User talk:CT Cooper/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Advice needed

Am I misunderstanding something or this is indeed really strange (note author of the edit differs from author of original post)? I used to think that editing of post by another author is not considered appropriate, is it? And while on the same page, does this look appropriate (especially part about "pulling stuff out of...")? Ipsign (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

For the first diff, WP:TALKO regulates when you can edit others talk page, and while I would discourage adding prefixes to peoples comments and the guideline doesn't specifically allow it, it's not distorting what people say so I would let it go, but the lack of an edit summary and inappropriate use of the minor edit check box is problematic here. For the second diff, some of the comments are violations of WP:CIVIL and possibly WP:AGF, so no they are not appropriate, but they're probably not serious enough to demand immediate intervention. The closing admin could possibly leave a reminder of these policies when closing the discussion. CT Cooper · talk 22:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining it (fortunately, it doesn't happen often, so I don't have much experience with it). Ipsign (talk) 05:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Schools newsletter

How do I get a bot to deliver the newsletter as a templatte to all project members on the master list? Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 06:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

For WikiProject Eurovision I politely asked Xeno (talk · contribs) who can use Xenobot (talk · contribs) for newsletter delivery. CT Cooper · talk 00:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

UK Community Notice - IRC meeting

Dear Wikipedian,

This is the first of what will hopefully be a regular notice to help bring together the UK community so that you can be involved in some amazing things. To kick things off, there will be a UK community IRC meeting at 1800 UTC, December 7, 2010 to discuss the future growth and developement of Wikimedia UK. Without huge community support and involvement, the chapter cannot be successful and to get the most out of it, get involved.

For information on the community IRC meeting please go here

More to come about:

• Wikipedia 10th Anniversary Events
• 1st Annual UK Wiki-conference
• Trustee interest meeting - an event for those community members with even just a fleeting interest in becoming trustees of Wikimedia UK.

Many Thanks

Joseph Seddon

User:Seddon

Delivered by WMUKBot (talk) on 05:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

UK IRC community meeting

Just a quick reminder about the IRC meeting at 1800 UTC tonight to bring together the Wikimedia community in the UK to help the growth and success of the UK chapter and community activities. For information see wmuk:Community_IRC_meetings

Many Thanks

Joseph Seddon

User:Seddon

Delivered by WMUKBot (talk) on 17:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't currently have the IRS software installed, and I never updated my username on IRC after I changed my username from Camaron to CT Cooper a while back. I might come in the future, but unfortunately I'm going to be busy for at least another week and half. CT Cooper · talk 11:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for your kind words and support in your voter guide, as well as for your other thoughtful observations. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm glad you appreciate my and other Wikipedians support, and with a massive 89.01% support vote and a 10% clearance over second place, you deserve many congratulations. CT Cooper · talk 17:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Back to schools

Hi Chris, I know you're busy in RL, and I hope you don't mind me holding the fort at Schools. However, I need your help on a couple of things, so if you can, just tell me who to contact or where to go, or how to do it, and I'll get them organised. If you are able to do them yourself without them taking up too much of your time, so much the better ;) once I have the lists I can get cracking.

• AlertBot is down, and it's been a big blow to many Wiki projects.
• New school articles keep arriving daily, but without cats, stubs, or project banners, there are no handles for catching them. A bot is needed to make a list of all newly arriving school articles based on keywords in the title and/or lead, such as school, primary, elementary, high, college, etc. I think maybe AlexBot may be able to come up with something but I don't know how to programme the grep.
• Immediate objectives are to enlist active help for the project itself to start a massive clean up campaign for 2011, and to catch all newly created school pages and encourage their creators to complete them according to the guidelines.
  
• Also needed is a list of all school article creators, irrespective of sub categories (high sch, elementary sch, schools in X, comprehensive, specialist college, secondary, independent, etc). the cats are a maze to me and I can't find my way around them. There are probably too many cats, because too many of them have only a couple of entries. Got any ideas?

--Kudpung (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure how to answer these questions, as I don't know that much about bots. Alanbly had a bot called BoxCrawler to check if schools had an infobox or not for the WP Schools project banner, and while he is currently inactive, he is still around and may be able to help if you e-mail him. I'm not sure how to increase more participation in the project, but the newsletter was a good start. CT Cooper · talk 15:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, CT Cooper. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 00:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time.

Autoconfirmation

Hello. I was wondering if you could autoconfirm me? I have joined Wikipedia to help fight vandalism. I already have 20 edits.

Thank you. --Wornwinter11 (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the project. I have confirmed you. CT Cooper · talk 20:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Very much appreciated :) --Wornwinter11 (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

regarding where eurovision song contest 2010 was held

i was there in person so i can safely say that it was held in bærum. afterwards i walked from bærum to oslo.(i saw a sign that said welcome to oslo or something in norwegian.)(the person on nrk that introduced the next program said that it was held in telenor arena in bærum. in norwegian of course.) as long as the host city is listed incorrectly it is corrupting my country. please get it changed. i could do it myself but i have other things to do. besides, it would look better if a moderator altered it. please fix these errors. the errors are on the eurovision song contest pages for each country that participated in bærum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.86.142 (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The article states that the 2010 Contest was held in Bærum, and this is the only city mentioned in the infobox. The lead of the article is more detailed on the location, and did mention Bærum as a suburb of Oslo. I've changed this to be more specific; it is not within the City of Oslo, but within Greater Oslo and the Greater Oslo Region. Please see FAQ answers 1, 2, 3, and 4 at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2010 which explains this issue and current consensus. CT Cooper · talk 14:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Schools

Hi Chris, thanks enormously for the barnstar - an unexpected and most welcome New Year gift! All the best for 2011. --Kudpung (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Happy New Year to you too. CT Cooper · talk 00:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Schools talk page banner

Hi Chris. Could you tweak the banner to display also 'Redirect' in the assessment parameter? At the moment the only alternative is 'NA'. I don't know how to do this. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 04:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I've given it a look at, and I don't know either. Template:WikiProject Schools now operates off Template:WPBannerMeta meaning there is little code on the banner page itself that can be edited. A re-direct assessment would be helpful in some ways for abandoned talk pages of re-directed articles, though it will need to be emphasised that it isn't necessary or practical to assess every school related re-direct. CT Cooper · talk 11:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Teo

Teo628957 (talk · contribs) does not seem to have stopped despite the repeated warnings. I assume he has violated 3rr on at least one page, but thought I would notify you as you were the one who gave him the edit warring warning. Grk1011 (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Teo628957 has gone over 3RR on Despina Vandi, and really it would be quite reasonable to block him for persistent edit warring, 3RR violation or not. However, his attempt to engage in discussion at Talk:Anna Vissi does give me some hope, and I hence given him one last warning. I see you have responded, if he continues discussing things there I would recommend not reverting him while the discussion runs it course. CT Cooper · talk 15:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In Greece, there are some people who are pro-Vandi and some who are pro-Vissi. For some reason they hate each other. Teo has no concerns with the Anna Vissi article, but he only added the tags because other editors and myself have refused to remove the identical banners from the Despina Vandi page. He only started a "discussion" so he could have an excuse to add them to the Vissi article. Grk1011 (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I see. He has in the past simply stopped editing whenever the page gets protected, or is close to getting blocked, and I suspect the same is happening again here. If he doesn't respond within the next day or so, then removing the tags on the Anna Vissi article seems reasonable. While a detailed rationale is not needed to add tags to articles, once challenged they should be removed if the person that adds them doesn't respond to queries, unless the reasons for their addition is obvious. CT Cooper · talk 15:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It's been asked for

Hi Chris. I've had enough of this sock's constant slow burning rv around all the schools in the county to promote his own school. I suggest we do an SPI now. --Kudpung (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm beginning to agree, though I would like to wait a bit and see if this returns to answer the question or remove the tag I placed. CT Cooper · talk 11:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Just that he did a whole batch of reinserts of the promotional stuff again yesterday. I haven't rv any of them yet though. Thought I'd let him believe I hadn't noticed. --Kudpung (talk) 08:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Gosforth Junior High School

Can you do this requested move over rd please? Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been very busy over the past few days with exams, so apologies for the late reply. It looks like someone has already moved it for you, though I have given the article a quick assessment for good measure. CT Cooper · talk 13:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't for me, I just did the asking :) Another one of those dozens of uncontroversial daily tasks I wish I had the tools for. Hope he exams went well - fortunately something I haven't had to worry about for thirty years! --Kudpung (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well you could always request adminship, though given how nasty RfA is these days I won't blame you if you don't want to run I couldn't see you getting opposed for content contributions or being underage, though someone would probably come-up with something - I've seen people getting opposed for spelling mistakes! I think I would struggle to past if I ran today! My two exams so far have gone well, though I've got two more to prepare for next week, and I'm not using today as quick opportunity to catch-up on things. CT Cooper · talk 15:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... RfA - stay tuned ;) --Kudpung (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines

I think we need to get this page upgraded to Guideline status. Now that the schools project has been revived, it's getting more noticed and people are begining to stuff beans up their noses by deliberately contesting it to game the system, as a few recent AfD, move requests, and demands for the names of pupils to be included, etc, are proving.
It shouldn't be too hard to get consensus to do this, as most of it is based either on existing policy anyway, or age old precedent. Any suggestions? --Kudpung (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

A lot of it is based on existing policy and guidelines, and I think there certainly could now be the momentum to upgrade it to guideline status. To become a guideline it might be best to move it out of the WP Schools space to stand on it's own - to make clear it reflects community consensus and not just WP Schools consensus; one possible title could be Wikipedia:School article guidelines, based on Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines. The one area I could see there being trouble is the notability section; the topic of school article notability is so toxic that the current wording (or any wording for that matter!) is bound to raise objections. I could also see some editors cynically believing that by including notability in the proposal, editors are trying to get a school article notability guideline through by the back door, after the failure of WP:SCH and other past proposals. One way around this might be to simply take out the notability section and leave it on separate page, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Notability, and simply keep this proposals as a style/article content guideline. In order to get consensus, it is probably best to start a discussion and list it at WP:RFC and WP:CENT. Keeping momentum is an issue though - WP:NC(USS) generally had consensus and died because of a lack of momentum. I've been considering reviving that proposal for a while. CT Cooper · talk 15:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:WPSCH: DYK

Hi Chris. Do we really need those miniature photos in the DYK section? --Kudpung (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-Protection of the article Led Zeppelin

The article underwent several vandalism and I think it's time to semi-protect it. What do you think?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

There has been a lot of IP edits on Led Zeppelin, though looking at the changes being made most of them are not at face value vandalism on the policy definition, making protection difficult to justify. I will keep an eye on the page for a bit to see how things go. CT Cooper · talk 21:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

hi CT cooper

a few months back we had a disagreement over cenk uygurs page. having used wikipedia more, and gained a better understanding of how it works, i now realise that i was completely wrong and feel bad for being such a pain. i apologise. thanks for being so patient and not punishing me (which you probably could have done, and many people probably would have done had they been in your place instead). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volound (talk • contribs) 08:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello again Volound, welcome back. I accept your apology, particularly given that very few users on Wikipedia ever make one. You are not the first user to initially have difficulty understanding why Wikipedia is so strict on content about living people; libel laws and other factors are often simply not thought of, and so I would rather teach than punish. I'm glad you now have a better understanding of how Wikipedia works, and I will happy to see you making further contributions in the future. CT Cooper · talk 09:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, CT Cooper. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 14:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI Kudpung (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I've got your e-mail and have just replied. I saw the messsages on your userpage about TerriersFan, and it was those which made me take action and add him to WP:MW. CT Cooper · talk 16:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Assessment of RGS Guildford

Could you possibly assess the article Royal Grammar School, Guildford, its been sitting on the requests page for a while now, I would do it myself but since i'm now the main contributor I think that would be a bit inappropriate. Thank you TheAuthor22 (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I see, the assessment is clearly out of date and needs re-doing so I will do a full one tomorrow morning at some point for you. CT Cooper · talk 23:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like I was too late, but I've added further comments. CT Cooper · talk 14:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look and your comments, but something LonelyBeacon said has left me rather confused. I had a look at the 'B' class criteria, but I can't see anything that is lacking in the article for this class, so could you make any suggestions? Thanks TheAuthor22 (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I have now gone back and given the article B-class. CT Cooper · talk 14:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Added template for SuggestBot

Hi,

Thanks for being one of SuggestBot's users! I hope you have found the bot's suggestions useful.

We are in the process of switching from our previous list-based signup process to using templates and userboxes, and I have therefore added the appropriate template to your user talk page. You should receive the first set of suggestions within a day, and since we'll be automating SuggestBot you will from then on continue to receive them regularly at the desired frequency.

We now also have a userbox that you can use to let others know you're using SuggestBot, and if you don't want to clutter your user talk page the bot can post to a sub-page in your userspace. More information about the userbox and usage of the template is available on User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly.

If there are any questions, please don't hesitate to get in touch with me on my user talk page. Thanks again, Nettrom (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks, I have added the userbox to my userpage. CT Cooper · talk 16:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

UTC+01:24

You are listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles, please userfy the deleted revisions of UTC+01:24. Time in Russia (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Nice you were able to handle all the extra work needed due the redirect. Thanks a lot! Time in Russia (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. The current article looks a lot like the Warsaw meridian article, so as I am not very familiar with the subject I will presume it will evolve into something different. Remember that per WP:UP#COPIES, the userspace is not for indefinitely hosting deleted content, so make sure you do give the page some occasional attention to avoid an unnecessary WP:MFD. CT Cooper · talk 11:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:WPSCH/AG

Hi CT. Currently, the talk page for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines redirects to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. Do you remember me suggesting that we should try to get the guideline essay upgraded to 'Guideline'? Without making a concentrated effort at it, I've started putting links to firm policy where appropriate. At present, general project talk is mixed up with everything else, and sooner or later the effort to upgrade the page will generate some talk on it. Would you consider de-redirecting the page so that we have a stand-alone talk page available for discussions that will ensue on the upgrading? As I don't want to make any interventions that could be considered controversial at this juncture, can we reach a mini-consensus on it? --Kudpung (talk) 13:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello again, consensus was reached a few years ago to re-direct all the WT:WPSCH pages to one central page. However, I think a good exception could be made here as if this page is to be upgraded in status it will need its own discussion page. I would suggest killing two birds with one stone and also moving out of the WPSCH namespace, such as moving it to Wikipedia:School article guidelines, which seems more appropriate for a guideline. I could start a discussion on both these issues, or boldly move it. What do you think? CT Cooper · talk 22:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Now that I'm a sysop, I have to admit to my shame that I still don't really know what the difference in status is between a sub page and a [[Wikipedia:xxxxx]] page is! I expect I'll learn the ropes. Yes, seems like a good idea, please go ahead and do it - you have my support. And BTW, as I'm not sending out thankspam to everyone (gasp!), let me take this opportunity to thank you personally for your kind support on my RfA. --Kudpung (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I haven't received thanks spam in a long while, despite still participating in RfAs, so the practice does seem to have died down a little. I did send out thanks spam for my RfA, but it did have about half the participation of yours, and in general a lot less than the average RfA today. There isn't any specific guideline or policy that says that a sub-page has a lower status than one that stands on its own. It is just as a sub-page of WPSCH it implies that the page is just the opinions of the people active on that project, rather than having a wider consensus as required for guideline status. I'm glad you support the move, I will look into it soon. CT Cooper · talk 13:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandi

Hello. Thank you for stepping in on the Despina Vandi page. I was about to talk to an admin myself. There was an actual consensus conducted by four established editors on AIM, which included myself, user:Greekboy, user:Grk1011, user:Imperatore to keep the information on Vandi (my version of the page), provided that some changes were made, which I did. I've tried to explain that to user talk:KatrinofGreece and left them messages, and several other users (from the consensus and otherwise) have reverted him/her, although the user does not respond back and keeps making disruptive edits to the page. This page is constantly being attacked by fans, particularly this user, who take out any and all information going towards a negative view of the artist, thus breaking NPOV. This includes taking out statements sourced by multiple reliable sources (and on occasion even the artist herself), or taking out references for other non-controversial information just so that the reference itself is not accessible, and the addition of unsourced or poorly sourced information. The user is also substituting reliable sources (and mostly recent) with a somewhat unreliable source (and full of other blatant inaccuracies) about the artist's sales, taking out more reliable/prominent sources to make the artist look more successful. One example of this is one of her album's sales which have mostly being sourced as 170k, although 200k claims have also been asserted by some publishers, so I put in both numbers, although Katrin then takes out everything but the higher number. This account is also somewhat suspicious as it makes very similar edits to User talk:Teo628957, speaks in a similar manner, and has been making a lot of edits after the latter was suspended.GreekStar12 (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I will try and have a greater look into this later today. CT Cooper · talk 13:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have left a message with KatrinofGreece. I will try and see how it goes from there, this account doesn't seem to have any history at all of communicating outside edit summaries, so it will be progress if I can get a response. Teo628957 was never blocked, though I have taken note of similarities between that account and this one. CT Cooper · talk 00:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Schools GA Candidate - Royal Grammar School, Guildford

Hi CT, the article Royal Grammar School, Guildford is currently up for nomination for GA status. The review is on hold until tomorrow (Thursday 3rd March 2011), and I was wondering if you would be able to have a look over the article, and make any changes you think might help in its nomination. The reviewer SilkTork has left some comments on the review page of improvements he suggests. I think I have addressed all of them, except perhaps for cutting unnecessary detail (and maybe the lead). If you don't have time don't worry about it, but it would be great if you could. Thank you in advance, Glanis^Talk 21:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I will try and take a look at it tomorrow and leave some comments if I have any, whether or not it has been promoted. CT Cooper · talk 23:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have made one change and left a short comment on the talk page. The article seems to be pretty much there for GA, but I hope that helps. CT Cooper · talk 23:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Just thought you might like to know the article is now a GA :). Glanis^Talk 15:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well done, may I offer you my congratulations. CT Cooper · talk 18:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, CT Cooper. You have new messages at Talk:Royal Grammar School, Guildford/GA1.
Message added 08:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI Kudpung (talk) 08:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. You had more time to review the article than I did, and I'm still not that experienced at GAs/FAs (but I'm working on it!), so I tend to falter when it comes to analysing article quality at the level required. CT Cooper · talk 12:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I missed it when you posted the GAC on the WPSCH page. I'll have to prune my watchlist! --Kudpung (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It so happens I pruned my watchlist yesturday, which was long overdue. I have gone from having 2,200 titles on it, to just over 350. I also cut my Commons watchlist from 666 (number is a coincidence!), to just over 300. CT Cooper · talk 21:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You're lucky, I've got over 6,000 article space pages on mine - nothing to be proud of, but it's quicker for catching naughty edits to schools. --Kudpung (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of my removals were abandoned pages, such as obsolete IP addresses, which are no longer of any use. I have kept quite a number of school articles on there which suffer from vandalism. CT Cooper · talk 14:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You deserve a beer for your help;)

		A beer on me!
		Here's a beer for your fine efforts on improving Wikipedia! Cheers! --BabbaQ (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very kind. Cheers! CT Cooper · talk 23:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi

I dont feel like I should be the one restoring the content on the Armenia-Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest article. I agree with you on the content also two other users have agreed on the restoring of the content on the noticeboard. If you would please like to restoring the content I would be pleased. I think the joint feelings for restoring by a number of users are enough to justify a restoring, it has been established that the removal of the content wasnt right. And if you do, could you please just write a short explanation of the decision made by a consensus to user Parishan. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

User Off2riorob just did the restoring of the content. Anyway thank you so much for your third party opinion. Making it pretty clear that it does have a place on the article. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes I see there has been a discussion at WP:BLPN. I'm glad to have been of help, and I hope this dispute is now resolved. CT Cooper · talk 13:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

On a totally different topic if you feel like it please check out the Afd for Emilia Carr. I believe that the article should be Keep/kept for now for evaluation in a few months. Anyway the more opinions on this matter the better. Feel free to join if you want to.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

An interesting article; it will be a pity if it is deleted, though it is not my area so I think I will give this AfD a miss. CT Cooper · talk 23:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Im not going to force you into doing anything ofcourse. But if you please would consider atleast leaving a message there saying the article isnt your area. But atleast I think it should be Kept as it is interesting and it would be a pity if it was deleted. As a comment on the discussion rather than a vote it would be appreciated. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If I say that on the AfD I'm going to be hounded with WP:INTERESTING shortcuts, and don't think being modest and saying "Comment" rather than "Keep" will make much difference. There are already people there making the arguments that need to be made in favour of keeping, such as those by Victor falk, and I will be surprised if the end result is delete. CT Cooper · talk 15:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

upgrading to Guideline

I think we need to go about this carefully and address each aspect individually. This is a first idea, let me know what you think. --Kudpung (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

An interesting draft, I will comment some time later. CT Cooper · talk 18:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I have looked through both proposals. I think the main problem is the use of words such as "inherent notability" and "inherent non-notability", which I would personally avoid like the plague. The main problem with those words is they imply absoluteness i.e. primary schools are never notable, and high schools always are, which isn't the case.

The proposals state that they will not conflict with WP:ORG, but WP:ORG takes a strong stance against concepts such as inherent notability, as shown in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#No inherent notability. Though saying that, the WP:ORG guideline has been pretty much re-written by an overly dominating small group of editors, and many parts of that guideline have no real consensus at all. The section on no inherent notability is aggressive to a level beyond what would be accepted through consensus, and the audience section of WP:CORPDEPTH is very controversial with regard to local sources, and contradicts WP:ITSLOCAL - it was inserted following a discussion involving just three people! These sections in the guideline have survived primarily due to lack of sufficient scrutiny, the desires of editors to avoid World War III, and the fact that it has made no significant difference at all to the record of school article deletions. Fortunately, WP:ORG does not supersede WP:N, which I think it is fair to say gets a lot more scrutiny and is the superior guideline in terms of consensus. Perhaps just referencing the latter page is justified.

Overall, I would suggest leaving notability till last, if it is addressed at all, in trying to get WP:WPSCH/AG to guideline status, since it is by far the most controversial area. I have now remembered that I was planning to move the page - I will go and propose this now at WT:WPSCH. CT Cooper · talk 15:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I had meant to remove those sections on notability but I have been away in Laos for the last three days. The most important point is that I most definitely do not want this RfC to be a platform for re-discussing any Wikipedia notability clauses. Too many RfC fail to reach consensus because their issues got clouded by people trying to introduce and discuss other peripheral matters. This RfC is intended to confirm by consensus simply the fact that we generally merge and/or redirect nn primary and middle schools rather than bung up AfD with editor and admin time when the consensus is pretty well going to be what we know it will already. The primary/middle schools that find their way to AfD generally get there because the nominator isn't aware, of the dispensations. The 'inherent' bit crept in because it was an expression that was coined at my RfA, and quite wrongly reported as something that I had said. It nearly lost me the mop! At the moment, I'm just looking at the draft for the primary/middle schools. I think it's best to take these issues one by one - again to avoid any RfC going off the rails. Kudpung (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've done the modifs. What we need to know for this RfC;

• number of primary school redirects - note: some, but not all redirects may be using the {{R from school}}. Editors frequently don't think to use these 'R' templates when creating redirects from articles.
• number of primary school AfD closed as 'merge', 'redirect', or 'merge and redirect'.

I don't know how to extrapolate that information. It would be good to include it in the proposal because someone will almost certainly ask for it. Kudpung (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I see where you coming from on acknowledging current practice vs. discussing notability guidelines in general. The problem is some editors outside the project won't even recognise current practice, simply because they don't like it, and will not accept having it written into a guideline, as regardless of how it is written, it will be seen as formally accepting the practice. This has been a long-term problem at WP:OUTCOMES where there have been conflicts between what policy/guidelines say, people's interpretations of them, and what actually happens at AfDs - fuelled partially by citation of this page at AfDs themselves. The recognition on this page of almost all high schools being kept has caused controversy, as the talk page shows, see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Consensus for instance. Further reading in this area can also be found at User talk:CT Cooper/Archive 4#WP:OUTCOMES. CT Cooper · talk 00:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Consensus can change. I've been branded as a deletionist, as you know, simply because I support the idea of redirecting rather than deleting - which demonstrates perfectly just how short sighted some people's opinions can be. I believe that this time round, a consensus can be reached, if the Rfc is correctly focused and kept on track. The paradox is that I'm neither a deletionist or an inclusionist, I really do take every case on its individual merits. I don't care at all which way the consensus goes, I just want some ruling at least at Guideline level that will stop the kind of constant bickering that we have just had all over again only yesterday at the ANI on Colonel Warden. Warden may be disruptive sometimes, but he sure knows how to test the system - which gives us a lot of experience to draw on. The real reason therefore why I would like redirection of primary schools taken into policy has nothing to do at all with any 'isms. It's a purely practical solution. However, if you believe we can get the WP/AG promoted to GL, like the Military History GL, without going through this rigmarole, I'm all for it. But you've seen already on your mini poll for moving a page, how some people just either don't read, or are plainly unable to understand the simplest of concepts. Kudpung (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: I've followed your links. I was already aware of the talk at outcomes but I did't contribute to it because there were people on it who turned it into a conflict zone. I read your talk page archive, but I'm not left with a a understanding any more than the 'outcomes' page. WP:OUTCOMES is an essay, the message in its lead in its current form IHMO accurately describes the essay's purpose and how it should be used. It's content is a purely descriptive list of outcomes. I know this page well and have never been in any doubts as to its use. (The debates on its talk page are possibly 95% opinion of the deletionists vs inclusionists, and some participants who join any Wikipedia debate just because they like a fight). One of the most lucid participants, a busy admin and great member of WP:WPSCH very abruptly went missing a few months ago. If I have ever cited 'Outcomes' in AfD debates, it's just as a descriptive source that is not policy, but simply informs of the practice to redirect nn schools. I've never used it as an argument or a policy - my argument was based on a precedent which is describe in 'Outcomes', I don't want my proposal to become a redebate of 'Outcomes' - yet another example of an RfC gone horribly wrong by people not staying on track and not being civil. Kudpung (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not officially either a deletionist or an inclusionist, and editors might consider me either depending on the situation, though on schools I have historically been considered more inclusionist. I agree with you that having a guideline on the notability standard of schools is a desirable goal for practical purposes. The purpose of WP:OUTCOMES is clear, as an essays simply recording outcomes, but editors have not always seen it that way - and they may also see this proposal differently than intended too. CT Cooper · talk 19:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind at all if you think those proposals would be counter-productive, I just thought it might be a good idea to try and get those issues cleared up as a run-up to promoting the sch AG essay. If you think we could attempt a promotion with less fuss, I'd be all for it. It would nevertheless be interesting to see how many more schools have been redirected since the matter was last debated. Kudpung (talk) 08:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with re-assessing the issue given that, as you said, consensus can change. I'm not hugely optimistic, but even if such a discussion doesn't go anywhere, it will be productive to the extent that we will have an up-to-date picture on where things stand. CT Cooper · talk 22:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you know anyone who can use the toolserver or the database to get those lists?Kudpung (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No unfortunately not. The only information I can provide is the long list of old school AfDs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools/archive. CT Cooper · talk 22:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Requesting reassessment for a high school article

Hi. I am requesting a reassessment for the Northwestern High School wikipedia article. A few weeks ago, I painstakingly revamped the article... the most noteworthy changes being adding a significant amount of references/citations, to make the article more valid and to comply with Wikipedia guidelines.

After making significant changes, I requested that the article be reassessed, as it had been several years since anyone had taken a look at it despite the fact there had been significant changes made to the article. When the assessment was finally done, the article had been upgraded from a Start-level article, to a C-Class article. I was generally okay with the results... that is, until I recently came across the Wikipedia article for Battlefield High School in Virginia. This school's article lacks many citations, it's not put together well in terms of in an aesthetically pleasing way, and it doesn't have a lot of useful content. Given all that, I was SHOCKED when I found out that not only had the article been given a B-Class rating by the Virgina WikiSchools Project, but the main Wikischools Project, had ALSO given the school a B-Class rating! What?! I don't want to act like the Northwestern article is on the same level as Stuyvesant High School, but it's pretty good. I'm not understanding how both WikiSchools and WikiSchools Maryland, both gave the Northwestern article a C-Class rating, yet, an inferior article such as Battlefield's, gets a B-Class rating.

And there are a lot of contradictions as well, the biggest being the photos issue. The Northwestern article had many photos, all relevant and all high quality. To cut down on the photos cluttering up the article and making it appear messy, I put most of the photos in a Wikipedia format photo gallery. When the article was reassessed, the photos were removed and semi-rude remark was posted, saying something along the lines of "this isn't a website for NHS." Well, that's obvious, but the photos were relevant and not inappropriate. I got over the removal of the photos and let things be... UNTIL I saw the Battlefield article. Battlefield also has the exact same photo gallery that Northwestern had with the exact same picture content, yet, somehow they are allowed to keep theirs and Northwestern wasn't. To add insult to injury, they also got the B-Class rating. So I think that either Battlefield needs to be reassessed and have their rating demoted or Northwestern should be allowed to reinstate their photo gallery and be upgraded to a B-Class article. I think it's only fair. Thanks so much for reading. --Maryland Pride ... a Wikipedia contributor (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

The WikiProject Schools assessment process covers many thousands of articles which tend to be assessed in a piecemeal fashion and as a result is not always consistent, and even when they are, they can also become out of date. The Northwestern High School article does have lots of photographs, which are to its credit. Images in the article should mostly support content in the article; general galleries at the end of the article are discouraged per WP:GALLERIES. Given that there is a lot of media for the school, you might want to create a gallery for it on Wikimedia Commons, in addition to the category which is already over there. Here is a sample gallery for another school. I will have a go at reviewing the assessments for both articles you have mentioned within the next few days. CT Cooper · talk 22:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have now re-assessed the articles, with both now at C-class. CT Cooper · talk 21:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Wp Education in the United Kingdom Idea

Hi, I agree with the name you suggested, I think we could keep the project going especially if he have a few dedicated users and we could try to get more people involved and the first focus could be articles that currently don't come under any project in order to show there is a purpose for the project and then move on to other articles, but there are still many articles that need to be created and I think we can get a universal standard for all articles this way. Mark999 13:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay then, it would be a project which I would be happy to help set-up. On another issue, could I kindly ask you to please adjust your signature so there is at least one working link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page. This is a requirement for signatures per WP:SIGLINK, and such a link will make it much easier to contact you when someone wishes to respond to a comment. CT Cooper · talk 21:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope it works. We discussed this before if you remember - but I was unable to drum up any support for it. Some of our best UK Schools editors don't even want to be listed on the WP:WPSCH project at all. --Kudpung (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No I honestly don't remember discussing it. I will have more free time over Easter shortly so this is good opportunity to revive the idea. CT Cooper · talk 11:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

User:CT Cooper/Requests for adminship/Criteria

I've added a cat to this for you (that's why it wasn't on my list). It might also get more exposure if you add the user essay template to it. --Kudpung (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the category. I have now added the essay tag to it as well. CT Cooper · talk 11:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

schools

There's been some heavy editing at 'Outcomes' in the Education section. I'm sure the bulleted list was made in good faith, but it seems odd that the very first line deals with deletion, while the practiced exceptions are now further down on the list. Anyone being referred to that page to know what is generally practiced will now stop at the fist line and not look further. It seems also as if a large chunk of descriptive material has got lost. Perhaps major changes like this should be discussed first. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I can see where your coming from; I think that page has began to loose its original purpose personally. It seems to becoming focused on summarising policy and guidelines rather than actually saying what happens at AfD. In my opinion it should just give statistics on what happens at AfD, though that would be difficult to get together. CT Cooper · talk 15:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It's possible, and it's been in the back of my mind to get it done for a long time. An excellent bot & script writer has done some good work for us on the NPP headache, and now I've asked him to do some stats for RfA. When SnottyWong has finished all that and he's not too worn out I'll ask him if he can have a go at it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandi, again

Hello! Teo is back on Vandi making the same edits and keeps saying irrational things like "you take out sourced content and adding one person's opinion" even though the stronger statements have multiple reliable sources and he is the one that is in fact deleting several other statements not affiliated with the artist's success level (as I mentioned before probably to make that source completely inaccessible). The user has previously admitted they do not have the best grasp of English, as it seems they have absolutely no idea what consensus is every time we tell them there already was one. I still find it suspicious that when Teo stops editing Katrin comes in and vice versa. GreekStar12 (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I've at least forced everyone to log-in, as things were complicated enough without having to deal with IPs as well, and logging-out to edit war, whether the intentions are good or bad, is not appropriate in any case. I'm going to try and investigate this a bit more, but I agree the circumstances look more suspicious than ever. I'm considering opening an WP:SPI case on both these editors, or taking action directly. CT Cooper · talk 22:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I have asked Teo about the sock puppetry issue, and I hope to get an honest response either way on the issue. If he says the account is his, then really not much action can be taken, as while I don't see any pressing need for him to need multiple accounts to edit that page, one has to assume that it was not being done deceptively, so admin action on that alone would be difficult to justify. If he says no and evidence later emerges that they are the same person, then that is a different story. On the edit warring issue, I will keep an eye on the page and take action if it gets out of control again. CT Cooper · talk 16:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, CT Cooper. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 00:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, CT Cooper. You have new messages at User:Kudpung/RfA reform/Voter profiles.
Message added 04:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, CT Cooper. You have new messages at Wonderfull778's talk page.
Message added 06:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful

I've just been having a look at the File:Bewdleyschool2011.jpg that was uploaded to commons. I'm not an expert on © stuff, but my thought is that if it were a school logo, it wouldn't be the uploader's own work, even if they had redrawn it to the original and digitised it, would it? For one thing, there's no proof that it represents the school's official emblem. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless the uploader was the creator of the original school logo, which seems unlikely, then the uploader is not in control of the copyright, and it is hence not his "own work". Even if the uploader physically created this version of the logo himself, it would still be infringing copyright of the school logo's creator. More likely, it is a derivative work of the logo here, which would certainly be copyrighted. As I stated on the image talk page (on Commons), explicit permission from a school e-mail address releasing the logo under a free licence would likely be needed before it could be kept on Commons, as fair use content is not permitted over there. I don't have access to the OTRS mailing list, so I don't know if an e-mail was sent or what it contains, and given that there was a large backlog last time I checked, we may be waiting a while for an OTRS volunteer to come along, barring a direct request for info. CT Cooper · talk 22:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I have PRODedthis today and restored the previous. User is still editing but has not responded to tp messages. If this revision is reverted I'm going to fully protect the Bewdley page for just a very short while for disruptive editing and see what happens. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I have commented on the Commons' deletion requests. It is very unlikely that a valid OTRS e-mail (if one was sent at all) has been received, and given that there is perfectly useful Wikipedia version of the image, I don't see any point on leaving the Commons' version around. It is also worth noting that a Worcsinfo account has previously attempted to upload the logo to Commons in a similar format to the one there now, which was deleted. As can be seen on the article talk page an IP address (clearly another sock of his) claimed the image was free on false grounds. It is clear that Wonderfull778 has read the message I have left him, and I will give a few more days for a response. The single recent edit he has made itself says a lot. CT Cooper · talk 21:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

RfA reform

Hi CT Cooper. I have now moved the RfA reform and its associated pages to project space. The main page has been updated and streamlined. We now also have a new table on voter profiles. Please take a moment to check in and keep the pages on your watchlist. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the message. I will keep an eye on the page. CT Cooper · talk 21:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That RfA reform thing

Kudpung has asked me to 'nudge' some people .. as I'm an idle get, I'm just going through the entire Task Force list so my apologies if you didn't need a nudge! You can slap me about over on WP:EfD if you like :o) Straw polling various options: over here - please add views, agree with views, all that usual stuff. Pesky (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I responded just before you posted. CT Cooper · talk 22:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful

He's had his last warning often enough. this is plain tendentious editing and testing to see how far we'll go. I'm sorely tempted to issue the block now, but as I'm a new tooley round here, just a second opinion will do. There's no need at all to go through the rigmarole of SPI or ANI, we've blocked enough of his other socks already. Let me know and I'll press the button. He'll come back again sure enough, but we'll have the usual three or four months peace. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I will block him if you don't. He has been given enough chances, and given his recent edits and failure to respond to legitimate questions, it is now clear he should be blocked for socking, not to mention lying. CT Cooper · talk 20:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

OK I've blocked him, but I'm still fighting to find my way round all the block templates for user talk pages. I think I've used the wrong one. Could you check it for me please? Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC) PS, perhaps add him to the cat of Worcsinfo socks.

I have added an appropriate block template to his talk page. See Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Blocks for a collection of user talk block templates. The sock template can be found at User:Wonderfull778, which adds him to the Worcsinfo sock category. CT Cooper · talk 10:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Six weeks on the job already and I'm still feeling sillier than a new user ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, it took me a few months before I was confident using the tools. Didn't help that I got lots of abuse on my talk page after fully protecting a a page during an edit war, leaving one party unhappy. CT Cooper · talk 17:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

New e-mail

Hello, CT Cooper. Please check your e-mail – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the e-mail is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Theflyingman (talk • contribs) 14:33, 24 April 2011

Replied. CT Cooper · talk 20:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Topperman Image

This note is in reference to the proposed speedy delete on the Topperman Image [1]

I've edited the Los Alamos High School article to provide more information on the mascot. Hopefully this meets your criteria. I do believe it would be detrimental to the article to remove that image for a few reasons. First, not everyone even knows what a Hilltopper is so that image could be a useful guide. Second, the mural itself was the source of significant controversy in 1996 and it would be extremely useful for individuals to be able to see the mural to assess the validity of claims made about the artwork. I intend to add this content to the article when I can track down verifiable sources. Third, the mural itself has historical significance to the community. Let me know what you think. Greg Comlish (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to my concerns. I have commented on the changes at File talk:TheTopperman.jpg. CT Cooper · talk 19:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

School article help

Hi CT. I've had an idea to create a help request page for schools. Please check this oiut - I've tried to keep it simple for the young editors who make many sch articles. If you think the idea is good, I'll move it to project space and finish it off. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

On the whole I think this is a good idea. I have made a few minor changes to the editnotice. The final version might need to be a little more concise to increase the chance of people bothering to read, even if it is well written. CT Cooper · talk 19:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Done and tested. The test page is now at User:Kudpung/School article help (draft). I'm thinking of moving it to : [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Help]] with a shortcut WP:WPSCH/H. Does all that sound OK? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'm a little concerned about the definition of high schools that is given, which suggests they must have a sixth form or equivalent. This would effectively exclude most secondary schools in Hampshire, since most no longer have a sixth form, and just have years seven to eleven. Despite this they are still generally treated as the local equivalent of high schools when it comes to notability. CT Cooper · talk 18:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Schools

Hi CT Cooper. The Wikipedia Schools Project has set up a dedicated help and feedback page at WP:WPSCH/H. This is for elementary/primary, middle, and high schools (often called college in the UK). It is not for universities.
If you regularly give advice to users, you might wish to send enquirers there - we are quick to respond. However, WT:WPSCH still remains the place for general discussion about the management and policy of school articles. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Good work; I have taken the liberty of giving it a good look over. CT Cooper · talk 17:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

interview request

Hello, My name is Natalia Olaru and I am a final year master student in the Corporate Communication programme at the Aarhus School of Business in Denmark. I am currently working on my final paper on the topic of the motivation of users to create content on collaborative media websites, the focus being Wikipedia. As a sample I chose the English and Danish portals. I would like to invite you for an online interview on the topic of what motivates you, as a user, to participate in editing and creating articles for this platform. Your real identity, and wikipedia account will be kept confidential through the paper. I plan on doing the actual interviews in the period between 6st and the 15th of May via Skype, MSN, Google Talk or Yahoo Messenger. I am, however, open to other channels of communication too. Please let me know if you would like to participate in this interview and the preferred channel. Thank you, Natalia Olaru Email: natalia.ioana.olarugmail.com --MulgaEscu (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I have responded via the e-mail address assigned to your account. CT Cooper · talk 21:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia and the Public Domain

Hey CT, I saw you expressed interest in my Wikimania panel discussion "Wikimedia and the Public Domain". Would you be interested in being on the panel? Kaldari (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for fixing my editnotice. Thank you for the offer also - this is my first Wikimania and I want to take part in all the ways I can. I would be happy to be on the panel for your discussion, as this is in my area. CT Cooper · talk 19:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Mesivta Birkas Yitzchok

Thank you for assessing this article and for providing useful feedback for improvement. Joe407 (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. CT Cooper · talk 12:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

E-mail from OGAE Cyprus

How can I add the source from an E-mail I sent to OGAE Cyprus about Cypriot commentators and spokespersons? Kind regards.Carlos MS (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There isn't an official way to source e-mails, since per WP:V, Wikipedia sources should be a) published and b) reliable, and e-mails are not published material. However, as a temporary solution to sourcing issues, just describing the e-mail in <ref></ref> tags should be fine. CT Cooper · talk 14:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Here it is: Το 1981, 1982 και 1983 ήταν η Φρύνη Παπαδοπούλου (Fryni Papadopoulou) Το 1984 ο Παύλος Παύλου (Pavlos Pavlou) Το 1985 ο Θέμης Θεμιστοκλέους (Themis Themistokleous) Το 1986 ο Νεόφυτος Ταλιώτης (Neophytos Taliotis) Το 1987 η Φρύνη Παπαδοπούλου (Fryni Papadopoulou) Το 1988 δεν έλαβε μέρος η Κύπρος Το 1989 ο Νεόφυτος Ταλιώτης (Neophytos Taliotis) Το 1990 ο Νεόφυτος Ταλιώτης (Neophytos Taliotis) Το 1991 μέχρι και το 2006 η Εύη Παπάμιχηλ (Evi Papamichail) Το 1995 ο Νεόφυτος Ταλιώτης (Neophytos Taliotis) Το 2006 και το 2007 ήταν η Βάσω Κομνηνού (Vaso Komninou) Το 2008, 2009 και 2010 ήταν η Μελίνα Καραγεωργίου (Melina Karageorgiou)

Χρήστος Kind regards Carlos MS (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Carlos. CT Cooper · talk 14:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:WPSCH

To reduce more clutter and page loading time, I've created a separate page for the templates. I'm having enormous problems connecting to the Wikipedia server, it's so slow that the CSS is not loading, so could you please check it out for me, and of course make any changes you see fit. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with giving the templates their own page. Originally the article guidelines were on the main project page as well and when I split them off I tried to take the templates with them, but other editors didn't think they belonged with article guidelines. I will try and give the new page a look over now. CT Cooper · talk 15:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning it all up. Internet seems better today. The worst period is during my night time when I like to work a lot, but when the whole of the USA is online, in daylight, and on Wikipedia. The server times out before it's finished loading the pages. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia has been a bit slow for me over the last few days. Here in the UK it is better in the morning when the Americans are still in bed! CT Cooper · talk 14:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack and Jill School

I think we have a possible problem here. User talk:Moray An Par joined WP a month ago and I'm sure he's acting in good faith. However, I'm also sure you and I agree that a deletion spree (of any kind) is not what we want - especially where schools, at least for the time being, enjoy a special dispensation. I've left a message on his tp - perhaps you could check it out and see if I have said the right thing. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Mass nomination AfDs for schools have been tried in the past and have generally been a disaster, and don't work well as schools need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. I've think you've handled this quite well from what I can see. CT Cooper · talk 14:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I award this Barnstar to CT Cooper for being a good sport by helping me with my research MulgaEscu (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you; I'm glad to have been of help. CT Cooper · talk 14:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Eurovision Commentators and Spokespersons

Hi there. I'll try and help you find the sources for the commentators and spokesperson. But is there a possibilty I could please ask you a question about one of the commentators. User_talk:Mrluke485 18:26, 9 May 2011

I'm not sure why you deleted your message off my talk page, but I want to reply so I am restoring it. If you deleted because I didn't respond to it after doing some edits, then bear in mind I sometimes don't respond to messages I get immediately if it is a non-emergency - and instead wait until I know what I'm going to say, and have a moment to write it all out.

Thank you for offering to help find sources for commentators and spokespersons. I don't want to see anything deleted, but at the end of the day if sourcing is not provided another editor is going to come along and delete them all in the long-term, which would be a shame. If you still have a question, feel free to ask it. CT Cooper · talk 21:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it's about the 1969 Eurovision Song Contest it says that David Gell commentated for the UTD Kingdom but on another website it says Michael Aspel was commentator instead of spokesperson Mrluke485 · talk 15:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Good to see that a lot of this content is now being sourced. On your question, contradictions between sources does occasionally happen unfortunately. I will try and look into this particularly case and get back to you. CT Cooper · talk 18:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you like me to give you the internet site Mrluke485 · talk 20:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes please, if you can. CT Cooper · talk 21:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay here is the website http://www.songs4europe.com/47.html Mrluke485 · talk 22:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so IMDb seem to be confident that David Gell was the UK's commentator, while Songs4Europe.com think Michael Aspel was the UK commentator. Normally with factual contradictions Wikipedia goes with the more reliable source, but the problem here is that neither of these sources are clearly reliable. My guess is that Songs4Europe.com have made a mistake, and in fact Micheal Aspel was the spokesperson. CT Cooper · talk 14:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi again I've added the source in for the French commentators from 1956-1974 Mrluke485 · talk 13:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Good work. I have some exams coming up and other tasks I must do, and as a result helping out on the referencing might be difficult for me until after the 6th June. CT Cooper · talk 16:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Bernard's Catholic School, Brisbane

I need your advice in case, as a relatively new admin, I start doing AfD closures. How in your opinion, does Keep: 3, Merge/Redirect: 3, Delete: 2, equate to "Delete" for a school? I'm not bothered personally about the outcome - my question is purely academic. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears someone has already closed the debate as delete. I haven't closed an AfD debate for a while, but if there is a suggestion to re-direct and it is not blatantly inappropriate, plus no objections from those calling for deletion, I would close the debate as re-direct without much hesitation. Creating a re-direct after deletion is fine as well, and is not covered by WP:CSD#G4, simply because a re-direct is not recreating the article. I have only ever had one case of opposition, and that was with Lane End Primary School, in which I created a re-direct to the locality article after deletion, and Majorly (talk · contribs) tried to have it speedy deleted under G4 - despite blatantly not meeting this criterion. Then admin Pastor Theo (talk · contribs) carried out the deletion anyway, and refused to listen to reason on the issue - surprise, surprise it later turned out he was a sock of a banned user! In the end Majorly stepped in and agreed to re-direct to a local list, before I took it to deletion review. CT Cooper · talk 16:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... Thanks. Interesting story. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I took an hour or so to read up on all the PT stuff. Incredible! Makes Wonderful just small fry. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there is quite a story behind it. This is the only one of two cases of a previously banned user returning as a sock and getting past RfA, the other being Archtransit (talk · contribs). CT Cooper · talk 23:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Best of luck

Good luck on your exams! LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope to do well. CT Cooper · talk 23:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Help

Hi, I see a big problem coming up now with the Armenia-Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest article. Now that Azerbaijan has won the contest this article will be heavily vandalised and content will be removed. It has just happened a moment ago for example. Perhaps you could be on the look out to. Thanks--BabbaQ (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material should never be accepted according to me. For any reason no matter how controversial the article is.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that removal of sourced material on a controversial article such as Armenia–Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest, without a good reason being provided, is very problematic. As for the 2012 article, I think you did the right thing in removing the section for the time being. While there are likely going to be issues that will come-up with Azerbaijan hosting the contest, it is early days yet, and we should wait until the issues actually emerge before mentioning them. While Wikipedia has made the assumption that the next host will be Azerbaijan, as it is tradition of the Eurovision Song Contest for the previous year's winner to host the contest, that it is not set in stone, and it is possible that the contest could move elsewhere because of money, staging venues, or many other issues. The last time that nearly happened was in 2008, where the contest nearly got moved out of Serbia at the last minute due to political instability regarding Kosovo. CT Cooper · talk 10:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

London meetup 46

We've got a couple of requests to change this back to the 12th would this be doable for you.©Geni 00:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Either date would be fine at present. CT Cooper · talk 00:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

New US schools infobox?

Are you aware of this? Is it something that needs a consensus chat? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure; I haven't seen that template before. It appears to be being used in infoboxes for linking purposes, such as in Hommocks Middle School. However, this function could be provided for by the infobox itself, as is done with the Ofsted in the UK, with The Petersfield School providing a good example. CT Cooper · talk 10:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christ Church C.E Primary School

We really need to get the WP:WPSCH/AG page established as a guideline. There seems to be a rush of articles for deletion recently including mass deletions. I'm sure these are all made (and voted on) in good faith, but experience shows that very few users are fully aware of all the complexities of deletion criteria and their exceptions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that getting WP:WPSCH/AG established as a guideline is a good goal, but to be fair in this case, while in most cases re-direction is fine, there isn't much to keep in this case and having lots of schools with the same name is problematic. Whether the article is deleted or re-directed, eventually a disambiguation page should probably put there linking to the appropriate locality articles. CT Cooper · talk 10:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFA2011

Task Force news: Recent updates include basic minor changes and condensing at the main page, additional comments on the main page talk page, a new project sub page and talk for Radical Alternatives, and messages at Task force talk. A current priority is to reach suggested criteria/tasks for clerks, and then to establish a local consensus vis-à-vis clerking. Please remember to keep all the project and its talk pages on your watchlist. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I am keeping an eye on what is going on over there. CT Cooper · talk 10:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandi

OK so there seems to be a little bit of progress with the discussion but I honestly feel like I have proven all my points especially with regards to policy and said everything there is to say. It is very difficult talking to Katrin as it always results in talking in circles or her saying she has proven something with facts when that is never the case. She doesn't seem to care whether things are acceptable according to policy and has failed to show how her arguments comply with policy so I'm not exactly sure where I am supposed to go with this anymore. GreekStar12 (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I had a feeling this is where it would end-up. Given that it is clear that this will not be resolved by discussion, I suggest looking at other methods of dispute resolution. I would normally say ask for a third opinion, but this wider dispute involves more than two users so I don't think that is a good option in this case. Another venue is the Wikipedia:Requests for comment process involving placing a template on a talk page and waiting for others comment on the dispute. Alternatively, a request could be filed at the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal for a mediator to be assigned to the case in the hope of trying to resolve the dispute through mediation. I think this could be a challenge for MedCab with the language issue, and all parties will need to co-operate for it to work, but this would personally be my recommended option. If that fails there is the more formal Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, though the committee won't accept cases which haven't already been through an RfC or MedCab, so that isn't an option at the moment. Furthermore, user conduct is an issue a user conduct RfC can be filed, though again I don't think that is appropriate at this point. What do you think? CT Cooper · talk 22:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well it seems we are making a little bit more progress, Katrin says she does not have a problem including the decline, however she has again for a third time broken the zero tolerance rule by reverting new, sourced information I added that was not previously part of the debate and waiting only one minute [2] between commenting and reverting [3]. I'm not an admin so perhaps these are just my own thoughts of what is appropriate and what's not but I think it is really clear which sources are the most reliable and what is supported by Wiki policy, so I don't see why there couldn't just be a vote on the talk page or something, once we could get more users to join in, because clearly a majority of users are for the information. I'm not opposed to the MedCab or RfC but I feel that might be another way of saying having to start a discussion from the very beginning and explain the background of Greek music industry and translate everything due to the cultural challenge, unless they were to follow our current discussion and points, not sure how it would work. GreekStar12 (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Katrin would have been blocked if I had been around yesterday, but I was too buy preparing for an exam, and now this revert is really too stale to deal with. I have made clear what there will be a longer than normal block if there are any further violations, since she seems to be running around the "zero tolerance rule" here, and it does not appear that messages are getting through. While voting is controversial on this project, I agree that at the moment this seems to be a one user vs. everyone else dispute, and really the burden is on Katrin to make strong arguments and convince people of her position. The problem is that is that Katrin might not agree with any consensus that is established, continue edit warring, and this will effectively be back to square one. One benefit of MedCab is a more clear and backed resolution, which would make enforcement of any consensus easier to do, though that's not to say it can't be done with regular discussion. CT Cooper · talk 12:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I at least feel it is appropriate to file a complaint for personal attacks as in her last response she alleged I was schizofrenic, which I don't think is very civil. GreekStar12 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have given her a warning in response to this remark. CT Cooper · talk 20:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Manchester Airport

Hi,

Would you be able to protect Manchester Airport page as there is a dispute on Delta Ailines flights. JFK is being dropped for the winter season as part of DL flight reductions. People keep adding it ends on Sep 10 (when bookable for summer 2012) and others keep adding it as year round when it is seasonal. Thanks. Jamie2k9 (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not generally considered appropriate to use semi-protection to resolve content disputes involving unregistered and registered users per the Wikipedia:Protection policy#Semi-protection. I would suggest approaching the user to try and seek agreement. I note the content is unsourced, so I would suggest resolving it by providing sources. CT Cooper · talk 17:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

From pt.wiki

Hey, CT Cooper. I saw your message on m:srcu. I'm sorry you couldn't have an answer from your attempt to make contact with an user from pt.wiki. I don't know what happened. Well, I just want to state here that, in case of need, you can contact me here on en.wiki or at pt.wiki and I will try help the way I can. Regards.” T_eLeS (T _{@ L C S}) 04:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your support. I contacted the admin that blocked the original master account on pt.wiki to let him know that Diogomauricio3 was evading his block on that wiki as well as this one. However, I did not get a response for some reason. The two latest accounts are EL905 (talk · contribs) and EL906 (talk · contribs), both of which are blocked on en.wiki but have not made any edits on the pt.wiki. CT Cooper · talk 14:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting. I blocked them.” T_eLeS (T _{@ L C S}) 21:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sopley

Hello CT Cooper, I saw your name on the Wikiproject Hampshire page when I went to request a reassessment for an article I've been working on. I see from your user page that you assess articles so thought you might be able to help. It wasn't clear (to me anyway) how the assessment process worked so I apologise if my approach is unconventional. If you are too busy or unable to help perhaps you could point me in the direction of someone who can. Many thanks--Ykraps (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Some projects have formal assessment departments where you can request assessments, such as WP:WPSCH/A, however WikiProject Hampshire does not at this time. I am happy to assess the article for you, and will leave some comments on the talk page now. CT Cooper · talk 17:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your appraisal and comments. I expect I will add more to this page as and when I find new material and sources. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 07:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Switzerland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Switzerland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! TerriersFan (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not intend to take any further action, as the article now probably meets the bare minimum requirements to exist. CT Cooper · talk 17:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Rounds Page

Hey Christopher, I'm not sure if you remember me, but we spoke a year ago in regard to the 6rounds page. 6rounds have changed their name to Rounds and I am in the process of creating a new page called Rounds. I believe I have completed it in accordance with Wikipedia's terms, but I would really appreciate it if you could look over it before I formally submit it.

You can find the page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Leibov/Rounds

Any advice or guidance you could give to make the page more acceptable would be great. https://www.google.com/analytics/settings/?et=reset&hl=en Thanks,

~Natasha (AKA Leibov) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leibov (talk • contribs) 14:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Well there only needs to be one article, and it would be preferable if the article history stayed in one place. I would recommend moving the existing 6rounds article to Rounds and then placing the new draft on top. I could merge the history in the userspace with that in the article space if necessary. I see Glanis (talk · contribs) has provided you some feedback already. I would agree with that, and I have made some minor changes myself. I have in particuar removed use of the word "you" in the article; articles should always be written in third person, never second person or first person (except in quotes where appropriate). CT Cooper · talk 18:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears there will be a title conflict with the name Rounds. In such cases the title needs to be disambiguated. Perhaps Rounds (website) would be appropriate, with a link from the Round disambiguation page. CT Cooper · talk 18:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Guideline staus

Hi Chris. You might find this discussion interesting. Thoughts? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the late reply, I've been busy going out places and upgrading my computer's software. This discussion certainly is of interest to us, given their efforts to get a notability page to guideline status. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (military history) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide are already guidelines in their project, and think they will find getting the notability page to guideline status will be more difficult. As well as the usual controversy, there is also the dispute on if we should even have notability guidelines beyond WP:N, which has been evident in school notability guideline proposals in the past. CT Cooper · talk 22:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Task force WP:RFA2011 update

Hi. As of 20 June: More stats have been added on candidates and !voter participation. Details have been added about qualifications required on other Wikis for candidates and RfA !voters. Some items such as clerking, !voters, and candidates are nearing proposal stage. A quick page`link template has been added to each page of the project. Please visit those links to get up to speed with recent developments, and chime in with your comments. Thanks for your participation.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 08:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC).

Invite

Thanks for the invite. Can I ask how do I add my self on active or inactive. I would be honoured to join kind regards Mrluke485 [[ · talk 19:11 20 June 2011

Hello again. You seem to have now added your self successfully. We do need more members, so thank you for your contributions. I would recommend adding Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision to your watchlist as news and proposals related to Eurovision articles is often posted there by me and other editors. CT Cooper · talk 18:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi agian sorry to trouble you but I addedd it to my watchlist but nothing happend. Sorry to trouble Mrluke485 · talk 21:01 20 June 2011

Not a problem. Click on "My watchlist" on the top of the page (or go to Special:Watchlist) and any recent changes should be on the page that appears. The watchlist is a useful tool to track edits on pages, particularly articles, you choose to watch - see Help:Watching pages for help, which includes a short video. You can adjust your watchlist settings by clicking on "My preferences" at the top of the page (or go to Special:Preferences), and clicking on the "Watchlist" tab. CT Cooper · talk 20:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Nat a problem it's on now thanks for the help Mrluke485 · talk 22:10 20 June 2011

You're welcome. Happy editing! CT Cooper · talk 21:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the award

Hello Chris

I would like to thank you for the award you gave me.

Kind regards from Spain

Carlos

PS: Have you got any idea of members of the United Kingdom jury until 1996?

Carlos MS (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. No, unfortunately I don't know that much about the UK juries. CT Cooper · talk 21:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

At least you could write some of the most famous jurors. Carlos MS (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

UK jurors have been pretty low profile in the recent contests - the BBC have never as far as I know, revealed who they are on TV. I didn't follow Eurovision before around 2006, so my knowledge is limited before then. A Google search doesn't produce much unfortunately. Note that jurors list have there own articles at List of jurors of the Eurovision Song Contest 2009 and List of Eurovision Song Contest 2010 jurors, and I would recommend that that practice continues. CT Cooper · talk 10:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Trinity Catholic School

Hi Chris. There's a minor kafuffle going on that I'm involved with. I'm withdrawing from editing the articles concerned so as not to get involved in an EW, and perhaps you could cast an uninvolved eye. Cheers. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any need to withdraw. Your in a civil discussion with another user and your edit has not been reverted, so I don't think there is any danger of an edit war at this point, though I have taken the opportunity to up the article's quality rating. As for my opinion, I don't think the previous version was too over dominating (given the article will probably need further expansion), though the paragraphs in that section did need consolidating better. CT Cooper · talk 12:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

A new look?

Hi Chris. I'm thinking that perhaps the look of the WP:WPSCH could be made more appealing, within the broad developments at Wikimedia outreach, to make help and instruction pages more 'modern'. I thought this looks rather nice (I'm a member of that project), colours could of course be changed. If you think it's a starter, perhaps it should be discussed at WT:WPSCH. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It is certainly something that could be considered, given the basic structure of the project pages hasn't changed much since around 2003. If you want to persue the idea, I would be happy to give my support. CT Cooper · talk 15:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Change to Wikipedia

Hi Christopher

I am a little alarmed. I got a message that said I'd changed something on Wikipedia ("What Wikipedia is not"), but I did not do anything like that. Did I hit the wrong button by mistake, or might this be connected with the fact that I downloaded and implemented some Windows updates today? I don't share this IP address (at least I hope not - oh dear).

Apologies for any inconvenience caused.

Charlotte — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.202.114 (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Many internet service providers (ISPs) re-assign their IP address to someone else as soon as one user has disconnected, which can result in users receiving vandalism warnings for edits they didn't make - which is what appears to have happened here. Downloading Windows updates doesn't effect your IP address, so don't worry about that. CT Cooper · talk 10:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Greetings!

As a member of the RfA improvement task force, your input is requested at the possible proposals page, which consists of ideas that have not yet been discussed or developed.

Please look though the ideas and leave a comment on the talk page on the proposal(s) you would most like to see go forward. Your feedback will help decide which proposals to put to the community. And, as always, feel free to add new suggestions. Thanks!

Swarm, coordinator, RfA reform 2011

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 07:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC).

Blocked sock

Hi. A couple of days ago you blocked User:The Killer Bass as a probable sockpuppet. An article that he had created and which had been deleted has just reappeared, this time created by User:Wikititimit who has an identical edit pattern. The recreated article is Tour of the Europe and also 2011 Tour of the Europe. If you're not sure about these articles, the first one claims it's organised by the UEC but there's nothing even remotely like it on the UEC website here. andy (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Just noticed that the puppeteer, user:Diogomauricio3, also created an article called Tour of Europe. andy (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Another admin has alredy blocked this new sock. CT Cooper · talk 17:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Since you seem to be following Diogomauricio sockpuppeting, here's his latest attempt: User:The Mutant Magots. Follows the trend of adding a fake plane crash to Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2011, and then going on a spree on Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2011. Might it be worth semi-protecting both these two hot points he seems to like to hit? The³5₉ (Talk) 06:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked the sock and semi-protected both pages for three months. Thanks for letting me know. CT Cooper · talk 15:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox School district

Chris, please see this Template:Infobox School district. If it's used and transcluded on a lot of pages, I might have made a bloomer. If I have I'll withdraw the TfD. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox School district is the one you nominated and is not used on any pages by the look of it. However, Template:Infobox school district is heavily used and that is why I have semi-protected it. CT Cooper · talk 19:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFA2011: RfA on other Wikipedias

A detailed table and notes have now been created and posted. It compares how RfA is carried out on major Wikipedias (English, French, German, Italian, Spanish). If you feel that other important language Wikipedias should be added, please let us know. This may however depend on our/your language skills!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 22:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

Personal Attack

Although, I try to keep a civilized level in our discussion (about the artist Vandi), it seems that the other side has not the same opinion about this, as she refer to me expressions like get a life and many other things. I don't know if this is a clearly personal attack, but I thought that I had to refer this to you. --KatrinofGreece (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Cogratulations, this a Editor's Barnstar!!! Losotaint (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

A brownie, brownie!, CT Cooper!

Hello, my friend! It's as Special brownie for you!!! Losotaint (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Cogratulations, this a Editor's Barnstar!!! Losotaint (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

See below. CT Cooper · talk 19:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

A brownie, brownie!, CT Cooper!

Hello, my friend! It's as Special brownie for you!!! Losotaint (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not sure why you are giving me barnstars since you don't even know me. I also don't think I can accept rewards from users which have been blocked for vandalism. CT Cooper · talk 19:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal Attack

Although, I try to keep a civilized level in our discussion (about the artist Vandi), it seems that the other side has not the same opinion about this, as she refer to me expressions like get a life and many other things. I don't know if this is a clearly personal attack, but I thought that I had to refer this to you. --KatrinofGreece (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I went away on holiday two days before this message was left, and I have not been able to access Wikipedia while on holiday. I will try and catch-up with the situation shortly. CT Cooper · talk 19:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I have looked into this and will respond on your talk page. CT Cooper · talk 21:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, I only just remembered that I missed something … :) Amalthea 19:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. CT Cooper · talk 20:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

About Kosovo

Hi,

they are quite new articles about Kosovo. And why Libanon and Liechtenstein who doesn't participate may have a page and Kosovo doesn't?

The texts about Kosovo should then maybe putted on one shared page with Liechtenstein and Libanon.

http://albavisiontk.blogspot.com/2011/04/kosovo-new-steps-in-ebu-agreement.html (07/04/2011)

http://eurovisionkosovo.yolasite.com/ (website young dancers eurovision)

http://www.eurovisionary.com/blog/kosovo-possible-candidate-eurovision (06/02/2011)

Klodde (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Example something like this? Shared pages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Klodde/sandbox

Klodde (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, only about the Eurovision Song Contest is relevant - the Eurovision Dance Contest and Eurovision Young Dancers are treated in a separate set of articles. However, I see your point about other countries in a similar position such as Liechtenstein having an article, and really as you can see at Talk:Kosovo in the Eurovision Song Contest, I only agreed to the merge reluctantly as the very original article did past the notability guideline. I'm not sure how a merged article would work as we already have List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest and I would prefer to stick to a country having a dedicated article about it if it made (or is making) a significant attempt to participate. I would not be against re-creation of the article - though an updated re-written version would be needed which was well sourced and encyclopedic. Be warned though, content about Kosovo is very controversial politically, and if the article is re-created its existence will likely be challenged. CT Cooper · talk 21:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I've tried to make a sort of merge, you can find it on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_attempts_to_participate_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest

In the list there were Kosovo, Liechtenstein and Lebanon. I've seen in the history of the Tunisia page and added what I found there also. I added recent links about Kosovo etc.

please take a look,

ps my English vocabulary is limited, so corrections are neccesary

thanks

Klodde (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It will need a bit of tweaking, but on the whole I think you have done a good job. While I was originally reluctant to have the articles merged, I think it has produced a more complete looking article. CT Cooper · talk 22:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, where is the best place to discuss then to merge Lebanon with the other 3 countries? Sort of Eurovision page?

Klodde (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision would be a good choice. CT Cooper · talk 15:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln High School again

The user Jayebook is at it again trying to put information about the OLD LINCOLN HIGH SCHOOL on the current Lincoln High School's article. Drumlinehoss (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I put both pages back on my watchlist after I noticed the inappropriate page move at Old Lincoln High School (Tallahassee, Florida). I will leave a note with Jayebook to ask what he is trying to achieve here. CT Cooper · talk 21:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for taking so long to respond to this message because I just got the email. But I am trying to understand how and why is it working like this. I spoke with the assistant superindent of Leon County Schools of Tallahassee, Florida and my Biggest concern was why was the mascot and school colors changed at the New Lincoln, to make a long story short, I feel as though on the New Lincoln High School page, it Should include "The How" the new mascot came along. Since the information is truthful, I dont see why the information shouldnt be told that way. The Old Lincoln High Mascot is Tiger and I dont understand why Mr. Nims should be mentioned because "Trojan" wasnt its mascot. Another thing according to Leon County Schools, that Lincoln was just re-opened which means (according to Leon County Schools of Tallahassee, Fla.), Its a tie between the two. Jayebook (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have let Drumlinehoss know you have responded on this page. CT Cooper · talk 13:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The mascot of Lincoln High School is and has always been the Trojan. The mascot of OLD Lincoln High School was the Tiger. OLD Lincoln High School and CURRENT Lincoln High School are NOT the same school. They are not the same entity. They share nothing but a common name.

Old Lincoln High School is an historic school. It is not a functioning school. Any and all information pertaining to the Old Lincoln belongs on that page, and that page only. Drumlinehoss (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Jayebook, is there anything in the above that you disagree with? CT Cooper · talk 15:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the fact that Lincoln High School page cannot have literature on how Trojan Mascot came about. When Lincoln High School closed in 1969, the next high school to be built was to be named Lincoln, but the mascot and school colors were going to be changed and I feel like that information should be included in the text, so that others can know about the transition. Again, I spoke with personnel from Leon County Schools about this matter and this is the information that was given to me and I know that Leon County Schools would be the Best source to get any information about any county school. Jayebook (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so you only want information on the transition. We might be able to reach agreement here then. CT Cooper · talk 16:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's all I want to include on that page because people should be aware of the movement of Lincoln High School just in case someone has a concern about "Well, how was it Tiger at first and then changed later on." Mr. Nims was the second to the last principal at Historic Lincoln School and there is a middle school named after him, and in place of the New Lincoln (since Nims mascot is Trojans), Leon County School saw that Trojans would be the mascot considering both Lincolns' werent in the same area. Drumlinehoss is saying that Those are two different school BUT according to Leon County Schools, its not. Same issue with James S. Rickards High School of Tallahassee, Fla. with the mascot and school colors, just because those entities have changed, it doesnt depart from its origins (if that makes any sense). Jayebook (talk) 04:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The only mention of the Old Lincoln High School on the current Lincoln High School's page should be the disambiguation. The current Lincoln is not connected to the old Lincoln. It is not a continuation of it, it is not a replacement for it. It is an entirely different school. The mascot of Lincoln High School was NEVER the tiger. The mascot of the OLD Lincoln was. The disagreement here seems to be whether or not the current Lincoln is a continuation of the Old Lincoln and it is NOT. The only thing they have in common is the name. They do not have a common history, a common mascot, or common principlas as they ARE NOT THE SAME ENTITY. Drumlinehoss (talk) 01:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The Trojan mascot was picked, not by the Leon County School Board, but by the students of the first graduating class.

Please understand Drumlinehoss, there was NEVER a high school in Leon County Schools called Old Lincoln High. If there was, please inform us. It is indeed a continuation of the Lincoln High School that began in 1869. I have personal information from Leon County Schools to prove my case. Not to mention, people were calling that place Trojanland before that school opened. Jayebook (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, firstly can both of you please use indent when commenting on talk pages, see WP:INDENT on help for how to do this. This could be more difficult to resolve than I thought, however edit warring is not an option here. Perhaps you should request a third opinion? CT Cooper · talk 15:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

ESC 2012

Ok, maybe i have done a mistake making that heavy rollback. But, to date, Italy, San Marino, The Czech Republic and Slovakia have not confirmed thier participation to ESC. I could be really glad if they could confirm it. But az.news is not reliable.--Ranma25783 (talk) 10:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2012#news.az is an unreliable source to explain why you think az.news is not reliable. I am awaiting a response to the comments I and an unregistered user have said explaining why az.news is reliable per policies and guidelines. CT Cooper · talk 10:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

C&P move

how should I do? Phanuruch8555 (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I have left a further note on your talk page giving some advice on the correct way forward. CT Cooper · talk 11:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Eurovision 2012

I'd say its kind rich you remove my source yet News.az is plastered over the article, I don't see you removing these sources. Afro (Talk) 09:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you have seriously misunderstood the message I left on your talk page. I haven't removed any content from news.az, in fact over the last week I have been adding them. The point of my message was that other editors have removed such content, and may remove your additions as well, and hence it would appropriate for you to contribute to the discussion on the talk page. Please follow the link I left you on your talk page and read the thread, which will make this clearer. CT Cooper · talk 12:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, per the edit history, it was Sims2aholic8 (talk · contribs) that removed your additions. CT Cooper · talk 13:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I do apologize I just woke up when I typed that response and was dumb founded, in all honesty I wouldn't of added content if I didn't see news.az on the article. Afro (Talk) 15:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I see, no worries. CT Cooper · talk 15:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln High again

I guess this issue was resolved, because I wasnt notified of any further actions. Jayebook (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

There has not been much activity on that page recently, so there is not much action I can take. I however did advise that if you cannot reach an agreement then you should consider asking for a third opinion. CT Cooper · talk 10:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

False Positive Report

I wanted to create an article about a very important artist/author. I went through the help: how to create a new article, previewed it and added the references (such as homepage, publishers page, newspaper articles, etc.) Unfortunately came after I saved the page the message of the "false possitive report". What could have been the reason and how to avoid it in the future. Can I create again the page ? What is going to happen now with the article, will it be reviewed by an admin ? I hope you can help me and thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kusum Bhagavat (talk • contribs) 07:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I assume by false positive your referring to being disallowed to create an article as shown here. Unfortunately, the edit filter is not my area and there is not much I can do about false positives. Now that you have put in a report at Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports, another admin should review the report and take appropriate action. CT Cooper · talk 10:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

0opandorao0

Dear Mr Cooper,

I appreciate your comments regarding my update to this users page, but I am wanting to get something sorted regarding the article written about Bethel Church in Mansfield Woodhouse. This article is full of false information and accusations that are untrue. These comments are merely the opinions of a few disgruntled ex-members. We are considering legal action in this matter, however, in the mean time if I can sort this out without doing so, I would like to. The article is biased and has done an extreme amount of damage to the Church I pastor. I am able to provide evidence that most of the content is inaccurate if necessary,however, like I said, I would prefer to have this matter dealt with without going to court. I have already been in touch with people at Wiki who are looking into the matter. I am sure if someone told a pack of lies about you on Wiki, you would want to know who it was. If you can be of any assistance in this matter, I would be grateful, many thanks. Chris Jenkinson. wooptedoo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wooptedoo (talk • contribs) 22:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I have responded on your talk page. CT Cooper · talk 22:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Mansoor Alam

Thanks for that!! I revert a LOT of vandalism on that page for some reason. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The edits weren't actually vandalism. A user privately requested that the IP address be removed for privacy reasons. CT Cooper · talk 10:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh. I'm a little surprised, given the number of questionable edits on that page but oh well. Have a good day. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Eurovision

Hello, thanks for your invitations, i want to join but i dont know how — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poggletrack (talk • contribs) 19:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have added yourself to the membership list okay. Is there anything else you need help with? CT Cooper · talk 19:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah thats ok then i thought maybe i had to do something else.

Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poggletrack (talk • contribs) 19:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Geographic

Hi CT Cooper,

do you also corrections in short geographical articles?

I translated of my multicipuality and sub-multicipualities from Dutch into English.

It are 8 pages, the text is not that long, so I hope you want to take a look on it.

• Bambrugge
• Burst (village)
• Erondegem
• Erpe
• Erpe-Mere
• Mere, Belgium
• Ottergem
• Vlekkem

thanks if you could help

78.20.39.133 (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

oops, I was not logged in ;)

Klodde (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Klodde. I will try and take a look at them either some time tonight or tommorow morning. CT Cooper · talk 15:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi CT Cooper, I see you are taking a look, thanks, another sub-multiciputality was already seen by another person, so grammar and vocabulary are good there, but it has another problem, it's doesn't show the Template:Sub-municipalities_in_Erpe-Mere the page is Aaigem and the strange thing is that on the 8 other pages that you are correction the template works perfect, if you have time, can you also check then why it gives a conflict? mthanks Klodde (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have copy edited all the articles listed above; I hope they read okay now. The Template:Sub-municipalities in Erpe-Mere appears to show-up on Aaigem now. Does it still not show-up for you? CT Cooper · talk 21:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

ok, thanks a lot Klodde (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. CT Cooper · talk 21:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I made another page, can you check please, thanks

Den Dotter

Klodde (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have copy edited that page for you. One tip, always use third person (She did X; he did X; John did X; Flowers can be found at X) in encyclopaedic articles, never second person (You did X, Your son did X; You can find at X) nor first person (I did X; My son did X; I can find flowers at X), except in quotes. CT Cooper · talk 19:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi CT cooper, can you check the same pages please, the things I added? Especially the mill part? I've added the mills.

Aaigem

Bambrugge

Burst (village)

Erondegem

Erpe

Erpe-Mere

Mere, Belgium

Ottergem

Vlekkem

many thanks

Klodde (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I will take a look at them tomorrow. CT Cooper · talk 21:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I've done up to Erpe-Mere; I will finish the rest tomorrow. CT Cooper · talk 21:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've copy edited all new major additions to those articles. I take it by "it was ever..." you meant "it was originally...", in other words the mill in question used to be like that, but isn't any more. I also noticed you kept referring to mills in masculine form ("he") of grammatical gender. This makes sense to me as I'm learning German and know that mills are masculine (der Mühle) in that language, and I take it Dutch is the same since they are closely related languages. However, English speakers will find this very confusing in most cases, as objects are always neuter ("it"), with a few exceptions such as ships, which are often referred to as "she". CT Cooper · talk 17:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability: Schools

There is currently a long and important thread at User talk:Jimbo Wales #Notability of High Schools. This may finally be the opportunity we are hoping for to get any ambiguities cleared up regarding any perceived interpretations of (non)notability. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope this will go somewhere productive, and I am keeping an eye on it. I have already commented on the issue of him being quoted at WP:WPSCH/AG#N after the accusation was made that he was being taken out of context, which has resulted in its removal. I haven't made any specific comments on the substance of the issue yet, but will at the appropriate moment, but I am rather alarmed that the increasing traction being given to deleting articles because of vandalism despite policy. CT Cooper · talk 16:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I always thought in the past that I had been correctly interpreting schools policy, guidelines, and essays accurately, particularly as I have no personal interest in whether they are notable or not. However, due to some misrepresentations of my work by detractors on my RfA, I have been less involved of late in controversial issues concerning the notability of schools. Thus, I don't think I'll get involved on this, at least until it comes to an RfC to get a final consensus, (partly also because I'm heavily engaged just right now on a major WMF policy concern). Nevertheless, I'll be curious to hear JW tell what he then actually meant with his old statement about wanting all high schools included, and equally interested in how any new consensus to the contrary could have an ex post facto effect of WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#N, Wikipedia:Notability (high schools), schools being exempt from speedy deletion criterion A7, and non-notable schools being generally redirected to a school district or locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand your reluctance to get involved. These discussions do tend to get very heated at times, and take up a lot of time which could more productively be spent on other things both on Wikipedia and elsewhere. For the moment, I'm mostly looking to see how this goes - it could die down, or it could become something far bigger.

The meaning of his original statement has never been entirely clear, but in any case he seems to have long since moved away from it, and is now taking a far more deletionist line of thinking, particularly when it comes to dealing with vandalism. If we can come to a good compromise at long last I will be happy, but I am concerned that this could turn into a bulldozing of current practice under the flag of "what Jimbo says is policy", even if Jimbo doesn't intend it that way, which would destabilise the situation even more and do more harm than good.

It will be interesting to see how WP:NHS changes as a result of this discussion. The idea of a more neutral essay isn't a bad idea, but I think Jimbo's current addition has some problems, for example it portrays the debate as having two sides, when it is in fact far more complicated. As for WP:WPSCH/AG#N, well my position is to simply tell the truth in a factual way, which currently involves saying there is controversy and a variety of standards, but x and y is what normally happens, and if there is any change of practice the section should just move with it without any controversy. I hope the re-directing of non-notable schools continues as an alternative to deletion - there have only been small pockets of opposition to having school district articles or mentioning schools in locality articles, so I'm not expecting much to change. I don't expect much to change with A7 either - even if we change practices with high schools this criterion wasn't written for schools and doesn't work very well for them, and admins were declining deletion of school articles as a controversial area even before the exemption existed. CT Cooper · talk 19:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision: Recent changes

Hello,

Please note that there have been some changes to operations surrounding Eurovision articles, these being that:

• Template names have now been standardised, for example Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest and Template:Countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest have both been moved in order to be consistent. If you are planning to create a new template, please keep the standardised titles in mind.
• {{WikiProject Eurovision}} now accepts importance ratings as well as quality ratings, and the project now has a formal assessment department which gives details on how to assess articles, and provides a place for contributors to request re-assessment. Feel free to add the {{WikiProject Eurovision}} template to the talk page of any new Eurovision articles you create.
• The Eurovision Song Contest now has its own stub template at {{Eurovision-stub}}. Please only use this on Eurovision Song Contest stubs, with {{Music-stub}} and {{Dance-stub}} being the appropriate template for other Eruovision contests.

If you have any questions, please ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision.

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 15:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC).

Delivery Successful

Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that your message delivery request (WikiProject Eurovision: Recent changes) was completed successfully. Happy editing!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot at 15:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC).

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for the heads up. Afro (Talk) 21:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. CT Cooper · talk 22:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

RE: Tony0106

Hi CT, I'm writing with regards to Tony0106, and his outrageous behaviour and disgusting attitude on the ESC2012 discussions page. His manner and tone is unacceptable, and needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. Are there not Wikipedia policies in place to handle people who are clearly being rude and insulting to other users? Wesley Mouse (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks policies address these issues. I do think Tony has made at least minor violations of these policies in some comments, in particular 1 (a) of Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying incivility. Although I made an exception for Tony's sarcasm, in general I would advice against bringing up civility issues in the middle of a discussion, as it tends to be a distraction that often derails dispute resolution. I would recommend ignoring it unless it continues persistently, in which case there is Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance, or in the case of major behavioural issues, WP:RFC/U, where the issue can be discussed. CT Cooper · talk 18:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Tony0106 is at it again with the edit warring on ESC2012 article. And I'm now having suspicions that he is using multiple accounts (or sock-puppets) to make it look like different users are also agreeing with his "view" on Azeri news agencies being false. I find it strange that he also appears to be backing Armenia on every angle. It is a big accusation to make, I know; but I'm sure that everyone knows by now that the article itself could come under various methods of attack due to the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflicts. I now feel that WP:MEDCAB is the only resolution to this case. I'm not 100% how I would submit an application to MEDCAB, but if I haven't figured it out within 24 hours, then I'll leave it in your capable hands. Wesley Mouse (talk) 11:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

CT, I have now submitted an application for mediation onto this reopened discussion about Azeri news agencies being false. The application can be found via here. Wesley Mouse (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was not very impressed that he just reverted the moment he re-appeared, particularly after the two weeks courtesy that was given to him to justify his position. While I'm willing to accept removal of the disputed confirmed countries, his removal of possible withdrawals and possible returns was clearly heavy handed, and I have reverted this barring consensus. Thank you for opening the request for mediation, and I have commented, plus notified all those listed. My only concern is that we could be waiting a long time for a mediator, after reading the list at WP:MEDCAB, which could drag out the dispute even more if a resolution is not made. WP:RFC might be another alternative if MedCab goes nowhere.

I myself have wondered if sock puppetry has been going on, particularly following the appearance of this IP, which appears to have the same views and tendency to be sarcastic as Tony. However, I haven't personally felt that the evidence of sock puppetry with accounts is strong enough to justify action at this point, particularly given that such an accusation could de-rail dispute resolution. If you want to file a formal sock puppetry investigation request, feel free to go to WP:SPI. I have also wondered what this ESCKaz source is about exactly, given that it talks about Wikipedia. I certainly hope it is not an attempt to influence content with its timing. CT Cooper · talk 19:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if you have done this already, but have you checked Tony0106's talk page? There are a plethora of warnings from BOTS and other editors dating as far back as July 2006 Majority of the warnings are for copyright violations on Eurovision related articles, he has even received warnings for using "orphaned" material on ESC articles. But the most interesting of them all is this one User_talk:Tony0106#Three_revert_rule_warning. He has been warned once before for edit warring, and he is ignoring the warning given to him in December 2008, as well as the warning from Grk1011 given to him today (August 29). What action, if any, should now be taken now that we know of these constant warnings? Wesley Mouse (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I've given him a specific warning about 3RR, since he is only one revert off from going over. I'm aware that Tony does have history of using edit warring to try and resolve disputes, as appears to be happening again with this dispute over sourcing. Other problems include him repeatedly pulling out of discussions for unfounded reasons, as well as sarcastic comments and repeatedly claiming editors said things they did not (the fact he is not a native English speaker gives me sympathy here, but it is becoming persistent and very frustrating), both being in potential conflict with WP:CIVIL. Short term disruption can be discussed at WP:ANI, but I think given that this is more long-term WP:RFC/U would be appropriate. However, saying that such RfCs can get very heated and unproductive, and such an RfC should only be launched with large amounts of evidence including previous attempts to resolve the user conduct issues, given that they do also result in the users filing them being heavily scrutinised. The main problem at the moment is that such an RfC could be seen as trying to "get rid of" Tony from the project to win a content dispute, and so the issues must be approached carefully. CT Cooper · talk 22:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you realise he has made 10 reverts for the same thing in the space of 24 hours, that is way over the allowed limit for sure. I do agree however, that we need to tread carefully, as it isn't a case of "wanting to get rid" of a user here. I merely wish for him to understand policies better, and agree to abide to rules and requests by other users, whilst a dispute is well in progress. If could just be that some training maybe required for Tony to help understand the way things work on Wikipedia. Wesley Mouse (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Your miscounting the number of reverts. Per WP:3RR, "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." I don't count the first set of edits by Tony as these were creating a new version of the article, rather than straight reverting, hence I only count three reverts by Tony, two by you, and one by me and BabbaQ (talk · contribs). I'm waiting these blocks to expire of be resolved before taking further action. CT Cooper · talk 11:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm at the stage of banging my head against a wall now. No matter how simplified I explain things to Tony, or correct his assumptions, or misjudgements, he still twists words around to what he wants it to be, and not what people are actually pointing out; if I had a cyber-red hot poker, I'd be shoving it where the sun don't shine right now LOL. He has threatened once more, to start edit warring as soon as his block is lifted, which I'm sure would be on the verge of vandalism, especially as mediation is in progress. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets an indefinite block partway through the mediation process, which would then bring us to an unresolved situation. I'm going to take time-out when it comes to Tony, and ignore him for now, until the mediation is concluded. Wesley Mouse (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I have also found it very difficult to communicate with Tony, particularly with him repeatedly claiming I said things I didn't, and his latest accusation of us being "related" hasn't exactly impressed me. I have been convinced that we do have a serious user conduct issue now, but I'm awaiting the block expiry to see what happens. CT Cooper · talk 21:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)