User talk:Grk1011/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Sourcing

Thanks for the message. I will try and do it more 'correct' from now on. I am busy, at the moment. Exam today, another one tomorrow and for the rest of the week, so normally I just put a quick reference in there. Personally, I'd rather the knowledge was there, even if it is with a YouTube link (and personally I can't see how youtube is weak, as it's a primary source, and sometimes a TV show isn't used). Plus at least I am referencing my facts. Something that many do not do. Peterwill 19:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Feedback comment

Hi, thanks for the feedback on the JESC article. If I'm honest, I only really nominated the article for GA status in the hope of getting some feedback from someone as I felt that otherwise it would be difficult to get someone to want to take a look at it! I'll definately take your points on board (I've never even considered the points in the intro being in the rest of the article for some reason!) and hopefully I'll be able to get some work done on it soon. --gottago (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a word that I've now changed a few bits and pieces round and I've added the voting bit to the format section (I can't believe I missed that bit out in the first place!). The introduction has been trimmed just a little but to be honest, I think some of the information was a bit too complex to be included in the introduction, though I've made sure the main points are still included at the top, if you catch my drift! On the last bit about Wikiproject Eurovision, I probably should have gone there first though I do think that the article would have gone missing in a list of what would have been, frankly, more interesting articles. I'll certainly head there in the future. --gottago (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

D'Or

Hi. Tx for your revisions on David D'Or. Why did you delete the English translations in the discography? And why change 1990-99 to 1900-1999? The prior format is the wiki standard. Tx.--Ethelh (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Because the translations are not part of the names of the albums and the way you wrote them made it look like that (save the translations for the prose). Also, the date is usually written out in full on wikipedia per WP:YEAR, however, your way was also fine, but I usually change it because my way is the most widespread when there are special conditions. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you suggest that they are not part of the names of the albums. Actually, I believe they are the names of the albums, as the albums covers bear both the English and Hebrew names. As to the dates, I believe that the way it was before was preferable, as more commonly used by style guides, acceptable to Wiki, and easier to skim/read. OK to revert? Many thanks.--Ethelh (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm just trying to help out cause the article is far from GA standards. If its really that much of a big deal I suppose you can change the dates back. I looked at a few covers online and I don't see the English in a few of them, but regardless, it was most likely put there to be internationally friendly, not because it has two names. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Episode summaries

Hi, Stephen! My take on the best way to do episode summaries is what I'd call short, sweet and to the point - capture the episode in two or three sentences that cover the major plot points. I edited one yesterday that you'd written for In Plain Sight that had the key points of the episode, but with two incomplete sentences (Ep. 2) - take a look at it now. The summary for Ep. 3, on the other hand, is a bit detailed and long-winded. I also avoid using what I think of as casual speech and jargon that we know but not all readers might. Hopefully, this will help a bit! Drmargi (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I thought you'd written the other one, too. I've seen your name on the site so much, I trusted my memory. I knew you'd written the long one as well, but didn't want to point too many fingers! Either way, the Ep. 2 summary is a pretty good example of how to do one from my point-of-view. I just read the edited version, which is much more to the point. Drmargi (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Final Eurovision interview

I still have interviews with Maxi and Anabela in the pipeline...I don't even know when they're going to respond. But our big finale interview has nine people confirmed, with three of those being Contest winners. As a result, I'm getting new free pictures. :) See one of our interviewees. Only the one on the left took part. Mike H. Fierce! 13:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ani Lorak, Kalomoira, Sirusho, Charlotte Perrelli, Hanna Pakarinen, Marie N, Jessica Garlick, the Olsen Brothers, and Tajci are all confirmed for the interview. :) I'll give you the link when everything is published on Monday. Mike H. Fierce! 16:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Great, can't wait! Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Kalomoira ended up blowing off my e-mails and did not participate. Everyone else did, though. I haven't published yet but it's all ready for publication; you can read it as a sneak peek here. Mike H. Fierce! 02:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Leave it to Kalomoira lol. I'll take a look when I get a chance. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greeks in Kyrgyzstan

Eurovision fun, I saw your comments about the Greeks in Denmark, and I would appreciate your input about keeping or not the Greeks in Kyrgyzstan article as well.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look and make a decision. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Links

#10. — R² 20:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

[1] Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Lemme explain as well instead of my snapping comeback to your haughty message ;). Read the bold right at the top of the section where it says that it may be included if it is an official page of the subject. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I would have though Lady Gaga.com is "the official website" of Lady Gaga? — R² 20:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I too thought that it was only for the (one and only) official site, but right before the numbered list there is a bold faced sentence reading "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:" I also checked the "restrictions on linking" link and it does not mention anything about it. I looked into all of this before reverting the edits in the first place. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Part of the reason we avoid social networking sites is because celebrities tend to follow the trend having "official" sites for every social network. What we are trying to avoid is an extensive list of links, when the subjects primary official page is sufficient. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The Closer and IPS Tables

Stephen, I reverted your change to the template for The Closer's episodes. Why the change to the template when the standing table has worked well for four years? Please discuss the change and let's get some consensus before making the change - and consider whether we can fill in four years of hard-to-find summer ratings. Drmargi (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted before I got your message here. I am going to convert the listing to use the {{Episode list}} template that is supported by WikiProject TV as opposed to the "home made" version currently being used. This new list will look basically the same, except be more standardized and easier to edit. I will also move the episode number to the left side since that is where it makes the most sense, most people identify episodes by number, not name. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This really should be discussed on The Closer Episode's discussion page so people know why you want to make the change. I understand what you're doing now, but it seemed very arbitrary before. Let's take the discussion to the correct discussion page, see what folks think, or if anyone even cares, and then make a change if appropriate. In Plain Sight's episode lists could really use the template if you want one that's new and needs help. I'll help fill in the writers and directors if you'd like. BTW, if you reply to a post on your own page in the same place, it's usually good form to leave a message on the poster's page so they know there's a reply. There's a little template that makes it easier. Drmargi (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the newer version of the table much better. I'm not a big fan of archiving ratings unless there's a good reason - there are too many accuracy issues (over night v. live + 7, accuracy, etc.) The new table also solves the redundancy issue the current table has. I'll fix the others to match. Would you do me a big favor and go look at the episode list page for Burn Notice and see if you can fix it? I couple ninnies (sorry - no better word) messed up the tables there badly! I tried to fix them and can't get them back to their original form!!! Thanks, Stephen! Drmargi (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

COOL! Burn Notice needs your helping hand; I'm good with summaries but still haven't got the feel of tables. I revealed the compromise table for S5, which I really do like. I'd like to apply it to IPS as well. I'll fix TC up while you fix the BN tables. They're a serious mess. Drmargi (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, if I wasn't clear - would you apply the same template as TC, or get the table back to how it orginally was. Half of what should be there for S2 and most of S1 isn't showing, and the episode descriptions are missing. Drmargi (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding IPS table: call is a drawback to living on top of the industry, but the traditional order in the credits, for describing credits etc. is to describe who a piece is written by then directed by, so I flipped them. If you flip the individual entries and the headings it doesn't work, but if you just flip the headings, it does. Don't ask me why - I can't make sense of the overly complicated syntax of tables. Drmargi (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I'd suggest fixing the template. Written by then Directed by has always been the way a piece is described. Drmargi (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree that because the project decided the template should be a certain way the editors of a given page must comply with it. That flies in the face of basic WP principles, but it's not worth a fight. I'll leave it as it is. Drmargi (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Promotion

Yeah, sorry Grk, I saw it, and I have the info & sources, I'm just trying to find the time to do it. I'll probably have it done by today, and I'll be doing a lot more work on fixing up little details over the weekend too. GreekStar12 (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Years

As to [2], I think that you left out the fact that Wikipedia views the approach that you changed as "normal," while indicating that the approach that you changed it to is "acceptable." And as to your comement that "the two digit makes it seem like it goes back in time to year 99," I don't view it that way (nor, clearly, does Wikipedia). This is consistent with many English language style guides (for example, [3], [4]), [5]. I think that the normal approach is the one that we should use.--Ethelh (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Your reply on the talk page was sufficient seeing that I replied there already to this same remark before you left it on my talk page. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: WikiProject Eurovision Invitation!

Thanks for the invite!

I've signed up, though I can't promise I'll be a "heavy duty" editor I will keep an eye out. As to why I hadn't already joined - because I'm an idiot?!

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Deletion of Bilateral relation pages despite ongoing merging effort Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Γιατί όχι

Εφόσον υπάρχουν πηγές και ενδίξεις οτι κάποιες χώρες μπορεί να πρωτοεμφανιστούν,να επιστρέψουν και τα λοιπά γιατί να μν γραφούν????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.174.155 (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:CRYSTAL and a consensus among editors, we are not adding "possible" entries. If they are going to participate then sure add it, but just because a country is thinking about entering or has the opportunity does not mean that it should be included. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Στο μέλλον αν το άρθρο εξελιχθεί δν θα προτίνεις πρωτοεμανιζόμενους και τα λοιπά όπως είχε γίνει την προηγούμενη χρονίά.Απάντα ελληνικά —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.174.155 (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Last year was a mess and the administrators came in and took out all of the possible countries. Confirmed only is the way it has to be. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Aπο εδώ και πέρα κάθε χρόνο οι παρουσιαστές θα είναι διαφορετικοί στους ημιτελικούς και στον τελικό ή ήταν φέτος επιλογή των Ρώσων?

Den ksero. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyway οτι και να λές εσύ εγώ θα φροντίσω να είναι το άρθρο όπως το περσινό,γιατί έτσι είναι σωστό.Και δεν μπορείς να αποφασίζεις εσύ μόνο κσι μόνο,γιατί έτσι σου αρέσει!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.181.174 (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

radio charts

hi dear my greek friend. if we want to have great song pages we shouldn't add the radio charts. Greek billboard charts are perfect to add. but radio1 charts do not consider as the official greek charts, don't you think it's true? --Triancula (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the page, they are official charts, that just so happen to be posted on radio websites. They are country-wide and are not single station charts or anything violating WP:BADCHARTS. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Breaking Eurovision story

Spain in danger of Eurovision disqualification after scheduling snafu at RTVE. Mike H. Fierce! 00:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I hadn't heard about that yet. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Updated with new info. Mike H. Fierce! 04:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

And the follow up. Mike H. Fierce! 20:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Greek charts

It was at least partially a screwup on my part, but there are things to discuss: Wikipedia talk:Record charts#Greek Charts.—Kww(talk) 15:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Eurovision

Hi, I have accepted your invitation for Wikiproject Eurovision. I was acually thinking of joining the project having done Eurovision articles for a number of years now so your invitation convinced me to join. Thank you for the invitation! I will get back to work :) Raphie (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've also accepted. Thanks for the invite! Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-Profile

Stephen, would it be ok with you if I used a similar profile page layout (like yours) for my very own profile?

Kindest Regards Gareth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pr3st0n (talk • contribs) 02:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I stole the layout two years ago from my friend Greekboy (who has since changed his up a bit). It's funny you ask because GreekStar12 also asked to use it lol. I'm sure Greekboy would not mind. He's not very active anymore anyway. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The days after

As the Eurovision entrants return home, the home crowds weigh in. Wikinews has all the gossip and headlines and quotes from post-Eurovision, all over Europe. You'll love this. ;) Mike H. Fierce! 13:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks very much for the Eurovision project invite, I'll do my best to help build up these articles. YeshuaDavid (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Countries In Eurovision

Hi Stephen, Just a quickie really about countries in Eurovision. I've been busy updating my research on Eurovision history, for a fan group I operate on social network site Bebo.com. And I came across an article about Tunisia and the 1977 Eurovision Song Contest, and that they were due to perform 4th in the 1977 contest, but unfortunately pulled out at the last minute, in a similar situation to that of Lebanon in 2005. I decided to delve deeper into this via Wikipedia; but was unfortunate to find the page "Tunisia In The Eurovision Song Contest". I then viewed the 1977 Eurovision page instead, and noticed that Tunisia is mentioned in there [6] and also mentioned on another page [7]. I was wondering why there is no page set up for "Tunisia in the Eurovision Song Contest"? I know some might say this is because they didn't participate; which I can understand, but Lebanon didn't participate either, yet they have a page set up entitled "Lebanon in the Eurovision Song Contest". I'm guessing that such a page for Tunisia has not been created, or possibly forgotten about. Would it be possible to have one created? It's just that in my opinion this information should be included in a page of its own, for those, like myself, who have been researching into the Eurovision archives. I don't mind taking on this task myself, if that is OK with you. I look forward to your reply. Kindest Regards (Pr3st0n (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

Here is a link from before it was redirected [8]. The reason there is a Lebanon article is because since it took place so recently, there were plenty of sources. It's even a "Good Article" on the assessment scale. Tunisia in the Eurovision Song Contest is currently a redirect, and unless you have a considerable amount more to add compared to what is already there, then I wouldn't suggest recreating it. The less articles to look after the better. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Stephen, thanks for getting back to me on this, and for the link also. I have read the link now, and notice that entry details along with the song title is missing. With the research that I have been doing, I have managed to find these details out, and can include them if you see this a reasonable choice of action. Thus it would carry similar content to that of the Lebanese one. (Pr3st0n (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

I would assume that your sources are reliable though right? If possible, I like to get little articles like these "done" as I did with the Lebanon article because they are over and there shouldn't be any "new" info to add at a later date. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah the sources are 200% reliable. I feel like an exclusive reporter for Wiki-Eurovision traipsing around the cyber world, along with research in my local library, finding out exclusive information and facts on Eurovision. Although this has been something I've been doing for years, producing my very own achieve-type book called "Eurovision - My Number One" which is everything to do with Eurovision, past and present, and includes what the betting odds were in each contest over the years, amongst other stuff. My friend, Niels Brinck (yes the same Brinck for Denmark 2009), has helped to provide some details too, which has been a great help. I could share some of this information I've collaborated, with you for any Eurovision prjects on-going on here. (Pr3st0n (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

OK With the information I've managed to find in my research; the Tunisian entry was selected though an internal process. The name of the artists is Urszula Dudziak with a song called "Night In Tunisia". I even found a copy of this song, and to be honest, the song is crap. No wonder Tunisia pulled out on the last minute. They must have been ashamed of their choice. (Pr3st0n (talk) 10:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

It's My Time - quality?

Hi , Just changed class to C-class to reflect the changes to the article. As I made most them could you give an independent opinion, do you think it is C-class?安東尼 TALK ^圣诞快乐 12:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

From a quick look, I'd agree with C. Check out Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment for more details on what a C is. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

first of all, thank you so much for the invitation. But i have not enough time to improve the pages. I would really want to but all i can do is to protect charts from bad attacks and making them trustable. You know, the one which we had 2-3 days ago is just a positive thing that both of the two sides were in the same idea: "Reliable Source & Reliable Charts" You really work hard for that i can easily say this. Not violating or doing something else. But at first it's not clear whether you are one of a vandalist or not, trying to change their countries' participants to #1's :) You gave us some new pages that we are not really used to and there is a conclusion at the end. I have no problem with you, and i can not if you are in the aim of making reliable pages and charts and informations. ;) Thank you again for your invitation but all i can do are to protect the charts and making them reliable. Thanks again :) --Triancula (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Asia-Pacific Song contest

• I added it because it is expected event as the guidelines say it ids for events scheduled or expected

G_ary^{Talk to me} 18:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines go more indepth than that. Please continue this discussion on the article's talk page. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Shoull we then put down the tag and put it back up when there is more traffick say, july? i can't sign as my signiture is messed up! sorry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antalope (talk • contribs) 21:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Burn Notice

Next time you decide to revert an edit that is accurately sourced with a sarcastic remark about seeing it on a bus, check the reference, and check your tone. Remember: WP:CIVIL Drmargi (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Greece ESC 2009

I am getting to upd the promo section...I swear lol, I've just been really busy. I also have a lot of other references that I've been saving up about both before esc and about the reactions of numerous critics and relevant celebrities (ie Maggiras, Psinakis, Paparizou). I looked over some of your new refs, and i can't really say i get the Ricky Martin one, lol, but about Oikotimes, I know that they include a lot of good information and facts, but when it comes to the actual content, it is not neutral at all. The writers always express their own opinions instead of general reception (probs why the site is not really popular anymore) and it always sounds a little childish. EX: one article said that sakis deserved his place even though he did not do anything wrong because some Greeks were too sure of a win, while the other had a title that Rouvas thinks "Hadise is genius" (not that likely)...not very NPOV. Anyway, I think that we can use this site for statistics and facts, but when it comes to body work, it's not all that reliable.

Also, no criticisms of Rouvas really, but the Maggiras took a lot of heat. I watched an interview with them and they were criticised for one-liners they made about other entrants. You think any of these should be included? They are kind of relevant and I can source them. It was all in good humor, they explain, ie Terry Wogan's commenting style. I also watched news shows on alpha, ANT1, and ERT, and they all focused on the juries for the placing, which btw, i also found the jury vote results which i will post. User 82 has already done a very good job with chart positions and finding some difficult refs; I've already messaged them about starting an account. GreekStar12 (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

Is it possible I could get your thoughts quick of the current sourcing state in my Sandbox, it has nothing to do with the Eurovision btw. Afkatk (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to source the lead since the style of the article makes the lead not a summary of the body. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)