User talk:Wesley Wolf/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

April 2013

Hi

New request to have Nigar Jamals name in turkish too in the article again at the talk page. I mean she is Azeri and I am aware that the two countries have strong ties but anything that has to do with Turkey concerning her name does not belong in the article. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

About Eurovision

Hello Mr. Wesley, I am ervonitor. Thanks for taking the time to write me. Unfortunately there is no way for me to prove the interruption of the Greek song by Turkish State TV. The only proof for the incident is the video tapes in the archives of the Turkish Radio Televison Administration. I doubt that anyone has also taped the incident, for in those years consumer video recorders were not available in Turkey. It was done because of the hatred against Greeks, after the 1974 invasion of Northern Cyprus. I am sure most Greeks and Greek Cypriots will remember it and many Turks will not deny it. Ervonitor (talk) 10:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately then, as there are no sources to confirm this incident then the content that you added will have to be removed, this is because it is in violation of no original research. When we add written content to any encyclopaedic article, then it needs to be cited using a reliable source. Wesley♦^Mouse 10:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

ABU TV Song Festival 2013 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to ABU

Our Sound (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to ABU

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - April 2013

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Help test new SuggestBot design

We have developed an exciting new version of SuggestBot’s interface with some cool features! Volunteer to be one of the first users to try it and help us make it better by answering a short survey! If you’re interested in participating, leave us a message on SuggestBot’s user talk page. Regards from Nettrom, SuggestBot’s caretaker. 18:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

SuggestBot beta-test

Hi, and thanks much for participating in the SuggestBot beta! You can find your suggestions and the survey on this page. Let me know if there's anything! Regards, Nettrom (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		A small token of appreciation for helping out with the SuggestBot beta test, sending us your feedback. Again, thanks so much! Nettrom (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Nettrom has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Also, here, have a cookie! :)

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

May 2013

Eurovision Song Contest 2013

Hello. Thank you for informing me that you have reverted my edit in article about ESC 2013. However, I think you're wrong. You see, there are two "famous" people in Serbia with the name Maja Nikolic - one is singer, the other one is television presenter. Maja, a television presenter, already presented Serbian votes a couple of times, works for Radio Television of Serbia, so I'm pretty sure that she is the one. On the other hand, everyting it's possible. Regards! --Павлица (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

From what I gather, the source used states it is Maja Nikolic the singer. If it is the TV Presenter, then don't wikilink it, as there is no article from Maja Nikolic (TV presenter), and red-wikilinks are frowned upon. Wesley♦^Mouse 13:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

TRT Eurovision

Resolved

 – Details regarding Turkish broadcasting were incorrect, and such information has been removed from Eurovision Song Contest 2013. Wesley♦^Mouse 16:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. First, my English isnot so good, but this reference says in Turkish, "TRT will not show all three events because they want to 'protest' the contest". Sorry, I was thinking "off-the-record" means "no telecast" or something negative. --Akinranbu (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, this reference says TRT will show the final only and that they protest showing same-sex kissing scene that Finland plan to do during their performance. The reference that you have provided seems to be following up on this fact too. As there are no names of commentators for TRT, then there is no harm including them in the article for now, unless there is a final official statement that says they will not broadcast the show. Wesley♦^Mouse 15:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't you know Turkish? Here ("Eurovision Şarkı Yarışması'nı bu yıl protesto ederek katılmayan TRT, yarı final ve finali yayınlayıp yayınlamamayı tartışıyordu. Bugün yapılan toplantıdan 18 Mayıs'ta yapılacak finalin TRT ekranlarından yayınlanmaması kararı çıktı.") and here ("Bu yüzden TRT Kurumu ilkelerinden taviz vermemek adına, 2013 Eurovision Şarkı Yarışması’nın finallerini yayınlamama kararı almıştır.") they say, they will not show the final.--Akinranbu (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Please be civil and don't personally attack me with your opening comment there. Wesley♦^Mouse 15:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I just cannot speak this language well so it can look rude, I don't know and I can say I have not attack to you. I'm from Turkish Wikipedia and just seen Turkey's name in the international broadcasting list so just want to fix it. I am civil enought, I think. I just don't know this language well. Love. --Akinranbu (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, if the content is being removed from the commentators section, then its reference also needs to be removed on the "other countries" section, as someone has also stated there that Turkey will broadcast the final. Wesley♦^Mouse 16:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest 1970

Wesley, I'd like to see where that project consensus is so I can argue against it. You know that years ago I already raised the same issue; I don't recall having been asked to contribute to a discussion. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The RfC is in the archives of WT:ESC (I think it was around June/July 2012). The same style has been used on all annual articles, including ESC 2012; ABU Radio Song Festival 2012; and ABU TV Song Festival 2012 which all gained GA, and the reviewers were OK with the section being included. Based on what was said during the RfC, a template article Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/Eurovision Song Contest was devised as an aid for Project Eurovision members on layout style for Eurovision by Year articles. I think we mentioned this issue months ago, and I explained everything to you back then, and you seemed to have been OK with it then. Wesley♦^Mouse 17:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. No, I was not OK with it, though I appreciate the value of consensus. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns. Some project members have tried to add a full in-depth detail on the host city. The host city is in theory one of the vital points of the contest, which is why in providing a very brief section on the city, gives the unfamiliar reader to Eurovision Song Contest, some encyclopaedic value content, with the option to view the article on the host city for further reading, if they so choose. It is like a butterfly effect, someone new to Eurovision who reads one of the annual articles would learn something extra about the host city, and in turn click to another article, so on and so forth. If that makes any sense. Wesley♦^Mouse 17:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I placed a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision. I couldn't disagree more on the importance of the host city for the contest: the songs and performances aren't selected on the basis of which city the event happens to be in. I hope there will be some response to my post: the project, and that's to your credit, is mostly you, it seems. :) Drmies (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It may take a while before anyone responds to the project talk page, as Eurovision 2013 is literally in mid-flow - everyone's concentration is on the respective 2013 article at the moment. Since the 2011 contest, the host city has gone through a bidding process, and such details have been outlined in the articles ESC 2011, ESC 2012, and ESC 2013 - with a map used to show the location of the candidate cities. I have to disagree that the location information is promotional, although I can see your perspective on how it could be seen as such. When a contest is won, the national broadcaster of the winning country is then in control of organising the following year's event. It is the role of the national broadcaster to select a host city. So really, the selection process on the host city and/or details on the host city for which the contest is taking place in, should have some mention within the article. All the annual articles state in the lead that the contest is taking place in such 'n' such a city, but there is nothing within the article to mention about the host city. Shouldn't the lead be providing a summary of the article? If so, then why omit details on the host city. By omitting such data, would we not be basically contradicting the guidelines for the lead section? Wesley♦^Mouse 17:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that besides the obvious, the winner gets to host, there's nothing of substance that it would add to the article. Come on, you know how cheesy and tedious those little clips are of the band members of every group from every country getting their pictures taken at the landmarks etc. But none of that affects the program itself. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I am a huge fan of the show, and thoroughly enjoy watching every part of it, every year. So I feel a little upset at the "cheesy and tedious" comment there Drmies. Yes the songs take part in a show. But if the show didn't have a host city, then there would be no songs required to participate in the show. If an article doesn't mention something in brief about the host city, then would we not be basically saying to the general reader that the contest took place somewhere, but we can't be arsed to provide some details about the host city, so go find out yourselves. We're not exactly being reader friendly there are we? Although the location section probably could do with explaining more about the host venue, and very little about the host city (unless of course there was a bidding phase for the host city, such as in 2011 - 2013). Wesley♦^Mouse 18:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Anyhow, I will be logging out shortly as the second semifinal starts in 50 minutes time. Want to see if my favourite (San Marino) qualifies to the final. I'm as excited as a child at Christmas-time right now lol. Wesley♦^Mouse 18:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - May 2013

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Eurovision Song Contest 2014 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hi

I have started an article on the upcoming Wedding of princess Madeleine of Sweden and Christopher O’Neill this weekend in Sweden. Always nice with a wedding.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Oooh looking good. But shouldn't Princess in the article title be capitalised? Wesley♦Mouse 22:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. And done :).--BabbaQ (talk) 10:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I must say, I do like a good wedding. I wonder if it will be broadcast on TV, like most royal weddings? Oh, I've been busy with re-writing OGAE articles too. They were in a dire mess, and the lead in main OGAE was a word-for-word copy of the "about us" section from their Facebook page. Anyhow, I've restructured that article now, and aim to get all the other ones (including second chance contests) up to a reasonable standard. But I did have a thought about Second Chance Contests, they are just as much a part of Eurovision, as they are the songs that took part in national finals. I was wondering if we should be mentioning details about those songs within articles such as Spain in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 which took part in Second Chance OGAE and won. Wesley♦Mouse 12:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes a good wedding is always a nice. It will be broadcasted on Swedish television troughout the entire day. I do not know if the UK will broadcast it anywhere, otherwise you might find some link to the broadcast on SVT.se. Yes I think a mention of the OGAE results are appropriate for the Spain in the... articles etc. Good work.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:OGAE Video Contest

Hello. You reverted my disambiguation fix here on the Macedonia link per WP:ARBMAC. Is the link intentionally going to the disambiguation page, or is it supposed to go somewhere else? -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 17:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Check the page history again. You'll find I reverted my own revert, as I noticed the error at the last minute. Apologies. Wesley♦Mouse 17:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah. The notifications didn't show the second edit, and I didn't look at it as I should have. No worries then. Thanks! -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 17:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - June 2013

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

hey

you right i didnt know that the final resualrs was diffrent from the live results in in the live show — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yozi22 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Re:Templates for ABU Festivals

I'll have a go, any idea on the name of the templates? -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 21:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

{{Abuyr}}	{{Abuyr|TV|2012}}	2012
	{{Abuyr|Radio|2012}}	2012
{{Abu}}	{{Abu|China|TV|2012}}	China
	{{Abu|China|Radio|2012}}	China

Voilà -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 22:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Issue

Hi, I've read your comments you made to the user who commented on the situation at Project Eurovision and I believe that you should escalate matters and have this problem resolved with some kind of intervention as you were proposing on my talk page. I don't appreciate being trashed and lied about to other people. I never emailed you. I don't even know your email. I thought an interaction ban, as I've read it, entailed that users wouldn't discuss each other at all or talk to each other anywhere. Please let me know if you plan to do this, otherwise I'll look into it. Pickette (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Well if you haven't emailed me, then someone using your profile name has then. Who I choose to go to discuss my concerns on this matter is my decision, not yours. If something is distressing to the extreme of a personal and mental level, then I am within my rights to seek advice from others. Otherwise I'd be bottling it all up, and that could hold far worse consequences. 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 Wikipedia unpleasant and discouraging me from editing entirely. Wesley♦Mouse 16:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't even know your email. If that is indeed the case with someone with my username emailing you, please block that email because it's definitely not me. I didn't even know Wikipedia had email accounts. Please just stop discussing me and this issue. We've agreed not to speak to each other or about each other. Pickette (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Some users have email accounts. If you look at the top of my talk page you will see a small envelope icon which allows editors to send me a private email. Although I don't know if it is possible to block editors from emailing me though - I may need to seek advice on that one. And we agreed to not talk to each other, I don't recall saying not to talk about each other. If something is deeply bothering me to a high level of distress, then I am within my right to seek advice regarding the matter. It is like if you were being targeted in real-life, you would go to the police or speak to someone you know personally, rather than bottle it up and make yourself ill with worrying about it. How I choose to handle my worry is my choice. If you do not agree, then I apologies, but I cannot just sit back and allow someone to make me ill as a result of their behaviour towards me as an individual, despite the fact that I have tried numerous times to seek reconciliation and peace with users who may have an issue with me. Wesley♦Mouse 16:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

But the interaction ban entails that we also not talk about each other or reference each other. If you honestly feel ill and are deeply personally offended, then please ask for intervention so we can come to some kind of official understanding. I'm willing to participate in that. Pickette (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

But you are now misunderstanding the interaction ban. Don't forget it was not implemented by official means, we only agreed to it mutually between ourselves. And yes, you have made me feel ill by some of your sly comments towards myself. Why do you think I kept asking for peace and to start anew? Your actions have caused many sleepless nights, on some occasions I have been awake for 48 hours without any sleep. I had mentioned to you in the past about some of the personal issues I have endured, such as the death of my mother, hoping that you would have understood how delicate and sensitive a person I am at this present time. Life isn't easy when you lose a parent at my age. Wesley♦Mouse 16:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know you personally. The only comment I made about you that I believe was out of line was when I said you were condescending in reference to your comments on Wikipedia. I don't know what kind of person you are and you don't know that about me either. We obviously disagree on what has happened here so I think to bring a final resolution, we should involve some kind of mediation from a third party. I don't think either of us should be banned or anything, but I think some kind of binding resolution is necessary. Pickette (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Getting a third party involved isn't as simple as you may expect. There was WP:WQA which was less harsh, and they couldn't impose blocks on users. But they have since closed down. The only other option is WP:ANI, but from past experience it is not a nice place to go to. Both you and I would been scrutinised by admins, they check EVERYTHING that you and I have done. And the likelihood of one or both of using being block is 90% probability. Why do you think I came to you personally, to try and resolve this matter as adults? That way we can discuss with each other calmly, and work out what caused us to be so hostile, see if we are able to resolve those issues amicably. That way we have avoided any of us being block, restored peace, and can continue to work collaboratively, or what ever outcome we both agree to follow. I may have an idea though, I could see if one of the admins would be willing to mediate a discussion between us in a non-ANI environment, if you are willing to try out that method of course? Wesley ☮ Mouse 17:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes I'm willing to do that. Pickette (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I've left a note with an admin to come along to here and mediate. Drmies is very good at being impartial, which is something that we would need for this case. In the meantime, do you think that we should remove any previous hostilities as a mark of progress towards finding resolution? I am willing to do that, and don't mind if you wish to remove (or strikethrough) any comments that I had made that you feel disheartened by, so that I know which ones to remove. It's a start to the mediation process I suppose. Wesley ☮ Mouse 14:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not quite sure how this all started, and I'm probably not very interested in that. If it's a content dispute, the best way to handle that is to stay as neutral as possible. This business about the email is strange: emails sent through the system identify the senders, and that's really all there is to it (but make sure that the name isn't an impersonation or so, with one letter difference). 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 Wikipedia conversations and conflicts, they should probably find other things to do.

  I understand you have both agree to some kind of interaction ban? An official one disallows conversations, talk page visits, hounding, and making reference to each other (see WP:IBAN), so make sure that that's what you want. You could, of course, go to AN and ask for an official one. Ha, you could both do so in mutual agreement--that might be a first. Or you could both drop whatever stick you all were swinging around and move on. There is some talk in the first sentence here about a problem with yet another user--solve that first and then maybe this won't be so problematic any more. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd just like to know what grave personal comments I've made on Wikipedia that have upset Wesley Mouse personally. The only thing that I believe I've done is call him condescending, which I've admitted was out of line. Not to mention he's called me the same thing just recently and has gone on several rants detailing what a mean and rude person I am. The emails are an absolute fabrication and he needs to withdraw that everywhere he has mentioned that because he knows that I didn't send such emails. I didn't even know until such an accusation that you could email users on Wikipedia. Wesley Mouse has been criticized by two users for his behaviour on Project Eurovision in regards to me and his defence is to give a one-sided insulting account of things that happened and tell people that I've even sent him emails. If you look at the conversations I've had on my talk page, Project Eurovision and the Eurovision 2013/2014 talk pages, all of these discussions started because Wesley Mouse pursued me. I have never messaged him or posted anything on his talk page. He interprets everything I say that is against his opinion as some kind of insult or a campaign against him. I don't know Wesley Mouse and I'm certainly not interested in discussing him at all on my talk page or anywhere else with any other user. While Wesley Mouse claims to have offered peace, he does so under the pretence that I accept all responsibility for everything that has gone down because it's all my fault and he's done nothing but try to be a good person. At this time what I want from this discussion is for Wesley Mouse to not speak to me any more and not speak about me anywhere on Wikipedia and I will do the same. I want him to verbally retract anywhere he wrote that I sent him malicious emails because I definitely did not. Also I'd like to know if anyone can check if I have sent emails, if that's possible. Pickette (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Everything stemmed from our initial conversation regarding Elitsa & Stoyan. I left a note on Pickette's talk page regarding the article. I was merely trying to be helpful towards the user, and discuss a matter diplomatically. But I got rather confused when it appeared that my comments were not seen as being helpful by the recipient. If Pickette took offence to my helpful ways, then I am sincerely sorry for trying to be helpful, and acknowledge that my help wasn't appreciated by the editor. I had also attempted to be helpful when I asked Pickette if he would like to help me with re-working on some Eurovision articles. My actual wording is (and I quote) "Actually, I might have a job for you, if you fancy giving me a hand with it of course? Its a major task rolling out the new layout style on all the annual contest pages, which I had started last year but then I had to put it on hold while I was volunteering at the London 2012 Olympic & Paralympic Games. Let me know if you're interested in giving me some help.". Where in my comment did it appear that I was forcing a demand on Pickette? I was just offering an open invitation. A simple, "no thanks" would have been sufficient from Pickette in response to my invitation. I wasn't expecting the kind of hostile response that he did make though (and again I quote) "To be honest, I'm not really interested in working together with you on a specific thing. I don't have a problem with collaborating with others but based on how you write to me, I think you have some kind of issue with me and I'd rather avoid that on here. I'm sorry I edited the Eurovision Song Contest 2013 page with the final order before you had the chance to. I didn't see your post on the talk page and to be honest I don't think it's really a big deal about who got to do it, if that's the problem here (?). And about the Georgian page, I missed the edit you made but I saw the one you did on the Irish page so by the time I went back you had already edited it out. I think you make way too many assumptions about my intentions when I make edits based on how you preface your advice, which comes off very condescending rather than helpful". The wording was rather harsh in my opinion, especially when I was being polite to begin with. Pickette had openly attacked me by stating he hasn't a problem working with others, but doesn't want to work with me. Where is the team-spirit in that? If he didn't want to work with me, then he could have kept those thoughts to himself, rather than force-feed them down my throat in such a horrid way. And it is that statement that I would appreciate if Pickette would either retract it, reword it, or at least apologise for being so harsh.

As for the emails, they are not a fabrication. But I do accept that Pickette was unaware of such features on WIkipedia. Which leaves me with only one question. If Pickette never sent them, then who did? And why did they use Pickette's name? And most importantly, how did they gain access to Pickete's account? Is it possible that his account may have been compromised unbeknown to him? I'm not sure if it is possible to forward a copy of the email to someone for them to see for themselves the nature in which the email was worded, and the unnecessary threats that were made within the email correspondence. And although I may have been criticized by two users for my behaviour, but Pickette too has been criticized, albeit privately, by an admin for his behaviour towards me; as the admin user was concerned that I may have been bullied or victimised for whatever reasons. But I reassured the user that both Pickette and I was merely experiencing minor disagreements, and that I intended to try and resolve the matter by offering an olive branch of peace. But that request for a truce was not appreciated by Pickettte, and was rapidly thrown back in my face. Why would someone behave like that and refuse to accept the good intentions of one user who was literally waving the cyber-white flag. Wesley ☮ Mouse 09:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I've already made reference to calling you condescending being out of line. I can apologize for that more explicitly now, but I'd just like to clarify that was more a reference to the structure of your messages to me when I had done something you interpreted as an error or mistake, than a comment about you personally. When I referred to being ordered around, I was referring to the Elitsa & Stoyan article. It seemed to me that you were expecting me and to edit that article and saying I was responsible after I said that I didn't feel I was responsible to develop it. And then later during shorter talk page discussions on the Eurovision 2013 article, you were making a lot of assumptions about my opinion or stance on something like that I wasn't taking into account other people's opinions when I never mentioned anything about that. And then I felt like you definitely had an issue with me during our disagreement over the naming of Elitsa Todorova and Stoyan Yankulov when you thought I was about to engage in an edit war with you and then I felt you acted very hostile and in way tried to silence me before I could explain my point of view in that discussion. And the only time I questioned whether you had a problem with me was in the quote you used above where I called you condescending. After that happened you said you would leave me alone or that you had given up on me. But you didn't, you continually commented and pursued me everywhere I left a comment and that exacerbated the situation.

You should post the emails here. I definitely didn't send emails so I'm interested to see what they actually say. But I'd just like to know why I would pursue you through email when I've never even messaged you on your talk page or in any other article talk page, unless you spoke to me first? I actually have looked into the policies/features of this Wikipedia email since this accusation and if I'm not wrong, I don't think I can even send emails to users unless I enable other users to send email to me and I haven't done that. Also, I think an email address is supposed to be attached to those emails? You should post that here as well so I can see if it's my email address. If you choose not to reveal these emails, I'd like to know if there is any way I can get someone to check if I've sent emails from my account. I don't know if an admin can do this or not.

I can't accept alleged criticism from an admin that has never actually taken up the issue with me. And who is this admin to begin with? If they were serious about their concerns, they should've directly contacted me on my talk page. And on top of that, I don't appreciate being discussed behind my back and then the contents of that conversation being used as a point of some kind. I was totally unaware of that.

I've explained several times why I didn't accept your proposal for peace. I've also said that if you don't like me, then don't speak to me. I'd like to highlight again that I don't engage with you, you comment on what I've said on other pages and then take offence when I disagree with you. Pickette (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh! I do apologise. I wasn't ordering you around with the Elitsa & Stoyan case. I was merely trying to be helpful and provide advice regarding the issue. I had noticed that you were relatively new to Wikipedia, and may not have known that we are allowed to edit any given article that interests us (as long as we're not topic banned of course). I had no intention of demanding you must edit that article. So if my comments came across in that way, then I do apologise. When I made reference to improving the article rather than adding maintenance tags to it, I was merely addressing a point that I have noticed other's do over the last year or so. I appreciate that some editors find it easier to place a tag and allow someone else to act upon what those tags are asking for. Whilst others tend to take the action themselves and improve the article without the need of adding a tag in the first place. Personally, I have been known to do a mixture of the two. Perhaps I should have been more explanatory in my original statement and not made it sound as if it was a mandatory requirement.

In regards to the naming of Elitsa Todorova and Stoyan Yankulov. From what I recall there were other's participating in the debate, and some agreed with your point of view, whilst some came out with same/similar points of view to those which I was addressing. If you felt as though I was having an issue with you on this, then why didn't you assume the other's who shared my point of view, may have also had an issue? To me that looks like singling out myself, and ignoring the others who too shared the same view. Nevertheless, the issue was quickly resolved after extensive research on the Internet. And we all (including yourself from what I assumed) agreed on the outcome that was found mutually. So I don't see any issue on that side of things any longer.

As for posting the emails on here. Unfortunately I cannot do that as it would be going against WP:OUTING and I could face being blocked for such actions. For one, my personal email inbox is password protected, so it would be impossible to post a link to the email without having to divulge my secure password openly. If I copy/paste it onto here word for word, then what is there to say that you may accuse me of "fabricating it" purely because you haven't seen the physical email in its entirety. You also state that I should post the email address onto here. Again that is not permissible per WP:OUTING, as would the publication of the admin name that I spoke to. However, I cannot comment as to why that admin didn't decide to take the matter up with yourself. Although I did state to you that I informed the admin not to take matters any further as I wished to handle the matter myself for the time being. Perhaps they acknowledged my wishes. And you haven't explained why you won't accept peace. All you have done is get hostile and insult me by throwing the peace offer back in my face. If someone came to me seeking a peaceful resolution, then it is an act of good faith as well as a noble thing, to accept peace. If people rejected peace offerings over the years, then World War I would still be on-going; WWII would never have even begun; and all the other wars would still be in full swing. But thankfully people did accept peace during those conflicts. I'm just baffled as to why you don't wish to at least try afresh and allow someone a second chance, especially when they are showing remorse, and have apologised. I even removed my comments from ProjectEurovision as an goodwill act towards yourself. Wesley ☮ Mouse 11:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

During the Elitsa Todorova and Stoyan Yankulov, it wasn't about agreeing or disagreeing, you specifically came off hostile when replying to me. Anyway, you've said that I'm always making sly remarks to you, I haven't really seen evidence of that. You were the one replying to my comments on various talk pages and keeping in contact with me.

I didn't accept peace because you were making it seem like I was solely responsible. And honestly, I didn't know what to accept peace for, you were commenting on things I wrote and then getting offended over a discussion. For me, the only peaceful thing would be not to speak to each other. We don't get along and after this email accusation, I don't see an end to this disagreement if we continue speaking to each other. So I think we should just agree to the interaction ban and abide by everything it entails. Pickette (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have already apologised to you if my comments came off as hostile. That was not and never has been my intentions towards you as a person or an editor. Everyone who has known me on Wikipedia over the last couple of years knows that I do tend to speak with honesty and sometimes my words have been blunt. But I am one who would rather say things as it is, rather than wrap it up in cotton wool and make it look all soft and cuddly. Plus I tend to write in local dialect, so my English grammar tends to look all skew-whiff. But there are a few things that concern me, before we even bother to agree to a full IBAN.

1. The impact that is going to have on us both in regards to WP:ESC. We both edit actively on the project, and across the same articles. The IBAN states that "although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, they are banned from interacting with each other in any way. For example, if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to: edit editor Y's user and user talk space; reply to editor Y in discussions; make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly; undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means)." So if I were to make an edit on ESC 2014, and then you disagreed with it it would mean you cannot revert it - and vice versa, if an edit you made, would mean I cannot revert that.
2. And then there's the project newsletter. I'd be breaking the IBAN straight away as soon as you receive that, as I'm the one who writes the newsletters for the project. My name appears on the editors section. So I'd have broken the IBAN there.
3. The other thing that has concerned me is that you have clearly followed my activities in various places. Which in my opinion is very close to "hounding" a fellow Wikipedian. Although I do understand everything is in open space for anyone to see. You do appear to have purposely checked areas that I have been to, to have known that I have spoken to other editor's. And you have proven this at least twice now that I know of. The first you accused me of "canvassing support", when it was clear that I was not canvassing anything of the sort. I made a Project member aware of a situation that has been raised several times over the years. As they knew more background knowledge on the particular situation, I felt that their expertise on the matter would probably shed more light into the issue. So how is that "canvassing" support, as if to gain my own way? The second incident is that you had purposely followed me to another user's talk page following a discussion on the Project talk page. I left no indication on the project talk page that I was going to talk to AndrewRT. So what would possess someone to go and check anyway just to see if I had left a comment over there, unless curiosity got the better of them, and they were purposely checking on someone. For all I know, you may have posted things about me in various places. But I have not checked your contribution history to see if you have, as it does not interest me in all fairness. As far as I see it, if I had upset you, then you too would be within your right to seek advice, even if it meant posting at another person's talk page about me - just like I had done.

• So before we agree on a full IBAN, then we both need to make sure we know the full implications of what it would entail. How would it impact our ability to work on the same project, especially when we would still be in near-interaction anyway. And neither of us can really force the other to cease working on the same project either. Only a full topic ban implemented by administrator's would make that possible. And again, if topic ban were imposed on us would be highly unfair to each other. One for the fact I have been collaborating with the project as a registered user since August 2011, but also as an IP for a 6 month's prior to that. You on the other hand have only just joined the project, but your contributions for the project are equally as important as any that I have made. How do you propose we go about the IBAN? What would we include? What would be seem as "breaking the rules" if we were to settle on a mutual IBAN? We both need to discuss that first before we can even make progress on an unofficial IBAN being implemented. Wesley ☮ Mouse 05:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Well it's only fair that I also apologize once again for any comments I made that offended you. But I'd like to stress again that I didn't send you emails and therefore I cannot apologize for that. Also, I don't follow your activities. That could've been phrased more as a question rather than an assumption/accusation. I've never spoken to anyone about you except a day or two ago when I asked about checking whether emails have been sent from my account. You urged me to review past discussions about the secondary sources and CT Cooper was involved in that along with you so of course I was suspicious when CT Cooper appeared to comment this time again. And the AndrewRT comment was a surprise to me because I was simply checking his profile after his supportive message. I didn't expect to find your commentary there.

Anyway I agree to the terms you've outlined. I'm going to leave the project and discontinue being a part of the discussions there in order for this to be over. However, I'll continue editing articles that interest me. Maybe after this year is over the interaction ban could end but I think it should stay for a couple of months at least, in my opinion. If you feel it should be indefinite I wouldn't have an issue with that either. Pickette (talk) 06:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I do sincerely apologise if my comment came across as an accusation/assumption. I thought I wrote in question format, so again my apologies on my error there. Trying to respond to something moments after waking up was probably not the wisest of moves for me. And I humbly accept your apology too, I hope the removal of posts that I made have helped to redeem any misgiving on my part (if that is the right phrase to use!?) And with your consent of course, I would like to still pursue this email issue and find out how someone using your name was able to send emails even though you have stated that it was not you who sent them. It does intrigue me as to how someone was able to use your name, without you even knowing it has happened. I'm actually a little nervous myself today. Got myself talked into starting up a 3-way partnership deal in a new business adventure. I've never done anything on a self-employment concept before, so I'm venturing into uncharted waters today. Hopefully we can get to know each other so that our collaborative work on Wikipedia may improve, I'm not that bad of a person at heart - stubborn perhaps, but kind-hearted, and overly-sensitive too. I hope that you may reconsider your suggestion to leave Project Eurovision - the project would be at a loss, as some of your work is outstanding, especially taking care of the country articles, which do tend to become neglected. And yes, I would happily accept your proposal to review the IBAN in a couple of months time, or at a time that is more convenient. And on that note, I would like to say a big thanks to you as a person, for being understanding, even through this difficult period that we've endured. And again, I apologise for any wrong-doing that may have offended or upset you too. Wesley ☮ Mouse 08:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision - Memorandum

Eurovision Mini Memorandum 30 June 2013 There are a couple of discussions taking place via the project talk page that require urgent attention from as many members as possible. These are... A new RfC has opened at Project Eurovision in regards to how "Country by Contest" articles such as Albania in the Eurovision Song Contest, Denmark in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest and Australia in the ABU Song Festivals will be stylised. Also there is an urgent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Colour codes for last placings, which is discussing a matter in connection to chromostereopsis (blue text on red backgrounds). And finally, the newsdesk are looking to recruit a couple of project volunteers to assist in compiling the monthly newsletters, as one of the co-ordinators has taken an indefinite period of time away from Wikipedia due to personal reasons. For more details see here. To discontinue receiving Eurovision newsletters and mini memorandums, please remove your name from here.

This memo was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)