User talk:CT Cooper/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Belated Happy New Year with a Toast!

float	Here's a toast to the host Of those who edit wiki near and far, To a friend we send a message, "keep the data up to par". We drink to those who wrote a lot of prose, And then they whacked a vandal several dozen blows. A toast to the host of those who boast, the Wikipedians! - From {{subst:TheGeneralUser}}

~TheGeneralUser (talk) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at ~~~~~

~TheGeneralUser (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

A Very Happy (belated) New Year to you CT Cooper! Enjoy the Whisky ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind thoughts. CT Cooper · talk 12:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ana Kasparian

Hi CT Cooper, firstly thanks for your effort on Ana Kasparian. I wanted to let you know that I've request indef semi protection at WP:RFPP. However, and this isn't a criticism just an observation, I think you might be a bit too involved to continue to protect the page. Personally I don't think that you are involved in content enough to be an involved admin but since you have a reasonably long association with the page it might be worth leaving it for another admin to have a look at. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

My involvement has generally been as an administrator, as I don't normally edit articles in that area, which has had to be stretched a bit because of the persistent WP:BLP problems on that page - the emergency situation I faced a short while ago was arguably grounds for putting WP:INVOLVED aside, and I actually went for the soft-option, the other being blocking, as it was clear the user wasn't going to stop unless forced to do so. In any case, any criticism of my page protection in relation to WP:INVOLVED would logically have to be the point of view of protecting it too much, not too little, and while I wanted to give pending changes a go, I'm happy to accept that the problems have to got to the point of making semi-protection justified. CT Cooper · talk 12:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Education system

Question: What is the education system of a school follows?

• Is there a list of education topics to indicate a education system
• Are there any specific types of education based on curriculum, school type, and style of learning.

JODixonwiki (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't really understand your questions. What do you mean by "education system" and "types of education". CT Cooper · talk 21:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Zoo

Could there be any relation between a certain jackal and a crow? Best. --E4024 (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The checkuser I talked to (User talk:Elockid#Beloki) didn't think there was a connection between Beloki (talk · contribs) et al and TheShadowCrow (talk · contribs) when I asked, and I myself now don't believe it entirely fits based on the behavioural evidence. Certainly asking TheShadowCrow is pointless, because he will not give honest answers. CT Cooper · talk 21:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a very complicated area. Indeed I did not say that (the above). I was referring to a user whose name begins with Jackal (and quacks like a Crow); but these people almost always keep a "redlink" username so when you forget where you last saw them it gets difficult to find them by the searchbox. The user name was something like JackalLantern (I am 95% sure I remember correctly). How can I find a redlink user name by their contributions or talk? (I generally leave a/any note on TPs of suspicious users to find them later through "my contributions"; alas this time I forgot to do that. --E4024 (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The other case above is around Findblogging.--E4024 (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Although they both share the same political views, I'm not convinced Findblogging meets TheShadowCrow's persona. I have found the account you were referring to which is indeed called JackalLantern (talk · contribs) - despite the bird relationship, I don't think there is a connection. If you compare both account's editing patterns, they are distinctly different, and the only plausible cause of a connection would have to involve him being very disciplined in his editing style to maintain distinctiveness on both accounts all the way back to 2011. CT Cooper · talk 22:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, sometimes I get an impression in the blink of an eye and I am carried away by that impression. However, working in WP has made me quite sceptical. At times I notice a user with a perfect English and another with a broken English and watching them edit here -sometimes on the same articles and sometimes even in totally different articles, as if they were dividing their duty areas- but always with the same "negative" approach or attitude, and I feel like the one with the perfect English is using a sock, pretending his/her English is not very good simply to distance the two... Funny, no? :-) --E4024 (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It is easy to get over-zealous when it comes to seeing sock-puppetry - I myself have done so on occasion. I will keep an eye on all the accounts mentioned for the moment. CT Cooper · talk 16:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. - Handsome128 · message 15:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting you to thank me, but you're welcome in any case. CT Cooper · talk 16:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Help

Hello I was wondering if you could delete a few redirect pages which have nothing linking to them. (Other than the odd talk page)

1. Wessex (Bus operator)
2. Wessex (Bus company)
3. Red Diamond (bus brand)
4. List of Diamond Bus routes

Thank you. Mark999 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can only unilaterally delete re-directs that meet Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Redirects. Otherwise, they have to go to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion (RFD), which appears to be the case with all these examples. Really, re-directs should normally be left unless they are causing an obvious problem, and re-directs from old brand names are helpful. List of Diamond Bus routes has to stay as it has a significant edit history behind it - if any of the content was used in the re-directed article, the history is needed for attribution purposes - see WP:CWW. CT Cooper · talk 22:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The University of Law - crest logo

Hi there

As you're aware, The College of Law has recently been granted university title, and as such has become a private limited company. The crest logo that appears on the University of Law Wikipedia page is now the property of the Legal Education Foundation (the College's previous charitable arm)which means it is no longer appropriate for the University to have this as the overarching logo in it's current position on the page.

The University page can still include reference to the crest as long as it is a clear that it is an historical association. Would you suggest moving this to another section of the page, or removing it altogether? I'd appreciate your advice on this.

Many thanks Bryony Bennett — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryonybennett (talk • contribs) 11:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the logos in the infobox should be updated as appropriate. I agree that File:College of Law Crest.jpg, since its an historical logo, should remain somewhere on the page. CT Cooper · talk 17:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

GA review of ABU Radio Song Festival 2012

Hi Cooper,

Hope all is well. Was just wondering if you'd be able to do me a favour and keep an eye on the GA review for the above named article. I'm trying my best to keep on top of it, but real life workload is getting hectic again, and I'm getting myself in a kerfuffle trying to find the time to respond to any issued raised in Pyrotec's review. Many thanks! Wesley♦^Mouse 13:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite busy as well unfortunately, but I will put on my watchlist and step in if I have a spare moment. CT Cooper · talk 17:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi

You might already know this, but Russian singer Alex Sparrow (ESC2011) is in intensive care in LA after a serious car crash today. I have done some updates on his article but if you find some more info please add it. Thank.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't know - I'm glad you're on the ball. I think the current level of information is sufficiently until the full facts fall into place. In the meantime, thank you for letting me know. CT Cooper · talk 23:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on the AFT5 Request for Comment

Hey CT Cooper - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. CT Cooper · talk 21:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Education

Hello I was wondering if you could review this page for me Bedminster Down School and say what quality on the quality scale you think it is. Stub/Start/C ect thank you Mark999 (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I will give it a full assessment some time today. CT Cooper · talk 13:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the assessment I have been using Bedminster Down School more as a test article and ultimately a template to try and improve the quality of all UK school articles. Rather than having a load of one line articles which don't provide much or any useful information or any purpose. Mark999 (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a noble goal. The more good quality school article there are, the less unproductive drama over school article notability will occur. CT Cooper · talk 03:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

2013 ESC

Hey, I do disagree with you there precisely as I see the reader's priority from my point of view & wanted to let you know I detailed on the talk page as well as introducing a bits about myself. Of-course I thought the lack of paragraphs seperation is more of a trend, if I would have thought it will be disagreed I would talk about it first, just to make clear.

I'm also not a native English speaker so I don't know how common the expression "take it to the talk page" in discussions. But it sounds a bit agressive, it would be more nice to read "please discuss it on the talk page". It's just sounds a bit like "let's take it outside" when people wanna battle. You know what I mean? Anyway, if it's common & I didn't understand right, than sorry. :-)

Also, thanks for not pushing the automatic "restore button", for noticing the other arrangement & just unified the paragraphs, as the subject you disagree about. Greets, אומנות (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I have responded at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2013 - first thank you for actually taking it to the talk page, as a lot of editors won't. In the meantime, I'm afraid I have now entirely reverted the changes as there are a good number of problems with them which need to be resolved, and changes to the lead of that nature need a good consensus and should be rolled out consistently across all articles of this nature. Please don't take this revert the wrong way - it is normal practice as set out in the Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss cycle.

In answer to your question, the short answer is that you misunderstood what I was saying.

The long answer is that the expression "take it to the talk page" is rather common on the English Wikipedia. It has the same meaning as "Please can we discuss this subject on the talk page?", the only differences being that it is informal rather than formal, with informal being the norm in discussions on the English Wikipedia, and it takes up less space (which is important in edit summaries). "Let's take it outside" is also common informal expression, but its meaning is entirely dependent on what "it" refers to and so isn't necessarily aggressive - it could be the informal equivalent of "Can you please help me move this object outside?" or "Could we please continue this discussion outside?" for incidence.

There is no need for apology though; I understand you are not a native speaker. As someone trying to learn a second language myself, I understand that informal language can be easily misunderstood, as the subtleties of a language take a very long time to grasp completely - that said, I think your English is very good on the whole, being at least level three on the babel scale. CT Cooper · talk

Hi, thanks for your detailed reply as well & for explaining the phrases & way of adressing people. Yes, my English is high level, I studied & listened to it a lot since little age & lived in USA for few months without any problems to communicate. Still, I wanted to adress this issue as non-native speaker so you know I'm not blaming you for anything, but just wondering about the way of adressing people over Wikipedia. I just wanted to make sure you weren't respnding angrily or something, & thanks to you I did learn more about communication & concensus on English Wikipedia. Speaking of concensus, I understand it as a factor in reverting also my arrangements & I'm not taking it the wrong way. :) I will reply now also on the ESC talk page for some issues you mentioned there. אומנות (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, It's Important for me to explain here that I read your claims carefully, also Wesley's. With that I also had some more thoughts I had to share & propose, as well as mentioning other things in recent ESC articles that have consencus flaws for my taste (apart from older ESC articles we discussed before). Istill felt some misunderstanding of my things from your side as well.

I also added some explanations regarding the ESC definition . Maybe I will open a sandbox with all my edits of the subject so you & others can take things from it in case you see something that feats, as it will give me a chance to show my way of layout that I still can't fully express via the discussion page.

Most important, I wanted to say I still felt need to share & express from my side. I set for some hours trying to reduce & shape my comment on the discussion page to reduce it's size as I could. So I wanted to clarify these so it won't look like I'm forsing my opinions & try to "explode" the discussion page-kilobites on purpose. Thanks again for your attention. אומנות (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I see. I have responded. CT Cooper · talk 23:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I replied. My bottom line here & there - thanks for your time & explanations. Greets. אומנות (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I have left another response plus a suggestion. CT Cooper · talk 03:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Help request

Dear Cooper, I reverted a controversial move at the Turkey at the 1912 Summer Olympics but for some reason the TP of the article could not be moved to the new (I mean "old", original) name. Please can you have a look at that and solve the problem. Thank you very much. --E4024 (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. CT Cooper · talk 23:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Doubts and suspicions

Hi Cooper,

I'm having doubts and suspicions after reading and participating in a particular thread (you'll have an idea which one I am referring to). I've noted the person has been an editor for a while now, but has suddenly come into the ESC ether all of a sudden and in a pushy manner at that. The tones used remind me of another editor who also behaved in a similar fashion. Anyhow, for now I shall reserve judgement but being cautious at the same time. How's life been treating you anyhow? Not spoken to you for a while. Wesley♦^Mouse 18:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll send you an e-mail. CT Cooper · talk 19:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to check this page after finishing replying on the ESC-Project & I see this. Wesley, I just came to understanding with CT cooper & felt more accepted here & now this. I didn't suddenly come here. I edit this year a lot on Eurovision on the Hebrew Wikipedia as well as editing about places in China & I have many friends on the Hebrew Wikipedia as a respected peacefull person. This year I became more involoved, watched the articles here more as well & decided to express my proposals here. You are making me not trust you to sincerely adress my proposals on the ESC-Project when you compare me to other people that been here before. Don't reflect that on me. & I just now replied on the ESC-project were you can definately see I'm not trying to force my opinions on anyone. אומנות (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I decided I don't want to participate further in the project. I am affraid to waste my time by reading the whole previous debates & give further proposals in the future when It's in serious potential to not be read sincerely. I also don't wanna put you both or others in a position that you feel you have to watch your guard from someone that wants to harm someway. As I'm working so hard on the Hebrew Wikipedia, I can understand all your work on this project.

Anyway, I did what you asked so far. I put my proposals on the ESC 2013 Talk page, than I broke them down to subjects & than moved them to project page & contributed so far what I thought of. So you can either close the debate if you want or use what is written so far & see what others think in the future. Thanks for the time you dedicated for this as well so far & Goodbye. אומנות (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the amount of time that I and others spent trying to accommodate your requests shows they were taken seriously. We were never going to drop everything and accept your radical proposals from the get go, so I did my best to manage your expectations with the hope we could get a productive outcome. It is a reality on this project that when a person suddenly appears and starts wanting radical change, then people might ask questions. In such situations a simple explanation from you would be sufficient. It is unfortunate that you choose to assume the worst whenever anything remotely critical comes your way - there is no conspiracy that thinks your here to destroy the project. In any case, goodbye and good luck. CT Cooper · talk 23:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The amount of time & replies you spent was repeatedly clarified by my appreciation. Such condicending comment of Wesley that is rude & un-ethical, & your try to defend this, limits the worth of time you dedicate & the demand for appreciation. Let's make a conclusion:

I layed out on the talk page various things with repeatedly claryfing you it's important for me to share my thoughts & appreciating your help. & I didn't touch the article itself anymore. After that I kept doing everything according to your requests & even put forward only just few small proposals on the ESC-Project page, with dropping the bigger issues that I took from your explenations.

In the meantime, Wesley repeated few times he wants to get this debates over with to reach agreement, that shows lack of patience to realize it's dynamic while I even recognise that even if my changes were accpeted, someone else can still come in the future & change again. Than I also saw other arguments of him like on 2012 talk page with harsh-tone with another user, as for him judging my tone. Than Wesley post this comment here that I'm being pushy. Than you take this with him on private-email with lack of transparacy, rather then tell him here to assume good faith on my side & now you say it's natural to still be little suspicious at me, after all my attempts to feel part of this group!

Also, to say that a person "suddenly" appears just adds suspicious about your group's treatment to new people. I'm sure if someone familiar have written long-comments with bunch of suggestions he would have been treated differently & this shouldn't be this way. That shows radical attitude on your group's side. & BTW, I started writting also on the English Wikipedia on ESC articles already in 2010, so imagine that if I was more involved than I could have said "were of the sudden this & that user came from". If I wanna make proposals in the future, of course I will do that & can contribute in collaboration with others. For now I don't want too in this frame.

So put yourself in the light of how suspicious & nasty all this reflects on your group, how you choose to assume negative when you even already see that only small critical proposals for changes comes your way - from a user that repeatedly expressed his respect to your project. & in such situations a simple explanation would be sufficient from you, or try to adress me on my talk page to know me better in order to trust me rather this comment here. It put your group as questionable to work with others & accept others critics, & as the ones who push people away. So don't act surprised & evrything you mentioned goes the same especially the other group member.

I Now finish adressing this isuues here, but it was important for me to reply for you just this last time as you have to see how your actions reflects & take some responsibility. Goodbye & goodluck. אומנות (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

A lot of the above doesn't make sense and I'm only getting the gist of it in places I'm afraid. One thing that certainly does stick out to me though is that earlier you were praising Wesley and complaining about how nasty I was - how quickly that changed. One of my favourite English sayings is that actions speak louder than words - you can say "thank you", claim respect for this project, or give your appreciation as many times as you like, but if you're just going to go around with a chip on your shoulder and jump on anyone who does anything you find remotely objectionable, then such gestures are likely to be ignored.

As for your proposals, many of them were completely unworkable and any long-term term editor wouldn't have proposed them - I worked with them regardless. Whether you have technically been here since 2010 or not is irrelevant - you are still new to this project and your understanding of its policies and processes was limited. There is such thing as being too bold, and demanding sweeping changes with only a loose familiarity of policies and processes is one of those. You should have got a feel for things first, then made some suggestions, preferably one at a time. I speak some German but I would be very cautious about editing over there because aside from my own difficulties with the language, their policies and processes are very different from the English Wikipedia.

As for your claim that new editors are being pushed away - the short answer is that I don't think you yet know enough about this project to make a reasonable judgement. The long answer is that all Wikimedia projects are having issues with editor retention, but actually this project has managed to retain many great editors - Wesley being one somewhat recent example, despite as I think he'll agree with me, some ups and downs in the past. The nature of Eurovision means that this project does have an added dynamic - that of language. We've had a decent number of users who would rather contribute to the English Wikipedia instead of or in addition to that of their own language. While this widens our pool of editors, unfortunately people have a tendency to over estimate the quality of their English, or believe that an encyclopedia can be written with the use of online translators! This has meant myself and others have to be upfront when something isn't working. You have demonstrated yourself why that presents a difficulty to us, as many users simply don't want to listen to it. It was obvious at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2013 that you were having trouble getting your thoughts across, and it was also obvious that you were struggling to follow what I and others were saying when we entered into technical details. I was upfront about that - it was unfortunate that you choose to blame me for not being clear when other editors were having no such difficulties and to assume the worst when anyone said something you didn't understand. Earlier on, you were correct not to assume that "take it to the talk page" was some kind of aggressive suggestion, because it absolutely wasn't - it just a shame you didn't maintain that level of caution in future conversations.

As for responsibility, I have taken all responsibility that needs to be taken. If I didn't want to take responsibility, then I wouldn't have given a serious response to your attacks against me and this project. CT Cooper · talk 12:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You clearly ignore the severe opening comment above & don't ask Wesley to regret, I was hoping to see smie regret but apparently you make your attacks on me. All the things you adressing me, are a mirror for your's & Wesley's side of the story. It's true I'm sensitive, but I have a very good reason in this case. For one last time, maybe now my English will be understandable enough for you.

To say I'm too bold only gives antagonism towards you, as if I can't express my opinions even on the talk page - outside the article itself. I didn't demand anything. I just wrote my suggestion. So your entire claim & justification of suspecting me after all my progressing actions is a total farce. I just struggled at first with the guildelines. I already edited & dropped bigger-proposals following your explenations of Wikipedia's guidlines & even on the ESC project I went along with your explenetaion & opinions as I wrote there "okey, I understand". & you saw I'm cautious. So when this personal comment above comes after all that, it has no justification & this is not natural, it's paranoid & condicending as a bad representation of the group. Therfore an answer for your "surprise" tha now I'm upset with Wesley. Yes, that's what happens when you say that someone gives you a warm-friendly feeling & than you see what he wrote on you in another place. Furthermore, when you start having a conversation about suspecting me - where I can see it, & than continue on email - were I can't see, is an undeserved critisize that shows how difficult you are being & not trustworthy, as well having your private communications as close-door to the 3rd party.

Why should someone trust you when he knows you don't fully trust him & than talk about this on private email? How would you feel if you were in this position?! & the fact you continue on email is because you know yourself that it was wrong of Wesley to start this here. So this point that "maybe, just maybe", you did something wrong on your side, should be clear for you by now, as I think my English is understandable enough for you.

And as you said, you had your ups & downs too in the group, so I'm not the only that had difficulties. Of course I also don't know enough about this project yet & I didn't adress the entire group, in contrast to how you try to represent this. I saw some of the users from all over the world at this project, & yes the whole group looks wonderful & friendly with nice comments about themselves. It's exactly why it's too bad I don't feel comfortable as I don't feel trusted enough by you to feat in, & to know the rest. It's just a shame you both didn't maintain a level of caution towards newcomers.

Now realy that's enough for me. I won't keep explaining & bugging you. I'm living this page. If you wanna start from new in the future with letting other members of the group know I can suggest more things or that they want to invite me to express my opinions on their suggestions on my talk page, than I would love to. Bye. אומנות (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

אומנות, please could you tell me where I have named any editor in my opening statement? I never named anyone, and you've jumped the gun and assumed I was talking about you. I have worked on this project for 18 months now, and working on several articles, including a GA review on ABU Radio Song Festival 2012. Calm down and stop accusing people of naming calling without solid proof that they have explicitly named your directly. As for the ups and downs, CT Cooper wasn't referring to himself, he was referring to me - even I read and understood that part of his context. Cooper knows that I've had a difficult journey in real life, with the death of my mother, myself almost being killed by a car that ran me over in the street, as well as being busy volunteering at the London 2012 Olympic & Paralympic Games. Its those ups and downs that Cooper was referring to. The wise thing to do from this moment onwards would be to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, another words this debate has died, so no point trying to keep it alive. Wesley♦^Mouse 17:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not going to give the answer you want - I don't pretend to be perfect, but I don't think either myself or Wesley have done anything seriously wrong, and it is my view that you have made a mountain out of a molehill here, along with as Wesley states, started beating a dead house. Nothing wrong with being sensitive - it's the fact that it has been allowed to takeover which is the problem here. In any case, I will not be instructed by you or anyone else on what to say about Wesley's actions - my opinions are my own, and I will state them at my pleasure. You have made clear your position, and that is more than sufficient.

I have the liberty to talk to Wesley privately about matters if I want to - the e-mail function exists on Wikipedia for a good reason. Again, as Wesley indicates, you have chosen to assume the worst yet again and are now making conspiracy theories suggesting that I use e-mail for "wrongdoing". Whoever Wesley was referring to, you seem to have missed that he said he had "concerns" but was "reserving judgement" - and also he asked a personal question about me, which I might have preferred to discuss offwiki, but in any case had nothing to do with you. Whatever the case, I will not disclose the contents of private conservations onwiki without the permission of all participants.

Unfortunately you have again seriously misunderstood what I have said in places. Wesley has already dealt with one, but another example is that I never said you couldn't express your opinion on the talk page - I just said that suggestions from you would be more helpful if they were developed from experience and that it would have been more sensible and a better use of time to wait a bit. That's all.

As for trust, that is relative - trust is not a right, it is something that is built over time, and I have not known you long enough to build up a large level of trust yet. I assume good intentions on your part, and that hasn't diminished even now, but that is distinct from trust. CT Cooper · talk 18:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I honestly didn't mean to keep this personal discussion but I wanted to see the replies & I simply have to say how you both miss interpret me, & Wesley's question & story.

CT Cooper, you went on describing me as balld & demending regarding the talk page & in regards to suuport someone else criticizing me as suspicious - after the progress I made to feat in & even after I said I will leave to show I'm realy not pushy. It's as if Wesley's freedom of speech is being defended on one side, while feels limiting my freedom to express my opinions without being considered pushy & potentialy-suspicous, that hurts-reputation & miss-treating. In this regards, you responded on Wesley's behalf, so I responded to your handling. Of-course anybody has the right to talk on email regardless, & in addition, & I didn't imply otherwise. In this regards, I also don't ask for your trust & don't know you either, but just not using or supporting transparant comments that describe someone else as needs to be carefull from, as long as he is okey. I think that's understandable as you or anybody wouldn't like it. That's it.

Wesley, as an answer, when you write that a new user come to ESC articles & I'm the only one that came there at the last days & wrote a lot, & CT Cooper also already refered to this matter, I don't see the point of not being honest on your side. I also understood CT Cooper was talking about ups & downs related to you as I also refered to previous arguments here, so everything was about the ESC-Project frame, nothing to do with your personal life at least on my side. I just made a general comment about me, that I'm not the only one who had difficulties here. As for the realy end of this discussion on my part & in an honest-peacful tone, I'll put more suggestions I have left soon or later, & keep from time to time to help on the ESC articles with all kinds of small corrections were needed.

& I'm very sorry to learn about what happened & my condolences. I wish you only the best for the future! אומנות (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

אומנות I'm rather upset and feel deeply distressed that you are now putting words into my mouth that I haven't even said. Please could you explain when I used the context "a new user come to ESC articles"? I haven't just been participating in discussion on Eurovsion 2013 talk page, but have been engaging in discussions in other areas, to which I was referring to when I started this thread. Also you're not the only new user that has started to engage in discussions on various Eurovision-related articles, there are others to whom I have engaged in open and peaceful debate with. However, you obviously haven't realised that, and like I previously mentioned, you assumed that I was talking about yourself without any evidence or justification to back up your allegation. I have also pointed out to you that I have been working on a GA review on a different article, as well as discussions on other Eurovision-related articles. The fact that you have unjustifiably accredited this thread to being solely about you, when in actual fact it is unrelated to you whatsoever is just not on, and it would be appreciated if you retracted such allegations forthwith and continued to engage civil discussions, contributions and collaborations in regards to your suggestions via the project talk page, and cease this barbaric escapade and onslaught towards other editors. Thank you. Wesley♦^Mouse 14:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

And for the record, the private email that CT Cooper sent to me was in reply to the personal question that I ask him in regards to how he was doing lately, as I haven't spoken to him for a couple of weeks now, and not in connection to the thread itself. CT Cooper has been a very understanding and valuable friend on here, especially as he knows of the personal difficulties I have endured the last 12 months or so. We both know that user talk pages are here for us to discuss editing and Wikipedia matters, and not to be used to have chats about personal life. Especially when we are advised to avoid posting personal information about ourselves, in order to protect us from the "outside world". Wesley♦^Mouse 14:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Wesley, you mentioned a new user on ESC, on your top comment. Than CT Cooper wrote me you both didn't do anything seriously wrong & that I made too big of a story, so looked as indeed your comment was adressing me. I write in a way to try & reach understanding & express my difficulties with definately no barbaric intention. I think your comments looks a bit more harsh, to tell the truth. I also add I still think it's best to just put such comments on anybody on email to begin with, not to take the risk of upseting any user.

But as for us, now you clarify it was for another user that you didn't wanna reveal, than I believe you & I'm sorry.

I also wanna tell you I was interested myself at the "Asia"-contest & looked at the "ABU" article a while ago, & complement you it looks very good.

I hope now you aren't upset anymore & realize I wanna be in peace with you & I sincearly wish you all the best & wanna work alongside you sometime. אומנות (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but you have upset me way too much, and I have NOT mentioned or made reference to the term "new user" in any of my comments. So once again you are fabricating conversations and twisting context in order to remove your own guilt of wrongly accusing other editors. If you care to read opening statement again I said the following "I've noted the person has been an editor for a while now, but has suddenly come into the ESC ether". Where in that statement do I reference you by name or any new user by name? It may have escaped your knowledge, but there are 4000+ articles on the ESC project, all of which I have had some dealings with. When I said "I'm having doubts and suspicions after reading and participating in a particular thread (you'll have an idea which one I am referring to)" I wasn't referring to ESC 2013 in which you were holding discussions, but was referring to a different article all together. And I'm afraid to say, but when you start to falsely accuse editors then you are undergoing barbaric intentions. The fact that I chose to point that out is in no way as harsh, than the way you have decided to make false accusations against myself and CT Cooper. As I and CT Cooper have already pointed out to you, the conversation via email was in connection to the latter part of my statement in which I asked Cooper how he was doing in his personal life. The fact that Cooper is within his right to inform me privately rather than publicly is his choice and not yours. There were personal, private and confidential details that were discussed between us privately that Cooper wishes not to make public knowledge - and you should appreciate and respect his choice. Would you like it if someone publicly posted a private conversation you held with someone else? No you wouldn't - so I urge you for the final time to cease your escapade and accusations against me. Do the civil thing please, and drop everything and maintain the assumption of good faith. Wesley♦^Mouse 18:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I refered to someone currently new to ESC project, regardles being older user, which relate to me, but I already said I believe you anyway so I dropped any accusation & offered my apology, to both of you. I just expressed my general opinion furthermore for reinforcing private conversation on other users problematic issues, alongside other personal matters. If you are still upset to take my apology, than I hope you will in the future. אומנות (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this conflict has more been driven by misunderstanding than actual division, and so I hope we can resolve it and move on. I said earlier that I didn't think myself or Wesley had done anything "seriously wrong", and I now extend that to you, although I accept your apology regardless. As for your proposals, they are still there at WT:EURO and there is nothing stopping further consideration. If you feel deterred from further contributing, I understand, but as I alluded to earlier everyone has their "ups and downs" and in the bigger picture, this is little more than water under the bridge. CT Cooper · talk 02:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your acceptance. Just for your words "extend it to me":

If you mean to stress you didn't do anything seriously wrong yet you forgive me, than I wanna say I never intend to assume the worst about you, when I saw the comment while I thought it was about me & after I got impression that people aren't that up to more debates anymore, I just felt uncomfortable & affraid to contribute. Therefore also when I realized it wasn't about me it's just very-very important to me to express my personal opinion that it's a better solution to discuss such things via private-email to begin with. But again, just my opinion & I don't imply anymore it's wrong to discuss also on the talk page with others commenting peacfully, for anyone that prefers to do so.

If you mean, or also mean, you wanna reach-extend out to me that you think I didn't do anything seriously wrong either, thank you.

To tell the truth I did make another proposal yesterday on the ESC Project to still help somehow & regardles of the arguments. But I had to think hard on this one as well. Other than that, from the previous debate & the Project format layout, it looks like you have pretty much everything covered & too different & fully-detailed then the way I'm used too while others are fine with this as you said. So I will leave it. I also just added about "ESC" definition there, that I understood your explenations but still wanted to propose it further with explaining there in hope you understand I just still want to epxress this & not stress an argmuent with you about this. I also just added the "Eurovision Network" proposal that you tend to be positive about. Of course all this is up to you & others if it feats.

I do feel I can't offer more better solutinos unless fully understanding all the consensus & I do feel a bit lack of energy to keep learning all this now. This is actually kind of why I wanted to leave the project at first, not only because I felt upset. But this time realy I understand you are totaly open-minded towards new suggestions & that I don't have something I can currently contribute further. I will still just make small & minor contributions at ESC articles in the future, as I used to do back 2 years ago. So I'm glad now you also understand that I will leave for this reasons, as I'm fully aware of all your good faith. אומנות (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Notification of discussion

A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

One to ponder over

Is the following article, UK Eurovision Song Contest entries discography for real? Is it literally a list of UK Eurovision entries? Aren't they already covered by United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest? The article has been around for over a year, but I've only just noticed it now. Should it be deleted, merged, or any other suggestion you might think appropriate. Wesley♦^Mouse 16:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Bloody hell fire, it gets even worse. There's another article just like it listing a full discography of Eurovision winners. Eurovision Song Contest winners discography. Wesley♦^Mouse 17:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to think to be honest - I've ignored them up to now. The articles are arguably trivial and I wouldn't miss them if they were deleted. That said, unlike some other now deleted table articles, they don't go against WP:NOR. I think we could get away with merging the winners article into List of Eurovision Song Contest winners, although I think merging the UK one wouldn't work as the huge table would dominate the UK in the ESC article. CT Cooper · talk 06:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi

From one Eurovision fan to another may I ask you for a favour.. Could you take a look at IPs 87.232.1.48 , 134.226.254.178 and 87.232.101.49 atleast two of them are used by the same person to give the impression of a consensus for name change at the Murder of Travis Alexander articles talk page. I dont know if anything could be done but I do not think it is OK even if you are an IP user to use several IP and pretending to be different people. If you could check it out it would be appreciated.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I've had a look and I can't see any real evidence that this user is engaging in deception - people often access the internet from multiple locations in their daily lives and on some ISPs IPs for a user move frequently and this appears to be just another case of that. If the user was using different IPs to violate 3RR, vote multiple times in an AfD, or making comments pretending to be two people and that kind of thing, there would be a problem, but I can't see that here. If you disagree, please present diffs. On the article itself, "murder" is a very heavy word and should be used cautiously - even if the cause death of this nature appears obvious, it is probably best not to pre-guess a court's decision. Be aware that Wikipedia articles are highly visible and commentary of cases under sub judice can be legally problematic in some cases. CT Cooper · talk 23:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Logo/crest images for The University of Law

Hi there

Thanks for getting back to me with your advice about moving the crest image on The University of Law Wikipedia page. I have done some research into how to do this but I am not an expert in this area and am concerned that I may make an error. Would you be able to help? Ideally, I would like to move the crest image to sit with the text under the History section - 20th century as this relates to how The College of Law was founded.

If possible, I would also like to remove the College of Law logo from the bottom of the info box, and position the new University of Law logo at the top where the crest currently sits. What is the best way to upload the new logo image file?

I appreciate all your help with this.

Many thanks Bryony Bryonybennett (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The method and location of upload very much depends on the nature of the logo one is trying to upload - if you could please provide me a link to a page with the logo you wish to upload on, then I will be able to point you in the right direction. CT Cooper · talk 23:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. The new logo will not be in general circulation until 4 March, so I will be in touch after this date with the relevant link. Thanks for your help! Bryonybennett (talk) 11:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Mark Roberts (footballer born 1983) picture

Hi CT,

I've been looking for an administrator to help me delete a file I uploaded last week (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stevenageleytonorientmroberts.JPG). Having asked for an image (to upload to Wikipedia) of Mark Roberts from Stevenage F.C. photographer Kevin Coleman, he kindly obliged and sent me one via email. I uploaded the image, before noticing the licensing part. With none of the licensing options looking correct, I asked KC how he felt about me uploading the image for the public to use (as this seemed the only way to upload the image), which he stated he did not wish to do. I have been trying to get the image deleted but am unsure how. Could you kindly delete the image for me? Thanks. SBFCEdit (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I've deleted the file for you, given as you say, the image is unlikely to be released under a free license. CT Cooper · talk 01:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. SBFCEdit (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

@

Hi, I sent you an email for something I wanted to tell. אומנות (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. I have received your e-mail and I will send a reply when I have a spare moment. CT Cooper · talk 01:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, I got your mail-reply and sent you just another mail-reply. And in this chance, I also wanted to tell you here - thank you so much for your kind mail with expressing your regrets and further understanding and appreciation towards my previous proposals, and for accepting my further apologies and appreciation to your help, regarding the situation that was between the two of us. Thank you, this means a lot to me. אומנות (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Email

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. — Andrew Gray (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Andrew. I've received your e-mail - I will send a reply shortly. CT Cooper · talk 21:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Antony1821 (bet my left hand on it)

Hi there CT, AL here, how's it going,

our good wikifriend User:Kosm1fent is unfortunately wikiabsent, so i "run" to you: this guy continues with his "socking ways" as promised, this last IP i found (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/78.87.159.45) has all the traits of the master account, no PC updates in box, stuff removed in box. Even if it turns out not to be him, it's an IP worth blocking as well, as it: 1 - shows no sign of stopping its wrongdoings; 2 - does not converse with anybody and/or write summaries.

Attentively, keep it up --AL (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's him - it's on a range he has used previously. I've blocked 78.87.0.0/16 (talk · contribs) for 1 year, so that should stop him in his tracks for the moment. CT Cooper · talk 20:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• And if this is not him it's a clone (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/178.59.177.172). Why do i/we bother when he has vowed to not stop busting our wiki-balls until the end of time? Regards to you man, keep up the good work. --AL (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• This is another range his used previously - I've now blocked 178.59.0.0/16 (talk · contribs) for a full year. Rather a large potential for collateral damage unfortunately, however he only edits from a relatively small number of ranges, so such blocking is generally effective. On the whole, I'm happy to keep blocking indefinitely, although very few determined vandals keep it up forever. CT Cooper · talk 07:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The University of Law logo

Hi there

In a previous thread, we discussed how to remove the old College of Law logo on The University of Law Wikipedia page, and upload the new University logo. You mentioned that you need a link to a page that features the new logo - you can view this here: www.law.ac.uk

I would also like to position the new University logo at the top where the crest currently sits, and move the crest image into the body of the text. Would you be able to look into this?

Many thanks Bryonybennett (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this new logo should be relatively easy to upload - I will be happy to do this for you. The crest is currently labbelled as non-free content, which means that keeping it in the article when it is no longer in use may be difficult to justify, and so I might end up having to remove it entirely. The old College of Law logo is free however due to it being text only, so can be kept around in the body of the article. CT Cooper · talk 17:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi - that's great, thank you! Please could the University of Law logo be positioned where the crest image currently sits? I'm happy for the crest to be removed if necessary, as we no longer have a link to the old charter associated with this. With regards to the old College of Law logo, I'm happy for this to also be removed to avoid confusion - would you be able to do this at the same time as the other amends, or shall I do this? ThanksBryonybennett (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I can do it all together - I will carry it out when I have a spare moment. CT Cooper · talk 16:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, CT Cooper. Please check your e-mail – you've got mail!
Message added 11:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC). 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.

~TheGeneralUser (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Replied. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey CT Cooper; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Antony1821

Hi there CT, AL "here",

Please see this message (here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Grandstyle#March_2013), you'll be highly interested. A new SOCK as he promised. I kind of lost it in my message to this "person", i apologize.

Attentively - --AL (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I've dealt with him. CT Cooper · talk 16:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Another (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/46.198.53.158)! I think i have seen already a few starting with 46. Cheers. --AL (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

One more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/79.130.8.127)!! I'm a very unstable person mentally, and this guy is slowly pushing me over the edge, i officially give up! --AL (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I've re-blocked 46.198.0.0/16 (talk · contribs) for a full year - last block came off in November, but he hasn't used this range again until recently. I've checked 79.130.8.127/16 (talk · contribs) and I cannot find any recent activity from him on this range, and this one is too old to be actionable now. Please report any further sightings to me - the ranges he uses are on the whole small in number and quite predictable, so I do think we can still keep on top of this with range blocks. The other alternative is a mass semi-protection of articles affected. CT Cooper · talk 22:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Many thanks to you and AL for taking care of the sockpuppetry problem with Antony1821 when I was away. :) – Kosm1fent 15:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. CT Cooper · talk 14:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Making changes to Wiki

Hello CT Cooper,

I've just received a message, pre-emptively warning me about making inappropriate changes to content in Wikipedia.

I have been identified as being the perpetrator due to my IP address - An IP address I share with a large number of other people.

If you have more specific details of the offending parties details, I may be able to help trace the culprit.

I hope our use of Wikipedia is not hindered by the actions of someone else on our network.

Kind Regards, Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.2.35 (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Edits that are made logged-out to Wikipedia pages are recorded by IP address with the date and time of the change - the offending edit can be found here. I hope that helps. This IP address will only be blocked following persistent abuse and warnings, and blocks only impact on the ability to edit Wikipedia - everyone is free to view it. Furthermore, in most cases, blocks only affect edits made logged-out - those made with an account are not usually affected. CT Cooper · talk 20:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Assessment

Hi, I took your assessment of Royal College, Colombo into account and did several changes can you please give some feed back on any improvements we could make. Thx Cossde (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I'm afraid I do have a busy scheduled at the moment, but I will see if I can do the article justice and give another review some time next week. CT Cooper · talk 18:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.Cossde (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

University of Law - old crest

Hi there

Thank you for adding the new logo to the University of Law page - much appreciated. As you previously mentioned, the old crest that is showing at the top of the page is currently labelled as non-free content, which means that keeping it in the article when it is no longer in use may be difficult to justify. I would be grateful if you could remove this crest altogether, as it no longer connected with The University of Law. If the University logo could then move up to the top of the box to take its place, that would be perfect.

Many thanks Bryonybennett (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, someone managed to beat me to it in uploading the new logo. I have now moved it to the top and removed the crest, since if it is no longer used, keeping it in the infobox doesn't make sense. I hope everything makes sense now. CT Cooper · talk 13:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been reverted by an unregistered user. They claim the crest is still used on degree and diploma certificates. CT Cooper · talk 22:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi there - thanks for making those changes, and letting me know that someone has undone them! I can confirm, as a representative of The University of Law, that we no longer use the crest as it relates to the charitable side of The College of Law, which has been split from The University of Law. Would you be able to let this person know, or would you prefer me to contact them directly with this information? Thanks for your help! Bryonybennett (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as they were an unregistered user, it is unlikely they will receive any message you leave for them. If you or I go in and say "The crest is no longer in use and the university itself confirms this" then someone is likely to turn around and demand some proof. Wikipedia runs off published information - the ideal solution would be for some confirmation of the crest's status be published, say on the university's website. CT Cooper · talk 16:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Would a new account be appropriate?

Hello again,

I am planning to no longer use my GarethTJennings account for anything at all on Wikipedia. I want to start a new account for productive editing because my previous actions on this account could make other editors mistrust me a little too much.

My question for you is this: Are my previous actions a good reason to abandon an old account and start a new one?

GarethTJennings (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello again Gareth. The relevant policy to consult here is the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy, which I suggest reviewing. Under WP:SOCK#LEGIT editors are allowed to make a clean start under a new name, and this has its own policy at Wikipedia:Clean start. In short, as you are not blocked or under sanctions, you can create a new account. However, you must no longer use your current account or use the new one to continue previous problematic behaviour. Creating any more sockpuppets for use of the user-space to host content will also effectivly disqualify you from the clean start option. If you do choose to go for a clean start, I would strongly recommend privately informing me of your new account name. The primary benefit of this is if I see an account acting inappropriately with Eurovision related content, I won't immediately suspect its your clean start account. I won't disclose your old account onwiki except in a case of serious abuse. You can disclose your old account to me privately by using the "Email this user" option on the lefthand bar, which should be present on my user and user talk pages. If you don't see it, then go to "Preferences" (bar on the top of the page) then under the "User profile" tab scroll down to "Email options" and you should see a checkbox stating "Enable email from other users" - ensure this is ticked. You can switch it off as soon as you've e-mailed me if you prefer.

To directly answer your question, I would say no. You have made errors, but they are far from unforgivable - you are not a vandal, and have made constructive edits, and that is the important thing. In the wider view of things, I don't think very many people will care about your previous misdemeanours, and no one will care after some time has passed. Everyone makes mistakes, and most Wikipedians view more favourably editors who will own up and learn from them, rather than try to cover them up. The best way to build trust is to help yourself and others build an encyclopedia by continuing to make constructive edits. I myself learnt this lesson the hard way when I was in my early teens - I was once a well known user on a forum and after some problematic conduct on my part, I decided to have a clean start. It didn't work. Having to re-set relations with users on the site was very difficult, and I really didn't like having to pretend to be someone I wasn't to prevent people connecting my new account to my old one. In the end I just found it too painful and left the site permanently, ironically brining me to Wikipedia. If you do go for a clean start, you won't really be able to edit Eurovision and other areas you have previously been active in. Is this realistic?

If you want to loose some baggage I will happily delete User:GarethTJennings/sandbox as well as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of GarethTJennings (and associated pages), providing your promise me you won't create any more sock accounts or use Wikipedia as a free web host. You told me earlier that you had trouble controlling yourself - do you think you can do so now? CT Cooper · talk 18:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I had a short read of the W:Clean Start page and made the conclusion that a new account would not be logical. I understand how my idea would make you suspicious. Misusing the sandboxes became a habit for me and after being blocked for a fortnight, I believe I have learned my lesson. This mainly because I don't want to risk being blocked again as it'll be for even longer or even permanent.

I'd hate to be a tattle-tale but another reason for making tables on my sandbox was because some other contests use this. My contest (Globalvision Song Contest) along with the Imagine Song Contest, Tubevision Contest and the Ourvision Song Contest (the latter two being inactive) all make their tables on Wikipedia. This is mainly because the tables on Wikipedia are the norm and attractive, as well as the tables on Wikia not being wide enough du to its large advertising space. Hopefully you now know why I was so persistent in using my sandboxes for wiki tables.

To remedy the desire to misuse Wikipedia in this way, a new Online Song Contest wikia has been made, as well as a wikia for the opinions my community has on Eurovision. I must point out that this is not misuse of the wikia network because we are all interested in eachother's opinions and contest and regularly visit he wikia.

All evidence for the past two paragraphs can be found on ovsc.proboards.com , our forums.

I would like you to delete my sandbox in case I'm stupid enough to try it again but the category page you made should stay in my opinion, as I'm still not completely sure I'm clean. GarethTJennings (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad that some kind of resolution has been found to this issue. I will check out the forum you link to in good time. CT Cooper · talk 10:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

bee eating birds

omg that pic is fantastic!!!! kudos :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBurningMan (talk • contribs) 02:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliments. However, it isn't my picture - I'm only putting it on my userpage because I like it so much. Kookaburra 81 is the author. CT Cooper · talk 10:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm impressed

Hi Cooper,

Sorry its been a while since I last spoke to you. Hope all is well. Just wanted to say how impressed I am, in that everyone contributing to Eurovision 2013 article is sticking to the layout style that was discussed months ago at WT:EURO. The article is already looking like a GA-class and the contest hasn't even begun yet. Don't know if you wish to comment on that as an editorial for the newsletter, or would you prefer myself to do that? Also, thanks to that very layout style, we're gaining GA's on other articles too. Goes to show that the high standards do pay off good results, and hopefully boost team morale too. Anyhow, I'm going to undergo some tidying up on the ref parameters for ESC2013 article. Oh, and I've created ABU TV Song Festival 2013, not sure if you wish to add it to your watchlist, just in case the vandalistic hyenas decide to play havoc on the article. Wesley♦^Mouse 12:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Wesley. Yes I think everything is running smoothly on the whole, although I can't claim much credit for that as I've had to take a back seat due lots of other commitments and that is going to remain the case for at least another six weeks. I agree that it's good that we have standardised things a bit, and I hope the good work continues. I'm afraid I'm going to have to decline doing the editorial for the newsletter this time round - I just have too much else to do, so I will leave it in your capable hands. However, I have placed ABU TV Song Festival 2013 on my watchlist. CT Cooper · talk 22:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Re-assessment of Royal College, Colombo

Hi, No problem, can wait. Many Thanks. Cossde (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Rollback query

Hi Cooper, hope all is well. Just a quickie regarding rollbacks. I've been reading up on everything at WP:RBK, and noticed that Twinkle appears to be similar to Rollback. With that in mind, and seeing as I also have autopatrolled, would it be worthwhile me submitting a request for permission for the rollback tool or not? I was also looking at the reviewer one, but I don't think I'm ready for that just yet. Anyhow, I look forward to your opinion on this. Cheers buddy! Wesley♦^Mouse 01:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Wes, sorry for my slow response. Neither of these tools are a particularity big deal - you can't break the wiki with them! As an admin, I can give you these tools unilaterally if I believe that you won't abuse them - which is the case here, so I have given you both rollback and reviewer rights. Rollback can be a useful tool for dealing with vandalism, though it should never be used for edit warring - see Wikipedia:Rollback. The reviwer right is linked to pending changes, and allows you to approve edits by new and unregistered users on pages subject to pending changes protection - see Wikipedia:Reviewing. If you want any of these rights to be removed, let me know and I will remove them. CT Cooper · talk 16:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cooper, no worries about the slow response, I appreciate that we all have life beyond the realms of Wikipedia. I sincerely appreciate that you have entrusted me with these new tools, I shall spend time later this evening to thoroughly read through the do's and don't's for each of these new tools. 'Tis always best to be familiar and knowledgeable with the responsibilities these things may have. At the mo' I'm keeping an eye on a little issue at Talk:ESC2013 that has now boiled over to AN/I. Again, thank you. Wesley♦^Mouse 16:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I've looked through the ANI thread - looks like a lot of drama over nothing really. It seems clear to me that the user involved is making legal threats, with some of his most recent posts being a double down on that, and so he should be blocked until they are withdrawn. CT Cooper · talk 16:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The Young Turks

I've responded to the comments you've made at Talk:The Young Turks#Confusing edits section, can you kindly respond? Gobbleygook (talk) 05:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, I've been very busy over the last few days. I have now responded. CT Cooper · talk 10:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Good news!

Got some good news that I couldn't resist sharing with you. I've been accepted as a volunteer at Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games, 8 months after I did volunteering at London Olympics. Wesley♦^Mouse 18:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Well done, I hope you enjoy yourself when it comes around. By the way, keep up the good work on the ESC articles. CT Cooper · talk 10:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I will email you shortly, as I have a slight concern Wikipedia-related that I would like to discuss with you privately, if I may. Wesley♦^Mouse 10:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah sure, go ahead. CT Cooper · talk 10:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I sent the email to you as mentioned. Also I'm wondering whether we should think about rebooting the RfC on Eurovision by Country articles again, seeing as it was a flop last time (due to the hype of ESC 2013 that was looming). Now (or towards the end of the month) could be idealogical time to get everyone's input, especially as most editors are actively working on post-ESC2013 clean-up, and some will probably be suffering withdrawal symptoms. Wesley♦^Mouse 11:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Wes, I have received your e-mail and sent a reply. I think yes, this might be a good time to re-boot the RfCs since this is the time of year that we have everyone's attention! CT Cooper · talk 21:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding to this Cooper, issues at home dealing with bereavement of my partner's brother have been more hectic than I had anticipated. Anyhow, life can now resume normality. In terms of the email, I agree, and have decided to leave things well alone, and only help if I get asked to by the user. For the RfC, I'm wondering if sooner rather than later would be better. There are already a couple of Project Members having major issues with the "location" section on Eurovision/Junior Eurovision articles; and one member finding a dislike to the OGAE awards section. I've tried my best to explain to all concerned why these two sections are of educational value (which is something that I read on a Wiki policy). However, not many are taking part in that discussion, so an RfC reboot may get more eyes looking at the concerns, and hopefully get a resolution found quicker. Wesley♦Mouse 14:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I've remained rather occupied recently and I've had to put Wikipedia aside for the time being, but thanks for keeping up with things. If you want to start the RfC, feel free to give it a go and I will try and participate. CT Cooper · talk 21:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Date of London 70 changed

Hi, you didn't catch them all... I've fixed up three that you missed. I have a checklist at m:User:Redrose64. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! There used to be even more both here and on Meta but I cut down/re-directed a few pages. I will keep this others in mind for the future. CT Cooper · talk 21:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

History repeating itself

Cooper, the old "we should only use EBU/National Broadcaster sources for Eurovision Articles" has resurfaced again, for a third consecutive year. Ironically this time around, it isn't Tony who has brought it up (like he did the last 2 years). I'm doing my best to nip this one in the bud, but I can feel my head on the verge of banging against a brick wall. Any assistance would be truly appreciated. Wesley♦Mouse 03:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have left a comment. CT Cooper · talk 22:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:AE

Hi. As an involved admin, you might be interested in this report at WP:AE [1] Regards, Grandmaster 20:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Grandmaster, I have responded. CT Cooper · talk 16:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing clarity to the situation. Grandmaster 20:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

University of Law - old crest

Hi CT Cooper

I'm afraid this issue is still rumbling on! We contacted the unregistered user directly, following their 'undo' of the edit you made to remove the old College of Law crest from The University of Law's Wikipedia page. We were able to provide them with the reasons why this was to be removed - I would therefore be grateful if you could remove the old crest from the info box, and move up the new University of Law logo into the top position?

If you have any further issues, please let me know.

Thank you for all your help, Bryony195.12.230.131 (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, yes I think this issue has gone on long enough now - so I have restored it, but we will just have to see what happens. CT Cooper · talk 11:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This looks great -Talk:University of Law thank you for restoring the changes. Hopefully this will now stay in place! Thanks again for all your help. BryonyBryonybennett (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid it has been reverted yet again, though the justification for the revert seems more out of caution rather than a wish to challenge. See Talk:University of Law#Crest v Corporate Logo. CT Cooper · talk 20:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi again - thanks for letting me know. As this person is a known user, I will send them a message explaining our reasoning, and hopefully we'll be able to get this sorted once and for all! Bryonybennett (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok - so having spoken to the person who reverted the changes, we are in agreement that the crest can indeed be removed. Would you kindly do the honours? Fingers crossed this will be the last time we have to do this :) Bryonybennett (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Few edits are ever this contested! I have moved the crest and left a hidden note in the article, hopefully meaning the issue is resolved. CT Cooper · talk 15:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant - thank you for doing that and for your persistence! Bryonybennett (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. CT Cooper · talk 15:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Karlwhen

I've filed a complaint at WP:ANI regarding Karlwhen (talk · contribs). He is still ignoring to remove the content from his userspace that is against WP:UPNOT. As you have had some involvement, you may wish to comment on the situation at ANI. Regards, Wesley♦Mouse 13:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

OGAE related articles

I've taken the liberty (and probably the burden) of working on the OGAE related articles. The main one was in a disastrous mess, and the lead was a word-for-word copy of their "about us" section on their official Facebook page. Anyhow, that article now is 100% re-written and restructured. My next task is to work on the other OGAE articles such as Video Contest, Second Chance Contest, and the annual Second Chance Contest articles. I was wondering though, the songs which take part in Second Chance are songs that didn't get the winning Eurovision ticket at their respective national finals. But they have gone on to winning Second Chance (which are mentioned in the Second Chance articles). I was wondering if it would be worthwhile mentioning these OGAE Second Chance songs within their respective 'Country' in the Eurovision Song Contest 'year' article? Take for example, Spain in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012, one of Pastora's songs took part in OGAE Second Chance and won the contest. Something like this ties together Eurovision and OGAE details, and probably adds more encyclopaedic weight and knowledge to both contests. Wesley♦Mouse 13:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that - unfortunately these articles have been neglected and for a long time after joining WikiProject Eurovision I didn't even know they existed. I agree in principle that it would be a good idea to better tie the articles together, and mentioning OGAE briefly in the Eurovision articles where appropriate would be a good additional feature. CT Cooper · talk 15:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome. It has given me something to do with my spare time. And all that inspiration I've picked up from the last 3 GA's that I successfully achieved needs to be put to good usage and hopefully turn these neglected articles into magnificent GA-potentials. Oh, and I've rebooted the RfC too, will mention it on the next newsletter (which is due to be published soon). Wesley♦Mouse 11:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I've managed to find "about us" details for each of the OGAE Branches, so I intend to alter the bullet list of members from OGAE into a better prose version for each branch. A draft version can be found in my sandbox. I still need to do some extensive copy-editing for them, as I've just done a copy/paste for most just to give me a rough idea how the article would look size-wise. Based on initial outlook, it could make the article a good GA if not FA. Anyhow, I'm pooped - so giving myself a few hours break before I finish off the rewording and then I can transfer the final product to the main article. What do you think of it so far? Wesley♦Mouse 03:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

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.

Wesley♦Mouse 15:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

In put

Hi,

There is a dissection on going on the use of multiple names in the article Royal College Colombo. Since you observations were constructive before, I hoped you could lend your opinion on the matter in the dissection. Thank you. Cossde (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. I'm afraid I'm not active much at the moment so I will have to leave it to others. Sorry that I never got round to re-assessing your article - if you still want it assessed I would recommend filing a request at Wikipedia:Peer review. CT Cooper · talk 16:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hope you are ok

Is everything OK Cooper? I noticed the banner at the top of your talk page. You where there at my hour of need during and after my mother passed-away. It would be only noble of me to return that favour in your hour of need. Contact me privately if you need a friend to talk to. Regards, Wesley♦Mouse 16:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness. I shall send you an e-mail. CT Cooper · talk 14:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Antony1821

Hi there COOP, AL "here",

unfortunately the subject's the same, this idiot sock that won't leave us alone (and please don't tell me to refrain myself, we are talking about a guy that PROMISED to sock and sock and sock). Per M.O. found in Íñigo López Montaña (addition of SENIOR clubs as YOUTH ones), i'm 99,99999999999999999999% sure User:Mitsos77 is him.

Kind regards from Portugal --AL (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) AL, you may want to raise this issue at WP:SPI or WP:ANI for another admin to look into. As you may not have noticed, Cooper won't be on Wikipedia for an indefinite period of time, due to personal issues. So it may be better to raise this issue via the other channels so that it doesn't get forgotten about. Regards, Wesley ☮ Mouse 21:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the tip Wes, all the best --AL (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

courtesy notice

Well, I see you may not see this for a while but if there are any admins familiar with rangeblocking looking in here, a range block issued by CT is under discussion (sort of) at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RUDE!!!. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm wondering if it may be ideal to drop a note at WP:AN to see if there are other admins with knowledge on rangeblocks? I'm not an admin myself, but I think I have a reasonable knowledge of what a range-block means. Your explanation to the user appears to be well stated. I don't mind providing assistance if required, but bear in mind I'm in no admin authority though. Wesley ☮ Mouse 20:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• The section title with three exclamation points was breaking the WP:DASHBOARD, so I have modified it. The new link is Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RUDE! with a single exclation point. Best. 64.40.54.200 (talk) 02:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

concern

Hello CT Cooper,

A user who has been topic banned under WP:ARBAA2 has edited an Armenian page. He has broken his ban a few times already...see his/her [log] please. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Please take note of the big black notification at the top of this talk page, which informs people that CT Cooper will be off Wikipedia for an indefinite period due to real-life issues. So you may wish to notify someone else out of courtesy of Cooper's time away from Wiki-duties. Regards, Wesley ☮ Mouse 01:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision - Memorandum

Eurovision Mini Memorandum 30 June 2013 There are a couple of discussions taking place via the project talk page that require urgent attention from as many members as possible. These are... A new RfC has opened at Project Eurovision in regards to how "Country by Contest" articles such as Albania in the Eurovision Song Contest, Denmark in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest and Australia in the ABU Song Festivals will be stylised. Also there is an urgent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Colour codes for last placings, which is discussing a matter in connection to chromostereopsis (blue text on red backgrounds). And finally, the newsdesk are looking to recruit a couple of project volunteers to assist in compiling the monthly newsletters, as one of the co-ordinators has taken an indefinite period of time away from Wikipedia due to personal reasons. For more details see here. To discontinue receiving Eurovision newsletters and mini memorandums, please remove your name from here.

This memo was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Feedback

Hi CT. As a former contributor to this, you may wish to take a look at this. If you do, please read it carefully in order not to miss the explicit objective. Comments on its talk page. Cheers, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Block review

Your comments are welcome at User talk:TheShadowCrow#Topic ban violation. Regards, GiantSnowman 19:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) CT Cooper has stated above that he will be away from Wikipedia for an indefinite period. So it may be worthwhile seeking assistance from other administrator's, just in case. Wesley ☮ Mouse 19:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Justin Bieber article

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CaseyPenk (talk • contribs) 18:41, 31 July 2013‎

Murder of James Bulger article

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CaseyPenk (talk • contribs) 18:41, 31 July 2013‎

Thanks for letting me know. Unfortunately I'm not active on Wikipedia at this time, so with regret, I'm suspending any planned recordings indefinitely. I deleted the notices of the article talk pages but not on the planned recordings list - I have now rectified this. CT Cooper · talk 20:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. I totally understand the feeling -- I went on a WikiBreak for about a year until last month. Hope you enjoy your activities outside of Wikipedia. :) CaseyPenk (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/Contestants and songs

I looked at the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/Contestants and songs when in the 'Songs' section, it says 'poop'. This was edited by an IP, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Eurovision%2FContestants_and_songs&diff=557742720&oldid=444111620 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/76.120.154.4 . So, what will happen to the IP? Lucky102 (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunatly this vandalism was committed a good while ago and the IP appears to have been abandoned, meaning I cannot justify blocking it. However, I have watchlisted the IPs page and the page which was vandalised, which should prevent this happening again. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. CT Cooper · talk 15:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Needed at AE

Hey Chris. You should join the discussion at AE. One thing about you I have always respected is that you never ignore a question and can always explain why something must be. In the current conflict, WP:ARBAA2 was completely unrelated because it started when one new Admin thought a expired ban was still active and one bad Admin put down a block over it. It was related to the Armenian-BLP ban, not AA2. Sandstein thought it also was related to AA2. He was wrong and admitted it. Anything with AA2 should have stopped there. It was unrelated tot he situation and had no reason to be altered. Unlike the admins in the AE, I do not think it would be like you to ignore these facts. Before you go to bed, please give an opinion on this. TheShadowCrow (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. Thank you for your kind thoughts which I wasn't expecting - you haven't been too complementary about me in the past, but I won't hold that against you. Unfortunately I have a lot of difficulties of my own to get through at this time, which means that I can't stay heavily involved in anything heavily contentious such as ArbCom sanctions. On the sports exemption, I had to rescind it as it was supposed to be a clarification not an amendment to the topic ban - I was just telling you it was okay to edit Armenian sports articles as long as you exercised caution, a statement which was apparently incorrect, hence why I withdrew it. I can't see your appeal going anywhere productive and my involvement isn't going to change the outcome - even if I said I concur completely with your arguments, it is unlikely that my view would have any real influence on people. I really don't want to see you indefinitely blocked, as I have seen that you are capable of making constructive edits to the project, not to mention all the effort I made to try and get you on track will have been wasted. I therefore strongly urge you to just forget Armenia-Azerbaijan and related issues for the time being and find something different to edit - something which you have an interest in but don't have strong opinions on. This could be almost anything - but to give some ideas, the project has and needs articles on video games, films, music, aviation, road transport, railways, boats and waterways, animals and plants, geology, weather and climate, astronomy, education itself e.t.c. to a near infinite list. Making your first edits in a new topic can be a challenge, as I found when I did it, but I can still give you some guidance if you want it. On that point, I noticed you were interested in contributing more to Wikimedia Commons - normally uploading photographs is less likely to create conflict than editing articles, so if that's a route you wish to go down, I would go for it and I can guide you as needed. I would urge you to review the main Commons' policies and guidelines first though. I hope that helps. CT Cooper · talk 20:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The recent treatment I've gotten has made me realize you were just doing your job and went out of your way to explain things. Anyway, I still don't understand why something that had nothing to do with AA2 can result in it being changed. Also, I think I have an idea that can give everyone what they want: What if I'm given some time, anywhere from a few days to a week, where I can have the sport exemption temporarily back just so I can get all the work in my sandboxes emptied. After that, I will work on other things for a few months. TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I know you haven't responded yet because you're busy, but I just wanted to add that with your support, when you're available, I think this could happen and I would really appreciate if you'd do that. TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I will do my best to guide you whenever I can. CT Cooper · talk 14:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Request of Removal of Revision History

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.

Satish Kapoor 13:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello there. Unfortunately I can't access my e-mail account despite mulitiple attempts - the server is down for some reason. If its urgent then please send an e-mail with details of the revisions you want removed to oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org. See WP:RFO for more information. CT Cooper · talk 15:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I've now replied. CT Cooper · talk 20:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Question

Do you know when you'll be back yet? TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC) A response, please? TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to reply, my apologies. To be honest, I'm really not sure. I don't how long it will be until I'm ready to return to the project and re-start contributing - I continue to have a lot on my plate. I think the most optimistic estimate would be October, while the most pessimistic one would be next Summer, with somewhere in December/January being the realists' guess. I still do visit at least every few days and I am keeping a general watch on what is happening even if I don't edit much, meaning I can provide some limited assistance if you want it. Bear in mind though that I'm holiday in France from the start of September until half-way through that month, and my internet activity during that time will probably be limited. CT Cooper · talk 17:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Anyway, when you stop by again, can you try to convince the other Admins to drop this gag rule I've been given, the flaws of which are explained here. I also hope you ask whoever you have to if you can be the owner of my ban again. The current owners are power hungry and have made a complete mess in less than a month. Things went peacefully for nearly a year when you were the owner. TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That would be quite a challenge, even if I was active. I don't think you have any choice other than to put up with the existing restrictions for the time being, establish a good track record, and put in another appeal after three months has passed. CT Cooper · talk 19:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't appeal in three months. I can only appeal once every six. Sandstein is justifying this from a vaguely stated rule that, by his logic, let's Admins do anything. This is madness, appeals should only be taken in extreme circumstances, which doesn't include lazy moderating. I would have been better off accepting Snowball's one month block for doing nothing, at least it's better than six. Even if you won't be the owner, at least asking to return my sports exemption would be much appreciated. There are others AA2 banned with it and I never did anything to deserve it being removed. TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I really hope you have enough common sense to see these cunts have unjustifiably put a literal 6 month block on me with lots of room to unreasonably increase it for the sake of censorship. I also hope you have enough good will to stand up to it. TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not in a great position to review, assess, judge, and act on this conflict, nor can I risk causing massive wikidrama with my current health, not to mention I'm about to go on holiday, which makes it problematic for me to do anything likely to stir up trouble as I (probably) won't be able to respond to queries/complaints regularly while I'm away. I'm sorry I can't be more helpful and since I spent a lot of time trying to help you edit, I do personally regret that you have ended up indefinitely blocked. If you still can't edit this talk page when reading this, then I'm open to e-mails - but again I won't be able to be very helpful at this time. CT Cooper · talk 21:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey CT Cooper. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:ESC revamp

Hi Cooper,

Hope all is well. Just a quick note to let you know I've revamped the entire project page, in an attempt to entice more members to join. Also I've sent a request to the editorial team of The Signpost, and they are going to write a piece about the project, the fact that it has celebrated 10 years, undergone a revamp, and to invite any interested readers (in the words of ESC2014 slogan) come and "join us". Wesley Mᴥuse 08:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the update and all your good work. I look forward to seeing the piece in the Signpost. CT Cooper · talk 13:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite disappointed with Signpost, they only gone and placed us in a sidebar and not a full project report which is what I expected. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-10-09/WikiProject report. Wesley Mᴥuse 14:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks like you accidentally requested only a sidebar report. There are no free spaces for interviews until at least some time in December. Perhaps you could wait a bit and request one in the run-up to the next contest. It would be great if there is a at least two people, preferably three or four, able to respond to the questions. CT Cooper · talk 14:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Whoops! Old age is kicking in with me lol. I like the idea though, a full report on the project around March/April time once all the national selections have taken place. I'm thinking of everything and anything possible to increase membership numbers. On a good note, that rift I had with an editor, we've resolved our differences and are working well together at last. Although a new rift sparked off at WT:ESC with an editor who once poked a few jabs at you and I back in February. I gave up in the end and allowed them to have the last say. Can't be doing with divas. Wesley Mᴥuse 14:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Cooper, you know how I felt, as well as I told him about his actions towards others and towards disscusions, which oppose his demands from others. I reminded him I wrote here back then about your expression of regrets as well as mine to you here and further on email and that you and I were in good terms; that you also understood and emphasized with me and understood I only wanted to discuss ideas. So he comes here again now and does it again, and after apologizing to the other user for those same kind of actions. On conversations on 2014 ESC talk page (archived now) and on other places (as Eurovision Song Contest Winners are examples of how he keeps making jabs to others that disagree with him - even after agreements are reached - including his own consent. And even on those accasions I stayed silent such as when he told me and another user that we deviate from manual of style based on our preferances to not see certain things; that we won't make a proper job as volunteers of Wikipedia if we don't follow criterias; that's even after he understood our point and changed his edits accordingly, so I turned the other cheek to repay him with a compliment that his last adjusement now developes the article in a good way to keep general positive atmosphere. Then he closed an RFC with presenting an opposite outcome, after the time that was invested on the proposals and discussion on them, including his proposals. I replied with quoting his and others different consent and turned to the 2 others that were involved to clarify their opinions on the project page (with even giving the benefit of doubt I missunderstood them). He kept the same opposite-summarise and wrote to me and on each of their pages that I'm forum-shoping. Than I already confronted him that he changes arguments and that he goes to others talk pages by saying he seeks advice and simpathy while plastering discussions and making personal remarks about others. Only then, and with another user comment at the RFC, he finally changed the RFC-summery. But still wrote an extreme that every registered-active member needs to participate, and a general argument that there are lots more members in the project that need to be involved. That's after earlier cases when it was okay to reach new agreement based on the usual 3-7 participants and that the RFC was opened for so long. Also during the RFC itself he attacked the other user; On ESC-1981 talk page were others stoped replying to him as he got defensive and I kept explaining him something, he jumped on me and closed the RFC as well to try and have the last non-appreciative word. People told over there, and on other various pages, to realize that everybody wants to help and improve and not being disruptive. His way, on this general examples and with the RFC, is very confusing and concerning. I told him that I will comment if I happen to see him talking on another forum, especially when it comes to you Christopher that we were on good terms and I wished it would be kept this way. I don't wanna bother you and myself further with this here, and anyway I brought enough cases to explain my point. So I don't mind if he will comment again, allowing him to have the last say. And anyway I sent you an email to ask you about some things that I intended to do before, such as Wikimedia activities and gatherings, that we started talking about. I hope we can keep being in touch. אומנות (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. I'm really not in a good position to get involved with this at the moment. However, I will look into replying to your e-mail when I have a spare moment. CT Cooper · talk 12:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Y45ed

Hey CT, would you please block Special:Contributions/Y45ed indefinitely because he/she did contributed unsourced or unexplained music genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.178.208 (talk) 07:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

He has already been blocked as a sockpuppet. Thank you for letting me know, but I'm rather slow at responding to onwiki issues at the moment. CT Cooper · talk 22:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wes Mᴥuse is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

As things are likely to get extremely busier over the next few weeks, I thought I take the time to post this now. All the best to you and yours. Wes Mᴥuse 19:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Wesley. That was very kind of you. CT Cooper · talk 17:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

University of Law - new web links

Hi CT Cooper

The University of Law has recently launched a new website, and I have just reviewed the University of Law's Wikipedia page to make sure all of the relevant links are still working. I've noticed a few of the links in the 'References' section are still pointing to the old site. Although there are re-directs in place for these pages, they will eventually go out of date so it would be useful to replace them with the updated links to the new site.

I have attempted to do this myself, but can't seem to find where to edit the links in the references section. Could I call upon your technical expertise to replace them please? Here is the info:

Ref 2. http://www.law.ac.uk/about/history-and-heritage/

Ref 5. http://www.law.ac.uk/about/university-of-law-locations/

Ref 6. http://www.law.ac.uk/

Ref 7. http://www.law.ac.uk/postgraduate/bptc/

Please let me know if you have any queries or if there any issues.

Many thanks Bryonybennett (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. I've given the page a general reference clean-up by replacing the old links with updated ones and fixing-up some other references as well. On the reference for the courses, simply linking to the university home page will not be sufficient - reference URLs should point to the specific page where the information cited is located. For courses this probably means that there should be one reference per course. For the moment I have simply added {{Verify source}} to the citation, though I can go back and reference each course in-turn if you wish.

Adding citations in Wikipedia articles is quite technical, but you can get the hang of it quite quickly. To start, I would suggest reviewing the main policy page on verifiability, Wikipedia:Verfiability, and then the guidelines Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Using citation templates makes referencing much easier – see Wikipedia:Citation templates for a review. If you want some further help, please ask. CT Cooper · talk 19:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there

Thank you for reviewing this - it's really helpful. With regards to the courses reference, the structure of the new website means that there is no longer an overarching page where the list of courses is displayed - it is now split into 'Postgraduate courses' and 'Undergraduate courses'. However, the homepage clearly shows links to these sections on one page, so I'm happy for this to link to the homepage for now. Otherwise I think we would need to split it down into each course which is quite numerous!

I will take a look at the pages you suggest and learn how to add citations myself.

Thanks again

Bryonybennett (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I think maybe one link to the postgraduate courses pages and another to the undergraduate courses page would work for now without having a massive number of links. CT Cooper · talk 02:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Updates

Hi Coop,

So nice to see you back in the fold. Hopefully a bit of well missed decorum will return. It's been like nursing kindergarten while you've been gone. I don't know how admins cope with it all day-in/day-out. Hope you are feeling much better. Anyhow I left a brief reply at Fort esc's talk page. But as I said there I would go into more depth issues here. If that is OK with you? Wes Mᴥuse 19:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Wes, it's good to talk to you again. Please feel free to post any extra details here if you wish. CT Cooper · talk 22:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot happened, both project-wise and on a personal level. I'll cover this image gallery situation first. There was the RfC for [Country] in ESC articles. And mixed ideas on what to do with photos and whether to limit them or place them in their own section. You know what I get like at providing a test for comparison sake!? Well I did that on a live article so that RfC participants had something to compare against. Then I remembered the policy, which is when I then moved the photos out of their own section and merged into the article itself. However, an IP user then opted for the "photogallery" option. And I am assuming they then mass-rolled their method elsewhere. Pickette is seeking advice on this matter as we speak over at WP:ESC.

As you've probably noticed, I've spruced up the project space too. It is looking warmer, inviting, and with the new nav-tabs, helping people get from one area to another much easier. We now have Turkvision under our scope. And I've started to do an article sweep and set myself a task to find every missing article out there and placing {{EurovisionNotice}} on talk pages too. Hadn't realised how much of a task it is to do single-handedly, but it is keeping me busy. I've also revamped the newsletter (which you've probably gathered from above). A suggestion had been made on whether the project's home page could have its own DYK section, but not sure if this is allowed, and I said I'd happily open up a project discussion on the matter in the new year.

Now for the personal side of things. Brace yourself! I got the volunteer offer for Glasgow 2014 a couple of weeks ago. Start my training in March 2014. So I will be on/off busy around these part whilst I undergo Commonwealth Games training. And on a positive ending, I received a proposal last month from my long-term partner. I accepted, and now the stress in organising the big day has begun. Not half given me sleepless nights. And that about sums up the updates (think I covered everything). If there's anything I may have missed, then hit me up and I'll see if I know the answers. How's things been with yourself? I have been worried, but thought you'd probably appreciate the time away better, than having me pestering via private email. Glad to see you back home, my friend. You have been missed, if not by others, then most certainly by myself. Wes Mᴥuse 22:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the info. I will try and digest it and reply in more detail by tomorrow night. CT Cooper · talk 22:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Opps, I forgot about this conversation, so I will reply now. Thanks for the fill in on the gallery issue – I now understand what has happened. I will try and weigh in at WT:ESC when I get to that item on my to-do list.

Yeah, I saw your work at WP:ESC. You've really been busy there – the pages look all very well organized and tidy now, and having attempted similar feats in the past, yes it is a huge amount of work. Good job. I agree that Turkvision and other such song contests should be under our banner until they are big enough to have there own project, which I can't see happening any time soon. Its a minor point, but WikiProject templates have all been standardized to their project names, so {{WikiProject Eurovision}} should be used over {{EurovisionNotice}}, the latter of which is deprecated. At some point I may mass replace all transclusions of {{EurovisionNotice}} and then delete that re-direct. Also, while I can see the merit of having an A-class assessment page, I will be surprised if it is ever used – most projects ignore A-class in practice. I'm not aware of any rule prohibiting DYK sections on our project home page; I know there is something similar at WikiProject Schools.

It's great to hear things are going well for you. Congratulations on your engagement, I wish both your and your partner all the best. With myself, things have got a lot better recently. I'm currently working on my dissertation again and hope to graduate from the University of Southampton next July. Thanks for your continued support and for looking after everything during my absence. Oh and one other thing, do you have a Facebook page by any chance? I can give you a link to mine by e-mail if you wish. CT Cooper · talk 17:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding Turkvision and other such contests. Perhaps as those contests start to progress more, then we'd be able to create task forces within the project to deal with those sectors, similar to how Project Olympics have a task for specifically for the Paralympics. I was thinking about this over the weekend actually, now that Junior Eurovision is in its second decade, maybe a Junior task force could be something worth looking into? Speaking of Junior Eurovision. I made a protection request for JESC2014, and it was only given 1 week semi-PP, despite the heavy disruptive editing. When I looked at previous years, they were all semi'd for a longer period. Should this be the case here? I'm already having problems with a Greek editor who's giving me a serious headache from adding unsourced and deliberate factual errors. Despite receiving 6 warning the other week (one of which I translated into Greek), the editor was blocked, and now he still does the same action (see User talk:Γιώργος Δελ).

I was unsure about A-class. I had opened a discussion about it on the project talk page, then noticed we already had A-class guidelines in place. After doing some homework from other projects, I thought it would be worth giving it a trial period for the project. So the assessment area is there if people wish to try it out. And if it doesn't get used after a 6 month period, then we can possibly abandon the idea. As for neatening up the project, I was a bit apprehensive at first, with the back of my mind ticking away thinking people would not appreciate the reorganising. But I took that leap of faith, and so far members appear to be find the new style a lot easier. Which reminds me, there's one member who I would like to pay a huge thanks to - Lucky102 (talk · contribs). They responded to a piece from the newsletter, and I have noticed they are the only editor to actually work on every article that I list on the monthly clean-up. Is there anything you can suggest, without awarding barnstars?

Now this Facebook thing. I'll email you shortly with the link. Might be more secure that way, so I avoid outing myself. Wes Mᴥuse 18:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for not replying earlier – I've been neglecting both my talk page and e-mails.

I don't have a strong opinion with task-forces. They do seem to be a good idea, but my main concern would be that they wouldn't be used and would soon end-up abandoned. If they do go ahead they should be heavily advertised and the {{WikiProject Eurovision}} template should be modified to allow a "supported by xyz taskforce" option. I created the original assessments page and I was disappointed that it got almost no use at all. We'll see how it goes with the new version. On A-class, I have nothing against it principle so I guess its down to finding out if anyone will use it.

On JESC 2014, I've put Γιώργος Δελ (talk · contribs) on my watchlist so I will look into any further trouble. I used to work at WP:RFPP and in practice the result of your request is greatly dependent on which admin answers it – some are much more willing to use the protect button than others, and given the amount of factors that go into determining whether a page should be protected, consistency even from one user doesn't happen. Looking at the history, a small number of editors were responsible for most of the trouble, which is usually answered by blocking rather than page protection. I'll try and keep a watch on the page. Perhaps a new editnotice would help? However, I think we're overdue a general discussion on their use in Eurovision articles.

I'm pleased that Lucky102 (talk · contribs) is helping out with the newsletter as the more the merrier. This probably isn't my most helpful answer ever, but if you want to thank him without using a barnstar, I would suggest using something other than a barnstar (kittens, food e.t.c.) when using the wikilove feature. Otherwise there's always a personally written note or a friendly mention in newsletter. CT Cooper · talk 03:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Pete Townshend

Hi, CT. Could you drop by the Pete Townshend page, please. There is an issue going on with the Operation Ore section. I know you have been involved with this before, and it would be helpful to have experienced people on hand. Pkeets (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't edited the page in a long time but it's still on my watchlist. I'll keep an eye on the discussion, but my involvement was only ever in an admin's capacity so I don't have a strong opinion on the issue. CT Cooper · talk 04:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

I think you rightfully deserve this hot cuppa after swiftly dealing with our disruptive editor. Wes Mᴥuse 22:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Wes. CT Cooper · talk 22:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Cooper

Hello Cooper. Sandstein's gag rule will soon have passed six months and I'll be able to make another appeal to remove the AA2 ban entirely. I was wondering if you are still very busy and if you will still support the ban getting removed. As I said back then, I have not actually edited an AA2 article in over a year and a half, which goes to show the ban is no longer serving a constructive purpose. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to make specific recommendations regarding the ban without first reviewing the evidence and how things happen to be when you go for an appeal. That said, it would be appropriate for me to comment given my past involvement with you and I will try and put in the positives if nobody else mentions them. The biggest factor which will determine whether your appeal is successful is how you present yourself during the appeal and how good your recent conduct has been. When writing the appeal stick to the facts and make your case in a calm manner. There will be no need to kiss anybody's feet but personal attacks or over-the-top comments about how one is a victim of a conspiracy will sink the appeal before it has even started. I will try and keep an eye on how things go in the meantime. CT Cooper · talk 17:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Premature article creations

Coop,

There is currently a redirect for ABU TV Song Festival 2014, purely because it is too early for the article to be created. All that is known is the festival takes place in Macau, and that's it. Nothing to verify dates, venue, participants. Which is why I Personally avoided creating the article. However one editor created the article too soon, and I ended up placing a redirect due to lack of verifiable information. The same editor is basically warring on this now and recreating the article with lack of information. Any ideas on what can be done to stop the article being recreated? Wes Mᴥuse 14:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• There's also Macau in the ABU TV Song Festival that has been prematurely created, with lack of verifiable information to provide substantial documentation. Wes Mᴥuse 14:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like his given-up for now. I'll keep an eye on the page and the user's talk page to see if he comes back or anyone else comes to cause problems. CT Cooper · talk 18:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Giorgos Del is back!

Γιώργος Δελ still refuses to acknowledge warnings of adding unsourced material, despite your warning dated Christmas Eve, of indef blocking him. 12 warnings and 2 blocks in the space of a month has to be a Wiki-record, surely. Lol.Wes Mᴥuse 12:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the heads-up. CT Cooper · talk 17:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas! :-)

Happy Yuletides!

Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!)

~TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hi CT Cooper, Wishing you a very Happy and Wonderful Merry Christmas! Hope you are having a great time with family and friends :-) Best wishes. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. CT Cooper · talk 17:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Continued

Would it be okay if I pointed out that the last time I actually edited an AA2 article I wasn't allowed to edit was on 17 December 2012? Because it would be sticking to the facts, but it's a fact some Admins want to hide. Hiding it resulted in pretty much every block afterward. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 03:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

That would be a helpful fact to state to make clear that you have observed the restrictions placed on your editing. However, it won't be enough on its own to get the sanctions lifted; you will also need to show that if allowed to edit AA2 articles, problematic behaviour won't returns. CT Cooper · talk 17:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year CT Cooper!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello CT Cooper: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Wes Mᴥuse 21:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Your a day late! Just kidding, happy New Year to you too. CT Cooper · talk 02:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Szekszter

Hi CT Cooper. I noticed that you just blocked User:Szekszter for being a sock of Beloki. This user had just come off of a block for pov-pushing against consensus on the Somali people page. However, shortly after Szekszter was indefinitely banned, another account showed up on the page and basically tried to re-add the same contentious material as the Szekszter/Beloki account, describing the figure in a similarly adulatory way ("well known" [2], "well-renowned" [3]). I think there may perhaps be a connection here. Would you please have a look? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. However, upon review of the edits of PacificWarrior101 (talk · contribs), I don't believe (s)he meets the profile of a sockpuppet of Beloki, and certainly not enough to pass the WP:DUCK test. I could request a checkuser at WP:SPI but I don't the evidence is sufficient for this to be granted at this time. I will however keep an eye on the Somalia people page and the account of PacificWarrior101 as there some issues there. CT Cooper · talk 17:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources enquiry

Coop,

Do you know if soundcloud can be used as a source in order to verify a tracklisting? The only reason I am asking is because I've been busy expanding New Year's Eve in London article (inspired after my visit to London on New Year's Eve) and it was in a poor state. I'm considering including tracklists into the music section, but this information is only sourced on soundcloud. When I looked on WP:EL it doesn't mention anything apart from rich media which states to add {{plays audio}}. Thank you in advance for your advice. Wes Mᴥuse 14:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

If I'm honest, I'm not that familiar with SoundCloud. From what I've read, I would treat it like YouTube – with caution. On YouTube, videos that originate from reliable sources and which are uploaded within copyrgiht law (i.e. not uploaded by random users) can be used a sources. I would extend this to SoundCloud – tracklists from official sources without any legal issues should be okay to link to and source from. CT Cooper · talk 21:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

These are the sources in question. 2012/13 and 2013/14 tracklistings. These are on the profile of the DJ who put the medley together specifically for both the firework displays. Wes Mᴥuse 22:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, since they are from official sources, I would have thought it would be fine as a source. CT Cooper · talk 00:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi CT, sent you an e-mail. Thanks. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I've checked my inbox and I'm afraid I haven't received any e-mail from you. The system might be just being slow or something could have gone wrong somewhere. I've checked my e-mail preferences and they are definitely set correctly. CT Cooper · talk 22:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I see. It might have been some unknown technical problem. But don't worry, I've resent the e-mail again, thank god I had a saved a copy :) ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I've got it; in fact I've got two. It was just server lag. I will reply when I get the chance. CT Cooper · talk 09:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Sure, no problem. I've also sent you a follow up e-mail. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

  I have replied. CT Cooper · talk 00:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

  Thank you for your reply, I'll see what to do. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello

I'm a native Albanian speaker and a massive fan of the Eurovision Song Contest. I didn't copy the "Herciana Matmuja" page. That isn't even her name. Her name is "Hersiana Matmuja". I'm a native Albanian speaker so I would know how to spell her name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurovizioni (talk • contribs) 08:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You re-created the article with an alternative title here. Your contributions record clearly shows what you were trying to do – a cut-and-paste move, which is not appropriate. I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge this point and indicate that you will not attempt this again. I understand your a new user, but I must point out to you that relying on technicalities, such as the spelling of a page, to justify or deny inappropriate action is frowned upon here, and is known as wikilawyering.

I appreciate your passion, but being a fan of the contest or a native Albanian speaker does not give you extra authority in this discussion. Decisions are made by consensus and article titles are decided based on what sources most frequently use, as per Wikipedia:Article titles and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Please review the discussion at Talk:Herciana Matmuja in full. CT Cooper · talk 14:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

i'm being accused

This must be a misunderstanding. My passions are military history, Hockey and Am. Football. I don't edit race articles, but was tangled up with a user,who was blanking multiple articles and I tried to restore them, not knowing at the time how to report vandalism. With regards Armynut15 (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

If it's a misunderstanding, then you have nothing to worry about as the case will be closed in your favour. While this investigation is not a trial, it is does still operate on the principle of innocent until proven guilty, and the onus is on myself to provide evidence in order to justify a checkuser. I think enough evidence is there. Could it all be a weird coincidence? Possibly. A checkuser will find out for sure. CT Cooper · talk 21:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Help

Can you please comment here. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The use of my name there already brought it to my attention, and I will comment as soon as I can. CT Cooper · talk 15:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

IP block requests

Hello, could you please block the following IP when you have a chance?: Special:Contributions/118.210.229.10. From looking at the edit history it is clearly a vandalism-only account. Thanks much for any help.Hoops gza (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

This user, as well, continues to vandalize: User talk:58.96.111.98.Hoops gza (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the message and apologies for the slow response; I had a bad cold yesterday but feel better now. On, 118.210.229.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), I'm afraid that one is stale and it looks like it keeps getting reallocated to different people, so a block probably wouldn't be helpful now. However, I shall put the IP's talk page on my watchlist so I can keep an eye on it. 58.96.111.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has already been blocked by another admin, but has been a persistent cause of trouble so I would have happily blocked it if that hadn't been the case. I would recommend putting future reports at WP:AIV, as you'll get a quicker response there than if you contact admins individually. CT Cooper · talk 14:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about AIV. I was not sure where to report such activity on Wikipedia. Happy editing!Hoops gza (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Happy editing to you too! CT Cooper · talk 03:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

ESC Portugal - Fraud

I didn't make a threat. I just stated that fraud is a crime, punishable by law under the Portuguese law. This is a message concerning to the person or persons who were responsible for the fraud involved in the choice of the Portuguese song for ESC (which is still not clear if it's going to be there). That person or persons are responsible for fraud (almost everyone interested knows that in Portugal) and that person or those persons may face charges for that precise fraud. That's what I meant. I thought didn't have to explain more, but since you're not Portuguese I guess you might not know what has happened and what may happen next. If you block me, I can assure you that I won't be too bothered about that! So, go on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondolkiri1 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't find your explanation very convincing; edit summaries are for other people editing the article to read, and any reasonable that read that would conclude that it was a threat in order to deter others from making edits to the article. This chilling effect is exactly why legal threats are not allowed, and so you have at the very least have violated the spirit of the no legal threats policy. Blocks are not done for punishment or upon request, they are done to protect the project from harm. So unless you make any further threats or violate any other policies, you will not be blocked. CT Cooper · talk 22:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, in response to this edit, please do not add comments to people's user pages; use their user talk page. And no I don't believe that any country is threatening me. I warned you for appearing to threaten other editors with legal action. CT Cooper · talk 22:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Not even if Emanuel or anyone from Sony Music in Portugal was one of those editors, I could be threatening them, since I don't work in the police or in the judicial system. Well, I'm not going to present my CV here, obviously, you may think that I have such kind of work. I know I don't have, and that's enough for me. Concerning to the rest, fine, I already told you that I was not interested anymore about editing about the topic of ESC. Well, if you wish to know, after all that I edited the list of cities in Crimea, based on Russian and Ukrainian sources (it was already there but it missed data)... If you wish to see and correct anything, be welcome. Yours, faithfully, Mondolkiri1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondolkiri1 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Anyone can report what they view as a crime to the police to investigate. In any case, since you are no longer interested in editing Eurovision articles, I think this matter should be considered resolved. CT Cooper · talk 19:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to help at training editathon at the Royal Society - March 25th

Hi, Would you be interested in helping new editors at this event - Wikipedia:WikiProject Royal Society/Diversity in Science Edit-a-thon, Royal Society, March 25, 2014? The whole event lasts from 2-9pm, but the key periods for helpers are about 2.45-5.20 and 6.60-9.00 pm, when they are all actually editing. An extra hand at any parts of these periods would be very useful. If you can make it, please sign up at the event page. Nice cake & sandwiches, and we'll go for a drink afterwards. Alternatively, if you can think of any other Wikipedians who might be able to do it, please pass on, or let me have your suggestions. Thanks, Johnbod/ Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. However, I'm occupied with other things and so will not be able to attend. CT Cooper · talk 13:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Justin Bieber

Hey CT Cooper, I noticed that Talk:Justin Bieber was semi-protected by you a while back because of vandalism. However, could you consider changing it to pending changes protection? Pending changes will allow edit requests to be made, while allowing vandalism to be kept off the page.

Thanks, Epicgenius (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm afraid it is not technically possible to apply pending changes to talk pages, only "regular" edit or move protection. This is presumably because pending changes was in intended for articles and there is no community consensus for its use outside the mainspace. I could trial lifting the semi-protection on a trial basis, though I'm not keen on this idea given that the amount of attention the subject gets hasn't dropped and so probably neither will the level of vandalism. The only other option is to create a sub-page for unregistered users to post on. CT Cooper · talk 15:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The University of Law - recent change

Hi CT Cooper

I've noticed that The University of Law entry has recently been amended to describe it as a 'private research university' - whereas before it said 'private teaching university'. The University of Law does not conduct any research, as it is a private, for-profit institution backed by a private equity company.

Is it possible to see who made this change so that I could contact them and let them know?

Many thanks Bryony Bennett Bryonybennett (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's the person that made the changes. It appears they were banned user using a sockpuppet to edit, which is now blocked, so there probably isn't much point contacting them. I have reverted the edits for you. CT Cooper · talk 16:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Great - thanks!

Bryonybennett (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

WP Eurovision in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Eurovision for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this opportunity. I will try and add some answers as soon as possible. CT Cooper · talk 18:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

A south coast meetup

At the last London meetup we chatted about establishing a meet in the Portsmouth/Southampton area.

Before I set up anything definite, would you like to suggest any venues and/or dates that would suit you? 21 June or later, not clashing with London on 13 July, and before Wikimania is the ideal range of times. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking charge of setting things up. I can't do end of May as I'm in the Netherlands. The rest of the time, I'm not that bothered as long as it doesn't clash with the London meetups and is on the weekends – keeping it on a Sunday is probably best. Keeping the current 13:00 start time works well for me, though I can do a bit earlier or a bit later. As for places, as I said at the meetup, I prefer Portsmouth over Southampton, but I can do both. I don't know too many pubs or similar venues in either Portsmouth or Southampton I'm afraid. However, for me if we went for Southampton, the a good choice would be the The Cowherds – I have gone in chatted with friends in there a few times, and it seems relaxed enough for a meetup. CT Cooper · talk 19:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Portsmouth meetup #1

Thanks for your feedback to my earlier questions about a meetup on the south coast, and sorry this has taken me slightly longer than I hoped, but it is now my pleasure to invite you to the inaugural Portsmouth meetup on 29 June 2014.

All the details are on the event page at m:Meetup/Portsmouth/1 - sign up if you are able to come and spread the word! Thryduulf (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like a good choice of venue. I'll try and spread the word. CT Cooper · talk 16:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

COI breaches

Coop, I'm very dubious now from the discussion raised by NickvL in the thread dated 22 May 2014. I find it rather ironic that the user name is very similar to escxtra editor, Nick van Lith, the same link that NickvL also requested to we use. And I've even stumbled upon more evidence to verify possible doubts of a "feud" between Eurovision websites. ESCDaily dismiss Wikipedia for the fact we have Armenia, Iceland, and Norway listed, despite the fact we have used ESCToday as a source (a website we know are very reliable). Oikotimes claims that ESC+Plus is an untrustworthy trashy website, yet ESC+Plus clearly show on their website that they source their news accordingly (unlike Oikotimes). Do you think this may require urgent discussion between project members or worse case scenario, flagging it up with WP:COI? Wes Mᴥuse 21:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• It's OK, we've resolved it and found a solution. Nick will post edit requests so that other members can use the source instead. A bit like an insider giving the scoop so that we can be as near-accurate with the article as possible. If that makes sense? Wes Mᴥuse 23:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm glad you're on the ball with these things. It is rather awkward to have our sources being directly involved in article development, but if such users are willing to engage on the talk page, it makes things a lot easier. On Oikotimes, they've been caught out many times so I'm not inclined to trust their judgement on ESC+Plus. CT Cooper · talk 11:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision - consensus discussion

There is a discussion regarding colour coding on articles taking place on the project talk page that requires input from as many project members as possible. Thank you, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, CT Cooper. You have new messages at Wesley Mouse's talk page.
Message added 13:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wes Mᴥuse 13:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

SPI?

Hi! I had an IP user leave a message on my talk page about User:Revilal90 and I noticed that you were the blocking admin. The IP is concerned that they've created some sockpuppets and asked if I could open an SPI. I've asked for more specific examples to help build a case, but I admit that I'm not quite sure what to look for. You're probably more familiar with everything, so I've suggested that you look into this on my talk page. Here's the link to the conversation: User_talk:Tokyogirl79#Special:Contributions.2FRevilal90.27s_new_accounts. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I will reply on your talk page. CT Cooper · talk 14:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Portsmouth meetup #2

Hello

Thank you for attending the first Portsmouth meetup last Sunday, it was nice to meet you again and have some good discussions, just a shame that I had to leave before the end.

After that success, I'm now turning my attention to organising the second meetup. An end of August date seemed to get support, and so I've provisionally scheduled it for Sunday the 31st, avoiding the bank holiday weekend the week before. It was suggested that people might like a visit to a museum in the morning before the pub in the afternoon. I suggest that the Portsmouth 2 talk page on Meta is the best place to organise it, so when you have time please feel free to head on over there and share your thoughts. Please also invite anyone in the area you know or think would like to get involved with organising or attending the museum visit and/or pub. Chris McKenna (WMUK) (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Chris. I was wondering where you had gone for a little while; the others initially forgot to tell me you had to leave early. Regardless, I really enjoyed it and I look forward to doing it again some time in the future.

I will visit the Meta talk page in good time. CT Cooper · talk 15:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Md.

Hi. At [4], you changed Md. Sabur Khan to Sabur Khan, citing WP:TITLES (though I think you may have meant WP:CREDENTIAL?). In the Muslim world, "Md." as a prefix is commonly seen as an abbreviation for Mohammed, not medical doctor. In this particular case, the target article does happen to be at Sabur Khan (something I've brought up on the talk page) which is why I imagine it looked correct when it got rid of the redlink, but it probably needs to be changed back to a pipelink. Let's see where the discussion goes (if anywhere). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I didn't realize that "Md." was an abbreviation for Muhammad, rather than a title. I think the article should probably be moved to start with "Md." or similar. Since the talk page for that article doesn't get a lot of traffic, you are free to boldly change the article name; otherwise I would make a nomination at WP:RM. The link is probably best left as it is until the article is moved. CT Cooper · talk 23:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an issue that's been bugging me for a while, and needs a bigger conversation than this one article. I want to explore a bit more to see if there's some consistency to other articles or sources. I have the feeling that I'll find that the abbreviation is one of those things that's done casually/colloquially, probably doesn't really belong in the encyclopedia, and should be documented as such. In my perhaps limited personal experience, I've seen that it's so common as the first given name, it's often dropped completely in casual conversation, as it was for Sabur Khan's article title, so there could be a WP:COMMONNAME argument. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest 2015

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 06:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've extended it for another six months since it seems to have been a success. I've done the same with Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014. CT Cooper · talk 13:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Invitation: WikiProject Autism

Greetings! You are hereby invited to WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of autism, Asperger syndrome, and autistic culture on Wikipedia. As the project emphasizes contribution from autistic editors, it is especially interested in you, who have chosen to list yourself at Category:Wikipedians with autism. Muffinator (talk) 07:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia ads	file info – #251

Thank you very much for this offer. I'm going to review my plans for future editing soon after Wikimania concludes. CT Cooper · talk 13:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Eurovision Song Contest 2015 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• European Broadcasting Union|EBU]]|date=31 July 2014|accessdate=2 August 2014|last=Siim|first=Jarmo}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you BracketBot, I have fixed the problem. CT Cooper · talk 18:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thank you for giving me the tip to regist me! SpaceON2 (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. CT Cooper · talk 21:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Daffodil International University

Thanks. The main editor there works for the university. Dougweller (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed. One of the reasons pending changes was activated there was because of the long history of unregistered users and throwaway accounts adding promotional, inappropriate, or copyrighted content. However, that's now history, so I hope we can work with him/her to build a reasonable article. CT Cooper · talk 18:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Cencerns, Thanks for your observation. Please suggest that how I can build a reasonable article and pls also hide warning messages that you have noticed and you wanted to work after wikimania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafiqulalamrubel (talk • contribs) 08:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. This article is next on my Wikipedia to-do list and I will start making edits as soon as I can. CT Cooper · talk 17:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Forged sources again

Cooper,

Giorgito Babatselo is at it again forging sources, despite the fact that both you and I have warned him, and also the block he received last month (which I assume was for the same problematic issue). This time he has forged a source for JESC 2014 stating that Estonia are making a debut. I am now dubious that he is here to contribute properly as an editor, and is only here to publish forged and highly false material. Wes Mouse 12:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Since I specifically told him that if he did it again he would be indef'ed, he has forced my hand with this further forging of sources. I agree that he is probably one of these subtle vandals and is not here to build an encyclopedia, though I will unblock him if he can demonstrate that this isn't the case. More likely he will have a go at socking, so I'll be on the look out for those. CT Cooper · talk 12:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say he is as subtle as a brick vandal, but that is tongue-in-cheek of course. I too shall keep an eye out for socks, as it is most probable that he will attempt something via IP or creating new user accounts. I only noticed this latest forgery because he had also listed a pile of EBU members that have not stated anything via sources. My return to Wikipedia after yet another short break was well timed. How are you these days? Wes Mouse 12:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It's good to see you around. Much of recent time has been taking part in Wikimania 2014 then recovering from it, as well as looking for employment as I need some money! Not had much luck so far, but I think I'll get there sooner or later. CT Cooper · talk 21:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It is so nice to be back around these parts once again. I'm really enjoying having the odd bit of time-out to refresh the batteries (so to speak). I'd love to hear more about your time at Wikimania 2014, via Facebook of course. On a different note, our other friend User talk:Khadidje has resumed adding unsourced material, despite 7 warnings in the past, and you also blocked him twice. The latter you also told him/her that it was their last chance and the next time would be indef. Wes Mouse 04:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It so happens I've wrote a report on Wikimania, you can find it here. Feel free to have a read!

I was initially happy to indef Khadidje, but on second thoughts, he has made the effort multiple times to source content between now and the last block, so I think that means he is trying to take on-board what we are saying. So for now, I'm going to presume the recent edits were a slip-up, particularly as there seemed to be some confusion between Slovenia and Slovakia. CT Cooper · talk 11:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)