Archives (Index)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter Issue 49[edit]

→ Issue 49 ←
Headlines
At the time of publication the project statistics were as follows
Number of articles Unassessed articles Good articles A-class articles Featured articles Number of members
7263 1091 0 0 171 117 0 0 4 1 105 4

• HOME • TALK • NEWSDESK • UNSUBSCRIBE • ARCHIVES •
• Published by the Eurovision WikiProject •

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dino Jelusick[edit]

Hi @Jochem van Hees, in your last edit on Dino Jelusick, you suggested that instead of reverting, I should find a reference that supports content you added to the article. While I could certainly do that, I would like to point out that it's never the responsibility of other editors to do your work for you. If you wish to add content to an article, the onus is also on you to provide supporting references; you shouldn't insist that another editor do so instead of reverting. Every editor is no doubt busy with their own work on WP, and looking up references for every random, unexplained edit is not a requirement. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Revirvlkodlaku: you're right, per WP:BURDEN. But reverting carries responsibility too (see Wikipedia:Reverting). Any edit carries responsibility.
I'd like to point out that it wasn't actually me who made the infobox change initially (otherwise I would have done it more properly), but some unregistered user. I saw the edit, took one minute of my time to verify it, and moved on. I don't remember why I didn't add the source to the article.
I missed your revert at first, but when I later saw it, it didn't make sense to me because it only made the article worse. The only explanation you gave was that the reverted edits "do not improve the article", which is just as helpful as giving no explanation. Per WP:REVEXP, it's good to explain why you reverted in the edit summary, to avoid situations like this where you have to get back to your revert later and spend more time on it anyway.
And of course you're not obliged to look for a source, but you're also not obliged to revert. I think that if you don't know if someone else's edit is good or not, it might simply be better to assume good faith. Otherwise you might inadvertently make the article worse again and also potentially scare off well-meaning new editors.
Lastly, and I know this is just a minor thing, but I'd also like to know why you reverted the other edit, which you never explained? I did that for MOS:LINKCLARITY (which I also mentioned in the edit summary); the link that is currently in the article does not make it clear what it's actually linking to. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jochem van Hees:, thanks for the thoughtful response. I'll reply to you in point form, so we can more easily keep track of the topic:
"reverting carries responsibility too" – I'm sure it does, but what responsibility are you pointing to here?
"it wasn't actually me who made the infobox change" – noted; thanks for pointing it out.
"does not improve the article" – agreed, that is a sloppy summary, and I should have done better.
"you're not obliged to look for a source, but you're also not obliged to revert" – these are not equivalent, so I think you are making a false comparison. I am compelled to revert if I feel that an erroneous edit has been made—that is the duty I assume when I place an article on my watchlist. This has no bearing on whose responsibility it is to provide a reference for new content, however.
"good faith" – again, this doesn't seem relevant: I didn't assume bad faith either—I simply concluded that the edits weren't helpful, which isn't the same thing.
"potentially scare off well-meaning new editors" – this is true, on the other hand, and I need to keep that in mind.
what is the "other edit" you are referring to in your last point? Can you please provide a diff? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Revirvlkodlaku: thanks for your response. With the responsibility I mean the standard responsibility that comes with any edit, as well as the stuff explained in Wikipedia:Reverting. I just realised however that it's an essay, not a policy or guideline, but it is something I tend to follow.
But yeah if you actually think that someone else's edit is wrong then it makes sense to revert it. I initially thought that the problem was just that the info wasn't mentioned in the article body, not that there was anything wrong with the change itself.
With the "other edit" I'm referring to this edit, where I put the word "first" within the wikilink to make it more obvious what it links to. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jochem van Hees:, thanks for linking Wikipedia:Reverting, I'll give it a read.
"the problem was just that the info wasn't mentioned in the article body"—that's correct, and I deemed that a sufficient reason to revert, for reasons explained earlier—WP:Burden.
As for the other edit—I didn't think the change improved the wording of the sentence, that's why I reverted it to the way it was before.
Cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Revirvlkodlaku: I still don't know why you again think that the change is "unhelpful". I did not change the wording of the sentence at all. I only made the link comply with MOS:LINKCLARITY. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I see that now. I'll fix it. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2023[edit]

Hello. Can you please fix reference 26 (tables in Voting)? Markverona (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. I keep forgetting that. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter Issue 50[edit]

→ Issue 50 ←
Headlines
At the time of publication the project statistics were as follows
Number of articles Unassessed articles Good articles A-class articles Featured articles Number of members
7263 1091 0 0 178 7117 0 0 4 0 108 109

• HOME • TALK • NEWSDESK • UNSUBSCRIBE • ARCHIVES •
• Published by the Eurovision WikiProject •

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Cyprus in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Cyprus in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 18:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More