Talk:Tamara Gee

x

[1]

I want to declare I am a sockpuppet of Isis Gee, I have been editing automobile-related articles on her behalf for some years, as well as mischeviously taken part in WikiProject Automobiles to promote her case! Har Har! In my spare time, I make replacement sets of porcelain teeth for her and manipulate YouTube! PrinceGloria (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't do stuff like this. It only encourages people. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

PR?

This page seems to have been written by a Polish PR guy (only Poles write numbers like "$1.000,00"). Just thought I'd point that out to spoil their attempt to get free publicity. I've taken out the more obvious bits of OR but there's still loads that could go. No refs at all. Malick78 (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

What the... What do you mean that only Poles write numbers like "$1.000,00"?? This is the rule rather than the exception to write numbers like that in Europe.--85.233.20.140 (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of general stadards of behaviour, the article is still pretty much a PR bit and needs work... PrinceGloria (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This entry was probably based on an earlier version of the Polish article, but I can't force myself to closely compare one against the other. Too sticky from all this near-hagiographic sugar. S/he appears to be a new Mozart, or even more... I'd say, stubify it and rebuild from there. It must have been a pretty special chart, the one s/he nearly topped... Bansp (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone anonymous has posted that this whole article is false etc because she used to be a man. I added the section about her so-called transexuality so feel free to expand it. But there is no official proof of that just yet.

Norum (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I come from Poland and I am quite interested in both the ESC and the singer in question, and I didn't find this piece of news especially notable - got to know about it from the edit to the article actually. Neither did the rumor gain notability, nor does it seem substantiated (there are photos of little Tamara quite ostensibly being a girl, her appearance changed a lot, but it was from young adult woman to a porcelain-horse-teeth-fitted fake-tan cyborg, not an MTF transsexual transformation), so I'd leave it out of the article. Polish Wikipedia didn't find it notable. Comments, thoughts? PrinceGloria (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

edits

I have removed most of the PR comments to make this sound like a proper reference. If a PR person removes more edits I will advise this page to be protected.

I feel the musical 'style' is irrelevant. At the least it should be a whole section. If no comments in a week I will remove this. Suggestions welcome?

Eurovisionman (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments by BBC

Please do not remove sourced comments. It appears her PR people are editing this site. Eurovisionman (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

First, just because someone says it doesn't mean it's worth adding. Part of WP:NPOV is giving undue weight to nonsense. Second, do not accuse others being "her PR people." That's a violation of WP:AGF. Third, people are actually free to have different opinions, you know? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

American

She is an American who married a Pole. Not a Polish American which would mean she was born in Poland. Better American Pole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurovisionman (talk • contribs) 19:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Polish American means an American citizen of Polish background. Birth in Poland is certainly not necessary. Please do acquaint yourself with the relevant article. Mrs. Gołębiowska clearly identifies as such, and I do believe this is how Americans can be assigned to one of such "ethnic" groups. We are not here to perform OR and try to invent new ways of describing somebody's ethnicity, or try to estimate how much a person is or isn't of particular ethnicity/background. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Please find sources that prove her affinity with Poland. As far as I can see you have not proved this affiliation.

Isis Gee's facebook entry defines her that way: "Isis is American with Polish roots, born in Seattle, Washington". In an interview, she stated that "I have Polish roots as my great grand mother is Polish. I think I have a lot of Poland in me, in my blood and in my roots". I could also provide sources in Polish if you please. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

She is saying that for PR, we need a non-biased source. Why did she only move to poland when her career failed in the US? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurovisionman (talk • contribs) 19:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, please do sing your comments. Secondly, your opinion on her doing that for PR is nothing else but your opinion. Can you prove her grandmother was not Polish? Same applies to your opinion on her motivations - whatever they are, they are not quite Wikipedia's business. She is indeed Polish-American no less than Gloria Swanson was. We might not like her opportunistic branding, but Wikipedia needs to remain neutral. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

American Polish reflects her heritage better. She is an American who married a Polish man, unless you can provide a source. Eurovisionman (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing like "American-Polish", only American ethnicity, due to its innate character of being an immigrant-descendant one, enjoys the status-quo of multiple hyphenated ethnicities coexisting within it. Please do not invent new types of enthnicity. She does have a Polish background, so she is Polish-American. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, she is American - through her culture and upbringing. Just because she had an Polish grandmother means very little -I had a Jamaican grandfather but am not Jamaican. This article was just PR until I rewrote it in a reference style, such important statments of fact must be sourced.

She is an American who married a Polish man, unless you can provide a non-PR source. Not a Polish patriot born in America as her PR machine tries to make us believe Eurovisionman (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Your merits in editing this article notwithstanding, were you American, you could perhaps be classificed as Jamaican-American. I do not think Gloria Swanson made much of her maternal family being of Polish descent during her life, but she still is a Polish-American by and large (just as much as she is Swedish-American). Everybody in the USA has some background, Tamara Diane Wimer happened to have some Polish among that, and this is the one she currently indentifies with, and we know nothing of any other background that would compete for the pre-hyphen status. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

American-Polish recognises your above comments but gives appropriate weighting to her cultural and ethnic outlook. Unless you can provide a source she is more Polish ( 4 years ) than american. I want this article to reflect correctly the facts Eurovisionman (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, there is no ethnicity like "American-Polish". Polish American does not indicate how much a person is "Polish" and how much "American". It simply indicates an American citizen of Polish descent, no matter how remote. Ms. Wimer was of Polish descent, her marriage to Mr. Gołębiowski and life in Poland notwithstanding. PrinceGloria (talk) 07:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

In the english your edit provides undue weight to her apparent Polishness. 4 years in Poland doesn't remove that fact she is an American that moved to Poland.

Please see that I have made constructive edits to this article.

1. Removing a blatent PR article making it a proper reference.

2. Removing edits writted by her PR that insinuated things that are untrue or unsourced.

3. Adding additional material that has provided information that is useful and relevant for an article about an artist.

All you have done is remove sourced material - without adding anything new. Also, you are confusing readers by adding PR sentences.

Please cease.

Eurovisionman (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Critic Reviews

Any artist is subject to critical reviews. Especially as her performance was widely panned I feel that this is important for the article. This is not a PR puff piece. If she made a major performance and it was panned by critics that is worthy of entry. Eurovisionman (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Where during the contest did the commentators say that, out of curiosity? I'm watching the semi back but I can't find 'em. Chwech 20:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for an answer here; I can't hear any mention of it before, during or after the performance or after Poland was announced as a qualifier. Anyone? Chwech 16:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No wonder - this user also used a random article from a Polish gossip site as a "reference" that has little to do with what he or she has written (I do speak Polish so I can actually read that). I have also done some research and found reactions to this performance to actually be overwhelmingly positive, though I still find commenting on it pretty OR and unnotable. I believe we should do away with this passage. PrinceGloria (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The reference is easily heard in the iplayer clip - please do not misrepresent it. It was also repeated by Terry Wogan on his program this morning. The reference in Poliah ( which I can also read ) refers to a radio DJ who made similar reviews about her and the popular backing he has. PrinceGloria, do you work for Isis?? Please stop blatently misrepresenting this artist.

PLEASE NOTE ISIS GEE HAS BEEN PROVEN TO HAVE MANIPULATED YOUTUBE BY USING SOCKPUPPETS TO SUPPORT HER PR SPEAL [2]

Eurovisionman (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This link explains some of the blatent misrepresentation going on about this performer. She is manipulating Wiki me thinks:

http://www.pudelek.pl/artykul/4550/to_juz_pewne_isis_gee_nie_jest_zadna_gwiazda/

I'm keen to add information from this article, it seems ISIS PR has run rampant and told a few fibs.

Eurovisionman (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not in the UK and thus cannot access the clip - such references are not deemed high quality. FWIK, Leszczyński didn't say that during a radio broadcast, but that's irrelevant - neither comment is of sufficient notability to make it to Wikipedia. Stuff is being said of all the artists taking part in Eurovision, and really, they are mostly of such borderline notability any comments made on them certainly aren't encyclopedic. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like everyone to note that the above user has made no additions to the article other than to remove any negative publicity and ISIS is proven to have used sockpupets on youtube - enough said Eurovisionman (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Critic Response

There are a number of articles in wiki that talk about the critical response an artist received for a major work. From Verdi to Kyle Minogue. It seems one individual ( a fan ) is removing any negative information. 1 week ago this article was a PR piece and it will not return to one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurovisionman (talk • contribs) 08:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

some background

This page has been a PR speel for a number of months.

I've spent some time re-writing it so it is accurate.

Isis Gee has been publicly proven to use sockpuppets on youtube to remove negative comments.

The other user is simply removing negative comments on the article and has added nothing new.

I am also a little upset as she is misrepresenting the polish article by translating them incorrectly on the talk page.

It is getting very frustrating.

Eurovisionman (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Interested parties who do not speak Polish can acquaint themselves with a fairly accurate automatic translation of the "source" provided by Eurovisioman here (in case link doesn't work for you, please refer to [3].) Kisses, PrinceGloria (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please also translate this: http://www.pudelek.pl/artykul/4550/to_juz_pewne_isis_gee_nie_jest_zadna_gwiazda/ it clearly states ISIS used sockpuppets on youtube and wiki to remove negative comment Eurovisionman (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion dispute resolution (unofficial)

No request for a Third opinion was requested though typical channels, but one party has asked me to give an opinion and I think that the other is amenable to the process. Typically before offering a third opinion, I like to get all the issues on the table. Can we list the issues below, without specifically criticizing the other editors involved? --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments Eurovisionman:

Basically all negative comments are being removed altough they are sourced and relevant.

An Artist's article contains reviews from critics when relevant. In this situation Isis used youtube sockpuppets to create a false record of success and gained a place on a polish tv program. Critic reviews since here public appearence have been very uncomplimentary.( edits by other users have similarily to the proven use of sockpuppets on youtube). THis is not my final argument I'll note all my points for this tomorrow, heading to bed. Eurovisionman (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments PrinceGloria:

1. Isis Gee has sparked "controversies" in Polish gossip sites that are being quoted. I don't think whatever they write about is notable at all, they harp on any part of gossip they can either find or invent on their own.
2. Those "controversies" were going on long before she has even taken interest in Eurovision, let alone performed in Belgrade.
3. Votes have not been revealed yet, so no-one can claim which countries did votes for a given song come from. Secondly, block voting is a frequently discussed, yet elusive phenomenon - I wouldn't ever consider such a claim encyclopedic. As a mildly irrelevant sidenote, given the block-voting patterns as alleged by Eurovision fans (including myself), Poland is unlikely to enjoy such support, at least in magnitude sufficient to secure a promotion to the final.
4. That a performance is lacklustre and flat is purely and merely opinion, the user didn't even bother to source it. I don't think, however, there is a source that can claim with authority that a performance was lacklustre. Perhaps in some years, somebody is going to write a book gathering research on critical response to individual 2008 ESC entries and then we might quote it. For now, this is pure POV and OR.
5. I don't know if Isis Gee is or isn't used to singing to a backing track, perhaps she is as a professional performer. She sang to a backing track in Belgrade as everybody else. How is this relevant?
6. Which reliable source proves she fumbled the word of her song? I'd still dispute that, she performs the song in a way that such allegiations would be hard to reach consensus on.
7. I take some interest in the ESC, and I have read reviews of Isis Gee's performance specificially and the semifinal in general. For the most part, this very performance and artist receives favorable reviews. I have yet to read a negative review by a reliable source (i.e. not somebody's blog or YouTube comment). Myself, I find this performance much worse than her previous ones and rehearsals, but that's completely irrelevant.
8. "Severe panning" is OR and POV here. I don't think I need to explain.
9. Whatever Paddy O'Connell or even the indespensable Terry Wogan have to say is clearly amusing, yet of little notability and no encyclopedic value. The contest is being broadcast by 40-something major TV stations, and nearly each of them is offering live commentary. Selecting just snippets from one commentary is not NPOV, and such commentary in general is unnotable.
10. The gossip column referred to merely suspects something fishy about Isis internet "presence". Please read its automatic translation to English. The column mostly deals with the fact she had no online presence before her dancing show participation, and that PR spin suggesting she is a successful singer is merely PR spin. Please note, contrary to Eurovisionman's claims, that the PR spin took place AFTER she was confirmed to take place in the dancing show, and was supported by the TV station broadcasting it. Last but not least, the user accounts that might have been set up in a sockpuppet manner (if it ever applies to YouTube) hardly create a "false record of success". How is having people subscribe to your YouTube channel a record of success?

Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the text in bold the subject of the most recent dispute?

Isis has sparked controversy on Polish talk radio[4]after negative media reviews of her performances in general. Although, selected as a finalist due to block voting from Eastern Europe her performance during the Eurovision semi-final was lacklustre and flat as she is used to singing to a backing track. On some occasions she was seen to fumble words in the song - receiving a severe panning from BBC commentators during her performance on the BBC Three telecast on 20th May 2008. At various times she was referred to as; a scary American, a horse and a fake tan cyborg by host Paddy O'Connell who said she was so desperate for fame she moved to Poland during the telecast on BBC Three. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

How does our sourcing reflect the stricter standards of WP:BLP?

Until this question is answered, I will revert to the last version by PrincessGloria, with Euro's approval. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I have agreed to the removal of the first part. WP:BLPhas nothing against a properly sourced review from one of the major critics of eurovision. I have reverted to your compromise version as PrincessGloria os been proven to have used IP addresses to revert this version. Eurovisionman (talk) 10:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Edits

...heya, there ain't consensus for removn the youtube stuff love :<< I 4 1 believe they should stay there as this made the tv news in Poland. i have reverted back to the consensus version as ur remov'n info that is sourced and relevant.

u got 2 explain why this stuff ain't vailid - an artist nearly being remov'd from a tv program for fraud is a big thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.200.52.25 (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

She was actually heavily promoted by rather than "nearly removed" from said TV programme, if that matters at all. You are now rather crudely vandalizing the article which amounts to bad faith. Please stop. PrinceGloria (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite required

I was listening to the radio today and there was some discussion about Isis Gee. There was mention that this was very influenced by PR. I just signed up and want to help write this entry. Reading through this, many things about Isis are not mentioned:

1. She came equal last in the Eurovision song contest - why doesn't this article explicitly state this. There is a POV problem as her entry did very badly but from the way it is written it sounds like a television commercial for Isis. She also is the only entry only to receive votes from Ireland and the UK which have large Polish communities so constitute block voting.

1. Talent contest - this is POV. Where is the source? What type of contest? Church? School? I can find no sources saying she was famous in the USA.

1. She is American and does not speak Polish. By definition Polish American must have Polish Grandparents and hold or be able to hold Polish citizenship. Her Great-Grandmother was born in Poland but that is a stretch. This should be removed.

1. I can see there is some discussion regarding her abuse of the internet, this is well known as I even heard it on the radio this morning on LBC. I can't read Polish but my friend has confirmed that the sources above are correct.

1. There are severe POV problems in this article, it is worded as an advertisement for Isis in my opinion.

1. Why is this article protected? I can see there is disagreement about the POV being blatant positive PR but this has not been discussed and it from the history one user is constantly reverting to the POV entry that reads like a television commercial.

Hello Eurovisionman can you please place some more sources on this discussion?

Just to advise I use T-mobile internet which is a shared IP throughout the UK.

Thx

Polishchick99 (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

g'day, just heard it on LBC too. can not edit the article though appears to be blocked. I agree, this should be changed...people are bing bullied here. SHE BLOODY CAME LAST!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wogan4life (talk • contribs) 17:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Czesc Wogan! If you want to help it looks like we need to complain here [[5]] put a comment in. I've messagedEurovisionman too. Wogan, can you please sign yor name? Polishchick99 (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Just did it, how do I sign my name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wogan4life (talk • contribs) 18:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey - what is wrong with this she came last and noone voted for her singing just two votes from places where there are a lot of polish. Isgreatestman (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thx man....great to see justice happening. Polishchick99 (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the disputed content. Please discuss here and if a source is provided then we can put it back. Isgreatestman (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Points above

Good to see some more people adding good info to this site! Eurovisionman (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

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:PrinceGlora and yourself have not responded to my points. In face, although User:Kevin Murray removed the false and unsourced Polish nationality of Isis User:PrinceGlora 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)

Well, look at the Pudelek site you mention, the frontpage (Google translated) looks more like a blog rather than a magazine. Magazine website tend to link to content not images. Besides, feeding the page through Google Translate (horrible but why not) here, it's written like a blog. Pointing out the one YouTube video, new profile, and few subscribers doesn't indicate anything. Besides, where is this stuff about some massive PR campaign? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit

I'm a new user, but I couldn't list her under "American expatriates in Poland". I would like to see that happen soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1AdminQuest (talk • contribs) 23:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, the Google Translate isn't very good. All of this is mentioned in Polish language and there were articles about this in the magazine. Eurovisionman (talk) 11:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

got rid of some fansite stuff, realise that ther has been some controversy here so please discuss my changes. lookn at the history me thinks it was the right thing to do Onceloose (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

non-notable

I'm tempted to nominate this for deletion. She doesn't seem to fit the criteria for notability. Anyone arguing otherwise? CAVincent (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

She entered the biggest song contest in europe and is known throughout the continent for it. Grk1011 (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Weird. It appears that nearly every Eurovision entrant has at least a stub. Seems like serious overkill to claim entering a song contest in itself confers notability, but I'm not going to crusade against it. By the way, GRK1011, on the List of people from Seattle, Washington you added her as "Polish singer and Eurovision Song Contest entrant". Wouldn't just "singer and Eurovision Song Contest entrant" be better? It is not clear to me that she actually has Polish citizenship, or if she is more likely to be considered by Europeans as a Pole or as an American who happens to live in Poland, and just referencing Eurovision will make clear that she mostly operates in Europe and not the US. Please change that page if you agree; I'll leave it to your judgment. Thanks. (BTW, I do think the Seattle list should be more stringent in who is notable enough to qualify, but right now about the only criteria is "has a wikipedia article", so pending further discussion there which I don't have time for right now, I suppose she stays.) CAVincent (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

fansite?

It seems a lot of 'simialar' one off user accounts are adding the same fansite material of last year. Please stop and discuss here. Manisthebigfatking (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on the page for the most part. I reverted your change because you took out a lot of sourced content. Make sure you only take out what needs to be. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have included the new material. It is not acceptable to quote directly from a PR piece for the performer. I mean they dedicate a line to a small scale local beauty contest!! Not relevant. It is an encyclopedia and should read like one. Reading above it seems that Isis's agent adds this information intermittently. Manisthebigfatking (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Reverted as sourced content was removed. The information was relevant and should stay. ńăŧħăń - ŧăłķ 19:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not standard to quote directly from a performers publicicist. I do not agree with your decision and would like another admin to look at this. There is a lot of vandalism here. Twicemostwanted (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Back again? Actually any information whether directly quoted by a publicist or not is perfectly acceptable as long as it is written in an unbiased manner and factually correct. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm new but was confuse about the sources. As per the above consensus seems to be that lower level sources such as PR-websites and magazines are acceptable. I am fine with this as long as *all* info is added from these sources. I have added a source to the extra material. We have a compromise and I will not revert as long as ALL material is added Twicemostwanted (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually there is a special exception concerning information that has a negative view on the person, especially since most may be an opinion. It has to be sourced better than the more obvious information like participating in a show. I'll look for the guideline. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I know, that is why there are two sources? Don't remove sourced material ( as you told a number of users in the last few weeks looking above. Twicemostwanted (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually one source is for the youtube comments (which im still thinking about), the other is for the man part, which should be taken out because it is his opinion whether he is famous or not. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it is two sources from popular magazines in Poland. These are valid sources. It seems to me that you are removing all negative publicity. Twicemostwanted (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, when it comes to negativity, things get serious as this is how rumors are started. I think we should wait for an third opinion, so I'll try contacting someone from above who knows the case. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

==REQUEST FOR COMMENT FROM UNBIASED PEOPLE==

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Request for Comment

I think that would not be useful, the above users seem to gang up and protect the page. They are biased. Only a non biased person should decided:

1. Is quoting carte balk from her PR site word for word an acceptable source or is the previous version better as it is written in a more encyclopedic manner.

From WP:SELFPUB Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if it is not unduly self-serving; in the present format it is as such. The previous version is better. Twicemostwanted (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

2. Should we add material from magazines and PR sites at all?

3. Has there been a strong bias toward positive spin and constant reversions of anyone who disagred?

Twicemostwanted (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats fine, I'd suggest following the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for comment to get the most replies as possible. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Grk1011

Please contribute to discussion, do not revert a version that is in breach of WP:SELFPUB. You seem to be constantly vandalising the page by reverting a version clearly in breach of WP:SELFPUB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.203.201.92 (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have discussed with you plenty of time. A vandalism patroller even reverted your edits the other day. Please look at what you have actually reverted...the intro where you changed her birth name to only her stage name, changed European debut to solo debut, the description of how many tracks a producer contributed you changed from 3 to "a couple", the sales of a golden album which is 100,000 whether sourced or not, gold in germany is 100,000, at the start of the eurovision section you once again reverted a spelling correction in her name from Isis back to "sis", along with messing up the link to the record company. If you continue with this disruptive editing, I will seek admin help, as your actions are not called for. There is no substance to your argument which does not even explain your edits. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It is simple:

YOU PUT IN A VERSION THAT QUOTED THE PR-WEBSITE OF ISIS GEE WORD FOR WORD.

I have reverted to the last version before this infrigement of WP:SELFPUB and reverted the sockpuppet material.

You now can edit this version.

DO NOT USE A VERSION THAT QUOTES FROM HER WEBSITE as the basis of the article as it breaches WP:SELFPUB.

I will remove vandalism from sockpuppets **and** breaches of WP:SELFPUB. Sorry it isn't a one way street. If I must say, your reverts infringing WP:SELFPUB are causing the problem. The socks go away when the WP:SELFPUB isn't there. 194.203.201.92 (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Show me the exact quote and then edit the article to fix all of the spelling and wording fixes you reverted. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

My edits - should solve the edit war since Jan

I have edited the last place portion to CLEARLY explain why the points result and final placings differ. Reading through the above it seems that there is confusion regarding this. Explicitly stating it should ( I hope) end the silly edit war from fans and non-fans. It is writting in a non-biased manner and contains vailid information.

Thanks for editing GRK, I have rewritten one small portion taken from the fan site as it breaches WP:SELFPUB by making it look like she made a major contribution to the album ( 1/2 a track?). This should now end the sockpuppet problems once and for all and we can all rest.

194.203.201.92 (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Link for tiebreak http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:fh6e9e8iqacJ:wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Eurovision_Song_Contest_2008+isis+gee+tie+break+rule+last+place&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=uk

Why did you revert sourced information GRK? 194.203.201.92 (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

He came joint 25th(or last) with Germany and Poland with only 14 points. However, the tie-break rule states that the country which receives the highest number of 12 points leads. If the countries have the same number of 12 points, then the same occurs with the number of 10 points, then 8 points, through to 1 point. Using this rule, Germany received 12 points (from Bulgaria), and Poland received 10 points (from Ireland), and the UK only received 8 points (from Ireland). This means that technically, the UK finished last. The UK were placed 2nd in the overall running order of the competition final, a position from which no artist has ever won the contest.

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:d6_9UINuBV0J:wiki.riteme.site/wiki/United_Kingdom_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest_2008+eurovision+germany+tiebreak+2008&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.203.201.92 (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If you read the rules of the contest, its actually only applied to the first few placings. It is original research to say that there was a tie break when it doesnt say there was anywhere. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the other wiki entries for Germany and the UK state this. Please do not remove as there is consensus. You are doing this because you were involved in an edit war. Please stop and use the good faith rule. 194.203.201.92 (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I have reworded it appropriately, please assume good faith. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

GRK - please do not remove comments from your talk page. as far as I can see you have unilaterally repetedly reverted valid sourced material over the past month. You also wasted wiki time by requesting sockpuppet analysis for any user who disagreed with you. It appears you have inflamed the edit war and assisted 'positive' socks. This may be an error on your part but your behavior has caused a lot of work. Please disist. 194.203.201.92 (talk) 09:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I commented on the request for checkuser that was already there, I didn't start it. Also this is not the place to address me, that would be my talk page. Also it seems that the edit war is over so quit it with the disruptive editing. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I tried to address you on your talk page but you removed the content which is against the rules. Do not revert this version, you have reverted SELFPUB material making it appear as if ISIS was responsible for the Gold album. 149.254.192.208 (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I can revert comments from my talk page if I want, report me for doing it if you really want to. Also the wording simply states that the album was gold which is a fact, what you feels it hints at is irrelevant cause it doesn't. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Reword please

The articla states: 'She was the first Polish participant to qualify to the final of the Eurovision Song Contest from the semi-finals' Well, she ended up in 24th place, and many previous Polish contestants reached 2nd, 7th, 11th, 18th. ( Edyta Gorniak, Anna Maria Jopek, Justyna Steczkowska, Ich Troje to name a few) So far she seems to be positively the worst of those who qualified for the final. Can someone please remove this line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kociara (talk • contribs) 13:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look and see what I can do. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I can't because it doesn't say that.... Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I SWEAR IF I SEE THAT F***ING "SECOND CELINE DION" REFERENCE ONE MORE TIME

Halt, hammerzeit.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tamara Gee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120409032200/http://tamaragee.com:80/blog/news/tamara-featured-on-the-oprah-winfrey-show to http://tamaragee.com/blog/news/tamara-featured-on-the-oprah-winfrey-show

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tamara Gee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131202232549/http://www.infomusic.pl/index_wiecej.php?id_art=20549 to http://www.infomusic.pl/index_wiecej.php?id_art=20549

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)