User talk:Wesley Wolf/Archive 11

=January 2014=

Happy New Year
Just want to wish a Happy New Year!--BabbaQ (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you!--BabbaQ (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope your New Year was great! Could you check out the talk page for Herciana Matmuja, there is a situation going on with user Ale83 webmaster heavily POV pushing for the article subject to be named Hersiana Matmuja or Hersi Matmuja. They have even convinced several ESC sites to change the name, but I am still not convinced that her name is anything else but Herciana Matmuja in official sense as of yet atleast. I mean in my opinion we should wait until she presents her official Eurovision performance name, many times those will change alot from their regular off-stage names. She performed at Festivali kenges at Herciana Matmuja, I think the user/users has POV pushed the ESC sites too change the name as well. I would not be really comfortable with the article being name changed to be honest. But if you find that it should be it would also be OK. I am asking you to check it out and give your view. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to give you a hint of the way this user works check out the rude message he left user Materialscientist,--BabbaQ (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Just stopping off to say a happy new year to you too! --  axg //  ✉  ]] ''' 00:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for commenting. I wont touch that particular discussion anymore. If it is decided that Hersi or Hersiana should be used I think that is OK but POV pushing should never be the main reason for a name change. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Herciana
I would suggest that we all leave the talk page of Herciana Matmuja alone from now on until May. I have left one final message and I think the user is basically wanting the discussion to continue. I think it is best if we both disengage from the discussion now. I can see that it doesnt lead anywhere. You do as you want but I can tell you that responding further will lead to no good. Sorry for being honest but I have long experience of similar discussions. Personally I will not even look at that talk page until confirmation of the name :) Regards my friend.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Yohio
Could you as an experienced Eurovision topic editor take a look at Kirunings edits at the Yohio article. The user is my and Bishonens opinion trying to diminish the singers career by several strange edits. The user today asked for a third opinion but that user seems to be more interested to bash me than actually giving a third opinion. In any case there has been several user that over a period of about 10 months has tried to explain to Kiruning that his edits makes the article into a biased version that diminishes the singer career. Kiruning is also in my personal opinion very rude in his comments both at the talk page of Yohio and at his own talk page. I will not get involved in any more discussions with the user or at the talk page of Yohio at all as the user wants to trigger me. Please take a look. Regards, --BabbaQ (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And I agree with you fully on Al83 the user is obnoxious and that is why I have not gotten involved with that user or that discussion since early yeasterday. I know you yourself have had similar problems so I guess you know were im coming from when ignoring users such as Ale83 and Kiruning is for the best. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, user Kiruning edited and censored his earlier rude comments at the Yohio talk page ahead of the third opinion as he even admits at the talk page edit summary. I guess in deception. I leave the rest to you to decide because I will not get involved with that one again. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

--BabbaQ (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

ProjectEurovision Monthly Newsletter - January 2014
This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Newsletter
Good to see tha my suggestions was included in this months ESC newsletter :).--BabbaQ (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It was nice to add some DYK's for a change. If you get any more, then let the newsdesk know, and they can be added each month.    Wes     Mᴥuse   23:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit Summary Comments
Wesley Mouse, I do not appreciate when I read in your edit summaries comments like "This should have been done when originally written" in response to an edit I did. If you thought something should be added then go ahead and do it, there is no need to add such criticism. I've made edits after other people who didn't add information I thought was necessary but I don't add comments like that because I find it to be rude. Pickette (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Pickette, I did not know you made the edit. I only read the article section itself and noticed the footnote was not included so I corrected and wrote my edit summary which was in general and not aimed at anyone.  That type of edit summary is a prime example of written text not bearing any emotional or vocal tone.  If it had such tone, then you would have discovered that it was not aimed at anyone, but was made in an observational context.  If you took it as being aimed at you, then that is a sign of a guilty conscience.    Wes     Mᴥuse   00:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Wesley Mouse, the comment was meant in general. I've seen edit summaries like that from you before. It's not nice and it doesn't facilitate teamwork when you add criticisms like that, be it to me or anyone else, who was just trying to add something to the article. Pickette (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You are seriously making a mountain out of a mole hill here, Pickette. Again, there is no vocal tone in written context, so you cannot judge how it was meant without knowing the vocal tone that was used.  If you read the entire edit summary, it would be evident that there were no malice nor snide mannerisms within the written text.  In my summary I explained what action I had taken and noted that it should have been added earlier.  The context was not aimed at you, as I did not know you had made the original edit, the context made was for a general observation as a helpful guide to other's who may not have added the allocation draws or dealt with footnotes before - what happened to assuming good faith, Pickette?  Base judgements on people's actions of the present, not on their actionable mistakes from the past.    Wes     Mᴥuse   03:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Just for the sake of putting your mind to ease, I shall attempt to add vocal tone in my edit summary, so that you know full well how it was being addressed, and not how you chose to interpret it as being.
 * Add footnote to explain why Slovenia are in the allocation draw even though they have not yet confirmed participation... - This explains what edit I had made to the article, and why I had made it.
 * ...This should have been done when originally written. - This was meant in a sympathetic and peaceful tone. And as the edit summaries are limited on character space, I was unable to follow on with the rest of the context which would have read...
 * Although it is understandable for these minor additions to be missed, for which I assume good faith in the editor who made the addition..
 * Now you see, written context has no tone, and you clearly took a comment out of context because of the lack of tone.   Wes     Mᴥuse   03:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not making a big deal out of it, Wesley Mouse. It's just a suggestion. Whether you want to take it or not is up to you of course. I'm just telling you that from my perspective it doesn't seem nice. It comes off as a critique of the previous edit rather than a note as you say. Pickette (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This is the thing though, what may be seen as "not nice" or "critique" to one Wikipedian, may be seen as the complete opposite to another Wikipedian. This is the danger of dealing with written context, and why I presume that Wikipedia have the WP:AGF guidances in place as a reminder that not everything we read, may be as it seems.  And that we're to take things with a pinch of salt.  Believe me, I've only started to realise this over the last couple of months or so.  The number of obnoxious editor's that I've come across and the tireless arguments I got myself caught up in, made me see that it was not worth the stress.  Sometimes we're to just shrug the dust off our shoulders and plod along aimlessly.  Life's too short to think too deeply into what is said and how it may or may not be perceived.    Wes     Mᴥuse   03:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

New Years
Hi, I had already actually read the article just before your request :). I think your edits has improved the article alot. I think you should if you can, add the list that you were talking about. However I havent even heard of that cloud thingy so I can not help you further than saying I think it should be done and it is a good initiative by you. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * However, I have now done some "investigation work" and in my opinion you can use Soundcloud as a source. And if you can not then some other user will surely tell you sooner or later. No worries.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the speedy reply. I have read WP:EL and it is very vague about media sources, other than in the rich media section which states to add plays audio on any sources that automatically plays audio, which I do not think soundcloud does that unless you have your Soundcloud account settings to do such action.    Wes     Mᴥuse   14:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, that is a problem. Could you find similar audio clips on another site?--BabbaQ (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I cannot find the tracklistings on any other site, other than soundcloud, as that is the site that the DJ uploaded their collaboration remix for each of the firework displays.   Wes     Mᴥuse   14:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh crap, that is too bad. But nothing much to do I guess?.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless if I add the "plays audio" template anyway, as a pre-warning in the event that it may play audio to some visitor's.   Wes     Mᴥuse   14:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to put a lot of man-hours into this article, try and get it up to GA if not FA standard, as the article itself would make a good Feature Article at that time of year. Especially with London being the home of Greenwich Mean Time.    Wes     Mᴥuse   14:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit to the page Eurovision Song Contest 1964 - Yugoslavia'as entry Language
''January 2014 Hello, I'm Wesley Mouse. Your recent edit to the page Eurovision Song Contest 1964 appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. This source verifies the Yugoslavian entry was performed in Bosnian. Wes Mᴥuse 10:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)''

[] Ref: 

Hello Wesley & Co., thank you for your attention, but my today's and recent edit to the page 'Eurovision Song Contest 1964' was sincerely Correct! Speaking of todays times, Bosnian language still does not exist as an official language - as for the year 1964, please see it for yourself/yourselves here: [] (find under listed as official and only Languages of SFRJ - Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, including the year 1964) - Macedonian was/is spoken in the Republic of Macedonia, Slovene in Slovenia, and Serbo-Croatian was spoken in Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The official Yugoslavian Eurovision 1964 Song Contest entry was written and performed in Serbo-Croatian. There's no other name for the language spoken in then Yugoslavia, and its Eurovision Song Contest 1964 wonderful entry beautifully sang by Sabahudin Kurt. As for you referred source I could only add that no truth is refered to, for example - the folks in The States, Canada, Australia, Ireland... use English, and not American, Canadian, Australian... I hope that this will enlighten your comprehension. Your source [] to the song is incorrect to state such untruthful reference, whatever his or hers feelings are, it is not Bosnian language, but Serbo-Croatian. Thank you for you time, and please see this as a way of presenting and preserving the true facts of life and its principles, it is nothing else than my smallest contribution to 'making Wikipedia better'. It is wonderful to have such a corner dedicated to the history of such a musical competitions that once Eurovision Song contest was. Thank you all for taking such care of it.

Cheerio! Pex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzoni (talk • contribs) 19:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I'm British, English is my mother tongue. So I do not appreciate to be told to "enlighten my comprehension" about the understanding of English or the global variations.  American, Canadian, and Australian are dialects, variations of English.  Their technical term would be American English, Canadian English, Australian English, and it's mother tongue; British English.
 * Secondly, it is not Wesley & Co. I am merely Wesley Mouse, and I do not own Wikipedia.  I just like yourself, volunteer to edit articles on here - we do not own them.
 * Thirdly, the source at Diggiloo Thrush is correct. They are a reliable source which enables us to verify content which we add to articles, and thus avoid making original research, which would be a violation of Wikipedia's five pillars.
 * Fourthly, yes it is wonderful to have a corner dedicated to the history of Eurovision. Which is what we do by using reliable sources and showing the true facts that can be verified.  Thank you.    Wes     Mᴥuse   23:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Wes
I have responded to your kind words at my talk page. I see now at your user page that tomorrow it is only 100 days left to the Eurovision Song Contest! The Swedish national selection starts on saturday.. I can not wait :)--BabbaQ (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I will not reply further to Pickettes attempts at continuing this argument or whatever it has becomed. I suggest that you also stop responding to the user. We have made it clear that the issue is not to be brought up again util we know for sure. I guess Pickettes ego has been hurt but that is Pickettes issue not ours. Please let us take the high road and let the children play alone in the sandpit.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

An apology + clarification
Hey, Wes. I apologize for the heated discussion on the Matmuja talk page, and apologize for having offended you. I'd like to know how I can avoid this in the future, especially in discussing matters where we don't necessarily agree. I just cannot help to feel that there is a negative atmosphere around the WikiProject Eurovision--after this discussion in which I feel I have been as civil as I have always considered myself to be--especially considering we had a good working relationship on the project in the past.

I would also like to clarify that when I said that you were de-facto head of WikiProject Eurovision, I meant no disrepute; it would be a lie to say it isn't you who has put in most of the time into the project. I do regard you with high esteem for your passion for this project, and it is deeply upsetting that you may have thought I wasn't looking out for its best interests by expecting the same standards for everyone involved in such contentious discussions.

Sincerely,  Mr. Gerbear | Talk 06:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted. I must say though, that yes I am passionate about the project and the genre that we work with.  I suppose as is the case with anyone who holds a passion about something, it does tend to get too passionate, and learning to cut-off from it can be a lot harder than it seems.  But as is with anything that we're passionate about, we also thrive to see it produce such fruit-bearing rewards.  I just wish deep down in my heart that everyone shared that same passionate view.  In my honest opinion. I'd rather I got things right first time and not have to tidy up a string mistakes.  The only reason I felt distrusted with the way things were carried out on that talk page, is because I've been lied to so many times in the past, and not small lies, but big major life-devastating ones.  And that is what makes me extra cautious to this very day.    Wes     Mᴥuse   08:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

=February 2014=

Facebook
I have messaged you on Facebook. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 04:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have sent the reply via there, if that's OK.   Wes     Mᴥuse   04:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hersi
Hi, how are you by the way? :) I see that Hercianas name has been changed to Hersi at the Eurovision 2014 main article. Is that confirmed to be her name during Eurovision now? Otherwise I suggest turning it back to Herciana Matmuja. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm staying away from it. But from what I read at Eurovisio.tv they are now using Hersi too.    Wes     Mᴥuse   16:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Good :)--BabbaQ (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at my newly created articles CajsaStina Åkerström and Princess NN.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox ABU Radio National Year
Template:Infobox ABU Radio National Year has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox ABU TV National Year
Template:Infobox ABU TV National Year has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Today's article
Hi, I guess you are on a Wikibreak or similar :) Always good for the soul! Anyway, when you return and read this I was going to ask you if we should implement the suggestion about adding a similar feature like the ITN section on the Wikiproject Eurovisions main page. Perhaps every other day (or similar) a new Eurovision related article would appear there. We should not hold the standards to high but atleast the articles featured there should be non-stubs and be sourced correctly and lets say over 5,000 characters long. Or something like that, let me know what you think and then I hope we can do this change to the project so the idea does not die out. Perhaps the section could be named Today's article or Today's Eurovision article or similar. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just notice the Portal:Eurovision/Selected articles at the portal part of the Wikiproject, it seems dead as no one has made any edits or updates since 2008 but that could be a possible good feature at the main page if it was moved there. Just a suggestion.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * After taking a closer look at the Portal part of the Wikiproject I conclude that it is a dead part of the project and could be closed. I might be wrong but hardly anything has been updated for years. Perhaps the most interesting parts such as the "Selected article" section and "Eurovision Song Contest news" also "Did you know" could be moved to the main page which seems to be the place most involved users goes to first. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have now done my best updating the sections at the Portal. Take a look. But again, please consider closing the Portal as no one seems interested in it and move the interesting sections to the main page. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, Babba. Sincere apologies for the long delay in replying back.  Indeed I decided to take an unexpected yet well deserved Wikibreak.  So much was happening all at once in my personal life, that I could feel myself on the verge of a nervous and potential mental breakdown.  So the break was the only option I could think of, in order to recalibrate my life in general.  I have been checking things on Wikipedia, but in incognito mode (another words without physically logging into my user account).  I'll be setting myself some time late this week to catch up on everything and to get February's project newsletter published (later than scheduled).    Wes     Mᴥuse   04:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I hope you are feeling OK-ish anyway now. Always good with a wikibreak :) New interesting developments with the Oba Chandler article today. The one you helped me with in the past.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

=March 2014= No conversations took place in March 2014.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk