User talk:Grk1011

On this day, 10 years ago...

Hey, Grk1011. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Lepricavark (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!!!! Grk1011 (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Mary Livermore

Hi. I won't edit war with you regarding Mary Livermore's name.[1] But note that she *is* referred to as Mary Ashton Rice Livermore in a lot of historical and present-day sources.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] [12]-[13]-Rosiestep (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I took a look and I don't think it's clear cut either way. It depends on the type of source. The historical sources seem to list the longer version of her name, but I believe that is just out of convention, not because that was what she went by. For everyday life, I've found "Mary A. Livermore" much more prevalent considering that's what they used when they named buildings, schools, ships, etc after her. Grk1011 (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Apology

Hello. I am writing this to sincerely apologise for my completely unacceptable comments under my former user-name "Golden Sugarplum" on your talk-page in January 2010. Not that this is an excuse, but I was 18 back then. I have been wanting to write this a long time now. I am looking forward to hearing from you regarding this apology. Thank you for your time. Anima Sola (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Apology accepted! Grk1011 (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Gulf Oil LP Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Gulf Oil LP Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest

Hi there! I just wanted to inform you about the fact that one IP is again undoing my edits, claiming similar reasons as the user before. I have added back the 2015, citeable history, but it was again changed by the IP. Could you please help me? Thank you very much! Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm just concerned that since you have the article up for GA review and have been waiting months for the review to start, that it could be an auto-fail for "unstable". I hope the person decides to discuss rather than revert. Grk1011 (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Onirama first album.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Onirama first album.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Grk1011. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

See also section

Your understanding of WP:TRIVIA is incorrect, as I was not adding multiple facts in a list. I was clearly adding a WP:See also section, which is allowed, to link another Wikipedia article related to the subject. The policy states, "The links in the 'See also' section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." Even if it was trivia, the correct action would have been to add the information to the article's body, not just delete it. Per WP:TRIVIA, "Trivia sections should be avoided. If they must exist, they should in most cases be considered temporary, until a better method of presentation can be determined." I won't revert your edit because I don't want to cause an edit war. —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

A "see also" section features links to other relevant articles. Sort of like a "further reading" section. You added a sentence saying that they sponsored an event. Shaw's and Star have sponsored countless events over the years and this fact might be perfect for a philanthropy section, but instead, it was haphazardly added to the end of the article. I might have been hasty in removing the fact, but as the editor most familiar with the subject, you should have incorporated it into the article itself from the get go. Grk1011 (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

My point stands that you deleted the info for no reason. It wouldn't be philanthropy since it wasn't an act of goodwill. It was a sponsored event in which they were advertised heavily. It was relevant to the topic since they had their name on it for four seasons and even sponsored the league MVP award. Per WP:See also, "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent [...] The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." It wasn't haphazard, it was completely according to policy. —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

You didn't link anything. You added a seemingly random unsourced sentence to the bottom of the article. See here. Grk1011 (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

It was clearly an oversight. I was linking the article on other pages including the Boston Celtics#See also. Instead of being helpful and linking the article, you deleted it wholesale. —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Malou

If possible, could you help me moving the Malou Prytz (singer) article to Malou Prytz. Much appreciated. BabbaQ (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

An administrator would normally need to merge them to preserve the edit history. Given that you just made the article yesterday, it might make sense to just copy/paste the article to the old name and redirect the (singer) article there. Grk1011 (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Even though I do not care personally all material at talk page should be archived. Not simply removed. Just for future reference. --BabbaQ (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Thanks! Grk1011 (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest 2019

Hi, I’ve added several extra sources about the ticket prices concerning the Eurovision Song Contest 2019. Also, I’ve found sources that are talking about a temporary stop on ticket sales because of irregularities. Could/would you perhaps back me up in this topic? You can find the discussion here: Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2019#Ticket_prices. Whatever you decide, it is much appreciated. Kind regards,「Robster1983」^{☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜} 15:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I was already involved in that discussion, so I've added some additional thoughts. Grk1011 (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems that everything is OK now. Many thanks for your input. 🙂 「Robster1983」^{☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜} 19:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

South African born American Singers

I will forgive your American pride, but per your edit summary, I suppose it is impossible for an American singer to be born in South Africa, isn't it?

Also It is sourced, but due to the stupid captcha system at wikipedia not being usable for my screen-reader, I can't in-line cite it. so next time you want to show your new yawk pride, please double check your likelyhood scale again, because one can always point to an example where you are wrong. So again, per your K.S. edit summary about American singers not being born in South Africa, my fello-born African would beg to differ. and I say this as myself an Eritrean-born Londoner who lives in Canada.

199.101.62.225 (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately you must in-line cite it or it can't be included since it is a biographical article. I didn't say it was impossible, but it seems like a rather bold claim to make without any proof to back it up. I didn't replace it with anything saying she was born elsewhere, just that she grew up in NYC, which was already in the article. Please know that like Wikipedia, Discogs is also maintained by editors like you and I, so it does not qualify as a reliable source. Grk1011 (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

How the heck am i supposed to in-line cite when due to accessability i can't complete the captcha? I'm not creating an account because I am having privacy issues with my e-mail address at the moment and they aren't fixed yet. also to create account I hav eto complete a captcha as well. You guys have no right to expect blind people to do the in-line citation with the present captcha system in effect, nor do you have a right to expect us to create accounts just so you can add us to another stat and say "we have x amount of blind users." You guys ar eeffectively saying that our edits will always be reverted unless we do in-line citations, and because of the captchas being exclusively visual, we can't. way to go America, your Wikipedia site is for sure not violating the ADA (even though I am an Eritrean-born londone rliving in Canada, but you're a U.S. company/organization/I hav eon clue). It just looks like American pride to me when you say unsourced aditions on a singer who identifies as American. 199.101.62.225 (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Look nothing against American pride, but let's not have it cloud judgements ok? Be proud for being American, I am proud to be British, but tha tdoesn't mean I am going to make edits that I can't prove. I just have to use the edit summary because of your guys's stupid visual captcha system. Look, let's keep out spammers and bots, but let' snot shut out the blind and say that thye must in-line cite and create accoutns. 199.101.62.225 (talk) 03:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)