User talk:Grk1011: Difference between revisions

Hi sorry I have got rid of everything on the project about me and that I have place the Eurovision article back to normal it's just that I am going to struggle when going back to school to keep on editing because of revising for exams, I just wouldn't have time so I am not going to do it any more. Good luck with the rest of the articles! :) --Dan221094 (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will try and do the best I can

Ok i will try and do the best i can do you want me to put back the colours that back on the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan221094 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many people in the project have to approve so i can add the colours for the final table?

How many people in the project have to approve so i can add the colours for the final table? --Dan221094 (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Length

That is completely irrelevant and I never said an articles length blocks it from FA or we, infact most FAs are quite lengthy and unique subjects. We were specifically talking about the addition of ridiculously trivial info in that section, not appropriate for the bio but suitable for the esc article. It is fancruft and promotion and just describes very specific events. Essentially, what did she do that year: 1)released debut single and album, won a couple of awards 2)Was selected for Eurovision, toured Europe and won, bringing her from minor name to cemented solo act 3)Promoted tourism 4)Rereleased album twice, a couple more awards 5)Toured Europe and then the Greek diaspora. These are the key things to centre on. Very descriptive events such as appeared on posters, the plane thing, welcome parties etc are only important to fans. A good section on that article is the 2008 one, which is quite concise and she did more things essentially than the other years. In either case, when you split an article, putting the same info on the main article defeats its purpose. Anyway, the first time i downsized the article considerably, I remember you telling me that some of the sections still seemed too big.

Also, its kind of an ignorant comparisson of Paparizou and Rouvas/Jackson. Rouvas has been around for almost 20 years, Jackson almost 50, both have ventured into other forms of media, ie acting, business, production etc, have redefined the music industry and performance, established genres, are top commercially successful and awarded artists, and are legends and cultural icons, (with legacy sections) which is definitely not the case here lol. What is Paparas career really. She is just a singer, no other forms of media, moderate commercial success, five albums, and typically makes the same career moves as 95% of the rest of the Greek mainstream, so there is no need for excessive length if you think about the more tangeable things she has done.

Jackson editors have at least made an attempt to make the article shorter; everything is concisely written and along with the typical corresponding articles for discography, videography, and awards, they have split the article into the 1994 investigation, 2005 trial, health and appearance, records and acheivements, death, and memorial, otherwise it would be over 500kb. As far as Rouvas, none of the sections are overly lengthy, except for the most recent one, as he did a lot in the last year, but even then every sentence has a substantial piece of information.GreekStar12 (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: When I said the tangeable things she has done I meant by listing out what she actually has done in one year like I did above, anything else can go in the other articles. Another issue is that while some things in the article are notable and can easily be summarized into one sentence, they carry on over many sentences. A good example of this was the tourism thing that Greekboy added and also the Helena v. Elena section a while back, thats my main concern, not how many kb the article is, which is also contributed to by references and images.GreekStar12 (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page comments

Please do not edit my talk page comments as they were not in violation of any Wikipedia policy nor did you have my permission. I simply said that you removed that comment from your talk page, which was true and perfectly acceptable to note. –Chase (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way in which you noted it violated WP:TPNO, more specifically it was the "Do not misrepresent other people" part of the guideline. There was no reason why you could not just say what you wanted to say on the page. Adding that I removed it from my talk page was irrelevant to the discussion at hand and I felt it was only written to discredit me in the discussion. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is saying that you chose to remove it from your talk page misrepresentative? That's exactly what you did, and thus removing my comment from Talk:The Fame Monster was inappropriate. It was not an attempt at discrediting you, and I'm sorry if that's the way you interpreted it. –Chase (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It did as there was no reason to even point it out. Whether I removed it from my talk page or not was of no importance to the discussion. People remove things from their talk page all the time. The message was for me, I read it. Others don't need to be pointed to the fact that you felt the need to leave me a little side note that is no longer there for them to see. Anything relevant to the discussion should be part of the discussion. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it wasn't of relevance to the discussion but there was nothing wrong in noting it, as you did indeed do so. Therefore I was not in violation of any policy and you had no reason to alter my comment. –Chase (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because I felt that it misinterpreted my actions. That is my decision to make as it involves something against me. You weren't voluntarily violating any policy, but I have the right to remove it according to the guideline. It also did not change your response in any way that would have changed the meaning of your main comment. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's a little unnecessary dragging this discussion out as the fact of the matter is done with, however, I still don't think you understand as that my comments about you were not in bad faith and you did not have my permission to alter my comment, it was inappropriate and you did not have the right to do so. Removal of content from talk pages is only acceptable in certain instances. Even if I had made that comment in bad faith, it would not have been a personal attack strong enough to warrant a removal. –Chase (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←) And actually, the misrepresenting point of WP:TPNO you keep mentioning also applies to altering my comments. –Chase (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except as I said, I did not change the meaning of your comments in the slightest bit. Saying that you wrote on my talk page didn't help prove your case and its omission did not take away from what you said. I do have the right to remove a comment that I feel is misinterpreting my actions. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While it may not have been relevant to the discussion, I don't know why you fail to see that I was not misrepresenting your actions. If I was doing so, I would have lied about what you did. –Chase (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not you misinterpreting, others, based on what you wrote. Ok it's behind us. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need for question mark

Re: [1] Yes, the artist you give {{singlechart}} has to match the artist it's listed by in the chart. I can't work magic.—Kww(talk) 19:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC) The question mark was because I had done a section edit so I couldn't preview the whole article and check the ref link. I wasn't sure if that was what was needed to fix the link or not. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday

Wishing Grk1011 a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday! I also saw this edit is my watchlist! [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 08:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thanks! Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of MBTA Commuter Rail Stations

Good work on making the List of MBTA Commuter Rail Stations a better article. It took me forever to make and reference that page. Good luck on the Featured list status and if you need any help feel free to ask. --Found5dollar (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I started working on the List of MBTA Subway stations article as well and I can see what you mean about the sourcing—it's going very slowly. I also would like to get MBTA Commuter Rail to GA eventually. I was originally doing that, but got sidetracked by these lists lol. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yeah i gave up on the Subway stations list partway through fixing it up a while ago. It is hell trying to figure out how to state connections and what should and should not be included.--Found5dollar (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greek album chart

Once I do {{albumchart}}.—Kww(talk) 00:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rebetiko

Hi Stephen, THX for working on Rebetiko (again)! Alfie ↑↓© 15:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Concerning the endless story of transliteration of Χ to H or Ch. ;-) I'm happy with both (as a native German speaker I have some preferences for ch, because in German the pronounciation is essentially the same like the Greek Χ). However, we have two articles linked from Rebetiko with different transliterations (and the respective other redirects), namely Manolis Chiotis and Manos Hatzidakis... IMHO at least the list of performers should reflect the right lexical order. Alfie ↑↓© 15:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of the "h" spelling mostly because it is the closest English letter to the Greek X ("Ch" would be as in cheese). As for the names, technically we should be going by the most common English transliteration, not by a chosen convention for an article. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese - oh yes, terrible! So let's keep the 'H'; I will move these guys down in the alphabetic list. Alfie ↑↓© 18:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patch.com spam

I saw where you reverted my edit on Melrose, Massachusetts and I wanted to drop you a note about what's going on. Patch.com has linkspamming for several months now and I periodically go through and clean up after them. You can see the results in my contribution list. TNXMan 18:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember when it was added a few months ago when it was just rolled out. The local site's editor, who had added the link, posted on my talk page [2]. While I had originally removed it as being non-notable, it has since become more prevalent in the "news scene" of the city and I feel it is now reputable enough for mention (the editor used to work for the Melrose Free Press if my memory serves me correctly. The links to the websites can go as they are technically ad spam, but it is definitely relevant to mention the two newspapers and the online source in the article's media section. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've tweaked the section some - does this edit look good? TNXMan 19:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, that is fine. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

spelling

How can you think that the date and spelling format are not related? There is something called consistency. You can't use the european system for one and the American for the other. And what do u mean it's a greece-specific subject. she is not just a greece-specific subject, she is swedish and thus overall a EU-subject. Greece doesn't just use the metric dates, the English they learn is also the British-English, (ps i have the proficiency) so I just disproved your theory. I've never seen another decent page that uses a different system than the person's origin. And as far as for what's established (not that this really relates to you) but Greekboy never uses the metric/Uk spelling even when it is established, so I'm going to assume that your real problem is not wanting to have to remember to put in a few extra letters on an article you edit constantly. When I edit American subjects I use the US spelling...Anyway if you revert me again i'll have to report. GreekStar12 (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all it's not called "metric", that term is for units of measure. British English is also not exclusively taught in Greece and even if it had the majority it would not affect the spelling in the article. As Greece wasn't a British colony and since it doesn't have any special relationship with the UK, there is no "strong tie" to UK spelling. Therefore, the original variety of English that the article developed with shall be retained. See WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I was referring to the numeric system. Conventions such as metric, British English, the Oxford comma etc are all European; considering this is a European article, the respective conventions should be used for consistency (you can't possibly think metric dates and US English are consistent). Secondly, I think you have proven inconsistency on several occasions and you typically favour w.e. suits your likes better (ie you use ks in the beginning of words because you don't think x offers the right English pronunciation but you use x in the middle of the words; One is the ancient transliteration and the other is modern, so you have to choose one. if you choose ks then you also have to use ph, ch, gh, dh, and y).

However, despite this you still preach guidelines that don't even necessarily help your case. The retain rule is for generally geographically neutral subjects such as World War I, periodic elements, diseases etc, where there is no reason for the switch apart from user preference. ENGVAR specifically states that subjects with affiliation to a certain country should use the respective spelling. This doesn't mean it has to have the name in the title like American Civil War...Paparizou is a strictly Greece (& Sweden) affiliated topic; she like others is completely irrelevant to the American public. You should learn about the Greek education system a little before you make random claims, because Greece may not be a British colony, but it does exclusively teach British English. The only time American English is taught is by American colleges which are owned by the US government and have NO affiliation with Greek public policy. I am willing to use either conventions when I edit as long as it respects the background.GreekStar12 (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paparizou is not solely Greek and Swedish, she has releases and notability in a variety of countries. That doesn't really matter though. American English is also taught in Greece and that is a fact. Dates and spelling are not part of the same system as you allege; they are independent. Also, there is still no such thing as "metric dates". Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Line Route Map

Hey, what's your AIM screenname? I would like to discuss with you what things you would like me to add to the Orange Line route map I started... My SN is on my Userpage.

-- NYCTrainFan (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added you to my buddy list. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref citation on Eva Simons

Hi, Grk1011. On your recent edit to Eva Simons, you added what looks like a reference for the Hot Dance Airplay peak of "Take Over Control". Unfortunately, you didn't provide a complete reference, making to hard to verify the claimed #1 on that chart.

Your reference points to Billboard, but you didn't provide a page number, which is essential for written publications. In an earlier edit summary you mentioned that it's online at the billboard.biz site, but you didn't provide a URL for that case, either. Would you please provide the rest of whatever you have that's missing? Thanks, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a copy of the magazine with me and it will be difficult to track a copy down once again. As for the website, I do not have a subscription so I am unable to provide a link. Either way, if someone had a subscription all they would have to do is search the website, so providing a direct link is not critical. Per Wikipedia guidelines, a pay wall does not discredit a source. I provided enough information in the reference so that whoever has the ability to look up the position can. The week date is actually the only critical detail regarding the song's peak and I have included it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why you reverted on "Mono i agapi"?

Hi.

I'm reviewing the Eurovision Song Contest articles and fixing minor glitches. One of them is a faulty transliteration of 1983 Cyprus "I agapi akoma zei", and I'm changing all the links to the former "I Agapi Akoma Zi" to the new. The "Mono i agapi" article linked to "I Agapi Akoma Zi", so I changed to "I agapi akoma zei" but you reverted it. Why? --Ricardo Cancho Niemietz (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was right the way it was. It doesn't matter how you feel the title should be transliterated when there is an established spelling. In the case of these Eurovision articles, the songs were entered and appeared at the contest using a specific spelling and capitalization. Therefore, this becomes the common name. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hum... I'd already changed "Panaya mou, Panaya mou" to "Panagia mou, Panagia mou" without troubles. In the Eurovision official website, it stands as "Panaghia mou, Panaghia mou" (another transliteration). It appears there are inconsistencies between sources. Who stablished the current rules for Greek ESC songs in Wikipedia? Which is the "standarized" transliteration to use here?--Ricardo Cancho Niemietz (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I meant "Panayia mou, Panayia mou", sorry the typo).--Ricardo Cancho Niemietz (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With that article you are correct, but you can't just copy and paste the text because it ruins the article history. Though ESC spells it "gh", the cd cover spells it the same way you want to. The cd cover would override the ESC spelling. When you tried to move it, you should have gotten some red text pointing you to go to Wikipedia:Requested moves. There you could probably list this under uncontroversial and use a link to the cd cover as evidence of it being undebatable. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm trying to be accurate and well-hearted with my changes. Ususally, when a Wikipedia ESC song name doesn't match that of the ESC official website, I put a note in the song's article "...listed as X...", or "...also X..." and put the reference in acordance, but I don't change the article's title in itself. But with transliterated Greek, Cyrillic and Hebrew, issues are arosen. In the case of "Panayia/Panaghia/Panagia", I back track to the ultimate source: just the record's cover, as you noticed. In the case of "I agapi akoma zi", I've not found (yet) a ultimate source to stick to, but I found "I agapi akoma zei" in many sites, and proceed as well. If your POV is authoritative in the matter, I'll revert all my changes of "... zei" and merely I'll add a simply note "...also transliterated as..." to the original "... zi" article. Do you agree?--Ricardo Cancho Niemietz (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 136: / Line 136: @@
 ::(I meant "Panayia mou, Panayia mou", sorry the typo).--[[User:Ricardo Cancho Niemietz|Ricardo Cancho Niemietz]] ([[User talk:Ricardo Cancho Niemietz|talk]]) 17:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 :::With that article you are correct, but you can't just copy and paste the text because it ruins the article history. Though ESC spells it "gh", the cd cover spells it the same way you want to. The cd cover would override the ESC spelling. When you tried to move it, you should have gotten some red text pointing you to go to [[Wikipedia:Requested moves]]. There you could probably list this under uncontroversial and use a link to the cd cover as evidence of it being undebatable. [[User:Grk1011|Grk1011/Stephen]] ([[User talk:Grk1011#top|talk]]) 17:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
+::::Well, I'm trying to be accurate and well-hearted with my changes. Ususally, when a Wikipedia ESC song name doesn't match that of the ESC official website, I put a note in the song's article "...listed as X...", or "...also X..." and put the reference in acordance, but I don't change the article's title in itself. But with transliterated Greek, Cyrillic and Hebrew, issues are arosen. In the case of "Panayia/Panaghia/Panagia", I back track to the ultimate source: just the record's cover, as you noticed. In the case of "I agapi akoma zi", I've not found (yet) a ultimate source to stick to, but I found "I agapi akoma zei" in many sites, and proceed as well. If your POV is authoritative in the matter, I'll revert all my changes of "... zei" and merely I'll add a simply note "...also transliterated as..." to the original "... zi" article. Do you agree?--[[User:Ricardo Cancho Niemietz|Ricardo Cancho Niemietz]] ([[User talk:Ricardo Cancho Niemietz|talk]]) 17:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)