User talk:Sims2aholic8/Archive 5

Eurovision Draft
Hi I will be happy to keep share, for slight rearrangement for opening and other lead paragraphs, to coordinate to chapters, and overall "Participation", we started talking about; and for the past days I simultaneously worked further on my computer for the lead and Yugoslavia/Germany statuses and according to your view to keep as footnotes and to get feedback on my suggestion for map option, and such as lead sentence for voting methods I suggested;

As I waited first that you finish the initial draft then brought, in small easier stages, about lead stuff.

So to keep showing you and then help think what specific stuff can be added to the lead, as you greatly, to my opinion, did with Germany! And as you also wrote, as I understood, you keep working on incorporating the countries by decades paragraphs as well as voting methods?

I ask as just saw you moved the article to main space and replied to another you'll be away the next days, thanked him, and plan to submit FA; besides minor tweaks you'll do. If so, can you tell me if FA enables others to keep discussing with the reviewer during the process? Otherwise another way me, and maybe others who will want, for keep giving feedback? Especially the lead should extend. Of course I would most love to keep discussing with you. A reason I was happy to be active again is for seeing your project message, when I appreciate your work and attention over the years. :-) So please let me know how I can proceed during FA or if you are available to keep talking. אומנות (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes of course I will continue to accept any feedback and comments up to FA review (and even beyond, everything can always be improved upon even when it's at its peak!) Ahead of putting it forward for FA review, I have initiated a peer review to gather wide feedback on the article in the hopes that FA status can be achieved at the first time of asking. If you'd like to contribute to this then definitely feel free!


 * Thanks for your edits on the article over the past couple of days as well, changing all the single-digit numbers to the words is definitely a better choice! Per your suggestion of how to include a breakdown by decade, I feel that perhaps this might be more suited for inclusion to the "History" article. I would like to expand upon this article going forwards, perhaps to include a section per decade and short paragraphs describing each contest? Still thinking this one through so any thoughts on this, and anything else, would be helpful! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Was I confused as I didn't manage finding exactly about terms of FA participation while I only knew in regards to "GA" nominations; and after I wrote I wanted to share a bunch more stuff and the bit material I prepared to show you on my computer. I first thought you draft for at least several weeks, then thought from your reply to another you're done and feel completely ready for the state of just formal-technical FA nominator comments. So I was heavily deliberating if to make therefore slight changes/rearrangements myself since it's on mainspace and before handed to a formal review, but didn't know if it will disrupt you on the other hand. Wish I would have written my message earlier on Saturday, before you traveled. But now therefore I'm very happy to receive your message and know I can keep communicating in pre-FA discussions!
 * That's also why I started with the technical "MOS:NUMBER" issues to keep helping where I knew it definitely progress for further Wikipedia's guidelines and evntually for FA; thanks for your appreciation and you're welcome. :-) I'm happy I could be useful.
 * Countries by decades - yeah the past days I read through most of the article and saw there's incorporation of countries joining "along the historical/expansion routes"; even overlapping (part of what I wanted to keep discussing mainly for "Participation"). I did however track places where just pointing touches of summing "first East-European+Iberian" & "most western EBU tips" may be still cooolll... But other than that I understand you; also browsed again through our past discussions and saw again you wrote about taking my paragraphs to the Contest's History article. Thank you for keeping breaking your head on where and how to also incorporate my suggestions! And sure I'll be happy to assist for the "History" article and already say I like your idea for "Decade" section and detailed paragraphs for contests, over there!
 * I do still very much like to make two relatively small rearrangement edits to the article; those I prepared on my computer. Since it's mainspace now I won't self revert without reason. I really think you'll like it, even if you may see ways to still slightly rearrange those in turn, and even if you wanna revert completely, as always feel free! And anyway now I know we can keep discuss in general. A question - do I comment now on that "Peer Review" page or still at the regular article's talk page? I'v been on English Wikipedia for 11 years (13 on the Hebrew) but never truly rubbed myself into these processes... And hope you enjoy your time away. :-) אומנות (talk) 02:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, feel free to make your changes directly to the article now that it is in the mainspace! I felt that as I had finished my draft of the article in terms of the content I wished to include, and from guidance I received on the talk page, that it seemed like the right time to move this over to the mainspace. There's still a long way to go, and a couple of steps before we get this up to FA status, but I think getting it onto the mainspace now is best for including further edits and thoughts from other users. I feel that the "peer review" page should probably be kept for use by an editor who's conducting a review of the whole article, rather than just small parts of the article, so if you have any specific thoughts I would say share these on the article's talk page, or feel free to make the edits directly. I will continue to monitor any edits, and make tweaks myself, so I'll keep abreast of all developments on the article going forward, but a note on the talk page explaining your thinking is always helpful. :-) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Now I understand further; you generally open to others edits simultaneously to your ongoing work on mainspace, also during/after FA. Yeah for big chapters' content I will just suggest, and so on the Peer-talk; as I don't want to harshly clash your work and even love for your final-editing judgment for some rearrangements! Smaller/styling stuff I will do on article and it's talk then. Thank you! :) אומנות (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey and thanks for your article's talk messages. Yes always kinder to explain so I appreciate and feel better with your ongoing give-back communication. While naturally bit disappointing to not managing specific acceptable bigger contributions, I understand and respect if you see different here. I just put much work also to my talk comments, especially now further try to shorten initial bigger comments I work on which is the hardest, so I usually take small breaks while thinking and writing for the article's talk, though it won't be that much anyway. I will post maybe later today or 2 days as tomorrow's my birthday :-) Hope to manage going out most day, as just now stricter restrictions imposed starting tomorrow here on many hang out places again.
 * To not keep you in any possible uncomfortable feel, maybe, I don't know, I wanted to stress I understand if you feel reverting, especially personal preferences stuff. And even if nobody else contributes views on the talk, I take into account the current, mainly the lead, is generally from your more stable draft. The lead's 1st paragraph was mostly like that before the draft. Also why I felt more comfortable to touch there, but it's further stable version. So it won't be necessary for like a 3rd-opinion further invitations if nobody else comments. I lean on that if we have different views for styling/arranging, your preference prevails as the main and hardest worker. אומנות (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hope you have a great day tomorrow and יוֹם הֻלֶּדֶת שָׂמֵחַ! Thanks for replying, and I do appreciate your suggestions, feedback and acceptance above. Like I said, a lot of this is personal preference but I feel that as it stands at the minute the lead has a better flow and touches on the most important aspects of the contest without going into too much detail. As you said as well, a lot of what is there presently was already in the lead before I did my rework, but I am trying to look at everything from an unbiased viewpoint, so of course any suggestions I will definitely attempt to take on board! Enjoy your birthday and hope you work with you again on this when you return! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I saw your reasonings on the talk page, and what I mean is that flow approach can also fall under different legitimate views, as part of rearrangement and styling. And as we also did change a lot of stuff in the lead. So I'll just write there comments to briefly explain specific flow problem I still personally feel and my general approach to chapters references in the lead. So maybe will open different possibilities, and for others who may gather opinions and comment. Anyway this will be just in the talk. Thank you for the Hebrew dedication and the birthday wish. 😃 אומנות (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey I saw Thursday morning as you implemented some of my work explanations; I was cheered to see you added appreciation reply after, but still wanted to explain and ask something uneasy. Minutes later I found out my aunt passed away, as well some life work struggles, threw me off. Now I'm bit better, after resting and also thinking if and how to write you. So I hope you can sympathize with my small request.
 * The thing is I thought of these 3 to 2 paragraphs rearrangement and modification for some days while gradually talked about smaller stuff to not land all my views at once. Meanwhile I prepared few different versions for 2nd-4th paragraphs on my computer, and phrased for 40 minutes for the talk page to exact what I wanna do; to see if you generally agree. Also after we didn't agree on my 1st paragraph edit, so understandably reverted. So I did this further work on the talk, to feel further calm and satisfied making a first significant contribution. This is also why I wrote on my comment that I would like to edit, if rearrangement is agreed.
 * I'm happy you value my work too, as I value yours, and understand your eagerness to edit, and thank you for your encouragement for me to be bold. It's just harder for me to add completely new material, as a 3rd paragraph, and anyway as I had something quite big I already worked on, I wished for this chance to do on the article. :-( So I'm asking, if I advise bigger rearrangement and you think it's generally fine, if you can sometimes let me edit (not every time, just once or twice if occurs again), then you can modify, and if you blend my ideas with your modification, if you can still point in the edit summary it's also based on my suggestions? I will really appreciate that!
 * I'm really having fun helping you, keeps me busy-satisfied away from some life issues, and as I appreciate your work and kindness and I do think you already reworked to a beautiful article. Also why I did mostly wanted to suggest mostly minor stuff, self-reverted on draft and am still happy to. Just wanna manage few rearrangement contributions especially after the further work on the talk when I'm unsure for further fulfillment feel and I don't know in general if I have more material to come up with. I think you pretty covered everything important under the chapters! I also meant opposite order and bit shortening within 4th paragraph. So again unsure if agreed, also why I preferred editing then you modify. I now edited with a detailed summary explanation; but understand if you wanna change. I will love try adding 3rd paragraph, if you still like. Thanks, hope you understand. :-) אומנות (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm very sorry to hear about your recent bereavement, and I hope you're keeping ok! Yes of course feel free to edit as and when you think it is needed, I only stepped in to include your suggestions at that time as I felt eager to implement them, but obviously I don't want to step on any toes so if you do explicitly mention in the talk that you are willing to make the edits yourself then I will stand back. I will be sure to review your edits to the page later on today and come back to you if I have any comments. :) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey thank you very much! Really I knew you were just eager to contribute it, and it did truly made me happy from seeing you like what I suggested and your appreciation to my suggestions on the talk page!! :-) This is why I thought you will also contain me here now and make me feel better to write to you. I honestly just mean 1-2 more times in the future where I may suggest big rearrangement and write I want to edit but to see if you agree first, also as I was afraid to like step on your toes if I make big changes without seeing first on the talk page, as what I did with my disagreed 1st paragraph arrangement.
 * All my current suggestions are rearrangements or shortenings as it truly looks to me as you're already on FA level material containing wise, and it's just a matter of few rearrangements / shortenings, the way I see! Even a 3rd lead paragraph summarizes your material, and an additional sentence here and there I may suggest, so 1-2 rearrangements will give me the chance to feel I contributed something small myself, besides those technical wording-digits edits I made, haha. :)
 * And for example, I also have comping up another quite significant shortening suggestion for "Origins and History" which is mostly your original material and won't take me long to explain on the talk page as it's brief in-principal what can be removed explanation, so here is an example where I don't mind writing on the talk page briefly, and I won't mind if you want to do it. Honestly just meant to manage 1-2 significant contributions, other than that I'm happy for you to implement everything else. Thank you for your condolences as well. I am feeling bit better now in life after some few more ordeals this passing week, and here thanks to your kind reply. :) אומנות (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

At this point there are a number of citation needed templates that have been added to the Eurovision Song Contest article and I'm afraid that after months of waiting for a Good Article review, it has the potential to be quick failed for outstanding maintenance tags. Given that you've written the bulk of the article, would you have time to take a look and see if those sources are already there, but perhaps missing an inline citation? Grk1011 (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the nudge on this! I've been meaning to do another sense check of the whole article, but I've been preoccupied in the past couple of months with quite a bit of personal stuff. I'm gonna take some time this weekend to review the whole piece and make any improvements to structure, prose and referencing where I can. :) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! I would hate for it to be quick failed after all that work (and waiting)! Let me know if I can assist in any way. Grk1011 (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Eurovision: Come Together
Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  12:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of the Eurovision Song Contest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hubert Giraud.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

History of Eurovision
Amazing job once again! What is your goal for History of the Eurovision Song Contest? Are you thinking FA or GA? It is also probably a good 5x expansion for DYK. Grk1011 (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks mate! I was debating that question a little myself, and I might put it towards GA first and then potentially build upon it following that review. Conscious that I've mostly just added info by year so far and was wondering if there might be some additional sections that would be good additions; eager to hear your thoughts on this if you have any, as well as where you think it may fit on the quality scale. Good point about the fivefold DYK, will aim to put this forward today! And thanks again for reaching out, it's really appreciated. :) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what else should be added yet. I'm also thinking about how it's probably already at the "should be split" length... So much info to cram in! Grk1011 (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Haha, yeah the problem of being a 64-year old institution is there's a lot of things that have happened! I'm going through a bit of read and edit atm to reduce it a little, and to try and make it as high level as possible, in case there is anything else that comes to me that should be included. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the Peer Review for Eurovision Song Contest expired with no takers. I would suggest nominating it as well as History of the Eurovision Song Contest for FA at this point. I think several of us have already had a chance to review the articles and any further changes if needed can be accomplished through the FA process. I was just hoping we would have had an outside opinion on the splitting of the articles due to their length... Hopefully that can be addressed during an FA review. Grk1011 (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm yeah that is unfortunate that we couldn't get an outside opinion before putting forward for FA, but c'est la vie! Thanks for pointing this out to me, I'll go ahead and put the main Eurovision article forward for FA then. The History article is already up for GA review so I may leave that for now and once that goes through the review process I can take any feedback for it for use in a future FA campaign! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And done: Featured article candidates/Eurovision Song Contest/archive3. :) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Welp, perhaps we should start with a Good Article nomination and see how it goes. Grk1011 (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah well, it was a good try! I'll make those updates that were suggested on the FA review page and then I'll put it up for GA. :) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for History of the Eurovision Song Contest
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eurovision Song Contest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Johnny Logan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eurovision: Come Together
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eurovision: Come Together you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eurovision: Come Together
The article Eurovision: Come Together you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Eurovision: Come Together for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eurovision: Come Together
The article Eurovision: Come Together you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eurovision: Come Together for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Festivali i Kenges 2010.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Festivali i Kenges 2010.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of History of the Eurovision Song Contest
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article History of the Eurovision Song Contest you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of History of the Eurovision Song Contest
The article History of the Eurovision Song Contest you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:History of the Eurovision Song Contest for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Congrats on this! Quite an accomplishment! Grk1011 (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Glad it all went smoothly in the review! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1999
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1999 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1999
The article United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1999 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1999 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1999
The article United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1999 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1999 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest on hold
The GA review of Eurovision Song Contest is on hold for an initial seven days to allow concerns regarding Focus, WP:Layout (MOS:OVERSECTION), and WP:Lead to be dealt with. SilkTork (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

FAC
Recently we have been working at getting peer review to work better for FACs. I would suggest opening a peer review and make sure to list in FAC peer review sidebar, which many reviewers prioritize. Before you do that, I would action all the feedback from the GA review. Also, for FAC you will need an inline citation for every paragraph. Also, although you've done a good job consolidating and spinning off content so far, your article is likely to need more trimming to avoid opposes on the length requirement in the FA criteria; some interpret this as a more or less hard limit at 10,000 words (article is currently 13393 words). Good luck! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1998
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1998 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1998
The article United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1998 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1998 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1998
The article United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1998 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1998 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Andorra in the Eurovision Song Contest
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Andorra in the Eurovision Song Contest you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 11:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Andorra in the Eurovision Song Contest
The article Andorra in the Eurovision Song Contest you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Andorra in the Eurovision Song Contest for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Andorra in the Eurovision Song Contest
The article Andorra in the Eurovision Song Contest you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Andorra in the Eurovision Song Contest for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 08:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest
You have done amazingly well, and have been a pleasure to work with - polite, cooperative, timely, and hard working throughout the review. Well done.

Keep up the good works! SilkTork (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Congrats on this!!! Such an accomplishment! Grk1011 (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! Can't say it was easy but I'm really pleased with where it's gotten to now! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Congratulations to you, for all your big and intensive work and for your attention in previous discussions. Keep enjoy the editing and the working towards more good and featured articles in the future. אומנות (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1999
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Andorra in the Eurovision Song Contest
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1998
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

ESC presenters list - Krista as online host?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTuMOkVlEDs Well, in this video (first Krista Calling episode) Krista is billed as an 'online host' so I think it counts?--Pdhadam (talk) 06:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Eurovision Dance Contest Country Pages - Alternative Suggestion
Hello Sims2aholic8,

Regarding the recent removal of the individual country pages for each participating nation in the Eurovision Dance Contest, I have proposed an alternative on the discussion page. Instead of having the 17 individual articles, could we have just one page similar to the old "List of countries in the Eurovision Dance Contest" page, this could feature the information that was present in the previous individual pages for each article, such as national final details and results, that are notable enough to be covered, but would not be relevant in the main article, so providing the same detail as before, but all in one place. The country links on the other EDC pages, could then all link to the relevant section on this article.

Using the former page for Austria as an example: https://web.archive.org/web/20150517215206/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria_in_the_Eurovision_Dance_Contest We could replace the opening paragraph for these with a brief paragraph at the start of the article, giving basic information stating that there were 17 countries that participated in the two contests, with Belarus planning to debut in the third, which ultimately didn't take place. The info box in the top right could remain as it was, but with the best and worst result removed (as results can be detailed elsewhere on the page, and there are only two entries max from each country.) The link to the page on eurovisiondance.tv could either be removed, or replaced with an archive link to that page, as the original website is no longer active.

The history section could remain as is, with a brief description of that countries 2007 and 2008 participation, and national final details where relevant. The contestants section could remain the same. Voting history could remain the same, but in a drop down box rather than automatically displayed.

I will put together a draft of this in the coming days, and submit for review. The previously deleted pages were once I had spent a long time editing, as a huge fan of this contest, and I had a lot more planned for these. I am keen to work on providing details on this contest as part of Eurovision's history.

I would appreciate any advice or guidance you may have on this. Best wishes WP27

Put together a draft for a proposed new version of the article, just containing Austria at the moment, if you have any feedback that would be great :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Draft_-_Participation_in_the_Eurovision_Dance_Contest Best wishes Wp27 (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Entry lists
Great job updating those lists of entries pages! Do you have any short term goals you'd like help with? Any GAs, FLs, etc? I could use some motivation to get back into the swing of things. Grk1011 (talk) 12:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Yeah I've had my moments where I've been less than active on here, so I get what you mean. At the moment I'm still working my way through all the year pages and aligning structure/formatting of those articles, so gonna be starting up again from 2004. Since I've been working through a lot of those country by year articles and redirecting the stub articles, I had a similar thought for some of the song articles as well that could possibly use the same treatment, ones that have very little prose beyond the song exists and that it competed in this year and finished in this place, or include very subjecting descriptions of the song lyrics. Especially now that we have songwriter information on the entries pages I have a feeling that these are somewhat redundant now too. Thoughts?


 * As for GAs, FLs, etc., I'd still love to see the main ESC article promoted to FA, so could do with a second pair of eyes to review and suggest any necessary copy-edits, maybe leading to putting it up for peer review (although the last time I put it up it wasn't reviewed so maybe not!) I also had a few thoughts on maybe getting some more country articles up to GA, maybe Morocco (since it's quite self-contained) or Australia (both of which I think have good DYK potential); I also had a few more ambitions to get myself a Good Topic, possibly for all the Czech articles, similar to your San Marino series.


 * Of course I'm not planning on doing all of this right now, a lot of this is very aspirational for over the next while and more just jotting it down here for my own benefit, but sure if there's anything there you'd like to help me out with then that would be greatly appreciated! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Tweaks
Hey Sims2aholic8! Nothing in particular, just wanted to leave a thanks message for taking care of all those articles related to ESC 2022. Very much appreciated! 〜 イヴァンスクルージ九十八 ［IvanScrooge98］ （ 会話 ） 21:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Deletes articles
Why have you removed almost all articles of old Eurovision songs?!?! it’s so sad and unnecessary, if you could get them back it would be so good, and please tell me why?!?! cause it’s culture 62.116.192.182 (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not that I have any obligation to respond to an unregistered user, but to clarify, as I mentioned in the edit summaries on each article, we had broad consensus among WikiProject Eurovision members to redirect these stub articles. While worthy of inclusion, they are primarily unsourced and almost all information is included in other articles, such as the various "country in year" articles and the lists of Eurovision entries. While you may believe these redirects to be unnecessary, me and several others disagree, and feel it is unnecessary to have hundreds of articles for each song when there is very little content currently provided that goes beyond "this is a song and it did this well in a contest", while keeping any articles that contain any real information. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * But can we clarify?, please don’t delete more! 62.116.192.182 (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've said my piece, there is consensus among Wikipedia users for this to occur. If you have an issue with this I suggest you create an account and maybe discuss it on the WikiProject talk page rather than hiding behind an IP. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sims2. While there may sometimes be some suspicion regarding a new IP editor turning up to complain about something, and I think you have done well to explain the situation, it is still worth bearing in mind that IP editors contribute about 1/3 of the positive content to Wikipedia, and that while they are not allowed to vote, etc, they are still deserving of basic courtesies. See IP editors are human too. We don't wish to give the impression that there are hierarchies of volunteers, and that IP editors are so low on that hierarchy that they are unworthy to even be spoken to. ;-) Anyway, I'll add to what you have already said to 62.116.192.182, that it is standard on Wikipedia for songs of low notability to be redirected or merged into parent articles per WP:NSONG. Regards, SilkTork (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

"The birds of Holland"
I'm looking into some of those song redirects and merges mentioned above. I note that you appropriately remove unsourced material, particularly material which is not factual, and may be the opinion of a Wikipedia editor, when tidying up after a merge. Sometimes, though, some sourced factual material is removed, as here: in Netherlands in the Eurovision Song Contest 1956, where you removed "The winning title which means "The birds of Holland", was written by Annie M. G. Schmidt and composed by Cor Lemaire. " (the source is available on web.archive: ). What is the thinking behind that removal? SilkTork (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The purpose of these redirects has been to reduce the number of stub articles that exist, particularly for articles where there are no or very little sources. In this particular case another user had merged the song articles into this article by literally lifting-and-shifting details from one article to the other. In tidying these up I may have inadvertently removed sourced information, which was not intentional on my part; song translations however have been removed from many ESC articles per WikiProject agreement for falling under WP:OR. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, I did get the impression that your edit was in response to a cut and paste edit with your edit summary, and I understand that sometimes there is a sense of balancing effort v value. I also note, that when you are aware, that you do retain sourced information: . Having looked back at the amount of work you have done on this in the past few weeks, and the nature of that work, I feel you have been doing a great job of removing Wikipedia of a lot of unsourced trivia, and tightening up the coverage of Eurovision Song articles, which have been one of Wikipedia's sloppy areas for some years. I am glad that someone is doing it. I do note, though, that as well as removing appropriate sourced content that has been brought over, you sometimes don't bring over sourced content when redirecting, as here:, when redirecting Einmal sehen wir uns wieder to  Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 1961, this was left behind: "performed in German with one verse in French by Lale Andersen. ". These are occasional lapses in what appears to be otherwise solid work, but as there appears to be some concern about loss of material during these redirects/merges, it might be as well to be a little more observant moving forward that not too many babies get thrown out with the bath water! In the meantime, accept this Golden Wiki, among your other BarnStars, for what you do. SilkTork (talk) 14:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Please stop removing my language sections in national final articles.
Per Wikipedia's when to cite guidelines, citations are not required if they are statements that the average adult recognizes as true, material that someone familiar with a topic, including laypersons, recognizes as true, or if something should be obvious to potential readers that the subject of the article is the source of the information. Brobbz (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out this piece of guidance to me. I can certainly see your point of view on this, and if this were any other place I'd totally get including these languages as is. As it stands I'd like to get some further opinions on this, so I've raised a discussion point on the WikiProject Eurovision talk page, because I don't see any point in continuing to edit war on this and, in my opinion, getting a broad consensus on a project-wide level will help with these kind of situations going forwards. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia's guidelines on original research, the language sections do not count as original research, because they're not something I simply thought up and they easily verifiable; therefore, no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it even if they are not cited. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed. One does not need to cite that the sky is blue or that Paris is the capital of France. Brobbz (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Stop redirecting every Eurovision song article that is a stub
This quite small section was not carte blanche for you to redirect every single song ever sung at Eurovision that has a stub article. Plenty of these songs that you redirected are notable per WP:NSONGS. "Almost all of the information is covered at the country's Eurovision article". No, it isn't, because those sorts of articles would never have the variety of chart positions and such on them. Now by all means, point out that WP:NSONGS says "charting alone doesn't make a song notable", but you can take these songs to AfD and I'd love to know what all the editors there will say to you. They will tell you that means the coverage is currently out there on the songs but that the articles do not have currently have the sources on them. Stub does not equal "should be redirected", and I urge you to not edit war to retain redirects. You already reverted Tobyjamesaus on Don't Come Easy, which constitutes an edit war. You do not have the right to re-revert an article that has a claim of notability if you've been reverted for redirecting it; any admin will tell you this is edit warring and you should take it to AfD. If you intend to keep doing this, you can explain to an administrator why you're redirecting articles for songs that charted in 10 countries.

Utterly ridiculous that you think some small discussion with three other editors in December 2021 gives you free reign to redirect any Eurovision topic that is tagged as being a stub. Please stop.  Ss  112   06:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel this way, it was never my intention to provoke anger on this level from anyone, and I'm sorry you've felt the need to lash out to me in this way and, dare I say, use quite threatening language about editors at an AfD or what might happen if I try to redirect these again. I could take these articles to AfD, however I do personally think that the topics covered in these articles are notable, it's just that in their current form there is very little value in them currently existing, hence creating redirects, tagging as printworthy and with possibilities, rather than the process of trying to delete them all which would not solve anything. I just don't see the value in brief statements about how well they did at Eurovision (covered in the country articles), songwriter information (also covered in country articles) and chart positions, which in most cases doesn't even reach the top 40. I'm just doing my best to improve Wikipedia and help readers find meaningful information about a topic, not tiny articles that barely scratch the surface, and I'm just trying to follow WP:NSONG guidance on this as well. When it comes to "Don't Come Easy", Tobyjamesaus provided some helpful additions which added further context on the song beyond its participation in Eurovision, which meant it warranted reinclusion; for the remaining songs however these stub articles are usually created before their contests and then barely touched afterwards, hence my thinking (which was agreed by others) that these articles fail WP:GNG and WP:NSONG and the best course of action was redirection.


 * Of course I'm not going to edit war with you on this, cause I don't have the energy for that crap, but giving me an ultimatum like this, a.k.a. "stop or else", isn't exactly welcoming either. It seems given your statements that AfD is the most likely end scenario for this, since we've reached an impasse, so I may as well just do it for the articles you have recreated, and then we can just move on. Helpful suggestion, maybe next time don't come in so strongly, cause that kind of behaviour could well drive individuals off Wikipedia entirely when all they're trying to do is be helpful and contribute in a way that improves the entire site. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 07:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think the articles—which is only a sampling of what probably should be reverted and restored, and I may continue doing so later on—I restored need anything more on them to justify keeping them. You're right, I am annoyed that you seem to have taken a discussion with three other people (none of whom I'm sure thought you would do something on this level) as free reign to do this. It seems to have been your sole hobby for the last couple of months—really? I am coming in strongly to ask you to stop because I don't think you are differentiating between what is notable and what isn't. You absolutely redirected songs that reached the top 40. You can take them to AfD, but I guarantee you most of them will be kept because editors there feel strongly about keeping songs that charted, regardless of what NSONGS says about charting only being a component of notability. You will be wasting your time, and I'm not just saying that. You're going to take issue with the ~20 articles or so I restored but yet there should be significantly more restored. I would advise you to stop redirecting any Eurovision article until there is a more clear consensus to do so, because what you're citing isn't overwhelming or clear-cut support for the idea (and you're not even providing the proper link). I reiterate: a stub does not mean an article should or needs to be redirected.  Ss  112   08:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * And you are now trying to blanket-nominate a bunch of different articles. This will get thrown out of AfD because they should all be assessed individually as they are different articles and are not all able to be blanket-nominated in such a way. Such large-scale nominations usually always get thrown out, so have fun dealing with that. I'm sorry, but you would have to be one of the most clueless editors in terms of assessing notability I have come across. I am so confused as to how you have gotten away with this for months, and I think you need to take a long hard look at what WP:Notability is on this website. If this continues I am sure an admin will have a word with you because this needs to stop.  Ss  112   08:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Sorry for giving a f**k about this place. Clearly I'm don't know shit. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Your way of "giving a fuck" about...Wikipedia, I assume(?) is by deleting every stub article, is it? That's a strange way of showing it. I am and will be going through as many of your redirects as I can be bothered to. You can nominate them all at AfD if you'd like. I'd advise against it as you will be flooding the nominations there, but you clearly haven't listened to anything I've said about AfD and/or don't care.  Ss  112   09:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No I'm not going to AfD every single article, what would be the point in that? I really am truly sorry for everything that has happened here, it was never my intention to cause this much chaos or anger from anyone on here, but I guess apologies aren't going to cut it with you. In any case I find your entire demeanour and tone this whole time to have been atrocious in my opinion; I'm a person here at the end of the day, just trying to do my best on here. Clearly I picked the wrong battle. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sims, you're causing far too much disruption with your ridiculous AfD campaign. Snow Keep for every one. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sims, I have not not treated you like a person in this discussion. My tone hasn't been great, yes, but I am still very baffled and irked as to how this has gone on so long. It's that big of a scale. I appreciate the apology and understand that you think you were trying to improve Wikipedia, but these are wide-reaching changes where you have in some cases redirected literal number-one songs based on a discussion that in no way represents a strong consensus. It absolutely needs a strong consensus with significantly more people contributing than the four or so that did at the Eurovision WikiProject talk page.  Ss  112   09:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly also in full agreement with Ss112 in this case. Mass directing is clearly the wrong way to take this case. Like BabbaQ said, I do think the best case in this scenario is to individually evaluate each article. Some songs you have redirected have charted across Europe or have some other notability to it. It's also causing way, way too much disruption in a change that was only made because of a small discussion of four people. Nascar9919 (talk) 06:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am in full agreement with Ss112 here. Mass-redirects of these articles are the wrong way to go. Simply put, all articles needs to be individually evaluated on basis of guidelines for inclusion. Several of the articles redirected are clearly within inclusion. BabbaQ (talk)
 * I believe consensus has already been reached that potentially my course of action was not the most widely accepted one, but thanks anyway for your thoughts. For what it is worth I did fully assess each article before I went through any redirect processes, and I did keep many articles which actually had some relevant information that wasn't covered already elsewhere on Wikipedia. I would also like to point out WP:NSONG guidance again, specifically the point that [n]otability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. In my opinion a great deal of the articles I blanked-and-redirected fell under this guidance, and therefore I presented a bold suggestion to redirect these articles as backed up by the guidance available to me, which subsequently was challenged. As you can see from the related discussion on the WikiProject Eurovision talk page there are a lot of feelings on both sides. On your point around a small discussion of four people, how is this much different to the AfD discussions which I initiated on the articles Ss112 reverted, some of which were apparently SNOW closed with only two or three votes to keep? Either way, at this point I believe this to be a closed subject, and I would personally like to move on. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Moving on sounds like the best course of action to take. There is so much work that still needs to be done on Wikipedia in so many areas, you don't win them all so better to redirect your energies when you find yourself facing obstacles, learn from other editors who objected and take those lessons to the next project you take on. Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Sims, you have completely gone back on anything you just said above. You were asked to stop mass redirecting articles, you acknowleged there is no longer consensus to do so, said four days ago "this a closed subject" and you'd like to "move on". There is no grounds to do this, even if the articles are stubs or didn't chart. I've informed an administrator of your actions, as I did the other week when you did this. You laid low for a week and then decided to redirect half the 2021 entries in one night. Please stick to what you just said and stop.  Ss  112   03:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I can see that you're focussing majorly on what I am doing compared to what I am not doing. I'm never going to win with you on this one, and you're just going to keep throwing me into the mud the second I try to do anything on here, even if these redirects are supported by all of the Wikipedia guidance I can find, including WP:GNG, WP:NSONG, WP:BLAR. I just don't see how two lines of text or a brief paragraph which is just a lift-and-shift from other articles justifies continued existence of an article that has limited scope for growth. I thought I'd see how this would go, and especially given I left many of the articles untouched and only redirected those with only the bare minimum of content (especially given there were already a number of articles already redirected before I even started). And as for your claim for that I redirect[ed] half the 2021 entries in one night, I redirected five articles from 2021 (out of 40) and eleven from 2020 (out of 41), leaving the majority of them untouched, all of which contained the barest of material, so definitely not the half you are claiming. I laid low for a week because I was seriously considering what impact I can have on here when this is the reaction I get for trying to do the right thing and tidy up some clutter (which has been supported by other users), and whether I actually want to contribute to Wikipedia anymore, but I can see now I maybe should have just stayed away. Maybe I just misread the tone of the conversation earlier, that I thought that limiting redirects to just those which are barely sourced and contain almost all replicated information to other articles would be supported, but I was clearly wrong in that regard, like I was clearly wrong on so many things. In case it needs to be spelt out here, I'm stopping. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought it was pretty well understood by everybody that this included redirecting any Eurovision article, no matter what state it's in. Also, it wasn't "the second" you did it—Nascar9919 only informed me of this happening today.  Ss  112   09:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, that's not how I read the situation, and I thought there would be scope for interpretation of what was discussed for some of these very bare articles, but mea culpa in this instance. Basically it just feels now that I'm being almost monitored by you and other editors, and that every edit now that I make is going to be questioned and/or reverted, especially when I see some edits like this where you didn't even bother to check what was being changed, you just automatically assumed I had done the redirect of the article before realising your mistake and reverting it back. Perhaps there is room for benefit of the doubt, and I can blame this on the time difference where I won't see edits till some hours afterwards; it's just a very jarring experience to see first thing in the morning 40 notifications and to be hounded again on my talk page about this when I felt I was still following the guidance on what articles should exist and when we should redirect, and also doing my best to follow the consensus built before. Again, mea culpa, I read the situation wrong, there's only so many times I want to be burned before I learn my lesson so I won't be touching the stove that is Eurovision song articles for quite a while now. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I made one mistake and then self-reverted amongst something like 40 reverts. It's bound to happen with anybody. As I said, in this case it wasn't me monitoring you, I assume Nascar9919 had some of those articles watchlisted or clicked through to your contributions themselves. I am certain there is plenty more to do on the site than redirecting Eurovision articles. Like expanding any of the ones that have been restored (or restore some you yourself redirected) like Nascar9919 has been doing. Or editing in another topic area entirely—I don't know what you edit besides Eurovision but I assume there must be something.  Ss  112   10:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say that "no more redirects" was not the resolution at all. The closing admin made sure to add the caveat For the avoidance of doubt, this does not preclude anyone from taking the normal editorial actions of merging or redirecting, in line with the normal editorial practice. Redirecting an article for a song that didn't chart, didn't end up competing in the contest, and/or is only one sentence long certainly falls within the normal practice, as they would no longer meet NSONG or GNG without at least one of those aspects being true. All of the recent redirect subjects are different than the previous batch. We are lucky to also have Nascar9919 assisting with some of these stubs to make them something of value when he reverts, with expansions bringing many to start class. Grk1011 (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive Eurovision redirects
Hello. I'm a bit concerned that, after so many of those WP:AFDs closing as keep, that you're returning to redirecting the same sort of articles again. It seems pretty clear that the community has taken a stance against that, and as such, your actions in doing this is disruptive. This is a final warning to stop this. Find a different project to work on. You need to stop doing this. Sergecross73  msg me  03:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Understood. I misread the situation and thought that a subset of the edits I was making would be supported, edits which I felt were supported by Wikipedia guidance and policy (specifically WP:GNG, WP:NSONG (especially the point on [n]otability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album), and WP:BLAR) but clearly not as it turns out, at least according to Ss112. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sims2aholic8 (talk • contribs)
 * It's clear to me at least that Sims2aholic8 has refocused his efforts solely on the entries that are not the same as the ones that were discussed. Ones that did not chart or did not even get to compete in the contest (canceled 2020 edition). While still Eurovision-themed, these articles are not the same and do not pass the same GNG and NSONG criteria as the songs that were included in the prevuous AfDs. Would you suggest new AfDs for these alternative cases? Grk1011 (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If someone can convince/prove to me that that was truly the takeaway from all those AFDs that recently closed keep, I could be persuaded. My problem is that the "failure rate" of all these bold redirects and AFDs are far too high right now. It's a problem when someone's judgement is so consistently against the community's interpretation of policy. It feels like we're getting awfully close to WP:STICK/WP:IDHT territory... Sergecross73   msg me  15:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I wrote this above, but the closing admin made sure to add the caveat For the avoidance of doubt, this does not preclude anyone from taking the normal editorial actions of merging or redirecting, in line with the normal editorial practice. Redirecting an article for a song that didn't chart, didn't end up competing in the contest, and/or is only one sentence long certainly falls within the normal practice, as they would no longer meet NSONG or GNG without at least one of those aspects being true. The AfD items met all three and were understandably kept. The recent ones did not have the first two characteristics, though some contained a few sentences that duplicated their redirect targets so they at least had some substance. The bottom line is that none of these redirects result in a loss of information for the reader, as they are completely summarized in their targets. It's not like a song redirect to an album for example, it's a song redirect to an article about the song and more. Grk1011 (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The few I spot-checked did not meet that description. For example, this one has 8 sources and 1-2 paragraphs worth of prose. I get it, I've certainly merged/redirected a lot of song/album articles in my time of Wikipedia. I'm just concerned when I see this profession - 1) bold redirects contested and upheld, then 2) AFDs closed as keep, and then followed by 3) even more bold redirect that are instantly contested.  Sergecross73   msg me  16:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In the case of the example you provided, the large majority of information on that article was almost exactly the same as that on Latvia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021, and any missing details that would have been lost I added to that page as seen here. As for examples that back up Grk1011's point above, I can provide several that you may have overlooked, e.g. here, here, here and here. I don't believe that these articles would be kept through an AfD, but it seems unnecessary to go through that process when it appears clear cut going by the guidance on hand. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's more about the difference in the next batch. This isn't a new concept started by Sims2aholic8, as three unrelated (non-Eurovision) editors, two of which who appear to be familiar with songs articles, felt that the 2020 entry Prison (Natalia Gordienko song) should be redirected in-line with his methodology as seen here. I think it's really easy to undo any that are objected to and have a specific discussion about them. Grk1011 (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I still find it hard to believe, after all of the discussions over the last few weeks, and all the push back that you've gotten, that you felt a bold redirect was best course of action though. If you felt it was some sort of "slam dunk", then I have serious concerns about your judgement on these decisions.
 * As a fellow editor, I recommend you work on something else. As an Admin, I'm fine if you want to send a couple test ones to AFD and see how they fare. But I'm warning you that the community is running out of patience for missteps with this sort of thing. If you're going to push forward, better make it good. Sergecross73   msg me  16:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point in putting these through AfD right now, because I believe they will continue to be voted to be kept as have the previous ones. When things have sufficiently calmed down and I have less of a target on my back, then perhaps they stand a fair change at an actual proper discussion and not, in my opinion, just a voting exercise to punish me. These additional redirects were never meant to be some middle finger to other editors or the process or anything, it was me simply seeing inadequate, mediocre articles and trying to rectify the situation and point users in the direction of better quality information that already exists. I see a clear difference between the types of articles I redirected previously and those redirected in the last 24-48 hours, others perhaps do not. In any case I've lost this argument, and I truly have no intention of trying to keep this going just for the sake of it. As you suggested it's probably much better to put my energies into other projects, so that's what I'll be doing. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Arguing with me or Serge here doesn't justify resuming the mass redirection of articles. And yes, 16 articles being redirected, whatever the state they're in, is resuming mass redirection, and it was made clear at the Eurovision WikiProject talk page there is no longer consensus to do this. I would think Sims saying they were done, taking a few days off, then resuming is not "being done" at all. Arguing on a case-by-case basis is not something I'm interested in doing here, and I think I speak for Serge when I say he isn't going to want to go through all 16 either. Finally, I want to say, if it's the way it's going to go, nominating all 16 or however many were restored this time at AfD is definitely a WP:POINTy nomination and I would think Sims or you doing this on a regular basis (as it's already happened once) when mass redirection against consensus is contested isn't going to go down well, so like Serge, I'd advise against it.  Ss  112   16:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Your comments here have really reinforced with me that even if I were to submit these 16 articles for AfD they wouldn't get a fair hearing anyway, and enough force would be mobilised to vote to keep on pure spite against me rather than on any actual rationale based on Wikipedia guidance. I said I was done earlier because I was done fighting you on those types of articles that you reverted previously, because they were of a different quality to the ones I redirected in the last 24-48 hours. I can now see your point on those articles where there are some chart information and some actual points of notability to impart on the reader, but for these articles which are barely 2 or 3 paragraphs it still does not make sense to me for these to continue to exist as standalone articles per WP:NSONG, instead of redirecting and actually imparting some useful knowledge onto readers through the redirects. Either way I'm not going to be able to change your mind on that, so there's no point in continuing to bang my head against a wall with you. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought we were just explaining what the outcome was, or at least what it looked like to several editors. You have not explained how the newer edits somehow go against consensus. Revisiting the AfDs, they did not chart, did not participate in Eurovision, etc. They are just related to Eurovision. How is that the same? I am only speaking about the 2020 entries mainly and it's clear now that there are a few issues that still need to be figured out. All parties have been more than responsive to the concerns and willing to make things right. In that vacuum of clarity, you found additional edits upsetting. Sims apologized for some and explained why others were not related. There is nothing inherently wrong with any of these edits, people just disagree with the approach in terms of the guidelines. Guidelines support both sides of this and as I wrote above, this isn't anything new as several editors have felt the same way over the last few months. There is precedence for this line of thinking, even from those outside of our Eurovision-focused wheelhouse. Dictating policy based on tangential AfDs is problematic; the AfD did not throw out WP:NSONG. I think a couple AfDs might be warranted soon for other types, but I'm in no hurry to do that honestly. Grk1011 (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You have not explained how the newer edits somehow go against consensus. The "consensus" was there is no longer a consensus to mass redirect articles. Redirecting 16 articles in a short span of time is what I consider mass redirection. If you dispute that that is mass redirection, I don't know what to say to you. There was no comment on the quality of articles either here or on the Eurovision WikiProject talk page—I thought it was clear it should stop regardless of what quality the articles were. I'm sure a lot of those 2020 Eurovision entries could be expanded, as could the hundreds of previous ones redirected over the last few months. I feel I am just repeating myself at this point anyway, so as I said, I'm done here and I'm no longer going to feel compelled to check up on any further arguments. I am certain there is plenty more to do on Wikipedia, including in relation to Eurovision articles, without mass redirecting them or arguing about which should be redirected.  Ss  112   17:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As I had raised in the AfD nominations, the point I was never trying to challenge was around the notability of these articles or the songs themselves, only that as they stood at that time they failed several points of guidance. The reasoning behind many users that voted to keep these articles was principally around how the songs had charted in several countries (which again according to WP:NSONG indicates a song may be notable). There were some additional tangible details around competing in Eurovision, winning a national preselection etc., which has become a questionable definition of notability as of late among WikiProject Eurovision members, for example this discussion on the original proposal to redirect many of these articles in the first place. This is why the articles I chose to subsequently redirect following the discussion above, on the WikiProject talk page and the AfDs were those that had very little information on them that would even make them fall under this definition of notability or would warrant a standalone article per the guidance I invoked above, and where the large majority of information, if not all, was included already in other articles, particularly the new intended target of the redirects. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi
I just noticed that it was you that uploaded all of those photos to Commons from the contest. You got to go?? That's awesome! I miss the excitement of seeing your contributions around here. Hope you're doing well! Grk1011 (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah that was me, and yeah I got to go and experience the whole thing live finally! Or well, the semis anyway, since we couldn't get tickets to the final unfortunately. It was such a great experience, and already excited to hopefully get to go next year too and all (wherever it ends up being, but if it is Glasgow then I'm literally a 30 minute flight away so that would make things very easy for me lol). Thanks for checking in too, I was in a bit of a weird place with Wikipedia after all that craziness a few months ago, but feeling better now and got a few ideas for where to direct my efforts in the next couple of months! Hope you're keeping well too! Glad to see you've been a very busy bee lately with some more GA nominations, great work! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I find that I don't have as much time as I used to, so I've been trying to focus more on specific articles and having some defined goals. Also, feel free to use the "email this user" button on the left panel of my user page if you ever need to get in touch to collaborate! Grk1011 (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know exactly what you mean. It can be tricky to find the time to properly commit to everything you'd like to do on here, but it sounds like your method seems to be having some good results! And thanks for pointing that out, I'll be sure to get in touch if there is anything that pops into my head. And of course, the same goes for you if you have anything you'd like to collaborate on with me feel free to drop me a message here. I'm sure there's plenty of stuff where we can divide and conquer! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Iceland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2020
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Iceland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2020 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 10:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Iceland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2020
The article Iceland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2020 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Iceland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2020 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 09:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Iceland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Iceland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 08:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Iceland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2020
The article Iceland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2020 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Iceland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2020 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Iceland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021
The article Iceland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Iceland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Iceland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021
The article Iceland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Iceland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Iceland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2020
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Iceland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eurovision Song Contest 1959
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eurovision Song Contest 1959 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eurovision Song Contest 1959
The article Eurovision Song Contest 1959 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1959 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Autoarchive
Hi, I'm clearing down Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls, and in case you weren't aware, you've got duplicate archiveheader fields in your autoarchive setup. The second field overrides the first, so  archiveheader =  is being ignored. Thanks, Storchy (talk) 09:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eurovision Song Contest 1959
The article Eurovision Song Contest 1959 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1959 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 11:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Eurovision song contest 2022
Hey, why would you make this edit? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1097220816 Idoc07 (talk) 10:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * As I said in the edit summary, that edit was the result of an RfC on the layout of these "contest by year" articles. The split results were merged into the main participants and results table given that both sets of points are now of equal weight, so it doesn't make sense to store these in a separate collapsible table. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I think that was better when the tables existed but ok. Idoc07 (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for ruining almost every Eurovision-related article on English wikipedia
First you delete articles about almost every Eurovision entry so any information about songwriters and interesting trivia about songs, their lyrics and the way they were selected is unavailable. Then you delete articles about countries' participations in individual years, so national selection line-ups and result breakdowns are gone. Then you decide to switch the columns showing places and points received every year, which is UGLY because the order has been points following place since forever. Wikipedia has been the most convenient place to easily get information and statistics of Eurovision, but you single-handedly made it completely unusable. Thanks, I guess. 90.131.37.131 (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a Eurovision Wikia site. For national finals have you tried here: http://natfinals.50webs.com/ doktorb wordsdeeds 09:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Have you heard of "don't shoot the messenger"? I may have made the changes but there was quite a bit of discussion beforehand on the WikiProject Eurovision talk page (see discussions on redirecting song articles, modifying the yearly articles and redirecting the country by year articles). I am not on some quest to make your life more difficult, and as Doktorbuk said above, Wikipedia is not a Eurovision fan website, and is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Any "country by year" articles which I redirected contained no meaningful information on the country's participation beyond "this country participated with this song and obtained this position"; the majority of redirected song articles basically just said "this song exists and competed at Eurovision" and any structural changes to the main yearly articles are quite minor. Even though you may prefer it to be laid out in one specific way, and while that may have been the natural delevopment of these articles in the past, Wikipedia is not your personal source of Eurovision knowledge but is used by millions of users worldwide, and as the contest changes, with new voting systems etc., so should these articles. The contest is not the same as it was in 2003, why should these articles not adapt in the same way? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not the way to go about criticising a user's contributions. I also strongly disagree with the majority of revisions made by this user; I expect the majority of passive Wikipedia users, those who only complain about the changes on other social media sites, would feel the same way. But the place to fight it is in discourse and discussion within the WikiProject Eurovision space, and not in such a disrespectful manner on a talk page like this. I don't know a great deal about how a WikiProject might work but I intend to learn and take note of Wikipedia's guidelines so I can contribute to this website and try to fight for the preservations of these articles. I would suggest you do the same. (And perhaps create an account, so your IP address isn't linked to the dross you just laid out here). Toffeenix (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * IP, this is extremely inappropriate. There was an official RfC about these changes and while it didn't get many responses, it is what it is. I wish there was more input, but it seems people only care when something changes and they want to complain. They don't want to take part in any of the planning or everyday tasks involved in keeping articles up to date and reliable. That's not fair to most of us who are just trying to manage thousands of articles. If you want to increase your contributions here and be part of the team and have more of a say about what happens, please do, but don't expect Wikipedia to be your personal favorite source for you need without doing any of the leg work. What we have here works for other people. Not everyone is going to be happy. Your message here is "I don't like you" because of all these things from months ago that have been addressed. The only new reason you're here is because some recent changes made a table look ugly? Come on... Apologize to Sims2aholic8. Grk1011 (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I understand that it has taken time for you to change the format, but I cannot read it. I have difficulties reading large tables such as the ones that you have added. Is there any way that you could add the old tables along with the new ones, so that the results are apparent in the new table form and the old one, just for ease of interpretation? Spamalama (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Please see . Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:8TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis3
Template:8TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Pbrks (t • c) 00:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

"Template:OGAE Second Chance" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:OGAE Second Chance and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 27 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Grk1011 (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I was surprised to see that you made this one wayyyy back in 2009. How far we've come! Grk1011 (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow that's really crazy! A lifetime ago really. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 06:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Eurovision
who are you to decide when = is redundant or not, it reminds the reader that the entry has finished in the same place as another entry if they sort the results by anything other than finishing place Bielzebub1981 (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I don't get to decide anything on here, but neither does anyone else (including you). Why is it important to call out that two or more entries gained the same place? I felt that these additions did not add value to the articles, made the tables look ugly, and focussed too much on one aspect of the placings that isn't all that important and doesn't aid the reader in many ways. Just because one country gained a certain placing is immaterial to another country gaining the same placing. I also believe that adding equal signs here creates a link between the two countries that doesn't exist; the two (or more) countries didn't field entries together, their performances and results weren't linked, and I feel that someone reading the article that isn't familiar with the subject could jump to conclusions in that way. It seems unlikely yes, but it's possible, and we have to make sure our articles are accessible by everyone. Addionally, I'd invite you to read into the civility policy, and perhaps to reflect on how you open threads with other users that you have previously not interacted with before, as I found your original statement extremely confrontational. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 07:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * you seem to be the only one who has complained about this addition Bielzebub1981 (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * you call it an EDIT WAR then proceed to reset ALL my additions without any input from anyone else Bielzebub1981 (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eurovision Song Contest 1956
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eurovision Song Contest 1956 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 06:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eurovision Song Contest 1956
The article Eurovision Song Contest 1956 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1956 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 06:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eurovision Song Contest 1956
The article Eurovision Song Contest 1956 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1956 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 04:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Eurovision Song Contest 1956
— Maile (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eurovision Song Contest 1957
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eurovision Song Contest 1957 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eurovision Song Contest 1957
The article Eurovision Song Contest 1957 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1957 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eurovision Song Contest 1958
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eurovision Song Contest 1958 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Probable vandal
I assume most of this is vandalism, but since I know nothing about the subject and perhaps one or two of the edits are correct I thought I would ask you to take a look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I probably wouldn't list it as vandalism, since Flemish is specifically the variety of the Dutch language used in the Dutch-speaking parts of Belgium, so while it would be technically correct I wouldn't list Flemish as a language in this context. I'll work to undo these changes now. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eurovision Song Contest 1960
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eurovision Song Contest 1960 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Viking Saga censorship incident
It's odd that the ALT0 citation appears behind a paywall for you. Doesn't for me. But anyway, thanks for the review. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eurovision Song Contest 1958
The article Eurovision Song Contest 1958 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1958 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eurovision Song Contest 1960
The article Eurovision Song Contest 1960 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1960 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:6TeamBracket-1Round-info
Template:6TeamBracket-1Round-info has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Technical move
Hello Sims3aholic8. I declined your proposed technical move of Mana Mou because it would create a WP:double redirect and would become a target for cleanup by the bots. If you want a note made somewhere about the best capitalization of the song name, you could post something at Talk:Mana Mou since that talk page still exists. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest you fix Tora Zo as well because you have managed to create a new double redirect. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Eurovision Song Contest 1957
— Maile (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eurovision Song Contest 1998
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eurovision Song Contest 1998 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of OliveYouBean -- OliveYouBean (talk) 10:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eurovision Song Contest 1998
The article Eurovision Song Contest 1998 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1998 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of OliveYouBean -- OliveYouBean (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Eurovision Song Contest 1998
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Eurovision Song Contest 1997
Hello! Your submission of Eurovision Song Contest 1997 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Aoidh (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eurovision Song Contest 1997
The article Eurovision Song Contest 1997 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1997 for comments about the article, and Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1997/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lajmmoore -- Lajmmoore (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Sims2aholic8!


Happy New Year! Sims2aholic8, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. See this for background context.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 18:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 18:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

EBC 1996
Please see this suggestion, then I'll get back to you within the next week regarding a couple of point raised by your recent amendments to my edits of Eurovision Song Contest 1996.

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC))

DYK for Eurovision Song Contest 1997
BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft
Hello @Sims2aholic8 i have a question is it possible that there is a wikipedia of a known macedonian musician artist that you confirm the wikipedia, is translated from macedonian wikipedia, and as i see all artists who are already verified on social media all have a wikipedia so i have one please to you for confirming the wikipedia if everything is in okay

thank you Adem jashari99 (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

"Évidemment"
Yesterday you reverted my edit in the Eurovision Song Contest 2023 page when I added the song name for France. I thought I didn't need to add a source because other non-released songs like "What They Say" (Greece) and "Unicorn" (Israel) don't have sources attached to them. In conclusion, I don't understand why "Évidemment" needs a source while "What They Say" and "Unicorn" don't. DSOFOreverTYU  ~  talk  ~  Eurovision  15:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * As Grk1011 mentioned in his subsequent edit summary here, the Greek and Israeli song titles are included within the participants list on the official website (see here), which means they are covered by the reference at the top of the tables. The French song title has not been included in this participants list yet, therefore a separate source is required. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eurovision Song Contest 1999
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eurovision Song Contest 1999 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Shawn Teller -- Shawn Teller (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Estonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2023
Today, you reverted my edit in the page Estonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2023. I made the edit because it said: "while Stefan, who represented Estonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2022, the group Púr Múdd.......", and the "while" doesn't continue to anything, you can't just write "while ___ who ___" and then move on to something else. DSOFOreverTYU ~  talk  ~  Eurovision  17:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * If you were to read the whole sentence, you would see that it actually continues and states "while Stefan, who represented Estonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2022, the group Púr Múdd [...] performed as interval acts." So in this scenario the "while" comes after "the band Zetod opened the show", so what you did was essentially broke up the sentence and it then didn't make any sense, because as Stefan performed as an interval act he wasn't listed with the other artists, and his appearance wasn't linked to any part of the show. I hope this makes sense to you now. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does makes sense, thank you for the explanation. DSOFOreverTYU  ~  talk  ~  Eurovision  17:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Serbia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2020, 2022 and 2023
Today, you changed the article about Serbia at Eurovision Song Contest 2020, 2022 and 2023 in the part related to the OGAE Serbia Award. Why are you persistently deleting a table that has been there for a long time? Vlada jov (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually I deleted the 2023 table, not Sims2aholic8, though he did follow-up by aligning the older articles. My take is that it is only a WP:MINORASPECT. The fan club's vote is related, but not to the extent that it takes up that much of the article. The sections have been trimmed down to highlight the important details only. Grk1011 (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As Grk1011 mentioned, the original modification to the 2023 article came from them, however I agree with their reasoning that while it is a related aspect to the article the weight given to it previously/currently since your reversion to the original state was/is WP:UNDUE. Essentially this is a fan vote so its inclusion on Wikipedia to that extent is unjustified, and we were simply aligning these article to other articles with similar awards, e.g. the main ESC articles and those additional awards given. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That information is important to the community that reads the article itself, and is a good source of information. I agree that maybe the whole table is too big for the article, but it can be reduced and a smaller table can be inserted, as is done on the main articles related to Eurovision and voting, i.e. awards. Vlada jov (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * you are also very close to (if not already) violating WP:CONFLICT as the author of the source link for this information. Grk1011 (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I am not. Because if the main article about Eurovision can include the vote of OGAE International with a table, why can't the part that refers to the vote of OGAE Serbia be included in the article about Serbia at Eurovision? Vlada jov (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You have not responded to Grk1011's comment regarding the potential conflict of interest violation. Additionally, how exactly is the table "important to the community"? The aim of Wikipedia is to provide information on a variety of topics as accessible as possible to anyone interested. We should aim to make these articles not too "specialised" in favour of the Eurovision fandom or make things too fancruft-y (there are plenty of other websites out there for that), which I feel like having a detailed breakdown of the entire votes of a small section of Eurovision fans within Serbia tends to fall under. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Pesma za Evroviziju '23
The article meets all 5 of the notability guildelines, and it does not go against WP:INDISCRIMINATE, so why would it not be eligible for a stand-alone article? ImStevan (talk) 09:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The main reason I reverted this to a redirect was that the information presented was essentially a duplicate of the Serbia in ESC 2023 article. I'm not sure what was happening in the edit history for Serbia in ESC 2023, but in my mind it didn't make sense to have two articles with basically the same information. I am not opposed to splitting articles for national selections if they are warranted, which we do for the likes of Melodifestivalen, but there also needs to be a reason for the split, and I believe it is much more preferable to have one very strong article on a subject encompassing all aspects of it than to have two weak ones just for the sake of having the information split out. Personally I'm not sure what the reason would be to have two separate articles in this case, but please do feel free to enlighten me as maybe I am missing something here. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Considering that it is becoming an (traditional) annual event with multiple editions, I feel that the event and its editions meet the notability guildeline to have their own separate articles. People reading the Serbia at Eurovision 2023 article will be presented with links to get details about the national final if that is the info they are interested in, but I don't see a reason to cram up the Srb @ ESC 2023 article with so much content, nor do I think any of the two articles would be considered weak. As for the edit history, I had moved pretty much everything bar the explanation as to what PzE is and the scoreboard of the final to the separate article, taking notes of how the articles such as the one for Sweden back in 2022 are being done. ImStevan (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I do understand where you are coming from with this. I guess my hesitancy comes from a desire for us as a Project to not have too many articles floating around; there was a time when there was a massive push to basically have a separate article on every single NF regardless of the content, so my feelings may be somewhat clouded on that. However I can see the validity in splitting this into two articles, so if you want to try I won't prevent it further. Of course if the rationale for having separate articles covering PzE editions changes (i.e. they ditch the format) then we might need to revisit this, but certainly at this stage in March 2023 it doesn't appear that RTS are considering that. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * They seem to be pushing hard to promote the format as a platform for young artists to promote themselves, it brings in a fair amount of viewers, the executive producer has not even hinted at a possibility of it being cancelled, so I think this format is here to stay for a while. Also, the article was pretty much complete as PzE'23 came to a close, so you don't have to worry about it not being updated or simply forgotten ImStevan (talk) 11:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eurovision Song Contest 1999
The article Eurovision Song Contest 1999 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1999 for comments about the article, and Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1999/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Shawn Teller -- Shawn Teller (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)