User talk:Wesley Wolf/Archive 15

=January 2015=

Hi
I was wondering if you could give a "go ahead" to my DYK Template:Did you know nominations/Karolina Olsson. Someone has already done an initial review but a second glance is needed. If you could, please take a look.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I've had a quick glance, but will set some time aside to have a proper look at it. I missed publishing the newsletter for December, but as I was planning on revamping it even further then I think a January publication is more apt, especially as we are into the new Eurovision season. I've also got to do some merging improvement work to both OGAE Video and OGAE Second Chance contests - per suggestions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision.  Made a slight start on OSCC at User:Wesley Mouse/sandbox/1.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 17:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 launch newsletter
Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.

Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! , and

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. Miyagawa (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - Issue 44
This newsletter was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of 18:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Member list at Wikiproject Eurovision
I restored the inactive list and I don't agree with your reason for reverting my edits. If maintenance is an issue, then I'll maintain it just as I checked the names today in order to recreate the list you removed. Also the inactive section was a feature of the project for years. It doesn't seem right that one person can unilaterally decide to remove it without any kind of discussion. Pickette (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry Pickette, but we cannot go removing names from a members list. It is almost like altering a talk page comment.  It is up to the individuals to decide whether or not they wish to be a member. We have no right to make that choice for them. Besides, the spamlist now handles this issue, and allows members the choice of being a member but not receiving the newsletter or vice versa.  I had requested a while ago to have the inactive page deleted, not sure why it wasn't done, but I've sent a reminder.  Please do not alter the spamlist either, as this is of importance to the newsletter department, so that we know who to send important mail to.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 21:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No other project has an "inactive members" section. So the removal is bringing the project in-line with all the rest.  And I did not make a unilateral decision (as you put it) I had discussed it with a few members who agreed that the inactive section was difficult to maintain.  Trawling through contribution histories of hundreds of members could be seen as an invasion of privacy and "edit stalking" - even if we are doing it for a legitimate purpose.  Our time is better spent on improving articles, not checking who has edited where and when they last helped the project.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 21:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove any names, they were moved to the inactive list. Please provide evidence of the discussion you are referencing about the removal of the inactive list. Plenty of other projects either still have inactive lists, indicate inactivity in some way or actually remove inactive users. Pickette (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So this edit was not done by you? Funny, it has your name on it, and you removed names from the spamlist - which is entirely different function to the activity of the project members. The spamlist was created for the sole purpose of making it easier for the news department to send out publications via the new special messenger delivery bot. And how does one link to a private Facebook discussion between Wikipedians I know in real-life? Like I said, an inactive list is unnecessary and its maintenance may be seen as an invasion of editing privacy.  Our time as editors is suppose to be spent primarily on improving articles, not checking through every single contribution to see if a member has been "inactive".  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 21:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course I did that. In case you forgot, inactive members don't receive the newsletter. I really don't see any reason not to restore my edits. Start a discussion at the talk page if you'd like to remove the inactive members list which I'll remind you again has been a feature of the project for years and shouldn't be removed based on the opinion of one user. A Facebook discussion off of Wikipedia is really meaningless. I could say I just discussed this matter with my best friend who is a Wikipedia mastermind and we both agreed that inactive lists are essential. If you don't have time to check for inactivity, I can from time to time. Pickette (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

And who said that inactive members do not receive the newsletter? Nobody made that decision. Inactive members had always received a copy alongside active members - I should know, I am the one who has been mailing out newsletters since their revival in 2011. We do not have the right to decide if someone is inactive. There may be legitimate reasons for their inactivity - e.g. imprisonment, death, blocked, wikibreak, and so much more. And this is evident when I use to check the activity on a quarterly basis. I'd have assumed someone was inactive and moved their name to the inactive list, only to find they have been editing on other articles within the project scope that were not tagged with a project banner. Also the inactivity list use to be checked, and names that had no activity for 12 months were removed from the project entirely. Some of which actually came back after taking a lengthy break. Pigeon-holing people depending on their activity status is prejudicial, because at the end of the day they are members of the project, regardless on their personal reasons for having a break from active editing. Remember we should not assume they have become inactive, but assume they are taking a break with the intention to return to editing duties at their convenience - unless of course they are indef blocked, retired, or sadly passed away.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 21:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh and for your information, Pickette. The inactivity list has never been a "feature of the project". One only needs to see this history to see it was in fact I who "unilaterally" decided to create the inactive list back in October 2013. So in retrospect, I can make the decision to remove the page I created, if I so wish.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 21:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually it's quite clear the inactive list members didn't receive the newsletter because you re-added all of their names to the spamlist just recently when you axed the inactive list. The inactive list doesn't assume anything about the reasons for inactivity. All 20 of the people I added there haven't edited Wikipedia at all for over a year. You have one user who's last edit was in 2010. Those people obviously aren't active contributors to the project and that should be indicated so then there is a better understanding of the status of the project. Also nice try with claiming to be the creator of the inactive list. Please view the edit history of this page to see that the inactive list has been in use for years: WikiProject Eurovision/Members. Pickette (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If someone hasn't edited in over a year, then remove them from the project list. If they return, then they can rejoin as a member if they wish. Nice one on tracking my edit history, starting to become a habit around these part for people to go through my contribs. The names were readded to the spamlist for a purpose, to mail out an important message about the project - so please assume good faith in that respect. I no longer have anything more to say to you on this subject, as it is clear we both disagree; and you're starting to come across as combative, when I have merely explained everything. Inactive lists are a thing of the past, an invasion of editing privacy, and a waste of our time that is better utilised in improving articles. Seeing as that is what we're here for, to work on articles, not checking through everyone's editing history to see who is active and inactive.  If you prefer to carry out such duties, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the place to be, and you may wish to turn your attentions to being a Private Investigator for the CIA.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 22:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If having an inactivity list is of so much importance for whatever reasons you wish to know who is inactive, then the burden of keeping it updated regularly is in your hands. But do not remove names from the spamlist, as mailing information to members (regardless of activity) is vital.  Someone who is inactive may have taken a break (as I noted earlier) and upon their return will still have copies of the project news to provide them with a recap of what they've missed during their activity absence - which they may feel appreciative of the recaps, rather than them having to trawl through a plethora of talk pages (and their archives) to bring themselves back up to speed on what the project is doing.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 22:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Wesley Mouse, nobody was going through your edit history, rather I got that from the edit history of the inactive users page. You made assertions that turned out to be completely false and I simply provided the proof to avoid dispute. All 20 of the users I added to the inactive list haven't edited in over a year. So in order to avoid any more reverts, would you prefer I remove them entirely from the project or add them to an inactive list? Just to be clear, if I remove them from the project I'll also be removing them from the spamlist. Pickette (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

apologies for my harshness. I'm feeling somewhat under the weather (New Year flu coming on) and I'm attending a funeral tomorrow which is depressing me a little bit too. As you are willing to keep a check on the activity list, then I will (and have already) restored the inactive list - but using the old rules that were used a long time ago (after checking). Anyone who has not been active for 4 months or more is deemed inactive. Anyone who has been inactive for 12 months is deemed as having quit the project entirely. So in brief: Remember to check for everything though when maintaining these, not just their contribution history, but also their talk page and block logs too. If they are blocked for a short period; they are inactive. If they are indef blocked; they have quit the project.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 22:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Oh and when Chris use to maintain the lists, he always posted on the project talk page too, to show that he had carried out the work, how many he had moved from active to inactive, and how many he had removed entirely. This practice should be continued.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 22:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Active: 0 - 4 months editing, with names included in spamlist.
 * Inactive: 4 - 12 months of no edits. Names moved from active to inactive section, but keeping them listed in spamlist just in case they return and appreciate a recap of what they've missed.
 * Quit: more than 12 months of inactivity. Removed from the inactive list and also from the spamlist.
 * Okay sounds good. I'll do this now. Pickette (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just thought, I include the membership stats on the monthly newsletter delivery report. So I'm wondering if continuing with Chris' method of updating people on the project talk page would now be redundant? Although I include the combined total of members, active and inactive, in the stats.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 23:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's fine then if you post it in the newsletter. I've already written a message on the project talk page but I just wont post it in the future. Pickette (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I've now confused myself. I counted 91 combined members, but only 90 on the spamlist. Can't work out who is missing from the mailing list, or if one name extra is on the active/inactive lists. It will come to me hopefully. ANyhow back to the drawing board as I am working on major improvements to the newsletter to mark the 60th anniversary of ESC.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 00:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's probably me. I just read the newsletter on the project page so I opted out of having it delivered on my talk page. It was actually the most recent news letter that got me interested in the membership lists because I thought it was odd the number had increased by so much. Pickette (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah I see, well then that's solves the mystery. For a second I thought I was losing my marbles because I couldn't figure out who was missing or if we gained an extra somehow. As for the figures, being in the hundreds isn't uncommon for the project. The lowest number of active members recorded was 16 in August 2008, whilst the highest was 102 in February 2011. We tend to float around the 75 to 95 active marker. Influxes occur when the project has been in the spotlight via the Signpost or other discussion points. And then people vanish, when they get bored - which is what prompted the modernisation of the project back in 2013.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 03:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK
Great to see a Eurovisiok hook at DYK today :)--BabbaQ (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's fabulous. Wonder why the nominator didn't add it to the project newsdesk?  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 13:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That is what I mean, the members of the Eurovision project are overall lazy it seems. Sadly.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I added the article for mention as DYK for next months newsletter.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Freier Fall
That is one serious task, Wesley Mouse. Translating it would surely take some time. I am afraid I can only provide passive assistance in this case. Parishan (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I feared it may be a mammoth of a task. When you say passive assistance, in what way would that be? I've been at it for months trying to use Google translator, but it only translates some words and not all.  And then trying to put it into a decent enough English has also been a headache.  Perhaps I should give up on the over-ambitious task!?  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 03:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I was not sure what your level of Azeri was; in that case, I could help with bits that seem unclear. In any event, please do not give up; it seems like a promising candidate for a FA, and you may be lucky to stumble upon an Azeri speaker with a little bit more time at their disposal than me. Parishan (talk)

WikiProject Eurovision
Hello! Thanks for the invitation. I will accept it, and I could be a great member of the WikiProject. I am an editor of the Hungarian Wikipedia since 2006, and sometimes I try to write something interesting about the Hungarian topic in the English version too. If you want to know some details about Hungary in the Eurovision Song Contest, or A Dal, or just want to translate things from the Hungarian Wikipedia, just ask me, and I will help you. And I have to congratulate all editros around ESC-topic, you make a fantastic work year by year, keep doing this :) Have a nice day! MrSilesian (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, If I will have time for it, I will try to imrpove these articles. Now, I'm in the uni, in the middle of my exams, and I edit the Hungarian one paralell. It is almost 99% sure that I will be invited to A Dal this year, so I will take some photos, upload them to the Commons, and feel free to illustrate the articles. I think it could be great development. MrSilesian (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Eurovision commentary tables
OK, you win. You can remove all tables that I posted. 009988aaabbbccc (talk) 0:23, 19 January 2015 (CEST)
 * it's not really a case of "winning"; as Wikipedia isn't a competition. However, the project itself has several documentation that shows the manual of style layout for Eurovision articles. For example:
 * WikiProject Eurovision/Eurovision Song Contest
 * WikiProject Eurovision/Junior Eurovision Song Contest
 * WikiProject Eurovision/Format and Guides
 * And those styles all culminated from this consensus discussion. Also if you have added tables, then really the burden is upon yourself to fix the problem back to their original bullet versions.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 23:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Esc-Plus
Hey Wes, so I've been noticing various IP accounts changing sources to articles written by Esc-Plus on the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2015 page. This happened during JESC 2014 and I even had to have a conversation with an editor about why they can't do this. It appears they believe they should have their articles used as sources simply because they published them maybe an hour or so before other websites did. They're leaving messages on the talk page for JESC 2015 stating how they're articles should be used and I'm not sure if Esc-Plus should ever be used again if this is how they're gonna act. { [ ( jjj    1238 ) ] }   16:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * thank you for making me aware of this. I shall pop over to the talk page and explain why we must be using a variety of sources and not just a specific website. It would be seen as favouritism and "paid editing" in some respect.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 16:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It would appear we are encountering the same problem again, and my warning issued to the IP's the other day being ignored. I have placed a conflict of interest notice at Talk:Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2015 along with further analysis posted in comment format on the last two threads of that said talk page. You may want to keep an extra eye on those IPs, as all the sources they provide and demand we use are all published by the same ESC+Plus editor, who coincidentally use to have a Wikipedia account which has now been indef blocked due to their clear connection with the website.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 17:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm definitely gonna keep an eye on Esc-Plus and these IP addresses. If these really are editors at Esc-Plus trying to push us to use them as sources, I honestly don't think we should be using Esc-Plus at all anymore. I warned them last year about this, yet they just come back again. I'm gonna refrain from using any Esc-Plus articles as sources from now on until this thing clears up.  { [ ( jjj     1238 ) ] }   18:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

=February 2015=

Maggie Gyllenhaal
How are you? :) Please take a look at this nomination for an article to appear at TFA on the main page. Today's featured article/requests/Maggie Gyllenhaal. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - Issue 45
This newsletter was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Eurovision at 11:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Project Eurovision Cup
Hi Wesley. I don't think so mainly because the objectives aren't those that i am skilled at currently, if that makes sense? However i'll think about it.. maybe join at a later date. Thanks, Fort esc (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015
Hi,

I was watching the video on YouTube of the voting from the 1998 Eurovision Song Contest and Dana International "Diva" received a total of 174 points in the final and not 172 as the official site stated. The UK finished 2nd with 167 points.YouTube linkSfinn85 (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * and if you read the information on the official website there was a problem with the Spanish televote as Spanish televoters had awarded 12 points to Germany, but while announcing the points, the 12 points went to Israel! However, the mistake was quickly unearthed after the show and you have the correct rankings and points on our scoreboard here. The issue was rectified and Israel's total was changed to 172 on the official website after the contest was aired.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 16:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Assessment
Hi, sure I can assess the article about Eurovision that I create. Sure. I am not sure I will be the best of it but I will give it a go :) By the way, I really like Eric Saades song in Melodifestivalen this year. I think Sting could do great at ESC, Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * sorry about the edit summary comment; I wasn't having a go at you over non-assessments. It is just lately there have been loads, and I mean hundreds; and I'm starting to feel like it is being left to me to do the assessment clean-up. My talk page editing stats are becoming higher than my article edits; which makes it look to people that I just travel around talk pages and not working on articles.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 21:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I spent 3 hours clearing a backlog of 182 on January 25. Then in the space of 24 hours, another 45 appeared, which took me an hour to clear. Three days later another 52 appeared; and all those got cleared. And today another 29 appear. I'm reaching the point were I am wondering if my role on Wikipedia is to just assess talk pages and not improve articles.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 21:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not want you to think that I am "telling you" to do anything.. but I mean you could just let it be. And let someone else do some work as well. Having a few unassessed article is not the end of the world :) I will certainly help you and I will asses every article that I see from now on that is not assessed or that I create myself. Dont lose hope my friend!--BabbaQ (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 1
Hi! Thank you for subscribing to the WikiProject X Newsletter. For our first issue...

'''Has WikiProject X changed the world yet? No.'''

We opened up shop last month and announced our existence to the world. Our first phase is the "research" phase, consisting mostly of reading and listening. We set up our landing page and started collecting stories. So far, 28 stories have been shared about WikiProjects, describing a variety of experiences across numerous WikiProjects. A recurring story involves a WikiProject that starts off strong but has trouble continuing to stay active. Most people describe using WikiProjects as a way to get feedback from other editors. Some quotes:
 * "Working on requested articles, utilising the reliable sources section, and having an active WikiProject to ask questions in really helped me learn how to edit Wikipedia and looking back I don't know how long I would have stayed editing without that project." – Sam Walton on WikiProject Video Games
 * "I believe that the main problem of the Wikiprojects is that they are complicated to use. There should be a a much simpler way to check what do do, what needs to be improved etc." – Tetra quark
 * "In the late 2000s, WikiProject Film tried to emulate WP:MILHIST in having coordinators and elections. Unfortunately, this was not sustainable and ultimately fell apart." – Erik

Of course, these are just anecdotes. While they demonstrate what is possible, they do not necessarily explain what is typical. We will be using this information in conjunction with a quantitative analysis of WikiProjects, as documented on Meta. Particularly, we are interested in the measurement of WikiProject activity as it relates to overall editing in that WikiProject's subject area.

We also have 50 people and projects signed up for pilot testing, which is an excellent start! (An important caveat: one person volunteering a WikiProject does not mean the WikiProject as a whole is interested; just that there is at least one person, which is a start.)

While carrying out our research, we are documenting the problems with WikiProjects and our ideas for making WikiProjects better. Some ideas include better integration of existing tools into WikiProjects, recommendations of WikiProjects for people to join, and improved coordination with Articles for Creation. These are just ideas that may or may not make it to the design phase; we will see. We are also working with WikiProject Council to improve the directory of WikiProjects, with the goal of a reliable, self-updating WikiProject directory. Stay tuned! If you have any ideas, you are welcome to leave a note on our talk page.

That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing!

– Harej 17:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Erika Selin
One of the first ever articles that I created on Wikipedia, the one on Erika Selin is now in the eyes of Eurovision fans as Erika is taking part in the Irish Eurovision selection. Loved her in Swedish Idols!--BabbaQ (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ireland might have a Swedish act? Now that will be interesting to see. Perhaps Ireland want their 8th win. I still believe that the BBC should approach Sarah Dawn Finer to see if she would represent the UK (which is something she did say she would do in an interview last year). Although I think this year will be a close race between 3 countries to win - Malta, Netherlands, or France.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 10:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

=March 2015=

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge,  led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:
 * took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
 * worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
 * developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
 * And last but not least, worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. , and

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Eurovision Cup
How are you going to go about looking at a list of edits? I'm just worried that some of my edits (i.e. 2014–15 Fulham F.C. season) may drown out ESC ones on my contributions page. Spa-Franks (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , not to worry this has been looked into. The judges (Chris and myself) will be checking the contribs of participants. There is a function to filter the search so that we can pin-point articles that have any of the Project's categories attached to them. Plus we will also check for talk page activity on any of the project's articles - as they too gain points.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 16:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I Want Your Love (Eduard Romanyuta song)
Hey Wes, something weird's going on with the I Want Your Love (Eduard Romanyuta song) page. I created the article and seem to be the only editor but for some reason it says stuff about a redirect on the page, but if you go into edit mode it's just a normal article. Could you take a look? { [ ( jjj    1238 ) ] }   21:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I know what has happened. All of the old versions of infoboxes have been paged moved into universal types. So what was once Infobox Eurovision Song Contest entry is now Infobox song contest entry. I'm trying to get my access to AWB tool to work so that I can do a mass-update across hundreds of articles.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 21:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh ok. Thanks for the help Wes. If you want I can help change some of the infoboxes too?  { [ ( jjj     1238 ) ] }   21:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've managed to get AWB up and running and have done the changes to ESC2015 entries (AWB is pretty fast like that). I'll check all the others as AWB will get the changes done faster.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 21:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

What We Spoke About
So the user we spoke about who was making one-line articles or random articles for non-notable people (BabbaQ) is still doing it with Melodifestivalen. It seems that they're just creating articles for every single one of the songs competing in the final, while I previously stated I was just making articles for the songs that have charted on the Swedish singles charts. Some of these include Jag är fri (Manne Liem Frije) and Heroes (Måns Zelmerlöw song). Someone else also made a page for Sting (song) which I don't think is notable enough for an article either. It seems that what happened at Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014 is beginning to happen at Melodifestivalen where an article for all competitors and competing songs are being given their own articles despite this never being approved. { [ ( jjj    1238 ) ] }   00:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I know BabbaQ very well, and he is a very experienced editor on Wikipedia, and has a high record of creating valuable articles, include a long list of Did you know? and In the news submissions. Babba is from Sweden, so his knowledge of Melodifestivalen is strong and of high value to Project Eurovision. I wouldn't worry about it too much, and appreciate that he is only doing what he has done for such a long time, and that being a highly respected contributor to Wikipedia.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 01:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok cool. Quick question, I created the Ann Sophie page and was wondering if I should make her name on the default sort thing "Sophie, Ann" since she does use two names even though they're both first names. Would this be formatted correctly or should I keep it as "Ann Sophie"?  { [ ( jjj     1238 ) ] }   03:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would default sort by her full name; Dürmeyer, Ann Sophie.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 03:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks Wes. Let me just thank you for mentoring me this whole way through. I really appreciate it :), I'll fix the default sort before going to sleep (I'm a bit of a night owl).  { [ ( jjj     1238 ) ] }   03:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have the EuroCup page on your watchlist? Might be something to add if you haven't already - you're in the lead so far.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 03:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. You're very welcome with the mentoring help. It puts a smile on my face when I am able to pass on advice and knowledge to fellow Wikipedians.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 03:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yupp I added it, and it's good to see I'm in the lead. I'm not a very competitive person but it makes me happy to see I'm actually doing something correctly. But I was wondering, it says I brought three articles to start class, I know two of them are Laing (band) and Ann Sophie, but what's the third?  { [ ( jjj     1238 ) ] }   13:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The third is Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 2015 which was a stub class. You made a string of edits on the article which promoted it to start class.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 13:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for intervening on the 3RR discussion
Hi Wesley. I appreciate you stepping in the discussion and taking action to clean up the copyright violation problem on the article. 24.130.172.5 (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You are very welcome.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 20:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Romania's song for Eurovision 2015
The |official YouTube channel of the group's record label lists the English version of the song as |"All Over Again" (and the lyrics back this up). Also, "de la" can mean "from" or "since" (although "capăt" appears to mean "end", rather than "beginning"), whereas "all over again" comes out as something to the effect of "peste tot din nou". Unless "de la capăt" is an idiomatic expression, this just looks like a direct mix-up of the English version of the song's title with the actual translation, and if it is an idiom, is that not still worth mentioning? 31.220.232.6 (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * My neighbour is Romanian, and he stated the translation mean "All over again". If there is a conflict on this matter, then it would be better to take the whole discussion on the article talk page, and then a wider community can reach on an agreement as to what translation should be used.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 18:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Eurovision Song Contest logo 2015.svg
Hi Wes, I've answered you on the file discussion page. Badgon (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I won't be active for a week or two, due to a death in the family.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 17:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Melodifestivalen
Oh, exciting tonight it is the final of Melodifestivalen. I think Måns will win but I personally am cheering for Jon Henrik! I think however that Måns will indeed win, and perhaps even win Eurovision with Heroes. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * unfortunately I won't be watching it this year. We had a bereavement in the family a couple of days ago, so I'm taking time out.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 17:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Bohemia (group)
Hi, I was wondering if you could give your two cents at this deletion discussion for Bohemia (group). Thanks. { [ ( jjj    1238 ) ] }   22:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * as much as I would love to, I can't sorry! Check the top of this page. I'm going to be absent for quite some time, and only checking here in visitation.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 23:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm so sorry Wes. I didn't know. My thoughts go out to you and your family.  { [ ( jjj     1238 ) ] }   23:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - Issue 46
This newsletter was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Eurovision 10:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 2
For this month's issue...

Making sense of a lot of data.

Work on our prototype will begin imminently. In the meantime, we have to understand what exactly we're working with. To this end, we generated a list of 71 WikiProjects, based on those brought up on our Stories page and those who had signed up for pilot testing. For those projects where people told stories, we coded statements within those stories to figure out what trends there were in these stories. This approach allowed us to figure out what Wikipedians thought of WikiProjects in a very organic way, with very little by way of a structure. (Compare this to a structured interview, where specific questions are asked and answered.) This analysis was done on 29 stories. Codes were generally classified as "benefits" (positive contributions made by a WikiProject to the editing experience) and "obstacles" (issues posed by WikiProjects, broadly speaking). Codes were generated as I went along, ensuring that codes were as close to the original data as possible. Duplicate appearances of a code for a given WikiProject were removed.

We found 52 "benefit" statements encoded and 34 "obstacle" statements. The most common benefit statement referring to the project's active discussion and participation, followed by statements referring to a project's capacity to guide editor activity, while the most common obstacles made reference to low participation and significant burdens on the part of the project maintainers and leaders. This gives us a sense of WikiProjects' big strength: they bring people together, and can be frustrating to editors when they fail to do so. Meanwhile, it is indeed very difficult to bring editors together on a common interest; in the absence of a highly motivated core of organizers, the technical infrastructure simply isn't there.

We wanted to pair this qualitative study with quantitative analysis of a WikiProject and its "universe" of pages, discussions, templates, and categories. To this end I wrote a script called ProjAnalysis which will, for a given WikiProject page (e.g. WikiProject Star Trek) and WikiProject talk-page tag (e.g. Template:WikiProject Star Trek), will give you a list of usernames of people who edited within the WikiProject's space (the project page itself, its talk page, and subpages), and within the WikiProject's scope (the pages tagged by that WikiProject, excluding the WikiProject space pages). The output is an exhaustive list of usernames. We ran the script to analyze our test batch of WikiProjects for edits between March 1, 2014 and February 28, 2015, and we subjected them to further analysis to only include those who made 10+ edits to pages in the projects' scope, those who made 4+ edits to the projects' space, and those who made 10+ edits to pages in scope but not 4+ edits to pages in the projects' space. This latter metric gives us an idea of who is active in a certain subject area of Wikipedia, yet who isn't actively engaging on the WikiProject's pages. This information will help us prioritize WikiProjects for pilot testing, and the ProjAnalysis script in general may have future life as an application that can be used by Wikipedians to learn about who is in their community.

Complementing the above two studies are a design analysis, which summarizes the structure of the different WikiProject spaces in our test batch, and the comprehensive census of bots and tools used to maintain WikiProjects, which will be finished soon. With all of this information, we will have a game plan in place! We hope to begin working with specific WikiProjects soon.

As a couple of asides...


 * Database Reports has existed for several years on Wikipedia to the satisfaction of many, but many of the reports stopped running when the Toolserver was shut off in 2014. However, there is good news: the weekly New WikiProjects and WikiProjects by Changes reports are back, with potential future reports in the future.
 * WikiProject X has an outpost on Wikidata! Check it out. It's not widely publicized, but we are interested in using Wikidata as a potential repository for metadata about WikiProjects, especially for WikiProjects that exist on multiple Wikimedia projects and language editions.

That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing! If you have any questions or comments, please share them with us.

Harej (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)