User talk:Grk1011/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Garbi

Take a look at this: Tzini (Radio Edit Mix), Untitled Single (Katy Garbi). Does it even warrant its own page? Right now it is just a promo. Greekboy (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject in Category:Under-construction templates

Why is Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision placed in Category:Under-construction templates in [1]? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I fixed it. It was just a bad copy/paste by me. Grk1011 (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

the thing is that by adding the number of coppies Anna has sold in Greece we come to the conclusion that she has sold at least 2.500.000 copies.IFPI has confirmed it-i don't care if you take my word or not.

As far as the international sales are concerned there's absolutely noone who can confirm that Anna has sold more than 1 copies outside Greece and Cyprus.The only thing we can say for sure is that Trauma went gold in Africa a decade ago. So,if you don't have actual proof that Anna has sold 9,5 m. copies worldwide,cause you haven't posted official numbers,i suggest you dont write whatever yo wish was true... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aroulis (talk • contribs) 19:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, then

Sorry for being such a hermit. I guess, on the whole merging thing, that it really depends on the contest. If it's like MontenegroSong 2007, where there's really nothing more than is on the country's article (Montenegro in the Eurovision Song Contest 2007) it should be merged, but if it's like Melodifestivalen, where there a long list of semi-finals then they really should be in a seperate article. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I would make the quality of the articles a lot better as well. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your links say nothing about sales...Please give me the link you're talking about —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aroulis (talk • contribs) 11:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Categories

They were duplicates She's still in them. Please respond on my talk if you need me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

What? There's some kind of miscommunication here. The following text was in her article twice:

[[Category:Greek Eurovision Song Contest entrants]] [[Category:Cypriot Eurovision Song Contest entrants]]

I simply took out one occurrence. There is no reason for her to be in the category more than once regardless of how many times she was in the contest. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No Please see this picture; I think it will explain what is happening here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries You're good; better safe than sorry and all. Thanks for posting in the first place instead of reverting. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Eurovision Template

Hello - I've set {{Infobox Eurovision country}} to the old version, but set it to hide the {{{...}}} bit but keep the labels. But I'd really suggest using {{infobox}} for anything more complicated. --h2g2bob (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC) (in reply to)

Np. Btw, if that's the only problem, the header can be placed inside the infobox by changing title= to above=. --h2g2bob (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Done :) --h2g2bob (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested Eurovision song naming moves

I just finished moving all of them. I tried to do dabs where necessary (hatnotes to other articles and fixing the disambiguation pages where they existed) but you may want to do some checking as some of them may need hatnotes at other articles. Note that Love Power‎ is at that title with no disambiguator as the existing page was a simply redirect, so I moved it there. This was the only move you could not have performed yourself as far as I can see. None of these pages was protected and you are autoconfirmed. What exactly occurred when you tried to move them? Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

It's good to know that my work's being noticed. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 01:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a weird biological clock (it is the summer holidays). Sims2aholic8 (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Normally I would be asleep. I'm basically just alternating between editing and watching the Olympics. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008

I have read through the article as you requested, and given a quick review on the talk page. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Melodifestivalen

No objections here ;). I'll get involved too, but I'll wait till you've done a few, so that it's consistent. Thanks for voulenteering, btw. Chwech 15:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008

The article Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 for things needed to be addressed. Bláthnaid ^talk 20:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm looking now. Grk1011 (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. There doesn't need to be tons of new information, just a few sentences here and there will do. For the chart position, I think that something like "the song became a successful hit throughout Europe, peaking at number one in Greece and Cyprus and charting in a number of other countries" would be plenty of information. For the Eurovision voting, you could just mention that the song was the 21st of 25 countries that competed and the number of countries that voted in total. Regards, Bláthnaid ^talk 21:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you take the photographs Image:KalomoiraNationalFinal.jpg and Image:AthensEurovisionConferenceHilton.jpg yourself? Did you attend the press conference and national final? I ask because you have tagged them under the GFDL, but Image:KalomoiraNationalFinal.jpg is on Flickr here with the captions "Studio Panoulis" and "Press release photos from official eurovision site." It looks identical to the photo you uploaded. There is also a cropped version of the same photo on this blog. You can only tag the images as GFDL if you personally took the photos. Bláthnaid ^talk 21:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you know a link for the gallery the photo was uploaded onto? Since your cousin is the photographer, only he can release Image:KalomoiraNationalFinal.jpg under the GFDL. This can be done if he sends you an email with this text. You can then forward the email to OTRS, following these instructions. Since your cousin is a professional photographer and the photo is marked as copyrighted on other websites it is important that Wikipedia has proper permission to use it as a free image. For the photo you took, please write something like "I, Grk1011, took this photograph at the press conference" so it is clear that you are the photographer. Thanks for clarifying this :-) Bláthnaid ^talk 22:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yugoslavia in ESC 1992

Yugoslavia in ESC 1992 cannot go in the section as SFRY (no need to state FPRY - other nations changed their social-political structures and there is no need to mention those changes). Why? Because Slovenia and Croatia left in 1991 and there were no SFRY any more.

Yugoslavia in ESC 1992 cannot go in the section as SCG because of Bosnian and Herzegovinian appearance at the local selection.

EBU is not the Holy Bible and being a honest wikipedian means looking at the entire picture with lots of sources and not being biased towards a "one source solution". EBU is just the one source, however its significance was great.

Your redirection was badly done because it was in fact deletion and orphaning of the orriginal article, for deletion there are certain procedures to be met.

Imbris (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You can get every oppinion on the world but this would not change the fact that even EBU is not quallified to make those decisions. It is up to us - editors of Wikipedia to weight sources with each other and make sense of the data those sources give to us. Your aleigance to a "one source policy" is false. The EBU has most certainly the legal disclaimer about the data on its Website so do not preach about its Website. -- Imbris (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

---

There were two/four simple options:

• Appear as SFRY
• Do not appear at all
• Only pass votes
• Show up - but under the name and the flag of EBU (simmilar to sports) :-)

The officials from Belgrade choose to go and represent a new country Federal Republic of Yugoslavia which was not recognized by the UN, EU or any other international organization and was not proclaimed successor of the SFRY by any meaningful international organization. In fact FRY was under sanctions in sports and other events partly because of their claim of successorship of SFRY.

We have articles dedicated to "one time appearances" like Independent Olympic Participants at the 1992 Summer Olympics and even articles about states, like the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs which existed for a meere month.

Your decision to go to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard was not a move done in good faith, why not discussing the matter on the Talk:Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision.

It is normal that EBU officials would do almost anything to hide their mistake for allowing this appearance to happen in the first place. They would justify this by reaching out for emotions and list most humanist reasons for their mistake.

If they allowed this, that was their right but it is our right to look at what was done and write about it most objective and un-biased. We cannot do that by listing what EBU on-line database states.

Why has the ESC 1992 appearance of Yugoslavia happened at all, when Yugoslavia has not appeared in UEFA Euro 1992 (10 June – 26 June 1992) nevertheless of their right by passing quallifications.

On 1992-05-09 the final of the Eurovision Song Contest 1992 was held, at that time the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had not existed any more. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was proclaimed in April 1992, and the Republic of Slovenia and the Republic of Croatia proclaimed their independence in 1991 thus ending the existance of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

2006 FIFA World Cup (9 June – 9 July 2006) case is equal to solution list under SFRY, but in the ESC 1992 they haven't represented SFRY. At the FIFA World Cup 2006 Serbia and Montenegro participated even if the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro has been dissolved.

I most distinctively recall that the appearance was for FR Yugoslavia and not for SFRY because the flag had not a red five-pointed star.

Plus your oppinion that EBU as the contest sponsor, because the hosting broadcaster is the organizer, has the right to choose the name and the circumstances is very much wrong, FIFA and UEFA have chosen not to abide to Security Concil Resolutions which clearly state that FR Yugoslavia is in no case the successor of SFRY - In any possible way - including this one.

I suggest that you drop the issue from the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard because you stated some really disturbing oppinions on that noticeboard. Namely that "members of wikiproject eurovision" decided. You and Sims2 have decided. Discussion dead for a few days only. FRY Macedonia is accepted at the UN under that name FR Yugoslavia was accepted at the UN on October/December 2000 after it abandoned policy of successorship to SFRY.

EBU lists mistakes also. Like this one, where they listed appearance for Yugoslavia under the flag with the red star, but this flag had no red star at MalmöMässan in Malmö (Sweden).

Also EBU lists in its Terms of Use that The EBU tries to ensure that the Website is as up to date as possible, but the EBU cannot give a guarantee of the accuracy and currency of information provided on it. - see [2]. And EBU is not as independent as you may think, see at the same source, this sentence All terms shall be governed by, and interpreted in accordance with, Swiss law. The courts of the Canton of Geneva, Switzerland shall have exclusive jurisdiction.

Imbris (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

On the issue of me editing related articles and your request on refraining from editing Yugoslavia's appearance on ESC 1992, I reply:

• Mistakes can always be edited, like the fact that Yugoslavia's appearance on the ESC 1992 did not represent the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia but the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (unrecognized and refered by most international community as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).
• Also Yugoslavia appeared 26 times and FR Yugoslavia appeared only once.
• If you want to speak to me use the talk page, if you want to lecture me then also speak at the talk page but do not lecture me on the talk page of certain articles about my possible mistakes and conduct.

Imbris (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Mind over matter. I do not see how thinking could be considered original research. Also EBU do not have control over anything that does on Wikipedia, they are just one source and you are commiting a WP:SYN if using this "one source policy". Also we are an encyclopaedia and not the PR for EBU. P. S. Let's continue at the Talk:Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest! :) -- Imbris (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If there should be a merge then it should be towards the Serbia and Montenegro in the Eurovision Song Contest. But I do not approve of this merge also. -- Imbris (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Morocco in the Eurovision Song Contest deserves to exist but not Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest. -- Imbris (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that using weasel wording in the case of Yugoslavia (in ESC 1992) as if it was not the case of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is not a productive way of contributing to Wikipedia. This is common among certain "type" of users on Wikipedia and not limitted to beginers. I hope that you would learn to think clearly and neutraly, the main precondition for that is to stop deliberate campaining and to start productively contributing. Well hope is eternal. -- Imbris (talk) 10:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I am very sad to see you offended. That was not my intention. I have never said that you were a beginer, nevertheless of what you may think. Counting edits in highly inappropriate and I see that you need to emphasise numbers. There is no doubt that the current state of the database which EBU maintains on the Internet regarding the participation of Yugoslavia in the ESC 1992 is false because they represented the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia under the flag of that federal republic and not the flag of SFRY. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was reffered at international organisations as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).

I do not see what is the big deal for you to let that article exist. If the title is, by your accounts, wrong than use the rename procedure, but merging is not an option.

Your insistance on the "swift" newspaper article caption of Yugoslavia doesn't make sense to me. We, who watched it on TV, and saw the Yugoslavia writen or spoken before the preformance know that the flag was a horizontaly divided triband of navy blue, white and bright red. That TV caption doesn't mean a thing. Good example is the F. R. Y. O. M. which is often spoken by the presenters of points from various countries as simply Macedonia.

EBU is not reliable and has a legal disclaimer which stated just that. Usage of data on personal risk. And encyclopaedical work includes looking at the sources, questioning sources, deciding which sources to use. EBU has no merit in this question, for them the question doesn't even exist. Yet we debate over it, this is how encyclopaedia is made, not by blindely following a "one source" (or a dominant source) policy.

Imbris (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

An answer to your "what if" question

Your strange logic is beyond my comprehension because the choice for that Georgia example is simply fabulous. I will simply change the names to more familiar Kosovo/Serbia issue. Naturally when Kosovo joins the EBU, Serbia would continue to participate (hopefully) and Serbia's appearances would go in the article Serbia in the Eurovision Song Contest. Serbia without Kosovo is the legitimate successor to Serbia with Kosovo.

But, regarding ESC 1992 and the appearance of Yugoslavia (without the red star) we must understand the following:

• the Socialist Republic of Montenegro (dropped socialist in 1993) and the Republic of Serbia joined in a federal state called (the) Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in April 1992.
• that federal state claimed the successorship of SFRY during much of its existence (approximately up to October 2000) and well before joining the UN latter that same year.
• During all this time from the formation of FRY to its ascending to United Nations in 2000, the Flag of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (with the red star) continued to be flown in front of the main building of the United Nations in New York and other places of the UN.
• the Agreement on Succession Issues was signed by successors of the SFRY (Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Macedonia, the Republic of Slovenia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (comprising of the Republic of Montenegro and the Republic of Serbia), thus ending the FRY's campaign on the solemn successorship of SFRY. The Agreement was signed in 2001.

Nobody recognized FRY as the successor to SFRY and that praxis if existing on this Wikipedia is contrary with its own articles about the nations, states, representations of those nations, states in sports and other occasions.

(a historical intro) SFRY had no leading country around which it was formed, it was a union of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs up to 1929, then a federation of five nations (Croats, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Serbs and Slovenes) and seven territorial units in 1943 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Sandzak, Serbia, Slovenia), soon Sandzak was split between Montenegro and Serbia in 1944 so we had six federal states up to 1946 then after Muslims were recognized as a nation so we had six nations and six people's republics. Then in 1974 Yugoslavia was de jure called a federation but it was de facto a confederation (opposite to Switzerland which is de jure a confederation and de facto federation) of six socialist republics and two socialist autonomous provinces (the socialist autonomous provinces were also attached to Serbia (this attachment happened in 1945 on the basis of self-determination of the nations and nationalities of the Autonomous Vojvodina and Autonomous Kosovo - each of the autonomous provinces for itself and on the basis of democracy and free choice of the people). Yugoslavia first came to existence after the First World War and before that time there was neither Yugoslavia nor the joint state of all of the ex-Yugoslavian nations and nationalities. Georgia existed for centuries, Armenia received Christianity in 301 A.D., and Serbia is an old medieval kingdom. So there is a big difference between Yugoslavia and those states/nations. The Yugoslav nation was only a state-ordered nomenclature which came to existence certain state-driven bodies and institutions, it was predominantly the citizenship (statehood membership of SFRY or in terms which are used in monarchies - subject of British King/Queen - subject of SFRY).

There are a lot of false sources, especially on the Internet and using the source which is obviously false would be damaging to the integrity of the articles to which a merge of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest article is proposed (suggested). Also I would like to note that using just one source is a WP:SYN and we cannot remain blind to the attempts of merging without a proper merge template added to the talk page and without a consensus been reached. It would be oblivion and complete disregard of the efforts of number of editors who wrote articles regarding the former Yugoslavia to approve this merge. I would repeat my suggestion that you drop this issue and relinquish your request at the Administrator's notice board.

Imbris (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The flag is just as important issue

Example. Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya a.k.a. Libya. And when a "know it all" notices their flag it is unmistakenly recognized. The flag is just as important as the caption on a TV screen. -- Imbris (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Help

{{helpme}} I need some help. Can someone please read the above section and also my responses on his talk and also Talk:Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest#Yugoslavia 1992: Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.3F. Also see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest: no one seems interested in helping me out. (Read the administrators first for an overview). Thanks. Grk1011 (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Be patient. Try filing a request for comment. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

ok, thanks. Grk1011 (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Campaining :) Administrator's noticeboard is 427 kilobytes long and I cannot edit such amounts of data through my "slow" modem. This is why I may not participate in the discussion led there. I see you have asked some of your friends like Camaron and Zvonko (Zvonko's oppinion on the matter is highly dubious). Why haven't you instead looked at the big picture and found out more about the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia also. This has nothing with politics but EBU cannot control encyclopaedical work and free-minded spirits. -- Imbris (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that this RFC goes in the sections for Wikipedia:RFC/MEDIA. What do you think. I would be very glad to hear your oppinion. -- Imbris (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I have earlier expirienced problems with editing the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, so can we converse at Talk:Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest. Also you have not answered my comments posted in this Help subtitle. What about the Olympics, the editors over there reached a concensus. -- Imbris (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Going into merger before 3rd opinion

And with unresolved question at the Administrators' noticeboard. Nice. Why not waiting for a 3rd opinion like one administrator instructed you in the discussion above (at the title Help). Why are you so unpatient? -- Imbris (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Now you are being just pretencious. You wanted things not disturbed and now you are disturbing them. -- Imbris (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You do not have to explain your position because it has been very clear to me from the start. SFRY appeared no matter what you say and not just Yugoslavia, SFRY appeared - look at the flags. -- Imbris (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No can do. Germany participated and German Democratic Republic did not, after 1990. we have a United Germany appearing as Germany. This is perfectly ok.

Simmilar to Bosnia and Herzegovina, the state was called the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina up to 1995 (or 1998.) and then just Bosnia and Herzegovina (the two had different flags).

Those appearances show the legitimacy of succession.

FRY was regarded during those times as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) which was its temporary designation and that FRY was succeded by Serbia and Montenegro.

FRY has no legitimacy over the long list of participants under the plain designation Yugoslavia.

Imbris (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a good compromise. If you still have the strength to do the rewording and editing that would be great. -- Imbris (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Euroleague

Good catch. I submitted Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kanabekobaton based on your tip. The edit history, refusal to communicate, and SUL data makes for a good case. DarkAudit (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

And confirmed. They're the same. Good job. DarkAudit (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yugoslavia

At least it's been resolved, finally :) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what country I should link SCG to on the infobox on the ESC 1992 page (either Serbia and Montenegro or FR Yugoslavia). Sims2aholic8 (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Grk1011. I'm going to bed soon so don't have time to spend on this now, but.. we will work together on it, I guarantee! Goodnight :) EuroSong ^talk 23:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think we are overuled, this is a stalemate position where Greekboy started oposing your move. Do you still belive that merger with Yugoslavia in the ESC article is the better choice? -- Imbris (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Greekboy changed Sims2aholic8 comment to a support vote [3]. Also I suspect that Greekboy is infact Grk1011. This suspicion would be confirmed if they both voted the same way and they do think awful alike, don't they. -- Imbris (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The users you speak about have commented and not voted. Also the majority doesn't prevail because Wikipedia is not a democracy not a bureaucracy. Wikipedia will not sponsor your blatant disregard of the rules. If you are Greekboy (who is also allegedly a teen of Greek descent living in America who deals with Eurosong. Imagine an American who deals with Eurosong + a big Christian and Orthodox as well.) The checkuser will just love the challenge. Even if you use a changing IP address eveyone would soon realise that you and him are the same person. And the fact that Greekboy changed the vote for Sims2aholic8 is fabulous. Your sources are invalid and your tactics also. -- Imbris (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Harrasment and the solicitor of Greekboy

If you are a professional solicitor (attorney) then why do you contribute to wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a state with laws but a society of users with certain procedures.

Also Greekboy and Sims2aholic8 can speak for themselves.

Imbris (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Liechtenstein

Maybe you're right. I guess we could revert it back. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Croatia in the Eurovision Song Contest

It is not POV but an information table. If you want to claim that all of the Yugoslavian appearances are contributed to each and every nation/republic of the SFRY. That is your right, but Macedonians voted too (by an expert committee) so they have to also be mentioned as represented. Also the Kosovars (TV Priština voted too). And the constitutent nations of Vojvodina (TV Novi Sad voted too). Write all that facts in the Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest. Please stop removing the table, because it that table is a fact. If you want to rephrase then by all means, do it. But do not remove the table, please. -- Imbris (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Your like

If you don't mind I upgraded you heart into SVG. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 13:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, especially since I had a typo in the file name. Do you think we should add the russian flag to the middle, it seems sort of boring. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes it would make it less boring and easy to do! I would be able to change it by using the SVG flags we have here. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 14:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Added: A question, should the flag be straight so the stripes run horizontal or tilted to match the slight slant of the heart? -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 14:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it they should prob be horizontal, but looking at the flag again, should we mirror it, i think the real one tilts the other way. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Examples available in the image history. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 14:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, though I can't see the older versions with my work computer. I think the flag one might not look right in the infobox for each year's contest, however, so maybe we should have two? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Way ahead of you! -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 14:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Then I think everything is good, unless you want to mirror the infobox heart too, its up to you. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I prefer things to be standardised, mirrored has been done. Also if know one comments about the {{esc}} template before August 29, then it may be added to articles. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 14:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, did you figure out Macedonia? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, but may keep {{Inescm}} or put up with the link redirecting, it still reduces the templates down to 2 or 1 rather than 4. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 15:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Pink Evolution reported by User:Onceloose

The above user was involved in a edit war quite some time ago apparently. The user has started adding material to For Life (Isis Gee song) falsifying the songs position in the eurovision song contest. The song came JOINT LAST and is listed as such. The user continues to add that it came second last which is incorrect as it is listed in alphabetical order as last place.

The user has been warned about adding the same information in the past but is still doing it. In order to stop an edit war please block the above user or protect the page to leave it as JOINT LAST.

Onceloose (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the scoreboard here there was a three way tie for last, but "For Life" was given second to last in the standings because of the voting procedure. Read Voting_at_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest#Tie-breakers. Can you show me where it says that the song came in joint last? The official website lists second to last here. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2008 (UT

The rankings work by the points received. She came joint last but the last three entries are listed in alphabetical order G for Germany P for Poland and U for UK. They all came last, just the order on the table. You can google it - pretty standard for Eurovision. The tie break procedure is for winners not those whp came last. Onceloose (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the last link, it shows Poland's participation in eurovision and lists For Life as placing 24th. If you use the tie breaker it will come out Germany 23, Poland 24, and UK 25, same as alphabetical order. I would try googling, but what precedent do we have to go against the eurovision official website. I hope this wasn't the "vandalism" on Isis Gee that you were talking about a few days ago, because its not vandalism, the other user even said where she was getting her information from, you ignored her edit summary and reverted without even providing a source of your own. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The tie break is only for winners. It is equal last. Other admins have agreed and even blocked Pink Evolution. Onceloose (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about this case only. She was right and there are sources that back her. I will admit however that she has made some bad edits over the past month: breaking up other ties that eurovision did not. Also only an admin can block a user, but I would support you as she is making a mess. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

For your all information. Funny I saw this topic just after I saved this page;). Pink Evolution (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Eurovision

Thakns for the invitation for the project. For me, Eurovision is the best contest in the world and i´m so happy to can participate in the project. thanks --João P. M. Lima (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

ok thanks --João P. M. Lima (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Tie in eurovision

Hi! You reverted ([4], [5]) my edits ([6],[7]) in the articles Eurovision Song Contest 2006 and Eurovision Song Contest 2003 with the reference to the official site although you didn't gave a weblink. So I have searched and found something inconsistent. For example in eurovision 2003([8]) and 2006([9]) the ties are not broken, but in eurovision 2008 ([10])!. Do you know why? Greetings, --Pink Evolution (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I did notice that since I usually check up on most Eurovision changes. Onceloose tends to jump tp conlcusions too often as seen on Isis Gee where he accidently got into an edit war over the addition of a relevant category and then felt the need to revert my rewrite because there was apparently some "vandalism" in the edit before mine (I failed to find it). It is very strange that the ebu did not break the ties for the older contests, but they did for 2008 and we just have to go by what the official website says. Though the method you used on the older contests to determine the placings was correct, the contest did not break it and we need to reflect that on wikipedia. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you;). I hope now it is okay for everyone. --Pink Evolution (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I also reworded the song's page here. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no tiebreak for final position, sorry but this is true. Please provide a source. Onceloose (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Grr. We already did so. Once again and I'll cancel my advocacy and require your block! Pink Evolution (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That is not a source for a mythological 'tie-break' for final place when all the newspapers say she came last. Onceloose (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but the official eurovision-site is important for us. By the way you don't have to tell me that newspapers sometimes write nonsense. I live in Germany and read many times (mainly in unreliable magazines and newspapers of course) catch-lines like "Scandal! Our Angels placed last in Eastrovision. Sovjet-countries pushing towards their points to each other. Nobody loves us!" and some retarted writing in this way. But they don't make the rules. Pink Evolution (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Way too many people talking to eachother here. Pink, I agree with you and Onceloose will be proven wrong, just wait. i dealt with a similar disagreement earlier this week and they can be daunting, but we will make it through. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There was no tie-break. Reading Pink's history she really has made stuff up before. Onceloose (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

re User:Onceloose

Thanks for your note at my talkpage. I have commented at the sockpuppet request report, with a link to the previous case. I suspect there will be a positive result quite quickly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I thought that someone with experience in the matter could offer up their opinion. Thanks. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Estonia in ESC 1993

Have you though any more about what we should do? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that we put it in italics like we do with countries that don't pass through the semi-finals, but I'm still not sure. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)