User talk:Y2kcrazyjoker4/Archive 7

DYK for 1997 U2 concert in Sarajevo

On February 15, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1997 U2 concert in Sarajevo, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent job on that. Provides an excellent insight into the conditions surrounding the war too. Thankyou. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 18:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Achtung Baby "contradictions"...

I played around with that influences section after you suggested a new spot. Perhaps don't both going through each diff, rather the overall change is here. I think your suggested new position actually created (or at least enhanced) the contradiction you complained about in the sentence's initial placement. (ie, right after it speaks of morale, rather than at the end of that paragraph). So i moved it to Composition where it already talks about personal and religious writing. --Merbabu (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. I think it works well there. Do you think we're ready to renominate for FAC? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

"City of Blinding Lights"

Hi there, as I'm sure you know "City of Blinding Lights" is currently up for FAC. At the moment it looks as if the article will not pass unless the prose receives a copyedit from somebody with fresh eyes; could I ask you to take some time in the immediate future to give the article a look-over and tighten up the prose? Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I just did a copyedit, but we have an edit conflict on your hands. Can you try and merge your individual changes into my copy? Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 05:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I've integrated the two as best I can at the moment, but I'm exhausted and will be up in about five hours. Hopefully I'll be able to clean up any loose ends tomorrow night. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 05:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Pft - western hemispherians. You're all the same.--Merbabu (talk) 05:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't follow. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

u all sleep "weird" hours.  ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but that's the beauty of why we're here. When you're sleeping "normal" hours in Oz, we're taking care of the vandalism that springs up (and vice versa) =P. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sarajevo PR

Hah, I think it's really funny that you've put the concert article up for PR before taking it to GAN; I was thinking only a few hours earlier today about taking those steps too! We seem to come up with the same ideas at the same time all the time for this article! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 17:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Get out of my head! =) Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been in mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Y2kcrazyjoker4 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. RG (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Terribly sorry for accusing you of using socks. My hunch was wrong. Well take care. RG (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit, the accusation peeved me, but it looks as if the user was a sock for someone else, so your hunch wasn't completely wrong. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: MoS personnel

Yep; the liner notes have the following (some of which could be worked into Composition):

• Music: U2, Eno, Lanois
• Lyrics: Bono
• Keyboards: Terry Lawless
• Cello: Caroline Dale
• Produced by Eno and Lanois
• Engineered by Richard Rainey, assisted by Chris Heaney
• Additional engineering by Declan Gaffney and Carl Glanville
• Mixed by Lanois and Gaffney, assisted by Tom Hough, Dave Clauss, and Dave Emery

The individual band member credits are the same as usual. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 16:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, in regards to citing the Composition secton; though "City" used MusicNotes and the Hal Leonard book for things such as chord and key changes, for elements such as timings we just used the album itself. That had no objections, so it would probably be fine here as well. This is the one that was used for "City": <ref name="album notes">{{cite album-notes |title=No Line on the Horizon |albumlink=No Line on the Horizon |bandname=[[U2]] |year=2009 |publisher=[[Island Records]] |format=CD}}</ref> MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 16:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on the band member credits? I'm confused if Eno and The Edge played keyboards/piano at all, and I'd like to confirm what Lanois played on the track. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The ones listed above are all the ones present on the page for "Moment of Surrender". The band member credits are not listed on the individual song pages; they're the generic ones listed at the end of the booklet, so are identical to the Personnel section on No Line on the Horizon; sorry, the liner notes don't make any specific mention of who played what on each track; The Edge is credited with keyboards but that's for the whole album, not the one song, and there isn't really any info in there on what Lanois did. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"With or Without You" composition

There are four different sheet musics for "With or Without You" on the website. The first says it is played in a key of D/D-major (I think it's the same thing?) at a speed of 110 bpm. The second is identical to the first, but is several pages shorter making me think it must be abbreviated, or is only a partial sample (cutting out some of the intro and most of the outro probably). The third says it is played in a key of Eb "Moderately" (no exact speed is given). The fourth is third to say it is in a key of D, but at a speed of 112 bpm. No indications of tempo are given for numbers 1, 2, or 4. Of the four samples I think that the first (link) and the fourth (link) are the most likely to be correct; I'm not sure how much difference 2 bpm makes, but number 1 is probably the one to go for. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 17:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The studio version certainly played in D (aka D major). The same chord progression repeats all the way thru. I once had the official (out of print?) 1987 guitar/songbook for the JT. Could play almost the whole album on guitar and piano. Probably in boxes somewhere in my mother's attic. --Merbabu (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rock band 2 screen.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rock band 2 screen.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Help request

Given your experience with the FAC process as related to baseball articles (woo Mariano Rivera, my favorite player!) would you mind stopping by the FAC for 2009 World Series? The prior FAC went stale and failed with limited reviews, I'd love to get this one going ASAP to try and ensure passage! Thanks for all your work, regardless of if you have the time. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll definitely take a look at the article over the next few days. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think someone is owed a Copyeditor's Barnstar when this is all done. :) Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it! It would be great to see this article make FAC - I don't know that my bias as a Yankees fan will allow me to weigh in one way or the other, but I'd like to think my assistance will help the article down the path to FAC support. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think you can support/oppose at this point without the appearance of bias. You've given a comprehensive run-down of the article, it's not like you're some 4 edit account (all to Derek Jeter adding things about how awesome he is) voting "SUPPORT! GO YANKEES WOOOOO! 28 IN 2010 WOOOO!" Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Added that stuff, sorry it took a couple extra days! Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for striking the solved issues, anything else I can do? Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Just a few days ago, I was finding some instances where players were overlinked or insufficiently linked, depending on where in the article they were mentioned. For example, a specific game summary had not linked a player except for the box score. In another game summary, a player was linked twice. Best thing to do is review each player mentioned in the article and make sure they are linked when they should be. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Presenting...

		The Special Barnstar
		A very overdue acknowledgement of your extensive, long-standing work of excellence on the U2 topic including major research-based expansions, organsational/structural changes, (extreme!) attention to detail, and diligent maintenance work. Don't stop! regards --Merbabu (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the recognition. I'm sorry for our little spat - it's unfortunate it had to happen, but I think we're more aware now of the things we need to do to continue collaborating. I'll work on being a little more civil in the future. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Moment of Surrender

The article Moment of Surrender, which you nominated for WP:GA has been reviewed. There are a few minor issues that need to be addressed before the article can be promoted. Lampman (talk) 04:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've made the changes you suggested. Please let me know if anything else is necessary. Thanks! Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

2009 World Series

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Regardless of the stale FAC, you've done some fantastic work clean up the monolith of an article that is the 2009 World Series! Staxringold talkcontribs 00:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! I appreciate it. I thought the article was pretty near supporting for FAC, but I kept finding little things to fix. Rather than oppose, I kept delaying making an official stand either way so I could fix them. Hope you understand. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Absolutely. Hopefully third time's the charm. And as always there's a selfish benefit, I'll get the 100 Wikicup points in a more useful round. :P Staxringold _talk^contribs 08:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Achtung Baby

I would be glad too, but I am unable to contribute to Wikipedia until the end of the month due to outside pressing obligations. I would strongly recommend holding off on a FAC nom until then. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Joshua Tree re-issue.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Joshua Tree re-issue.png. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 04:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject U2 revival

Since we've had a lot of activity going on lately with the U2-related articles, I've decided to revive WikiProject U2. It had great potential at first, but never went anywhere, but now I think it could do us a lot of good since there's been a lot of activity. I reformatted the page at WP:WikiProject U2, so feel free to help out and give any input you have. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Live Demonstration

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Live Demonstration. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live Demonstration. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Quote

Actually, that's a much better quote. I wouldn't be adverse to having that instead, since as you say it is more representative of the whole album. Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

2009 World Series

Think it's finally ready for another FAC? Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back, I've been busy. I haven't looked at it since the last FAC failed, so let me look at it sometime in the next week and let you know what I think. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

One quick comment: in the citation templates, I would Wikilink the authors when they have articles for them (e.g. Gene Wojciechowski, Jayson Stark). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject U2 in the Signpost

WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject U2 for a Signpost article to be published this month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Oy Vey, Baby

I was randomly browsing through the {{find}} results for Achtung Baby on Google and came across this interesting tidbit about David Bowie: "Tin Machine II, however, was not quite the last gasp of Bowie's band project: the band released a live album, Oy Vey, Baby, in 1992. The live album consists primarily of songs taken from both of Tin Machine's studio albums. The unusual Yiddish title is a takeoff on U2's Achtung Baby." Given how influential and notable Bowie is, this may well be worth adding to the article. My first thought was that Legacy would be the place to sneak it in, but there doesn't seem to be a particularly good location in there for it to be mentioned (not without breaking down the flow anyways). Since you know the article better than I do, I figured that I'd drop you this line with the info so that you could squeeze it in there somehow. Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 12:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Good find! I'll try to work it into the Legacy section and see how it works. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Achtung baby

I will be back editing fully at the end of the month. The reasons for my absences have been sudden and unexpected, but I really do want to contribute to the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I was hoping for your contributions, so this would be great. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer rights

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Closing Time

Not post-grunge? You've heard the song right? The quiet-loud-quiet format alone should give you an indication that it's cleaned up radio friendly grunge. In fact that description fits better than alternative rock (modern rock is more accurate). Anyways, you wanted a source so here's allmusic.com's "Post Grunge" page.[1]. "Top songs" has Closing Time, just after 3AM by Matchbox Twenty. --Yankees76 (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

A quiet/loud/quiet/loud dynamic can apply to any genre of music. Not just post-grunge... dance-pop or jazz, too. And if I'm interpreting that page correctly, it's showing the most commercially successful songs by artists that are labeled post-grunge. Maybe Semisonic is a post-grunge band, but "Closing Time" ain't a post-grunge song. You'd need a source much more concrete than that. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, the song more closely resembles pop rock: see the Sacramento Bee - [2] Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a third party needs to be involved - the source is clearly a reliable source and your interpretation is certainly not accurate. Where does it say most commercially successful? Most post-grunge bands only managed one hit, except Matchbox Twenty and their most commercially successful song is Bent, not 3AM as is listed on the allmusic post-grunge list - so that theory isn't relevent. Per WP:V the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. So wether or not you "think" it's a post grunge song shouldn't be coming into play here. It's labeled post-grunge, as indicated by a reliable source so I'm reverting your change. --Yankees76 (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that allmusic is a reliable source; then again, you could probably find another reasonable source that classifies it differently. In that case, it wouldn't hurt to list it under multiple genre's, since there is rarely universal agreement as to what genre a song/band falls under (as is the case for the Semisonic article). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The Allmusic page lists "3AM" as a post-grunge song, which is absolutely hilarious and highly dubious (it's practically a pop rock song!) - which is why I interpret that page as listing the biggest albums and songs by "post-grunge" bands, not necessarily the biggest post-grunge albums and post-grunge songs. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

But that's just your POV. I'm glad you think it's hilarious - but it's still just your opinion, and we're not building an encyclopedia based on peoples opinions on subjects.

It's a common argument with numerous band and song articles between editors over what genre or sub-genre it is and 90% of it is opinion based - some people thing so and so is metal, but another guy thinks it's pop or pop metal, or so and so isn't punk etc etc.. This time there is actually a reliable source however, so reverting it on personal tastes really needs to be avoided. The song can probably fit multiple genres including post grunge, modern rock, alternative rock and just rock. Still the song itself fits the description of post grunge - "a derivative of grunge, utilizing the sounds and aesthetic of grunge, but with a more commercially acceptable sound" more than pop-rock "an "upbeat variety of rock music represented by artists such as Elton John, Paul McCartney, The Everly Brothers, Rod Stewart, Chicago, and Peter Frampton." The distortion used on the chorus and guitar "solo", not to mention the "quiet-loud-quiet-loud" song structure that was previously made notable by Nirvana, the Pixies and hundreds of copy cat grunge bands in the early 90's is enough to at least warrant the search for sources. If anything this was the song that gives Semisonic the post-grunge label, as most of their other "hits" or songs they're known for (Secret Smile, Singing In My Sleep) sounded nothing like it. --Yankees76 (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want to find another reference that calls that song "post-grunge", then fine. But that list is a bunch of hullaballoo - an acoustic pop rock song like Sugar Ray's "Every Morning" is on that list. So is Barenaked Ladies' "One Week". Simply put, these aren't post-grunge songs. Allmusic does not categorize individual songs by genre - it only handles artists and albums. So using this list as a reference doesn't seem valid to me. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of your opinion of the list, Allmusic is a notable and well-established source used frequently in Wikipedia. Genre identification is always a gray area; when in doubt, list several and provided well-known sources to back them up. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposing Allmusic itself, just that page within Allmusic. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Because it doesn't fit your definition of "post grunge"? How long have you been editing here? You know that carries no weight and it's not NPOV. Post grunge was added to the song's page by someone other than myself, so clearly I'm not the only person who doesn't find that far fetched - I just found the source that backs it up when it was asked for. I personlly can see why it's post-grunge, but the piano and effeminate vocals do give a pop sensibility as well. The Allmusic list is a reliable source - it's not up to us to determine wether it's accurate or not. There aren't exactly 100's of sources out there that list songs and their labels. I'm starting to question why each song, album and band needs a label on Wikipedia. This isn't the 70's anymore with clear cut musical genres.

By the way, post-grunge is not just limited to bands that openly copy grunge bands like Creed Nickelback, Godsmack or Bush or even spin offs of Seattle bands like Foo Fighters - post-grunge are also bands that took what grunge was doing and made it over-produced and mainstream in the late 1990's after the height of the original grunge movement. They dressed grung(y), they had angsty or weird/cryptic lyrics, they distorted their guitars somewhat and they generally had one or two hits before they faded out. Bands like Candlebox, Dishwalla, Matchbox Twenty, Moist, The Verve Pipe, Better than Ezra and Local H - they're also post grunge the same way that the Posies and Alice in Chains can both be labeled "grunge" even though one was power pop and the othe closer to metal than grunge. But again, that's my opinion, and that stays out of articles....--Yankees76 (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm familiar with grunge/post-grunge, thank you. I just find it a little disarming that you are willing to ignore reason and rational thinking and submit to using the Allmusic "post-grunge song" page without considering how the list was compiled. I won't debate most of those songs, but when there's entries like "Every Morning" on there, it really makes me question whether this can be considered an accurate source of genres. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't be debating any of those songs. The reality is it's not for Wikipedia to make pronouncements about what songs may be correctly or incorrectly labeled as post-grunge on a well established, frequently cited site that is solely dedicated to reviewing and categorizing music. Our only job here is to reflect what is listed. If you disagree, contact them to make your case or make your case here and get consensus that all of Allmusic be disallowed as a reliable source on Wikipedia. --Yankees76 (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

If you blindly want to accept whatever Allmusic says as fact, that's your prerogative. Like I've already said, Allmusic does not classify individual songs by genre - they do artists and albums, and anything more specific is merely a leap of faith. Surely, if this is a "post-grunge" song, there is at least one other source out there that can verify this? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Not blindly, don't put words in my mouth - I've made my points above. In fact I've made a better case for keeping it than you have at removing it or disallowing Allmusic altogether. Just because they don't classify songs by genre (as each song doesn't have it's own article) isn't basis to discredit them based on one Wikipedia editors personal opinion or original research. How many sources does Wikipedia require for something like this? Or more accurately, how many other songs genres are being challenged that they not only need one reliable source, but two? --Yankees76 (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads up, I've added this discussion to the articles talk page and opened and RFC. --Yankees76 (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Good idea - this discussion is probably better suited for one of the music projects. I've seen references thrown out before on grounds that the information was disputed or not believe to be reliable, even if the website/publication itself was. So I'm not trying to disqualify Allmusic entirely by any means. I just believe this list is hastily assembled. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough - genres for post late 90's-present music is difficult to source however - and post-grunge is paintbrush that was used on alot of bands and alot of songs. I think finding a source as well-known/respected as allmusic for this will be difficult. Sources like Rolling Stone or NME don't exactly have lists of songs with the genre listed beside them. BTW Billboard calls it "pure pop", so I'm going to add it to the list with the citation [3]. You cool with that? --Yankees76 (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

???

You know a lot more about reading music than I do; is this edit legit, or is it made in error by the IP? Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the source where the music note info came from, as there isn't a reference until the Allmusic review (which definitely will not discuss music notes). I'm not sure if it is D or D-flat, but if I'm reading the Music Manual of Style properly, it says that we should use subscripts to indicate degree. While we're on the topic, for the introduction's chord progression, do you know what the letter note equivalent of the roman numerals is? I feel like it would be easier to understand if we had the letters (e.g. imprecisely, D-G-D-G-Bm-A-D). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I know very little about reading music; I have no clue what the letter note equivalent would be. =( Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Media review for Achtung Baby FAC

Hi. Sure, I'd be happy to do one. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Paul Kelly (musician)

FAC had been archived before I could reply to your comments. I would still like your thoughts on my responses, could you reply at the article's talkpage. Thank you for your original comments and I hope a second attempt at FAC will be successful.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Bracketed ellipses

[4] Not according to the "With square brackets" paragraph of WP:ELLIPSIS. "Normally" can't mean "if they werent in the original reference" because the normal function of an ellipsis is to shorten the original reference. Art LaPella (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Re ANI on 173.32.162.12

With vandals like that, you can just report them to WP:AIV. --Ronz (talk) 00:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will use that next time. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Mo

Congrats! Looks great on the Main Page. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I almost missed that this was going to be a TFA! It wasn't nominated, but rather chosen by the TFA admin, so I wasn't aware until just 3 days ago that it was upcoming. I'm really, really happy with the way it turned out. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 04:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Baseball Barnstar

		The Baseball Barnstar
		For incredible work on Mariano Rivera. I am awarding you this barnstar. Mariano Rivera appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 29, 2010.--KANESUE 13:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Time Out Sydney at NLOTH

The original review was 2 stars out of 6, but when I checked it the other day as I modified the prose I saw that it had been changed to 2 out of 5. That sixth star may have been an accidental inclusion in the original review (6 does seem an odd sort of rating scale). Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I noticed this after my edit was reverted. Very strange. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk)

Mmm, very bizarre. BTW, congrats on the promotion of Achtung Baby; the article looks great. Melicans (talk, contributions) 05:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. For a while there, I wasn't sure if I was going to have to go back to the drawing board with the composition section or not! Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Mo caption

I really don't like the caption "Rivera had his weakest season as closer in 2007" on Mariano Rivera's page. I mean, yes it was the only season his numbers appear mortal, but that caption doesn't sit right with me. It suggests he was really bad, when his ERA was in the 3's, and his WHIP only slightly above 1. Since you do most of the work on this page, I wanted to see if we could brainstorm a better caption. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it probably doesn't make much sense the way the picture is captioned/organized with the prose. It's a 2007 photo, but it's directly next to the 2006 season summary, and mentions his 2007 performance in the caption, which might confuse the reader. I think I am just going to revert to the previous caption. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Roger Waters

I appreciate your input and help, so thanks for helping to improve the article. Having said that, do you have any sources for your statements

• "Following tensions over his increasingly dominant role in the group, Waters left Pink Floyd in 1984"

• "and began a legal battle with the remaining band members over use of the "Pink Floyd" name and their songs."

Waters never wanted to use the name Pink Floyd, and I am not aware of a source that states he left "Following tensions over his increasingly dominant role in the group"

As I said before, Gilmour himself said there was no dominance untill The Final Cut, I can provide sources should you disagree. --GabeMc (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Following tensions over his increasingly dominant role in the group, Waters left Pink Floyd in 1984..."

This statement, it seems to me, is a contentious unsourced one about a living person.

--GabeMc (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice work with the lede, thanks again for your help. --GabeMc (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've made a seris of edits to address the issues you had with the pictures. Let me know if you think it is corrected yet. --GabeMc (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it looks much better now. You kept the best photos while not taking attention away from the article's prose. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks again for your input, you made great suggestions. What do you think about the overall content now? --GabeMc (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I think overall, the article is very good. My only critique would be that in some places, it reads too much like a timeline (e.g. "In 1995"... "In 2000"... "In 2005"...), but this can be fixed, since the notability of the events discussed has already been defined. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your timeline critique 100%. Any suggestions/and or help fixing this would be appreciated. --GabeMc (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• I believe I have addressed your concerns with the article and we could use your further input at the Roger Waters FAC. — GabeMc (talk) 04:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Billboard charts

I noticed you're having the same problem with the Billboard charts that I've run into recently. That is, that since their last update a lot of chart positions are just plain wrong. A serious pain, I tell you. It's funny how Allmusic has a better accounting of their charts than Billboard itself has these days. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It's unbelievable that how thru all of the updates that were made to their website, their raw data must have been changed. I'm not sure how they could let this happen. In this case, both Allmusic and Billboard are wrong, so I can't say anything different about Allmusic. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Loveless

It is quite a big difference, because as originally written in British English, single quotes are used for album titles. The quotations should be preserved as much as possible. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

FTC of U2

On the nomination page you stated it is a Good Topic nomination, but it is listed at Featured Topics; not sure if it was listed in error or if there was a typo, but I figured I'd let you know. Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The Featured Topic Nominations page actually handles both Good Topics and Featured Topics, so I don't think I did anything incorrectly - if I did, feel free to let me know. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sarajevo concert

I know that you're probably focused on Zoo TV Tour right now, but I want to get U2's 1997 concert in Sarajevo up to FA as soon as possible; with the FAC for "Slug" being withdrawn and archived today, I'd be able to put it up in two weeks (given the new FAC rules to wait 2 weeks between noms). Given how much we've worked together on it, we'd both be listed as nominators, which could have an affect on how soon you want to get Zoo TV Tour up there. Are you game for it? Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Zoo TV Tour article probably won't limit availability too much. I'd be happy to pick things back up on the "1997 concert in Sarajevo" article with you. We probably be best served trying to figure out what the first step to take is (e.g. copyedit, finding sources, etc). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Source-wise I think we're mostly okay; we may need to find a replacement for the one U2Gigs ref, but most of what we have is taken from print sources, which the FAC crowd love. Beyond that, just making sure that the links are still active and archiving them for future use is probably all that's needed there. I just gave the article a read, and for the most part it seems pretty good prose-wise. There are a couple things that could be tweaked but nothing major jumped out at me; the FAC would honestly probably be a better place for covering that than PR would (never had much luck with improvement on that aspect in that venue). Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

your question on the dutch discussion page

I think this is the book you are looking for.

http://webgld.blauwebrug.nl/cgi-bin/bx.pl?dcat=1&woord=Slooten,%20Johan%20van&titcode=SLOALBU9999&ingang=S&vv=JJ&systeem=*&event=tdetail&sid=869f367cee650d936770d89e9a1999bb&groepfx=80&vestnr=9511&prt=internet&cdef=204&srvnum=004&taal=1&sn=31

I guess I can get it from my library. You're still interested?

kind regards.

Jeroen Baten jeroen at no spam needed i2rs dot no spam needed nl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.213.47.11 (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for responding - someone else actually found the book at their library and posted the information we needed (see Talk:Achtung Baby). Thank you, though! Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)