Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2011/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 11:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey Wesley, I'll be glad to take this one. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Khazar2. I look forward with eagerness to seeing what tidying up (if any) may be required. Wesley Mᴥuse 13:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I've been pushed back a day or two by internet outage at my house--more soon. In the meantime, congrats on getting 2013 up to GA! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• "was won by Ell/Nikki performing "Running Scared" for Azerbaijan." -- Their wiki article stylizes this as "Ell & Nikki", and the slash would usually mean "or" rather than "and". Should this be rewritten?
• "No country has withdrawn." -- should this be "withdrew"? I'm not clear why this tense is being used.

• I'd suggest adding just a sentence of context at the start of "location" stating that, "Because Singer X won in 2010, Germany was the host nation for the 2011 Eurovision Contest."
• http://www.eurovision.de/hintergruende/interviewmarmor101.html is a dead link, and doesn't appear to have sufficient information (title, etc.) to retrieve it. Can this link be replaced?
• " had ordered the terms of tender" -- this may just be me as an American (i.e., non-Eurovision-watcher), but I'm not sure what this means
• "which is part of the WAZ Media Group," -- it seems like this is unneeded detail, since the focus here isn't the newspaper itself--I've cut it for now, but feel free to revert me if you disagree.
• Some language here makes me suspect this hasn't been updated since the event; phrases like "This is expected to cost" or "Fortuna Düsseldorf's training venue next to the Esprit Arena will be equipped" seem clearly out of date. I'll update these as I go for now, but if these problems are pervasive, I may put this on hold for a bit for you to do the clean-up.
• "The newspaper Der Westen announced that construction and dismantling work within the Esprit Arena will allow the stadium to be rented for a period of six weeks.[20] The stadium can accommodate 24,000 spectators for the Eurovision Song Contest.[21] Düsseldorf will offer 23,000 hotel beds and 2,000 additional beds in the Düsseldorf surroundings and on ships on the River Rhine. Düsseldorf Airport is nearby and an athletics arena near the Esprit Arena is reportedly planned to be used as press centre for 1,500 journalists." -- another section that needs updating; now that the event is passed, it should simply be said what happened rather than what was projected to happen. Unfortunately, this part I can't just put in past tense, because it's not clear if some of these things actually transpired this way. If these details can't be found in the contemporary or retrospective coverage of the event, they're probably trivial enough that they should be cut.

I think I'm going to put this on hold for now so this can be properly updated. This still seems like a strong contender for GA status--it seems comprehensive and well-sourced--but needs some updating to reflect that the event is already "on the books", as it were. Let me know when you've had a chance to take a pass at it, and I'll return and continue. Thanks again for all your work on it, -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh my, so much there. I shall look at each area individually. Although in regards to Ell/Nikki, this is a weird one. The majority of sources stylise their act as "Ell & Nikki" or "Ell and Nikki", yet during Eurovision and on the EBU websites that stylise as "Ell/Nikki". Would we be better off using "and" or "&" and noting the EBU's strange way of stylising? Wesley Mᴥuse 21:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Okey dokey, I think I've managed to address the above concerns as best to my ability. Managed to repair the dead link using webarchive (hope this helps). I've gone a bit further too, by altering grammar of subsequent areas, removing trivial/irrelevant sections along the way. Wesley Mᴥuse 00:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks for your fast responses. If Ell/Nikki were billed that way at Eurovision, either format is probably fine for this article as long as we keep it consistent (which it so far looks like you have). I'll take a look at the rest now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• " a story happened there, whose main characters were people coming from that country" -- I'm not sure I quite understand this part of the sentence--what do you mean that "a story happened"?
• The section "National host broadcaster" appears to lack any sources, including the speculative material "the financial scope of the three broadcasters seemed to have become a decisive factor in the application procedure for the 2011 Eurovision Song Contest."
• "outlined details of Düsseldorf's event concept" -- "outlined details" is a bit contradictory; would it be better to say here that he outlined the concept or went into detail about it?
• "that created rather an indoor event arena atmosphere than a football-stadium ambiance" -- this description of the ambiance is interpretative enough that it would be better to say in-text whose opinion this is.
• Just as a stylistic point, it seems a bit overly wordy to give the date that every fact about the contest was announced; for example, instead of saying "On 31 December 2010, the EBU confirmed that 43 countries would compete in the 2011 Contest", it seems more direct to simply say that 43 countries participated in the contest. This isn't a necessary point for GA, though.
• " the 25 December no strings attached deadline" -- this should be rewritten per WP:IDIOM unless it's literally called the "no strings attached deadline"; source is a dead link so I couldn't check.
• "However, Slovakia's application remained on the provisional list, leading to Slovakia's continued participation in the 2011 Eurovision Song Contest.[23] STV later announced in January 2011 that Slovakia would in fact, withdraw from the contest due to financial reasons and organisational changes.[40] However the country was listed by the EBU as one of the semi-finalist countries in the semi-final allocation draw on 17 January, and STV later confirmed they would continue their participation to avoid receiving a fine for late withdrawal" -- the two announcments that Slovakia would withdraw and two "howevers" here make this hard to follow. Did they try to withdraw twice and change their minds both times? Or is this repetitive text about one withdrawal?
• "On 15 March 2011, the draw for the running order took place in the host city.[42] The semi-final allocation draw took place on 17 January in Düsseldorf." -- it's a little disorienting that these are given out of order--both were in 2011, correct? Also, wasn't the draw already described in the "format" section?
• I'm surprised that there's no text about the contest itself--were there no notable moments or incidents during the broadcast? Were there no controversies of any kind? Wasn't there any commentary written about whether this was a good or bad Eurovision compared to previous years, any response to the rankings of the judges, evaluation of the design, etc.? Who were the favourites going in, and how did contestants perform relative to expectations? I was reading along expecting the contest section to be the biggest part of the article, but there's almost no prose on it at all; it's particularly surprising that there's not at least a few sentences on the winning performance, reactions afterward, etc. The winning act is not even mentioned in the prose in the article's body. Things like the opening act, interval act, etc. are in the infobox but not described in the body of the article. Both the contest broadcast and the critical/popular reception seem like major aspects that have been omitted here. (Viewership statistics, where available, would also be useful). The important information "The broadcast of the final won the Rose d'Or award for Best Live Event" appears in the lead without being included in the article's body, which is a problem per WP:LEAD, but also a reflection of what's missing here.
• Dead links aren't necessarily a problem in the cases where they have titles and other identifying information, but numerous links here are both bare and dead, which is a problem for verifiability--it's impossible to tell what these even once pointed to. These should probably simply be removed or replaced, and the statements relying on them re-evaluated. Something like 20% of the article's sources are dead links, which is a worryingly high percentage.
• Some of the sources, such as "Thousandnews.wordpress.com" or the forum "21595.activeboard.com", seem very unlikely to meet Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources; I realize it's a pain, but I'd suggest a top-to-bottom review of those. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Many of the article's extensive copyediting problems have been addressed between my edits and the nominator's, but it will need another pass before renomination. A request at the Guild of Copyeditors might be helpful.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead contains significant information not in the aritcle's body, a WP:LEAD issue.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The section "National host broadcaster", which includes some interpretation/analysis, lacks citation. Other sources in the article appear to be unreliable, and dead links are a major problem.
	2c. it contains no original research.	See 2b.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The sections on contest preparation are terrifically detailed and appear comprehensive, but other important aspects appear to be omitted. The article gives the scores of the contest, but otherwise lacks any prose discussing the contest itself: design (outside of the graphics), performances, attendance, underdogs and favorites, incidents/controversies, memorable moments, etc. The winning performance and reactions to that victory are omitted from the article's prose, as are all the performances. Critical and popular response to the broadcast does not appear to be mentioned outside of a sentence in the lead (which, per the above, is misplaced). The only information I see about the broadcast is "Background music for the show included "Wonderful" by Gary Go", which is uncited.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

While excellent in many respects, the article still appears to me to need significant expansion to cover major aspects of the topic, as well as work for copyediting and inline citations to verifiable sources; though I know this one has had already an unfair wait for a reviewer, this is more extensive work than it seems practical for me to oversee in a GA review. I'm therefore closing this review at this time, but I hope it'll be reworked and renominated soon. I also won't be at all offended if you wish to renominate immediately for a second opinion. In either case, I'll post at WT:GAN on this article's behalf to make sure you don't have such a wait again. I hope you'll find at least some of the above to be useful in revising the article, however.

Thanks again for all you do--even if this one appears to me to still need more expansion, I'm grateful for the work you've already put in on it. Cheers and all best, Khazar2 (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Khazar2 for taking the time to review this GA nomination and for providing a checklist which will enable us to better improve the article for a future nomination. The fact that this has failed has actually helped me in a bit of research that I was secretly compiling for Project Eurovision. Both ESC 2012 and ESC 2013 articles gained GA based on those respective articles having similar layout styles, something which was discusses at a project RfC, with many suggestions made by myself at that time. This very 2011 article was in a previously used layout style, and the fact that I chose to nominate it for GA in its raw format, proves that the layout styles (as suggested by myself) on both 2012 and 2013 appear to be working for the fact they achieved their GA's, whereas this one in an older format did not. This now allows us to use the layout style from 2012/2013 as a guidance tool, in order to improve the other annual articles and hopefully achieve GA on those in the future, too. Wesley Mᴥuse 01:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad it'll helpful. That's interesting about the change between 2011 and 12/13; I looked at those articles myself out of curiosity and didn't have the same objections. Good luck with hammering all this out! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Khazar2, as the above bares the exact same article-problem I wrote on your talk page, this article had many problems and differences that you now understand yourself, while the help of a lot of users including those improvements on the 2013 article which I mentioned you in those very fields you commented on here, pass. And some of those too were still not developed enough as there was less activity from various editors. There may still be some ongoing things that may even further prove things which is why I adressed you, as previous holding backs before the increased activity. But regardless, thank you again for your review which helped me see the further importance of the show and design details, that I'm also personally most interested at, as it was realy fun for me adding in this field for other articles as well as the 2013 one. Hopefully the work on design and artistic details on other articles will continue, as I will also try to keep elaborating among other users, and that a future ready nomination of this article will make this pass as well. אומנות (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

As the GA nominator, I would like to further elaborate to user אומנות what it was that I were trying to explain above (which upon re-reading it myself, my wording does look rather complexed). The RfC for annual pages which resulted in a test layout on ESC 2012, provided this project with its very first GA-classification on any Eurovision by Year article, in the Project's 10 year history. We then continued to use that 2012 style/layout for the ABU Radio Song Festival 2012, ABU TV Song Festival 2012, and ESC 2013 articles. All of those achieved GA-status too, which shown that a method that had been suggested and carried out on the ESC 2012 article was achieving much better success in quality-scale of article writing. I then decided to nominate this ESC 2011 article, keeping it in its raw format (which is extremely different to that which is has been used on the GA articles). ESC 2011 failed its GA review, because of the poor state it was written in. These findings now provide sufficient evidence to show that the method (most of which was suggested by myself at the RfC) has achieved four GA-quality articles, whereas a method that some editors prefer to use has failed to even achieve a single GA-quality rating. I think you know where this is heading... it is clear that one method (that which has scored 4 GA's) is working far better than another method (which has scored no GA's). So which method would one say is best to stick with? I think quality speaks volumes. Wesley Mᴥuse 04:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The above doesn't make sense in the presentation that clearly comes from angst to hog everything while trying to eliminate others, based on my mere comment to express mine and others work as well (including yourself...) and my understanding for the reviewer suggestions in regards to my own interest-fields - artistic show and aftermath reception. So I will try to make logic for you, which may clear (and probably not) your comprehension or deliberate twists, choose the best of the 2 options.

The only extreme thing I suggested once which I simply didn’t pursue (after an objection of another user and which is subject to consensus), was to add more about songs and show style and present songs-information and the Final-table before “around” the show stuff – which also stemmed precisely from all the historical-statistic info that you used to put under “Location” which you renamed from "Organisation", and which therefore caused you to copy the entire history of the contest-host city instead of dealing with the core – the live show. Case in point: There are many great and "Featured articles" that first present a show or event artistic details and performers, and only later the organisation/productions details - so they already prove method. In any case, moving a section was never pursued and therefore never implemented on ESC articles so couldn't even be tested under "GA" examine – so that’s already one aspect of your logic-fail. And even if would have been tried and failed and even if me or others wouldn't get something right once, that doesn’t take from the fact that since then many others including myself made suggestions which were agreed and improved – including the 2013 article. However, you keep showing severe lack of comprehensive editing in regards to some very basic clear policies and civility codes.

No one ever said you didn't also have layout styles suggestions that improved the articles and that you don't work a lot on aspects within them, which highlight your way-off comment above, but that this is also based on a team work with further deep discussions also during 2013. And as another administrator once told you, there are things that are overlooked in "GA" as he would pass that article despite the previous "Location" section and not because of it, for example - which then lead to your convincing and my work of replacing the location informtaion at the 2013 article, which you said yourself you were impressed by. Users as Pickette, myself and Mr.Gerbear explained you about location-relevance, aftermath-reception (and not as if we are living on the event’s year) which was also a point on Khazar2 review and which I suggested on an RFC for elaborating on public and media reception. With all that, I cleaned the 2013 article "Location" section from the non-relavant details and statistics and put new paragraph in relevence of location to the artistic production, and another stage mobility paragraph. I convinced you to remove non relevant material (again) of OGAE-other-contests that you put at the former-giant “OGAE”-vote paragraph. I also helped shape the lead with the artistic feature. User:Pickette held discussions with you until you comprehended things to keep the article’s reliability, and (s)he as well as others, watched closely for correct presentation of singer’s names and correct sources to confirm countries at an upcoming Eurovision. This includes the 2 cases when you complicated and attacked about Elitsa/Stoyan-names (2013) and Lithuania’s first source for participation (2014), that were later proven as what Pickette and me claimed. So again, your approach failed – not importantly because of its view, but because of its combative behavior during these and a lot of other discussions. And another: 2014 article, where you went against manual of style by putting (and eventually moving yourself with still combative attitude), too trivial-sided things at the lead. So now, you see were it leads...

Quality is based on team work with various users making changes and improving, which you don't correctly comprehend, and therefore alongside your work and improvement of articles, you also result in more hold backs and discussions that get stuck for improving. Your very comment above actually battles with others credit and acknowledgement right to those who you claim to be your colleagues, which ironically repeats the same ignoring from others opinions to improve at the last RFC you "helped" with. You nominated this article which was not only still different with layout of style but also lacks fundamental sources and still written in future-tense – and you further copied my words from Khazar2 talk page to justify the nomination and ironically trying to show that you are the sole responsible for 2012 and 2013 articles... Thats after earlier you said you were "unwise" to nominate 2 articles together, and now you say that you knowingly nominated this article as differently written to verify for yourself that the 2012 and 2013 are good, which also shows no thinking for the reviewer's time.... all this only speaks volumes of how much you focus on the “GA” as a kind of self-promotion and being in competition, rather than improve articles patiently and thoroughly. And says volumes on your perception of "quality". Anyway, this is realy your problem and I only clarify as you should know by now, that I will fully and gladly express mine and others work on the ESC articles and enjoy this, and nobody will be eliminated by you from doing so. Try and learn to overcome yourself and share others good will and work. אומנות (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Can't be arsed reading all that, way to much blabbering going on there, not to mention uncalled for personalisation of remarks. Although I kind of expected it, especially from yourself. Please word it in a more comprehensible English and not long-winded blabbering, and then I may be able to understand exactly what it is you are going on about. Wesley Mᴥuse 00:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• I shall simplify once more. Prior to the RfC back in 2012, a specific layout style was used - the same style that this very 2011 article is in, and is also used on other articles prior to it. Not one of those articles achieved GA status.

• During the RfC, in which many members participated, the majority of ideas/suggestions where made by myself (which is what I meant above). When the RfC was closed, the newly agreed layout style was then tested on ESC 2012, with that article then being nominated for a GA review. Subsequently that article, which used the newly agreed layout style from the RfC, gained this project its first ever GA on a Eurovision Song Contest by Year article.

• Now as that was the first time, we didn't really have much evidence to prove if the GA was because of the layout style or just pure lucky. The same style was then used on 3 other articles; ABU Radio Song Festival 2012, ABU TV Song Festival 2012, and Eurovision Song Contest 2013. All of those also gained GA status. This then provided us with 4 examples to be able to compile an experiment.

• At the time that I nominated ESC 2013, I also decided to nominate ESC 2011 keeping it in its raw format (a layout style pre-RfC discussion). ESC 2011 failed to achieve GA. This then provided us with a comparison. A style agreed at RfC had gained this project 4 consecutive GA's. An old layout style, has never even provided this project with GA's.

• I have never taken credit away from the rest of the project team, so please tell me where you have the inclination that I have? You may not be aware, but when an article gains GA, I publish it on the next edition of the Project Newsletter, and attach a TeamWork barnstar to the newsletter so that everyone gets to share in the glory. I did this in 2012, and I shall be doing this again for 2013 (when the newsletter is published in December). So your comment of "Quality is based on team work with various users making changes and improving, which you don't correctly comprehend, and therefore alongside your work and improvement of articles, you also result in more hold backs and discussions that get stuck for improving. Your very comment above actually battles with others credit and acknowledgement right to those who you claim to be your colleagues, which ironically repeats the same ignoring from others opinions to improve at the last RFC you "helped" with." is slanderous, and I would appreciate if you retracted it. Wesley Mᴥuse 00:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Other comments which you made that I find very slanderous, and I can easily prove that they are of such nature are as follows:

1. "You nominated this article which was not only still different with layout of style but also lacks fundamental sources and still written in future-tense..." - I love how you seem to know what it is that I am thinking, and conclude false accusations, without actually checking what I may have meant. Never jump to conclusions. I already explained why I nominated this article, as an experiment so that the project on a whole had comparisons between GA and non-GA.
2. ...and you further copied my words from Khazar2 talk page to justify the nomination and ironically trying to show that you are the sole responsible for 2012 and 2013 articles... - I never even knew that you posted a comment on Khazar2's talk page until you mentioned in your comment above. Again, evidence that you jump to conclusions and falsely accuse someone without knowing the full facts. As I had nominated this article, and hadn't seen Khazar's closing summary on this GA, then it was only courteous that I leave a thanking comment to the reviewer, and this is something which I have always done after the closure of a GA for which I had nominate.
3. Thats after earlier you said you were "unwise" to nominate 2 articles together, and now you say that you knowingly nominated this article as differently written to verify for yourself that the 2012 and 2013 are good, which also shows no thinking for the reviewer's time... - Do you even know in what context I used the phrase "unwise"? When I nominated both at the time, I would have easily been able to manage both. But considering that at this present time I am now trying to organise my own wedding to my partner, as well as work on a list of things to do (which can be found on my user page) and also check every single article and make sure they have been assigned with a {{EurovisionNotice}} project banner, a task that has taken me 5-months so far, and I'm only 10% of the way through it, have only found 1,000 articles that have never been given the {{EurovisionNotice}} banner, and going off the ratio it has taken me thus far, will probably take me another FORTY-FIVE months to complete, single-handedly. Now can you understand why it felt "unwise" at this present time? You try doing all those tasks and keep an eye on 2 GA's, and tell me it isn't stressful.
4. ...all this only speaks volumes of how much you focus on the “GA” as a kind of self-promotion and being in competition, rather than improve articles patiently and thoroughly. And says volumes on your perception of "quality". - where is your proof to validate your slanderous remark there? You cannot even back-up such a claim, as I have already proven that I am not on a self-promotion for GA's. I share the accolade with the rest of the project via the newsletters. It is then up to the members whether they wish to parade their "teamwork" barnstar and add a GA-icon to show that they contributed towards a GA. I do not have the right to add those icons to their userspaces. And not only that, I never even claimed the teamwork barnstar (issued in August 2012 to the entire project) for this "self-promotion" which you accuse me of. My achievement records even validate that. OK, a different editor awarded me a GA "thank you" barnstar, but that doesn't even stipulate self-ownership for the fact the editor used the phrase "helping to promote". Now if they had said "here have this seeing as you did all the hard work" then I could see were you would make such a claim, but they did not, nor has anyone ever given me such "self-promotional" praise.
5. Anyway, this is really your problem and I only clarify as you should know by now, that I will fully and gladly express mine and others work on the ESC articles and enjoy this, and nobody will be eliminated by you from doing so. Try and learn to overcome yourself and share others good will and work. - That is a blatant attack, and needs to be revoked.

I await your apology. Wesley Mᴥuse 01:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that from your initial reaction above, of not understanding my comment, you managed to improve your following through and understand with your additional explanations. Unfortunatly the above still miss the point, as it doesn't relate nor change the evidance from your previous comments above. A comment which followed my comment on the reviewer's talk page blatantly shortly afterwards with the same blatant observation-use, and with the twist of highlighting your suggestions alone as responsilbe to get "GA" + another following comment decorated with your statement that my "methods" failed while you got a "GA". And now again you repeat that you experimented to see a non-"GA"(2011) compared to a "GA"(2013), which can't make sence and even if was true - is in itself a distrubtive statement for a review process. Furthermore, this follows previous slanders on other pages (which I won't specify as there are many and you know yourself) where again you use "GA" to claim your success and that others didn't (weather prior to 2012 weather after, whatever). And of course there are the RFC's. I don't have any problem with someone giving you a "GA" and barnstars, the opposite: I encourage such acts and as I said above you deserve it too for your work, but this is about you, not others. And speaking of the project newsletters, you wrote to creators of new articles to put talk pages banners and "don't be lazy and expect others to finish of for you", when no one is obliged to do so, and instead of you asking in a civil way + decorated with a delibarate specific example ("Estonia in ESC 2014") for a user that create a bunch of these articles. So the fact you attach a TeamWork-barnstar on the project newsletters highlights this two-sided approach. Also mentioning few more cases among others: On "categories for deletion" page that you refered from the project-page, you lashed at another user that you "don't like his bitchy tone"; Few days ago chancing upon the 2014 ESC-talk page where you said that another user did the "higest level of stupidity to put it blatantly" when he wrongly added Greece as confirmed. And the general times when you realized your attacks but still morf them to other hinted nasty remarks, and this keeps on without a lesson learned. After all this "you await an apology". Await, as others awaited yours. This above cases are sufficient and I don't need to add. Take care. אומנות (talk) 09:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you both are off-topic now this is a page to discuss the GA nomination and review it. You two have obvious issues with each other and you can take that discussion on one of your talk pages. This is not a forum for your personal discussions about each others editing skills. But I have to say that if user אומנות has issues with Wesley this page was certainly not the right place to try to discredit the user. It is quite obvious that user אומנות holds some kind of grudge with Wesley and took this opportunity to voice his opinion, take it at the talk page of Wesleys instead in the future.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC) --BabbaQ (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It needs to be said that BabbaQ initial diplomatic advice quickly fades when its followed by adding his own one sided commentary. Also needs to be added that following this I had a feeling to take a look at his talk page were indeed the initial reason for the comment here can be shown. And with a further feel to look at that talk page past-edits, also a finding of a deleted comment for claiming this "GA" while lowering others work, which reinforce the above. Its also obvious that above I gave credit to the various users and the other user, and that I addressed the reviewer with my own interests while the other user addressed discrediting me. And its obvious I had no further intention to keep discussing with him. Regardless, thanks, and in turn I advise you to maintain neutrality which will enable your advises to be more helpful in the future. אומנות (talk) 11:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)