Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:33, 3 October 2013

This is Pickette's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

A BARNSTAR for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		My appreciation for all your big and especially your small modest edits - fixing templates, reverting errors, your watching over the edits in countries articles for 2014 ESC, your elaborating of the various years small articles of countries in certain Eurovisions etc', with great modesty and dedication.

And that is also in relation to the Jewish new year - Rosh Hashana, that was just now celebrated, with wishes for a new sweet year of satisfaction and fun for you. This template must be substituted, see Template:Smile for instructions אומנות (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Commentator columns

Please do not initiate an edit war with me, it is not clever nor professional. All the other articles use a div col of 3 and not 2. Earlier articles used table format, but they are in the process of being changed into div-cols too. We are suppose to maintain a consistency look as best as possible on all Eurovision by Year articles. Your reversions are starting to look as if you are illustrating a point, in a personal point of view, purely because you don't like it, or that you are just refusing to "get the point". If you don't like it, then open up discussion at WT:ESC for the wider project to discuss the matter. But I think you'll find the majority prefer a 3-col split. Wesley Mᴥuse 17:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not refusing to get any point, your trying to maintain what you like across all articles and I disagree with that because I believe my solution makes this section in particular easier to read and also look nicer. And don't tell me that it's consistent across all articles, it's only consistent now because you've made it that way after editing those articles just recently. If you go anywhere previous to 2010, the commentators sections are all in different formats and some are even in tables. Besides, 2013 and even 2012 in particular have a higher volume of text in those sections than in previous years so cramming all of that text into three columns looks ugly in my opinion and makes it harder to read. Pickette (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

For your information, it is not me trying to maintain what I like. The use of 3cols was agreed at the RfC, and is also evident on the skeleton articles which the project use as a guide. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Eurovision/Eurovision Song Contest and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Eurovision/Junior Eurovision Song Contest. The fact that it has not yet been done on all other articles, is because other issues arise which take members off course of implementing the agreed change. So sorry to say, you are actually deviating from something which was agreed, and therefore being disruptive. Wesley Mᴥuse 17:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just read the RfC for when you created that template and the amount of columns for commentators was never discussed. So what's the reasoning behind it now? I don't understand why you have to be so unaccommodating for things other people try and do and then make a big deal because it doesn't conform to something discussed over a year ago when circumstances for that might have changed. This section has a lot of text and it is hard to read when crammed into three columns. Pickette (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you always have a habit of making false assumptions of people? First you accuse me of "trying to maintain what you like across all articles" and state you are not refusing to get any point, only to contradict your statement with "I disagree with that because I believe my solution makes this section in particular easier to read and also look nicer" which is demonstrating illustrating a point because you do not like when something does not go the way you like it to. That kind of charade needs to be nipped in the bud, as it is not cooperative or professional. And other users are now starting to notice your bad faith attitude towards myself too. Personally, I think the number of cols used should be dealt with on a page-by-page basis to maintain neatness. But unless the wider project agree to that, then we're to continue with the 3-col split, as shown on the skeleton templates - which were approved when they were in sandbox-mode, prior to them being published onto the project template guides. And also to accuse me of being "unaccommodating for things other people try and do and then make a big deal because it doesn't conform to something discussed over a year ago" is yet another demonstration of your bad faith attitude towards myself as an editor. I have never 100% unaccommodated anything. You only need to see all the discussions I have ever taken part in to find that I remain open-minded on any suggestion, and I research such suggestions via my sandbox to see if any are feasible and would dramatically improve an article's layout. If they do, then I support any suggested changes, if they don't then I oppose them. If a suggestion gets repeated days/weeks/months down the line, after they have already been tried and tested, then I will stick to my original decision that I will have made the last time any such suggestion was made. If you wish to open a new debate at WT:ESC regarding divcols and treating them on a page-by-page basis, then you would gain my support for such suggestion to be implemented. I have no reason to support you, considering the way you have treated me in the past, but as I can see your suggestion working, then I would support you at a debate held on the project talk page. Wesley Mᴥuse 17:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Claims

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

Accusations of being pointless

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

Examples of previous discussions

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

Provision of evidence

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

Seeking opinion of others

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

False accusations

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

Retracting comments

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

Kazakhstan, Kosovo, and Liechtenstein

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

Bad-mouthing

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

Emails

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

Accusations of blackmailing

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

This discussion is pretty pointless. You have an excuse and a deflection lined up for everything you've ever done and of course I'm the bad person in all of this and you've done no wrong but be a responsible and well-meaning editor here. Maybe I can break things down for you as well:

• And there wee go again, another prime example of bad faith against me. You accuse me of making excuses!? You accuse me of making you out to be the bad person!? Nobody is perfect, not you, not I. We all make mistakes. But to blatantly cast assumptions without knowing a person is absolutely uncalled for, and intolerable. Wesley Mᴥuse 00:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Claims

From this discussion:

Wesley Mouse: "For your information, it is not me trying to maintain what I like. The use of 3cols was agreed at the RfC, and is also evident on the skeleton articles which the project use as a guide."

Wesley Mouse: "So sorry to say, you are actually deviating from something which was agreed, and therefore being disruptive."

If such agreement exists, I wont start a discussion rather I will respect the decision. But you referred to an RfC that has no mention of that which you claim was an agreement.

• Firstly; Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 8#Commentators. Several editors stated they prefer column list rather than table layout. Three users Mrluke485, Cathairawr, Jetro, and Not A Superhero, liked the table version, and at the time I did jump the gun and start converting commentator sections into table. But at the same time tested out the 3-col split version on ESC 2012, to which Sims2aholic8, CT Cooper, and Kosm1fewnt all liked that version better than table-format. And so I intended to fix my previous eagerness, but with real-life distractions completely forgot to finish off the task I had started. CT Cooper also noted in his summarising of the RfC that "extensive discussion with various proposals being made, none of which got a clear consensus - with proposals to have these lists on separate pages or to keep them where they are but with more compact formatting". I was not sure what he meant by compact formatting, and asked him to elaborate further, to which he said "div col split method like the version used in ESC 2012", which at that time was a 3-col split. And further down in his summary he states "Other issues: Need established for an RfC on "Country in the Eurovision Song Contest" articles. Skelten draft articles have been created: one for the ESC, and one for the JESC." Therefore approving the method in use, as well as the skeleton drafts, to which he referred to. CT Cooper was the administrator who started the RfC. Wesley Mᴥuse 00:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Accusations of being pointless

From this discussion:

Wesley Mouse: "If you don't like it, then open up discussion at WT:ESC for the wider project to discuss the matter. But I think you'll find the majority prefer a 3-col split."

• With that remark I was not implying anything would be pointless, and this is yet another prime example of you twisting my words out of context. If you were not overly sure what I was trying to imply, then why didn't you ask me to elaborate more, and avoid making a potentially false accusation. I was urging you to open a new debate about div-cols, but also pointing out that not everyone may be inclined to see your point of view, in the way you would hope. And I did state that I would support your suggestion, in the event people didn't like your proposal. Wesley Mᴥuse 00:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Examples of previous discussions

I don't have plans to carry out editing these articles in such a massive way without discussing. I made two edits that were reverted because of an apparent agreement that advises that things should be done differently.

• Apologies if I didn't make myself clear enough in my statement regarding this issue. The debate I referred to was just an example of the way a similar scenario concluded. I thought it would be helpful to make you aware of that discussion so that you may see similarities between what went on back then over changing of templates without checking with the project first, and this current issue of changing a layout style without making a suggested proposal to the project first. Wesley Mᴥuse 00:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Provision of evidence

I'm asking for evidence because the areas you referred to did not contain the information you've referenced here. I'd avoid a discussion and respect an agreement if I can see what you're referring to.

• I have provided links in my replies above. There are some evidence though that I cannot share as they were sent via private discussion, and I don't know how to share an email on a talk page like this. Plus there were discussions which are archived, and I haven't a clue where to start looking for them, as it was so long ago when the discussions were held. Wesley Mᴥuse 00:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Seeking opinion of others

I've asked for evidence that states clearly how things have been agreed to be done. I agree it's an issue that I've changed things if they were agreed to be done a certain way by several people but I haven't seen anywhere where such an agreement has taken place.

• See comments at "Provision of evidence" and "Claims". Wesley Mᴥuse 00:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

False accusations

From the Kazakhstan, Kosovo and Liechtenstein discussion

Wesley Mouse: "Although perhaps it is because I am the editor who is participating in this debate and has providing compelling evidence in terms of Wiki-rules that urges you to be combative?"

This is when you started directing the discussion into personal matters making your involvement seem as the reason I'm even debating the issue.

• Sorry, I was asking a question in that remark, not casting a personal attack. If you would prefer me to re-word it, then by all means I shall do so. Wesley Mᴥuse 00:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Wesley Mouse: "Achieving a high quality and standard is something that is part of Misplaced Pages's goals in life, and in order for that to be achieved requires the help from people like you and me. I would have thought people would appreciate that someone like myself thrives on keeping up that high quality - obviously I am wrong, and a high standard isn't what people are aiming for. And yes, the things you wrote did come across as disrespecting the project, and it did upset me to see you word things in that way; hence why I got all brutal in my responses, as I was protecting the project on a whole and not just the sources and content."

This was insulting as a whole. You place yourself on such a high pedestal and flat out say that I or maybe all users in that discussion were not there to maintain a high standard.

• It was not meant to come across as an insult to you or everyone. The point I was trying to make was that I thought the primary objective of all Wikipedians was to produce a high standard of article writing. The fact that I felt a high standard of contribution was a mandatory requirement for becoming a Wikipedian, was the reason why I was also protecting the project by trying to help maintain that high standard. And I was wanting to clarify that if the primary objective of all Wikipedians was not to write to a high standard, then I misunderstood what was the actual prime goal for a Wikipedian. Wesley Mᴥuse 00:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

False accusations

My personal policy is that if you didn't want to say something then you shouldn't have said it. I can accept an apology but if things continue to be out of hand, then I would like to refer back to comments that were made and archive them for the future if necessary.

• I think we both share the same personal policy, albeit worded differently. My motto is treat those how they treat you. Another words, if they get all "bullish" with a bad-ass attitude, then I will converse with that person using the same attitude they used. OK, at times I can be "to the point" with words and call a spade, a spade. But my parents raised me to speak with honesty, as people always respect to hear the truth, even if at times it may be brutal. If you do not like that approach, then please let me know, so that I can act accordingly towards you. It is your utmost respect that I wish to admire, not this current fiasco. Perhaps that is the main issue, we're too alike that our personalities have clashed? I'd love to see your view on that. Wesley Mᴥuse 00:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Kazakhstan, Kosovo, and Liechtenstein

From the Kazakhstan, Kosovo and Liechtenstein discussion

Mr. Gerbear: "Now both of you need to stop. Pickette, that is uncalled for. And Wesley, you need to realize that everyone is here on Misplaced Pages to help, and that consensus may change with regards to what sources are credible. and not Both of you are accusing each other of bad faith and that's not ok."

Sure he reprimanded me, I never said he didn't but he also slammed your assumptions and commentary.

• Actually he wasn't slamming my assumptions and commentary. I knew what Mr Gerbear was referring to, as it was something he mentioned to me once or twice in the past, purely because he understands me personally, and knows almost everything about me so that he could make judgement himself. He and I have had many a tête-a-tête, as I feel comfortable opening up to him and talking about personal issues that I'm going through at home. Although the latter part of his comment made no sense. "Not Both of you are accusing each other of bad faith and that's not ok". Because he had previously informed me thathis English is not that good (via a discussion on the project newsletters) I automatically assumed it was a typing error and should have read "now both of you are accusing each other of bad faith and that's not ok". Wesley Mᴥuse 00:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Bad-mouthing

In a conversation you're involved in? Certainly I will defend myself against your bad-mouthing. That doesn't change you actively taking it upon yourself to bad-mouth me in a conversation I'm not involved in. That's low and undermining and you've done that on several talk pages that I can immediately refer to. And it would've been fine to apologize for your behaviour but you made comments directly attacking me and putting me down to other people which I find tacky and offensive.

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

Emails

I don't believe they exist. I think you invented that just to make your bashing a bit more sweeter to the user you initially posted it to and then when you got caught you didn't want to admit they were fake. And how are we supposed to clear my name after an accusation like that? There are so many policies that prevent you from posting anything from those emails. Let's just call it what it is: malicious character assassination. You didn't like that on Project Eurovision both Mr. Gerbear and someone from outside of the Project (AndrewRT) both reprimanded you for your actions and you wanted to shift all focus and turn them against me by inspiring sympathy from both of them and manipulating them. I'm so grateful they weren't duped by you.

• They do exist, but I don;t know of a way to forward those to anyone without disclosing my personal and private email address openly and thus run the risk of outing - which is prohibited and could lead to indef blocks. Although I did appreciate and believe you when you said you never sent them. What worried me is who did send them, and how did they contain your name if they never came from you. But I do find it horrific that you are calling me a liar in saying I "invented" the story, and especially trying to imply that others "caught me out" when nobody said such thing. Everyone was just as equally concerned about the emails and how they could have been sent in your name if you never sent them. So please, retract that horrid statement, as I am not a liar. And it isn't fair of you to be saying editor's called me a "fake" when they never said any such thing. Wesley Mᴥuse 00:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Accusations of blackmailing

From your talk page

Wesley Mouse: " I don't think you'd live with yourself if your actions towards me resulted in me causing self-harm. Your behaviour is making me feel intimidated, and making my experience on Misplaced Pages unpleasant and discouraging me from editing entirely."

Drmies: "Threatening self-harm as a result of someone else's actions is not acceptable: it's a kind of emotional blackmail. If indeed someone would want to harm themselves or others as a result of Misplaced Pages conversations and conflicts, they should probably find other things to do." Pickette (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Again, Drmies knows me well enough. He was very supportive at the time my mother passed away, and even to this day we have the odd chat and always ask how each other are doing. He even asked me how my volunteering went at London 2012 Olympic & Paralympic Games and we have recently spoke about my next volunteering excitement for Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games. He also knows how overly-sensitive I can be, which is why he made that advisory comment about threats of self-harming. It was his way of basically trying to get me to calm down. The fact that you are not aware of the previous history between he and I, would explain how you could have easily misconstrued his meaning. Wesley Mᴥuse 00:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how I got into this; I'd rather not be. Pickette, please don't use out-of-context comments in a new context. Wesley, please don't take everything personally. Pickette claims to have an editorial judgment/reason for doing something a certain way and says the RfC does not forbid it (did I get that correct?), you say the RfC did settle it. Seems to me there is an easy way to settle this: settle it right there where the RfC took place and invite the other participants. And do it neutrally, without jabs, from either side please. Let's not get too worked up over a column or a div or whatever. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• From what I gathered, yes Pickette does claim to have an editorial judgement/reason for doing something a certain way and feel the RfC does not forbid it. However that particular RfC closed over a year ago, in which there were proposed ideas with editors torn between two ideas. I did a test-drive of them both, and the idea of using bullet-point list split into 3 columns was given more "open-armed" favouring than the table-format version. During that RfC drafts were done based on editor's suggestions, and the admin who initiated the RfC liked and approved the draft versions, which were subsequently then added as template guidance for the project (ESC and JESC). If you note, both of those guidance templates use a 3-split column format as favoured at the RfC. I appreciate and actually favour Pickette's suggestion of using discretion to determine whether 2 or 3 columns should be used, depending on a neatness perspective, and I advised Pickette that if he wished for his suggestion to override the RfC choice, that he was more than welcome to start up a debate via the project talk page for others to add their input - which is only fair considering members of the project participated in the RfC in the first place. We would be in the wrong to deny them the right to review a particular style of which they once favoured. Wesley Mᴥuse 01:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry this is very delayed but I have been very busy. I don't mind asking others for their input, I just wanted clarification of why my edit had to be reverted according to something that was agreed upon when such a discussion never touched on what should be a dead set format for this section. Wesley Mouse, I don't really have a lot to add to anything I wrote above. When I edit articles, my intention is to make things better, not to destroy the work of others. And when I suggest things, I'm arguing for them because I believe it would be beneficial and not because your the person arguing against me. I don't want constant fights all of the time and I thought that after our interaction ban I could potentially collaborate with you on friendlier terms, but I'm very weary of your intentions based on things that have happened in the past. I can put aside personal insults or offensive comments but to accuse me of sending you malicious emails to a complete random user who happened upon an RfC at Project Eurovision is very undermining of me as a user here. I know you've said you have doubts about those emails being from me, but I don't understand why the first mention of those emails existing didn't happen in a conversation with me. There is just no possible way those emails can have my username attached to them because I didn't know emailing a user was possible on Misplaced Pages. Also, I highly doubt someone accessed my account to send those to you, there is no evidence of that being the case and I haven't changed my password since I created this account here. So I just want an honest explanation and perhaps we can put this negativity aside. Pickette (talk) 08:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Eurovision project discussion - "other awards"

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