User talk:Jochem van Hees/Archive 1

A belated welcome!

The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, JochemvanHees. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Revision of the Euronews Radio info

Hi, Why did you revert my changes about the Euronews Radio? The information is not correct: the radio service has not been functional for at least half a year. So please put it back. Best, HuhuLesny (talk) 11:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! The information in that section is correct; it simply states that Euronews Radio was launched in 2012 (which is true). I reverted your revision because I believed it falls under original research. Checking whether or not something works counts as research, meaning that you have to cite a published source confirming it. However, I later noticed that many more parts of the article are unsourced, but I don't have the time right now to clean up the entire article. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Eurovision 2021 semi final map

I don't know how to edit svg maps, but 2020 map shouldn't be here now because Armenia is out. Armenia should have been turned into gray and then it should have been a new file. But as I don't know how to edit svg maps, I asked user Avis28 who did a 2020 one, to do for 2021 as well. 009988aaabbbccc (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2021 (CEST)

Ah good call to ask someone to do it. I personally think a map is better than no map, as it's not that terribly wrong or something. But if it's getting fixed then that's good. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I made a new version of the map. It needs to be updated in other languages as well --Avis28 (talk) 11:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Galasy ZMesta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Belarusian. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Embers (James Newman song) has been accepted

Embers (James Newman song), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Side events locations info placing - ESC21

Well since that paragraph also mentions the abolition/modification of other side events due to the pandemic, I think it should be at the close of the "impact of the pandemic" section instead? Also including that at the top of the 'Locations' section right away would confuse casuals.--Pdhadam (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I guess it does kinda fit in both, but I think that especially the info about the turquoise carpet should be in the location section. That's also where it is in articles about previous editions. Maybe we could move it to the bottom of the location section though, under an "Other sites" header. The "Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic" section falls under the "Production" section, so my logic was that it only contains things relevant to the production of the contest. Although maybe we could also mention in short that due to COVID-19 the other side events are not going ahead. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Mz7 (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

List of World Series champions

Regarding this reversion of vandalism, I can tell you what it's about. Back in 1961, when Roger Maris was chasing Babe Ruth's single-season home run record, Ford Frick, the Commissioner of Baseball and biased towards Ruth, said that he might have two different lines in the record book, as Ruth hit 60 home runs in a 154 game season while Maris was playing in a 162 game season. After Maris broke the record, the powers that be added an asterisk after the record with a footnote denoting the season length. The asterisk has since been used by fans as a way to delegitimize certain records, like Barry Bonds' career home run record, or teams that cheated like the 2017 Astros. It's vandalism, and I thank you for reverting it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Having fun at the audience?

How's Eurovision? I saw you wrote sometime ago at some edit you attend, and quite obvious with you being so devoted and fan and with places in Netherlands relatively close and easily reachable. The crowed, although relatively small, seems and sounds extremely enthusiastic and loud. Are you enjoying yourself? :) אומנות (talk) 06:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, totally! I was at the first-semi final and I will be at the final tomorrow. It is incredible to be there, with so many fellow Eurofans around it's an amazing atmosphere. And the show is an enormous spectacle; it's really impossible not to cheer and sing along. The only disadvantage is that afterwards I have a lot of stuff to catch up on, including Eurovision content that I missed like the press conferences, and also study-related stuff. So that's why I have a lot less time left for wiki editing (which is why my reply is so late, sorry!) ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm very happy for you, having amazing experiences even. I also thought about how you doing there, and wanted to wish you a good time, as I saw your vast dedicated contributions and kind communication the past months - including until few days ago when I still looked at some Eurovision articles. So despite you being more busy now, how you still dedicate time for Wikipedia. :)

I worked during 2019 Eurovision and prioritized to even watch the contest from home also for comfort reasons, and only attended 2 unofficial parties at night during the week, but still those where amazing in themselves as well with famous Eurovision winners. Also got the chance to be on an amazing Eurovision-and general music performances Mediterranean cruise including performances from Eurovision winners and other participants on the ship.

Still, hope one day to attend Eurovision too, with a good viewing and a chair (don't have capability to stand for hours). Sorry you miss watching the press conferences at home, although you can try going with a journalist or get a journalist-tag (many fans manage to get them and enter the press conference themselves, as well people considered journalists for writing blogs and on fansites) so you may be even present at the conference once the contest finishes, as I assume it's right next-door or close nearby the contest's hall. The show does look amazing with the pyrotechnics, especially Greece's staging impressed me. And a bunch of songs in diverse genres are surprisingly very much to my taste, with strong energetic performances.

To share bit further, every edition after 1995 (the highest quality edition in my opinion) has only few songs I really like, with emotional and high notes range and deep lyrics. North Macedonia and Denmark 2021 with their more yesteryear styles (high notes emphasized ballad and Schlager), didn't make it as less in fashion on the music scene nowadays which is a shame for my taste, though other songs like Greece which fuse 1980s Dance in a fresh way, made the final. So there are a bunch of other good songs at the final too and very energetic performances, more than in 2019 and the cancelled 2020. My favorite is Italy, as almost every year lately and many previous years, including 2020 where I firmly believe Italy would have won. So, I wish for Italy to win now and in general think it's about time. BTW you responded quickly although you're busy. Thank you for this, and in general for your kind communication and professional contributions the past months, why I also really wanted to wish you good time this week and wish you keep enjoy your awesome Wikipedia contribution, have the best time tonight. אומנות (talk) 08:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Deleting the Italian lyric's censorship incident

Why wouldn't you call this incident? Who says what an incident is? Is the fact it is a lower scale than another incident doesn't make it an incident? The definition of Incident, according to Cambridge English Dictionary is: "an event that is either unpleasant or unusual". It is unusual that words are being censored in the contest, and in other years' articles (such as 2005) it does mention such an even as incident.

Therefore, I believe it is a relevant information that needs to be mentioned on the Incidents section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danyzack02 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah this was a rather bold edit. My reasoning was that it isn't really one event, just something about the song (which should be on its own article). But I agree that it is unusual. (Also there doesn't seem to be an incidents section for the 2005 article?) ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

New article

What you think about it? Talk:Damiano David.--ParoleSonore (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know, I am not familiar with the notability criteria for people, and I also don't know much about him in particular. Articles like these often start out as stubs with few sources so maybe it'll just take some time. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

UK Download chart on "Embers"

Per WP:CHARTMATH, we don't include component charts (that is, the statistics of one chart that make up another, bigger chart) in wikitables when the song charted on the main chart of a country. As "Embers" has now charted on the main UK Singles Chart (and downloads are included in a song's placement on that chart), we should now exclude the download chart—you might notice the download chart is not included in other tables where the main UK chart is (and if it is, an editor who doesn't know we shouldn't do this has snuck it in). Download sales really don't mean a lot in 2021 and are overwhelmingly dwarfed by streaming numbers, so number three or even number one on a download chart now isn't anything significant. Number one on a streaming chart is a bigger indication of a song's actual popularity. Also, we generally disregard alphabetical order when it comes to the main UK Singles entry being placed before UK Indie. Other articles have set the precedent for this, and other editors are apparently in agreement considering there's been little to no dissent on the matter. Thanks. Ss112 18:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah I didn't know that. Thanks for the explanation! ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Samira Efendi

Hi. Thanks for help with resolving the dispute regarding Efendi. But I think there is one more issue that needs addressing in Armenia–Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest. Popmatters writes that "she called Armenians “terrorists”". But another source writes that "the petition stated that Efendi has “openly attacked Armenians” by sharing taglines that called Armenians “terrorists”. The Change.org campaign has not listed a direct citation for the comments that Efendi allegedly made. [1] So the actual claim was that she shared taglines, but did not actually call Armenians terrorists. But then even that is questionable, because no evidence was provided. I checked the petition, and indeed, it actually claimed that she shared taglines, so it is bad journalism from Popmatters. What do you think is the best way to address this, because in present form the claim is actually slanderous? Grandmaster 16:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, PopMatters is a reliable source according to Wikipedia guidelines, and is cited across the site. I also don't find it bad journalism, it's just their interpretation of their source. But if you think that the current phrasing is wrong, and you can cite your "another source", then WP:FIXIT. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I rewrote the text to demonstrate that it was a claim made in the petition, and not an actual fact. Grandmaster 08:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Gjon's Tears

Hi. Please check Gjon's Tears talk page. Btw I had already provided sufficient arguments so I think it would have been more considerate to have informed me first before making the edit.John07234 (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I will take a look. I made that edit because that was the status quo before the edit war started (and personally I think the admin should have done that in the first place). Also, because you didn't reply, it's hard to tell if that means you agree or haven't seen it or something else. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Twinkle Notice

Thanks for your notice on Twinkle!

FYI

 – The change falls under breaking changes: In the context of this notice, "breaking changes" are any changes to a template that change how it is used, for example adding, removing, or renaming any required parameters, or changing the required format of the input to a required parameter. For notice templates, rewordings of the template's contents that change the tone or central message of the template are also considered a breaking change.

― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 15:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Gjon's Tears

Check my edit, how much info and arguments I need to give ? I thought it ended but the guy continues. I provided info,sources and enough arguments and still somehow it's not enough. Anyway thanks for reading this. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:E246:E300:5937:463A:124B:2AB9 (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

Hey! Thank you for handling the corruption in the page Eurovision Song Contest 2021! I tried to handle, then I see you already handled. Idoc07 (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks! (Does that make sense? Whatever.) I actually recently found out that it's quite easy to undo multiple edits at once; when you look at a diff of the whole range of edits (which you can do easily by clicking "cur" on the last stable version), you can then click the undo link to the right of the "latest revision as of" text. That has sped up my vandalism reversions quite a bit. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Portugal in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021 has been accepted

Portugal in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Greenman (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry

hello, it's me. I'm so sorry about the bad contribution I did to amogus. I'm really, really sorry. MegaValenX (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

(Web-)API

Hi, if this is the wrong place, just delete this comment. It's about https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=API&oldid=1044840208

I'm quoting you: "The first two do not say anything about confusion between APIs and web APIs, the third one is a blog"

You are misunderstanding these "sources". There is no scientific paper on this (as far as I know), if that is what you were searching for. Instead, these "sources" are examples of the widespread confusion. Any other idea how to "prove" that trend?

1) Despite its title, the video *means* Web API, but names it "API". The software product behind it does so as well.

2) Similar case here: "postman" is some online platform talking about "API" all over the place. But it actually means only(!) the specific type "Web API".

3) You should have noticed that the third one was taken from the chapter "History of the term". Yes, it has "blog" in its URL. So what? Does that eliminate its contents? In Firefox, it renders quite well. And some user already cited the important part of it, so you should be able to see the point.

and 4) Listen to any advertisement or talk to some "mobile" developer... As soon as you hear "API", it will exclusively mean "Web API". How do you cite that?

80.139.202.62 (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

That there are some examples of people using "API" instead of "Web API" does not at all mean that "the generic term API is heavily confused with its specific form Web API". Instead, add a source that actually says that there is such confusion. Although I do agree now that I was wrong to dismiss the third source – I added it back. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

---

I think that you are only concerned about the word "heavily". Maybe that was too much, and I agree that one or two examples are not really a "proof", but when it's that easy to find examples, I consider it an empirical/statistical "proof". It's a common, observable fact, which you actually don't need sources for. I could write that to a web page and then cite it, but that doesn't make sense to me. ;) You will see, in near future, nobody will understand how APIs could have ever existed before the advent of the HTTP protocol.

Anyway, thanks for partially reverting the revert of the revert of the revert. Have a good weekend.

Haha, have a good weekend to you too :D. (Although by the way, self-published sources are usually not considered reliable by Wikipedia.) ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Lithuanian selection dates

Adding a comment here just to be clear. I get your point about WP:SYNTHESIS, I simply thought this rather falls under WP:CALC. Best :) 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 16:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The thing is though that as far as I can tell the source does not say how long it is until the final will take place. That's just being assumed based on what we know about previous years (one show a week). ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Mmh, you are right about this, though it seems to me reasonable enough (even without considering previous years) that it is highly unlikely the shows will take place less frequently than once a week. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 16:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Autopatrolled user right added

Hey. I know you didn't ask for it, but I hope it proves useful to you. Regards, El_C 12:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Whoa! I don't really know what to say, thank you very much! ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I live to give (user rights!). El_C 13:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Untitled

The Albanian entry “Stand By You” is already released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.89.72.160 (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:No original research. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello where did you got the reddit user box thing?

I am on mobile... 112.135.83.173 (talk) 06:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I used the template Template:User Reddit like this: {{User Reddit|JochCool}} ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Democracy Index

Hi. I see you have reverted my latest edit in the Democracy Index article. I should probably have taken that to the Talk page, rather than removing the template, so I am doing it now. I would be happy if you joined in the discussion.--Gorpik (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Source

On the editing withdrawal: the source was exactly the same source you added a few hours ago, the official Junior Eurovision website. Please check your source first and then retract any edits and don't make a fuss..--Gro456 22:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh. When I opened that page just like ten minutes ago it wasn't there, and now it is there. I know because I still have that browser tab open. I guess it's due to caching. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Tatyana Mezhentseva

On 18 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tatyana Mezhentseva, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Tatyana Mezhentseva is the first person in ten years to participate in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest twice? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tatyana Mezhentseva. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Tatyana Mezhentseva), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

JESC2021

Hey, about the table, when two countries recieve the same amount of online points, that tie cannot be broken, so why display one as finishing higher than the other? (7th and 8th for ex) ImStevan (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@ImStevan: hm, I didn't actually think about that there isn't really such a tiebreaker for Junior Eurovision. I think currently this article breaks that tie through the jury points, and it seems that earlier articles do so too. But I'm doubting if that's the right course of action; I merged it again for now. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jochem van Hees: the true way would be to put both 10th and then leave 11th blank, but that just looks ugly, so I came up with this as a solution ImStevan (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Redirect revert

Hi Jochem You reverted my edit, basing the revert on "wrong diacritics" and " a bunch of old links still linking" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mal%C3%A8na&oldid=prev&diff=1061293687&diffmode=source Those are easily fixable, though, hardly a reason for reverting something that was not vandalism.--Armatura (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Armatura: sorry, I think I didn't really make myself clear. I meant that because the page title has wrong diacritics, I don't think many people will be searching for this when looking for Maléna. The pageviews only have a small bump but it's nothing compared to the traffic it already had that presumably went to the film. On second thought, maybe it should just link to the disambiguation page Malena instead. You're right though that the old links should be fixed, I'll do that. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying and volunteering fixing links, Jochem van Hees. Looks like we agree that majority of people won't be searching with diacritics (whether é or è) at all, neither will they notice the difference. In post Junior Eurovision 2021 period people will google Malena looking for a child singer, only be served with Maléna - 2000 erotic film instead... Would you agree that currently most searches are going to be done for the singer, and not the 2000 film? I am not saying it will stay like that forever, but the 2000 Italian erotic films with Rotten index on Rotten Tomatoes is currently getting unintended and undue publicity due to google/wiki searches for the child singer, shall we not fix that as Wikipedia editors? I think there should be a main article about the singer that comes up with "Malena" search in wiki and Google, which contains a disambig list for other uses of "Malena". "Malena" leading to a dry disambig list in the first instance just adds an extra click distance to the subject people would currently be searching for. On example, Michael Jackson in Google and Wikipedia leads directly to the article about the the King of Pop, saying "For other uses, see Michael Jackson (disambiguation)". I suggest we make the same setup for Malena currently. --Armatura (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I think that's certainly a good argument to link to the singer instead actually, especially because JESC is a kids show and the film is erotic... I'll retarget it once I'm done fixing the links to the film. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks Jochem van Hees, for dealing with appropriate targeting, and for being a welcoming listener and problem solver. Cheers. --Armatura (talk) 23:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Qami Qami

An IP address keeps vandalizing the Qami Qami page could you protect the page or ban the user? Tai123.123 (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tai123.123: I'm not an administrator, so I can't do that. I have warned that person though (anyone can do that btw, see WP:WARN). If they continue after many warnings you can report them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Page protection normally only happens if there is persistent vandalism from multiple IP addresses, but in that case you can request it at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Eurovision 1956

Hey, thank you for this [2] and removing ""very" first" and attaching paragraphs, which I didn't understand why was described as "cleaning" when those were added to the lead. I saw that about 2 weeks ago, but I'm not active for months (for stuff I need to first resolve in regards to motivation to continue editing).

+ the same user made an unfortunate missunderstanding comment on his edit summary on the main "Eurovision" article, maybe thinking it's personal opinion when it's factual documented and sourced critisizm under the chapters; so he removed an edit of few sentences I deeply contributed towards with others, to summarize critisizm and controversary in the lead: [3]. So, I didn't have energy to start with him at the 1956 article since his communication looks difficult, but I will deal with this the next days myself. I'm not saying this to ask you to do something, that's just to share, and I also do accept some of his changes at the lead of "Eurovision".

What I want to advise with you is in regards to restore his 1956 material, in a different manner. It is valuable and relavant to add about the only male presenter appearance until 1978, albeit under the chapter and shorter (without noting the book and the author; it's common to find and easily verifiable as you said); I already added once about the solo male presenter "until trio of only males in 2017" at the "Format" chapter, so it looks feating alongside there. Also, I assume you accidently removed the "solo male presenter" pointing from the lead, as he changed the phrasing for that too and mingled between his edits? So what do you think also about re-adding "the distinction of the only solo male presenter" back to the lead as he phrased? I just wrote "solo male presenter" some years ago when I added a summary of stuff which are unique to 1956 ESC at the lead. So his phrasing actually looks better highlighted to my taste. What do you think if I add this, or you, if you agree and you want?

And while I don't celebrate these holidays, of course at this chance I want to wish you:

	Happy Holidays
	אומנות (talk) 12:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words! I totally didn't notice the significance of him being the only solo male presenter; the part about the book kind of distracted from that and I initially glossed over it as just another far-fetched "record" that wouldn't be relevant for the lead. Now that you bring it up though I agree that this would be noteworthy for the lead. I personally won't have time for wiki editing in the next few days because I will be celebrating Christmas, so if you want to do it go right ahead!

Also, I'm happy to see you back (or at least hopefully soon)! I hope the wikibreak did you well. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, too :) Yeah I thought you just wanted to remove in general, I just wanted to make sure in case you came up with some good observation that it's not important to point also the presenter in the lead, which I didn't think of. Also this way I know for sure I won't over-step on your previous edits and cause a position you will feel it needs to be reverted or drastically change again from my edits. And, admittedly, also gave me a chance to write to you in person, and I felt I needed to reach out to people today, and gave me the chance to wish you happy holidays. Also as I while I wasn't that active, sometimes I keep seeing how you keep suggesting stuff and keeps getting stronger and influential with your edits and proposals on the project talk page. Maybe also the most active nowadays.

I will contribute at least some more edits, you already gave me and encouraged me to edit the 1956 article! :-) Though I must say that when I was involved in conversations to support you when you proposed stuff, I tend to write long and complicated and was harder for you to progress, while I see more recently that when you suggest stuff (and I'm not involved) it goes more swift and easy for you. So I'm happy you keep progress and for all your diligent work, and predict to see you as an admin here in a year or 2 tops. Mark my words. ;-)

Okay in few days I will make those edits (also the 1978 presenter under"Format"), and when you get back to editing you're welcome to check and keep change there if you want.

Enjoy your well-earned holidays vacation! אומנות (talk) 02:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I did enjoy my short wikibreak! Got to spend a lot more time than I usually do with family. I'm happy to see you've made the edit to the ESC 1956 article while I was gone.

You're right that your long comments make it take longer to read and reply, but I do recall that you certainly have given some valuable insight into the discussion before. So I really don't think it's fair to say that it only makes it harder to progress, I think it also increases the quality of the decisions taken in the long run. In fact I often feel not confident enough to implement the result of a discussion, because not a lot of people on the talk page have given a thumbs up. So in a way things going swifter might not actually be better.

But thank you for your confidence in me. Admin still seems very distant for me, and I'm not sure if I'd be able to handle the responsibility, but who knows where I'll be in two years. For now I'm just going to catch up on the pile of unseen changes on my watchlist. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry it's been a few days, still tried to figure some stuff and edits I wanna make also expend articles, and in this regards something I want to ask you too. First, I'm very happy you enjoyed Christmas and got to be more with your family!

Thank you very much for your kind words for appreciating my feedback and tries to help. I do understand that it helps eventually progress and increases the quality of the eventual solution with deep comments, and that at times (in your proposals 1-2 cases, and for others and myself) I managed to convince about different options. It's just that I see also cases where you suggest stuff in a very clear yet very convincing manner, and get swift support, especially more recently as your knowledge also grows.

Yeah I do see sometimes that you aren't sure about something (as do I on many stuff:-) ). When you plainly say it on discussions and positively propose different options on stuff, which is why it's such fun discussing with you and increases my desire to try to help where you suggest something! :-) And as I precisely know the feeling where you see there's no other participation besides 2-3 people, so you're not sure. Especially if it's massive editing, across many articles. I know exactly how you feel. ;)

And speaking of adminship, while it shows you are still relatively new to some fields, it precisely also shows your will to develop skills and your practical rapid learning which you acquired in only few months, and so why it seems to me that even in about a year you may be ready to be an admin. More importantly - for your conduct and communication, which for me is most important at this role and for the sake of the website. But of course, that's when I assume you want it.

And speaking of slow very gradual learning, with all the years since I joined Wikipedia, I'm still weak on the technical level, as I focus almost solely on content contribution. Now I want to redirect something, for the first time. I read the guidelines and watched different cases of redirects, and I think I saw you redirected few times?

So I wanna ask from what I gathered, if I think a subject can't grow to warrant it's own article again, I don't need to add "R with possibilities" right? And if the talk page has discussion content I just remove the redirected article "class" definitions and nothing more as keeping the talk page intact in it's place? Alternatively, if the talk page only has templates which are the same as the targeted article, I also add "Redirect talk page header" template to the talk page, right? Thank you already and anyway for reading this questions, even if you aren't sure! אומנות (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

That's so nice to hear, thank you so much! I have indeed noticed that I find the technical side of the site more interesting, but I guess that's to be expected from an IT student. Writing content goes a lot more slowly for me.

Regarding the redirect, I'd say it doesn't need {{R with possibilities}} in that case. As far as I know it's mostly for when you specifically intend there to be an article in the future, for example when the topic isn't notable enough yet. But I think this rcat is quite subjective anyway and I don't think many people care about it.

You're right about the talk page; removing the class means that it automatically detects that it is a redirect. It's also possible to manually set |class=Redirect which achieves the same, but the advantage of removing the class is that it also automatically detects when it is no longer a redirect and it becomes "Unknown"-class, making it show up in the quality log. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Jochem van Hees I'm happy to say this, and deeply feel your tech skills with your collaborations, also facing and calming more harsh-communicating editors when needs to discuss and revert, I think all this combines to you as a "full package" for adminship, and even if you don't want or won't have time for it in the future, anyway shows you're a wonderful editor and that goes with showing for personality! :)

Thank you very much for the excellent simple explanations! I also thought the "R possibilities" isn't necessary, wanted to make sure to eliminate a situation an admin or someone will say I didn't redirect right with harsh or snarky remarks or something. I just still also want to verify for one case, and I think you didn't say, or I didn't understand: What if the talk page has discussions between editors (not bots notification which I also understand can be removed/redirected?), do I still just remove the "class-assessment" letter from the parameter to redirect the page, and/or need to add "talk page header redirect" template, or not touching the talk page at all? Thanks again for your attention and further replies, and have a happy new year! אומנות (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying sooner. Yeah, in that case the class assessment should indeed be removed, and the {{Talk page of redirect}} template can be helpful although it's not per se needed. I don't think anyone would send snarky remarks your way though for a small mistake or omission. In my experience most people don't really care about redirects anyway; the #REDIRECT part is the only important part. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

No problem! I pinged for the thought you didn't happen to see or forgot later, in case you were available as I saw you edited. :) There were cases with harsh or pointy remarks (between others on all fields and other lan-Wikipedias) for the smallest stuff (even wars on a comma/dot! :) ), but you're right there shouldn't be an issue. I just don't want to accidentally trample discussions when directing a talk page with content + do more edits like these; following the discussion for ESC stub songs. I'm working on expanding some articles and seeing where I can add material and where it's better redirected-at least for now.

So if you can take a look, I now redirected 2 articles with 2 talk-page types: this article [4] and talk [5] with only templates. I removed assessment but added/updated "importance"-para, and "Talk page of redirect", the other article [6] with a discussion on the talk-page [7] so I just removed the assessment parameter, and didn't add "redirect of talk page" template. Can you look and tell me if I edit the 4 okay? אומנות (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Nice! Those redirects look good to me. Only one small thing: per Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/Assessment#Importance scale, songs are low-importance for WikiProject Eurovision, so I've fixed that now. I am sad to hear about those remarks though; you're supposed to be encouraged to be bold and not have to be worried about how people will respond to your edits. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, again, for your kind and swift response and the importance-parameter fixes! I see we are both night creatures. :) Indeed I thought it was agreed sometime ago to upgrade to "mid-importance" and that old articles weren't updated (I think it should, but never mind that now...), I now realize the mid upgrade was for X-country-X-ESC... I do admit I also spoke from personal experience, especially about few times I edited and discussed on political articles, but also maintained brevity there. :) Especially on those articles and when doing tech moves, people can get pedantic, and cases of arguing over a dot. Yeah that actually happened... In these case now it's blanking work and hope people understand no material at all is lost, as I also copied all bits of additional material to the targeted articles since they warrant at least X-country-X-ESC, as the best way to handle this. :-) Even when I saw on my contribution history that someone edited those talk pages afterwards (and thought you aren't online), I was relieved seeing it's you and not like an admin or someone I never talked to, and happy it was just the "low" parameter. I wanna ask you about merging, but I'll wait a bit till I reach this case and as I already nagged you enough with this stuff for the last few days. Thank you again for the quick and kind responses which also now puts me at more ease and improved "my tech"! אומנות (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Log4Shell

On 26 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Log4Shell, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the software vulnerability Log4Shell affects hundreds of millions of devices worldwide? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Log4Shell. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Log4Shell), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Duncan Laurence has been nominated for deletion

Category:Duncan Laurence has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Shlomo Artzi

Hi Jochem, NP. I followed the example of Hewiki that has the EV article in the SA category. gidonb (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I now see that via the redirect I had grabbed the parent article. Thanks for removing the cat! gidonb (talk)

Ah okay, np! ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zanimum -- Zanimum (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

ESC98 CN tag

Not sure that having the country's name on-screen needs a CN tag. At worst, it can be cited in the broadcast proper, surely? Spa-Franks (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Spa-Franks: I guess you're right, although it being the first time means you'd have to check every single past edition to verify it. I did just find a primary source for it though on the official website. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Sam Ryder

Hi there. I received a notification that you had undone my edit to the page citing "BLP violation". However, would you be able to explain what I have violated please? I have read the policy and can't see a possible violation. Thank you. Samuel J Walker (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi! According to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, info about people must always be supported by a reliable source, especially about things that may be personally sensitive such as a place of birth or someone's full name. In your edit you did not add a source, and I also could not quickly find the info in a source already in the article, which is why I removed it. I did do a quick search to see if I can find a search for his full name, but the only sources I found are ones not considered reliable such as The Sun. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I only added the name because I'd already seen it in the infobox. I searched as well after it was removed but came into the same issue you had. Samuel J Walker (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh you're right, I hadn't noticed that it was also in the infobox. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Your (second) GA nomination of Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. ShiriEdits^Talk 00:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021

The article Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ShiriEdits -- ShiriEdits (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Jochem van Hees

Thank you for creating Sara James.

User:Scope creep, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice image.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

scope_creepTalk 09:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK hook nomination of Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021

Hello, I have added a new alt for the hook of the Template:Did you know nominations/Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021 hook. Please choose which one you prefer between the 3 hooks. Thank you. Spodle^Talk 02:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian Melody

July songs

today: violin solo and you can listen - thank you for the review Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

yesterday I attended a unique concert - the 18th Thomaskantor after Bach conducting - and with some good luck caught him happy afterwards! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Awesome! Hope you had fun ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

rather inspiration, - and again 14 July: Voces8, pictured - I have a FAC open, in case of interest --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

more July songs, from Swiss Alps --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021

On 10 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 19th Junior Eurovision Song Contest was held on 19 December with 19 participating countries – but the EBU had to choose between three competition scenarios due to COVID-19? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	omg i know you. have a barnstar! SWinxy (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi agree on binary search revert, but hope you or someone else does the writing

Hi, I agree it was not well-written. However, when it comes to binary search; the main ideas to do anything isn't here. I guess a formal proof has to be the source, even though it just point to some obvious facts. That example could be used to detect outliers and to find smaller boundries where values may be in. After finding the boundries of the search, one can sort this area insted and then do a proper binary search. This is something nice for the average programmer to know about. Sorting is expensive and something to be avoided, if possible. Another example not mentioned is to look for a look for logical statements that can generate sorted lists like: false,false,true,true and do binary search on some value. This is just a two-state problem, one could also generate something like state1,state1,state2,state2,state3,state3 by doing binary search on some value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.15.89.200 (talk) 09:36, August 29, 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. I guess I'll do some research on this later this week. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 09:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject I Can See Your Voice invitation

Pinging @Jochem van Hees — Hello Jochem van Hees, you're invited! Did you watch I Can See Your Voice, a Dutch adaptation of the South Korean programme of the same name, just like Masked Singer? If you loved this show, please follow this instructions and dont forget to fill out these missing details if you finished watching. Saisønisse (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Saisønisse: thanks for the invitation. I don't normally watch that show but if I have time I guess I can help. I just saw your contributions and damn you've been busy, respect for all the work you've put in. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Carlsen-Niemann controversy

Hi Jochem

Please don't edit war the Tweet back into the article, until such time as we establish whether the concern raised is valid or not. Clearly you think it is not valid, while another user thinks it is valid, so we err on the side of caution by not including the relevant material until it is confirmed. Personally I don't have strong knowledge or opinion on whether this is a BLP violation or not so let's await input from others. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought the status quo had to be maintained while the discussion is going on; I forgot about that part of BLP. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 12:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Junior Eurovision - Artist and song information

I strongly disapprove of the decision to abolish artist and song information sections for separate country articles for the Junior Eurovision Song Contest of the corresponding year. How else will readers know about the participants?96.227.141.216 (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I have been removing them following a short discussion at WikiProject Eurovision; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 24 § Haphazard JESC merges. There are various issues with these sections, most importantly a lack of relevance and notability. These articles are about the Junior Eurovision Song Contest, not about whatever those artists did before. If those artists have notable careers, then they'll get their own article. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Soleá from JESC 2020 is notable, having been released new music after the contest. Prior to that, she made her debut in a family show at the La Maestranza theatre around 2015, and also starred in a Christmas show called Navidad en Familia, where she made her acting and dancing debuts. I think "Palante" should also have a separate article following its success in the contest, having paced third and all.96.227.141.216 (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

If those are notable, then they should have their own article, not some sort of sub-article. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

That's what I meant.96.227.141.216 (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)