User talk:Y2kcrazyjoker4/Archive 5

achtung baby

there was actually a reason for the "under construction" tag on the achtung baby article. I have been writing offline. I think it was quite rude for you to jump in especially when I said I was going to rewrite it. Bit I will still push ahead. --Merbabu (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, excuse me. Sorry I assisted in [the article]'s construction by editing it, but I had been planning to do this for a while. I expanded the Zooropa article (and its song article) the day prior, and I had been planning to move onto Achtung Baby next. So it's not like this came out of nowhere. Plus, how am I supposed to know you were writing offline? You did nothing on the talk page or edit history to indicate what you were doing. Placing the expand template on the page doesn't tell me anything, except that the article is going to have additions made. Does that mean I'm supposed to throw my hands up in the air and not touch the article until the template is removed? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did announce and attempt to rebuild, but felt like it was getting reverted by yourself. Hence my move into sandboxes and offline. But no matter.

Notions of etiquette and collaboration aside, let me say there is still ample room for re-writing which I am pushing ahead with. Stay tuned. :-) --Merbabu (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder, that I am working on a lot of material for the Achtung Baby article. It would make it easy for both of us if perhaps you held off. what do you say? --Merbabu (talk) 05:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to cause significant edit conflicts, but I'd still like to contribute where I can. I don't have many more changes to make, aside from rewording a sentence here or there, or adding some prose to the "Release" section on the album art. For the most part, I've added what I have to add. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

OK - thanks. ...and I can't see myself removing your new info. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 05:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the way I expressed myself above - but I did think it was clear I was working on this - or intended too. And, I was more than annoyed that you pretty much covered the ground I was preparing in sandbox and offline. Anyway, no matter. I do admit I have been slow in getting it together - but I am now distracted with professional life, studying for a 3rd degree, and domesticity - and on-wiki including the ever controversial Australian politics and the Indonesia project. Having discovered U2 in the late 1980's, my U2 love-affair came of age in the Achtung-ZooTV-Zooropa era which for me is their artistic peak - right when I was finishing high school and starting uni. Achtung is by far my favourite U2 album - even though favourite 5 U2 songs aren't on it. Wow - fantastic times. I'm even in the crowd in the Sydney (hometown) 1993 DVD - on the rail at the B-stage during a few songs. And I was in the crowd in Sydney 2006 when Bono shouted "Cate Blanchett, this is for you" during Kite (U2 song) when Edge launched one of his greatest live solos - you've got that recording on Windows in the Sky single, right?). Hence, I was slightly disappointed with NLOTH not actually being a big a step as Achtung Baby as Bono had promised - but he always has been a bs-artist!!!! But the new album is better than the previous. u2 by U2 is a glorious read. cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 12:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

29 March

Perhaps in terms of volume, I've added most of what I intend, but I have a few more sources to plunder. In terms of quality it is a bit raw and I hope to copy edit myself in the next week or so. I admit it's a bit raw and rough, but will polish up in the next week or so. The section I particularly want to complete and fix up is "Tracks". cheers --Merbabu (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

...for correcting my error (photo credits in captions) at Siege of Sarajevo. Writegeist (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Just so you know where I got that from: Wikipedia:Captions#Credits outlines the guidelines. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

U2 3D A-Class nom

I have nominated U2 3D to be A-Class article for WikiProject Film at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment/U2 3D. I would appreciate any feedback that you may leave for the article. Thank you. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

regarding 311

Leave it to the people who know what they are doing. In other words, keep your hands off what you don't know. Thanks. And next time, be nice. (Doesn't feel too good does it?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roland311 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I know what I'm doing, hence why I removed a lot of the nonsense information that fails WP:NOT. Perhaps you should read that policy. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

New Yankee Stadium Photo

Possibly agree on the need for a better location within article; however that location is not apparent. Disagree on not adding much value- there are no other images on the page of the stadium during an actual game, nonetheless a nighttime event... I will add image of 'prominent feature'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pl07442 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - game action photo would be great, but perhaps it should be oriented towards the outfield stands. The angle of the show you added to the article didn't really show a unique view of the ballpark (e.g. angled towards home plate from outfield stands). Other photos of the stadium's concourses and Great Hall would be great, and would probably be best placed in the Design section. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Mariano Rivera: on hold

The article has been reviewed, and placed on hold. Please view the talkpage for details. Thanks, and good luck! CarpetCrawler^{message me} 04:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

OK! I will take a look at the article when I get home tonight. Have a great day. :) CarpetCrawler^{message me} 18:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Just letting you know I have now passed the article. :) Have a good night, and congratulations! CarpetCrawler^{message me} 05:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Red links

There is nothing wrong with red links. They encourage the creation of new articles and our guideline states that they should remain unless the linked topic is unworthy of an article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me out!

Thanks for your edits on Taking Back the Cities Tour page. I just wanted to ask if the pic I put of the lightning strike being performed should be that small. It's not clear enough. that's why I had enlarged it to 400pixels. What do you say?

And about a possible stand alone show SP did in November, 2008 at the Schiller theater in Germany link The official site has no record of any gigs in Nov 2008 http://www.snowpatrol.com/events/ Site]. Check the archive. I'm not sure if they did any gigs other than that in November. Do you know anything? Suede67 (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't say I've followed the tour at all, so I don't know anything about specific dates. In regards to the photo, the Wikipedia:MOS#Images guidelines say that you shouldn't give a specific size to the photo unless it has details that only the larger size will show. The photo is good, but it doesn't need to be 400px large. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. So it says 300 px is the max allowed, I'd really like to change the size, as the small tumbnail isnt clear enough to depict what the pic actually depicts. I'll enlarge it a bit but not too much. Suede67 (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I also wanted to ask how can I nominate an article for a GA or FA? Can I nominate an article I myself created?! I'm pretty new in here, and I'm just learning my way around. I'd like you to reply on my talk page, please. Suede67 (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow this is crazy stuff. Thanks for your help. I'll need to look hard to be able to nominate with any confidence! Suede67 (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:U2-360-tour-logo.gif)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:U2-360-tour-logo.gif. 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 '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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Strikeouts at FAC

At FAC, the person who left the comments/concerns is expected to strike them out when they feel they are resolved. As it says at the top of the WP:FAC page : "If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary." Ealdgyth - Talk 16:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologize - I thought any one was free to strike out items they thought to be completed. Feel free to revert any striking out I just did. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It's nothing serious, this is your first FAC nom, right? Go ahead and revert yourself, I just wanted to point it out to you in a nice out of the way place so you'd not feel that threatened. Hope you enjoy FAC, by the way! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup, this is my first nomination. I've read the FAC guidelines, but don't mind me if I make a few mistakes in the nomination process, anyways. Thanks for the help on this, too. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Please feel free to offer your opinion here. I would like a definitive word on this subject.-5- (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea - in the end, we could debate it on our own all we want, and we could both be wrong. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

#

Hi ... why do you think that # 9 is incorrect, but #9 is correct? I think it was correct as-was. Do you happen to have a source? Wouldn't you write No. 9, not No.9? Tx.--Ethelh (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

From my own personal experience, I've never seen a space in between a pound sign and a number when referring to a position on a list or rankings. You'd be correct to use No. 9 over No.9, but that would be because you are mixing text/prose and numbers, whereas with #9, you are merely mixing a character and a number. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My own personal experience has been that the space is the opposite (though I've seen some people not leave spaces after either the No. or #). I think that a space is correct in both instances, and don't see support in your comment for changing the way it was other than POV.--Ethelh (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Mariano Rivera

I believe that you changed it from a correct statement to an incorrect one. The panel included 100 members, a number of whom -- but not all of whom -- were members of the Hall of Fame. Please re-read your edit and the source, and make the appropriate reversion or other edit. Thanks.--Ethelh (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Rivera FAC

Thanks for the FAC notification. FYI, you may not know that to avoid WP:CANVASS charges in your FAC nomination if you notify all supporters of a previous FAC, you must also notify all opposers.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've actually reached out to two of the opposers already, and will also be contacting those that did not explicitly say "support"/"oppose". Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Philadelphia Phillies template colors

Why are you altering the Phillies navboxes? There have been numerous discussions about the colors of these templates. The Phillies' red used in the infobox is extremely glaring and is not used in navigational templates because it makes it difficult to read. Additionally, there is no guideline that says these navboxes must make the MLBPrimaryColor template. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the entire point of using the colors at all to establish a consistent identity? Why is one red used in one place but not the other? If the other red is so glaring (which it really is not), why can't we change the red used in the infoboxes to match the darker red? I'm just saying - it doesn't appear like much attempt is made to keep consistency with all infoboxes and tables that use red to identify the Phillies. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Ghostbusters

Huh? The new version said exactly the same thing, only with less words. I also pointed to the Technology section of the franchise article. The section is way too long the way you reverted it to. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Way too long? It's 4 paragraphs, which is fine. Especially considering the amount of prose in the article dedicated to trivial stuff (e.g the plot). We should be trying to expand the article, not shorten it. But more importantly, you should introduce key concepts that are important to understanding what "Ghostbusting" is in the video game's article, instead of relying on another article to do that for you. Most of what I put in the Gameplay section is specific to the video game anyways, so I don't understand your concerns. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Mariano Rivera

this should work...until save 502 of course...*sigh* Bmg916^Speak 17:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha, thanks. If only every editor could take the excrutiating time to also edit the date, ERA, record, and strikeouts, too. =) Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha,I know, it was a real big effort; but somehow I managed to tough it out and get that edit done. Bmg916^Speak 17:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

d'oh! on my part. Bmg916^Speak 17:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Trade that never happened

The article referenced states minor leagues... if you are going to introduce something new - how about including YOUR NEW LINK? The sentence as originally written was perfect in regards to WP:Verify - your addition, without source/addition info - over simplifies things. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

File:U2-360-tour-staging.JPG

I have tagged File:U2-360-tour-staging.JPG as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. Otherwise, it will be deleted in seven days. –Dream out loud (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE...

I'm trying to put up starting lineups for the 2009 Major League Baseball All-Star Game, so please STOP UNDING EVERYTHING! Or else I will report you for ruining everything! NoseNuggets (talk) 2:52 PM US EDT Jul 13 2009.

Please calm down and not lash out in such an immature manner. I'm trying to fix the article as much as you are. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

So, how about the initials for the starting lineup in place of team names? NoseNuggets (talk) 3:07 PM US EDT Jul 13 2009

It isn't consistent with the format used by past All-Star Game articles and thus, it makes little sense to abbreviate the team names, especially when they aren't abbreviated for the full rosters. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Photo credits

Please don't remove the photographer credits from the pics just added. It's the photographers' wish to see their names credited, or else they wouldnt let their photos being used. Just a small price, I guess, it does tend to look a bit out of place, but I can live with it. I hope you understand. Suede67 (talk) 07:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Captions#Credits clearly states credits should not be given in the photograph captions and should instead be placed on the image's description page. This policy should be communicated to the photographer. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

In future, I will. But I request you to let the credit stand until I contact the photographers and tell them about this guideline. I'm not sure they'll let us use the pic anymore, but lets see. Suede67 (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave the credits alone for now. But I'd be interested in seeing what the photographers have to say. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. They're yet to contact back, so please be patient. Suede67 (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Template colors

There was a consensus achieved to use the colors that were previously used in the Phillies templates before you changed them all. In the future, could you please at least drop a note on the WikiProject Baseball or WikiProject Phillies talk pages before you go blasting through all of those templates and making changes for which there isn't a consensus? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I probably should have sent you in the direction of this Template talk:MLBPrimaryColor#Unprotect template to correct colors? first. I'm trying to go through each team's infoboxes and templates and correctly standardize the colors, according to what SSUR.org has on record. They are a website dedicated to sports uniform and team color research, so it stands to reason they are probably the best source for this type of information. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I did take a look at the website. I'm surprised and pleased that there's a whole society out there researching this kind of stuff. This color red is a much better solution than the old ones as well... The dark one wasn't truly color-representative and the bright one was unreadable. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Template color problem

How is it "ridiculous"? You say you havent seen any band article use it, and that it'd change with every album. True, but we (i and 2 other editors reached a consensus to choose one final theme, no one's going to change it, and about you saying it'd change with every album, no, let me assure you it wont. The color you reverted was based on Eyes Open which isnt their recent album. You can see the template talk page, if you have doubts. Moreover, I checked and found no rule/guideline that restricts sage of color on templates, though i did see one prohibiting the OVERUSE of color. and this one doesnt overdo it. Suede67 (talk) 05:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

We NEVER said that we would change the colours to the current album, we just matched the album colors with the template. The colours aren't very sharp so they're user-friendly. So let it be. RichV (talk) 12:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The point is your attempt to give the template some kind of color scheme is original research. Who are you guys to decide what colors should represent the band in its template? Sports team and universities are a much different case - they have official, definitive colors that are used to represent their institutions. Snow Patrol doesn't have an official color scheme and any attempt to assign them one would be original research. There's a reason no other musical act on all of Wikipedia has a color scheme for their templates. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates :3 --King Öomie 17:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Your POV please?

I know you're involved in editing the GTA series pages, so I thought I'd let you know that I flagged the Compilation packs article for deletion. I think it's pretty obvious that the article needs to be deleted, but ould you express your opinion here? VG Editor (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Pujols article

nice job on the edits to the Albert Pujols WP article. that article is in crying need of some big time rewrites with what all the fan-boys have crammed in there. props. Tjrover (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)tjrover

User talk:Guitarherochristopher

If you're going to complain to someone about refactoring other user's talk page edits,[1] it's probably not a good idea to then go and do the same thing yourself immediately afterwards.[2] WP:TPO applies to all editors. --JD554 (talk) 06:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I had reasonable cause to make that edit, as I interpreted that comment of his as encouraging users to create fake references for articles with dummy information. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No, unfortunately not. WP:TPO gives some very specific criteria for when it is OK to edit another user's comments, but this isn't one of them. If you disagree with what is said, you can of course add a comment to say so. --JD554 (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Zootv 089.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Zootv 089.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file 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 file 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 files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file 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. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"Notes" for specific citations

Please stop changing "Notes" to "References". We use "Notes" for sections that contain specific references created from the REF tag. The "References" section is for sources that are not tied to footnotes via the REF tag, or for books that are referenced using shorthand in the NOTES section.

See Wikipedia:CITE#Quick_summary. — John Cardinal (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Mariano Rivera lead image

Thought you should know, as a big contributor (though I'm sure you have it watchlisted), I've added a new and I feel better lead image to the article. This view provides a clearer picture than a straight-forward shot (as the old one was), where big parts of his pitching motion are hidden. Also, have nominated this new image at FPC and would love any comments you have. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That image is fantastic! Thanks for taking the photo and adding it to Wikicommons and the article. I've never evaluated a FPC before, but I'll look over the criteria and past nominations just to become a little more familiar with the process, and then I'll add my comments. Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• No problem. As long as I'm pushing you for baseball-related featured content opinions, my work on Major League Baseball All-Star Game MVP Award could use any input you've got if you have the time. Thanks! (let me know if any other articles need images, I'll go hunting) Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Your tone

I've been a regular editor of Rock Band related articles for a while. If I make a mistake, feel free to recitfy it, but I would appreciate not being spoken to like a "newb" when my edits are reverted. Thank you. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 18:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume this is in reference to this edit in which I changed the genre from "Pop Rock" to "Pop/Rock". I'm not sure what you mean by my tone - I didn't think there was a genre of "Pop Rock" and I merely said that unless there was, I thought you were mistaken - meaning making an honest mistake. I didn't attack you or assume you to be unknowledgeable. In fact, I didn't even direct the edit summary at you in particular (I didn't check who last edited the article), but rather whoever moved the songs from the "upcoming" to "released" section. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Christgau review

The music project has explicitly accepted Christgau review's despite (and with full knowledge of) the objections you are raising. The claim (his ranking) is cited, and it's an opposing view to the other reviews. — John Cardinal (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Please point me in the direction of where the project decided this was acceptable, because I find it hard to believe that such a ridiculously invalid "review" that does not consist of a single word could be considered an acceptable professional review. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 05:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Professional_reviews where a dud rating by Christgau is used an example. Most (if not all) his dud reviews are not accompanied by any prose. Also, please see my Talk:Achtung Baby comment. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sublimefan97

I saw your vandalism warning on this user's talk page; please see this report at ANI. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Viva la Vida

Sorry, I didn't read the cites that said it was baroque pop; I just assumed it was alt rock b/c Coldplay is alt rock. And generally i think of baroque pop as songs like For No One. Deserted Cities 04:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

An editor who will go unnamed

I tried reporting him to ANI once, it didn't go as planned. See the archive. You can try again if you'd like, I'll support. I'm not sure what else we can do. Deserted Cities 04:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment

(This is the same thing as on the talk page about Ode to Deoderant) WHAT....are you kidding me? I understand your position but Please!! reconsider you idea. I have realized that A lot of my article that I have created in the past have been....well not good but please assume good faith. I am sorry for my past edits and I will ask others if any article that is Coldplay related that I make in the future is a good idea. In fact I already have see my conversation with JD554 on my talk page. (And his) Oh and one more thing. There have been some good articles of mine in the past like Latin America Tour. I will even take everything off of this page and ask an admin to delete it.--Coldplay Expert 22:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Why exactly?

I used to see lots of bands' articles sporting logos at the top. So I did it. What happened, why isn't the practice allowed now? Suede67 (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why articles ever had logos in the infobox titles - probably misinformed people putting them there. The policy, as far as I know, hasn't changed. Template:Infobox musical artist#Name Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, no problem, I used to see it in articles before though, think i saw them at Coldplay and Led Zeppelin. Is there any other place we can put it, you think? There are 3 different SP logos according to eras, based on the text appearing on albums, you must have noticed. Though i'm not sure how relevant this is. Suede67 (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's pretty non-essential to have the script logo, which can very well just change for the next album... in which case, it's not really a logo. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, it could. Suede67 (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Why

Why have you ignored my last comment? Do you have something against me?--Coldplay Expert 01:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

OK Look

Alright I know that you and me have some diffrences but if you actually responded to my messages we could get somewhere. I dont have anything against you so why do you ignore me?--Coldplay Expert 00:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you want me to respond to, honestly. I have no idea what your last message was even in reference to. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright then ill explain, in the AFD for Ode to deoderant / Brothers + Sisters you said "I recommend that no additional Coldplay articles by Coldplay Expert and Guitarherochristopher be allowed to be created. None of these topics even remotely pass WP:NOTABLE." so the first comment on your talk page was my resopnse. I dont belive that I should fall under the same categotry as guitarherochristopher as my edits are usefull.--Coldplay Expert 10:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just recommend you read WP:NOTABLE and make a distinction between topics that are important and those that aren't. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 12:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I have and I havent made that mistake since ode to deoderant. So can you retract your statement or do you still belive that Im not to be trusted?--Coldplay Expert 17:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It's nothing about trust, it's that you merely didn't have a good idea at the time about what constituted notability per Wikipedia's policies. I'm sure after some of the Articles for Deletion discussions, you are better prepared for creating new articles. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright then so do you belive that I should be alowed to make coldplay articles?--Coldplay Expert 20:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as long as you understand what is notable/not notable. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I do. Oh can you help me ith a project? (Ill explain more if you say yes)--Coldplay Expert 23:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I honestly have very little time to dedicate to a project right now - sorry. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright then its ok but if you do get the ocasional chance can you help me with the tour dates for A rush of blood to the head? I have already started to put them in boxes and in correct order. (Why did they put them in backwards?) you can look at it at User:Coldplay Expert/Tour Dates--Coldplay Expert 20:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont know if this is even hypotheticaly posible but I wish to get one of the coldplay tour article to A or GA class some day. How would I be able to do it?--Coldplay Expert 23:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Read the WP:FAC and WP:GA pages. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok but do you think that A rush of blood to the head tour can make the Good article list. It is about a tour so im skeptical.--Coldplay Expert 01:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

U2...

Thanks. I hope you understand my changes to your changes. :-) .--Merbabu (talk) 04:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand the reason for your changes, but the prose about The Edge's guitar playing and Bono's lyrics were copied almost verbatim from the "Musical style" section. Looking at other FAC band articles, like Rush (band) made me think about how the lead can be more comprehensive, hence why I tried to revise it. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 04:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

OK - that's not completely clear cut case - but I thought it clear enough to remove it. It's a good point that it is in the musical style section. But, it is rather limiting and only touches on aspects of U2's music. FOr example, i reckon if we went through each U2 song, we'd find that political and social commentary are in a minority of songs, and of those songs, perhaps the majority of their lyrics are not political and social commentary. But I could be wrong. While the POV case is border line, I feel it's the top of a slippery slope. But, yes, worth further consideration. --Merbabu (talk) 04:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there.

Could you check in on the Discussion page for U2's Pop record please. Were trying to have a little Discussion about the albums page and he editing of it. Cheers. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 17:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not a collage?

Whats the problem with individual faces? Its certainly better than a live shot, where no member can be clearly seen. What was your motive in putting the old one back? You could have provided an edit summary. Suede67 (talk) 19:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense to have a live shot, where they are playing a concert, since they are a musical act, after all. Furthermore, other FAC articles for bands, like Audioslave, U2, and AC/DC make use of a live photo, where a collage could be used in its place. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

But Radiohead does not, its also a FA. And live pics are all over the article, why a must in the infobox? Also, the collage IS made of live shots, not personal. Suede67 (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like for Radiohead, a collage was created because there wasn't a suitable live photo of the entire band available, but rather the individuals separately. In this case, there is a live photo of the entire band available already. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No, not really, There are 3 such images on commons: link, link and link. Suede67 (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit - Two of them are the same, one's cropped, but you can see my point. Suede67 (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)