User talk:Y2kcrazyjoker4/Archive 8

TUSC token dcabbb2c805c2f6c5c5baab11c208489
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

TUSC token c109097a1ef8d68c3ba4f5cdb3b36be3
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Wikipedia:Peer review/Zoo TV Tour/archive1
Just wanted to let you know that I made some comments at the peer review - sorry it took so long. I thought the article read well and seemed pretty much ready for FAC - might want to get a second set of eyes to proof read it. After I read and reviewed it, I dreamed I was walking outside by a stadium at night where U2 were playing the song "All That You Can't Leave Behind" (even in my dreams I couldn't get a ticket ;-) ). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, I appreciate it. BTW, do you mean the song "Walk On"? There is no such song as "All That You Can't Leave Behind" (that's the album). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 18:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry - I knew the lyrics contained that phrase and assumed the song was named that too. While I own several U2 albums, you can guess at least one I do not own ;-) Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sir Lucious Left Foot header
I reverted your change to the "Music" header. Music is a general term for an art whose medium is sound, produced by instruments, singing/rapping, and most people associate what albums have as simply "music". Even WP:Albums refers to "a specific album of music" in its lead prose. While "Composition" looks a little more sophisticated and all, its definition is a little vague to what that section is about. I know lately a lot of the FA or Ga articles have been getting section titles, but it seems more like a style concern. Dan56 (talk) 06:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I opened a post at the talk page trying to explain myself a little more. Dan56 (talk) 10:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Soundgarden genre
It's pretty obvious to me that you haven't listened to much Soundgarden. Soundgarden is grunge NOT metal. We must be listening to 2 different bands. I'm talking about the band that did songs like Outshined, Fell On Black Days, Black Hole Sun, Spoonman, Let Me Drown, My Wave, Burden In My Hand and Blow Up The Outside World. That is the Soundgarden I'm talking about and NONE of those songs are metal. --Jimv1983 (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I know who Soundgarden is and I know what they sound like. I also know that many reliable external third-party sources have compared their style to metal. And that trumps whatever you may think the band sounds like. Your opinion is not verifiable or reliable, and thus, is not relevant. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 18:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you conciser "reliable external third-party sources". None of those songs I listed sound like metal at all. --Jimv1983 (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for updating the Soundgarden genre to something more accurate. I do propose 2 more changes.

1. Remove alternative metal as they have never been know for being a metal band despite what allmusic or metacritic says.

2. At the very least put Grunge ahead of alternative metal as grunge is what they are really known for. Ask someone to name a famous grunge band and the 4 most common response are Nirvana, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam and Alice in Chains. They were called the big four for a reason. I don't know anyone who would answer Soundgarden when asked to name a famous metal band. I can't even image what Chris Cornell doing metal would sound like.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=the+big+four+of+grunge

http://www.rockband.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59149&page=2

http://boards.ign.com/teh_vestibule/b5296/177300911/r177300987/

http://www.90srockers.com/top5.php

http://listverse.com/2009/06/17/10-notable-grunge-bands/

http://rock.about.com/od/top10lists/tp/Most-Influential-Seattle-Bands.htm

http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/listoftheday/128290/the-25-best-grunge-bands/

http://www.amazon.com/Most-Essential-Grunge-Recordings/lm/RZDMZ1UZL434O/ref=cm_srch_res_rpli_alt_3

http://bbs.pearl-jam.net/showthread.php?t=5632

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080911233504AAbZjki

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY2_uapfnmQ

These sources are just peoples opinions much the same way allmusic and metacritic are peoples opinions. I think we can both agree that the above links aren't exactly "reliable". However, they do show a wide range of people see Soundgarden as grunge not metal. No matter what source you use it's gonna be based on someones opinion. It might be the opinion of some random fan, it may be the opinion of someone who happens to be employed by some "reliable" source. It's still that one persons opinion. Not only is it my opinion but until today I have never meet anyone who thought Soundgarden was anything else but grunge. Since the genre is just someones opinion it should follow the opinion of the majority. --Jimv1983 (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger Waters
Waters passed GAN, thanks for your thoughtful suggestions, they did indeed improve the article and contribute to it's achievement of GA status. — GabeMc (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything else preventing your support? — GabeMc (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not having time to review the article again has probably been the biggest reason I haven't responded back yet. I'll try to do that this week. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 14:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Humourous
This is a typo in any dialect of English. Can you please undo your edit? --John (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's ok, I did it for you. Please be more careful. Thanks. --John (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a typo:  Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull;  contributions) 20:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a typo; Wiktionary is not a reliable source for spelling. Show me a real dictionary which recommends this spelling in the post-1800 era, please. --John (talk) 02:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger Waters
Per your repeated undoing of my image sizing, please read WP:MOSIMAGES, there is no reason for you to patrol the upright feature, and you are asserting a personal preference on the article when you do so. Please leave the image sizing alone on Roger Waters. — GabeMc (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I fail to distinguish between what I was changing it to being a personal preference and your changes not being a personal preference. What is wrong with the default upright value? Why do you feel the need to set it at all? There doesn't seem to be a reason for doing so, in my opinion. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 20:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I fail to see your reason for undoing so. The MoS allows for it, so your preference of not changing image size to suit the article is not in keeping with the MoS, while my preference of deciding on an image by image basis is. From WP:MOSIMAGE:


 * An option such as "|300px|" resizes the image to the specified width in pixels, and "upright=1.2" (or "|frameless|upright=1.2" for plain pictures) resizes an image to approximately the given multiple of a user's preferred width.
 * At Wikipedia:Layout#Images


 * An image that would otherwise overwhelm the available text space on a 800×600 window should be shrunk, or formatted as a panorama. It is a good idea to try to maintain visual coherence by aligning the sizes of images and templates on a given page. — GabeMc (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Achtung Baby
I am working on standardizing the references to the German certification database, especially since they changed the location and format (again). On your edit you said "that fix just breaks the entire citation...." I now used the parameters to make it cite the exact location, but could you please be more specific on what was the problem before I added the parameters? I couldn't see anything wrong with it. Perhaps you could comment on Cite gold platin in general. --Muhandes (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize this was a real template - seems kinda unnecessary, if you ask me. But when I tried to search for the "cite gold platin" template, I couldn't find anything. My mistake. In any case, I'm not so convinced that this template won't be deleted, since it's more or less just a specific usage of "cite web". If everyone created a template to quicken their usage of "cite web" for every website, Wikipedia would get completely bogged down in template-cruft. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 14:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are three reasons for this. First, this is the second time they change site format. Last time I had to do 500 page edits to fix the broken refs. Next time they do that, we just edit the template. Second, standardization. I only edited maybe 50 articles so far, and this website is cited in 25 different ways. Third, and maybe most important, perhaps you didn't notice that you can now enter the artist and title, and the template will provide the link for you? I'd bet you 99.99% of the editors didn't even know you can do that. That's much more than just "specific usage of cite web". Isn't the current link much better than the previous one? Thanks for the feedback. --Muhandes (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

"Slug"
Within the next few days I intend to nominate "Slug" at FAC for a second time. I would appreciate any feedback/comments/etc. that you might be able to provide given the trouble it went through on the last occasion. Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I'll do some copyediting the next chance I get and let you know if I encounter anything worth reviewing. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 19:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have nominated the article at FAC. Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

How dare you remove my photo!
I feel most insulted!

Just kidding, :-P. I'll be the first to admit that my photography generally isn't clear enough. So long as the screen, the cars, and my best friend get to stay, I'm good! :-P Melicans (talk, contributions) 17:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I know I've ruffled feathers before, namely WastedTime's, by removing images, so I didn't want to lop it off without recognizing it's still a great photo. Unless you have a top-of-the-line professional camera, I would dare to say any fault with your photography probably can be put squarely on the camera itself. Point-and-shoot cameras can only do so much in such extreme lighting situations. Even so, your photo of the screen pentograph is one of my favorites. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 20:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hahah, yeah it's a pretty... average camera all in all. I'm amazed I managed to get as many decent shots of that night as I did, :-P. Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Miss Moppet
After The Story of Miss Moppet was promoted at FAC, it was discovered that the primary contributor had closely paraphrased or copied many sentences in many articles, and that in some cases facts presented were not backed up by the references cited. The user was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user - for more details, please see Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime.

, with help from, has since made sure that the language used in Miss Moppet does not closely paraphrase or copy that in the original sources, and checked almost all of the sources used to make sure the facts cited are backed up by the sources. We are now asking all editors who contributed to the FAC to please review the article and comment at Talk:The Story of Miss Moppet on any concerns or issues they have with the current cleaned-up version of the article. Thanks in advance for any help, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Email
Can you fire off a quick email to me? I don't have your address and there's something that I want to discuss briefly with you. I don't see an "email this user" button on your profile or I'd just use that, but I have one enabled on my profile if you can get back to me. Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Double checking U2 quote
I'm working on The Joshua Tree and in the course of reading an archived version of the Rolling Stone article "Truths and Consequences" by Anthony DeCurtis, I was unable to find a quote that the U2 and The Joshua Tree articles have long had attributed to this article. The quote in question is the following:

"The wild beauty, cultural richness, spiritual vacancy and ferocious violence of America are explored to compelling effect in virtually every aspect of The Joshua Tree—in the title and the cover art, the blues and country borrowings evident in the music ... Indeed, Bono says that 'dismantling the mythology of America' is an important part of The Joshua Tree's artistic objective."

If you have archives to look through, can you double-check if this quote indeed comes from this article? Is it possible it came from another DeCurtis article in March titled "U2 releases The Joshua Tree"? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 22:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I see it is indeed not in the online version you linked to. However, it is in the book version I took it from (The Rolling Stone compendium of U2 articles). Without going thru paragraph by paragraph, I'm guessing online your online version is an abridged version (it starts off the same, but the online may not even be half as long). I'll change the reference to specifically mention the compendium. --Merbabu (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/All I Want for Christmas Is You/archive2
Hi :) I have fixed the issues you mentioned at the FAC. Please check back. Thanks!-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   05:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * All done :)-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   04:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I still see the issues with the chord progression being incomplete and the awkward "various drum notes" phrase. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 14:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thank you for your additional little changes! So I removed a few lines from the last paragraph as you asked, so it isn't so bulky. Now I also addressed the drum notes thing. Also, 2 editors came and fixed the chord progressions thing. Thank you :)-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   23:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Great PopMart photos!
Sorry for not responding earlier. Glad you liked the pics. Unfortunately I don't have any for Zoo TV or any other tours. best wishes with your work. Ardfern (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: album reviews
I can check through my University's library once I'm back on campus in a few days. They may have something through the online database access. Are there any albums/reviews you're looking for specifically? Melicans (talk, contributions) 05:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you. I've done a few searches in the databases that I can think of, but have come up empty on those two reviews. Sorry! Melicans (talk, contributions) 14:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"Mothers of the Disappeared" sheet music
Sorry, I missed the response you made a month and a half ago on the WikiProject's talk page. What I'm hoping to do is something like we did for "City of Blinding Lights" in the first two (or three if you count the lone sentence) paragraphs in Composition. Can you give me a quick email? I'll send you the details that way. Melicans (talk, contributions) 07:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

"Mothers" again
One thing confuses me about the edits to Composition. Part of it now reads ''At 2:41 Eno's keyboards enter, and the song begins to follow a D–D5–A5 chord progression, while Bono begins falsetto vocals.[7] The second verse then begins at 3:01. The lyrics end at 3:37, and the song returns to the chord progression of D–D5–A5.'' But how can it return to that progression if there's no indication that it ever left it? Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I wrote it confusingly, but I tried to explain (only once) that the verses have a specific chord progression. And I didn't want to repeat the specific progression so it didn't sound repetitive. I'll highlight part of the article to show you what I mean: The first verse begins at 1:28, and introduces the chord progression of A5–E5–F♯m–D–A5, which is played in the verses. It could probably be improved through copyediting. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 14:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, I think I've got you now. Looks like I just misread it. Oops! Thanks again for adding that information for me. Melicans (talk, contributions) 16:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I know you've been doing some work on The Joshua Tree; I found an interview with Paul McGuinness from late 2007 that talks about it and I think the remaster. If nothing else it is a good listen. Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

February 2011
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In your recent edit to Black Swan (film), you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you.  Cind. amuse  06:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In your recent edit to Black Swan (film), you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. ''Do not repeat wikilinks for cast members when linked previously in the same article prose. Please see WP:LINKING to avoid overlinking. Applying wikilinking based on other articles is not applicable. The official Manual of Style guideline is clear. See also WP:REPEATLINK. If you can provide conflicting guidelines that support your assumption that "cast sections" should not follow the guidelines, please let me know. Until then, please follow the official Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. ''  Cind. amuse  02:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with the guideline, there's no need to keep posting the standard boiler plate message on my talk page without making an effort to personally contact me. I don't know if you're tried looking at any of the FA articles for films, but they seem to conflict with what you are saying. The cast section always has the entire cast linked. It makes sense, too. That's the most relevant section to list everyone involved in the movie. Furthermore, the overlink guideline suggests avoiding repetitious links, except if there is a large gap between mentions of the subject or if the link is particularly relevant. As the article stood, the main cast were not linked in the body of the article at all, and the cast section linking was the first time the actors/actresses were linked in the article body. I don't know why you insist on going with your version when multiple people are changing it for valid reasons.... Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 04:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My personal message is within the boiler plate message above. Regardless of the format in the FA articles, the official Manual of Style guideline is clear. The FA articles as assessed by another editor is not the standard by which we measure quality. Quality resides in compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The wikilinking of the cast section for individuals linked above is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines. It matters not that you and another individual are unfamiliar with the guidelines. What is appropriate is compliance. That said, I'm not on Wikipedia to engage in arguments, but to offer guidance when I see individuals editing out of compliance with policies and guidelines. I've done that sufficiently, now moving on. It is up to you to either accept or reject the community standards. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  04:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be most useful, not to mention deliciously ironic, to have a boiler plate warning for those who boiler plate established long term editors. Or just a generic one explaining basic people skills - a boiler plate is the best way to get someone defensive, when presumably you'd like to influence them instead. And, as for the article in question, perhaps Cindamuse needs a boilerplate to remind of the 3 revert rule. --Merbabu (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I often wonder how much better the Wikipedia world would be if everyone assumed good faith. This is another one of those moments. My revisions were within guidelines for reverting vandalism, as clear violations of policy and guidelines and as such, not applicable to the 3RR rule. Additionally, while I certainly have not been as active as you have been, I am a long-established editor as well, with a bit more experience with Wikipedia policies and guidelines than Y2Kcrazyjoker4. That said, you should know by now that one editor is not above another, simply due to length of involvement. Your idea of creating a boiler plate template for those who address long-term editors is by far a violation of Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of editing in a community. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  11:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I said 2 things: (i) using standard boiler templates to communicate with long term editors (who like you, know the deal) is counter-productive. Your only making it hard for your own message to be accepted. Ultimately it's your problem if you can't communicate effectively. Just my opinion. And (ii) - I suggest you watch your 3RR. Alleged breaking of a guideline is not a free pass for 3RR. --Merbabu (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cindamuse - the guidelines are written to offer flexibility, but you are being adamantly inflexible, which doesn't make much sense. Please read:
 * In general, link only the first occurrence of an item. There are exceptions to this guideline, including these:
 * where the later occurrence is a long way from the first.
 * where the first link is in an infobox, navbox or similar meta-content.
 * where the links are in a table or in a list, as each row should stand on its own.
 * Notice that there is no hard-and-fast rule anywhere. It's a guideline. A guideline that other articles on Wikipedia (most prominently, FA that have been through several rounds of review and approval for just these types of items) must also follow. Again, I don't see how the names are overlinked anyways - the cast section was the first time they were being linked in the body of the article, which doesn't remotely constitute overlinking. The fact that you are meeting opposition from everyone editing the article should signal something... Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 05:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've read the guidelines. They don't support your assumptions about sections pertaining to cast participants. You are reading the guidelines and paraphrasing to support your own ideals. If you could actually provide guidelines that support wikilinking cast sections, that would certainly support your claims. Until then, it's simply asserting your opinion and point of view. That said, I am quite flexible and have made it clear that it's not an important issue to me and have walked away from the article, as I clearly stated above. Seriously, I have no desire to argue with you. I apologize if I've stressed you out in any way. It's all good. Happy editing! Thanks again,  Cind. amuse  11:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Mariano Rivera
Just thought you should know (as the big time author of the article), that Mariano will be on the Main Page quite soon as the FP I nominated of Mo will be up shortly. Edit the caption here if you can see anything buggy about it! Staxringold talkcontribs 19:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up! Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 18:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:U2-all-that-you-cant-leave-behind.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:U2-all-that-you-cant-leave-behind.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. 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. Courcelles 05:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict, my bad
Sorry, I accidentally removed one of your edits to Death of Osama bin Laden! Qrsdogg (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, it's basically a crapshoot trying to get any edits to actually take while there is so much traffic in the article. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 14:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Dire Straits copyvio
This isn't the best time for me to ask, though I must so I don't forget (I may be gone for a week or two-- illness) but I noticed your banner re: copyright violation on the Dire Straits article. I've done nothing more than add photos and some wikification, that kind of thing with all the band and member-related articles I touched... no real editing there, yet, with references. Can you leave a note on my talk page and let me know where the text was copied from? I'll try to get to help with that, and some actual work on it when I am able. Just now, I'm adding photos I uploaded to Commons to articles so that I don't forget to do so entirely. Thanks.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The Dark Side of the Moon
Due to your recent activity editing The Dark Side of the Moon, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking just a minute to add your opinion to the discussion at Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon. Thank you, Dismas |(talk) 01:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

July 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Fat Bottomed Girls, 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. Friginator (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

File:U2 One.ogg
Can you explain your reversion of File:U2 One.ogg.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I chose that specific section of the song with its inclusion in a relevant section of the Achtung Baby article in mind, specifically a section that discusses the dark, personal lyrics that relate a conversation between 2 people. And I did want the sample to be of the chord progression that The Edge composed which essentially led to the song's breakthrough (and subsequently that of the album). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 05:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

AN/I
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Noom talk stalk 22:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Response by Carnotaurus044
Hi there, first of all only other user (Newmoonbay) reverted my edit in the Muse main page, second my edits couldn't be subjetive since i'm providing references for all my genre changes, thus, is not like i'm a self apointed genre expert. If well it's true that this warring have keep me busy the last days, it definitively isn't the only things that i do here, just for start i was who improved the whole musical style section in Muse's main page, i improved the introduction paragraphs of Muse's "Black holes..." and "Absolution" album, i´ve improved the reviews & prose in the aforementioned albums and expanded reviews score in the origin of symmetry album too. i recently worked in the coldplay page too, and thats only on the last two weeks. Carnotaurus044 (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Support
I support you at Resistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eater of Grapes (talk • contribs) 04:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Another response

 * That other person is a parallel acount made by you. I'm amused about how highly cynical you are, if you're and idiot it's ok, but that don't means that anyone else is too, it's enough with give a look to the date and time in wich the acount Eater of grapes was made. also with give a look to it's contributions it's enough evidence that the acount Eater of grapes is your parallel acount.


 * Aditionally, if we give a look to the lasts weeks warring is clear that i've been right in all my edits, on the other hand, you're always clogging any improvement in any Muse page and you're always ends being wrong, and the resistance article definitely won't be the exception. Carnotaurus044 (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have any other accounts except this one. Your accusations proved false, as the sockpuppet investigation will show. Given the amount of people who agree with my point of view on your edits, I stand by everything I have said and done. And a little piece of advice: if you want to be taken seriously, I would take the time to make your posts on the talk page a little more intelligible. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 13:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The Joshua Tree
Hello. I'm sure that The Joshua Tree is of FA quality. Consider nominating it. Claptonish (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you think it's of FA quality. Unfortunately, there's still some information I'm looking to reference before I nominate it. Those pieces of info are:
 * The charting peak in Australia (I can only guess that the book I put in the reference has the info)
 * The charting peak in Finland (I can only guess that the book I put in the reference has the info)
 * The certification in the Netherlands (the longstanding URL is now dead and the recently updated websiste's database inexplicably only has certification info for one year).


 * Perhaps you can help with these items? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 05:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Actung Baby Reissue
My note merely indicates that the press release for the Achtung Baby reissue makes no. mention of a remaster. The word is not there. Check it yourself. I don't say that it's NOT a remaster. Merely that the press release doesn't mention it. That's a FACT. Not opinion, not conjecture, not speculation. FACT. The press release doesn't mention "remaster"

Stop acting like the god of U2 wiki.
 * Pointing out something that has been omitted is no different, from a referencing point of view, than speculation on its meaning. At this point, there is no official source that explains why "remaster" isn't mentioned and until such time, there is no release to explicitly point it out. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 21:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You really don't get it, do you. My changes do NOT say the record hasn't been remastered. It merely says that the press release makes no mention of a remaster. This a FACT. It is indisputable. It in NO way is inaccurate information. If you can demonstrate that this information is inaccurate, and that the press release does say it's remastered, I'll stop making the change. It's NOT speculation. It's not m point of view. I do not say "This press release means the album isn't remastered". I just say the press release doesn't mention it. THAT'S A FACT. Let people draw their own conclusions as to the meaning. People will come to this article looking for info on the remaster, they have the right to get it. That's the reason to point it out. So they have more information that's 100% accurate. It's not your place TO HIDE information that's 100% factual.

Again, you show me where I'm speculating, or offering a point of view. Show me where the press release uses the word remaster. If you can, I'll back off. Until then, expect to see this change. Again. And again. And again. And again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.142.65.38 (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Vertigo 2005
I know the Mexican certification is about the DVD because it said the release date was in November 2005, although I'm not sure about the German certification, but the only video certfications that I've seen from the German source have been video albums.Rock&#39;N&#39;More (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Legacy
Many thanks for the better placement on the HP quote. Would it better to quote the actual author of the piece (i.e. instead of "The Huffington Post said" to put author's name)? Bowiebeauty (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It may make most sense to say "Jeff Pollack of The Huffington Post said..." Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 19:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Deftones troll Carnautaurus
Deftones troll Carnataurus has accused you of using IP socks to edit war with him. Just thought you'd be interested in knowing what he is up to... again. 202.20.0.166 (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

“Where the Streets Have No Name” Edits
Please check the talk page for Where the Streets Have No Name. 76.175.193.153 is Meiert Avis --SpyMagician (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

From the Sky Down
Nice expansion work on this article!  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, can't wait to see what kind of new info we'll see in the next week once people have seen the film! Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 18:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there will be lots more coverage in the upcoming weeks. I'm looking forward to the screening of the Pearl Jam documentary at the TIFF.  Lugnuts  (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

From the Sky Down DYK
Great job on From the Sky Down. I've nominated it for a DYK at T:TDYK. I'd also love to see Achtung Baby on home page either 31 October or 19 November. – Dream out loud (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply. Thanks for your attention to this. I'm not very involved with DYK matters, so it's nice that someone from the U2 Wikiproject is. And yes, I agree. I'd love to see Achtung Baby as the featured article on Nov 19. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 20:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Kent
Hi, no I'm sorry I don't have that book. This site is great for chart positions from mid 1988 onwards, but prior to that I don't know of an online resource. Good luck finding the book though. If you have any specific queries, I think there is a forum on the site I just mentioned where people will answer questions about pre '88 charts. Hope this helps. Thegraciousfew (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)