone can--I believe WP:OTRS could be of assistance. But if Pickette says they didn't send them, then we have little choice but to believe that: AGF. My recommended course of action would be for the personal stuff to be dropped and for the discussion to focus on the result, not even on the procedure of how to work on an article. Sure, project pages are important, but in my opinion WP:BEBOLD also argues that we should just start improving if we want to. Wesley, your soul may be more tender than my hardened heart, but standards and ways of communicating differ; some (not all!) things we just have to suck up. I hope you two can work things out without too much mutual distrust; it sounds to me like you both want the same thing. Drmies (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Eurovision project discussion - "other awards"
Hey, in regards to the RFC which is closed at the "Eurovision Project" - it was said in it's conclusion that a significant support is to stay with a mixture of prose and tables for the "Other awards" section. If I understand correctly, you agreed to stick to prose only. Wethear I missundersttod or that you changed your mind or wethear I did understand, I would be glad if you can clarify there. אומנות (talk) 10:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Please avoid forum shopping, it is not favourable by administrators.  Wesley   Mᴥuse  13:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Sincere apologies
Hi Pickette,

I just wanted to say how deeply sorry I am for being such a pain in the rear-end over the last few months. The fact that we are now discussing matters in various places on a more civil tone is more appealing and I must admit I am enjoying engaging in more peaceful debates with yourself. It made me look back on the past and realise that you're not that bad of a person really. We are both passionate about the same subject, but our strong opinionated minds may have clashed. And for that I am sorry. I hope you can find it within your heart to accept my most humble of apologies. And I'm not sure if you noticed, but I gave your columns for commentators thread at WT:ESC a huge thumbs up. Anyhow, I shall leave you in peace and await for you to decide on whether or not to accept my apology. Feel free to re-add your name to the Project Members list if you wish. Oh and I hope you don't mind, I mentioned your name on the Project Newsletter in regards to the aforementioned columns discussion. Wesley  Mᴥuse  03:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll accept your apology and I will offer one of my own. I will admit that I'm still a bit cautious moving forward, but hopefully that will fade in time. Pickette (talk) 07:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh I am ever so pleased, and I accept yours in return too. Yes, I understand about being cautious at first, take each step one at a time, right!?  I should really be heading off to bed myself.  It's almost 8:30am here, and I've been up all night working my socks off on my stupid idea of getting every article in our categories placed with EurovisionNotice banners.  I found out before that even though our assessment shows we have just under 5000 assessed, we actually have over 21,000 with ProjectEurovision categories attached to them.  This is going to be fun trying to find the missing 16,000 articles in the midst of over 4 million.  Wish me luck!   Wesley   Mᴥuse  07:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey again
First of all a compliment for yet again another great article - ESC-France-2014, with France as one of my favorite ESC countries, and me finding out from you(!) that France is going to hold a national final - finally. Every year I hope for that! The last national final in 2007 was great for me. Anyhu its great to see your continuous diligent work. :) And just a question regarding the word "organise" - its written with British-"S" and not "Z" in all time-forms, right? Because there is one place on the article that says "would organize", which I wanted to correct but wanted to be positivly sure before I do or that you correct, and of course the opportunity to compliment you on the way. ;) אומנות (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for the compliments. I think you're right, I did make a mistake about that. I don't use British English normally so I'm more prone to make mistakes like that sometimes. Good catch! I'll fix it right away! Pickette (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My catch was since I read the article with much interest, as well as other articles you made that I chanced upon. And I also made this "organize" mistake myself once and noticed some of those mistakes on other articles in the past, so I'm familiar to this and thought this would be a very good oppurtunity to finally learn that its persistent in all time-forms and doesn't vary within British-English. And I also don't normally use British, though at school we learned the British form and there are some words I always wrote in the British form - from a young age. Thanks for your quick reply and for your quick correction! And now... I will be a bit saucy and say that Italy and Spain are my two favorite ESC countries respectively - just before France (hint-hint)... hoping to see you writting on them too when details revealed. I will most enjoy reading your concentrate and well-phrased descriptions on their selection details. :) אומנות (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you enjoyed the articles and feel free to fix any mistakes you spot in the future! :) Pickette (talk) 03:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I will correct from now on if I see such kinds of mistakes, just wasn't sure until now. So thanks for telling me about the form of this, so now I finally learn thanks to you about the definite use of it. :) אומנות (talk) 14:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Template enquiry
Hi Pickette,

Just a quick note to let you know that I've solved the template problem that you posted an enquiry for at WT:ESC. I had a look at the syntax, and the template didn't need fixing. The option to manipulate year navigation was already there, but has not been noted in the documentation as a helpful guide. Anyhow, I've provided both versions of the template on the talk page for you. Hope it helps. Wesley  Mᴥuse  04:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you help, I just tested this out and it works. Pickette (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. To be honest, even I didn't know there was a hidden code for that template.  So I learnt something new in the process.  Therefore, thank you too for bringing this issue to attention.   Wesley   Mᴥuse  20:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


Wes  Mᴥuse  is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. As things are likely to get extremely busier over the next few weeks, I thought I take the time to post this now. All the best for 2014 to you and yours. Wes  Mᴥuse  19:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I wish you the same as well. Pickette (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year Pickette!

 * Thank you, happy new year to you as well! Pickette (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Eurovision semifinal 12 points
What is so terrible about having the 12 points listed for semifinals in the Eurovision pages if they're all listed for the final? Kapitan110295 (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry did I remove that? I was trying to remove Nina Zizic added as a performer for Montenegro. Please readd your edit it was my mistake. Pickette (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I readded the tables. I made a mistake when reverting the other edits, sorry about that. Pickette (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. No worries ;) Kapitan110295 (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous User
Hi, there's an anonymous user editing Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014 who is constantly putting Albania in the "Other countries" section under the source Finland, Cyprus, etc uses. I've reverted the edit several times saying that Albania isn't mentioned in the source. However, the user keeps re-adding it. I'm not sure what to do now, since undoing the edits clearly isn't working, so I came to ask you. Jjj1238 (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, I think you have to warn them about that on their talk page. I think that would be disruptive editing or introducing deliberate factual errors so I would use one of those templates to warn them. The templates are listed here: WP:WARN. If they keep doing it after your warning, you just go up the levels of the warnings in the chart. After you warn them four times you can report them by adding their info on this page: WP:AIAV. An admin will then block them for a while. This is what I've done in the past. But I'm unsure if something like this is an edit war because if it is then you might get in trouble for reverting too many times. If this is unclear, maybe ask CT Cooper for help since that user is involved with the Eurovision project and they are an admin so they would probably be more familiar with how to handle things like this. Hopefully something I said was helpful! Pickette (talk) 03:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I just put the first warning on their page. If they do it again then use the level 2 warning. Pickette (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the late response but I think you've taken the right course of action. I've found in the past that unregistered users often need talk page messages because they aren't familiar with article histories – the just see their addition disappear and re-do it. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 17:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Moldova in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014
You're currently engaged in an edit war on the Moldova in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014 article. Please stop blindly reverting and discuss the issue on the talk page to reach a consensus. Huon (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I will open a discussion on the talk page about it now. Pickette (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Armenia's song
There's no any official link that Armenia's song name is "Not Alone". We must wait for the official announcement! Thank you for understanding. --Eurofan88 (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually just left you a message on your talk page at the same time. Check it out. Pickette (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Slavic Girls
fyi http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQp7z8yYZUI Spacejam2 (talk) 05:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Please help
I saw that you do a good job at Miracle (Paula Seling and Ovi song), but now the article was reverted and destroyed by another user. Please with all of my heart to revert the article at your version. I worked a lot for this, but they can't understand I want only to help Wikipedia, even I'm blocked or not.

Thanks 2A02:2F0E:D28F:FFFF:0:0:4F72:C4A3 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * Thank you Wesley! Pickette (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Some Eurovision thoughts
Hey, wanted to tell you I like Norway, Netherlands and Armenia the best. I hope Netherlands wins altough for now it looks to me as Norway, Armenia or United Kingdom have a bigger chance. United Kingdom is also very nice as you told me earlier, though it grew on me; before I wasn't that impressed. I was so surprised Israel didn't make it through. Anyway this was a very busy week for me. My sister got married on Thursday so I watched the second semi very late on the official website archive. Though Israel's performance wasn't shot that well and I think Mei Finegold is much better with Hard Rock songs.

Enjoy the show! :) אומנות (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, this is coming after the show, but I was really hoping for Netherlands or the United Kingdom to win. I'm a bit surprised the UK didn't do better. Austria has an alright song, but I wouldn't have picked it as a winner. I predicted the qualifiers pretty well this year. In the first semi-final the only one I missed was San Marino - I had Estonia instead. In the second semi-final I only ended up missing Belarus and I had Israel in my prediction instead. Oh and congrats to your sister and take it easy! Pickette (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Quick question
Pickette,

Would you mind if I ask your opinion on a matter that is taking place over at Talk:Türkvizyon Song Contest? An editor states that the use of subdivision flags of China is forbidden by Chinese National Constitution. However, the flags are used purely for they are also used by the official contest website, and thus we are depicting verifiable sourcing. In my opinion, if we are able to verify their usage then that is substantial. Wikipedia prides itself on not being censored and being as near accurate as possible, as long as sources back-up the content. So could a national law really prevent Wikipedia from deviating away from sources? Wes  Mᴥuse  17:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I took a look at it and added my opinion after looking over what was being discussed. Pickette (talk) 04:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to look into the matter. It is one that I've never come across before, which is why I thought I'd seek outside opinion in case there was something that prevented the usage of these flags.  Again, thank you.   Wes   Mᴥuse  17:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

France in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014
Hi Pickette,

Just a quick head's up. Not sure if an IP has vandalized your work at France in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014 or if they are trying to help by completing the jury votes table for the final. I thought I had best let you know, seeing as you've been looking after these sections and would know if it is vandalism or not. Regards, Wes   Mᴥuse  13:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Mumiy Troll
hi Pickette, I'm Эвис and I was editing Mumiy Troll band page. Thank u for explaining me the rules - it is really important for me, because I'm a begginer here. Also I'm a media-management for this band. I've deleted some content as this information was not correct and was not connected with the band. Also I kindly ask u for an advice: we would like to add a lot of new and true information about the band as it is made on our Russian (origin) page- https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CC%F3%EC%E8%E9_%D2%F0%EE%EB%EB%FC. I understand that Wiki is a collective "produce" but also I'm sure that the info I want to add is true and it is only facts (not a fanatic emotions). What shall I do first to be sure that my editing will be accepted? Thank u in advance Эвис Эвис (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If is media-manager for the band, then s/he would not be permitted to edit the article itself as it would be in clear violation conflict of interest policy and may result in blocking sanctions or similar loss in editing privileges.  However, Эвис may wish to raise points via the article's talk page for other Wikipedians to update the article accordingly, which would avoid any breaches in WP:COI.   Wes   Mouse  05:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey - happy holidays and more
I wanted to wish you a happy Hanukkah and a merry Christmas, been long since I wrote to you here, by the by tell you something. A week ago the 2nd season of the Israeli reality show "Hakochav Haba" began, with announcing that it's winner will represent Israel. It also already appears on this show's article. I thought of creating this article - for Israel's specific participation in 2015, but didn't feel it's enough serious material in length yet and handling the tool of cancelling the redirect from "Israel in 2015 ESC" to "Israel in ESC". So just wanted to let you know about this info bit, also for interest, and leave it to your great daily management.

Also wanted to say that after reading about this Israeli show here, I found out that it's the original version with the American and other worldwide versions (known as "Rising Star") based on it!

Enjoy the holidays, have loads of fun and keep up your fantastic work!  Hello Pickette, אומנות has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

אומנות (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind message! Happy holidays to you as well! Pickette (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope the info on Israel may be useful to work with or at least interesting :-) Thank you as well for your wishes! אומנות (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Czech Republic 2015
Hello Pickette, don't you think that the announcement of the Czech ESC-entry should be written after the preliminary announcement of the composer of the song? Gianluca91 (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I considered that, but the announcement of the entry is the most critical piece of information. The following information, even though it occurred prior to the announcement, is used to provide background as to how the entry was created and selected. I may re-write the second part so that it flows better. Pickette (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Second opinion
Good day Pickette,

I was wondering when you get a spare moment, if you could have a quick glance at Talk:Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2015, which may require a second opinion from another editor. It seems we have a website demanding that we must use their website only as citations, because "they broke the news first". I'm off to my uncle's funeral later, so I won't be around to answer any further questions that the IP may put forward. Thanks in advance.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk  10:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I took a look at it and essentially I agree with what you've written. Ive previously seen the same thing from accounts that are seemingly associated with authors from Wiwibloggs adding their website in excess to existing sources on certain articles. The IP hasn't done anything since your reply to their comment so I didn't bother writing anything there but I'll add my support if it becomes a bigger issue. Pickette (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking into this, Pickette. It took me a couple of "re-edits" of my comments, as I started to come across more and more guidance pages that helped to back-up my comments. In light of this and the ESCKaz debacle, I am starting to feel like the project as a whole may need to review its sourcing guidance, and a full review/reform of the sources currently listed at WikiProject Eurovision/Sources. Do you feel this would be a logical step forward?  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk  19:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think perhaps a message could be posted to bring attention to this page and encourage users to bring forward any concerns they might have and then with open discussion, decisions can be made regarding a particular source. Pickette (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. Seeing as there will be a write up in the next newsletter about the ESCKaz discussion, then further expansion with details of the sources section would raise its awareness to more project members.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk  21:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Great stuff
I enjoyed reading the whole Israel's 2015 article in a matter of 2-3 minutes as it's written interesting and fluent! I held back then from creating such article as I saw there was thin info as at previous attempting works to create it. On the other hand, I knew once there will be more info, there will be other interested people to work and expend it and I'm glad you made again such good work and for a country which I am, of course, interested at! Thanks. :-) אומנות (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :) Pickette (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You are welcome :) I also want to ask if you got an email I sent you sometime ago in regards to some specific-delicate grammatical-tenses which make confussinos to people. Just asking in case it didn't reach you and you can write me back but simply didn't see it. Please let me know on email if you have time and if you have some answers, please write me there. Thanks again :) אומנות (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It says Måns Zelmerlöw will be host most probably, why changing back?
It says Måns Zelmerlöw will be host most probably, why changing back? MutatedMan (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)