User talk:Y2kcrazyjoker4/Archive 6

Tour images

I started a section in Talk:U2 360° Tour, please discuss there first before going on another image deletion spree. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

U2 song infoboxes...

I've opened up a discussion about the U2 infoboxes here. Would be good for you to join in as appropriate. regards --Merbabu (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Pitchers

Any pitcher can start and/or relieve. Pitcher is a position. Starter, reliever, setup-man, closer, are all roles. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 18:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a key distinction - a starting pitcher ALWAYS gets a credited for a specific statistic - a game started (along with a game played). A reliever can be credited with a variety of statistics that a starter cannot get. A game played (without a game started), a game finished, save, hold. These are all ways of distinguishing between the two, and it's very important to do so. Refer to the articles of any active relief pitchers. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

A pitcher is a pitcher. That's a "position". Starter, reliever - those are "roles". →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 20:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It's still important to distinguish between the two - the role of closer is too volatile to put in an infobox - not to mention a closer can be used in other types of situations as reliever than just recording the last outs. It's very important to note how a pitcher is used. If they are exclusively a starter or a reliever, noting so in the infobox is important to the context of the article. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Mariano Rivera essentially served as an ordinary reliever yesterday. Just like a shortstop can be moved to third base when needed, or a center fielder can move to left or whatever. But that does not change their normal position or role. Rivera's normal role is strictly a closer. To simply list him as a reliever is misleading. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 20:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it really isn't. He can enter in the 9th inning - that's his role. But it doesn't necessarily mean he will be "closing" games. If its a tie game, he's not closing the game, and it can go extra innings after he's been removed. If it's a game where the Yankees are losing, he's merely trying to keep it close. Only when the Yankees are leading and he has a save situation is he actually "closing" out the game. It's not misleading to call him a relief pitcher - so far this postseason, Rivera has entered in more non-save situations than actual save situations. He's a versatile pitcher out of the bullpen and is called upon very often in other situations. A shortstop could be moved to third-base, but how often do you normally see that happen? When is the last time Jeter played third base? These two examples are not comparable. This issue seems to be one you should take up with the WP:Baseball project, not this article. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Calling him simply a "reliever" is inadequate. Look at his stats through 2008: [1] 851 games, 719 games finished. 482 saves. Average 1.2 innings per game. That's a closer. The fact he sometimes gets used when the game is tied, like last night - and that he often gets a win in those cases - does not change the fact that his primary job is closer. Randy Johnson was called on to finish Game 7 in 2001. He was a closer for that particular game. But he's still a starter. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 21:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There's also inconsistency, and maybe this should go to the project page. Bruce Sutter is listed simply as "Pitcher". So are Rollie Fingers and Dennis Eckersley. I could maybe see that with a mix of roles. But Sutter went through his entire career with ZERO starts [2]. He was totally a reliever, and like Rivera, was primarily a closer. Yet it simply says "pitcher", which is actually his position on the field, not his role. So the question is, is that slot supposed to be position? Or is it supposed to be role? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 21:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

"Writing and recording" vs. "Composition"

Your edit summary states "Composition describes what the song is like (music and lyrics, structure, key, tonality, etc etc). look at any FAC song article".

I've followed your suggestion and looked at several FA song articles listed at Wikipedia:Featured articles#Music ("Hey Baby (No Doubt song)", "The World Is Not Enough (song)", "Real Love (John Lennon song)", "Angel of Death (song)", "Bam Thwok", "Cool (song)", etc.), and none of these have a "Composition" section separate from a "Writing" or "Development" heading (in some cases, such as "Angel of Death", all of that information is under a "Composition" section, which I, as you can note in the edit histories, originally used instead of "Writing and recording"). In fact, looking at the list of FA songs, the majority of those that I checked out do not use hold "lyrics" under Composition; those that do are very much a minority. Per your advice I looked at "any FA song article", and the norm is in fact the opposite of what you claim in regards to lyrics; I think that refutes your claim that "Composition describes the lyrics". Some songs, such as "4 Minutes (Madonna song)", do have a "Composition" section, but you'll note that it describes what the song sounds like (which you mention), but has no content on the lyrics in said section.

I don't know what definition of "compose" you are using, but the last I checked when a person composes something they are creating/writing it. As lyrics are an integral part of the writing process - save on instrumental songs - it seems clear enough to me that lyrics should be included in the "Writing" section. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(P.S. I hope that this doesn't come across as too rude. I'm trying to practice my counter-point tone for a slew of essays I have coming up). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No, no rudeness, just a healthy disagreement. I think where the disagreement lies is you are looking at the word "Composition" as the noun form of the verb "compose", which means to write. Whereas I'm just observing the word "Composition", which means "the manner of being composed; structure" (per dictionary.com). There are plenty of FAC articles to support where I'm coming from (Smells Like Teen Spirit, Paranoid Android, Under the Bridge). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

AFD Discussion

Hello, you may be interested to know that a U2-related article has been nominated for deletion at Articles for Deletion. As a member of the U2 WikiProject, you may be interested in participating in the discussion. The full deletion discussion can be found here. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 03:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Links on templates to other templates

There is no guideline opposing links on one template to another, as you have been trying to change on Template:Baseball records. In fact, there are many other templates around that have links to other templates, and this is not opposed.

In this case, it is important to provide these links, because I had initally been creating these templates all as one, but when I realized it would be too large, I had to split it into several smaller ones. The purpose of these templates (called navboxes) is to make it easy for readers to find articles, and providing links to other related templates will aid in this.

If you really want those articles you are replacing these links there listed, you can list them in addition to the links to the templates. Hellno2 (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

?

I'm afraid that I don't quite understand the reason behind this edit. Why would you remove that the song was leaked and posted to YouTube when you added it to the "Breathe" article? Is it simply WP:POINT? The source discusses "Stand Up Comedy" (as "For Your Love"); not "Breathe". MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The source completely speculates about what the songs are. Listening to the clips now reveals them to clearly be Magnificent, GOYB, Unknown Caller, Crazy Tonight, and Breathe. NLOTH was not one of them. I would recommend you find the clips and give them a listen. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but unfortunately that would be original research. Remember, it's what is verifiable, not necessarily what is true. The source says that these are the songs that were leaked, so unless there is another source saying otherwise we can't just say "this is wrong based on a bootlegged clip that I have listened to". MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The source shouldn't be relied on in the first place for confirming what each song was, as it is speculation to begin with and can't begin to confirm what the songs were (they were all wrong!). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Then the source should either be removed and replaced by {{Citation needed}}, or all of the information removed since we can't verify it without violating WP:OR. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone with hearing can verify what the songs are, but in terms of not violating WP:OR, I think the only source that would actually verify this for us would be a U2 fansite, which I'm not sure qualifies. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I wish it did, but it doesn't. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Derek Jeter

Regarding the section breaks, I removed them following a comment on the Featured Article Review. By all means, suggest that they need to stay at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Derek Jeter/archive1‎. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Game 3 save

I did the same thing to 2009 World Series thinking that was a save. But, as I understand it, you basically need to have the game be within 1 run if you come in with 1 out left, 2 runs with 2 outs left, and 3 runs in all other situations (except if you close any game and pitch 3 or more innings, that's always a save ala the 30-2 game where a pitcher got a save). Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The way I understood it, if he's coming in to pitch less than 3 outs, the only way he can get a save is if the tying run is in the on-deck circle. If Hughes had given up an additional baserunner after allowing the homerun, it would have been a save situation. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 05:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Basically, yes. Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey!

Should all quotes (the box ones) be in italics? Suede67 (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's a general guideline on it or not, but generally from the articles I've read and worked on, that's what I've seen done. I don't have the time to read WP:QUOTE, but maybe that will be able to answer your question? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Me too, all good articles seem to be having them in italics (eg NLOTH) Thanks i'll check the help page out. Suede67 (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here's what it says: "Fourth, there is normally no need to put quotations in italics unless the material would otherwise call for italics (emphasis, use of non-English words, etc.)" So its not entirely necessary. Suede67 (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Good to know - I think it looks better, but then again, that's just me, and there's not a WP policy that says it should be that way. Feel free to go whichever you like best. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It certainly looks better I think so too, From now on i will put them in italics too :) Suede67 (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. DragonLair04 (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Warning you to stop disrupting the quality of a FAC article is not abuse. In fact, what you are doing right now is abuse. Responding to a legitimate warning that an administrator and experienced editor agreed with, with an unwarranted warning is rather childish. Your attitude and perspective need to improve if you're going to make any kind of meaningful contributions. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 05:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have responded to him and love Mariano Rivera, I really think you should take this to ANI if you think it's gotten out of hand. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if this continues or not. Is there some process that needs to be followed to go to WP:ANI? Like, only after he received a temp block and continued to disrupt should I go there and report? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Moment of Surrender

On November 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Moment of Surrender, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I Miss You (Miley Cyrus song)

Hey! I saw your edits on I Miss You (Miley Cyrus song). Instead of reverting them I have come here to discuss them with you. It should be called background. I mean look at other Good Articles like Fly on the Wall (song), Let's Get Crazy (Hannah Montana song), and others. Two sentences is not enough for a background section as you did in your edit. So can you please just leave it as it was? -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

"Background" seems like a pretty plain and non-descript way to title a section. It seems like a way to just lump a bunch of information together. Instead, I think any information about the content of the song {e.g. specific lyrics, key, tonality, tempo, instrumentation), which is the bulk of your "Background" section, should be in a section called "Composition". If you have 2 or 3 stray sentences, perhaps this is indicating an area for an expansion or information that just doesn't fit with the other pieces of info you have in that section. For more reference about what I'm talking about, I would recommend you look at an article like "Zoo Station". Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Cite check...

Hey there. I can't see the Eno quote in the ref you provided. here. Could you clarify, please?. cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The End of the World

Have you read Flanagan's U2: At The End of The WOrld? Highly recommended if you haven't - possibly the best U2 book. cheers--Merbabu (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Haven't - the only book I have in my possession is U2 By U2. I'll look into acquiring a copy. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

U2 by U2 is also excellent. The other 's are from McGee's book. Gotta duck out now - will add them soon. --Merbabu (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about creating a sub-page listing references available for U2 articles. Ie, a kind of project resource page. A number of wikiprojects have them. There’s actually a lot of good U2 sources out there – some better than others. --Merbabu (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we could do that if we could get activity on the U2 Wikiproject to pick back up - the project seems to have been inactive for a while now. If we had a central listing of sources, it might help with song and album articles. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I could be convinced otherwise, but personally, I'd discourage the project. Seemed like a good idea at the time. Too much admin for too few people and too small a scope. in recent months there's been a pick up in activity from a small but dedicated group - seems to be fine without project auspices. U2 or project wide issues that require centralised discussion can just be raised on the u2 page. That's my view anyway. As for the resource page, perhaps it can just be a linked subpage of the u2 talk page.--Merbabu (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You really should get yourself a copy of Flannagan’s book. There’s about 6 pages just on the difficulties of Berlin (although most of the rest of the book follows the ZooTV tour, and touches on the recording of Zooropa). Sometime’s I find it difficult to judge whether we should put more of this into the AB article, and what should remain out. Sure, much of it’s not really encyclopaedic (eg, “this suggestion goes up Bono’s ass sideways”), but covers the shifting dynamics between the band very well. The difficulty for us is distilling 6 pages into 6 sentences. It also spends a few pages discussing the genesis of the ZooTV concept. --Merbabu (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Joshua Tree

Hi there - just thought I'd let you know, I'm going to continue the the expansion work that I'd been doing on the article with a major expansion and re-write which you can see I'd started on in my sandbox. I'm going to do this over the weekend and into next week, most probably continuing in my sandbox. So if you don't mind holding off..... Otherwise it might get tricky trying to mesh together. The way I work, it's probably best done in the sandbox then pasted over. Note, that this work of yours has come after my sandbox, and I'll try and incorporate it as best I can. cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll hold off until you merge all your sandbox edits into the article. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless you want me to try and incorporate those edits into your sandbox. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

A polite request

Hello, I noticed you removed the credit to Dani Canto for the excellent photo he has taken of Andrew Bird. Since providing photographs for musicians' biographies has been a major part of what I've done alongside editing for the past few years, I would like to ask you, as I have others, to please leave the photo credit on the page until it is ready for consideration for either GA or FA status. This is because, much of what I do involves negotiating for pictures from photographers that actually have book deals slated for their photos, and the Wikipedia in essence, asks them to give up a part of their livlihood by surrendering their copyrights and switching to a CC-BY-SA Creative Commons license. Often, they are skeptical as to who they are dealing with, and look to see if they can find their name alongside the photo here. Many do not speak English, and it is difficult to reassure them that by clicking the photo, they can eventually find their name and a link to their photostream. Please, I've uploaded hundreds of photos, and plenty of Admins. have seen no harm in this, in fact, attribution to the photographer still exists on many FA-Barnstar articles that I contributed to. It's really important to establish trust to get some very rare photographs of people, for instance who died young, but have had a significant impact on music everywhere. I appreciate your vigilance in the work you are doing! Just wanted to let you know why I leave the photographer's "BY" attribution on the page at least until the articles have referenced information. (I only wish people were as vigilant in all the other aspects of the articles) Thanks! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 12:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I was just trying to follow WP:CAPTION, but there obviously seems to be more to this than I realized. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for understanding! I'm well aware of WP:CAPTION, although 80% of the time the articles are not beyond "Start". Some photos take me a year or more to find, even having to translate the instructions (in other languages) to relinquish copyrights on photo pages outside the Wikipedia. Since there's nothing "official" to prove that I am a reputable editor here, often they get sort of skittish. I'm still hunting for some particular people's photos- one for Gram Parsons has eluded me since I first gave up editing with an IP address and registered here in 2007! Mick Taylor and Cat Stevens were also particularly difficult, but finally covered, I think. Maybe there's a way I can try to reward some photographers by finding ways to nominate some of their photos for a featured photo, either here or on Wikimedia Commons, unless you have any ideas beyond that? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 07:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a category/gallery can be created to recognize rare, hard-to-find photos? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice idea! I rotate photos in a tiny gallery on my userpage. Anyway, I won't bore you with my little world! Hey, if you wish to request any musicians' photos here, let me know, and I'll try to find them.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 10:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Wrestlemania-screen.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Wrestlemania-screen.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 on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Qwest Field images

Qwest Field is under review for Featured Article status so new eyes was appreciated. I personally like the images alternating and did it based off of my interpretation of the tutorial page. It appears to be common practice (3 of the 4 most recent FAs alternate from left to right) but I have not worked with FAs much. I double checked the MoS after your edits and it clearly supports your change with "In most cases, images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement. If an exception to the general rule is warranted..." Do you know when putting images on the left is needed? Is this often disregarded (not an excuse to not do it correctly, of course). Thanks again!Cptnono (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The only exception I can think of off-hand is if the image is of a right-facing person, in which case, the photo should be on the left to face the text. Otherwise, it should probably be on the right, particularly if there are no formatting issues that prevent its use or the image will not crowd the text on the right. I've only achieved one FAC myself, but I'm merely interpreting the rule you mentioned above as best as I know - there might be a legitimate reason to use it on the left that I'm not aware of. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sweet. Thanks for the tip!Cptnono (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Achtung Baby

I've done a fair bit of digging around following WesleyDodds suggestion about a lack of consultation of major sources. You might be interested in my comments and hopefully his reply on his talk page.

Also, this is a superb article that I bought from the newstand at the time. You're probably already familiar with it - and it's the source of one of the quote boxes. Could you read it and see if there is further use for it in the article? I trying to use it in the article a little difficult - a bit too fluffy for my views on encyclopedias. --Merbabu (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw your changes and I was a little confused about the new additions. One of your sentences said that Eno worked with the band for 2 weeks and thought the subsequent 2 months' tapes were a mess. Do you mean previous 2 months? It wouldn't make much sense that he would think that tapes yet to be recorded were a mess. Also, what was the timing of his reviewing the tapes? What is the two-month period of work he was reviewing? I don't have access to the article so I can't clarify the context of this information. Likewise, can you clarify what the "crisis point" in mixing was? Was there too much work left to do and not enough agreement on final mixes? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

As you suggested, clarifying the context is actually quite difficult without the sources - I do mean subsequent and not previous. He was with them for two weeks, went away for two months, then came back to fix it - but, I will re-write it.

Timing is vague on both points - ie, which deadline? July or Sept??? Without further info, we just have to make a judgement call - perhaps those points were about work up to July, rather than Sept?!?!? The relevant passages from the two sources below (someone might say pasting it here is a copyvio!):

Eno in Mojo 2001: A lot of the time, but one good example of a very counter-intuitive instinctive decision was on Achtung Baby. We were close to the deadline, about a month to go, and everything was chaotic. I said, "I think we should take a two-week holiday, and not listen to any of this stuff we've been doing while we're away." We'd been digging this hole for such a long time, and it was a good idea to step outside of it for a while. It worked perfectly, we finally got some perspective on it.

Eno in Mojo 1995: On Achtung Baby! I had worked with them for a couple of weeks, then I came home for a couple of months. They sent me what they’d done so far, and I listened to them thinking, this is a total disaster! A total washout! Because what had happened – as often happens in recording – is that while people are waiting for the singer to write the song, they’ve got all this studio time booked, so they keep overdubbing. I went to Dublin determined to strip it all away and go back to what it had been. It was very successful, and they agreed that it saved that album.

The other thing I did on that record that Edge said was a brilliant move was to send them on holiday. It was hitting crisis point, the deadline was looming and everything seemed like a mess. And I insisted they got away from it a while. They did, and after just two weeks without listening to it, they came back, listened to the tapes, and suddenly they were able to make pretty quick and clear decisions. Again, that’s not something you would tend to do from the inside: we’ve only got four weeks left, and he’s telling us to take a two-week holiday!

By the way, any comments about my initial points above? --Merbabu (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

My initial response would be that I think Eno is referring to the initial time he spent in Berlin and the time he then spent in Dublin. In fact, I think a lot of what he is saying mirrors what happened with "One". Take a look at that article - I put a lot of information from "The Stories Behind Every U2 Song" in there. I'll quote a passage from "One" that I wrote:

Following the song's initial improvisation, tapes of the recording sessions were delivered to producer Brian Eno in order to gather his input. The band were rather anxious about the quality of their material, but when Eno arrived in Berlin, they were surprised to hear that he liked most of the tapes. However, as Bono recalls, Eno said, "There's just one song I really despise, and that's 'One'." Eno felt that they needed to deconstruct the song.

The band returned to Dublin in 1991 to record at the "Elsinore" mansion on the Dalkey coastline. The band continued to work on the song there, adding various overdubs, but not finding a mix they were satisfied with. The Edge thought that they had the foundation for the song, but that it needed "foreground". Eno interceded and created his own mix, which gave the band a better idea of an arrangement they liked. Eno wanted the band to remove the melancholy elements of the song and persuaded them to remove the acoustic guitar from the song. Eno also worked with Lanois and Edge to "undermine the 'too beautiful' feeling", which is why the "crying guitar parts that have an aggression to them" were added.

So, what I'm reading from the passages you just posted here is that Eno worked briefly with the band in Berlin, then when he joined them months later in Dublin, he heard some of the stuff they had worked on from both locations and like "One", found there were too many overdubs. And his attempts to remove these overdubs helped influence the direction the album went in after that. What do you think? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly plausible, and it is OK to connect dots that are there, but the above is almost like connecting the dots by adding dots if you know what I mean. I'm now wondering whether we're just getting bogged down in too much detail. I certainly think this is too much:

Before they left Berlin, Eno visited to give his feedback on session tapes that had been sent to him. They were pleased to find he liked most of the material, although he thought further work on "One" was needed.[18]

...but it makes me question whether the other stuff I added last night and we are now discussing is really all that valuable. And, it looks like there are some more important issues to deal with with regards to Fair use of images and sound samples.--Merbabu (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Tony1/How to improve your writing

Have you seen this? It helped me immensely when I was re-writing both U2 and Indonesia (which got FA). regards --Merbabu (talk) 07:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Mo

Sorry about that! I meant to type in my reason for removal but my internet connection got wonky on me. It's there now. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

His Band and the Street Choir

Hi, I noticed you'd made some very helpful edits to this article on headings and subheadings. I was wondering if you could suggest a good place in the article and title for a section about Van Morrison and his wife's opinions about the album. Thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean her opinion on the completed album? Whenever she gave her opinion in relation to writing/recording/release will probably dictate where it's best fit to go. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Van and Janet gave their opinions about the album after its release, so would that mean a new release section be written? And would that go after or before the packaging section? Thanks for your help Kitchen roll (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I'd put it, actually. There are quite a few subsections under "Release and Aftermatch". If I were you, I'd try to flesh some of those sections out so that they can stand on their own, perhaps so that "Packaging", "Release", and "Critical reception" are their own top-level headings (in which case, I'd put Van and Janet's opinions of the completed record under just "Release"). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah this is really kind of confuzing, because I've just been advised to add the "packaging" section under "release and aftermath" heading as well. I'm dubious on splitting the "Critical response" and "Reception" sections up because they follow on from each other. I'll see what info. I can find to bulk those sections up and make it easier to understand heading wise. There's more info. at Wikipedia:Peer review/His Band and the Street Choir/archive1 about user's opinions about headings on the article there if you want to have a look at that. Once again thanks for your advice Kitchen roll (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Achtung Baby

Yeah, I've got the Guinness Book, but I've now got the more up to date Virgin Book of British Hit Albums. Achtung Baby is confirmed at #2 in it and the full cite is:

Roach, Martin, ed (2009). The Virgin Book of British Hit Albums. Virgin Books. p. 284. ISBN 978-0-7535-1700-0

Good luck with the FAC. --JD554 (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No problems if you need anything verifying. Unfortunately I don't get chance to edit very much at the moment, so don't be surprised if it takes me a few weeks to reply to any request. --JD554 (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Please mark minor edits as minor edits

Hi, joker

I've been watching your work on the Achtung Baby article for some time now. It's fascinating to see how it develops. What is not so fascinating (rather annoying, in fact) is seeing what looks like a serious, important edit (which finally loads in my browser) that turns out to be an addition of a comma or some trivial thing.

Would you please use the "This is a minor edit" checkbox (right above the Save page button) for such edits? It would help all of us who want to filter our Watchlists for just the substantial edits.

Thanks! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. I'll start using the "minor edits" checkbox. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

And thanks one last time: I like they way you're doing things now. Cheers! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Composition on "Zoo Station" and "Moment of Surrender"

Hmm, I'll try but I don't actually read music all that well to be honest. I was able to find the very beginning of stuff on MusicNotes (Suede67 provided me with the information), and then asked for help from people on the atu2 forum and YouTube. Some people knew the song's composition from the Hal Leonard HTDAAB books, so I was able to get the information from there. I don't know if you have MusicNotes or not (the software is free but the sheet music requires purchase), but the MoS page is here. The information between the two seems to be the same, so the Hal Leonard book could be cited in addition to the MusicNotes software. I'm sorry I can't be of more help, but I really am abysmal at reading music; I don't have anything beyond a mandatory eighth grade music class, and I never learned to read keys or anything. Sorry. I will take a look at "Zoo Station" and see if it's too technical though; that at least I can do! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 21:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for that about the "City of Blinding Lights" article; as soon as the peer review is finished (hopefully not much longer) I aim to put it up at FAC. With luck it will succeed where No Line on the Horizon has failed! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 22:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like MusicNotes (which for U2 seems to use the Hal Leonard guides) has nothing for "Zoo Station". I'm just checking the "Moment of Surrender" page out now; I'll only be able to get the first sheet, but it'll at least give the time signature and speed. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 22:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Just finished going over "Zoo Station" and I've gotta say; from the perspective of someone who has very little comprehension of musical terms/language, it doesn't seem too technical at all. I think that you explained all the effects perfectly and it reads very well. And for those that aren't as familiar with the song as us, you picked the perfect sound sample to help illustrate the text. Very good job with all of that! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 06:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images, however, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically File:Motorola-droid.jpg, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. Please note that we take very seriously our criteria on non-free image uploads and users who repeatedly upload or misuse non-free images may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thanks for the picture of the Motorola Droid, in order to reduce infringing on others copyrighted works we try to take pictures of phones either with the screen off like in This article or showing a screenshot of wikipedia andyzweb (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll reupload a photo with a screenshot of Wikipedia and then remove the delete messages from the image, if that's OK. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 05:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"Zoo Station"

One thing that I notice the article is missing is an image. Maybe one of the U1 line station or Berlin Zoologischer Garten railway station would work, since it's mentioned in the article that it was an inspiration for the song. Just an idea. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 22:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, good suggestion. I'll add an image from either one of those articles. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 05:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sarajevo reconciliation

Looks like you did a great job in reconciling our two versions of the articles. It looks lke you were able to find some good stuff on the events leading up to the war too; I was having trouble finding any so I'm really glad that you were able to! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I couldn't believe we were adding the same information at almost the exact same time! Go figure. =P Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk about a pretty big coincidence, eh? You must have been really ticked when you saw that edit conflict notice after all that work; I know I usually am! It's definitely looking really good already. I don't think it will be too long until we'll be able to move it into article space. Have you any thoughts for a name? I bolded "U2's PopMart concert in Sarajevo" as a placeholder more than anything else. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I would think something like "1997 U2 concert in Sarajevo" would be a good title. And yes, I was just a wee bit ticked when I saw the edit conflict, haha. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I think that I'm done with this article for the night. I'll see if I can pump my way through the news archives I have available through my University's library in the morning for anything on Reception/Reaction, but this late at night I'm liable to miss anything important! And you're right, I did miss a word in that quote. Eep. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 06:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you worked on expanding the lead quite a bit too; nice work! I think I'm going to replace the ticket image with an actual poster advertising the show that I found, and maybe moving the ticket image down to the concert section unless any live images can be found on Commons on Flickr. I'll see if I can craft a DYK entry too. So, how do you think we did overall on creating the article? Think we've gone above and beyond WP:N? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we pretty much established notability. Lots of efforts were made by political powers to make it happen and many exceptions to policies/infrastructure were temporarily allowed to permit the concert to happen. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, DYK nomination made. I guess I've got only one question left regarding the article; where the heck do we fit it on the template? =P MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

On a different note, do you think we should add some PopMart pics into the setlist section? There aren't any from Commons or Flickr that I could find, but Commons does have a reasonable collection of images from a concert 3 days prior to Sarajevo which could potentially be used in a pinch. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 06:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

PopMart pics from other concerts would certainly be helpful in illustrating what the Sarajevo concert looked like from a staging point of view. So yeah, I'd go ahead and add those pictures and then just add a caption along the lines of "The concert utilised the PopMart stage set, as shown in a concert three days prior." Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 06:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I've added a couple of images and shifted a few quote boxes and such around; see what you think about it. And now I'm off to bed. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 07:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello U2 person

Any chance you might be getting Boy and War ready for FAC in the near future? Cos I would help and more. RB88 (T) 19:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to start expanding all of the album articles in the near future. Right now, I'm looking to get Achtung Baby through FAC (will nominate it again soon enough) and I'd like to improve The Joshua Tree and Zoo TV Tour. But yes, I'd like to work on those albums as well, as they are under-represented in their respective articles. I will let you know when I start focusing on them. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, do let me know. Also with the sourcing on any other ones you plan to put up at FAC. I might be crazy busy soon, but if you're doing Boy and War in the summer, I'd be up for it. RB88 (T) 20:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"City of Blinding Lights" FAC

I hate to do this to you, but could you revisit the FAC page and "check" that I've addressed your concern? I've seen too many FAC's be closed because people never struck out their comments, and I'd hate to see it done to this one too, especially since I get the feeling that it will be closed within the next few days (probably as a "not promoted", though that's more down to the lack of reviews than anything else). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 05:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Cheers mate. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 06:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I hope you can actually get some reviewers so the nomination doesn't just die. The article is very well-done. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm really starting to doubt it; FAC noms are generally open for about two weeks, and "City" is starting to get pretty close to that cut-off point (I think there's maybe 3 or 4 days left). None of the U2 articles seem to attract that much interest from the usual FAC reviewers (as the two previous No Line noms can prove), and short of the notes I posted on Talk:U2 and WT:SONGS I'm not sure what else I can do without it turning into vote shopping. It's frustrating, but there are no issues with the article that I've seen; some minor sourcing concerns are pretty much it and they were done inside half an hour. I guess if it fails I'll just have to renom after a week or so and hope that my luck will be better that time around. Maybe I'll give No Line another go first to give the people who did look at it a brief break. Eh, well, whatever happens will happen I suppose. In the meantime as we await a result, here's a video for you. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 06:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Motorola-droid.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Motorola-droid.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Fair use rationale for File:Stunts-and-effects.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Stunts-and-effects.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Time-commando.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Time-commando.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Lego-island.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Lego-island.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Talkboy.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Talkboy.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Fair use rationale for File:Griffey-jr-mlb-cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Griffey-jr-mlb-cover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Mlb2k7-screen.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Mlb2k7-screen.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Licensing

Because wikipedia is CC-BY-SA 3.0 you need to release the image under the same. not public domain. I've updated that license for you on File:Motorola-droid.jpg--Crossmr (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Licensing is something I am completely unknowledgeable about. I appreciate the help. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Achtung Baby

You may want to keep an eye on the article over the next little while. Some rumours are starting, thanks to a Belgian website, that a remaster is due out in early September. Something to watch out for before it's announced, if it's true. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

[3] --Merbabu (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)