User talk:CT Cooper/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions with User:CT Cooper, for the period 30 August 2011 – 24 May 2012. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

With the drastic recent changes to the project recently, I was thinking it might be a good time to draft up a newsletter. Thoughts? Grk1011 (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

My time is limited even in the summer months, though if you want to revive the newsletter, I won't object and I will support it as much as I can. CT Cooper · talk 17:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

To make things easier you can use the bot list I have provided in a hidden comment at the bottom of Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/Members. For general messages up to now I have used MessageDeliveryBot (talk · contribs), which can also be used for newsletters. CT Cooper · talk 17:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Cooper, how would one go about having an account checked, as I have suspicions that sock puppetry is at hand? I find it bizarre that this user's account was created right at the heat of the main Tony0106 dispute, and is going about the same manner of peculiar edits as Tony did. I know it is wrong to jump the gun and start accusing, but I guess it is better to be safe than sorry. Wesley Mouse (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It's possible but I'm doubtful. It simply isn't Tony's style to add speculation such as this to the article. CT Cooper · talk 19:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I had thought about the style, then it occurred to me that it could be done out of spite. After the way he's behaved lately, I'm getting suspicious of anything and everything. I'll monitor movement for now, and see what happens. Wesley Mouse (talk) 09:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I can see what you mean, and I'm afraid that Tony's actions have made him untrustworthy. I will also keep an eye on things, as I have had to keep an eye out for socks from other users as well. CT Cooper · talk 14:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. See the notability thread on your talk page above, 6 days ago. I agree with what you are saying, of course. Do you think there is any chance of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (high schools) reaching a useful conclusion? It seems to be heading increasingly into a deep discussion about notability theory, with almost TLDR posts, but even after reading the entire talk page through a couple of times, I can't see anyone venturing any clear suggestions. I'm staying neutral, and as you have probably noticed, since the farce over schools on my RfA which some users also tried to use as a platform for debate on school notability, I have largely stopped commenting on school AfDs, and tagging school articles. That's not the way it's supposed to be. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I think its going no where, and seems to have descended into a debate involving a lot of idealogical rhetoric, which I do not have much interest of being part of. It looks increasingly likely that nothing much will come out of it and the situation will continue as before, so I don't think much harm will come from not paying much attention to it unless it becomes more productive. I have always being relatively neutral when assessing and tagging articles, with me leaving suggestions for improvement assuming the article will stay around, without pushing for deletion or retention. CT Cooper · talk 16:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Schools for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I had a feeling that the Signpost would cover WikiProject Schools one day. I would be happy to participate and will answer all the questions for you within the next few days. CT Cooper · talk 19:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, could you please semi protect the article as people keep adding extra names in when the cast has already been announced. Thanks. --MSalmon (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Since it seemed to be getting out of hand, I have protected Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 13) for one week. If you need the protection extended after expiry, feel free to ask at WP:RFPP. CT Cooper · talk 19:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi CT-cooper,

it's me again :),

can you please correct the following article I translated

Papegem

as you know my English is not perfect :),

thanks Klodde (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, again. I've done as you requested. CT Cooper · talk 20:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

thanks, tomorrow I have another one :), I was busy with making a German version of it, tomorrow I make the English ;)

Klodde (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

As I promised, I've made the other one ;)

Can you please check? thanks ;)

Egem (East Flanders)

Klodde (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I will look into it tomorrow. CT Cooper · talk 19:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

And can you take a second look on Papegem also please, I added some new information

Klodde (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I've done both articles for you, though note my edit summary here. CT Cooper · talk 21:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

thanks

Klodde (talk) 09:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. It's been a little while since the last message on RfA reform, and there's been a fair amount of slow but steady progress. However, there is currently a flurry of activity due to some conversations on Jimbo's talk page.

I think we're very close to putting an idea or two forward before the community and there are at least two newer ones in the pipeline. So if you have a moment:

• Have a look at the min requirement proposal and familiarise yourself with the statistics, I'd appreciate comment on where we should put the bar.
• Any final comments would be appreciated on the clerks proposal.
• Feedback on the two newer proposals - Pre-RfA & Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Sysop on request. Both are more radical reforms of RfA and might run along side the current system.

Thanks for reading and for any comments that you've now made.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 21:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC).

Dear CT Cooper,

I hope you don't mind me asking for this most bizarre request. However, I was wondering if you would be so kind as to assist me with designing a neat layout for my main user page. I have no clue where to start, and have tried the best that I can. I was thinking of having something effective but not too complex on the eye, with also an archive section (if possible) and one of those autobots things to move threads automatically to my archives have say 10-day period. I have no clue where to begin, and gathering that you're a man of great aptitude, was hoping that you'd be able to help me out with this minor task. I grant permission for you to set up things up on my behalf if that makes things easier. Many thanks in advance. Wesley Mouse (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You are not the first user to ask for help with configuring their user space, and so I will be happy to help. I have set up bot archiving on your user talk page in a similar way to on my talk page. I have used the same settings as on my talk page, except content will archive after ten days rather than seven (per above), and it is set to place content in archive one, rather than archive six, since you haven't got that far yet. You can configure the settings by taking a look at User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo. I manually change what page content archives too (controlled by "|counter =") once an archive reaches 100 threads, however you can set it to change automatically once an archive reaches a certain size by adding "| maxarchivesize =". I have also added an archive box to your user talk page, see WP:ARCHIVE for more options.

As for your main user page, one of the most common items you will see on people's user pages is userboxes which give all sorts of information about the user e.g. where they are from, and what languages they speak. See WP:UBOX for more. CT Cooper · talk 12:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		I award this barnstar to CT Cooper, as a sign of appreciation for helping me with configuring my user talk page, and setting up an archive bot too. A BIG thank you. Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad your pleased. CT Cooper · talk 17:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Cooper. I've blocked another on pt.wiki, which is unblocked here:

Tenage Stupid 3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Regards.” T_eLeS (T _{@ L C S}) 15:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the note. CT Cooper · talk 16:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Another two were confirmed on pt.wiki by CU, though the first one (Ritula) is not sulled, so is probably not him here on en.wiki.
  • Ritula (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
  • Ritula 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

” T_eLeS (T _{@ L C S}) 14:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Special:Nuke was very useful in taking out both these users hoax pages, though I have to say the idea of a Christmas JESC was rather imaginative. CT Cooper · talk 16:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I seem to have been watching this page and have just noticed that it has been speedily deleted after an uncontested PROD. I believe it was a French school I assessed some time ago for the schools project. Very few French schools have Wikipedia pages and I'm surprised that such a school would get deleted without going through the usual AfD process. I wonder if you could possibly investigate and perhaps at least get it listed as an AfD so that a proper discussion can be generated. Dahliarose (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles deleted by WP:PROD can be restored on request by any editor in good standing, so I have restored the article for you. Feel free to request further PROD reversals at WP:REFUND. CT Cooper · talk 11:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. It looks like the article needs a bit of work! Dahliarose (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Cooper, sincere apologies for disturbing you, but I was wondering if you could cast a second set of eye on a mediation case I'm dealing with. A user is clearly throwing vicious allegations towards myself and my capabilities as a mediator which can be seen here, here, and here. It is clear that one person was satisfied with my input during the first proceedings when things went into their favour, but now doubts have arisen, they now throw insults and accusations. I'm at the stage of closing the case down and escalating matters, but that would be petty, and I have done all I can to allow the user chance to vent off steam, regardless of my role to help resolve a dispute.

I appreciate that this is taking time out of your busy schedule, and await your further instructions and guidance. Regards - Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but mediation has to be voluntary to work, and that means users can decline mediation or a particular mediator with or without a (valid) reason. For example, the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee automatically throw out any case in which one or more parties decline mediation. I'm sure that there are other things needing mediation, so I would recommend leaving the case for others to sort out, even if that will leave a sense of injustice on your part. FleetCommand (talk · contribs) however should be aware that there is normally one mediator for a case, and that all parties need to accept the choice of mediator, not just the user that originally requested mediation, and also that repeatedly rejecting mediators wastes everyone's time - and that the case will be rightly thrown out completely if it continues beyond what is reasonable. Furthermore, I think someone should clarify that mediators, unlike those that respond to a third opinion, are not there to provide outside opinions on content, as the MedCab request suggests, they are there to help the parties work together and let them come to an agreement on content. Even the Arbitration Committee does not make content rulings. CT Cooper · talk 18:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to my Cooper. And in viewing what you have said, it basically goes down the route I was thinking to take anyway. To receive accusations is harmful and distasteful in any aspect. However, throughout I disregarded the outbursts, and attempted all that was possible to show professionalism without treading into slagging off territory (which can easily be done by even the calmest of people). I am shocked though to see that a complaint has been submitted even after the user asks me to "leave him alone". That in itself are signs of deceitfulness, especially when looking further back into previous talks he has had with other users are going along the same lines. Anyway, I have put my say on the complaints board, and provided every inch of evidence to show exactly who is lacking in etiquette. Wesley Mouse (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

This has escalated more than I would have liked, but I am keeping an eye on what is happening. CT Cooper · talk 10:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with your comment above. But on a different note, it may look like I am no longer commenting on the noticeboard, but I am monitoring/reading everything being said; I'm just at my wits end with the clear deceptive tactics being deployed, to make myself look like the bully and the complainant look like the victim. Not that I'm trying to make myself look angelic, as I can assure you, even I make the biggest of blunders in my time; and rightfully hang my head in shame if I realise I'm in the wrong. However, it is becoming very noticeable that one user is trying their upmost best to evade the main issues by trying to shade their own errors in pointing the finger elsewhere. I'm surprised that the user is being allowed to remove not just parts my own statements, but also statements of mine that others are quoting. How can a person get away with such dreadful acts? I would never dream of removing content off a noticeboard that has been written by another user - it is just wrong! A complaint has been made against me, and I am well within my rights to write my counter-argument against those accusations; as long as I provide evidence to back up my argument (which is what I did). Fleet Command is trying to say I am talking negatively about another admin (Qwyrxian), yet this isn't so. In my counter-argument, I provided evidence of the ways Fleet Command was talking negatively towards myself, and also provided the diffs from Qwyrxian's talk page, to show comparison that Fleet Command has also used similar tactics towards admins on previous discussions. Am I in the wrong to have provided evidence to show a user's dishonesty? Anyway, by -the-by I am taking a back seat and continuing to read comments, and will only speak on the noticeboard when told to do so by people handling the case. I will no longer be goaded by Fleet Command into a full scale war. Wesley Mouse (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I said early on that page, if you make a complaint against a user, you should expect to be scrutinised yourself. You did not handle this conflict perfectly, but you are newish user and we are all prone to errors, and have hardly done anything unforgivable. Furthermore, I think withdrawing from the WQA page is reasonable given the circumstances. Unfortunately, FleetCommand is unnecessarily escalating the situation by persistently removing comments he doesn't like. I was originally going to ignore it, but I decided to put my foot down after seeing this, as deleting comments and replacing them with insulting remarks is definitely not acceptable, and threatening to edit war over it until a block is issued will not long be tolerated. If FleetCommand persists with this disruption, I could issue a block myself, but I might instead file a report at WP:ANI instead to avoid accusations of bias in your favour due to our previous interactions. CT Cooper · talk 17:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh gosh yes, I agree about being scrutinised when lodging a complaint. How else would someone know the ending to a book if they only read half of it!? Makes sense too for both the defendant and plaintiff to be scrutinised, so that people know for themselves exactly what has happened, and not just base it on "he says - she says" aspects. Although I must say, that when pushed into a corner, then yes I would stand my ground to show the exact truth, even if it meant showing as much evidential pieces as possible. I'm not one to just sit back and allow another person to beat me black and blue to make me keep my mouth shut (which does appear to be happening). Showing diffs of what FleetCommand has said against me is perfectly wise, so that others know both sides. But to have him twist my words to suit himself is not clever, nor is it adult-like. And to make a snide remark about my term of "buster", by saying "you and your dialect must be from a very tiny island", now was there any need for him to make such remarks like that? - No. Aren't those kind of remarks goading someone to lash back? - Yes. Alas though, I bit my tongue as he doesn't know me, and is only making prejudgements to draw his own picture of myself. And it is that basis that at least I and other who know me, know how I tick, kept me from biting back at the snideness. I was tempted myself to go to ANI; but then I'd be stooping as low as he, and I'm not that kind of person. Battle my ground - yes; walk away when I know someone is purely out to get their way (regardless of how devious they will go to get there) - yes. As long as I show intent to ignore his sly remarks, then I know deep down that I am the better person, after all give someone enough rope, and they are sure to hang themselves in their own deceit. Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• CT, concur using admin tools yourself would result in accusations of bias; I can/will file the WP:ANI if/when necessary. Gerardw (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes I agree, though I don't think there will be need to go to ANI unless FleetCommand persists. CT Cooper · talk 23:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

		Cookies!
		Wesley Mouse has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Hello, CT Cooper

I would like to thank you for your initial help to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/28 July 2011/Games for Windows.

If you are already thinking "what is this guy driving at? What trickery is this?" I am just doing my duty: You rendered Wikipedia and us a service and that means I owe you a thanks. So, thank you.

Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you for respecting my request not to keep removing comments in the face of multiple objections. CT Cooper · talk 16:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you do not need to thank me. It wasn't really your request; it was my "special" friend. She told me that Qwyrxian was a big boy that could look after himself, that I had done my duty of defending him to the best of my abilities, that dying for him was not part of my duty and that I should have left the page, the case, the Wikipedia, the computer and the desk alone for a while. However, I have been uneasy: Something down the there tells me that she had ulterior motivations of her own for drawing me away; something related to what transpired shortly thereafter and the novel and unique experience that I had for the first time in my life. It was ... weird!

So, I guess ... you know ... Fleet Command (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, was wondering if you could take a look at the detailed summary section of Big Brother 2011 (UK) and tell me if it is too long (I had changed it all into a weekly summary but an IP user keeps reverting it back). Thanks. --MSalmon (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, but due to a heavy workload on a field course I simply have not had a spare moment long enough to respond to talk page messages. In reply, based on the current version, I do think that some parts of the article are overly long, and at the very least some paragraphs need to be broken up into smaller ones to improve readability. Users who contribute to the article need to remember that Wikipedia articles should not contain all possible details, but only provide a summary. CT Cooper · talk 12:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 15:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

[1] Jeez, an idiot like you is admin? What the heck has this place come to. Auto-reverting an IP editor on the erroneous assumption that they don't the MoS better than you do. Just great. --87.79.209.63 (talk) 23:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just check the diff link, and I think one may be mistaken between "auto-revert" and "fixing". There doesn't appear to be any auto-revert done. However, what I do see is the removal of a wiki-link that isn't really required to link a word to the article itself. Using bold italics at the beginning does this alone. Also it appears that CT Cooper has added additional wiki-links on some words to help improve the article. Nothing wrong in doing that, and it shows signs of an editor using good judgement skills to improve articles to assist readers in their navigating of the projects. Wesley Mouse (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Wes is right, it was not an "auto-revert", more a selective revert of content which I felt should not have been delinked, these being technical terms, in line with WP:UNDERLINK. You also linked SimCity in the second paragraph, despite already been linked in the first, so I reverted this as well. I'm glad your familiar with the WP:MOS, it is a pity you appear to be less familiar with WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN, based on the above comments. CT Cooper · talk 10:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi CT. Thanks. I wasn't sure if I should remove them all. Some were really old. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I thought I might as well, since all were at least a few months old I believe. CT Cooper · talk 12:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if you are aware, but the JESC2012 article been redirected by, Kosm1fent, under the explanation of WP:CRYSTAL, only having the host country and two participating countries does not justify a stand-alone article (as shown in this diff)? WP:Crystal states that Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. As the EBU have confirmed that Netherlands as host nation, then doesn't this warrant the article being in live status, not redirected. Wesley Mouse (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

If the EBU have confirmed the location, then we know the contest is happening, and we hence know that the contest is "almost certain" to take place, so there is no WP:CRYSTAL issue. The "almost" part is important, since nobody can ever be completely certain that something will happen, and for all we know aliens could invade tomorrow and that will be the end of Eurovision, meaning the line has to be drawn somewhere. The precedent going back years with the main Eurovision Song Contest is that we should create articles a year ahead, just when the previous years is happening, since that is when sources and news for the article appear very rapidly. That is not fully applicable to the Junior Contest since the host country is often decided more than a year ahead, as in this case. The only possible issue I can see here is WP:N, and if plenty of sources can provided, then there should be no issue. I have noted the discussion at Talk:Junior Eurovision Song Contest, and might comment at a convenient moment. You might want to leave a neutral note at WT:ESC as well. CT Cooper · talk 13:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Please, we need your feedback in this discussion: [2] Thanks. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 18:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It may not be necessary now, as it appears that a peaceful resolution has been found - with an outstanding idea from Lukex115, which may be seen as a compromise - but in my eyes - it is by far the best idea I've ever seen in a long time. His idea would in the long-term, prevent edit wars (especially those from IPs) with changing song titles. As we'd be covering the titles in both native and English translations regardless if they latterly become translated into permanent English version. Keeps everyone happy, which is what we aim to do right? Wesley Mouse (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It is a good compromise until a "unified" list is published. After that, we'll have to be consistent and keep the correct version of the titles. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 19:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I am very busy at the moment, so I'm glad you have reached a compromise. CT Cooper · talk 21:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello CT Cooper ! It would be important to create an article about an eminently relevant artist, who is leading a movement as artist and philosopher after a brilliant career of academics. There are books by him and newspaper articles about him, as well as homepage. I am looking for a wikipedia user and person who is interested in helping to create this page on wikipedia. The complete text for wikipedia has been already composed. It just so happened that there was a false positive report after the initial creation of this wikipage. To avoid it to be repeated, I am asking for support. We would appreciate your support and advise. Kusum Bhagavat (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Your recent attempt to create the article triggered the edit filter because the article you were trying to create only had one word in it. Try and create articles with at least a good paragraph of information plus a few references. Alternativly, you can draft an article in a sandbox in your userspace, such as at Special:MyPage/Sandbox. CT Cooper · talk 11:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello

I've got a bit of slight problem with a user called 173.93.177.67. He/she keeps deleting the work that me and other users put in for the commentators and spokespeople. I have warned him to stop wrecking our work but he dosn't listen. Is it possible if you could speak to the user if possible please?

Regards Mrluke485 (talk) 08:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It will be easier to deal with if you provide a source for your version of the name. However, given that you have made reasonable attempts to communicate, I will take admin action if they make another appearance. CT Cooper · talk 10:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I am assessing the importance scale of stub-class WP:ESC articles, and I found a bunch of OGAE Second Chance Contest-related articles. What do you reckon their importance scale should be? I'm thinking "low", as they are not a core part of the project. I am not 100% sure, though... Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 10:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I didn't give much thought to those articles when setting up WP:ESC/A, however I think low-importance across the board seems reasonable, since as you say, they are not a core part of the project. Thank you for helping out assessments. CT Cooper · talk 10:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It's my pleasure to help. And with the AWB, it's fairly easy to assess importance scales. Unassessed articles require some extra work (checking references and whatnot), but it's only a couple hundred of them. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 10:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. Do you have any idea where the Eurovision broadcasters would rank in the importance scale? I don't think they are too far from the core of the project so as to be considered of low-importance. Thanks. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 20:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I would say that broadcaster articles should be of low-importance, since they are not a core part of the project, and some such as BBC barely mention Eurovision. Even the European Broadcasting Union article is ranked as low-importance at the moment, though a case could possibly be made for an exception in that case. CT Cooper · talk 21:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I see. Maybe that's because the Eurovision network is a branch of the European Broadcasting Union, therefore the latter cannot be considered a core part of the project? Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 04:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and I'm okay with keeping it as it is to be consistent. CT Cooper · talk 10:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I see, thanks! Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 12:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello CT Cooper/Archive 7! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Done. CT Cooper · talk 22:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

JAMES V111 SILVER CROWN COIN 1716 WHAT VALUE PLEASE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.199.254 (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Pardon? CT Cooper · talk 15:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Chris. there's a lot I don't understand about cats. If for example most schools are in sub cats such as Category:Primary schools in Melbourne, where can I find a list of all primary/elementary schools in the 'pedia? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be an overall category for either - Category:Primary schools and Category:Elementary schools return red links. However, there is Category:Elementary and primary schools. CT Cooper · talk 16:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Chris. You're the administrator who helped with consensus on the Pete Townshend Operation Ore section, right? This week there's been a number of efforts to edit that section with potentially libelous material. I wonder if that section might be protected from changes indefinitely to preserve the consensus and prevent vandalism? Thanks for having a look. Pkeets (talk) 12:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

A long time ago yes, and the page had long since left my watchlist. I will take a better look at it this evening. CT Cooper · talk 14:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at the history and there are some troubling edits. I have put the page back on my watchlist and will keep an eye on it for a while. It will take a lot to justify indefinite semi-protection, even of a BLP, though I will take action if needed. CT Cooper · talk 22:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way to protect just that Operation Ore section? The group who arrived at this version vetted every sentence in attempt to avoid embarrassing anyone concerned. I expect there will be periods where the article is ignored, but Townshend has been back in the headlines this week, as he made some controversial statements in a lecture at the Radio Academy Festival. I expect the same thing will continue to happen whenever he's done something newsworthy. Pkeets (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The only way to protect individual sections is to put the content on a sub-page, transclude it on the article, and protect the sub-page, though I don't think that is technically possible or allowed in the mainspace - so it is the whole article or nothing as it stands. Nothing much seems to have happened since yesterday, so it may have calmed down a bit. I will keep it on my watchlist for a good while yet though. CT Cooper · talk 11:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I've strayed into this because the Pete Townshend Article (like many musicians/groups of my generation) is on my watchlist, along with Chris's talk page. I've reviewed the situation, and I am of the opinion that perhaps a short semi might be in order. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I've given it a week. Further action can be taken after expiry as needed. CT Cooper · talk 14:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Townshend/The Who/Universal will be releasing a Quadrophenia box set on November 14/15, so he will likely continue promotion activities at least until then. The lecture Oct. 31 was his first appearance. Pkeets (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, CT Cooper! We would like to know what you think of Wikipedia in your day-to-day editing. That's why we've created a survey here where you can answer all the questions about what you do here anonymously. What's more, the results will be used to make the editing experience better for all. Thank you.

Sent by Rcsprinter123 (talk) at 04:34, 12 December 2024 UTC [refresh] on behalf of Wikimedia Surveys using AWB.

Done. CT Cooper · talk 11:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

That was a fake survey, apparently done in good faith or as a joke, without the authority or support of the WMF. Unfortunately the bot missed removing your invitation. All submitted data has since been deleted, and no user privacy has been compromised. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not worried. The questions were simply about the editing experience that would not be very helpful to anyone with ill intentions. If they had asked for credit card details I would have been more hesitant! CT Cooper · talk 20:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I see you have added a statement of opinion to your user page. Please consider also offering any opinions you may have on RfA on an appropriate sub page of the WP:RFA2011 project, and if you wish, you may also like to consider joining the task force as an active participant. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I am keeping an eye on what is happening there, and have commented on occasion in the past. I do plan to participate more in the future. CT Cooper · talk 21:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, why you have to block my account when wikipedia is free and i've donated too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejs12345 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I will reply on your talk page. CT Cooper · talk 23:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for replying my message. I have been mistakes that I removed templates. You live in UK, or not? If I ask you to make me administrator, I promise that never remove again templates or something, but also I want to know I can or not edit pages on Wikipedia when there are made mistakes. I have fond many mistakes in many webpages in English Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejs12345 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I live in the UK. You are free to edit any pages you think need editing, however I cannot give you administrator status. In order to gain adminship you need to pass a request for adminship, but I would not recommend you nominate yourself at this point, as the community expects candidates to meet very high standard and have a long track record of contributions. Thank you for agreeing to not remove templates, to clarify templates look like {{this}} within articles, and if you see them and don't know what they are there for, it is usually best to assume they are there for a reason, and don't remove them. CT Cooper · talk 12:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for the barnstar! redpower94 (talk), 22:29 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. CT Cooper · talk 22:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

How you doing, Camaron? It has been a long time since I saw you last on the articles I've been working on. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Scieberking, nice to see you're still around - I go by as Chris or CT Cooper these days. You probably haven't seen me much around on those articles as I've moved onto other things which need attention. However, feel free to let me know if there are any further problems which need dealing with. CT Cooper · talk 12:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

That's great. We've been working on Led Zeppelin, which has successfully passed a GA review! Scieberking (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

May I pass on my congratulations. CT Cooper · talk 13:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

CT, I have to offer you an apology for a response that was left on my talk page, which I have only just discovered. As my account is constantly logged in, it was my little brother being mischevious (he also left some comments on my YouTube account as well). I will remove the comment and your subsequent reply. I had completely missed the AfD on the Top ranking list (although I had been editing during the period). To be honest, I'm surprised that the article survived so long. I have no objections to it being deleted as I came to realise that it was indeed based on Original Research (it was one of my early articles!). Again, apologies for the rudeness and hope you didn't take too much offence.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I have had much worse, though I wasn't expecting that to come from the account of an established editor. I'm happy to find out it wasn't you, and I accept your apology. You were quite lucky compared to some other users with little brothers - there is at least one I remember that got there account blocked. I take it your not thirty-eight then, which makes sense since your userpage has been saying that for years. I'm surprised this article wasn't deleted previously either, though generally once an article has been around long enough it will slip off the radar, and despite assessing it I never picked-up any issues until the Junior equivalent was nominated and deleted. CT Cooper · talk 19:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Haha. No, I'm not 38 anymore - I'm 42, and my "little" brother is 37! I also don't live in Reading anymore. Not too worried about updating my userpage really. To be honest, I'm glad the article has gone as it was too easily vandalised with editors bumping up the numbers to their favoured country. Thanks for accepting the apology - the scamp has been reprimanded!--Tuzapicabit (talk) 12:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

May I offer you a cup of coffee for your suggestions to improve the article on Delhi Public School, Bathinda. Arunbandana (talk · contribs) 16:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I unfortunately don't like coffee, but thank you for your kindness, and keep up the good work. CT Cooper · talk 16:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello CT. There are a couple of new editors making disruptive edits on Sakis Rouvas by taking out the disambiguation to the mononym "Sakis" from his article despite numerous requests by other editors and myself to stop. The disambiguation of Sakis is the Sakis (given name) page which lists a few other famous Sakis, however, they are trying to make "Sakis" disambiguate to the name page, saying that there are others with this name or whatever, because they are trying to promote some indie electronic artist Sakis Gouzonis whose page they made. He is apparently an English teacher turned composer who they claim is sometimes referred to mononymously which is simply not true because he has only released works under his full name and he is not even a well known artist. The other few people named Sakis have absolutely never been professionally known by first name. Rouvas on the other hand started his career using both first and last name but because of his fame became frequently known as just Sakis. There are hundreds of Greek articles referring to him by first name only in Latin characters and he has also released several albums and singles under his first name only in Greece and abroad. In fact, there are sources on his article stating the prominence of the mononym and that he is the only originally non-mononymous celebrity to gain widespread mononymous fame. I tried to explain to them that such as in the case of "Elvis" the mononym goes to the most notable artist/widely known that way while the list of persons with that name should be on the disambiguation, only to get some very illogical responses. One quick google search of the term "Sakis" and one can see all of the lead pages reference Rouvas. Regardless, he has held the mononym longer (even though the other guy is known mononymously only to fans).

I also put a notability tag on Gouzonis because he does not seem to meet the criteria in the article's current state. There is no evidence of him being signed to a major label or prominent indie label or that he has ever charted on a national chart or contributed compositions to significant recordings. The only thing they have is that he is the most popular Greek artist on MySpace which is irrelevant because MySpace is mostly only used now by indie musicians to share their music and internet popularity does not mean notability and that he supposedly placed 1st and 2nd in an international composition competition; however, international does not mean notable and there has not been any proof that these contests are notable. Notability states major awards and not competitions designed for newcomers, internet, or niche music. He also does not seem to have adequate media coverage; the only sources they used are from a blog which are just reprints of info from his site not new critical analysis. I am not the first editor to raise concern over this artist's notability but they just keep taking out the tag without attempting a discussion. I suspect that the users user:Greekmusicpower and user talk:HellenicPower are affiliated with this artist in some way and that they are socks of each other because they have similar names and edits.GreekStar12 (talk) 04:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Though it is a little late, my first advise is to stay within 3RR at all times, even if the other party is behaving inappropriately, such as refusing to discuss the issue outside edit summaries. Even if the other person "wins" the edit war, if the change is inappropriate, it will soon be dealt with, even if it is not done by you. For instance, you have taken the offending article to AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sakis Gouzonis, meaning that within a week the article will be gone, making disambiguation changes redundant. Any article re-creations post-deletion by the user can easily be dealt with by WP:CSD#G4. Let me know if this flares up again. Future Perfect at Sunrise has dealt with the sock-puppet account. CT Cooper · talk 20:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I am aware that the latest edit on the above article by which DPS Purnea has been included as a branch of Delhi Public School Society is not correct. This can be verified by the website address of this school given by the unregistered user. The logo given on this website is different from the one given on Delhi Public School Society. Arunbandana (talk · contribs) 14:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The entire article needs a lot of work by the look of it - I myself have just gone in and removed some problematic additions. Feel free to remove anything and everything which is incorrect, is otherwise unsourced, or is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. CT Cooper · talk 14:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcoming,

Yeah, sorry about that the only source I could get was from Esctoday. But when I was editing I saw a link to other people that did it and it just got deleted. Thats why I have not added anything because I know it will get deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiamat994 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

...but you did add something? The main reason content gets deleted is because people don't provide sources for their additions, which is required per the verifiability policy. I have found one source on Qatar's attempts here, but that would not be enough to justify an entire article - see Wikipedia:Notability. You could create a section on Qatar in the Unsuccessful attempts to participate in the Eurovision Song Contest article though. CT Cooper · talk 18:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much :) I am to refer the matter to the local admins for further action. User Phanuruch8555 causes disruption here and there, even on Thai Uncyclopedia where he has recently been blocked for an indefinite period also. --Aristitleism (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Even Uncyclopedia? Well thank you for your quick response, and myself and other users will keep on the look out for sock puppets, and I will let you know if any overspill onto the Thai Wikipedia. CT Cooper · talk 11:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to congratulate you on dealing with Claus M, very speedily. He has caused mass-disruption in a small space of time, and was starting to anger me with he blatant vandalism. Put it this way, if I was able to put my hands through my laptop screen and out of the others users screen to Wiki-slap him, then I would have done so. I may now need to relax a little, after chasing around Wikipedia tracking down the users vandalism, and reverting everything back to normality. The stress one person can cause!!! Wesley Mouse (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I just so happened to be browsing, and saw what was happening and quickly guessed who was operating that account. Many thanks also for your quick reverts, since these socks can cause a lot of damage and this one slipped through the net. The creation of Eurovision Car Contest 2011 was the major give away, and if previous accounts were anything to go by, he was just going to continue until he was blocked. CT Cooper · talk 14:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I see Amalthea reckons it isn't Diogomauricio3, so I will let checkuser judgement stand. Though, I'm not entirely convinced it isn't to be honest since the creation of Eurovision Car Contest 2011, right down to it's article content, was so like him. Not to mention, checkuser is not a magic wand and I have been told previously at SPI that Diogomauricio3 jumps all over the IP ranges that some socks are undetectable. However, it was a vandalism account in any case, so it doesn't make any difference. CT Cooper · talk 14:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

[EC] No need for the thanks. I only did what any other respectful editor would have done. Does this make me a sock-warrior, who tackles down the socks and hangs them out to dry? teehee Wesley Mouse (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes! CT Cooper · talk 14:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Diogomauricio3 jumps IP ranges, yes (at least 10 /16s), but never before countries as far as I can tell. Claus M.s IP was stable for quite a while (and there was prior vandalism), even while Diogomauricio3 was active and editing from somewhere else. There are further hints that this account is unrelated to Diogomauricio3.
It's always possible that I'm wrong or that this was set up deliberately, but the evidence I see makes a connection very unlikely, and I'd rather not lump him in with the clear-cut Diogomauricio3 accounts. Amalthea 14:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you have a point there - one generally consistent pattern of Diogomauricio3 is to edit from one account at a time, and he doesn't seem to care about being detected e.g. he will use predictable account names. Like previous Diogomauricio3 accounts, he also has edited other projects but not quite with the same pattern as normal, and might well not have done a sock block for the latter reason if it wasn't for the Car Contest hoax. CT Cooper · talk 14:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, good job everyone. Wes, you can use Twinkle if you haven't done before, it will help you revert vandalism much quicker. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 15:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle? Oh my, more new jargon to learn. I'm happy being little old Wes, the Sock-Warrior hehe. Wesley Mouse (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible for someone to post more details about this Twinkle thing onto my talk page? I haven't a clue what it is, how it works, and how I obtain this gadget. Thanks Wesley Mouse (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

As you might of noticed, although I do use some minor tools, I'm a bit of old school "do things manually" editor. I have used Twinkle, though I personally never really liked it, and don't have it enabled, however I know plenty of people that love it. CT Cooper · talk 21:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I suppose being an admin, everything that twinkle links to, you can already do it. As a non-admin it is really a good shortcut to getting stuff done like requesting protections etc. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 22:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible then for someone who knows how twinkle works, to teach me? I have got my own sandbox thingy, so I suppose I could use that as a testing ground for twinkle, right? Wesley Mouse (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I would, but today I'm super busy. I'm waiting for my grandparents' visit any moment now, and on evening I'll be watching the JESC 2011. However, if no one has explained you how Twinkle works until early afternoon, I will. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 08:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

There are a few tools just for admin work e.g. closing AfDs, which I don't use either, though I don't do a lot of "heavy duty" backlog clearance. CT Cooper · talk 12:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

In a bizarre coincidence, I have been convinced by a Commons' admin to try out AutoWikiBrowser over there for mass moving categories around. I would recommend it for those that do that sort of thing, but unless your a local admin, you will need to request your name be added to the authorized list. CT Cooper · talk 16:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, AWB is a great tool too, but unfortunately, Wes needs at least 500 mainspace edits to be granted permission... unless an administrator could vouch for him. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 16:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, gimme chance to get the hang of Twinkle first, LOL. All this talk of other tools is making my brain twinkling brighter than a star on top of a Christmas tree. teehee. Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Commons only demands 200 edits for AWB, reflecting the more relaxed attitude to some things over there, though I agree with Wes that it is best to learn one tool at a time. CT Cooper · talk 21:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, CT Cooper, I am the beginner in Wikipedia, but would like to become an admin sometime, so your kind assistance would be very useful to me. I hope to count on your nomination as I reach the level of edits required by Wiki rules (soon, hopefully) - have only 1500+ edits so far in English Wiki. I will really appreciate your support --Orekhova (talk) 13:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Orekhova, you really need to stop asking every admin on the list. Worm has already given you some sound advice, and what you are doing won't put you in good stead for being an admin in the future. We understand your enthusiasm, but consider investing it in helping build this encyclopedia, and bear in mind that although some people become admins on 6,000 edits or less, the average pass rate is more like 13,000. We're always on the look out for potential candidates, and someone will probably propose you when they feel you're ready for it. When you need it, help is always available with your editing and don't be afraid to ask. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

When I ran for RfA in December 2007 standards were significant lower than today and participation in individual RfAs was lower, though I still found the process stressful. I had only been on the project nine months back then, and an editor running with a similar record today would have no chance. In fact I think I would still run into significant opposition if I ran right now, since I lack the DYK/GA/FA prestige. However, passing RfA is by no means impossible, and I hope you and other editors aren't put off to much by today's standards. Without looking too much into what other admins advised, I would recommend being careful what you say if your planning to run for RfA, for example editors have gotten upset with candidates who appear to want the tools too much. More substantively, make sure you want adminship for a good reason i.e. have some idea of how you will use the tools. Furthermore, when you do run, keep the number of nominations down to three or less - again, editors have gotten upset in the past with nominees which have gone overboard with co-nominations (I was warned about this pitfall when I was planning my nomination). That said, I would be happy to nominate you in the future, and don't be afraid to ask when the time comes. CT Cooper · talk 14:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

	Bet you wish you were here!
	Warmest greetings from the Land of Smiles, and let's keep smiling together throughout the coming new year. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW: On another note, over 100 have appeared on the list in the past 2 days. They'll mostly all be R'd of course, and this is a huge waste of time of editors' productivity, and I'm worried if the rest of the 49,900 are going to be listed too. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Kenya was lovely, though I can't compare it to Thailand, since I've never been to the latter! Happy Christmas to you to, and I wish you lots of happy editing in the new year.

Yes glancing through the list it becomes immediate apparent that one editor is behind a very high percentage of these nominations. This isn't the first time this has happened, and I suspect Epeefleche will see from the results that just re-directing them will save everyone time. CT Cooper · talk 14:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Of the 100 or so primary schools that were suddenly mass proposed for deletion over the holiday period, roughly half are being redirected and half are being deleted, and some are apparently being deleted without properly evaluating the consensus. Not only is it contrary to any effort to adhere to consistency in the way policies, guidelines, or precedents are applied throughout the encyclopedia, but such arbitrary voting and closing by those who are not aware of the policies, guidelines, and precedents, does not accord equal debate to all schools that are proposed for deletion at AfD. The situation is now getting ridiculous and a ruling is urgently required one way or another that we can all follow and save unnecessary bureaucracy. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not too happy to hear that the situation is deteriorating again, though I hope and expect things to straighten out in the end. If there are any that are deleted that should be re-directed, just re-direct them after deletion (WP:CSD#G4 does not cover simple re-directs). The only issue with this is that if anything is used in the locality article, the history will also need to be undeleted to maintain attribution, though this usually won't raise objections, as long as it is made clear why the history is being restored. CT Cooper · talk 12:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cooper

As you are keeping an eye on this article and I think you would be able to look at this issue as a neutral person, I would like to draw your attention to one particular aspect of the contents that are being added to Delhi Public School Society. The fact is that this society has acquired a good brand value in India today. So there are some schools that may not be affiliated to this society but they include their school's name here. On the talk page once I had challenged the inclusion of DPS Gaya and I found that it was removed after some time. Similarly I think DPS Purnea is actually not affiliated to the Delhi Public School Society, it is actually affiliated to DPS Educational society. Its logo is also different from that of the Delhi Public School Society. All this can be verified through the official website of Delhi Public School Purnea available in this article. As an editor I may substantiate my argument with facts but I would like to avoid deleting such contents myself. Arunbandana (talk • contribs) 16:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I took this off my watchlist just before going to Kenya three weeks ago, since in order to keep my watchlist a reasonable length, I do frequently prune out some articles. You appear to be concerned that you may have a conflict of interest in editing the article. While it is sensible to cautious that doesn't mean you can't edit the article at all - making corrections yourself on straight forward factual matters is not likely to cause much of an issue - I don't see any potential issue with bias here. So, I would recommend taking out non-affiliated societies of which you can verify are not members, or better still, only list members which can verified are members. CT Cooper · talk 12:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Socks ⁰¹ 02:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness, I had forgotten it was today. CT Cooper · talk 12:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Camaron. How you doing? Some editors have reached a consensus here to move the article Don 2: The King is Back to simply Don 2, but due to an already exisiting redirect, they couldn't manage to do that. I had asked another admin (see User talk:AlexiusHoratius#Don 2: The King is Back) to fix it, but he told me to look for an admin with a better grasp of page moves and redirects. Could you please look into it? Thanks in advance, and a belated Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you. Scieberking (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. I've done these kind of page moves many times in my four years as an admin, so I am happy to do these on request. For this case, I would have preferred a more through discussion on the talk page, but since it a few days had past and there were no objections at all, I have done it anyway. Let me know if there are any further issues. CT Cooper · talk 12:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, and merry Christmas and happy new year to you as well! CT Cooper · talk 12:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That's great. Thanks a bunch for your help. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Chris. This situation is getting worse. Something needs to be done urgently, but I don't particularly wish for my talk page to become the venue for the inevitable dramafest. I know you're busy in RL right now, but some advice is needed where to take it. Please see this thread and this thread. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I've left a message on the latter thread. I don't have any ground breaking ideas on where to take this, but I hope that helps. CT Cooper · talk 09:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello CT Cooper,

Forgive my ignorance, but I didn't understand why you removed the Education box from the Talk page of Doon School? :) Merlaysamuel (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Long-standing precedent and consensus as established at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools is that as WikiProject Schools is the more active daughter project of WikiProject Education, and hence WikiProject Schools templates also cover WikiProject Education. There is no productive reason for adding the WikiProject Education banner in duplication of the WikiProject Schools one to over 36,000 articles. Adding the WikiProject Education banner is appropriate for general education articles not covered by WikiProject Schools e.g. Education, however it is not for school articles. CT Cooper · talk 18:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! Merlaysamuel (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi CT Cooper,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I supported a soft blackout this morning, and I still do now. CT Cooper · talk 17:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cooper, This might sound very strange, but it would only eat me up inside, if I didn't get it off my chest. I was browsing through the Swedish Melodifestivalen entries yesterday (gave me something to do while being Wikipedialess). And I noticed that one of the entries is by Molly Sandén, who participated for Sweden in Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2006. Which made me wonder, what would happen if she was selected for Sweden. Would we classify her as a "returning artists" or an "upgraded artists"? I know its early to be wondering these things, but curiosity always bites at me, and then sleepless nights kick-in lol. Wesley Mouse (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Eurovision and Junior Eurovision are two different contests. I say we shouldn't classify her at all. – Kosm1fent 15:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting to ponder over though, as there is the potential of the first ever cross-over artists from junior to adult contest. And this could become common now, especially with JESC in its 10th year. Former junior contestants could potentially cross-over to the adult version once they "become of age". Wesley Mouse (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) True that; we could make a specific section for former junior artists who made it to the senior Eurovision. They shouldn't be among returning artists from senior to senior Eurovision though. By the way, Malin Reitan (Norway 2005) is also taking part in the Norwegian preselection. – Kosm1fent 16:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

How ironic that is. I only thought there was one (Molly Sandén). But now there is the possibility of two? Quelle surprise! So in theory then, we could end up with another new section. One for "returning artists" and one for "cross-over artists"? Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I have always been a bit of sceptic of these returning artist sections, and still am to some extent. I'm leaning towards Kosm1fent's view that only previous participants in the ESC Contest. Failing that, the returning artists section could be split into two groups, one for former ESCers and one for former JESCers. CT Cooper · talk 18:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

That's why it had me wondering with curiosity. Seeing as both Molly Sandén and Malin Reitan aren't exactly strangers to the Eurovision Family, they will be very familiar with the Eurovision concept from their Junior representation; the only difference would be that they could potentially be competing at an adult level. So technically they are returning to the Eurovision Family in that respect. This could be one worth deeper discussion perhaps - in the event that they do successfully get to represent again!? Wesley Mouse (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and it may be a good opportunity to review the use of such sections more generally. CT Cooper · talk 12:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

In the event of former JESCers moving up to ESCers, perhaps having the header "Returning Artists" changes to "Eurovision Family Returnees". This would cover all aspects then, including the event of a EDCer deciding to find their singing voice and becoming an ESCer. You never know, stranger things have happened before now. Wesley Mouse (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Such a title does seem a little colloquial for a Wikipedia article, though if necessary I'm sure one could be created to fit. CT Cooper · talk 19:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There is something about "Eurovision Family Returnees" that is just not right for a wiki, "Former Junior Eurovision participants" or something I'd prefer. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 19:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Upon second view of the name it does sound a bit cliché. Part of me now doesn't want Molly or Malin to be selected, so that we avoid such a dilemma. Wesley Mouse (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realise I had so many talk page stalkers; I might have to start keeping count, but thank you for your input. CT Cooper · talk 20:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Tehe! – Kosm1fent 21:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

My talk page hasn't been stalked - yet (that I know of). Although if I was stalked, then I'd take it as a friendly compliment ;-) Wesley Mouse (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC) P.S. I think my MiszaBot has either gone on strike or has died. It hasn't archived anything for a long time. I've ended up having to manually do it all myself. If anyone has time to take a look and reboot it for me, then I'd be truly grateful. Wesley Mouse (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what has caused that, and mine seems to be working okay. You could possibly try simplifying the code a little to resemble mine more, and see if that resolves the problem. CT Cooper · talk 22:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm taking a break for a while, Chris. Dunno how long it will be. Keep the school wheels turning, mate! Cheers, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Kudpung, I hope you enjoy the break and will be back soon. My exams will be over soon so I should be able to keep everything at WikiProject Schools turning correctly. CT Cooper · talk 11:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi CT Cooper

I'm an official representative of The College of Law and would like to make some minor updates to the College's Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_College_of_Law. I identified you as the best person to contact through this page as I notice that you have commented on this subject a couple of times and have been involved with the content.

It would be great if you could give me some advice as to the best way to make updates to The College of Law page, as I am keen to respect Wikipedia's conventions.

Many thanks

Bryony Bennett, The College of Law — Preceding unsigned comment added by CollegeofLaw (talk • contribs) 16:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I have responded on your talk page. CT Cooper · talk 20:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi again,

Thanks for letting me know - I was not aware of the username policy but have now created an account in my name which should solve the issue. I was, however, unable to respond on the College talk page as it was still saying I was blocked.

Thank you for your offer to re-asses the page and I welcome any advice you have. Here is a link to the College website which may help as it contains up-to-date information on the College's logo, centres and courses etc: http://www.college-of-law.co.uk/home/

I look forward to hearing from you.

Bryony — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryonybennett (talk • contribs) 10:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for registering a new account. I will assess the article shortly. CT Cooper · talk 10:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cooper, I'm a little confused about an incident that happened yesterday. As you may have known, I mentioned on ESC2012 talk page that I would alter the tables accordingly whilst watching the semi-final allocation draw. However, when I came to edit the article an error message came up saying that I was blocked for 24 hours. I thought that this was strange, and checked to see if I could edit anything else, but alas I couldn't edit any pages, not even my own. I'm slightly worried as I don't recalled being warned for anything, nor does there appear to be anything on my talk page to say that I was being blocked for 24 hours. Is there any way to find out who blocked me and why? Or should I assume it was just a technical error? Wesley Mouse (talk) 10:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You clearly haven't been blocked directly, as your block log shows. The only possible explanation is that an IP address you were using was blocked with "anon only" switched off, meaning it will also block anyone logged-in who uses that address. Given that the block was for 24 hours, I suspect that you got caught up in an autoblock of another blocked user, and were just unlucky enough to be assigned the IP address that a blocked user recently used. Did the block page should an IP address and give a reason for the block? CT Cooper · talk 10:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. There wasn't an explanation as to why there was a block. The only message that appeared was "you are refrained from edits with this account for 24 hours". It confused me so much, as I didn't know what was going on. Wesley Mouse (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That is rather strange; I'm not sure what would cause such a block message. CT Cooper · talk 11:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah well, it shall become one of those unexplained mysteries. Thankfully I am able to edit again today, so I'm not too disheartened over it all. I'll look at it as a blip in the electronic system. Hope you're having a good day too my friend! Wesley Mouse (talk) 11:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I will try. CT Cooper · talk 14:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the encouragement. I would surely be cautious but if I am sure I may remove the school that is not affiliated to the Society. Arunbandana (talk • contribs) 15:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Note that I have a bot automatically archive threads after seven days have passed with no activity, in order to keep this page a reasonable length. Once sections are archived, they should not be edited. If you wish to leave me a message after the previous thread was archived, please start a new thread like this in future, otherwise I might miss your message. CT Cooper · talk 21:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to let you know that I have already deleted one school from this article with due justification. Arunbandana (talk • contribs) 12:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Please visit Talk:Delhi Public School Society and give your observations, if any, about the discussion on my recent edit of the article. Arunbandana (talk • contribs) 12:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any issues with the removals. As long as you're willing to discuss any issues that come up, then everything should go well. CT Cooper · talk 14:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Cooper, There are several unconfirmed reports on websites that the Sugababes have been internally selected, and that the delay of their latest single enhances this, which may also be the song (if the reports are true). I've posted a short notice on the Eurovision 2012 talk page about this and to pre-warn people to keep an eye out on the article for potential vandalism. I have a funny feeling that someone would be crazy enough to add Sugababes to the list, before the BBC have officially confirmed it. Thought I best keep you in the loop, so you too can keep an eagle eye on things. Wesley Mouse (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is sensible forward planning on your part. Given the level of rumours someone is bound to turn-up later and try and insert the Sugababes as the BBC's choice, but Wikipedia should not say this until there is actual confirmation from the BBC. CT Cooper · talk 16:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm monitoring the BBC Eurovision twitter page on a daily basis; especially when the BBC announced Blue on there first last year. I've a gut feeling that the BBC will make their announcement at some point this week. Wesley↮Mouse 16:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi CT Cooper

Thank you for your feedback on reviewing The College of Law page. I have now edited the page and made some minor changes to include the latest information, and also updated the dead links. I hope all of this is OK - please feel free to take a look and let me know if there are any issues.

Thank you for uploading the College's new logo in the right hand box. I notice this is a little pixelated, and have a higher quality version which could go in it's place. I was unsure how to upload this but I would be happy to let you have this version if you would prefer to make the change yourself?

Many thanks for your help

Bryony — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryonybennett (talk • contribs) 11:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't me that uploaded the new college logo, as shown at File:The College of Law logo.gif, it was Rangoon11 (talk · contribs) that uploaded the new version. I see what you mean with how it looked in the article, but that appears to be caused by the display size, not the actual quality of the upload. I have upped the size a bit to mitigate this issue. On the changes you have made, you seem to be doing a good job so far, but ensure that additions you add have citations, and preferably existing content (particularly notable alumni), should have citations as well. CT Cooper · talk 19:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi,I m Mukta Sawant from India. And thinking of creating Wikiproject page 4 Justin Bieber.If u wish 2 help me reply it on ur page & pls I wanna Listen yes (116.203.34.184 (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC))

You mean setting up a "WikiProject Justin Bieber". That might be workable as there are similar WikiProjects for other highly notable individuals such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Barack Obama. However, I may not be of much help as I am only contributing to the Justin Bieber article in preparation of doing a spoken article on it, since I identified it as a highly read article without a recording, and once I have finished I won't be very active in that area unless I update the recording in future. CT Cooper · talk 15:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

u r redy me. but, there is one problem dat i dont know how 2 create a wikiproject page can u. plssssssssssssss.......(116.202.163.247 (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC))

(talk page stalker) Maybe this wikipage about WikiProjects might help you. There's details on how to create a WikiProject. Wesley☀Mouse 15:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

- Also I've posted my side of the content dispute debate at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest - Wesley☀Mouse 18:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

i read it. please don't edit war over image templates. you have about a thousand images with this template group. we defer to local law. if no freedom of panaroma, then non free image. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 14:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope, that is not correct. We have different policies to Commons. See the message I have left on your talk page. CT Cooper · talk 14:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

yes it is correct, you have a conflict with User talk:Fastily why don't you resolve it before deleting templates that they placed in good faith. if you wish to take this to ANI, go right ahead. please do not place any more messages on my talk page. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 14:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

There is widespread confusion over freedom of panorama on this project, but I don't see what Fastily (talk · contribs) has to do with this. User talk pages are in place for communication, and users have the liberty of leaving messages there when they think it is appropriate e.g. when there is disagreement. I'm not taking this to ANI at this point, since there is no behavioural issue here, just a content dispute.. CT Cooper · talk 14:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to revert again as that would be edit warring. I really do not have time to deal with this right now, but this issue clearly needs to be resolved. I will come back to it, since it continues to be a major headache. CT Cooper · talk 14:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

good. why don't you elevate it. bring it to NFCC and copyright. i did not create this screwed up tag mess. why don't you resolve the use of fair use tags across the wiki, since the tags creators did not. they do reserve the right to delete fair use images without a rationale. look at the image history. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 14:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I had in mind, though it may be an issue. More the issue of confusion between Commons and the English Wikipedia's copyright policies. I actually did a presentation on this subject at Wikimania 2011. See slides 11,12,13 and 19 at File:Freedom of panorama and Wikimedia Commons.pdf for a review. CT Cooper · talk 14:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

i kinda agree with you about fop. however, it not a consensus view. hence this image getting deleted at commons. Wikipedia:Non-free content: "If a work is not free, Wikipedia requires that it comply with Wikipedia's non-free use policy. As explained above, this policy is more restrictive than US law requires." Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights people appear to be following Wikipedia:Using foreign images on Wikipedia: "Though not bound by it, image use on Wikipedia should show respect for foreign copyright laws. Images published solely outside the United States should not be used in Wikipedia unless their use is consistent with both US law and copyright law in their country of origin. In most, but all cases, images in the public domain in the US will also be in the public domain in their country of origin. More complicated are images used on Wikipedia under the concept of fair use (see: Wikipedia:Fair use). It is strongly preferred that the use of foreign images on Wikipedia under the theory of US fair use also be acceptable in the country of origin under a theory of fair dealing (or other similar local principle)." if you want to take it up with foundation i will support you. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 19:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, I missed this response. The thing is that Commons and the English Wikipedia's polices are fundamentally different in that images on Commons must be free in the country of origin and the US, while the English Wikipedia's policies are US only. This is confirmed by the second opening paragraph of Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights:

“

While Wikipedia prefers content that is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content that is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries. For example works of the U.S. federal government are in the public domain in the United States and widely used on Wikipedia, but they may not be in the public domain outside the United States.

”

So images may be copyrighted in another country, but not in the US. Wikipedia:Using foreign images on Wikipedia seems to be mostly about how the Berne Convention allows works published in other countries but not the US to be given copyright protection in the US, hence such works are copyrighted in the US. The bit at "Respecting foreign copyrights" is not consistent with current policy, and it should be noted that the page dates from 2006 and has been marked as historical.

Since only US copyright law matters on the English Wikipedia, only the existence or non-existence of freedom of panorama under US copyright law is relevant. On Commons, it is only the need for images to be free in the country of origin which is why we care about freedom of panorama in other countries there. Under US copyright law, photographs of buildings taken in public places are entirely copyrighted with the photographer and not the architect, in other words, there is freedom of panorama for buildings. Note that this applies worldwide in the eyes of US copyright law, and is not just buildings located in the US. See commons:Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 7#Can some explain "no FOP?" for a discussion on this issue. I think the underlying cause of confusion with File:Jumeira Mosque Dubai-2.jpg is that the freedom of panorama provision under US copyright law does not cover art works and sculptures, hence why material depicting those things has to be uploaded as non-free content here. The template currently on File:Jumeira Mosque Dubai-2.jpg says "This is a two-dimensional representation of a copyrighted sculpture, statue or any other three-dimensional work of art." - it isn't, it's a picture of a building! So something is clearly wrong. CT Cooper · talk 18:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

i understand the argument you are making. you are ignoring the policy deference to foreign copyright, see discussion What to do with respect to the copyright of countries...; Jimbo says: "Simply saying "Well, this is legal under US law, so let's do it" is not a very compelling argument." [3] since there is no consensus, we are in permanent thrash mode. [4] if the rationale is not there, then people will use that as an excuse to delete the image, regardless of your and my agreement. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 18:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It is an issue that with the Berne Convention most countries recognize each others copyright claims, hence often what is copyrighted in one country is also copyrighted in the US. FoP is a special case though which should effectively override it, since the US does not recognize architectural copyright in photographs of buildings taken in public places. Iran is also a special cases as a whole as the US does not recognize the copyright claims of Iran. Jimbo is entitled to his view, but he is not infallible, and his status as policy maker is very contentious these days. The policy wording given at both WP:C and Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights is that ultimately US copyright law applies, with following non-US copyright laws being a good idea. It is worth mentioning that the idea of "respecting foreign copyright laws" is very vague. Does that mean following the copyright law of every country on Earth? Even Commons limits it to the country of origin and the US - and yes there have been situations in which a work has been public domain in the country of origin and the US, but not in one or more other countries. My impression of the discussion on the Iran issue seems to that it is going in the direction of accepting the images (based on the voting), even if they are copyrighted in the country of origin, hence rejecting Jimbo's idea.

The discussion concerning Fastily (talk · contribs) seems to be concerning pictures of sculptures and monuments, not buildings, and as said there is no freedom of panorama in the US for sculptures and monuments (unlike buildings), hence uploading as non-free is the correct option. Saying that, there does seem to be a lot of confusion in that discussion on what the rules on Commons are, and I think half the problem here is that the two projects don't talk to each other.

Reviewing the issue, I think an RfC on dealing with architectural copyright is really the correct way forward here. I will probably seek more advise from Commons first, or even the Foundation, and also wait for the Iran discussion to be resolved. CT Cooper · talk 20:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Cooper, sorry to bring this to your attention, but User:Innano1 has wrote on his own user page that he used to be known as User:STEF1995S, who was blocked indefinitely back in 28 December 2010. What should be done? Wesley☀Mouse 01:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Has Innano1 shown bad behaviour or behaviour similar to the one that got him blocked? If not, I strongly believe he deserves a fresh start (escpecially since he declares in his userpage that "his ideologies are changed now"). – Kosm1fent 05:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't familiar with his previous account, though really he should have appealed the block and had it lifted before creating another account under WP:CLEANSTART, and the fact he didn't do this means he has engaged in block evasion. However, since the previous block was over a year ago and given that he has been honest about his identity, as long as he does not repeat the behaviour that led to the block, then I'm happy to let it be. CT Cooper · talk 12:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I too believe that Innano1 deserves a fresh start. He has been a very good part of the team, and one who I feel I can get along with very well indeed. It was only seeing the open confession that I got a little concerned, and thought it best be brought to attention to someone I trust (in this case, CT Copper), before someone else noticed it and took matters to a higher level and had him re-blocked on grounds of sock-puppetry. Although saying that I would have stood by Innano, and protested that he be allowed to stay as an editor. Besides, he's touched Dolly Parton's star in Hollywood - good man Innano! Wesley☀Mouse 16:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you were right to raise it before someone else dropped a bombshell. He has been around over a year now and we need more Eurovision editors, so clearly taking any action now does not make sense. CT Cooper · talk 17:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear CT Cooper,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obarmsu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obarmsu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I have added myself to the list and sent you an e-mail. CT Cooper · talk 12:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cooper, what is happening with the content dispute case? HTML2011, doesn't appear to be engaging in the debate any longer. Is it time for a prod to remind him or what!? Wesley☀Mouse 12:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he is active, so I have dropped him a note. CT Cooper · talk 12:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Top banana! I am very eager to see which direction this case will conclude. Wesley☀Mouse 13:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

HTML2011 has now engaged into the dispute. However, I am a little infuriated by what appear to be personal attacks towards myself from the user. Would it be possible to cast your eyes on what has been said, and take whatever action is deemed to be necessary - thanks Wesley☀Mouse 12:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Wes, I think you're overreacting by quite a long way here. I read your comment on this page before seeing what was going on at the article talk page, and I was expecting to see something a lot worse. HTML's assumptions about what you did and didn't know were not helpful, but the argument I think he is trying to put across is in short - that more specific terms should be linked over general ones. The thing about New York City was probably supposed to be an analogy, though this could have been made clearer. My advice, even if it is given after the horse has bolted, is to think carefully before taking offence to what people have written. Often it is just best to let it go, and since we talk by text on Wikipedia, often things come across in a way which was not intended. Like with vandalism accusations, raising questions over civility does have a tendency to derail dispute resolution. CT Cooper · talk 18:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you say Cooper, and perhaps I did overreact a little. But it did seriously upset me to find another user blatantly cast assumptions upon me, especially when they accuse me by putting words into my mouth in alleging things that I "want" and things that I "support", when I have never said any such thing. All my input into the discussion have been diplomatic, reasonable, and with good analysis too; whilst keeping this polite and beneficial to everyone taking part. Wesley☀Mouse 14:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand you are upset, and perhaps my years as an admin has desensitized me a little. On the bright side, at least this is getting some outside input since the discussion between you and HTML clearly wasn't going anywhere. The protection expires shortly, so hopefully this will be settled. CT Cooper · talk 18:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Words by Wesley about the past: "All my input into the discussion have been diplomatic, reasonable, and with good analysis too" . Actions: 1) "To incorporate hyperlinks to direct users to exact pages for the respective coordinates, don't serve any purpose that wouldn't be served by a piped link, whereas linking specific details inking words such as Meridian and latitude would serve more of a purpose to a person doing research". This is diplomatic, reasonable? 2) "User HTML2001, stated that this website have the map coordinates hyperlinked." good analysis? Did I do what Wesley claimed? Anyway, I am interested in improving the ESC + EBA article, and think this here is distracting from work on content. HTML2011 (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

OMG, my patience is truly being tested. I am getting sick and tired of my words being twisted, or words being put into my mouth. I politely ask that you cease this behaviour. No offence Cooper, I am trying all I can to be reasonable and calm, but when I am being subdued to assumptions against my personal nature, then I cannot see how any cooperative discussions can continue. Wesley☀Mouse 23:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

@HTML2001: I'm not entirely following what you're getting at here. To answer your first question, I see nothing undiplomatic about the quote provided. In answer to your second question, you should know what you did, and be able to answer that for yourself. CT Cooper · talk 23:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

@Wes: There is very little I can realistically do here. If you feel that co-operative discussion cannot occur with HTML2011, then as a final resort, you should withdraw from discussions with such editor. There are other people participating in this now, and you can still respond to their comments. CT Cooper · talk 23:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

@Cooper:, I am prepared to give HTML2011 a second chance, on the condition that he cease putting words into my mouth, and maintain a respectable level of good faith. I have been patient throughout and maintained good faith as best as possible. However, maintaining a professional level of good faith is becoming more and more difficult when a user goes about in a a manner of bad faith by casting accusations and assumptions upon me, despite yourself advising the user not to do such action. If HTML2011 cannot agree to one simple and polite request, then I will consider some sort of Wikipedia-style injunction that he not mention my name in such disruptive manner. Wesley☀Mouse 23:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like an interaction ban to me. They are almost always two way, are only done in exceptional circumstances, and cannot be imposed unilaterally by admins. I hope agreement on communication can be reached here, and that nothing like this needs to be considered. CT Cooper · talk 00:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi I would like you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Education in the United Kingdom and help recruit new members. Thank you Mark999 (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I certainly would be happy to help out when I can. I have also been looking to put new life into Wikipedia:WikiProject Education itself. CT Cooper · talk 17:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I have joined the project, though clearly there is still a lot of work to do. One suggestion I can already make is not to have a separate WikiProject template for this project, as has been created at {{WikiProject Education in the United Kingdom}}. It is already enough of a challenge ensuring all school articles in the UK have {{WikiProject Schools}} plus proper assessment, but having {{WikiProject Education}} plus the UK equivalent as well is just too much. I am already considering a proposal to merge {{WikiProject Schools}} and {{WikiProject Universities}} into {{WikiProject Education}} in some form for this reason. Both the equivalent Australia and Canada projects simply use their country project templates - see {{WikiProject Australia}} and {{WikiProject Canada}}, and this may also work for the UK. CT Cooper · talk 23:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Cooper, I'm sorry to report this, but a user called Luciann Mosescu is continuously adding fake logos and disruptively adding them to Eurovision articles. He has been warned several times over the last 12 months from various editors, but he is still ignoring requests, and re-adding images that have been deleted, and even removing deletion tags too.
You can see from this diff that the image was nominated for deletion, and subsequently deleted. However Luciann has added File:Eurovision_Selectia_Nationala_2012.PNG yet again. I'm not quite sure what steps need to be taken next. I have posted a warning on his talk page requesting he stop uploading fake material. I value your advice on this matter. Thank you. Wesley☀Mouse 19:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE All the images that where created and uploaded that incorporated {{Non-free logo's}} from the Eurovision Song Contest, and subsequently tagged as being "owned" by Luciann; have now been removed by admins. I did a few checks with other editors to see what needs to be done, and all I was told is that the warnings being issued is suffice at this stage; as the images are being uploaded over long periods of time, and not consecutively enough to warrant a ban or block. However, I have been advised to keep an eye if similar images get uploaded; as a ban on uploading may need to be issued if this continues. I'm wondering if it is worth noting this on the project talk page, so other editors can be vigilant and assist in keeping an eye too!? The files File:Malta Eurovision Song Contest 2012.PNG (uploaded once) and File:Eurovision Selectia Nationala 2012.PNG (uploaded twice) have now been deleted. But the latter of those files is the one that is constantly being re-added despite the fact that commons are removing it for copyvio. Thought I best keep you, as one of the main editors on this project, in the loop of proceedings. Hope you're having a good day so far - Wesley☀Mouse 15:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, I had forgotten to reply to this! Yes I've seen what is happening here and on Commons, and you seem to have dealt with it well. Fake logos are often derivative works of the real ones, hence making them copyrighted, and since they are made-up they are not encyclopedic and fall out of commons:Commons:SCOPE. CT Cooper · talk 16:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank goodness Cooper. I was starting to wonder if I was making myself look like a hounder, as it does appear to be solely myself noticing these uploads from Luciann, and taking immediate action to nip it in the bud. But I do understand the seriousness of copyrighting, and the fact that it is not permitted on Wikipedia whatsoever. Its like I said a few times, they may be uploading these images unbeknown to the serious trouble they are heading towards on copyright violations. I'm wondering if it is worth guiding Luciann to relevant links to "teach" in some way the seriousness, and hopefully allow them a chance to amend their erroneous ways? Wesley☀Mouse 17:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

On general information about copyright, here on the English Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Copyrights is a good place to start. On Commons, there is a lot of information at commons:Commons:Licensing, with the File:Licensing tutorial en.svg being a good starting point. For more specific information on derivative works, I would refer to commons:Commons:Derivative works. CT Cooper · talk 17:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Camaron. Hope you're doing great. Just wanted to inform you that User:Ashermadan has violated WP:3RR on this article. Does that warrant a block? Thanks in advance. Scieberking (talk) 08:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Ashermadan has violated 3RR by making four reverts in around an eight hour period, and I will issue a warning. However, I cannot ignore the edit warring from you either, even if on your part there has not technically been a violation. You must not use the rollback tool to edit war under any circumstances - this is only for reverting vandalism. If I had to issue a block in this case it would have to be for both of you, but given that this edit war ended several hours ago, I don't think blocks would be helpful now. I am instead fully protecting the article for two weeks, or until disputes are resolved. CT Cooper · talk 11:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Ashermadan has just missed it with these edits counting as a new edit rather than a revert. I will issue a warning anyway. CT Cooper · talk 12:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your timely action, but I've made only three reverts, and I certainly apologize for having used rollback feature in a hurry. Ashermadan has zero understanding of Wikipedia policies whose behavoir become very annoying as he mostly uses uncivil language. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology. However, as I said to Ashermadan (talk · contribs), 3RR is not an entitlement and users can be blocked for edit warring even if they don't technically violate this rule. If it is clear someone disagrees with you over content, then it is best to stop after one or two reverts, rather than to keep going until 3RR becomes an issue. CT Cooper · talk 12:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It has certainly become a battleground with lots of personal attacks (like "gone crazy with the mad-for-Salman disease", "Scieberking has gone crazy" and "Cowards") and canvassing going on (instead of asking for a neutral opinion from an editor; "You're missing the fun. Come on quick... "Scieberking has gone crazy"). I have already asked Ankitbhatt (talk · contribs) four to five times to avoid personal attacks but he pays new attention. There's even a BLP issue: "The Lallu fan inside him awoke finally". Lallu means an "idiot" in Hindi which he is using for Salman Khan, nicnamed Sallu. Please check this page. Thanks again. Scieberking (talk) 12:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not Indian and do not speak Hindi. Please stop this bordering ignorant and racist attacks in my opinion Scieberking. Stop assuming. You have insulted me numerous times in the past along with your friend XOne. Do not judge a person by his name. I hope you understand that.Ashermadan (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be best if we move on here. If any specific complaints against editors need to be made, please supply diffs for evidence. CT Cooper · talk 16:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's move on. As I said, personal attacks against me or borderline attacks will not be overlooked. Ashermadan (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Where did the racism part come from (spoken Hindi and Urdu are very similar) and here are the diffs:

1 and 2. Scieberking (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that those comments were not helpful in dispute resolution, but really are not actionable now, and as I said it would be be best to move on. CT Cooper · talk 20:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Kindly check this out. Thought I'd let you know. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen what is happening with the socking. I notice that a second sockpuppet has now been alleged which is really not on if confirmed by a checkuser. CT Cooper · talk 16:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Been confirmed now. Scieberking (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I originally extended the block, but changed my mind when I realized the second sock was from December, although it was still inappropriate. If there any more socks, then a longer of indefinite block can be given. CT Cooper · talk 16:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right, but there are still two attempts of sockpuppetry nonetheless. We were notified that there are/were many socks working on Ra.One, but the case is now resolved without further information. Thanks a bunch for your efforts, though. After enforcing the informal Request for Comment, I will most likely extend my semi-retirement into the full, permanent retirement. Reminds me of Travis Bickle's rambling: "(Wikipedia) ...is like an open sewer, you know. It's full of filth and scum. Sometimes I can hardly take it".

And I ain't no diva. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That's good. CT Cooper · talk 18:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cooper, There has been a serious case of vandalism on Kanti Bajpai page by User talk:125.19.209.66. He deleted everything and replaced it with a single line 'He's a cool dude!'. I notice from his talk page that he has a track record for serious vandalism on Doon School (& related pages). Can a strict action be taken against him? I urge you to instantly look into this matter. People like him are profoundly counter-productive and act against the whole spirit of Wikipedia! I implore you to look into this matter. (I have reverted his last edit) Many thanks! Merlaysamuel (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this appears to be a school based IP, which are responsible for a large proportion of the vandalism on Wikipedia. I see another admin has already blocked the IP address for six months, which should resolve the issue for now. If there any other heavily used IPs which are being used only for vandalism, feel free to let me know. CT Cooper · talk 12:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Cooper, not sure how to word this properly, so I'll try to bullet point things instead, as it will be easier for me (I think).

• We had the conversation between us about how to list Austrian language on ESC articles, which you agreed I could alter things to 'Austrian German' as long as I checked sources - which I did.
• No sooner as I had completed the agreed task, an IP literally trolled all the articles I had worked on; and comes out with this remark aimed at me.
• I explain to the IP that until we find an overall consensus that we should leave everything as it is, before re-altering articles, just in case a re-altering isn't required and I get this nasty remark
• The IP posts replies directly at myself on article talk pages, in an inconspicuous bullying name-calling manner:
• I attempt to further explain myself clearer, as I thought what I was trying to say may not have come across properly and I get this sarcastic remark aimed at me
• The IP is using a string of IP addresses all starting with 87.160.19x.xxx - which easily shows its the same person.
  • The full list of IPs are IP:87.160.192.143; IP:87.160.196.65; IP:87.160.193.247
• In the end I have now posted advice on how the language should be listed as, via WT:LANG - and now the IP posts a remark like this.

I've been nothing but polite, and even explained any comments that may have been misinterpreted by the IP, in Layman's terms - but I still get a string of uncalled for remarks. For now, I'm no longer going to converse with them (best way I think) but I would appreciate if someone informed them to reciprocate the same. Regards - Wesley☀Mouse 16:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think ignoring them is the best way forward for now - another user seems to have partially rebuttled the IPs comments. Even if this was actionable, there is nothing I can do as an admin, as my involvement in the article and the opinions I have given on this issue mean I'm involved. CT Cooper · talk 21:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Cooper, there is an on-going discussion at JESC2012 talk page, regarding the use of a possible new reliable source. The website (as mentioned on the talk page) is one listed in a Eurovision-Promo sites via the EBU. However, we're not sure if it should now be used or not, despite there being a comparison between the new site and currently used reliable ones. Would it be possible to cast your eyes over there, and add your views on the matter? Thanks - Wesley☀Mouse 22:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I will try and respond this weekend. CT Cooper · talk 21:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Commented. CT Cooper · talk 20:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Hope you are well, I've been having a little bit of trouble recently with a user, I've managed to find a source from someone via email regarding the years TV1 and TV2 broadcasted the Eurovision Contest for Finland, however this user says that is not a reliable source but and original source and therefore has refused me accsess to update the Finnish Commentaters. I was wondering if I could have your opinion on it please?

Take care and Regards - Mrluke485 (talk) 16:34,(UTC)

It would be nice to have informed me Mrluke485, if you was to lodge a complaint. I had explained very clear that no original research is permitted for Wikipedia, I even provided links to assist you with this. As you received the email privately it isn't sourced, and therefore is classified as original content. Wesley☀Mouse 16:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Cooper, here are the conversations in chronological order between Mrluke and myself, regarding this matter:

• 17:04, 1 March 2012‎
• 17:11, 1 March 2012‎
• 17:15, 1 March 2012‎
• 17:21, 1 March 2012‎
• 17:24, 1 March 2012‎
• 17:38, 1 March 2012

Hope this helps with the understanding the situation in full. Wesley☀Mouse 17:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Verifiability policy demands that article content be based on published sources, with it stating that "It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question." Since private e-mails are not published, they are not suitable for sourcing. Furthermore, as Wes says, this also arguably goes against the Wikipedia:No original research policy. CT Cooper · talk 21:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cooper, I came across a source, http://www.viisukuppila.fi/phpBB3/post979721.html#p979721 mind if I ask if this would this source be classed as a reliable source?

Regards and Greetings Mrluke485 (talk) 22:00,(UTC)

(talk page stalker) Forum links are not considered as reliable sources per WP:USERG. – Kosm1fent 22:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that forum links are not suitable except in very limited circumstances. CT Cooper · talk 23:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I did point out to Mrluke that forums are not suitable either, and he did say that he understood the point, at the time. Wesley☀Mouse 12:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

In light of the Finnish broadcasting changes, learning the information has come from a private email. I am now concerned about the other unsourced changes that Mrluke is now doing regarding commentators on various Eurovision articles. I hope they are not being made based off a private email too. Wesley☀Mouse 15:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It does rather concern me also. CT Cooper · talk 17:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this could do with a mini-training lesson, to assist him, so that he can learn the correct method, and prevent making this same mistake again. Wesley☀Mouse 18:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Mrluke has added loads of new details regarding commentators across many Eurovision articles that aren't backed-up with reliable sources. I'm afraid as a precaution, I am going to have to remove those additions, until we can fathom where he got them from. I've also done some background checks, and noticed that User:Carlos MS appears to be leading Mrluke astray which is troublesome in my opinion. Carlos MS also told me that its "better an original and reliable source than a non-original and non-reliable one" and also said that I'm "taking it too strictly" in regards to abiding to WP:NOR policies (full convo can be found here Wesley☀Mouse 18:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I have left a note on MrLuke's talk page. CT Cooper · talk 19:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Coop. I've got both Carlos and Mrluke on watchlist, so will keep an eye on things for a few weeks just to be safe. Wesley☀Mouse 20:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Coop, user Carlos has added unsourced information again - however, I have finally got him to see sense and understand the vitality of reliable sourcing when it concerns adding content about living people. This got me thinking, and I was wondering is there some sort of checklist that he could refer to, whenever he finds information and isn't 100% certain if he can include his findings or not. If there isn't, would it be fine for me to devise some sort of checklist (in my sandbox for now) which users who are not familiar or confident about sourcing for living people. Wesley☀Mouse 20:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

No checklist comes to mind, but feel free to create one and is would be helpful. CT Cooper · talk 21:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Does WP:REFSTART cover everything? If so, then I have stumbled upon an checklist-sort of article. Wesley☀Mouse 21:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does cover the bases and will serve as a good reference page, though I would always by default also refer users to the policies themselves e.g. WP:V. CT Cooper · talk 20:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyeswikimedia.org.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't done very much new page patrolling in a long-time, but I will look into it. CT Cooper · talk 14:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Cooper, there's a small selection of "Country" Eurovision Representative templates been created over the last 48 hours. Is there really a need for them? As each country has a template that shows each year anyway; and these new templates are just taking the piss (for better way to phrase it). Here are the ones that have been created so far:

• Template:Albanian Eurovision Representatives
• Template:Armenian Eurovision Representatives
• Template:Azerbaijani Eurovision Representatives
• Template:Czech Eurovision Representatives
• Template:Georgian Eurovision Representatives
• Template:Israeli Eurovision Representatives
• Template:Moldovan Eurovision Representatives
• Template:Montenegrin Eurovision Representatives
• Template:San-Marinese Eurovision Representatives
• Template:Serbian Eurovision Representatives

I'm going to leave a little message to the creator of them, and see why they have been created when we already have templates like Template:Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest that are covering the same details. Wesley☀Mouse 17:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I do agree that we need to keep the lid on the number of template navboxes, and the mass creation of such templates without consensus is problematic. I put a lot of effort last Summer into standardizing the template names, and if more templates are to be created they should have standard and sensible names, which these templates currently don't. Not to mention the images in the templates are overkill. Currently these templates overlap with "Country in the Eurovision Song Contest", and really either these new templates should list purely the contestants for each country (in perhaps the same style as Template:Venues of the Eurovision Song Contest), or they should go. However, what somewhat swings me against them is that we already have succession boxes for the contestants for each country. CT Cooper · talk 17:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on this Coop. I'll go ahead and nominate each for speedy under T3. Duplication and hardcoded instances; and instead of posting individual speedy notifications on the users wall, I will attempt to group them all under one notice. Wesley☀Mouse 18:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you might have difficulty getting that through, since while they are overlaps, they are not duplicates. I would recommended discussing it at WT:EURO, and if necessary, then taking it to WP:TFD. CT Cooper · talk 19:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am adding this messege I send to Wesley Mouse, I would appriciate your response for that...

Why did you remove all the templates I have made??

A. There is NO such templates, I made a template for ARTISTS and you mentioned the template for YEARS, I know it is very usefull because not everyone want information about years.

B. There are not templates connected to artists, you can check every artist and see that after what you have done you can't go through sevral artists from the same country.

. Most important - besides adding templates I made changes because there are couple of formats for the bottom list of the artist before and after, so I wanted to go over all the artists to have the SAME format, why ruin that?

Please fix this issue, I can't find any reason why not let me do job, and as I said, I wanted to do it for ALL the Eurovision artists (Hundreds of them!).--123o (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Cooper, I have noticed some of the ref links across Eurovision articles are only showing the URL address, and no other details about name of website, author, access date etc. So what I plan to do is check all of them, and include those missing bits of information, thus keeping a consistent look throughout. Wesley☀Mouse 18:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is a common problem. Please go ahead and fix them if you have time - though I would recommend using templates such as {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}} when possible. CT Cooper · talk 21:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll do them as and when, otherwise I'd get fed-up trying to get them all done at once. Found a useful reftoolbar which I'm now using, and it sure does speed up things, as well as gives a constant layout too. Wesley☀Mouse 21:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello C.T.,

I have made considerable contributions to the Doon School page and would like to make it a showcase article. I'll be grateful if you can tell me what the procedure is? Or, if I'm not asking for too much can you take a look at the said article and do something? thank you very much. DoscoinDoon (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

A lot has changed since I last looked at the article. I will try and digest was changes have been made and make some suggestions on the talk page. CT Cooper · talk 19:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, it is hugely appreciated :)

DoscoinDoon (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You may have noticed over the past few days that the MOTD that you link to on your user page has simply displayed a red link. This is due to the fact that not enough people are reviewing pending MOTDs here. Please help us keep the MOTD template alive and simply go and review a few of the MOTDs in the list. That way we can have a real MOTD in the future rather than re-using (This space for rent). Any help would be appreciated! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 18:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I will look into it if I have a spare moment. CT Cooper · talk 19:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello CT Cooper. I write to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an involving 123o (talk · contribs); in which I classified yourself as a witness. Wesley☀Mouse 02:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello there. I would like to continue working abit for the Eurovision project and I see the templates subject is too tricky. Can you give me some ideas what can I do besides that? Thanks, --123o (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

A decision has not been made yet on the templates front, and we are still having a discussion on how to organize things. Please see WT:EURO#Albania example of combined templates for the ongoing discussion; you would be welcome to contribute with your own opinions and ideas on how this issue should be resolve. As for other things to do, there are always plenty of articles which need improving. I was going through the countries in the Eurovision Song Contest articles the other day, and found many with missing references, poor quality of English e.t.c. which need clean-up. By the way, you are currently not listed as a participant in WikiProject Eurovision. If you want to be, please add yourself to Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/Members. CT Cooper · talk 16:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

There is currently a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Template duplications on the future use of navigation templates (navboxes) within Eurovision articles. The consequences of this discussion could have a large impact on how these templates are organized, named, and used in future, so all project members are invited to participate in the discussion.

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

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Eurovision at 15:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC).

Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that although most messages were delivered (see contributions) some errors were encountered while processing your delivery request (WikiProject Eurovision: Discussion on the use of navigation templates). Please deliver the messages to the following users manually, if you wish, because the bot was not allowed to do so:

• Phanuruch8555 - User is blocked.
• WilliamF1two - Connection error.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot at 15:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC).

I must have forgotten to remove Phanuruch8555 from the bot list; the other user seemed to have it delivered fine. I have manually delivered the message to two users who have recently signed-up and who were not on the bot list. CT Cooper · talk 15:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Cooper, there is a debate going on about this alleged petition from Armenia. I'm slightly concerned though, as the user who is adding more deeper analysis (Gamesmaster) is from Azerbaijan, and alarm bells are ringing in my head as to why there's this impulse all of a sudden to go deeper into the negativity about Armenia. The user is aware of my concerns, as I have expressed them on the article talk page. Could you be so kind as to glance an eye over proceedings, and intervene if necessary. Thanks - Wesley☀Mouse 17:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think in general it is a good idea to bring-up user's nationality in the middle of a content discussion, as it does personalize a discussion and usually doesn't result in positive outcomes. Just because someone is from Azerbaijan or Armenia doesn't mean they edit with a particular mindset, and if someone is editing in a non-neutral way it is better to talk about how there edits are biased rather than how they are biased. I may comment more at some point, but at present you both don't seem to be too far apart on the actual content questions. CT Cooper · talk 21:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what you say there about bringing up nationality. Normally something like that doesn't bother me in the slightest, I'm not racist, nor racialist; in fact I don't hold prejudices on anything - I'm open-minded 100%. I just found it a little strange that a reason for Armenia withdrawal was already added by someone else of non-Azerbaijan nationality, and then from out of the blue, an person from Azerbaijan nationality adds new details about an alleged petition, which only a few 'dodgy' websites have published. Looking on this from a different angle, if it was the other way around, people would again have similar doubts. That's why I tried as best as possible to word my comments tactfully without coming across as being racist. There are a few other editors taking part in the discussion that appear to have doubts of this inclusion of petition stuff. Hopefully common ground can be found. If it gets out of hand, then I may just sit back from it. Wesley☀Mouse 21:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Coop, after reading this, I think something urgent needs to be done. Appears Gamesmaster may have been warned once for trolling Meowy across several articles that have connections with Armenia and Azerbaijan. There's even discussion about possible SPI (what ever that is). Wesley☀Mouse 23:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The "war" over Armenia-Azerbaijan content has been going on for years, and making things more peaceful is a challenge which I cannot resolve myself. While I don't like digging-up past unpleasant incidents, I think I should do in this case to show that this has been an issue on Eurovision articles before and that this is more complicated than it might first appear. Firstly, a few editors involved in this discussion are named as under supervision per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#List of users placed under supervision, and the related restrictions are still in force now, including on Eurovision articles with content on Armenia-Azerbaijan relations. I have previously had to request enforcement of these restrictions following Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 5#Dealing with criticism and controversy, and this request can be found here. However, Meowy's approach to things does seem to have improved somewhat, following recently coming off a long-term ban. CT Cooper · talk 00:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Ooooo it has gone on for a long time - tut tut. Well seeing as you've been aware of it for sometime now, I'll gracefully step back. Last thing I want is to be caught up in the crossfire of a previous spat. Anyhow, its almost 00:20 and my bed is begging for me to sleep in it. G'night Cooper, and I'll speak more on the 'morrow. P.S. I've been drawing up a draft paper-based copy of that checklist we spoke about a few days ago. I'll work on getting the "draft" version onto my sandbox, and let you approve it first before I put it out into the ether. Wesley☀Mouse 00:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

If you do have some idle time and want to waste it perusing the history of one of the Eurovision articles (2009 I think) you will see that a while ago I had a run in with an administrator who objected to my removal of a pov tag that he had added to some content without giving an explanation about why he felt that content had pov-issues. He then put it back and, even when asked, still refused to explain why it was there, saying "there is no requirement in policy or guidelines which says you have to post on the talk page every time you tag an article". He then complained about an "I have already explained why, until he provides that proper justification, it is reasonable to assume bad faith is behind his repeated insertion of the tag." comment I made in the article's talk page, alleging that I was being uncivil by failing to assume good faith. I got blocked, the invalid tag was of course later removed, and the content it had tagged is (last time I checked) still there. Since that administrator was one CT Cooper, perhaps he can confirm it is still there. So I hope CT Cooper's approach to things has also changed. Meowy 20:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

No Meowy that was not what happened. Firstly, I have never taken any admin action against you at any point, so I'm not sure what the repeated emphasis to me being an administrator both here and in past are supposed to be about exactly. The admin who blocked you in response to my arbitration enforcement request just happened to be the first admin to review it, and was not of my choosing, so any implied conspiratorial elements to your past blocks lack foundation.

Firstly, the claim I added a "POV tag" is inaccurate, I added the specialist tag {{criticism section}} which I thought was self-explanatory on what the problem was. The number of controversy sections in Eurovision articles has gone down over the last two years, hence resolving the issue in many places; the Eurovision Song Contest 2009 article does still have the section without the tag (the tag was removed when re-naming the section "Controversies and incidents" - rather missing the point), but removing the section will require a lot of re-organization which is not a priority at the moment.

You removed the tag without providing a clear reason, and I responded by restoring it saying that its meaning was clear. While I acknowledge that it would have been better for me to lead the way by starting a discussion at the first sign of dissent, you clearly violated your editing restrictions by reverting twice and through failing to explain the removal on the article talk page until the second revert, and I will not take responsibility for other editor's being unable to follow restrictions placed up them.

Since the issue occurred on multiple articles, I started a discussion centrally at WT:EURO and cross-posted a link on all applicable article talk pages. You claim that I did not provide a justification for adding the tag when asked, and even claim that I "refused" to do so. Actually, I provided several paragraphs worth of a justification when starting this discussion, with specific comments on the ESC 2009 article. Your response to my explanation was at best, non-constructive, and barred little relation to what I actually said, as the record at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 5#Dealing with criticism and controversy clearly shows. You pushed the idea that I was editing in bad faith and trying to remove "inconvenient" from the article, and you hence violated the civility policy by claiming an editor holds views they do not in order to malign them, and furthermore, violated WP:AGF by assuming bad faith based on false claims which were not backed-up by any evidence. This behaviour was repeated with the ironic suggestion that I thought that other editors were not acting in good faith. Your accusations against me were then successfully debunked by AlexandrDmitri (talk · contribs).

The enforcement request also makes clear that you were violating your editing restrictions in other places, which means even if none of my conflict with you had ever happened, a block would have still been justified. This comment alone was enough to justify a block in my view. At the end of the day you choose to violate your editing restrictions, and you were then caught, and dealt with appropriately. A clear notice was left on your talk page when the restrictions were imposed, and given the catalogue of violations in your edit history from 2009, I think it is fair to say that you knowingly ignored them, so I offer no apologies for requesting enforcement. That said, if the enforcement action was wrong, then you should have appealed to the Arbitration Committee, rather than continuing to dig by engaging in sock-puppetry.

The comment I made earlier which you took objection to only mentioned you once, and it was in a positive way. I certainly hope I was not being over optimistic by suggesting that your approach to things has improved. Attempting to defend your editing habits of 2009 is not going to be anyone's interest, including your own. CT Cooper · talk 00:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Your reminder of what I still think was an abuse of sanctions was never going to be seen as a constructive act by me. To mention that past incident, in which you were involved, in order to influence a current discussion was a mistake on your part. As for the incident, you added a tag to the Eurovision 2009 article without explanation. You admit that. You say that you thought it was self-explanatory, yet when my question on the talk page indicated that at least one editor thought it was not self-explanatory, you still refused to give an explanation. A tag without a talk-page explanation means nobody can know why the tag is there, or what alleged problems there existed in the article that needed to be fixed. I repeatedly asked you for a reason for the tags insertion. You repeatedly refused to give one on the articles talk page. When I removed the tag you, rather than following the constructive route and just give an explanation for the tag being there or just let the tag go, turned it into a personal battle-ground by vindictively exploited my existing sanctions to get me blocked. And that tag you insisted should remain, insisted to the extent that you got another editor blocked over it, was eventually removed without any questions from you and the supposed "controversial" content still remains in the article. Also, the criticism tag has on its description page the following: "adding this template to a section without opening any discussion of the matter on the article's talkpage may result in the template's removal from the article" - so, edit restrictions aside, I was right to remove it and you were using it incorrectly. Meowy 00:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

But it wasn't Cooper who brought up that incident first, it was me. I was querying GrandMasters actions because of the nature of this Armenia-Azerbaijan thing, and noticed that GrandMaster is from Azerbaijan. I originally informed Cooper, that I found it strange that someone from Azerbaijan would have an impulse to include Armenian details in such graphic details. Cooper told me that it wasn't a good idea to bring-up user's nationality in the middle of a content discussion, as it does personalize a discussion and usually doesn't result in positive outcomes. And from that point, I started to do a little detective work of my own, to see if my suspicions where correct or if I was prejudging things too much. It was through my detective work that I found this incident report at ArbCom. I didn't know at that time Cooper had previous involvement in the case. It was only when Cooper explained things to me, and provided details, that I then realise his involvement. Thanks to Cooper I was able to get a gist of the full picture of what had happened in the past, which in turn eased my previous misconceptions. So you can't blame Cooper for bringing up the past, when it was I who was being inquisitive about something I found. Wesley☀Mouse 00:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I did provide clear justifications for my actions WT:EURO, so I am not following this continued claims that I didn't. They appear to be based on the technicality that I placed the comments at WT:EURO rather than Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2009, which I think most people will regard as wikilawyering. You were placed under restrictions because of a history of inappropriate edits to Armenia-Azerbaijan articles, and you proved that such restrictions were justified by continuing to violate policy on Eurovision articles and elsewhere, and you are now demonstrating to me and other editors why they are still needed. If such behaviour is repeated, I will not hesitate go straight back to WP:AE as needed. Arguably, the regurgitation of the accusations against me that led to the original enforcement action is a violation in itself, with this situation aggravated by the fact you have so recently come off a two year block. I have no regrets about informing Wes about the history because I thought that he had the right to know about what happened in the past, and I didn't want to leave him the dark. I was not trying to turn him against you or anything like that, and if I was, why would I say that you had improved? CT Cooper · talk 01:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The tag advice states quite clearly that the explanation should be placed on the talk page of the article it is place on, not on some other article's talk page. That policy violation was yours. And your explanation placed on that other article was added after both your insertion of the tag, your reinsertion of the tag, and your initiation of the complaint against me. That "improved" comment you made here was very condescending. Your threat speaks for itself and I have no doubt that you will carry it out so I will try to have no further interaction with you or with any Eurovision-related article. Meowy 01:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

And that is why I cross-posted on all involved article talk pages re-directing people to WT:EURO, which is the central discussion page for Eurovision matters. Was following a link a major inconvenience? The is a textbook example of wikilawyering. You were sanctioned for violating your edit restrictions and a listable number of policies many many times, as I explained above and on the arbitration enforcement request, something which you have not attempted to rebuttal in this discussion. I think the facts speak for themselves. CT Cooper · talk 01:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

If you look at my supposed "many many times" they are almost all as a result of run-ins with administrators and, except for one BLP issue, none one of them was as a result of content added or removed from articles. That is why I am certain you will carry through your threat if pushed - so I will not be contributing anything more to the Eurovision article. I fully accept I am entirely to blame for every single editing mistake that I have ever made and that every block I have ever received was fully justified. AGF that. Meowy 01:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

If you accept the blocks were fully justified, which does rather contradict previous comments on this page, then I see little point to this discussion. I don't dispute that you are editing in good faith; your passion on Armenia-Azerbaijan issues is clear, even if this passion have often overrode attempts to stay within policy. Where you choose to contribute to is up to you, though I think editing in area outside Armenia-Azerbaijan issues altogether might be beneficial, as ArbCom have encouraged other users in a similar position to yourself. I would not "carry out" my "threat" unless I had the evidence to do so, and that existence of such evidence is ultimately in your hands. CT Cooper · talk 13:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I would appreciate your comment on the issue in question. Me and Wesley Mouse don't seem to understand each other well, even though I think our position on content is quite close. In fact, the present situation is reminiscent of the past problems of similar nature, i.e. it is about choosing better wording for controversial info, and what should and should not be included. A third party opinion would be highly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Grandmaster 01:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I will try and comment some time today. CT Cooper · talk 14:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we are close to solution now, and managed to resolve our differences. But your opinion will be appreciated nonetheless. Grandmaster 16:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I have commented; I don't strongly disagree with what is proposed. CT Cooper · talk 18:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Grandmaster 23:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

CT Cooper, as explained in my edit summary, the post you have now twice deleted was made as a response to you having mentioned me and wikilinked your prior involvement with me. So, please either delete that mention from the thread you have just archived (i.e. delete everything in the "The "war" over Armenia-Azerbaijan content has been going on for years...." post except the first sentence) or reinsert my reply to your post. Meowy 20:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, Meowy, if you insist - I will restore all the content, and give a reply in due course. Though you may not agree, I declined to give a response in your interests as well as mine, but so be it. CT Cooper · talk 20:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

If you had waited an extra minute (or I had been an extra minute earlier) you would have read the above request before you had archived the thread. The proposal still stands - delete your mention of me and my response to that mention can also be deleted. Or, if you feel my description of what happened is inaccurate, by all means give a reply in due course. Meowy 20:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not censoring my comments about what happened in the past, so barring asking for another admin to intervene, I will take some time out to respond. CT Cooper · talk 21:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there was anything wrong with what CT Cooper wrote about a previous incident. If you notice, I highlighted a previous incident that I found through an investigation trail of my own. As I have only been a member of Wikipedia since August 2011, he was responding to what I had pointed out to him, to inform me that he already knew of the 2009 incident. I see nothing wrong in Cooper providing the information that he did, as it allowed me to understand fully what had happened in the past. Wesley☀Mouse 21:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

But still you wanted to censor mine. :) True, it is your talk page - but if you start to refer to incidents that happened a long time ago in order to influence current editing discussions, then it is right that I should have the space explain what those incidents actually were. Meowy 23:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Meowy, in light of the way you are currently giving lip to people, including CT Cooper, as well as purposely unsigning subsequent comments on the article talk page, one can see why you received the original sanctions. And you say you learnt from old mistakes? Wesley☀Mouse 00:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Cooper, I have asked that Meowy cease interactions with myself, following this statement from him. I know under some circumstances it may be unavoidable due to the nature of the project, and fully accept that. I hope that I'm not in the wrong by asking such request. Look forward to your reply in due course. Wesley☀Mouse 00:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Things I really moving too fast for me to keep-up, and it is too late in the evening for me to digest this now. Though, I would suggest interactions stop on User talk:Meowy for the moment as they clearly are not going anywhere. CT Cooper · talk 00:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully these have arrived at a perfect time for you. Strawberries are delicious, and bring happiness to anyone who loves to devour them. Wesley☀Mouse 00:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Wes, that makes me feel a lot better. CT Cooper · talk 00:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Anyhow, I'm off to bed, got an early start tomorrow - and I still haven't got off my lazy arse and done my London 2012 Volunteer homework yet. We was told at the last training event, to learn how to sign our name and 2 greetings using BSL, as we're going to be tested at the next training session on April 13. D'ya think I'd get away with the middle finger, and 2 finger-gesture as a greeting signs? LOL. G'night! Wesley☀Mouse 01:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day, CT Cooper, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 00:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your very swift message. Five years today! CT Cooper · talk 00:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Many happy reverts returns! Wesley☀Mouse 04:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a good one Wes :p. Pity, I won't be doing too much editing today. CT Cooper · talk 15:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

DoscoinDoon (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I wonder whether you can take a look at my abstract at Wikimania 2012 and if my article is selected, I would like to invite you for my talk (I have no idea about the fate of my paper at present :) )--C.R.Selvakumar (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

I will respond on my Wikimania 2012 talk page. CT Cooper · talk 17:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Cooper,

I've just reverted an obvious vandalism on Eurovision 2012. FBEno (talk · contribs) purposely highlighted sections to show "qualified" countries even though the contest hasn't even started yet. This is the 4th time in 3 months that the user has vandalised the article, and back in August 2011, Fastily (talk · contribs) actually issued them a final warning about vandalising all over Wikipedia. Time for a block perhaps? Wesley☀Mouse 18:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this account has made some constructive edits, which is probably why it wasn't blocked before now, but given the level of warnings and the nature of the false additions, I agree a block is justified and I have issued one. CT Cooper · talk 18:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I had just checked their contribs, and there's a plethora of obvious vandalistic edits done by them too, that slipped through the net and no warnings issued; including adding a calender of national finals to ESC2012, re-adding Armenia even though they had withdrawn, and now qualifying countries before the semis have even started. Thank you for sorting it out though. Wesley☀Mouse 19:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is the kind of thing that recent changes patrol won't notice. I was initially suspicious that this was another sock of Diogomauricio3 (talk · contribs), but the behavior of the account doesn't match that of Diogomauricio3, so I have ruled that out. CT Cooper · talk 19:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I have listed the pictures which I didn't take personally. You're free to delete them. And sorry I didn't do that earlier as I forgot about it and was wholly concentrated on the page. Merlaysamuel :  Chat  07:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Merlaysamuel, I have responded on my Commons' talk page. CT Cooper · talk 08:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I do feel a tad embarrassed repeating this but can the nomination be filed now?

Merlaysamuel :  Chat  17:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Nolelover (talk · contribs) has expressed the view that someone should copy edit the article thoroughly before filing a nomination. Also, there are at least two images are in the article which have questionable copyright status, these being File:Lord Mountbatten with A.E. Foot in Doon School (1948).jpg and File:The Music School in Doon.jpg. These images should probably be removed from the article, except maybe the former one, which could be converted to non-free - I have invited comment on the article talk page over this. CT Cooper · talk 19:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure...no probs!

Merlaysamuel :  Chat  23:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Dearest Cooper, I know that you're a busy man, but when you get chance, would you be able to look at my archiving thing please? I think its malfunctioned again. I'm having to manually archive things lately, and its getting on the stage where I'm screaming "MiszaBotty-potty" at my laptop screen, because the lazy thing doesn't appear to archive my talk page any more. Thank you in advance my dear friend. Wesley☀Mouse 16:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The problem is in your settings, friend. :P I've tweaked them a little bit, I don't see why it shouldn't work now. – Kosm1fent 17:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Cheers for looking into that Kosmo. Much appreciated. Fingers-crossed I stop screaming "MiszaBotty-potty" at my laptop screen. Wesley☀Mouse 17:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to work now, thanks to Kosm1fent, though the bot made an adjustment of its own. MiszaBot was down for a bit recently, which is why my talk page got very long for a while, but wasn't on strike as far as I'm aware - so no need to start to panic buying or anything! CT Cooper · talk 21:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Woohoo it worked. The bot is one clever little monkey, to have adjusted itself too. Cookie party time (or petrol party for those who are panic buying the stuff). Wesley☀Mouse 22:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hehe, you're welcome. :P – Kosm1fent 04:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at Foulistaleit 2 (talk · contribs), who has been adding unreferenced speculation to JESC articles, and compare him to Foulistaleit (talk · contribs). You know what to do... cheers. – Kosm1fent 18:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is an obvious Diogomauricio3 (talk · contribs) sock-puppet. I have deleted his nonsense and blocked the account. Thank you for swiftly letting me know. CT Cooper · talk 21:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to bother you. Do you think there are any major issues with the page now? Merlaysamuel :  Chat  17:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Nothing else major that I can see, although I still don't believe that File:Lord Mountbatten with A.E. Foot in Doon School (1948).jpg and File:Nehru in Kashmir House, Doon School.JPG pass the WP:NFCC, particularly the latter. The recently added File:The Doon School Stamp.jpg may actually be okay. Do you still want me to file the nomination? CT Cooper · talk 20:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sure. Looking forward to it. :)

Merlaysamuel :  Chat  10:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I have posted a thread at Talk:The Doon School about going ahead. CT Cooper · talk 12:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi CT Cooper,

can you please take a look on Molenbeek? In the past you have already corrected grammar and vocabulary in my articles,

thanks if you can help me

Klodde (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. I will try and review it tomorrow. CT Cooper · talk 21:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I have made some corrections for you. Not very much needed changing. CT Cooper · talk 13:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I had to make the page Molenbeek because I wanted to make 2 pages of the Molenbeek in Erpe-Mere :). One of them Is ready.

Can you also correct that one please?

Molenbeek (Erpe-Mere_Bovenschelde)

thanks Klodde (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello CT Cooper. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I have responded. CT Cooper · talk 13:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi CT Cooper,

I added 2 new pages, maybe you didn't see my post of yesterday cause someone posted something below my post.

Can you please correct also

• Molenbeek (Erpe-Mere Bovenschelde)

and

• Molenbeek-Ter Erpenbeek

thanks

Klodde (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I did recieve your message but didn't have a chance to respond. I have reviewed both the articles for you now, so let me know if you have any more you would like me to review. CT Cooper · talk 18:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually I need advise to link the 2 brooks into an article. Example Bambrugge

Bambrugge is a sub-municipality of Erpe-Mere in Flanders. It is located in the Denderstreek in the southeast of East Flanders and belongs to Arrondissement of Aalst. It is bordered by the sub-municipalities of Vlekkem, Ottergem, Mere, Aaigem and Burst and the municipality of Sint-Lievens-Houtem (sub-municipality Zonnegem).

How can I put the Molenbeek in the article?

Bambrugge is a sub-municipality of Erpe-Mere in Flanders. It is located at the Molenbeek in the Denderstreek in the southeast of East Flanders and belongs to Arrondissement of Aalst.

Is at the Molenbeek good? It's important to know, because I want to link the Molenbeek in several articles. But before linking, I ask the correct way.

So that you don't have to correct all those articles because I made everywhere the same mistake

Klodde (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"on the Molenbrook" would be better. I would probably edit the entire sentence to read:

''Bambrugge is a sub-municipality of Erpe-Mere in Flanders. It is located in the Denderstreek, southeast of East Flanders and belongs to the Arrondissement of Aalst. It is bordered by the sub-municipalities of Vlekkem, Ottergem, Mere, Aaigem, Burst and the municipality of Sint-Lievens-Houtem (sub-municipality Zonnegem).

CT Cooper · talk 19:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Then I think I would be better that you correct afterwards. Because there are many sub-municipalities on the 2 Molenbeken and there are many different styles of writing. I will add on the Molenbeek and if you want you can take a look afterwards in my contributions.

Klodde (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay. CT Cooper · talk 19:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm finished now :). You can see on Special:Contributions/Klodde what pages I added the 2 brooks if you want to take a look, thanks

ps sometimes it's necessary to add all the sub-municipalities where the Molenbeek streams on the municipality page because there doesn't exist pages for the sub-municipalities. (don't delete them) For Erpe-Mere it's not necessary cause all the sub-municipalities exist as a page.

Klodde (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I will look into it tomorrow. CT Cooper · talk 21:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I have copy edited all your recent additions and have made other improvements where appropriate. CT Cooper · talk 11:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me

Klodde (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad I could help. CT Cooper · talk 15:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

G'afternoon Cooper. How are we getting on with the templates discussion? Everything seems to have gone silent lately, and no real conclusion as to which direction we're heading with these templates. And I've noticed other users now altering 123o's creations without checking the discussion at WT:ESC first. Wesley☀Mouse 17:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, consensus seems to be learning towards adopting the proposal of Not A Superhero (talk · contribs), which if that is the case, all that needs to be done is the rollout. All project members were notified of this discussion so there shouldn't be a flood of complaints if these proposals are implemented. CT Cooper · talk 20:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ahh splendid. I am able to set aside some spare time over the Easter period, and don't mind helping out with the mass rollout exercise if needs be. Note though, that I shall be undertaking stage 2 of my London 2012 volunteer training on Friday 13 April, and stage 3 on Saturday 21 April, so both of those dates will be preoccupied with commutes to London and what-not. Wesley☀Mouse 21:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Best of luck with that. I do have some free time this week and next week, though after that I'm going to be busy preparing for exams at the end of May, meaning I won't be very active on Wikipedia again until June. CT Cooper · talk 12:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Update: I've worked non-stop throughout the night on both Eurovision and Junior Eurovision templates, and got over half of them redesigned into the new format (as shown here). My to-do list shows which templates I've got left to reformat, but hopefully if I continue to work at the speed I have done, then they should all be done by today at the earliest. Only thing now though, is those templates that 123o created. Do we delete those, or leave them to gather cyber-dust? Wesley☀Mouse 13:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow! You have been busy. I would suggest nominating the old templates for deletion at WP:TFD in one bulk nomination once the rollout is finished, as they will be obsolete. I don't fully follow what changes Frietjes (talk · contribs) is trying to make, though they do seem only technical, so they could be combined with the new version though consistency should be maintained. CT Cooper · talk 18:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The changes that Frietjes (talk · contribs) was going on about are MOS issues, that was the way the editor was portraying the issues across anyway. Issues such as:

{{Navbox with collapsible groups
|name = Macedonian Junior Eurovision Representation
|state = uncollapsed
|selected = {{{1|}}}

|title = {{flagicon|Macedonia}}[[Macedonia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest]]

do you see how we have |name=Macedonian Junior Eurovision Representation but the template is named Template:Macedonia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest and the title is "Macedonia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest"? I changed this to

{{Navbox with collapsible groups
|name = Macedonia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest
|state = uncollapsed
|selected = {{{1|}}}

|title = {{flagicon|Macedonia}} [[Macedonia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest]]

I do agree with the nameline issue, and have gone across all the templates again correcting that specific line. But the other issue that I found odd is the user removing <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags and any of the category tags that were within the <noinclude>...</noinclude> scripture. Those categories are vital in my opinion, and they where already included in the original templates. The only alterations I did was insert the new template layout, and place the relevant information per country. He also mentioned that {{small}} must be used instead of <small>...</small>, when we wish to make text small. However, I found their suggestion wasn't working, as the text never shrank in size, whereas the <small>...</small> version did make the footnote text smaller. What bugged me a little, was the fact that the user engaged in re-reverting, rather than engaging in discussion first. Something which is a no-no from what I've noticed from my time on here. Wesley☀Mouse 19:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I also agree that the name part should reflect the template title, the rest does seem to be fixing things which aren't broken. I think the user should stop for a bit and let there be a discussion of some kind, particularly given the number of templates involved here. CT Cooper · talk 19:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

An interesting factor that I found about the user though, was that he had been warned several times in the past for disruptive editing on templates on a mass scale, and had even been blocked for such activities. Like you rightfully pointed out, there is a large quantity of templates in question here, so for a user to undergo similar actions of which they had been previously blocked for, did strike me as suspicious. Wesley☀Mouse 19:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Update: All of the "country in Eurovision" and "Country in Junior Eurovision" templates have now been rolled out. The only ones left to do are the annual templates. Wesley☀Mouse 22:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Further update: All of the Junior Eurovision by Year templates have now been successfully rolled out. Time for the big ESC by Year task... need sugar intake, need caffeine Wesley☀Mouse 00:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You've done a lot of good work - I will give you a barnstar once everything is done. I think the template categories might need re-organizing for the new system, but we'll worry about that later. CT Cooper · talk 11:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I had pondered over the category tags too, and that will be a huge task too. Which is why I've kept the original category tags for now, and then we can review them after the rollout is complete. Also, for the contest pre-semifinal system, I have placed the countries in alphabetical order, and artists/song in order of appearance. These can always be reordered once everything is done. Wesley☀Mouse 17:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm on the final push of the rollout now, and fingers-crossed should have the exercise completed by the end of today. Thanks to Kosmo, I have looked into this AWB thing, and registered my name for it (which I have just been granted rights to use now). I'll now add the missing artist/song details to the remaining templates, and use AWB to roll'em out. Any tips on how to use AWB would be gratefully appreciated. Happy Easter BTW - Wesley☀Mouse 11:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I did once suggest you use AWB, but you said your hands were full at that point on learning other things. I'm glad you have decided to use it and you seem to be getting the hang of it. I myself have only used it once, and that was on Commons, where I also have access. It can be a very useful tool. CT Cooper · talk 13:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Now that you mention the AWB suggestion, I do recall you suggesting it now. It is a very handy tool indeed, and I'm sailing through the final stage of rollout. Thank you for having faith in me, in doing such a mammoth task. I have genuinely enjoyed doing this, and have learnt a few things in the process too. Wesley☀Mouse 13:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Rollout exercise is complete. Click here to see the full list of new templates that have been successfully rolled out across all "by year"; "by country"; "country by year"; and every available "song title" articles - for both ESC and JESC. Wesley☀Mouse 02:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Bloody hell, I racked up some serious edit count doing that arduous task. Wesley☀Mouse 03:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Good work, I have no complaints! This kind of thing does tend to shoot-up ones edit count, as my record for most edits in a month was broken when I standardized the template names previously. CT Cooper · talk 09:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you need me to compile a list of the old templates, in order to submit them for deletion? From my estimate calculations, I think these new templates, will have reduced the overall total by 65%. There's now 146 of the combined (country/artist/song) versions which are now used across all articles (making things easier to navigate); where as there were previously we had templates for each category (country/artist/songs) separately. Also I made sure that every article had the new templates, which makes it easier when we come to re-categorising them; thus giving a more accurate figure of articles connected to the project. I had noticed a few minor errors across a selection of articles in doing this task too, and rectified them accordingly. Wesley☀Mouse 13:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be worth doing as it would make them easier to submit to TfD and have an admin remove them. CT Cooper · talk 21:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

OK I'll work on that and forward the list asap. I noticed though that at TfD people still "vote" if they should be kept or deleted. Seeing as we already built a consensus to have new combined ones, and have already established the older versions would be obsolete, then is the decision making option at TfD still necessary? Wouldn't a speedy be quicker? Wesley☀Mouse 21:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It is probably possible to use {{Db-t3}}, though it is relatively easy for someone to come along and stop a speedy nomination, so just putting a TfD might be easier, but I will leave it to you to decide what's best. CT Cooper · talk 23:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll TFD instead. Might be easier, and probably get them deleted quicker then the seven-day speedy option, seeing as they are obsoletes now. Wesley☀Mouse 23:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

	Happy Birthday	from the Birthday Committee
	Wishing CT Cooper a very happy birthday on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Don't forget to save us all a piece of cake!

LovelyEdit 19:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the greeting. It has been a great day. CT Cooper · talk 21:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

	Happy Birthday Cooper, hope you have a wonderful day. Wesley☀Mouse 19:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I have, its interesting turning 21. I hope you're feeling good too after finishing all that template business! CT Cooper · talk 21:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cooper, Sorry to bother you, as I know you are extremely busy at the moment. However, I attempted to use the MessageDeliveryBot thing before to invite everyone on the EurovisionProject to participate on the discussion about recategorizing. Only thing is, I ,managed to submit the message to be posted, but then got confused as to why it never got posted. Do those things need approval before someone posts them, or is it only admins who can use the bot? Wesley☀Mouse 21:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem Wes. Yes, submissions do require approval before they are posted - if that doesn't happen within a couple of days, contact one of the admins for help. You seemed to confirm the request okay, so as long as the submission was within the rules, it should be accepted. CT Cooper · talk 21:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay dokey; I suppose the couple of days waiting would be an advantage really. Allows me to be able to work on a reasonable ordering of categories to give that "professional" indexing look. Wesley☀Mouse 21:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

There is currently a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Recategorising on the proposal of recategorising following the rollout exercise of the new navigation templates (navboxes) within Eurovision articles. The consequences of this discussion could have a large impact on how articles are reorganized in future to provide an easier index system, so all project members are invited to participate in the discussion.

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

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Eurovision at 22:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC).

Cooper,

I've noticed lately, a few artist/band articles being put up for PROD again, which is starting to cause concern with me. We had this issue not so long ago when Anri Jokhadze was issued with a PROD notice, and we frantically worked hard to save it from oblivion. Now Cute (Maltese band), which was the Maltese entry for JESC 2007 was issued with yet another PROD even though I worked hard to expand the article, and provide a lot of reliable sources for it too. The reason given on the prod was "one-time only event". How can people use that excuse on these articles, when the average Joe Bloggs even knows that ESC and JESC are annual "one-off" events, so notably there will only be "one-off" appearances for artists/bands etc. Is there something that we need to do, or escalate further, to prevent this from happening in the future? Perhaps introducing a new tag which can be placed on the top of each article to exempt it from PROD's. Wesley☀Mouse 16:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Good job on improving the article about Cute, Wesley. However, no matter how many sources there are about an individual/band, if they cover them over the extent of a single event, it may cause their article to fail WP:BIO1E and subsequently WP:N. This is not the case with Cute, as there is one highly reliable source reporting their CD single which came out. Also, EBU events may be "one-off", but ESC artists won't mind, as they will certainly pass one or more WP:MUSICBIO criteria. JESC non-winners-or-placing artists, on the other hand, would only rely on sources to justify notability, which is why there are so few articles about them since they rarely get notable in something other than participating in JESC. Last but not least, no individual or Wikiproject can own an article, so a tag is out of the question. Cheers. – Kosm1fent 16:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that Kosmo, I do feel slightly proud in expanding an article all on my lonesome, gives me something to reflect back on and inspire me to do more like that in the future. Doing a basic Google search found a lot of websites for Cute; but filtering out the reliable ones isn't an easy task, as you might understand. Thankfully I found ESCKaz, EBU, and ESCToday pages to start off with, and used them in the expansion. There are a lot of other sites that go into some detail about the group still being active, but most are unreliable sources. However, as majority of them (albeit unreliable) are publishing the same material, it is encouraging me not to give up, as there has to be something of a reliable source to confirm if these "reports" are true or not. If they are, then hallelujah problem solved. If they aren't then I'll just redirect the article into Malta in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2007, and work on including details of that national selection instead - as there are tons of sources out there covering that. Wesley☀Mouse 17:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking at WP:PROJGUIDE and more specifically WP:WikiProject coordination, it looks as though a WikiProject is permitted to tag an article. Interesting! Wesley☀Mouse 17:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:PROD is a Wikipedia policy so I don't think individual projects can choose to override it, and I'm aware of no precedent for such an action. I don't see WP:PROD as a very big deal, as it designed for non-controversial deletions meaning that a PROD tag can be removed at any time by any editor within the seven-day period before deletion, and even giving a reason for removal is not required. Once a PROD is contested on an article it can't be PRODed ever again. Furthermore, even if an article is deleted via PROD it will be restored upon request at WP:REFUND in most circumstances. WP:PROD is however distinct from WP:BLPPROD, which works differently. In any case, article alerts at WP:EURO should alert us to any action being taken against an article. CT Cooper · talk 19:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Cooper,

I've just been informed by my sister tonight that my mum has passed away. Thought I best let you know, so you understand my lack of activity on the EuroProject. Wesley☀Mouse 20:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to hear that. I have left a message on your talk page as that seemed more appropriate. CT Cooper · talk 21:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cooper, There's a discussion at Kosmo1fent's talk page in regards to 3 IPs which all start with 176.92. The IPs have apparently vandalised the same selection of BLP articles for football players over the last few weeks. From what I gather, the IPs have been issued warnings, and an AIV report was submitted. However, at AIV they said to submit a rangeblock request at AN/I. I didn't think AN/I dealt with rangeblocks? Anyhow, if you get a spare minute or three, would you be able to have a glance at the discussion and see what can be done. Cheers buddy - Wesley☀Mouse 20:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes the range the user can be easily blocked at /16 level as Special:Contributions/176.92.29.172/16 (need "Allow /16 and /24 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions forms" at Preferences > Gadgets to view). However, innocent user have edited in this range recently and it is clear that a range block will cause collateral damage, meaning a block would have to be short and long blocks are discouraged anyway at WP:RANGE. After briefly reviewing the three IP addresses provided by VascoAmaral (talk · contribs), I'm finding it difficult to justify a range block at this point. Reasons for this include the fact that many of the IPs edits haven't been reverted after several days, suggesting we are not dealing with a pure vandal, perhaps instead a good faith user that sometimes goes off track, and the edits are old - out of the three IPs the most recent edit was on the 19th and one hasn't been around since April - meaning a short range block won't help. Finally, only one of the three IPs has received a warning mentioning the threat of a block, which really isn't sufficient.

I'm unfortunately still rather busy so I cannot follow this in much depth for another few days. WP:ANI can deal with range blocks so I would recommend taking it there if the user returns again to find out what other admins think should be done. CT Cooper · talk 21:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that for me Cooper. I'll copy your words onto Kosmo's talk page, so that Vasco can have a read. And then leave it between the two of them as to what action they wish to take after that. Wesley☀Mouse 21:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Cooper, The 2013 article has been opened now that dates are known. However, since its opening it has come under a wave of IPs adding unsourced speculative details - which is the norm these days. Any chance of semi-protecting it with an expiry time of say 2 months (or to expire in-line with the semi-protect on 2012 article). Cheers Wesley☀Mouse 18:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm normally very cautious about taking any admin action on an article to which I am editing content, however since I have had no involvement in editing this new article so far, I'm classifying myself as WP:UNINVOLVED for now and applying semi-protection given the current edit history and as a witness to the chaos to previous years. I'm limiting to ten days for now though as things should cool off massively by June and that would be a good point to re-assess the need for protection. CT Cooper · talk 18:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to edge in, but wouldn't it be better (in the interests of adding confirmed information) for the semi-protection to expire on Saturday/Sunday, when we will then know the actual host of the 2013 contest? Just a suggestion, I fully agree with the decision to prevent more speculation-based edits however.--SUFC Boy 20:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Speculation will be an issue right up to the point that 2013 Contest start, and won't go away once the host is known, instead it will just move to other things. Activity is at its highest on the weekend the final for the previous year is on so I don't think unprotection then is a good idea; there are plenty of autoconfirmed editors who will update what needs to be updated. I'm not against reducing the protection time since the 10 days set is a little arbitrary, though anything less than five days from yesterday I would not recommend. CT Cooper · talk 06:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

	Good luck charm
	Just a quick note to wish you the best of luck in tomorrow's exams. Wesley☀Mouse 18:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Wes! That is very thoughtful. CT Cooper · talk 18:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)