User talk:Y2kcrazyjoker4/Archive 13

Disambiguation link notification for November 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New Build, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Franz Ferdinand. 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) 12:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

State of Grace (Taylor Swift song)
A user added "arena rock" on genre field with source (arena rock is performance style, not a genre), and does not mentioned alternative rock. Perhaps there's "Critical reception" section, says "rock anthem".115.164.87.241 (talk) 10:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Turn Blue (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. 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) 10:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Grammy Awards task force
--- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Born to Die (Lana Del Rey album)
I pointed "alternative" in the infobox from source that is she won "Best Alternative [artist]" on MTV EMA. But I know the category which represents the album, and the source is radio website. Whether any reliable authors described the album as "alternative" or not. 183.171.183.242 (talk) 07:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

'Hours...'
Adult contemporary is a radio format, not a genre. Can you find reliable for better genre? 183.171.181.91 (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Pumped Up Kicks
The source says it includes those lyrics; it didn't specifically state those specific lyrics caused the song to be taken off the radio. Pyrotle … the "y" is silent, BTW.  04:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It Won't Be Soon Before Long
There's an IP added unproperly sources, especially Rolling Stones where says "one of major pop rock sellers" does not means a pop rock album. Has any reliable sources for other better genres? 221.120.123.162 (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The Police having the biggest band in the world title?
The Police had that title years ago on their wikipedia, why changed it now? It was originally like that, also, The Police had the best selling album by a band in 1983 and the best selling single with Every Breath You Take in 1983. Can you give me any bands that were bigger and more popular than The Police in 1983? Give me one and I would remove it and won't re-edit it again. Also, look at Led Zeppelin, their page says Biggest band in the world from 1971-1975 but you don't do nothing about that but they were the biggest band in the world from that 4 year period. They put out grossing tours and successful selling well albums. The Police did the same in 1983. They were the most popular rock band or band of that whole year, they had the best selling album in the U.S. and also in Europe, they had the best selling single as well. What is wrong with that title? Are you a hater of their music or what? Led Zeppelin has their, been having theirs for years and The Police as well. The Police section makes sense because it says Biggest band in the world in 1983 and 1983 only which they were, commercially they were. Accept that fact, find me a band from 1983 that was bigger and more popular. Find me one. The Police was the biggest band in the world in 1983 and it's been like that for years until you changed it. Leave it like it originally does. Also, how about Led Zeppelin? They had theirs, let The Police had theirs.( Mikeis1996 (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC) )
 * You are arguing this like it's a simple yes/no question. "Biggest band in the world" is completely subject to interpretation. It's not a title you hold like "prime minister" or "prince". It's an opinion, not a fact. And if you intend to put it in the article because that's your opinion, then it surely it doesn't belong. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 02:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I actually add the most popular band in the world because that is what my sources claimed. Also, how does Led Zeppelin keep theirs and not The Police? Why do you hate that title? They were the biggest band in the world in 1983, they were the most popular. I think the most popular is more appropriate so I think that is right. Especially when my sources claimed they were the most popular band in the world during that time period. Face it, The Police were the biggest band in the world in 1983. Also, why don't you ever check Led Zeppelin wikipedia and come back and give me your response on the section of biggest band in the world from 1971-1975. I want to see your response on that.( Mikeis1996 (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, the biggest band in the world is not a opinion, it is a fact. The biggest band in the world doesn't mean the greatest by any means, it means the most successful and most popular band in the world. You didn't even show me any bands who were more popular than them in 1983. Also, why change the most popular band in the world? I got two sources to back it up, it is right there in the section of Synchronicity. Also what award are you even talking about, are you just making random things or random ideas up? Your getting too hard on me in the subject, to me and many other people, the biggest band in the world is not announced in any award at all, the biggest band in the world is the most successful in terms of singles, radio play, tour grossing and also, album selling. The Police had all of that in 1983 but you want to change it for a silly section. Career peak sounds boring and bland, it should at least be re-named to the most popular band in the world because the most popular band in the world is more appropriate than just saying the biggest. What is wrong with the most popular band in the world title? Is not a award or nothing, it is right there in terms of commercial success. Accept that fact, biggest band in the world means the most successful in terms of album sales, singles on chart positions and tour grossing sales, The Police were simply that, career peak sounds bland. The most popular band in the world sounds more fit.( Mikeis1996 (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC) )

Disambiguation link notification for January 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Keith Moon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom-tom. 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) 09:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

City of Angels (Thirty Seconds to Mars song) FAC
Hi Y2kcrazyjoker4! Would you like to comment at the Featured article candidates/City of Angels (Thirty Seconds to Mars song)/archive3? Your help would be very much appreciated.--Earthh (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by U2
I've completely revamped List of songs recorded by U2 with the intentions of getting to FL-class soon. I based it off other lists at WP:FL, and with a well-written lead and a few images, it's not far from getting that FL nomination. If you could help out with the lead (and/or find others to do so), it would be great for the project. – Dream out loud (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

U2`s New Image
Hey, I know that you're apart of the U2 wiki project and your goal is to improve the Wikipedia page. But the band's old wiki image was very concealing, due to the picture's bad lighting and etc. So I've decided to upload a newer image that is more prominent. Please let me know what you think? Correctingsection0062 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 23:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss a proposal of year by film release
You're invited to join a discussion here. It's about a proposal about an idea of having film by year articles made and produced by certain countries, such as 2013 in films in United States of America, 2013 in films in England and such. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Invitation


Hello, Y2kcrazyjoker4,

The Editing team is asking for your help with VisualEditor. I am contacting you because you were one of the very first testers of VisualEditor, back in 2012 or early 2013. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work better for you. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too.

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Unsubscribe from this list •  Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletter  •   Translate the user guide

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Nexus 10 successor
The Nexus 7 (2012) and Nexus 10 were both sold together. Although the Nexus 10 stayed out of stock for quiet a while it was never technically retired. The Nexus 7 (2013) and the Nexus 10 were both removed together, when the Nexus 9 was released. Its not a slippery slope at all. Its 100% timeline and fact, the Nexus 10's successor was the Nexus 9 -  Galatz Talk  00:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal in MOS:Film
I could use a comment from you on this part of MOS:Film on the proposal about having year in film articles have the release dates of specific countries that made that certain film. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Coachella attendance 2014
Hi. How are you? I was wondering if we could compromise on the Coachella attendance numbers. I have attended Coachella multiple times and I actually live in Indio, CA. Have you attended Coachella also? So the "tickets" are actually wristbands on human's wrists which let one human in for the 3 day weekend. They sold 96,500 wristbands for one weekend. So, 96,500 people attend each weekend. The total attendance for 6 days is 193,000 total. 96,500 multiplied by 2 equals 193,000. That is 96,500 wristbands multiplied by 2 weekends. The reference is wrong because it multiplies 96,500 by 6 days for a total of 579,000. I feel that is a meaningless and misleading number and not encyclopedic in nature. Also, if you review previous years attendance the number of 579,000 is misleading. Attendance figures are 158,387 in 2012 and 180,000 in 2013. Thus, 2014 attendance should read 96,500 attendees each weekend for a total of 193,000 over both weekends. If you do feel the number 579,000 is accurate, then we should edit all the past years attendances so the attendance numbers across all years are comparable and relevant. I am simply interested in the most accurate information we can provide. The reference cited is half correct and half incorrect. I accept the number 96,500, and I accept the number 96,500 multiplied by 2 for 2 weekends, but I do not accept 96,500 multiplied by 6 for 6 days. The same humans attend all 3 days and should not be counted in triplicate. Some of them stay on site in the campgrounds right? What do you say? Have fun at Coachella this year! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozmaweezer (talk • contribs) 11:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have been to Coachella (the last 2 years) and am going again this year, so to answer your question, yes, I am pretty familiar with the ticketing/attendance for the festival. It's funny you mention this topic, because I am working on a table in my sandbox that would add an "average daily attendance" column that would compare attendance/ticket sales on the same scale for each year. The attendance/sales figure available for a given year have come from Billboard, so if they use an aggregate attendance figure or total ticket sales... I really have no control over that except to report the figure they used and try to make it as clear as possible what they are saying. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk

• contributions) 17:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh wow! Your sandbox is really cool.  Thanks for replying to me.  Another complication is in the beginning they offered a combination of passes at different prices.  A one day pass, a two day pass, and a three day pass.  Those early attendance numbers are hard to analyze because figures are not available for the break down of true attendance in those years on a day to day basis.  We can't believe everything we read on the internet.  You do have control over what you post and what you report.  So just because Billboard posted the number of 579,000, we should take a step back and use our common sense.  I feel Billboard made an error.  Or at least I feel the Billboard number is out of context within the Wikipedia page.  It seems over-hyped or exaggerated.  I also feel the term "aggregate attendance" has multiple meanings and should be dropped from the page.  It could mean aggregate over both weekends which is where I get my number of 193,000.  Or it could mean aggregate of all the days which is 579,000 which to me is a number with no real meaning.  There were not 579,000 people there.  There were not 579,000 wristbands.  There were not even 579,000 wrists.  I feel it would be more encyclopedic for the Coachella Wikipedia page to simply list "ticket sales."  Thanks for responding to me.  Long live Coachella.  I feel it should state, for improved accuracy and realism, "In 2014 the festival sold 96,500 tickets each weekend for a combined total of 193,000 tickets over both weekends."  Or something to that effect.  We can still use the Billboard article referenced because it states 96,500 per day attendance.  We will just use our discretion and common sense.  Sorry I type so much!Ozmaweezer (talk) 10:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

PopMart Tour to FA-class (or other U2 articles)
Hi there, I'm not sure if you're still active with U2-related articles, but I've been looking at working on the project and getting some more to featured status. I'm especially interested in PopMart Tour, which I started working on years ago (when I was still a novice) and haven't done much with since. After your great work on Zoo TV Tour, I was wondering if you would be interested in working on that one as well. Or if there's another U2-related article you'd like to work on, please let me know and I'd be happy to collaborate. – Dream out loud (talk) 23:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I could help you out, sure. What do you think are the areas that need work? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 13:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

May 3, 2015
Dear User:Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk), Colorwerx.net is not the official source for Major League Baseball (MLB) team-by-team color information. Please leave the colors alone. MLB.com is the official source for HTML color codes on a team-by-team basis. Charlesaaronthompson (talk • contributions) 23:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Colowerx specializes in uniform and color research for every sport, going back to the inception of each franchise. The purported "source" you are using is just a banner image from MLB.com. There is no guarantee that the graphic designer of the image adhered to the official color/branding sheet for the team. There are thousands of variations of team colors used all over their websites. Until you can show me the Royals official color/branding sheet, I fail to see how that banner image is official in any way. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 01:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, but "Colorwerx.net" is NOT the official source for HTML color information from the National Football League (NFL) (they have their own source – NFLMedia.com) or for the National Basketball Association (NBA) (they also have their own source – NBA Media Central). Please do NOT change any more color codes for any more teams. Colorwerx.net is NOT official in any way. Also, stop changing the color information for MLB teams. The color codes in the banner images I have provided in each team's article page history are as accurate as possible, since I do not have credentials to MLBStyleGuide.com. Otherwise, I would provide MLB teams' official color/branding sheets. Also, there is no guarantee that Colorwerx.net has access to official color/branding sheets for all 30 MLB teams either. I fail to see how Colorwerx.net is official in any way. Charlesaaronthompson (talk &bull; contributions) 03:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Earlier, you said you obtained your HTML color codes for Major League Baseball (MLB) teams from Colorwerx. I'm curious if Colorwerx has the same HTML codes as this website from Arc90? There's a disclaimer on the Arc90 Team Colors website that says some are approximations, which might apply to MLB teams, per this webpage. Also, as far as the Miami Marlins' HTML color codes are concerned, I would like to call your attention to this photograph of all four Marlins' uniforms. The orange color is radically different from the one you've been using (#F9423A). It would appear the team officially uses #FF6600, judging by that photograph, this image, and this link. Please stop changing the Marlins' orange HTML HEX color code. I may not have access to MLBStyleGuide.com, but this is as close to official as I have access to, since the source is MLB.com. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Non-free image discussion
Hi Y2kcrazyjoker4. This is just to let you know that I have started a discussion about the inclusion of File:U2-teenagers.jpg on Wikipedia, subsequent to a copyright complaint by the photographer. The discussion is ; you are welcome to contribute. Yunshui 雲 水 13:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed the image from the U2 article and marked it as orphaned fair use, meaning it will be deleted in a few days time. Given the presence of File:U218.jpg as effectively a duplicate, there is no need for this non-free image. Please see the discussion linked above for further information. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015
Hello, I'm Earthh. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to City of Angels (Thirty Seconds to Mars song) because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.

You're not considering that the article has passed though FAC, TFA, peer review, and guild of copy editors. The expression 'general acclaim' does make sense, and everybody is comfortable in using it.--Earthh (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Spelling in quoted text
I don't think your edit to Zoo TV Tour helps anyone by preserving a misspelling; Wikipedia looks sloppier and less professional; its readers get to stumble over a misspelling; editors who are looking for certain misspellings will come to this article again and again and waste time figuring out whether to change it or do something else with it. I don't have a copy of the Chronicle from that day in 1992, so I can't check to see if it actually had that misspelling or if it was an error that was made while being typed into Wikipedia. Even if the Chronicle did misspell it, is it important for Wikipedia's readers to know that 23 years ago a typesetter accidentally left out a space? I sure don't think so. If it was the typesetter that lost the space, preserving the misspelling also reflects badly on Joel Selvin, who might not have made the mistake. By now you can probably appreciate why WP:QUOTE says "Exceptions are trivial spelling or typographical errors that obviously do not affect the intended meaning; these may be silently corrected ...". If you are sure that the space was missing from the 23-year-old article, you would be correct to mark it with "[sic]", but I can't see how that makes Wikipedia any better. Happy editing! Chris the speller  yack  02:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

Tame Impala - Currents leak
Hi, why do you keep removing the sentence about the album leak on the Tame Impala Currents page? Crazy Eddy (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The same reason I keep saying in the edit summaries: READ WP:LEAK. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 03:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's bollocks xx Crazy Eddy (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry you disagree, but that's the policy. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 19:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How about you remove the rod from your arse, take a step back, and think for a few seconds that maybe the policy isn't right? Crazy Eddy (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Except I don't disagree. Every album nowadays leaks at some point. It's only notable if something happens as a result of the leak (e.g. release date change, etc). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 19:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh huh. So you believe Wikipedia should remain blind, deaf and dumb. You're a Wikipedian through and through, mate. Crazy Eddy (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe not every piece of information to ever be published, true or not, needs to be in an encyclopedia. If you have a problem with it, take it up with WP:ALBUM. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull;  contributions) 20:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, that's great - neither do I! We have so much in common. I do, however, believe in adding information to an article that is relevant. This is relevant. Crazy Eddy (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add it one more time, plus a sentence about the album being streamed for free on NPR. I do not want to banned for vandalism; if you take a look at my edit history you will see that I am a dedicated contributor to Wikipedia, especially about my favourite band Tame Impala, because I believe in knowledge for all. However unlike you, I do not subscribe to dogmatic, blind beliefs about 'relevance'. I am not a Wikipedian; you lot are admirable in your loyalty but I dismay at your lack of individual thought and your subservience to invented and imagined authority. You're the kind of person who would have followed the Nazis like a loyal little dog. It makes me sick, frankly. So I will add it once more, because I believe in the truth. If you remove it again, you will win. But only at the cost of your own ability to think for yourself. Choose wisely, Y2kcrazyjoker4. Crazy Eddy (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Really, Nazi Germany comparisons? You have a piss poor way of trying to argue your viewpoint. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 17:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Official MLB team HTML/Pantone colors
I was wondering if Colorwerx.net gets its Major League Baseball (MLB) team HTML/Pantone color information from MLB's Online Style Guide website? Or I guess, where do you get your MLB team HTML/Pantone color information from? Why do you continually change MLB team color information? I'm tired of this edit war. I just want official color information to show up in the articles. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 06:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Since ColorWerx is in the middle of a renovation, I would refer to this topic from SportsLogos.net, since it seems your question is the same one as from the topic. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 06:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have found a few sources (source 1, source 2 and source 3) that show:
 * ,, , , , as the official colors.
 * Source 4 shows:
 * If I use this website to convert the RGB codes listed on source 4, the colors show in favor of source 4. (Please note that the color converter at yellowpipe.com is pretty acurate. I've tested it on several university colors that list both a RGB code and hex code at their website.) Since there are multiple websites that list the hex codes, maybe those should be the ones listed until you can find the official codes? Personally, I'd go with sources 1, 2 & 3 because there are multiple sources showing the same thing. Corkythe   hornetfan  01:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is another picture from MLB.com that says the Miami Marlins's HTML color code for Orange is . I found out what the HTML color code is using Adobe Photoshop's Eyedropper Tool (I). So now there's at least four (4) different pictures from MLB.com that all claim that is the official HTML color code for Marlins Orange, found here, here, here, and here. Please stop deceiving Wikipedia readers, User:Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions). The HTML color is NOT . Also, please stop reverting my edits. Thank you. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear, screenshotting a team logo and using the eyedropper tool in Photoshop is no confirmation that that is the exact HTML code for the team color. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 20:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously, you think that (which is Pantone Warm Red C, btw) is correct. The question is, why? Do you have access to MLB's online style guide, and does that website say that's what the color is? Why are you so insistent on THAT color? Where's YOUR confirmation that  is correct? Also, you didn't answer my question from earlier about whether Colorwerx.net has access to MLB's online style guide. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't answer your question because I don't know. ColorWerx staff will have to tell you where they source their info from, and right now, that looks decidedly impossible, since the website is under construction. Ideally, all of the colors should be sourced from the same place, and since ColorWerx has been accurate about many other colors from many other teams from many other sports, I don't see why we should deviate in one (or more) cases. Who typically has access to the MLB Style Guide website? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 21:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been looking into it. Apparently only business partners of MLB or media who cover MLB (such as Paul Lukas of Uni Watch or Chris Creamer of SportsLogos.net) have access to MLB's online style guide. I know this, because I have first-hand experience interacting with them by asking about it on Twitter. My whole spiel is that I just think color info should be official and should come directly from either the team itself or the relevant league. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been looking into it. Apparently only business partners of MLB or media who cover MLB (such as Paul Lukas of Uni Watch or Chris Creamer of SportsLogos.net) have access to MLB's online style guide. I know this, because I have first-hand experience interacting with them by asking about it on Twitter. My whole spiel is that I just think color info should be official and should come directly from either the team itself or the relevant league. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015
Your recent editing history at Module:Baseball color/data shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —Bagumba (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Currents (Tame Impala album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kevin Parker. 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) 09:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Achtung Baby query
Hi there. Please would you consider reinstating the Bon Jovi quote? I believe it's at least as relevant as, and arguably more interesting than, critics' opinions, given that – irrespective of one's views on his music – Bon Jovi was and remains highly successful. It's therefore illustrative of how someone who, in commercial terms, was U2's contemporary, viewed a fellow superstar act.

I've no views on how the quote is formatted, and block-quoted simply to distinguish it from the mass of critical opinions. I think reinstating it simply to run on at the end of those would be a good compromise

best wishes Bruno BrunoMacDonald (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I considered adding it into the prose, unblockquoted, but after reading it again, I can't say that it adds much to the article. Bon Jovi is effusive in his praise, but there isn't really any critical analysis of the album, so the only thing I could see the reader getting out of the quote is "Bon Jovi really likes this album." Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 13:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you note
Thanks for the help with the El Camino GAN. I appreciate it :) Aria1561 (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I felt I should help with getting it thru the review, since I was involved in expanding the article a while back. Glad to see it passed! Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 00:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Recess (song)
Do you have any better source that article text written by staff (rather than Beatport.com) for genre? 115.164.177.80 (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015
Hello, I'm Earthh. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to City of Angels (Thirty Seconds to Mars song) because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.

As I already said to you just three months ago, the article has passed though FAC, TFA, peer review, and guild of copy editors, the expression 'general acclaim' does make sense, and everybody is comfortable in using it, except you.--Earthh (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 40#Names for lists based on single-game stats
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball Taffe316 (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Depression Cherry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Under the Radar. 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) 09:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

September 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=680416370 your edit] to Marlon Brando may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * * List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Module:Baseball color/data. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: 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.''Please discuss this at WT:BASEBALL instead of repeatedly reverting. Thanks.'' —Bagumba (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Song For Someone Genre
What's the deal with the genre for Song For Someone? You listed sources that were "weak," can you find me something that can support your claim. For example, in the Miracle of Joey Ramone wikipedia the genre has a strong credible source. So I'm wondering if you can do that for Song for Someone instead of just reverting and assuming that weak sources can support such a claim or what you think/hear. Talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Store50 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Infobox highlights order for Tony Gwynn
Since you participated before at the 2012 discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_32, you are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball to help reach a consensus on the first highlight to list in Tony Gwynn's infobox. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 01:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Foster the People
Please stop edit warring, and bring your comments to the talk page, or build on my edit. This is a wiki. Lukestanley (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a wiki, but it is also an encyclopedia. And your version of the sentence is not an encyclopedic way to introduce a subject. If you had read WP:LEAD or any other artist pages, you would know this. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 18:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Innocence + Experience Tour, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ordinary Love. 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) 09:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Chromecast edit
Hey, I'm happy to discuss my edit on the Chromecast page that you reverted. I just know that for a minute I was confused by the table since it said ac but not b/g/n, so I found webpages where Google confirmed that the new Chromecast generation did include b/g/n. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crcarlin (talk • contribs) 06:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like you've made four reverts in the past 24 hours, please consider self-reverting per the last paragraph of the 3RR guideline. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing that, I've closed the report with no action. You might want to post on the NFL wikiproject to get more eyes on the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Policy discussion in progress
There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of "Someone like You", a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — Llywelyn II   17:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

AfD follow-up
For info.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Mariano Rivera
Can you please explain the logic behind your action? Just calling a contribution inconsequential without giving any satisfactory reasons is unacceptable. My reasons for the addition? Rivera is one of the most successful Yankees players of all time who just happens to also love soccer. The Yankees are co-owners of New York City FC. Becoming NYCFC's first-ever season ticketholder is an obvious endorsement of another Yankees investment and an addition to the marketing campaign. Your action would be justified had he done it without fanfare, but it was announced at a press conference instead. Also don't see much of a difference between this and mentioning Andy Rooney as a longtime New York Football Giants season ticketholder or Tallulah Bankhead loving her New York Baseball Giants. These are my reasons. Looking forward to reading yours. The Ink Daddy! (talk) 02:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To me it seemed... less than notable because I could not find that many news sources that mentioned that Rivera was NYCFC's first ticket holder. That's not too say I didn't find sources that mentioned it, but it seemed to be lacking in coverage, enough so that I didn't think it was worth adding to the article. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 17:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Reversion of my edit on Currents (Tame Impala album)
Hi there, I was wondering why you undid this edit of mine, since you didn't leave an edit summary or a note on my talk page. I provided reliable sources for the genres, and the ones you have reverted to seem to have no sources whatsoever. There's no evidence on the talk page of a consensus having been reached by the community. If there are no sources behind the genres you reverted to, then WP:OR and WP:V are in question, and reliable sources should be provided. Let me know. Thanks, Amccann421 (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you read the article, you will see all 4 genres are sourced in the body of the article by many, many references. Your addition of psychedelic disco was not only misspelled but a made up genre based on a journalistic description. I don't see any reason to change the current version. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 00:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just saw the sources myself. My mistake. I just expected the sources to be with the genres, not further down in the article. Amccann421 (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The Edge
Please chime in, The Edge, known as a keyboardist ?  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 15:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft
Hello Y! I've been away for a couple years, and now I'm working on this. I found a really good article by The Irish Times where Bono gives a great insight on the song. I'm having a hard time rewording it, and I could use some help, if you have some time. The link to the article is listed in the draft. Thank you very much.  Miss Bono  [hello, hello!]  15:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

U2 fan site additions
Please stop adding fan pages like you did here. You have been editing Wikipedia over 10 years now to understand that such pages are not allowed just because 'you' think so. — I B  [ Poke  ] 08:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited U2: iNNOCENCE + eXPERIENCE Live In Paris, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jesse Hughes. 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) 09:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

TWL HighBeam check-in
Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:


 * Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
 * Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see HighBeam/Citations
 * Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. 20:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

U2 "Early Members"
Hey, I see we both disagree in some areas when it comes to the early members of the band U2. So I would like to reach out for a conclusion. The problem that I have or the piece that doesn't belong there is that there is a "past members" section. U2 doesn't equal pre U2. So therefore that past member section is eradicable. We should keep the "early members" in the members section, but let's be a bit specific. It says, "Pre-U2," keep that there but add in "The Hype" and "Feedback" afterwards. That doesn't make it vague anymore. Please be cooperative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeatlesMania64 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I find it disingenuous that we have a "Members" section in the article body that lists people that used to be in the band, but not the infobox. There should not be conflicting information given by these sections, and right now when I look at the infobox, I assume there were no prior members of the band. I completely understand the point about members who were in the band prior to its being named U2, but canonically, the current band members consider the 1976-1978 history to be part of the same band. Thus, there is no reason to ignore in the infobox that there were previous members. I think you and I agree that McCormick, Evans, and Martin should not have nearly the same level of prominence as Bono, Edge, Clayton, and Mullen in the infobox due to their tenure and the fact that they preceded the U2 name. Which is why I see no harm in keeping a "see members section" link in the "previous members" parameter that takes you to the article body to explain. Just look at how The Beatles and Queen handle it. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 13:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hush by Deep Purple from 1968
Why do you keep on removing the "heavy metal" link for Hush by Deep Purple from the album Shades of Deep Purple from 1968? Why are you so involved with the article? Why do keep on doing it?
 * Because it's completely dubious and uncited. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 04:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)