User talk:Y2kcrazyjoker4/Archive 4

Orphaned non-free media (Image:U2-TheJoshuaTree-U2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:U2-TheJoshuaTree-U2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

U2

HTML isn't actually used in WP - the br tag is merely used as notation with WP's styling, but it's not actually HTML and thus, no slash is needed)

But it is. Our webtools (wiked, linkchecker, format etc) convert them for a reason. It's whitelisted HTML, and since wikipedia strives to be HTML 5 and XHTML compatible, the slash is appropriate. The reason for this is to any any time make the conversion of raw wikipedia content to other formats as simple and easy as possible. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Live at Red Rocks: Under a Blood Red Sky a different title by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is considered undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. –Dream out loud (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Live at Red Rocks article

I'm glad to see someone working on the Live at Red Rocks: Under a Blood Red Sky article. I had a feeling that once I created it, the article would go unedited for quite a while, especially since I wouldn't have had time to expand it much further. I like your usage of references, but I'd like to recommend another one. I'm not sure if you have the CD/DVD deluxe edition, but if you do then I'd recommend using the booklet inside the album case as as a reference. I was actually thinking about doing it myself, but it would be a while until I'd get around to doing it. If you decide to use it, then you can use {{cite DVD-notes}} or {{cite album-notes}} as a reference tag. If you'd like help editing any other U2 articles, let me know and I'd be glad to do so. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Crack the Shutters

I have nominated Crack the Shutters, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crack the Shutters. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Orange Mike | Talk 02:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:U2-teenagers.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:U2-teenagers.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rama (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Crack-the-shutters.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Crack-the-shutters.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gta-sa-screen1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gta-sa-screen1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gta-sa-screen2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gta-sa-screen2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Lego-island.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Lego-island.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Golden gate

Why? The ımage was great. Please I'm going to undo.--Nemera (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If you had read my edit summary comment, you would know that it is not preferable to use an image with a watermark in the corner, when the image already in use doesn't have one. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Snow Patrol

Hi. Group consensus was reached regarding correct genres for Snow Patrol; please see this discussion on the Snow Patrol talk page. If you wish to assert that Snow Patrol should fall into the indie rock genre, and have new sources to reference, your argument is welcome. In the meantime, your edits were reverted by another editor. Best regards. --OliverTwisted (Talk) 12:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If you visit the talk page, you will note there are 5 editors supporting Snow Patrol being in the Alternative genre, with supported reasoning arguments. There is one editor who supported your position. List additional arguments on the talk page before introducing this again. Edits have been reverted to group consensus version. Best regards. --OliverTwisted (Talk) 23:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Uber Awesome Award Nominee

Hey dude, for your many contributions on basically every article i watch. i'm nominating you for the January 2009 uber awesome award. (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

		January '09 Uber Awesome Award Nominee
		Congratulations, Y2kcrazyjoker4, You've been nominated!!!!! Estemshorn (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sweet! Where will the awards ceremony be held? Will there be celebrities and can I meet Angelina Jolie? =) Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Pink Floyd article length

Hi, you edited the Pink Floyd article with this edit summary: "not sure why this lead was shortened, but for an article of this length, a longer lead is much more appropriate". Actually the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the lead were not removed, someone just moved them into a new heading. Your attempt to restore created a duplication of those paragraphs. Frankly I don't think the heading change should have been made. It started when someone asked on the talk page if the lead is too long, and I replied that the articles for the Beatles and Rolling Stones have the same length of lead, and cover the same sort of early history. First user was satisfied with that answer. Then another user came in and said that since there was agreement that the lead is too long, he was going to fix it. This was unnecessary; there never was a problem. The user who did that also made a lot of controversial edits which were reverted (by me), and I didn't want to revert absolutely everything he did, so I left the lead section alone. Hope that explains what happened. If you think the lead should be restored to show 3 paragraphs, I would be in agreement, and all that needs to be done is move some headers around. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you that the lead should not have been changed - an article of its length needs a lengthier lead to summarize the content of the article. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Position link in infoboxes

Why don't you show me where it says the position should be linked in the MLB infobox, because right now, other than the players you have edited, retired players have the position linked and active players don't. However, I do think retired and active players infoboxes should be consistent and that all players positions should be linked or none of them should. Jackal4 (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression, from looking at articles about Hall of Famers/retired players, that Wikilinking the position was a standard. I appear to be mistaken. But why not Wikilink? It makes sense to link to the articles for the positions the players play(ed). Readers might not know what a relief pitcher is, or what a second baseman is. It is already standard to Wikilink such information in the article, why not in the infobox, too? Of course, like you said, there is the matter of consistency. From looking at articles on other professional athletes for other sports, it appears that the standard for their articles is to Wikilink the positions, retired or active. I would say we try to follow that type of consistency. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should start a discussion at WP:Baseball first just to make sure everyone is in agreement. Jackal4 (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea: see here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Wikilinking player positions in infoboxes Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Small note

"Dude, take a chill pill. " is not really helpful, to say the least. I know I don't need to give you a link to the pages on civility or explain why it is so crucial to wikipedia's functioning. While I'm open to fair criticism, please take care in how you do it. I will endeavour to return the favour Just a note, which you can delete and don't need to reply to.--Merbabu (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think edit summaries such as this t comply with Wikipedia's policy on no personal attacks. Editors are more likely to respond positively to simple guidance rather name-calling and shouting. --JD554 (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Rolling Stone No Line on the Horizon review

That source is still no better than the forum. It is a blog entry by a member of the site - which anyone can sign up to and post more or less as they see fit - that still fails WP:SPS. Would there be any harm in waiting until Rolling Stone can be cited direct? I personally don't think so. --JD554 (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Boli (steroid)

Hi! I'm removing your PROD of Boli (steroid) because there is an active merge discussion to merge the content to Metenolone enanthate on the talk page. The article should be deleted or redirected after that merge is completed. Thanks! SMSpivey (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Reordering

Cheers for reordering, I wasn't sure what the best way to do it was. I just didn't think it made too much sense having the Linear tracklist before the album tracklist. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - the album tracklist should definitely get first mention, then the Linear tracklist. But because the film and album are distinct, I didn't think they should both be under Track listing. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It definitely makes a lot more sense being where it is now. Cheers again, MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional movement of content

You were really helpful with the reordering of No Lien on the Horizon in regards to the Linear section; I was wondering if you might take a look at this and share your opinion on the moving of the mentioned information? Ta, MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

No Line on the Horizon "Reviews" discussion

There's currently a great deal of edit warring going on in regards to the reviews section of the infobox in No Line on the Horizon. Your input on the talk page regarding this matter would be much appreciated. The relevent discussion can be found here. Thanks, MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

A Conspiracy of Hope

Regarding your recent move of the A Conspiracy of Hope article, please see Talk:A Conspiracy of Hope Tour#Article name for a previous discussion/consensus on the name without the "Tour". Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

How to be dead

I just added a trivia section and put back the bit about a disputed song "Breathing fire (Demo)". I am not sure if this song actually exists. But I have seen this bit for ages on the article. Just noticed you had deleted it. I'm searching for any bit of info i can find on this on the internet. Just wanted to let you know. Suede67 (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I found a link, though it's dead now. See this. http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=snow+patrol+breathing+fire+demo&btnG=Search&meta= Clicking the first link will bring up a 404 error page, but if you click cached, it shows a snap of the page. which is this. http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:Er1JaMOVvjEJ:www.pitchfork.com/article/news/33833-snow-patrol-prep-new-dvd-expand-final-straw+snow+patrol+breathing+fire+demo&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=in&client=firefox-a Clearly there's a reference, but the page no longer actually exists. Suede67 (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for U2 360° Tour

On March 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article U2 360° Tour, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 04:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Magnificent (U2 song)

On March 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Magnificent (U2 song), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Broken reference

On January 8 you added a paragraph to the article The Electric Co.. In it you used a reference <ref name="wanderer"/>, appearently from some other article. Could you please tell me where to find the details of this reference, so that I may fix it. You could also fix it yourself, of course.

Thank you for fixing it. Debresser (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)