Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:14, 13 August 2012

User:CT Cooper/Floating buttons User:CT Cooper/Talk page templates

Somebody is baaaaack...!

Quite possible our friend Antony1821, he's returned with a proper account, GrandGhost (talk · contribs). Apart from the obvious username similarities to GrandTorino7 (talk · contribs), this recently-created account has been doing edits of similar style to football biographies , clubs (the latter being an unconfirmed signing – his specialty). Could you please check it out? Thanks! – Kosm1fent 16:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Yes, this was very obvious - the similarity of the username plus the choice of "ghost" suggests he is not making much effort to conceal himself. Blocked and reverted in any case. CT Cooper · talk 21:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a million. :) – Kosm1fent 21:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Cooper, can you please check on GrandOSFP (talk · contribs)? I'm currently on vacation at a place with a sketchy GPRS connection, so I can't check on his contribs right now. However, his username and editing scope leaves me a duck impression. In any case, I'll be back in the afternoon, so I'll be able to check him better. Cheers! – Kosm1fent 09:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm back. Here are some interesting diffs: . – Kosm1fent 15:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Blanket reverted and blocked. Thanks for the heads-up. CT Cooper · talk 18:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Greetings again Cooper, how's things? :) Take a look at this IP: 46.103.30.33. Same provider as the ones Antony1821 used and similar editing habits . Would you check it out? Many thanks, again and again! – Kosm1fent 10:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the range for a month, since he seems to have edited from this range previously. I've checked 46.198.0.0/16 (talk · contribs) and 176.92.0.0/16 (talk · contribs), both of which have been used since the range block came off, but only some edits by 176.92.104.25 (talk · contribs) are suspicious. CT Cooper · talk 19:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Take a look at this IP as well 178.128.75.123 (talk · contribs) – the provider may be different and it's been inactive for a week, but the edits are similar (see – ducking like crazy). My guess is that he used a different computer, so it's worth checking if this IP needs a block. Thanks again and cheers. – Kosm1fent 05:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I will keep an eye on all of these ranges for some time. CT Cooper · talk 18:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Cooper. Have a look at this IP: 46.198.27.45. Same provider and similar edits ( – only provided 2 diffs because he's only made 6 edits by the time I'm sending you this message) Please check it out. Thanks! – Kosm1fent 14:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seems there are multiple IPs on this range which have probably been used by him. I have blocked 46.198.0.0/16 (talk · contribs) for 3 months - longer than before as this is the third block on this range. CT Cooper · talk 16:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. Same deal with 176.92.97.63 – same provider and similar edits () Could you check it out? Thanks! – Kosm1fent 14:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, previously blocked and clearly still being used - so I'm going for three months here as well. CT Cooper · talk 16:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Tile Join again, probably.

The user Elsebeen, attacking my userpage and talk page and the Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse article again. Thanks!! o0pandora0o (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, another obvious case. Blocked. Thanks for letting me know. CT Cooper · talk 19:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Rock on, thank you! o0pandora0o (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	This is just a token of appreciation for the fine work you've been doing all over Misplaced Pages. Thanks for always being there when needed! – Kosm1fent 18:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad I could be of help. CT Cooper · talk 19:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Advice on mergers

Cooper, hope you don't mind me asking for advice on article mergers. At Talk:Grethe and Jørgen Ingmann the original nominator has closed the merger discussion even though only one other person has clearly cast a !vote to merge while two others were discussing options etc. The nominator has also carried out the merger. Is this general practice for a nominator to close down such discussions? Wesley Mouse 23:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't a merger. It was a re-direct. Aren't they different? But I'm not sure if it was a general practice as well. I could undo it now if it wasn't. I could list the discussion under this page instead if it would help but the person who cast the vote seemed to be right. A merger is not necessary. Bleubeatle (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the problem Bleubeatle - you had originally opened the discussion as a proposal for merging. However, the outcome so far was for redirect - meaning you may have incorrectly closed a merger discussion. That is why I'm asking for an opinion here rather than chasing around the houses at help desk etc. Wesley Mouse 23:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes certain discussions may not have the intended outcome. It can occur in both AfDs and AfM(articles for mergers).1 Bleubeatle (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I know that outcomes can differ, I ain't that daft lol. But the original thread was for a merger proposal, with the outcome being something different - thus meaning that it would most likely have needed a non-involved to close the merger down and carry out the redirect. Wesley Mouse 23:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That link you've provided Blue has answered my question. Look at all the AfDs, RMs and PMs (page mergers) - the user closing them down and dealing with the redirects are someone not involved in the !vote process nor are they the nominator. So it would seem that you have closed the merger and carried out the redirect incorrectly. Wesley Mouse 23:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Wesley Mouse.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Would you guys like me to ask someone at the help desk while you are waiting for CT Cooper to respond?. Bleubeatle (talk) 01:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to get help desk involved. I posted the advice here, so please do not redirect my questions of advice elsewhere without my consent. Wesley Mouse 01:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I think its right that someone independent closes discussion, although the lack of any extensive debate, with everything hinged on one user's comments, mean I think one has to be an emphasis on the word "rough" in the "rough consensus" that has been determined. CT Cooper · talk 16:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

This managed to resolve itself amicably in the end. An independent user has now re-closed the merger and done the appropriate clean-up exercise along with it. Wesley Mouse 16:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision: Recent changes

Hello,

Please note that there have been some changes to operations surrounding Eurovision articles, these being that:

• Template names have now been modernised and/or megred into super-templates, for example Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest has now been merged into Template:Eurovision Song Contest making it even easier to find everything under one template. If you are planning to create a new template, please keep the standardised titles in mind. Other templates have been modernised and a full list of them can be found here.
• The Eurovision Song Contest and Junior Eurovision Song Contest articles have now been standardised to keep a consitancy throughout the project and to the genral reader too. Skeleton article drafts can be found for Eurovision Song Contest by Year and Junior Eurovision Song Contest by Year.

If you have any questions, please ask at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Eurovision.

You are receiving this message since you are listed as a member of WikiProject Eurovision. If you are no longer interested in contributing to Eurovision articles, please remove your username from this page.

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC) on behalf of Project Eurovision

Eurovision articles in AfD crisis

Cooper,

It has come to some members concern over the number of Eurovision-related articles that are suddenly being AfDed. The majority of users expressing a delete !vote are constantly stating that articles on Eurovision participants/songs are not notable as they are a one-off event and are not trying to push for those articles to be mass-deleted and merged into Country at Eurovision articles. If this gets the go ahead then it would be a horrific blow to the project as a whole. Is there anything that we, as a project team, should be doing to prevent this and keep the Eurovision legacy alive? I have even been accused on canvassing by one user because I notified a fellow project member of two AfD discussions taking place. Those allegations alone have deeply upset me as I have never nor would I ever dream of canvassing for a vote - I did notify a user who I noticed was actively editing at the time about two AfD's - and that was only done in the hope that they too would help spread the word about the AfD taking place - which they did do, thankfully. Wesley Mouse 11:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the us vs. them mentality which seems to be being pushed here is unhelpful, as it is likely to harden opposition and it therefore goes against consensus generating process which this community runs on. Project members' views do actually vary on this topic - we have just allowed one merge to go ahead and another might well of done if the discussion hadn't blown-up - in any case, I don't have a particular strong opinion. In a pragmatic sense, the information might be better displayed in a merged article, and biographies of which the sources are all on one event don't work that well - which is why WP:BIO1E et. al. comes from. That said, WP:MUSICBIO allows biography articles for participation in a major music event - which undisputably includes Eurovision, so this claim that project members are actively defying notability guidelines is nonsense. Yes those arguing delete can say WP:MUSICBIO is discretionary, with the "may be notable" bit, but the wording at WP:BIO1E means the same argument also applies there - a high level participant in one highly notable event can still have a biography under this guideline. "In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." Ultimately, there isn't a clear answer and its a matter of interpretation. I would lean on the view that the country by year articles count as a the "separate articles", making a biography unnecessary if it only covers content from one event. However, if there is anything other event worth discussing in the biography articles then I would firmly vote keep - this really needs to be done on a case-by-case basis - no mass deletions. The potential for a slippery slope is a concern, but one that should be manageable - people have tried to get country by year articles deleted before and the results have been firm keeps.

I've already looked at the canvassing allegations - I do think it is a bit bizarre for someone to throw out an accusation then refuse to either defend or withdraw it, leaving it hanging, and people doing this is a bit of pet hate of mine. Clearly it is the accuser that should be dropping it, not the receiver. In any case, canvassing guidelines are open to interpretation, but to avoid any accusation of canvassing in the first place I would avoid leaving messages on particular individuals talk pages inviting them to participate in an AfD - even if it is worded neutrally and done with the intention of getting a third opinion rather than specific delete or keep votes. Messages at WT:ESC are clearly acceptable, and should be just as effective. CT Cooper · talk 12:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

"the information might be better displayed in a merged article" is exactly what I think should, eventually, be done. I nominated one sole article for deletion, and then noticed that there's a lot of articles in the same shape. I don't see a reason why there can't just be an article about each group that were a part of ESC, unless, of course, they have enough notability to have their own article; which I think would be doing things after ESC and having some sort of success. Best, Statυs (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but that is your opinion Status. Their are other users with other opinions and you have to respect that. Consensus on these things needs to be done. For me it is pretty clear that a participation at Eurovision which is the worlds biggest and most viewed music competition were all the contestants represent an entire nation are notable. You dont, and that is what is needed to be discussed further.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I am seriously thinking that ARBCOM is the only way forward here now. The same disputes arise time and time again, and the same bickering and frustrated remarks ends up being the outcome and we never reach a clear decision as to what should and shouldn't be happening. In my opinion going to ARBCOM will allow a community-wide intake on this, and we'd be able to get a more experienced outlook on if there are exceptional circumstances to Eurovision-related articles. There are points at WP:BAND that would clearly allow such articles to be warranted for inclusion. Yet some find loopholes in the system to counteract those points. For example:

• Point 1 "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself"... Eurovision-related articles may fulfil this criteria as a participant for Eurovision Song Contest are published on a variety of reliable sources including Eurovision.tv
• Point 2 "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart"... Eurovision articles clearly fulfils this criteria as the participant and their song will clearly chart in their respective nation. And depending on how popular they are after the contest have been known to chart in other countries too.
• Point 4 "Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country"... Well this one is self-explanitory. There are several Eurovision related websites most of which are reliabel and contain details on a participant of the contest. However prior to the 2012 contest in Azerbaijan, some of those websites where victim to Internet hacking and had a lot of their content erased. ESCToday.com was the worst hit as they had 12-years of work erased within a matter of seconds, and the content wasn't able to be retrieved.
• Point 9 "Has won or placed in a major music competition"... Eurovision alone is a major music competition, so that fulfils the latter part of that. No matter where a participant finishes they have achieved a "placing".
• Point 10 "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications)"... Eurovision is a televised show, and a participant performs on that show in order to achieve a win.
• Point 11 "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network"... Prior to the Eurovision most if not all European music networks whether it be radio or television have a dedicated section to Eurovision.
• Point 12 "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network"... Eurovision Song Contest, broadcast via the EBU's Eurovision Network, is a substantial broadcast televised across the world and viewed by 125 million people. A performance is given its own feature segment in the contest, whether it be the first song to perform or the last - it has still featured. Wesley Mouse 13:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Um guys. I don't think this is good idea. We could be causing disruption on CT Cooper's talk page. Bleubeatle (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)