Talk:For Life (Isis Gee song)

Eurovision Redirect‑class

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Eurovision, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Eurovision-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EurovisionWikipedia:WikiProject EurovisionTemplate:WikiProject EurovisionEurovision articles
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Songs Redirect‑class

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

The critical response to the performance has been sourced now. If no response received in 1 day I will remove the boxes. Eurovisionman (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old Edits

Other entries about eurovision songs have information about the response by critics? Is there any reason this information was deleted? Please discuss here.

Polishchick99 (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just read what the bbc said, all true. Isgreatestman (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the info, until someone provides a valid reason why it shouldn't be there. Valid comment as she came last due to a bad performance. Polishchick99 (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BBC

Repeating the discussion Talk:Isis_Gee#Comments_by_BBC, just because someone says it doesn't mean it's worth adding. Part of WP:NPOV is giving undue weight to nonsense. Besides, that is a description of her, not the song so it would belong at Isis Gee not here anyway. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, it is about the eurovision entry. This is a competition and he is probably one of the most well known comentators for the competition. Her performance was very bad and it is a review of it. I call for it's inclusion and do not revert edits without contributing to discussion and gaining consensus. Isgreatestman (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

me agrees with ya Daveo212 (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

man...... critical review by an experienced eurovision commentator who will probably be the impetus to restructuring the whole voting system aint trivial...look at how his comments were taken seriously http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/27/russia http://music.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2282297,00.html Daveo212 (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion about Eurovision do not belong in this article. Insert it at Eurovision if you want. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've semiprotected the article to stop the sockpuppet army. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no response

As you understand, verifiability is important. As such, the media response to the manipulation if Youtube and wiki was sourced to a Polish magazine published by edipress.com. As a respected magazine with a large circulation in Poland this is considered to be a reliable source). The statements in question were proven in the article and cannot be considered to be rumours. The comments sourced as per reliable source by BBC host who is well respected as a commentator of eurovision who has been written up in UK newspapers over the past few days were written in a non-POV manner and provide more sources for her performance which came last. As Eurovision is a contest that Isis Gee tried to win her results ( place and critic of performance ) are not given undue weight. The article already went through WP:3O and User:Kevin Murray supported removal unless sourced. This was not completed as User:PrinceGloria and yourself have not responded to my points. In face, although User:Kevin Murray removed the false and unsourced Polish mnationality of Isis User:PrinceGloria and yourslef reverted versions that included a unsourced material and false statements about her position in the contest which violated WP:BLP.

I ask Ricky81682 to add to the WP:3O initiated by User:Kevin Murray and stop wasting admin time with entries such as this. Would some other admin like to get involved and settle this again?

Eurovisionman (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 3O was at Talk:Isis Gee. These are supposed to be separate articles. Shifting the comment from one to the other because people have commented there and not here is not the way to go. I still feel that a source that cannot be seen outside the UK that is a direct translation that no one else has commented on is not a reliable source. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

24th place

@Onceloose: Could you explain why Isis Gee should have finnished last. There were 25 countries in the run and she finnished 24, the Untited Kingdom did last. So she came second-last. Pink Evolution (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isis Gee came joint last. I see you were involved in some sort of dispute before please do not vandalize this page. Onceloose (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's me vandalising?xD See here. Greetings, --Pink Evolution (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten both Isis Gee and For Life (Isis Gee song) in a way that hopefully you two will be happy with. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! And I hope that Onceloose knows that this is a big step in his direction! Because I was right by facts, he was wrong. Pink Evolution (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

Protected per a complaint at WP:AN/3RR. Please ask for the protection to be lifted at WP:RFPP as soon as anyone can provide a complete reference on the question of how the song was rated in the Eurovision song contest. This was the question causing the dispute. For details see this link to the 3RR noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion thread moved here from User talk:EdJohnston

Please continue to present evidence here on the article's Talk page, not on my User talk. Nobody has joined this thread yet to support the 'tied last' argument, so I hope those editors will offer their reasoning too. If no agreement can be reached, an article WP:RFC might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Life (Isis Gee song)

Guten Abend EdJohnston,

you protected the page For Life (Isis Gee song). But your explanation is wrong. There was no source in the article because Onceloose deleted it. Here you can see just one place 24 (-> second-last), and that's poland. There is also just one 25th (-> last place) and just one 23rd place. This is the official website of the Eurovision Song Contest. However, you read the comments of onceloose and the edithistory you can see he always reverted with no helpful comments against me and an other user had try to find a compromise declaring the equal number of points onceloose didn't accept. I please you to revert to last version before onceloose. Greetings, --Pink Evolution (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page you cite above seems to show 'For Life' in 24th place. I don't see anythiing about 'tiebreak' there. Why not continue this discussion on the Talk page of the article? I will unprotect if it seems that the two sides are making a good faith effort to resolve the problem. Also I hope you will draft up some proposed new text for the article to explain the situation, as well as a new reference that is properly formatted. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you don't understand. If there are 25 participants, one got 25th place, the other 24th position, place 24 can't be the last in no way- also not in a joint! You could call the edit vandalism if you'd like to do. And does it make sense to talk about vandalism?, -- Pink Evolution (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for protecting the page. There was a source on this version here that I put in after I was asked by both users (strange isn't it) to help them. At Eurovision 2003 [1], there was a tie for 11th place and the scoreboard showed both countries with the same points and place (11th). At this years contest, the tie was broken, I don't know why, but it was, and the three teams with the same amount of points (14, tie for last) were split up into 23rd, 24th, and 25th [2] (its sortable). If it was an unbroken tie like Onceloose believes, then they would all show 23rd as their placing. Onceloose refuses to accept this even though it is on the official site. I added the reference in, but he simply removed it. I mean how does he explain this edit [3]? It seems that he may have a problem with the artist/song because the only way he will accept the wording is with the word "last". I mean who's version was more neutral [4]? (respond here) Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are more important things you can do to advance wikipedia as spent your whole time to discuss whether a country in one of 53 ESC's finnished joint last or second-last especially the rankings in this case seem to be disposal of the EBU (but we had to accept that!). It's just a pitty to see how vandals, pov-pushers and trolls (like onceloose how you could see in his comments) are able to vandalise articles though undoubtable sources were given and will be supported by administrators. --Pink Evolution (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Onceloose, unless you provide a source that says something other than 24th which is not last, then you have no case. You have the burden of proving your case. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]