This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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 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)
Please do not remove sourced comments. It appears her PR people are editing this site. Eurovisionman ( talk) 15:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
Please find sources that prove her affinity with Poland. As far as I can see you have not proved this affiliation.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Kind regards, PrinceGloria ( talk) 22:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
...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)
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:
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 messaged
Eurovisionman 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
==REQUEST FOR COMMENT FROM UNBIASED PEOPLE==
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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)
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)
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)
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:en.wikipedia.org/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:en.wikipedia.org/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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Halt, hammerzeit.
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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 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)
Please do not remove sourced comments. It appears her PR people are editing this site. Eurovisionman ( talk) 15:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
Please find sources that prove her affinity with Poland. As far as I can see you have not proved this affiliation.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Kind regards, PrinceGloria ( talk) 22:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
...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)
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:
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 messaged
Eurovisionman 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
==REQUEST FOR COMMENT FROM UNBIASED PEOPLE==
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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)
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)
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)
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:en.wikipedia.org/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:en.wikipedia.org/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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Halt, hammerzeit.
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)