User talk:Y2kcrazyjoker4/Archive 9

The cake on your userpage...

... is the best thing created by anyone ever. Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 14:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Glad you got a kick out of it, I was hoping someone would! Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for From the Sky Down

Materialscientist (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Sarajevo

Hey mate, I'm finally back from my months of summer activity. Shall we work on the finishing touches of U2 concert in Sarajevo before taking it to FAC? It looks like it is really close, but I remember a few months ago you said that there were a few things you wanted to work on before nominating. Melicans (talk, contributions) 16:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been looking for something to keep me occupied. I'd love to promote a couple of articles actually, and this one would be great start. I'm gonna have a look at the referencing to start things off, then I'll work on reviewing the prose and doing some copyediting. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me know when you want to nominate it; I have one up already at FAC (Mothers of the Disappeared), but can have a second if you put it up as a co-nom. I'll put it up for Peer Review in the meantime; hopefully that will give us some indication of it's readiness from a third party! Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. A peer review isn't a bad idea. I haven't yet re-read the prose myself, but I will likely get around to that sometime in the next week. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 22:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

U2 360 Troll

Obvious vandalism/trolling, and now numerous sockpuppet accounts. Any idea how to report/set up an SPI? Not that it will do much good since it is apparently a dynamic IP... Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You could open an investigation here, but I'm not sure if it'll be necessary for now, since the 2 sockpuppetted accounts that were created yesterday were blocked. The IP is the only thing that remains unblocked, and I don't think a sockpuppet investigation is the proper forum for that (I could be wrong). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A new one ('Ellie G. was robbed', or something like that) was just created and posted on the talk page. If it weren't for the semi-protection (which expires next month), I have no doubt that tripe would have been edited back in. If it gets past the minimum account age/edit threshold, or when the semi is lifted, I guess SPI is something to look into. Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Why would The Fray and One Republic support a band like U2? One is rock, the other two are pop rubbish.188.141.24.232 (talk) 08:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

So? Kanye West and Jay-Z are rap and crap, yet they both opened. Genre has nothing to do with who is chosen as an opener. If the bands that were chosen were too similar to U2, were would the variety be? And of course, saying that they are "rubbish" (or to use my own words, "crap", is entirely subjective and no basis for inclusion or removal. We deal with facts, not editor opinions. Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

So, everything I said about waiting on that sockpuppet investigation? Ignore that - I just opened this up. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully this whole sordid affair will be wrapped up along with the closed SPI. =) Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

One Republic

How are they in any way, shape or form rock? They are a boy band. 188.141.24.232 (talk) 08:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Why are you asking me idiotic questions? I didn't book the bands. The fact is they played those concerts, whether you like them or not. If you keep this crap up, you will be permanently banned, so I suggest you stop. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 11:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Since when were One Republic rock?

Calling them a rock band as an insult to Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Nazareth and other real rock bands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellie G Was Robbed (talk • contribs) 17:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What is 'rock'? From that one overarching definition you have hard rock, soft rock, pop rock, synth rock, rock opera, alternative rock, rock 'n' roll, and a myriad of combinations within. Who are you to judge what is and isn't rock? Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Move along - nothing to see here. The sockpuppet investigation will have this guy banned soon enough. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Achtung remaster

Dunno if there is anything in here you can use, but this PDF from Universal Italy finally lays out everything in the boxset (including the DVD and LP contents), and if my Italian is correct it also confirms (for the first time from an official source) that it is remastered. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Ohhh! Great find. I'll probably hold off on adding anything to the article until it's from a more "official" source (e.g. U2.com), but this is great, thanks. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Email

Were the files clear enough to see? I don't have a scanner so photographs were the best I could do. Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I can make the images out. I'm trying to decipher the highlife riff, but my limited knowledge may prevent me from being able to interpret that part. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I'm just glad you can read it. I could barely tell what the tempo was, I'm that illiterate with sheet music! Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ryan Braun. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You appear to be edit warring. Please note that you were asked to take your comments to the talk page instead. Also note -- this is a GA article, that has gone through GA review and the concomitant review by multiple editors. Most of your changes appear to be of the highly subjective IDONTLIKEIT variety, and fail to respect the consensus of other editors who have edited the article, and reviewed it for purposes of GA. I see that you have been blocked multiple times for edit warring, but not in the recent past; I hope you would take to heart the fact that that is not an acceptable way of resolving issues where you have a different point of view than others in the community. Please stop edit warring, and bring your comments to the talk page. Thank you. Epeefleche (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rogers Hornsby/archive1

Hey. Just wanted to see if you had any further comments, or if you'd be able to support if everything now looks good to you. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't scrutinized the prose too closely, but I can do so if you need. I'll try to get around to it this weekend. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

30 seconds to Mars

If you have trouble with anonymous IPs on 30 Seconds to Mars articles, check to see if they are from Italy. If they are, drop me a note, and I'll block: it's ItHysteria, a long-term banned editor.—Kww(talk) 15:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

According to IP-lookup.net, the most recent IP 79.31.37.81 originates from the host "host81-37-dynamic.31-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it", which is indeed Italy. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

That's why I mentioned it, and why I had already blocked it.—Kww(talk) 16:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Beatles/Years Active

There is a discussion occuring here involving debate about whether or not the Beatles were "active" during 1994-1996. Your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

"One Tree Hill"

Thanks for adding all the Composition information. I was wondering though, do you know what key it is played in? Melicans (talk, contributions) 05:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't determine the key directly from the sheet music, but I thought it was C since that is how the song begins. According to Music Notes, it is C major [1] . Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 05:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. Looks like the MusicNotes sheet is from a different source as it has 123 bpm instead of 120. I'm a bit hesitant to mix and match so I probably won't put it in. Thanks again for adding it all! Melicans (talk, contributions) 05:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Achtung Baby TFAR

Achtung Baby can now be nominated at WP:TFAR. It's within the necessary date range and there are only 4 date requests at the moment. I started to do it myself but couldn't figure out the best 1200-character blurb, so I figured it would be best for you to do it yourself. I think File:Bono as The Fly Cleveland 1992.jpg should be used as the image since it's the only free image of a band member from that era and the U2 infobox image has already been on the Main Page on at least two occasions (if not more). –Dream out loud (talk) 05:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, I knew the eligibility date was coming up soon. I agree about the picture, it would complement the TFA blurb perfectly. I'll write something up shortly. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 12:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we'll have to wait, as there are 5 requests already up. In the meantime, you can view the blurb I put together here. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If there are five requests already up you can bump the one with the lowest points value. If one is due to vanish in the next few days it may be easier just to wait, but if they are all for dates a while in advance bumping would work. Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Princess of China

You are still going against WP:CITEKILL. In the space of three words, there are 6 footnotes. It looks awful. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 17:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, then pick one or two of the most prominent references and use those. Point is, plenty of reliable sources have called the song "electropop", so there is no reason why it shouldn't be one of the genres listed. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I will fix it using a coded ref. And there is no reason why Alternative hip hop can't be included. Coldplay is an Alternative rock band, and Rihanna is an R&B/Soul and Reggae artist. Alternative hip hop is a combination of those genres, hence it should be included. And you formatted some references incorrectly. You must include the publisher paramter. I would have thought you would have known considering you actually promoted some articles to GA status. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 17:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I know how to format references - I've done them quite frequently. Are you really trying to hold it against me that I forgot the publisher field? Forgetting that doesn't make the references incorrect - maybe incomplete. Regardless, instead of patronizing me for neglecting something, perhaps you should be thankful someone added 90% of the reference information, or even any references at all. As far as alternative hip hop, I think your interpretation of the genre differs from what others consider alt hip-hop, hence why there does not seem to be many reliable sources that call the song as such. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Include the publisher parameter then! 90%? You added about 3 or 4 sources in the entire article. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and I don't WP:OWN the article, it's up to you if you want to add sources in. My interpretation of Alt hip hop is what the Alternative hip hop article says, as well as the fact that the combination of Coldplay and Rihanna results in an Alternative hop hop influenced song. And at first, you was saying it was an electropop song, even though two of the three sources didn't actually say electropop. Anyway, we have clearly got off on the wrong foot, so let's forget about it. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 17:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Foster The People Infobox Image

Regarding the photo of Foster the People wearing suits at the MMVA's.

We are the official representatives of Foster the People and would like your help in selecting a photo that is both true to the wikipedia community as well as the band's image and preference.

Can we have your support in selecting one of the band's approved press photos for their wikipedia image?

Thanks for your time.

--Jsmith2122 (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Promotional pictures of the band are certainly eligible for use on Wikipedia if released with the proper copyright/permissions for reuse, but as far as I know, a band-approved image would not necessarily take precedence over another image just because the band has approved its use. Visibility and ease of identification of the subject, along with the Wikipedia project's ability to redistribute the image freely, are the primary concerns for image selection in articles. As it stands, the image of the band at the MMVA's is the clearest image available depicting all 3 band members. The promotional pic you added is darker and harder to see the band in. Although it may be more in line with the band's image or how they wish to portray themselves, it's not a better image for identification. If the group has another image available that would be more appropriate for identification/clarity/etc, then it would certainly be a candidate for use in the article. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this information, it is very helpful. We will add an image that is clear and that shows the band better. If the new image is up to your and wikipedia's standards, we would appreciate your help keeping the image as the official infobox photo and not using the Much Music Awards picture. Please also let me know if you have any objections to the new image when it is posted and the reasons why. Thanks again!

--Jsmith2122 (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If an image that you upload is indeed your own work, that's fine - you could use the same copyright/permissions from the first image and upload it to Wikicommons. If not, it would fall under the guidelines WP:Non-free content. Just wanted to let you know before you upload anything. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again! We own all of the images I have posted so far. They are official images that the band own. We have given credit to the photographers though. I just updated the image. Please let me know if this is an acceptable image. --Jsmith2122 (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like someone has tagged your image - you'll need to demonstrate proof that you either own the image yourself or have received permission from the author to use it on Wikipedia. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Josh the Tree

I should be able to finish going through the refs this weekend, or failing that early next week; depends on how work on my three essays go. Preliminary thoughts from what I've read so far while going through the refs is that it will need a pretty thorough copyedit before FAC. The prose is very passionate and detailed, but I'm not so sure it is at the level FAC demands. Prose is generally my weakest suit though (most of the Opposes I've had at FAC have been based on that alone), so I may not be the greatest judge of that quality. Journal articles that don't have pages, etc, probably won't be too big an issue. Nikkimaria generally does most of the sourcing at FAC, and she didn't have any problem with a lot of those articles when I nominated "Mothers of the Disappeared" most recently when I explained how we had access to them.

Speaking of "Mothers", my plan was to nominate it at TFAR to coincide with the 25th anniversary of The Joshua Tree. If the album article isn't ready by that date, I think it would be a good fallback as a song from the album (it should still have the date relevence). Or possibly "One Tree Hill", which I think will be my next FAC nomination after I polish away some of the quote farming (as the PR put it), if that is ready. Either way there should hopefully be a couple of good choices for 9 March 2012! Hopefully we will soon be able to get Sarajevo up as well in the next month or so. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Achtung Baby

This is a note to let the main editors of Achtung Baby know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 19, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 19, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Achtung Baby is the seventh studio album by rock band U2. Released on 19 November 1991, it was produced by Daniel Lanois and Brian Eno. Stung by the criticism of their 1988 release Rattle and Hum, U2 shifted their musical direction to incorporate influences from alternative rock, industrial music, and electronic dance music into their sound. Thematically, the album is darker, more introspective, and more flippant than their previous work. Recording began at Berlin's Hansa Studios in October 1990, but the sessions were fraught with conflict, as the band argued over the direction and quality of their music. After nearly breaking up, they made a breakthrough with the improvisation of the song "One". With improved morale, they completed the album in Dublin in 1991. Achtung Baby received favourable reviews and went to number one in several countries. It spawned five hit singles, including "One", "Mysterious Ways", and "The Fly". The album has sold 18 million copies, and in 1993, it won the Grammy Award for Best Rock Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocal. The record and the multimedia-intensive Zoo TV Tour were central to U2's 1990s reinvention. Achtung Baby has regularly appeared on critics' lists of the greatest albums of all time. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your work expanding Foster the People. Your contributions are greatly appreciated. Happy editing! -- Luke (Talk) 03:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it! Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Mylo Xyloto cover

I just wanted to tell you that the album cover for Mylo Xyloto is the one with the grey background. I've yet to see one physical or digital album with the announced cover. I won't change it to the grey background until I've heard otherwise or have seen actual pics of someone owning Mylo Xyloto with the announced cover. Please take this message into consideration and get back to me when you have a word on the subject. Thanks!

Easy4me (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Every review of the album or online listing that I've seen (such as that on Metacritic of even Coldplay's own website) has used the full graffiti image. Each format seems to have a different variation of the artwork (e.g. different cut-out/filter), but I think the canonical cover is the full graffiti one. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Reference material at Google Books

Where was it decided not to include convenience links to reference material at Google Books?

-- J. Wong (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There was no explicit decision or consensus, but the general editing pattern for the article has been to not use Google Books as a courtesy link (other references, like Billboard magazines from the 1990s, don't currently have them). I mostly don't like using them because the URL's are too long and having a lot of them can add a lot of length to an article. That said, it's not that big an issue for me, I was just trying to adhere to some kind of consistency. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think convenience for the reader overrides concerns about size (although the article is pretty big). Consistency would apply only to other Spin articles that might be there. -- J. Wong (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Derek Jeter help?

I've been trying to emulate the job you did on Mariano Rivera to get DJ's article up to FA, but based on an oppose vote I just received, I might not have done enough. Would you mind helping me out? Your fresh perspective on that article would be invaluable to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit, I'm not as familiar with the ins and outs of Jeter's career like I am Mariano's. I can pretty much tell you what he did each year of his career - Jeter, not so much, so it'll require a lot more research from my end to make sure everything is covered. As part as prose and organization of the article go, I can certainly help with that. I don't know what pace I'll be able to assist at, so I most likely won't be able to "save" the current nomination. Is there a certain area you would like me to start with? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I can worry about the content, the ins and outs. I don't think there are any criticisms of the level of detail or sourcing. The biggest problem I'm running into is prose. If you could give it a quick look and let me know what you think, then I'd have a better idea of what to do, and whether or not I can get it to pass this time through. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It might help if I actually linked you to the review page - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Derek Jeter/archive3. Thought I had initially. Whoops. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

El Camino

hey i saw you are trying hard to improve the article, but there's just a problem, you only want to add the positive things about the album and it's not the way that Wikipedians do. we indicate all the things about albums. if you think something should remove from an article first bring it up in its talk page and let's talk about the whole thing, then we all decide it together to what should we do about that situation. we all want to improve articles, so let's not fight over something, let's discuss our ideas first then put them out there.

thank you Reza ^(Let'sTalk) 21:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to adding negative things, I added the criticisms that The Observer noted throughout its review. But as you can see from the Metacritic rating, reception has been overwhelmingly positive. That is reflected in the weight of positive/negative statements in the prose. If you average the scores of the reviews in the article together, you get roughly the same score that Metacritic shows, so I don't think there is any misrepresenting of positivity/negativity. There is pretty much the same proportion of positive/negative reviews in the article as there are listed on Metacritic (21 positive/2 mixed at MC, 9 positive/1 mixed in article). Furthermore, it's not necessary to split out a paragraph that says "However, not all reviews were positive". That sentence kinda screams "well, duh" (not every review will actually be positive). Hope you see what I'm getting at. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

ok whatever, but it's kinda a "well, duh" and people should know about it. it seems like we the writers are covering for the band and it's so unprofessional for us. and about the allmusic review. in the most articles, at first comes allmusic because it's the most important source of reviews and people looking for it at first and then going to the rest, no matter when the review is published. that was why i put it behind Spin.

and why did you remove the personnel section? please at first bring your ideas in talk page cause with no offence, your edits are getting annoying and it seems like you're bossing around the article. let's talk about what you're doing first then remove contents.

thank you. Reza ^(Let'sTalk) 22:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The personnel section was an accidental removal, probably due to an edit conflict on my part. As for the Allmusic review - I don't know what you're talking about when you say "it's the most important source of reviews". That's an opinion, unless there is some Wikipedia policy that says that particular source is preferential to everything else available. In many cases, Allmusic is being downgraded as a reliable source (ratings, for example, for old reviews are arbitrarily decided and don't always match the tone of the reviews). I don't see why we should lead off with it - the most objective thing to do, in my opinion, is just start with the first review published, which was Spin. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 23:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Need your decision

please come and discuss your idea about this stupid thing... Talk:Princess of China#Alternative_Hip_Hop.3F

thank you Reza ^(Let'sTalk) 01:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

"One Tree Hill" FAC problem

Hi; hope you're not too busy. I've run into a wee bit of a problem at the "One Tree Hill" FAC. A spotcheck is underway, and there have been some unusual problems. It seems that FN 4a-d, 6a-c, and 9 (all McCormick) are turning up different page numbers in the spotcheck than are present in my book. Can you check your copy to verify that the page numbers are correct? There is also a concern about the use of McCormick in the first two paragraphs of "Inspiration" as it is considered a primary source. Per my reading of WP:PRIMARY I think the usage in paragraph 2 is okay (though readings by other people may differ) as it is used only for a few quotes. Paragraph 1 in that section seems to be a bigger issue, as there is a definite over-reliance on primary sources.

I hate to ask this, but I only came home yesterday and didn't bring my books (they add far too much weight to my luggage for international travel), and I won't have access to them again until 3 January at the earliest. Would you be able to check the sources you have to see if there is anything that can replace McCormick in paragraph 1? There may be a bit too much detail in there to begin with, so if you think it needs a drastic pruning please don't hesitate. If you can't find anything or are unable to help out (understandable given the time of year), please let me know and I'll try to find another workaround to fix this problem. Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the last-minute crisis has been averted (phew!) I was able to make some changes courtesy of Google Books and the article was promoted a few hours ago. I'd love to get it on the mainpage on 3 July; it would be nice to see Greg remembered on that day. Do you think we'll be ready to go on Sarajevo in the New Year? Melicans (talk, contributions) 00:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, after I'm not home for the holidays, I'll have access to everything again and will be able to help with whatever articles you'd like to collaborate on. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 05:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

I won't be on much between now and the beginning of the New Year, so I'll wish you a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year now (before I forget). Here's to a productive year on Wikipedia, and an even more productive one to come! May you be filled with Achtung spirit, and may the sky not fall down! Happy Holidays! Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Adele 21

Hi there. I was just wondering why you reverted the "confessional singer-songwriter" expression from the 21 article. You said it was un-encyclopedic. Why is this? A confessional singer-songwriter is a very standard (and encyclopedic) musical expression; Adele, who performs in same vein as the traditional singer-songwriter, released what is a known as a deeply confessional album about her tumultuous break-up. This article mentions Adele when discussing the "dormant tradition" of the confessional singer-songwriter. I did not think it needed much defending when I was writing the article. My main issue is incorporating the sources, but it's something that I'm currently working on. Orane (talk) 22:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why something about the "near dormant singer-songwriter tradition" is only mentioned in the lead, not the article body. And to me, that sounds like the opinion of a journalist, something you need to attribute to the person and not state as fact. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

What about the expression is contentious for you? The fact that the tradition is "near dormant", or that fact that the album is a confessional? If it's the former, then that can be easily sourced. If it's the latter, well it's explained throughout the article that the album is a confessional album. It's not that important a point that it has to be spelled out explicitly in the article. Orane (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the "confessional" word, but rather the statement "near-dormant singer-songwriter tradition". First, something should only appear in the lead if it's mentioned somewhere in the rest of the article, so yes, please spell it out. Otherwise, it's not essential to the article. Again, the statement "near-dormant singer-songwriter tradition" is someone's opinion (e.g. I don't think it's a dormant tradition), but it is included in the article as if it's fact that singer-songwriters don't write with a confessional tone anymore. Either attribute the original quote to someone or remove the statement. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank you for your edits to the article. Greatly appreciated, and I see what you mean about the "near-dormant" point. I just had an attachment to the sentence. Orane (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Your honest opinion: do you think it is possible to have the article featured anytime soon? In what area(s) is it lacking? Orane (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to help. I definitely think it's worthy of being a Good Article. You could nominate it now and it would probably pass with ease (and in my opinion, you should always get it to Good Article status first). As far as getting it to be a Featured Article, I still think there needs to be some copyedits, and you'd probably want to make sure descriptions of song styles and things of that nature are properly attributed to the authors. But it's definitely on the fast track to making it there. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Copy that. Will look into the copy edit. That's been my main problem from the start. I'm good at copy-editing other people's work, but can't seem to get my own just right. To be honest, though, I've never been a fan of the good article process due its informality, among other reasons. I'll do my best to incorporate your suggestions. And feel free at any time to dive in and edit away :) Orane (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Little Lion Man (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bluegrass

Roll Away Your Stone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bluegrass

The Cave (song) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bluegrass

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited El Camino (The Black Keys album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lonely Boy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Snow Patrol Lineup

Hi there, thanks for you contributions RE Snow Patrol. I have been to 2 shows and 1 radio acoustic session in the last 3 months where Johnny McDaid was introduced as a "band member". I heard it with my own ears and he was definitely there. There are numerous examples of this on the internet - <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSAichZXXm4|title=Snow Patrol play Studio Brussel|date=19 December 2011|publisher=youtube|accessdate=20 December 2011}}</ref> where Gary Lightbody openly refers to McDaid as a band member. I was at a TV show here in New York recently where Johnny and Gary performed a song they had written together. They were introduced as "Snow Patrol".

Re: Pumped Up Kicks

User talk:Nikos 1993#Re: Pumped Up Kicks Nikos 1993 (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Occupy Pittsburgh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KDKA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Source changing

Hello, I would appreciate it if you would stop changing My Best Friends Girl's genre. I had a source for it, It's obvious there's a significant amount of rockabilly in the song, thanks.

MajorHawke (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Quote box styles?

Hi. I noticed you have a concern about quote box layout in W. E. B. Du Bois ... I posted a question at Talk:W._E._B._Du_Bois#quote_box. The article was just promoted to FA status last month, and is scheduled to appear on the WP main page next week, on 23 Feb. My preferences it to have the article in top-notch form for that day. During the GA promotion, peer review, and FA promotion, none of the editors had an issue with the quote box layout. I presume your concern is mostly a matter of taste? Or is there some WP guideline that I'm not aware of that mandates a certain tint for quote boxes? The MOS suggests that, when it is simply a matter of taste, the choice should default to the original style used by the initial authors of the article. Thanks for your help. --Noleander (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:MOSQUOTE#Quotations, under the block quotations section, it says, "Block quotations using a colored background are also discouraged". For me, colored or stylized quotation boxes are too distracting - they draw attention away from the prose and instead to the quotation. I can appreciate you wanting to look after the article for its upcoming TFA, which is actually why I glanced over the article recently to look for anything in need. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Do you have any objection to (1) enlarging the font size a bit to 90% (I cannot read the default size well, and I presume other wont either since my eyesight is average); or (2) using the default tint employed by the {{quotation}} template (a very light grey)? --Noleander (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I presume that the 90% and light grey are okay? I'll go ahead and make those changes. Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Song structure (popular music), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Call It What You Want (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Article restructuring at the Beatles

There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry!

Hi - sorry about the incorrect reversion on Foster The People - I undid your (perfectly correct) cleanup in error. Didn't mean to - and you had already reverted it by the time I noticed. Apologies again. Bonusballs (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I assume now you meant to undo the same vandalism that I did. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

An invitation for you!

	Hello, Y2kcrazyjoker4/Archive 9. Please accept this invitation to join WikiProject Baseball's Hall of Fame task force. We are dedicated to improving articles relating to baseball Halls of Fame around the world, including their inductees. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to our members page. Happy editing! – Muboshgu (talk) 01:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

RE: No Line on the Horizon

Regarding our previous edits, I started a post at the article's talk page and asked a couple of editors to comment there. Dan56 (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Saturday Night's Alright for Fighting, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you to seek consensus for certain edits. Thank you. Radiopathy •talk• 22:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone like You

It surprised me the first time that page was moved, but per WP:Capitals#Composition titles it should be "Someone like You". "Like" is a preposition in that usage, and 4 character prepositions aren't capitalised.—Kww(talk) 17:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure?

Are you sure Vampire Weekend never opened for U2? 79.97.153.17 (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

What makes you think Vampire Weekend or Ellie Goulding ever opened for U2? Do you have any reliable sources that say so? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Eyes Open

Are you blind or just an idiot, because there is no composition section on this page, so you adding "Country" back on after saying genres need to be sourced is making you a hypocrite, because it isn't sourced. NYSMtalk page 20:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll just go ahead and ignore the extremely combative tone of your message and assume you are having a bad day. Because I doubt you want me to lodge a complaint against you. To address your concern, I was reverting several genre warrior changes made by an IP editor and this just happened to be one of them. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Current/Past Members of the Beatles

There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You are awesome!

You're the bomb! 24.222.82.103 (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Completed. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the copyediting on the TASM article. I admit I can overdo it with how I word it on Wikipedia. That's what I get when I am one of the only major contributors on the article. As long as good sources aren't removed I will feel fine though. ;) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem - if there are problem areas of the article you want looked at, let me know and I'll run through it. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I kind of want the viral campaign section to be trimmed just a little...maybe to the most important details over anything. But other than that I would say the article is mostly doing pretty good. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Brad Pitt's page

Hi, you can now link Brad to Not On Our Watch Project's recently-created Wiki page. Leilapaz (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Matt Cain's perfect game

Yngvadottir (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)