User talk:Eurosong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eurosong.
This is the user talk page for User:Eurosong, where you can send messages and comments to Eurosong.

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Eurosong, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer questions. Again, welcome!  --Dvyost 01:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Y'know, I've probably left about 300 of these greetings, and you're only the third user ever to thank me. =) Good luck in all your editing! It looks like you're off to a great start over at 0207 & 0208 (particularly, nice job figuring out how to do the redirects!). Have a very merry Christmas! --Dvyost 20:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eurovision in Birmingham

Re: Why did you revert my mention of Eurovision on the Birmingham article, eh? It's an international show watched by a huge audience. The fact that Birmingham played host to it deserves a single mention, I think.

I can bet Birmingham is was, is and will be host to many, many shows. This information may be better on pages about Eurovision, IMHO. Pavel Vozenilek 04:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nationalities

Hi, hopefully you can find time to weigh in on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Proposal: it's time we put this one to bed. Mark1 18:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Airfoil/aerofoil

Glad you agree with me. I may call on you for support if these changes prove to be controversial Guinnog 17:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I’ve had it with you politically correct neo Marxist hard left extremist Searchlight spies who believe that a great man like Adolf Hitler ordered the systemic murder of millions of men women and children because they weren’t pure and masterful and strutting and can’t you see that the Zionist Occupation Government perpetuates the Holohoax because it makes easier their takeover of the planet as set out in the Protocols through the bending of our minds and the contamination of Our Precious Bodily Fluids and they’ll have the whip hand over us before too long and Enoch was right-wing.

The preceeding unsigned comment was left at 08:48, 27 January 2006 by user Horgen

Umm... Whatever substance Horgen is on, he should see a doctor. Quickly. Eurosong 16:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Misfired bad taste humour attempt re BNP paranoia, that is all. No offence intended. Hope you’ll continue to keep a watch on deletion of original Griffin photo. Thanks, Horgen

[edit] Protection

Nah can't protect it because it's on the main page. I think that linking the image is a very good solution. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea why but it might have to do with it being an event that's happening so editors need to update article. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I need to remind you that there are no personal attacks on wikipedia. Don't make another message like you did to Rajab again. Wikipedia is not racism either. Thanks--a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Insult!

An insult is different from the freedom of speech. Even in Europe... Resid Gulerdem 22:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Eurosong, implying that he is a member of a "bigoted Muslim theocracy" is very much a personal attack. Now please don't argue with that. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
If you disagree and think it wasn't an insult that is your opinion but please be more civil when talking with other editors. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CARTOONS OF MOHAMMED

Showing the figures of Mohammed is disturbing muslims. And it is a insult to Islam. In Islam making and also looking the figures of Mohammed is forbidden.That is raping the holy things of Islam.And it is not about "freedom".PLEASE get back your sıgnature.Thanks.--Erdemsenol 01:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Replied EuroSong 12:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re.Well Said

Thank you very much, very kind of you. :) I'm just starting being active on Wikipedia, so I appreciate very much your comment. The problem with religions is that they always carry a certain kind of thinking and they spread it spread to the masses. In many case it's pure bigotry and intolerance. Like in this case with the user Erdemsenol spamming all over wikipedia!! --giandrea 01:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, and I will add a wikithanks . :-) --giandrea 03:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision

Hello, mate, I see that you are interested in Eurovision. Would you like to be involved in connecting with more eurovision wikipedians to do up the eurovision pages in a more coherent manner? I have come across the Eurovision wikiproject page, which seems to have been dormant for over two years. It may be an idea to have a look there and see how we could improve the eurovision coverage. I have done up the Congratulations (Eurovision) page so far and put notes about it on the pages of those who performed there. Best regards from Australia, Blnguyen 23:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Gibbins

Thank you for your amicable, courteous message. After I flagged the copyvio I tracked its source down to Gibbins' publisher and decided that this is still a reuse of copyright material. The publisher asserts "No permission is given by Hodder Headline Limited or its subsidiaries for their use by any person other than such holders and such use may constitute an infringement of the holders' rights." Amazon is an agent of Hodder Headline. Cut and paste will usually be a copyvio unless the rights holder has released the material under some appropriate licence. —Theo (Talk) 23:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British/North American English

I share your preference for UK English over the North American version of the language, but I would have to wonder whether some of your edits really fit within the spirit of the policy. Might I suggest that a more neutral clarification, such as I have made to your revision of Automatic Teller Machine would be diplomatic.Kevin McE 12:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for your reply: as I stated, my starting point is also a preference for UK English, but I think that there is an essential difference between "as a cashier is known in the USA" and "or cashier in the UK". To my mind the former implies correction of a US error, and the latter presentation of a regional alternative, to aid understanding by people from that (our) region. I suspect that it would actually be for someone who might feel slighted by your manner of correction (i.e. a speaker of North American English) to judge. In the particular instance if the ATM entry, I took its title to indicate that the page was of US origin, and that therefore the Manual's suggestions of consistency of dialect (if such a word be appropriate) and adverence to the regional type of the initial author determined that "teller" should be treated as normative. Although we do not use teller in the context of banking in this country, these machines are frequently referred to as ATMs: I wonder what the average Brit considers the T to stand for. Your implication that there is such a thing as an "international word" to use is an interesting one: there is of course no real consensus on the vocabulary of such a putative concept as International English and therefore no standard by which to adjudicate: if it is the case that either word is the norm in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, the anglophone Caribbean and Asian territories etc, then it could be said to have a place in the international lexicon, and either US or UK English would be found to be out on a limb as each of us may have implied, and inferred of each other. I must confess to having changed candor to candour in an edit today, but I was making several, non-geographically determined, corrections to the text in question, and may have got carried away!. Kevin McE 00:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Waldorf-Astoria

Rather than argue the point again, I will merely ask that you reverse the move and make the case on the talk page for changing the current consensus. The issue of naming is debatable, the issue of Wikiquette, not so much. Give the debate a chance. --Dystopos 21:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 0207/0208

Hi. It did explain why still, as far as I'm concerned. I've added an extra parathentical statement which should help there. I appreciate that as the writer of text you can get pretty emotionally involved with things : but I'd advise to you take a step back, forget that you wrote the prose, and look at it dispassionately, comparing it to some of the excellent work we have here. I stand by my talk page comments. I could say further rude things about it here, but I suspect that wouldn't help.

As to whether the STD code itself demands an article: I don't see why not, given current precedents. We certainly have articles about other random area codes (both UK and US), for better or for worse, and this at least ties it in with that structure. Morwen - Talk 22:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I was just being bold. If you are going to revert, I hope you are going to do the cleanup on your version: because its some of the worst writing I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I did think about editing it but I just gave up and rewrote. Morwen - Talk 23:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, let's make a list
  • the article is titled something that doesn't exist. this is a bad idea. in writing the article you are trying to get the usage error to go away. it should therefore have the correct name, and discuss the error as a side-error. We do have some other articles by the format UK STD CODE whatever
  • section 1: there is far too much background information here. we should be linking to articles about area code rather than try to explain the concept of an area code, which it does. if you were writing a standalone essay about the problem this might be a good idea, but this is a hypertext encyclopedia so this is absurd. "It is important that this pause - both in writing and in speech - is made in the correct place." lacks a sense of proportion.
  • section 2: the first sentence of this is encyclopedic. the second is true, but doesn't need the background to understand. why even mention Cambridge or Manchester? the third is rebutting something, which isn't encyclopedic. we aren't a usage manual, we don't need to outright state these things, but we should be more oblique about it. "common mistake" is fine. "you should not" is inappropriate.
  • section 3: historical confusion. again, this is far too wordy. you don't need to say "Due to the ever increasing number of telephone number allocations both to private homes and to businesses, towards the end of the 1980s it was realised that there was soon going to be a larger demand for new numbers than those seven local digits would allow. It was therefore decided to split London into two new areas: Central London, and Outer London." when you can say "Increasing demand led to the need to split the London into two areas, Central London and Outer London".
  • section 4: more wordiness. "The greatest demand was caused by the growing popularity of direct dial-in (DDI) systems, which eliminated the need for switchboard operators but required large groups of adjacent numbers. As the telecoms market was opened up to competition, numbers started being allocated to each supplier in large blocks which hastened the consumption of available numbers." - why even mention this? does it have any relevance to the matter in hand? no. it's just more unecessary verbiage.
  • section 5: misquoting. this is unnecessarily prescriptivist. wikipedia isn't a usage guide. also, having spoon-fed the reader background information about the local numbers issue, we then insult their intelligence by having a long sentence "However, it is incorrect to place the pause as such, because if such a number as 222 1234 were attempted within London as if it were a local number, it would be missing the first digit (of eight) and the call would not be connected." This could be tightened to "However, if a caller assumed that 7 or 8 was part of the area code and dialled only the last 7 digits of number, it would not connect".
  • section 5 again: probably causes: source for this? this is just guesswork. the rest you can just about get away with without having sources because it just relies on observation and cross-referencing.
  • section 6: this is basically the longest section i kept. however, the tone of paragraph 2 here is still inappropriate. we are still railing against the usage error, as seen for example by the use of the exclamation mark. the fools! "Even some newspapers, both local and national, have given this misinformation" OMG how terrible! it's overdramatising it. it's not misinformation, it's a mistake. "It may, however, be many years until general public awareness is such that people cease mis-quoting the London area code." random speculation - source of this? will it ever happen in fact? somehow i suspect not.
  • section 7: similar errors. this i cut away - you'll see a later edit restored the reading example.

basically it has the feel of being padded out, not being concise. in parts it looks like its been padded out so that various parts can be individual sections. there are one-sentence paragraphs. it reads like an essay which is trying to make the point that "this is bad, don't do it! it causes cancer!" rather than matter-of-factly stating "this is a popular mistake", which would be the proper tone. Morwen - Talk 23:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

When I looked at that article I was horrified at it: overlong and also was labouring the point/lecturing, which is a definite style no-no in my book. I slapped the cleanup-tone tag on it, and then shortly decided that it would actually be more effort to edit it to an acceptable form than to restart from scratch. Which is what I then did.
If you want to try to take my comments on board that would be great. 'Editing' can be by its nature percieved as destructive: and there's so much stuff on Wikipedia that just needs junking that I can't go around pre-emptively explaining in detail every hack&slash I do (not that I do that these days: too many people object to have someone come in and fix their writing. I had someone piling abuse on me a while ago for removing copy-and-pasted press releases from album articles, if you can believe that!) Morwen - Talk 23:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that's certainly a start. I'd be aiming for about half the wordcount it was originally act: there's still a lot of deadwood in sections 1, 3 and 4 to cut. Morwen - Talk 18:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Right, that's some more editing done. I haven't even started on the deep structural problems, because I'm waiting so see if you'll revert me again. Morwen - Talk 18:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and with respect to the actual topic of the article, as I said above, having an article about the STD code itself would be broader. It provides a better justification for having some of the history. If you don't think area codes should have articles can you does this mean you are going to propose UK STD code 118, UK STD code 1252 and UK STD code 1438 for deletion? I can certainly find an awful lot more to write about 020 and its antecedents, but it would want to incorporate material about the typographic error, as well. But having two articles UK STD code 20 and 0207 & 0208, would be a bit odd, unless one was made a sub-article of the other. Morwen - Talk 18:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about maps. BT presumably have them, but I've never seen them published - and in any case they could contain any number of anomalies - area codes aren't strictly territorial but rather topological. Probably the best bet is to check e.g. the area codes and numbers for councils in outer london and on the london fringe. It did look like corresponding to Greater London boundaries pretty well, which is unusual. Also it might be good to get more specific about the 7/8 split. Morwen - Talk 19:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Fixed-wing aircraft

Sorry to bother you, but you sounded like you were getting annoyed and I just wanted to let you know that you have my support. I quite sympathise with your annoyance over the spelling issue. I am watching this page for the same reason you are (in fact I see we corresponded about it a few months ago, above), and can help you. You've just always been too fast for me! I've also just got AWB which makes mass fixing of links much easier. In truth, many of these editors may not even know that another spelling variant of English exists, let alone what policy is on it! They almost certainly aren't trolling people like us, just trying to improve the project according to their own lights. --Guinnog 15:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

AWB is Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser, a fantastically helpful editing tool. In spite of the name, it is not really automatic, and not a 'bot'. It does have useful things like search and replace functions.
I am currently using it to find and replace wikilinks to airplane and aeroplane to airplane and aeroplane respectively, so far without adverse comment.
Downsides are that you need to be vetted (basically to make sure you aren't a vandal), and the necessity of using Internet Exploder and Microsoft .NET software. If you can swallow that, you might find it as helpful as I have. Best wishes --Guinnog 15:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind comments. I've done all the aeroplane links (obviously not touching ones like this in user space etc) and am well into the airplane ones. Big job obviously! In some cases I've just subbed in aircraft or airliner where the context allows. --Guinnog 00:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Aeroplane was easier as there were far fewer to do! I've done numerically far more on airplane, hope that satisfies you!
Great about aluminium though, eh?
My AWB was through in 24hh. Watch the page! Good luck, --Guinnog 00:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I just checked and as you have under 500 edits (I am getting 478) you may have to make a special pleading. Failing that, make some more edits and try again. Good luck, again. --Guinnog 01:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

I'm not convinced the world would be happier, safer and saner without relgion. It would just mean that people would have to find a different reason for killing each other. Wahkeenah 15:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Putting it to the test would be difficult under current circumstances. So for now, you'll just have to Imagine it. :) Wahkeenah 15:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk: Fixed-Wing Aircraft

Hi, sorry to be a pain but in the Fixed-Wing Aircraft wiki, it is important to distinguish between an aircraft and an airplane or aeroplane. An aeroplane (my pref., I'm British) is [1] powered, and [2] heavier than air, and [3] fixed wing, and [4] not rotary wing. This therefore excludes gliders, airships, helicopters, and gyrodynes. The term aircraft would include all four.

I can agree that some information about gliders would be appropriate in the Fixed-Wing wiki, because point [1] is not relevant, but I think points [2] to [4] are essential if we want to keep this wiki rigorous.

OrangUtanUK 7-June-2006 16:06 utc

[edit] Reply to your reply

Hi back. Thanks for responding.

Yes, I realised that there was something going on with the airplane/aeroplane thing. But aircraft is just plain wrong as an alternative. It totally ignores a whole range of other kinds of aircraft - see my previous note to you. Gliders and Gyrodynes both have fixed wings but are not aeroplanes. But they are aircraft. Hot air balloons do not need a flow of air over their wings to keep them aloft ! I can't place lifting-body aircraft as either fixed-wing or moving-wing, but they are certainly heavier-than-air flying machines (aerodynes).

I hope I was diplomatic in using the American word airplane rather than just imposing my own Anglo-centric aeroplane.

My vote would be to use the correct spelling - aeroplane - for the article on aeroplanes, and have a separate wiki for aircraft which is basically a cross between a disambiguation page and a sampler of the other pages. I have been thinking about constructing a table showing the various parts and characteristics of the kinds of aircraft. What do you think about that?

all the best; OrangUtanUK 15:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi OrangUtanUK. I'm replying here, so the discussion doesn't get split across our pages. Well, I sort-of see your point about other types of aircraft. However, the major issue here as far as the actual article is concerned, is that if we do choose either "aeroplane" or "airplane", then that will alienate/annoy Americans or British people respectively. Such things DO provoke edit wars. You call the spelling aeroplane "correct". As a British person, I also consider it correct. However, because we only have one English Wikipedia. "en.wikipedia.org", and not several different ones for different varieties of English around the world, we must therefore all respect each other's differences. I guarantee you that if you "corrected" all the spellings to "aeroplane", then in a very short time some American user(s) would get pissed off and change them all to "airplane". Then it would go back again.. and we have an edit war on our hands. This is, I believe, what did actually happen a long time ago. Edit wars are not what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Therefore some thoughtful person realised that even though it might not be everyone's first choice, the word "aircraft" existed on both sides of the Atlantic, and renamed the page as such. See?
By the way - you say you think you were being "diplomatic" as a British person by changing the spelling to the American way. That is funny! What about the feelings of those back home, eh? :)
So.. what would you want to do? Rename the page to "Fixed-wing aerodynes"? That's even more ludicrous, I think ;) EuroSong talk 15:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Umm

"User:Eurosong/AIP/Eurovision Song Contest" is currently being listed in Category:Television programs filmed in high definition. Please fix this.--SeizureDog 08:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eurovision Song Contest Critique

Dear Eurosong,

I did notice the external links next to the statements however it is a common procedure to use Footnotes when citing external websites as sources, as the produce the same effect while there is a complete list of references at the end of the page. There are also a few sections such as the "Ties for first place" section that could use a bit of wikifying but since its GA I let that part slide. I hope that this has been some help to you.--Tarret 01:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Eurosong

I notice you have put the following page up for deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Amin_al-Hasanat_Shah_al-Qurashi I am the creator of the page, could you tell me why you have done so. The image used in the article has now been fully tagged so would it be okay to delete the This article is being considered for deletion box at the top of the article. Thankyou. --Maroof396 11:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Maroof396

Hi. I see that since I tagged your page, others have also tagged it as a copyright violation. But my original reason for nominating it for deletions was nothing to do with the image you used. It's because, when I read the article, I could not find any verifiable proof that this man is especially notable and worthy of his own encyclopædia entry. In order to have an article, there are several criteria which must be fulfilled, which include (but are not limited to): the subject must be notable in some way above his/her peers, and such claims must be verifiable from independant sources. You stated that he was "one of the greatest gnostics and spiritual leaders of his time". However, there was nothing to explain or back up this statement. I searched Google for his name, and found only 25 matches. It stands to reason that if he really had been so great, then there would be a lot more written about him.
You did not do yourself any favours because of the tone and content of the rest of the article. It was unencyclopædic, and read like something out of the Koran. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopædia - not a soapbox for point-of-view statements. And statements such as "Shaykh Amin al-Hasanat is the rightful torchbearer of truth and spirituality" is clearly point-of-view, unencyclopædic waffle. You need to write in the tone which you would expect to read in a paper publication, for example the Encyclopædia Britannica.
Please take note that I did not nominate Muhammad Karam Shah al-Azhari for deletion. Although it still needs a lot of work, in order to make it read like a neutral, formal encyclopædic article, the notability of the subject is asserted (he was a leading, respected judge, founder of a college, and author of several works).
Good luck in your activities on Wikipedia. I suggest you read the WP guidelines before proceeding. Thanks :) EuroSong talk 15:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gimme

Just a quick heads-up that the above article (one of my contributions to the ESC project) is up for deletion. I think I've done a reasonable job of explaining why it's notable, but you'd be most welcome to add your two pieces of any currency. Y'know, it's amusing that the only two of these articles anyone's tried to AfD have actually been ones I could explain the notability of without needing to rope in a friendly neighbourhood Belarussian or something. BigHaz 11:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Actually I just stumbled across the Eurovision Song Contest article. I stumble around alot on here. :) Thanks for the compliment. Best name though is User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me :). --Woohookitty(meow) 14:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah. :) --Woohookitty(meow) 14:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Countering systematic USA bias

I enjoyed what you wrote, and I thought in turn that you might enjoy [1] as I did. I quite agree about the bias; I am less clear how best to counter it. --Guinnog 01:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a template you might find useful: {{globalize/USA}}. --Guinnog 03:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aircraft vs airplane

I appreciate your efforts here but if you look at for example [2], you are changing the meaning. Aircraft clearly includes balloons, so nobody could ever claim Santos-Dumont built the world's first aircraft! Can you hold off and fix the articles you have edited please? I do appreciate the sentiment but I think you need to rethink what you are doing. Sorry. --Guinnog 00:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That's better indeed. A lot of them could be replaced with it, rather than using elegant variation as you have. At least this edit maintains the meaning of the article, which is of course the main thing. I reviewed your edits and actually quite a few of them are fine. Just be more careful in thinking about how your changes affect the meaning, as aircraft is a broader category than aeroplane/airplane, please. --Guinnog 00:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I meant to say 'A lot of them could be replaced with "it"'. Take care --Guinnog 01:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Correction' Well, It's actually 1994 that the start of voting via sattelite.

A similar problem has occurred at Pilot certification in the United States. Many of the sentences containing the word "airplane" are incorrect or nonsensical when changed to "aircraft". In particular, the section entitled "Types of pilot certificates" lists categories of aircraft, one of which is airplane. (I see you've also edited critical engine; my gut feeling is that the concept of a critical engine only exists on airplanes but I'll have to double-check this.) I'm not trying to be a pain but perhaps it would be wise to be more selective when making this type of edit. -- Captaindan 08:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that it's best to use words that all English-speaking people can agree on. Like I said, I'm not trying to be a pain... just thought I'd point it out. :-) When I get a chance I'll dig up my rotorcraft books and check on the critical engine thing. -- Captaindan 11:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I know you're not :) I replied again on your talk page.. EuroSong talk 11:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, in fact I own that very one! -- Captaindan 11:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A similar problem has occurred at Operation Auca. Do you read the changes you make or simply hit "save" on AWB? I strongly suggest that you review before saving. --Spangineeres (háblame) 17:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, cool--sometimes AWB scares me because people often aren't careful. Anyway, your most recent changes aren't bad, but I don't like "fixed-wing aircraft". Who on earth refers to airplanes/aeroplanes as "fixed-wing aircraft"? If 49% of English speakers use "airplane", 49% use "aeroplane", and 2% use "fixed-wing aircraft" (which I think is generous), why would we choose of those three options "fixed-wing aircraft" to say what we're talking about? We'd have to add an extra wikilink just so people can look it up. Personally, as someone from the US, I'd more quickly understand "aeroplane" than "fixed-wing aircraft", and I have a strong feeling that the vast majority of my countrymen would feel the same way. Thus, if precision is necessary, it makes more sense to me to just use airplane/aeroplane as dictated by the rest of the article. --Spangineeres (háblame) 17:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
You're right; aeroplane is never used here. "Something jars inside me as not quite right" whenever I see aeroplane, recognise, colour, and a host of other words. As for "colour", why not replace that with "wavelength-determined property of visible light"? A little longer than our aircraft example, but my point is that anything can be reworded to avoid british/american spelling differences. It's often just not worth it. I'd rather have something jar inside me than have to click an extra wikilink or look something up. All I know is that even aeroplane is more understandable than fixed-wing aircraft. If it were within WP policy and I was given the choice between the two, I would pick aeroplane any day of the week without a moment's hesitation. Are you saying that you feel that the average British reader would understand "fixed-wing aircraft" more than "airplane"? I can't imagine that. --Spangineeres (háblame) 17:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. I agree with you to some extent when you say there's a level of professionalism to prose in an encyclopedia (though that's often used as an excuse for wordiness), but you lose me when you say "airplane" appears childish. By extension, American English appears childish, and that's elitism, pure and simple. Not much I can do about that. Believing one's dialect inherently better than someone else's is a strange idea to me and insane to all linguists.
Regardless, professionalism in prose exists to enhance understandability, not to obfuscate it. In your example, I wouldn't know what a "tube" is. I'd say I'm taking the subway or the metro. Thus, we use professional prose, an "underground railroad". Here though, using "professional" prose (fixed-wing aircraft) obscures the meaning for 100% of Americans and some undetermined number of Britons. Some will find it "childish" to see "airplane", and others will have to think for a second to figure out what a "fixed-wing aircraft" is. Thus, I don't get it—if a solution improves the situation for one audience and leaves it relatively equivalent for the other, there's really no downside and no reason not to implement it. --Spangineeres (háblame) 19:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to come across as rude at all, but I have to agree with what others are saying above -- "aircraft" is not a viable substitute for "airplane" in many cases where I've seen you change it lately. Please be careful that you're not changing legal definitions or quotations in particular (two areas I've had to fix in the last 24 hours). Thanks.--chris.lawson 22:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

To anyone else who has noticed one of my too-hasty replacements in the past day: thank you for noticing - as you can see, others have mentioned this. I am sorry for not being careful enough, but now people have told me, I endeavour to pay a lot more attention and not replace words in cases where the actual meaning would be changed. Thank you. EuroSong talk 22:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yikes! Looks like I threw a rock at a hornet's nest. Sorry about that. -- Captaindan 05:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] REGARDING THE STEVE FOSSETT ARTICLE

I must point out that you are wrong to change airplane to aircraft. Balloons, airships, gliders, and ultralights are also aircraft. Now you have made this article incorrect. You apparently have no knowledge to back up your corrections. PLEASE revert your "corrections". Thanking you in advance!

The above message was left by IP 69.235.215.192. Since it's a message from a user with no fixed account, I will reply here.
To whoever you are: Thank you for your message. As you will see, from other messages left on my talk page, several other people have alerted me to the fact that I have not always been careful enough when doing my replacements, because the meaning would change when replacing "airplane" with "aircraft". It was several days ago that I did a whole bunch of edits, and let a few ambiguities slip by. Since these people alerted me to the problem, I have been a lot more careful. I took a look at the edits in question to the Fossett article, and actually I think I was quite clear for the most part. The only things which may have been rendered ambiguous were the mentions of "transcontinental aircraft records", for which I admit you have a valid point. Thank you: I have now clarified this. EuroSong talk 23:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change of ESC Map

(Reply from my talk page)

Hi! Got your message. The reason I changed your map was because the 'Yugoslavia' that entered in 1992 was the FR Yugoslavia (who later changed their name to Serbia & Montenegro). Between the contests in 1991 and 1992, the former Yugoslavia (SFR Yugoslavia) split up into Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia & Herz., Macedonia and FR Yugoslavia (Serbia & Mont.). This meant that when Yugoslavia participated, only FR Yugoslavia took part (the entry didn't represent any of the other former Yugoslav republics), which is why I only coloured that area in red. Hope that explains things :) -- Lewis R « т · c » 21:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, got your reply. Concerning your message, the Yugoslavia taking part in 1992 (only modern-day Serbia and Montenegro) was different from the Yugoslavia that took part in 1991 (which also included the other former-Yugoslav republics). About the 1989 map you mentioned, only highlighting Croatia wouldn't be right, because although the band was Croatian, they represented Slovenia, BiH, Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia aswell. As for 1992, the singer was Serbian (I think), but she only represented Serbia and Montenegro (known back then as 'F.R. Yugoslavia', which is why they participated as 'Yugoslavia'), so only that area should be highlighted in red. If you've any questions still, leave another message and I'll answer them! :) -- Lewis R « т · c » 10:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
(Reply from my talk page) I think I've understood your point now, about the map being used to show Yugoslavia's last entry, so if you do want to revert the map back to the old version, feel free. I do, however, think it should be mentioned somewhere (either in the picture's caption on the ESC article, or in the article's text itself) that the entry in 1992 only represented FR Yugoslavia, and not the other former-Yugoslav republics; but if you think that info should be omitted, that's fine by me.
Two other things: 1) If you're going to put the old version back, make sure that this time Slovenia and Macedonia are coloured red (just a small mistake I spotted), and 2) The flag shown on the scoreboard ([3]) at the 1992 Eurovision was actually this one: , not this one: , but still, it helped me understand! Hope you carry on improving the ESC article as well as you have been! ;) -- Lewis R « т · c » 12:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
(Reply from my talk page) Thanks for the reply again, sorry it took so long for me to get back! Concerning Macedonian entries under the name of Yugoslavia, none of the artists that took part for Yugoslavia ever came from Macedonia, even though Macedonia was represented as part of the country; so the first Macedonian singer at ESC was Vlado Janevski, Macedonia 1998, unless another country had previously been represented by someone from there. There's a list saying which area of Yugoslavia each entrant came from here. Oh, and by the way, I like the new blue areas on the maps you added!
One more thing - the 1977 page says that Tunisia was going to take part that year (and would have performed fourth) but withdrew. Should they be coloured purple, like Lebanon, on your map in the Participation section of the main ESC article? Best regards, Lewis R « т · c » 18:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Spellings

I'm sorry but I have to point out that you're wrong. 'Aesthetic' in any dictionary I can find, including the Oxford English Dictionary, is not spelt 'æsthetic'. The article you referred to is a wikipedia article which may have been vandalised and therefore cannot be used as proof (which is why Wikipedia asks for citations). If you yourself can find a solid dictionary reference to back up this spelling in any European language, then the spelling is valid. Otherwise it should remain 'aesthetic' whether you prefer it or not.

Although Wikipedia states you can use your own preference on known spellings that change between American English and International English (colour to color etc.), the variation of spelling has to be documented somewhere official, and this is not. If it did allow spelling variations to this level, without citation, then Wikipedia would be filled with spelling mistakes justified by the author of the article saying "I spell it that way, so that's how it stays" which is basically what you have done.

Wikipedia however definitely does have policies against reverting edits that are valid. 'Aesthetic', by your own admission can be spelt that way, so it is wrong of you to revert a users edit if they use this spelling. I understand you have spent a lot of time and effort creating this article and may I say it's about 100 times better than the original, but please don't stop other people contributing otherwise perfectly valid edits to it, it isn't fair to them and dissuades them and other people from using the site. I hope you now understand why I objected to the change and urge you to reconsider. ~~ Peteb16 19:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bear with me...

[[Image:Eurovision 2004 Scoreboard.jpg|200px|left|thumb|Hereby I award you '''12 points''' ('''''douze points''''') on behalf of the Wikipedia Nation for your absolutely excellent work on the [[Eurovision]] article.]]

Yes of course I did... I can only refer you to the compromitating template atop my talk and user pages saying I have "just arrived" even though it's been more than a week... I am trying to dig myself out from under the heap of stuff that has accrued and continues to accrue, and I guess I am being extremely impolite to many people requesting my attention :(

I have the article on my watchlist and I really admire all the great improvements you have done! Most of my concerns were indeed addressed, I just need some time to go through it thoroughly so that I could answer you in detail. I am now in the middle of a massive thing, so I mostly do small stuff here and there, please give me some time...

You have every reason to hate me. Bravada, talk - 14:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen that and I am still contemplating my support for the nomination. It is not that easy for me, as I would like to see the article get the FA status only when it's really perfect. The will to appreciateyour enormous efforts (as well as boost the profile of Eurovision on WP) is enormous, but I would really like to preserve the special character of the FA status - if an article can be significantly improved, then it shouldn't be FA-ed yet.
This is why I still have to think it over whether there could be something done better with the article before I cast my vote. Until then, I would like to reward your great efforts in the small way that I can, with a lousy award I made up just right now, in view of the lack of the Eurovision Barnstar. I know it is lousy, especially concerning the pic, but I am have next to no graphic talents, and I haven't found any images of Golden Shoes on WP :( therefore, you can exchange the award for any Barnstar (or any other award you can think of for that matter) of your choice - that's the right you get for winning 12 points :D (since you aren't going to host anything, presumably).
One issue I have with the article and I would have trouble to get over is your highlighting the "enlargement" issue. While you might see it as just OK, for me it is an expression of POV - I could feel some remote undertones of "Eastern European countries destroyed Eurovision". Even if you have no such intentions, I can't see why this section cannot be simply called "preselection rules", and given the wide coverage you give to participation, perhaps the maps and info on splitting Yugoslavia could be moved there. This would be much more neutral and natural to me, given the flow of the article.
As you might suppose, I am also still very much against the criticism section. I won't dissect the article in more detail, as I suppose other reviewers will do it, and as a Eurovision fan and a person fairly familiar with the article, I have lost the ability to judge it as an encyclopedic article. I believe a much more informative review would be for a person unfamiliar with the contest should read it and give his/her impressions. I guess this is what will exactly happen when the FA reviewers will take it on.
I hope you will understand my stance on the issue. I can vouch for the factual accuracy of the article, and perhaps for the completeness (though I still believe it could use more info on the musical/performance side of the contest and its evolution), but I do not feel like I should be the one to decide whether it should be an FA or not - at least now, before some totally independent reviewers give their opinion. I hope you won't hold that against me. Bravada, talk - 02:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
PS. One small thing - I have just opened the article in Internet Explorer, and whatever sign you use before and after mdashes displays as an ugly box.
OK, you are absolutely free to ignore my opinion, I only gave it to you because I understood you asked for it. Given that I have a habit of replying when somebody replied to me, I will again, but you have every right not to reply to that and I won't hold it against you. I just wrote the above in the middle of the night not being quite conscious and I guess I might have not put the message accross too well. I will try again, even if I am not significantly more conscious after this short night :D
First of all, what I mean is that I would not like to formally participate in this FAC because I don't feel I could judge the article right on all criteria - I know both the article and the topic too well, plus I am biased :D I am not going to support, but I am not going to oppose either - I don't think it would change much anyway, as it is not a "vote", it is just an assessment of whether the article meets the criteria - if somebody would find a valid reason why it should not be an FA, no amount of votes should be able to overrule that. Though I think whatever could be found will probably be easily amendable and the objection would be withdrawn. What I can do is when anybody would raise the issue of factual accuracy or anything related, I can vouch for it with all four limbs.
Secondly, I still feel that the issues I mentioned are important. Perhaps I cannot convince you that the "criticism" section is not a good idea in itself, but then there are people who think that "trivia" sections are OK and I haven't found a way to convince some of them that it is not encyclopedic - perhaps that's merely subjective. But I would like to explain myself concerning the "expansion".
  1. I do not accuse you of bias, I don't believe you are consciously biased on this issue this way or another. What I meant is that by carving out the "expansion" section you emphasized this phenomenon greatly, which I believe is just one point of view on the issue. Sure it is important and had a great impact on the contest, but I would argue that so did televoting, especially if you take the musical and performance side of the contest into consideration. This is why I believe the structure of the article should be very formal and rigid, otherwise it will also reflect some POV of what the author finds more important than the other aspects of the subject. The bottom line is - it is not the wording of the article, which is very neutral and pithy, it is more about section headings actually
    I don't think I propose a very big disruption to the article - just to move the first two paragraphs and the map to the "participation" section (which they would complement nicely), while the remainder could be called "pre-selection procedures" without any changes. The fact that it could be done so easily further emphasizes how combining them in one section is somewhat artificial given the rest of the article's structure, which is very logical (I take back what I said earlier - I've had some problems with myself I guess, this is a well-structured article, I don't know what I was thinking...) I know for you it might sound as "I would write it differently", so, as I said, you have the right to ignore it.
  2. Now concerning the musical and performance side of the contest, I disagree. Having seen many different ESC performances and heard different songs from the past decades, I can see some patterns and "fashions", and how they changed. Let's just start with removing clothes or even dancing on stage - you would't see that in 1956, would you? Some songs were clearly "against the tide", like Remedios Amaya frightening the audience in 1982 (it was 1982, wasn't it?), but not all of them would not have to describe all of them - it's rather the "mainstream" that should be described, perhaps mentioning that there were some "divertions" every year, and perhaps also highlighting songs that started some trends (e.g. even the recent "Wild Dances" can be said to have some influence on many 2005 and 2006 entries, and perhaps this trend will endure).
    I think such musical/performance analyses might be harder to find that references for contest rules, but I am sure at least some were created. If no cross-section of the entire history of the contest is available, I believe it all can be sourced from various reviews of the contest from different years. I agree that composing such a section would probably be harder than everything you did before (and that was not easy for sure!), but somehow I feel that the article is somewhat incomplete without it and the topic cannot be dismissed by saying "every song is different". If that was true, why would so many people accuse each year's entries as being "all the same as always"!
Having said all that, I would like to reiterate that I will not oppose the nomination of the article. Also, these issues are not the only ones that prevents me from supporting - first and foremost, I am too involved for it to be appropriate that I participate. We shall see what comes, I believe the article has every chance to be supported. I just wanted to make it clear what I meant. Regards, Bravada, talk - 10:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The (in)famous Barbara Dex

Just thought I'd run this one by you in case you could find anything. User:Bravada and I are trying to find footage (or at least a fair-use-able picture) of Barbara Dex to go along with the DYK nomination of Iemand Als Jij, but the only ones either of us can find are at the Diggiloo Thrush and therefore probably not usable - even if nothing else, they have a pretty bird on one corner. You wouldn't happen to have any magic that you can perform in this area, would you? BigHaz 10:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Famous Winners of ESC - Helena

Hello ;) What makes you think that Ruslana is a more popular or successful winner than Helena?--Chronisgr 21:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


I have mentioned about Helena in Eurovision Song Contest Talk.--Chronisgr 19:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

HI there eurosong. unsure how this works. have a collection of jpeg (and bmp) europe maps for every year of contest which u might want to upload onto ur eurovision pages. maps include greater europe (so armenia etc is included) as well as north africa (meaning morocco in total, israel etc). Interested in using them?

Hello, anonymous user :) Thank you for the offer. I might be interested. I do suggest, however, that you get yourself a user account here on Wikipedia before continuing, so I can reply to you on your own talk page. Look forward to hearing from you again. EuroSong talk 22:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FAR

There is a bit of backlog on that page, so I would avoid adding multiple noms in a day. Not meant to discourage at all, it's just we want to do justice to each individual review. Cheers, Marskell 18:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Eurovision

You're welcome, I was going to remove it myself but felt that wasn't really my decision to make. In itself it felt like someone's point of view however there was an element of doubt. In such a situation unless I'm 100% confident it's original research, I'll challenge for a citation. Obviously you're in a better position to judge so I'm glad you ended the debate by removing it altogether. By the way I realise I never responded to your last message regarding the spelling issue. I think I started it but must've got side tracked, lost it somehow and never thought anything of it again (I've had a few of those kind of days recently). I was happy to leave it be as it seemed you had some sort of source to say aesthetic could be spelt that way. The only thing that remained which I wasn't happy about (and it kind of got out of hand on my part) simply was the poor sole who got his spelling reverted. I hope he/she wasn't offended by it. I realised I was wrongfully using a Wikipedia rule to basically ensure common courtesy, sorry about that. To answer the question I have followed Eurovision in the past, not so much recently because I feel the show was somewhat ruined when they split it into two parts, ironically for similar reason to those you just removed from the article earlier. While they don't have to ever compete in the semi-final, or reach a high position in the previous contest, I don't believe any of the 'Big Four' are ever likely to win and ultimately host the contest again because people will be reluctant to vote for them even if they have a good song. ~~ Peteb16 23:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I completely 100% agree with you and would back you up on that every time.

(P.S. I bet actually being at the show is a fantastic experience... especially Denmark in that massive football stadium) ~~ Peteb16 23:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Eurovision maps

Hey. Thanks for being willing to sort out this problem. Unfortunately, I don't have a map which would be suitable. However, I'm going to try asking this user. I noticed that he modified the map on the Eurovision Song Contest 2007 article (see here) which I've been working on. It might be possible that he has more maps, and possibly one which we could use. Also, when we finally get this sorted, Liechtenstein should also be coloured purple, in my opinion. Although they did not withdraw from a contest, they tried to enter a couple of times (see Liechtenstein in the Eurovision Song Contest). The key would, therefore, have to be changed to something like 'countries which have attempted to enter, but haven't'. Information about Tunisia and Liechtenstein should also be in the text, if they aren't already. I'll see what I can do about a map. RedvBlue 16:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have not been able to find an existing map on Wikipedia, which fits our needs. The user I asked (see above) could only find one which did not included some of the African countries. Coincidently, when I was on his user page, I noticed this map. It shows the desired region, but, when I was making experimental changes, I noticed that it is of poor quality (not befitting of a featured article, certainly). It might have to do as a temporary image, though, with no other maps available (alternatively we could just leave the existing map, to save editing). I have left a message on the WikiProject Maps talk page, but, if it is anything like the WikiProject Eurovision talk page, then it might be a while before I hear anything! RedvBlue 20:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Systematic Bias

Hi, Serge.

Could you please tell me which of the two you would prefer?

   * en.wikipedia.org - the online encyclopædia for the English-speaking world, not biased towards any particular country
   * A split into usa.wikipedia.org (written by Americans, for Americans) - and other-en.wikpedia.org (for the rest of the English-speaking world)

I would be interested to know which scenario you would advocate.

Thank you, EuroSong talk 19:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My preference is the first... no split. However, when the name indisputably used most commonly to refer to a subject of a particular article happens to be one nearly exclusive to a particular country, there is not much we can or should do about that. According to WP:NC(CN), that must be the title of the article. It is certainly not a reason to use a name instead that is hardly used anywhere to refer to that subject. --Serge 20:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello, EuroSong. Glad to support your proposal re the American brand name, especially as yet again the discussion includes "evidence" based on Google hits which I am totally opposed to and which some Americans seem to think are sacrosanct. Google is merely a gateway to useful references: it is not a useful reference itself and is in no way authentic. For example, I have no doubt that if some popular TV star in America were to call himself Napoleon Bonaparte he would end up getting far more Google hits than the French emperor who was probably the most significant individual in modern history. Best regards. --BlackJack | talk page 08:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Greetings EuroSong interesting thing your trying to do and very important imho. I have to agree BlackJack using google or any search engine for that purpose is nonsense. We know [4] that North America makes up 331,473,276 users of the Internet in 2006. Say 90% of them are exclusively English speaking (to account for french speakers, Mexicans etc) that's 298,325,948 English speaking people in North America. If the total English speaking Internet users is 312,924,679 [5] people then English speaking non Americans only makes up 14,598,731 people. I was right about far eastern languages making up the rest btw with English being followed by China and Japan. Anyway best of luck in your endeavours! -- Shimirel (Talk) 18:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popsicle

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Popsicle&curid=1159706&diff=74804659&oldid=74755634 Can you reference that? --Guinnog 23:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Airplane

Hi. If you want to argue with me about it, do it on the page that we are discussing it on instead of bugging me with stupid messages. Thanks. Recury 23:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk: Love, Shine a Light

Hi, I'd appreciate your input on this. AlmostReadytoFly 16:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SVG Map of Europe with boundaries is done??

Dear Eurosong: I have uploaded what I hope will meet your needs: Image:Blank Map of Europe -w boundaries.svg. Alas, I am not an expert on this. In fact, I am a novice and built the earlier map just to become acquainted with Inkscape software. I am afraid that the Image:Blank Map of Europe -w boundaries.svg map does not have a very high resolution (at least, as I define it). This is an artifact of the map I used (Image:BlankMap-Europe-v5.png). In any case, good luck and let me know how this turns out. Madman 23:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Eurosong, I was afraid that my map was too coarse for your purposes. I did look at the high-res SVG Image:BlankMap-World4.svg, but it is beyond me how to crop it down to just show Europe. If it were a PNG or JPG, I could do it, but . . .
You may want to ask the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Requested and orphan maps. Sorry, Madman 22:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article review/Transit of Venus

I've rewritten and referenced the Transit of Venus article you put up for FA review. Please take another look and give your opinion. Cheers Yomanganitalk 14:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An idea

G'day EuroSong. I just had the idea that an article entitled something like "Free Language Rule in the Eurovision Song Contest" [working title only] might be a worthwhile topic. There'd be a link to it on the Contest's main article (most likely from the "language" section there) and the article itself would be a discussion of when/if the various countries adopted the practice of singing in English or when/if they were brave enough to submit entries entirely in their native language (Latvia '04, Albania '06 and so on). Does that strike you as a handy article to have, or is it perhaps too fancrufty? I'm soliciting an extra opinion or two before I make any pre-emptive articles. Your Talk page is now on my watchlist, so you can reply here or by me. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 01:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jan Werner Danielsen

I guess the original word was not written by a native speaker! :P

If you go through the three consecutive edits he made, you'll discover it has nothing to do with it. - Chsf 15:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments moved from user page

I don't know how the heck to talk to people here on Wikipedia, something we really should be able to do, but why the HECK did you revert the ESC-page?! All of the things I added were significant. You don't think the age rule is significant? The whole France/Sweden-thing in 1991 is interesting trivia as well as the fact of the failure of the Big 4 in 2005 and the fact that no country has won when having the running number 2 (often joked about).

The trivia-things are a bit, iffy, maybe. But the age-rule is important! —Preceding unsigned comment added by FallenAngelII (talk • contribs)

[edit] Yugoslav Eurovision entries

Re your point about 'different constituent states' representing YU at Eurovision. I don't think this ever happened; yes, artists from Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia and Slovenia all represented YU at ESC at some time, but weren't they all picked from a YU-wide selection? I don't believe they ever said, for example, 'Slovenia will represent us this year' and then held a pre-selection for only Slovenian artists. Jess Cully 14:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can you shed some light here?

G'day EuroSong. Hopefully I'm not disturbing you, but you were the first level-headed European ESC-ite I could think of. I'm just wondering if you could help out at this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ty (song), where Badlydrawnjeff and I are trying to figure out if a song which Ruslana performed at "Euroclub" prior to ESC2005 actually makes any assertion of notability. As I understand it, Euroclub is basically just a concert where people sing songs and there's nothing intrinsically special about what they sing, but you might well know better, having got the ESC main article up to FA standard and all. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi BigHaz, it flatters me that you came to me first.. hehe. Right, my 2p worth: The "Euroclub" is simply the officially-sponsored nightly party during Eurovision Week - that's all. The Euroclub is not notable in itself other than to be mentioned in connection with Eurovision Week - which is what I did in the main article. It stands to reason, then, that songs performed at the Euroclub do not gain any more notability than if they had not been. This song "Ty" should be notable in its own right if it is to have its own encyclopædia entry, and from what it looks like, it's simply one more Ruslana song. The AFD nomination points out that we don't need an article for every single song ever written, which I agree with. There is no "Eurovision connection" of notability in any sense further than that the song was recorded by a Eurovision artist. Hope that clarifies things. EuroSong talk 15:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Very helpful indeed. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] May I direct your attention

To Talk:Achilles'_Last_Stand —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IrisKawling (talk • contribs) 22:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] A lot of good work !

Hi, thanks for a lot of good work. Can you help me with the 2008 page which is now linked to all Eurovision pages. I have started this and hope to get a lot of information soon. A little bit of help would be nice as you have done a lot of good work yourself ! Celticfan383

[edit] Re: Europope?

Hi, Just so you know, I didn't write that comment, I just moved it as the user had simply dumped it in the middle of the above conversation. I signed my alteration not the comment which is signed by Moldovanmickey. ~~ Peteb16 09:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Melodifestivalen

Hi, Melodifestivalen is undergoing a peer-review here at the moment, and I'd love to get some comment from you, considering your (extensive) work on getting the ESC article to FA. Thanks. Chwech 19:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Eurosong

I am not new here on wikipedia.. I have been here maybe more than you.. I just had to change my nick name on english wikipedia site.

I know how to add and edit the pages. And i am the one who created the section of Links of Eurovision Related sites on the eurovision song contest page.. Anyway i thank you for your addings on the eurovision page but you know that this doesnt make you the owner of this page.

Sincerely yours. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maverick16 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Added

I added at discussion ok?

~~Maverick16

[edit] Re: Maverick16

Hi Eurosong. I replied to your message on my talk page. ~~ Peteb16 09:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Pete. By the way, it looks like we've got another live one! See his contribs. Just a heads up. EuroSong talk 22:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:EurovisionTrophy1995.jpg

Hey, if you have an authorization from the copyright holder of both the photo AND the trophy that the photo is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License, please send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Otherwise, the image will probably be deleted within 7 days. Thanks, Yonatan talk 22:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Eurovision Song Contest

Why? All I did on this page was changing All Kinds Of Everything to All Kinds of Everything. This is fine because we use standard English capitalization rules on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Album titles and band names and Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD#Capitalization). Regards, Jogers (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You do not own this article and the reason that you do not want me to edit it is not good enough. I pointed you to relevant policies and guidelines regarding capitalization of titles. Google isn't really an authority here. Jogers (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I've changed it again because I thought you were not aware of the capitalization guidelines and it would be OK to do so after I pointed you to relevant pages. I didn't intend to start an edit war whatsoever. Thank you for reminding me about "the correct course of action". Jogers (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In case you don't have the Save Your Kisses For Me article in your watchlist I'd like to notify you that I requested it to be moved. You can leave your comments at Talk:Save Your Kisses For Me#Requested move. Jogers (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As you made no further comments regarding the issue I hope you won't mind if I fix the capitalization now. Jogers (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wish you good luck. Jogers (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There's still plenty of time; good luck on the main page date ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Eurovision

Sorry, the revert wasn't directed at you, the previous edit added criticism of the article in the middle of a paragraph, which you inadvertantly reverted yourself when you tidied it. You carry on, you're still doing a great job! ~~ Peteb16 21:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Repied on me talk page ~~ Peteb16 22:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:ABBA Waterloo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ABBA Waterloo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ilse@ 09:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Eurovision 2004 Scoreboard.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Eurovision 2004 Scoreboard.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

There is already some information, but this lacks some of the necessary elements of a fair use rationale. – Ilse@ 09:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:EurovisionTrophy1995.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:EurovisionTrophy1995.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ilse@ 09:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some problems with the license according to User:Mecu. – Ilse@ 09:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eurovision Song Contest

Concerning the fair use rationale, you are most welcome.

About your 18:03 edit of Eurovision Song Contest, I think you have unnecessarily reverted good edits. Did you actually check the edit summaries of all reverted edits? This way, trying to improve the article seems a little useless. – Ilse@ 18:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there are still problems with Image:Eurovision 2004 Scoreboard.jpg, Image:ABBA Waterloo.jpg, and Image:EurovisionTrophy1995.jpg (possible unfree images) – Ilse@ 18:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I removed the links for the following reasons:

  1. All Kinds Of Everything - The Irish Eurovision Website: Country-specific site
  2. The Diggiloo Thrush: We don't generally link to lyrics sites. There are hundreds of artists who would not be impressed with thier copyright being violated, so even if some of the artists support it, some don't.
  3. Doteurovision: "There are some sites that will charge you to gain access to MP3 material, doteurovision recommends you steer clear of these types of site.". This is a clear statement supporting illegal MP3 downloads, which indeed the site links to.
  4. ESCKaz: Is in Russian. It has some English, but is also a country-specific site.
  5. esctoday.com: Is actually a site I left in the first time around. It's rather good.
  6. ESCRadio: I won't even begin to tell you what's wrong with this. It's also right-wing, which isn't a reason to not have it in of course, but let's give it a miss for now.
  7. eurosong.net: Chatrooms, message boards, lyricss and forums aren't good sites to link to!

Thanks for your comment though. I hope this helps, feel free to add back in ESCToday! Hawker Typhoon 19:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have feeling your review is based on just few looks on the sites listed, so I'd want to add different view on the subject:

All Kinds Of Everything, ESCKaz have long time ago growed from the position of nation orientated websites, both are recognized in the community. I can agree with the position of not adding AKOE due to number of downloads, but ESCKaz is one of the leading ESC sites with full versions in English and Russian known for it's breaking news and besides ESC most comprehensive coverage of JESC and EDC in the web. DotEurovision is equivalent to journalistic professionalism and is the legendary website in the net with professional comprehensive articles, reviews and reports. However, it seems the site will be closing down soon... ESCToday is good site though they need to improve reliability. As for now it is more on tabloid side rather than professional news site. I agree with Eurosong.net position. Some time ago leading site it has went down in past 3 years.

I do think that we need to list the top rated websites in Eurovision fan community in Wikipedia external links: ESCToday, DotEurovision, ESCKaz and All Kinds of Everything are 4 leading ESC related websites, that also were recognized by Eurowebby award [6](also recognized by EBU [7]). All these sites have at least 5 years of experience in Eurovision coverage. [zaqqq]

[edit] Recent change of the redirect for kids

I understand that this could be seen to be "Anglocentric", but Wikipedia does not avoid slang terms just because they're slang, and searching specifically for the text "kids" should return something which obviously relates directly to the text searched for. The search should go straight to the disambig page rather than being redirected by default, because being taken to a page with a goat on it while searching for a film about AIDS-infected teenagers is just silly. Do you mind if I change this? Chris Cunningham 12:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vexatious garment

Garment -> Trousers: Now somebody will change it to "pants"! I will leave you to sort it out. Cutler 17:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Template:Infobox Television episode

While your edit had good intentions, it made the left side of the template bigger, causing information on the right side to be squished. --thedemonhog talk • edits 21:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: "kid" and "kids"

You are entirely welcome. I wasn't sure I liked the new locations when another editor moved those pages a month ago, so I was actually happy to have the opportunity to revisit the issue and put the disambiguation pages back where I think they belong. Happy editing!--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heathrow Airport

Sorry about that. I just realized that I shouldn't have been editing a English airport using American dates.--68.41.99.60 23:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy tags

Hi. It is easier to sort speedy deletions if you use appropriate tags instead of the generic one. You will find a complete list by criterion at WP:CSD. Thank you. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 13:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Breaking rules?

How on earth was my second edit breaking rules? Are you not meant to edit articles just made 5 minutes ago if someone gets to them first and decides since they haven't heard of the subject matter its not notable?--Josquius (talk) 14:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the deletion tag once as the speed with which it was added stunk of over regulation, a bit too uncylepedia like. You however have took to reverting constructive edits to that page- a constructive edit which the original adder of the deletion tag has recognised as making the band notable.--Josquius (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Language

Now let us not be hasty, shall we? I never "officially" declared omnibus to be archaic. How can you then tell me that perambulator is "archaic" and not in use, but omnibus is? You might like to write to Alan Dean Foster and tell him to re-publish his novel as The Paths of the Pram because Eurosong has officially declared it to be archaic. You need to understand that I don't actually have sentiments about words, nor do I dictate what is right or what is wrong. I only base my information off what is right. Reginmund (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"Pram" is a slang contraction that gained currency through the vernacular while "bus" is a neologism. Reginmund (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This is absolutely ridiculous. No authority on the language, living or dead, who is referenced by Bryson holds this position on formality. To call "bus" a neologism is to render one's argument comically obsolete. There isn't a credible soul on Earth which would hold "omnibus" to be the formal term at this point. Frankly, the current pedantry on Talk:Association football is pointless to the level of disruption. Chris Cunningham (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
At the time it was a neologism, but now it isn't. The point is that "pram" was never introduced as a neologism but slang. Reginmund (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CarVup.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:CarVup.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ESC 2008 Azer.,SM

OKPatyi555 (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You are welcome

Thanks, I did enjoy it, but joint last though, what can you do. Hope the ESC article gets semi-protected, I'm really tire of that damn winners table. Thanks and you are welcome. :) -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 23:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)