User talk:Y2kcrazyjoker4/Archive 10

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

I believe the reference should go back to the 2003 citation. Although I know the online list has been updated to the 2012 listing, the placement of Boy was unchanged as was the citation text, and the web page makes no reference to either the 2003 or 2012 versions of the list. So the original citation was in 2003, which was published in that year. Furthermore, your edit implies that it was added to the list in 2012 and a reader would not know that it was actually placed there in 2003 and would be unaware of any significance you mean to impart to its having remained on the list in the same position for 9 years.

If you think it should reference the 2012 placement, you still need to reference the original placement, which was the original cite made by the article. And the cite should be to the original magazine article in any case, which is more significant.

Thanks -- J. Wong (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does your comment at WP:TFA/R#Nonspecific date 1 constitute an oppose !vote or merely a comment? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Y2kcrazyjoker4. I reverted your good-faith edit to Manhunter (film) as it seemed to be a simple misunderstanding. Block quotes, which should have a transparent background, are those which stay in line with the article's prose, and are generated by using <blockquote>TEXT</blockquote>. The result is something like this:

I only mention it because sometimes there's a man... I won't say a hero, 'cause, what's a hero? But sometimes, there's a man. And I'm talkin' about the Dude here. Sometimes, there's a man, well, he's the man for his time and place. He fits right in there. And that's the Dude, in Los Angeles. And even if he's a lazy man—and the Dude was most certainly that. Quite possibly the laziest in Los Angeles County, which would place him high in the runnin' for laziest worldwide. But sometimes there's a man, sometimes, there's a man. Aw. I lost my train of thought here. But... aw, hell. I've done introduced him enough.

Keeping the background clear means that it doesn't disrupt flow in the article as block quotes are intended to be used as part of said prose. However, a quote box is more of an ornamental thing, boxed off to one side much in the manner of an image; a degree of colour there is useful to enforce their role in breaking up large portions of text, again in the same way as an image would. Given that Manhunter is light on images I felt that retaining the little flash of colour as important to keep the text from seeming too dense. I've clearly rambled on too much here, but I figured it was more explaining than I could manage in an edit summary. GRAPPLE X 19:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Y2kcrazyjoker4! I was just wondering whether you could help review the 20–20–20 club list I nominated for FL. I understand that you're probably busy, so there's no need to commit to anything and take as long as you need (as I nominated the list less than a week ago). A quick scan through would be great. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've already exceeded 3RR on Joe Paterno today. I agreed with one of the reverts you made -- but even so, I suggest not editing the article again for a while. thanks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of edit warring, please discuss proposed changes to the Joe Paterno article on its talk page [1], per WP policy. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you felt too much was devoted to other Sox players? Anyways, I've changed the wording and also added a ref as one was not there before. Zepppep (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way you had it written, the other Sox players making the All-Star team was irrelevant to Adam Dunn's article. That info should be in the 2012 Chicago White Sox season article. The way you summarized he was one of 4 players is much better. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind I wasn't the original one to mention the 3 other players. I just felt it was misleading to lump all 4 of them into being chosen by their peers; heck, Peavy didn't even win the Final Vote. I was even hesitant editing it to the point I had, because I too was thinking the list was getting a little long and off subject. If readers want to find out who the other 3 are, that's what links are for -- or so I feel. Zepppep (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part I've stayed out of the infobox discussion so far, but I am interested in participating in the vote. However, I'm a little unclear on one thing: To pick any of the categories as an example, the All-Star selection seems to indicate that a player must have been selected 14 times to have it listed in the infobox. Is that correct or is it actually that the 14 is the limit? That may be a stupid question, but I just wanted to make sure. AutomaticStrikeout 23:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The text is just an example. There is no quantity cut off. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 04:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. Thank you for the explanation. AutomaticStrikeout 16:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, TBrandley 13:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this change, it's a fact well established in the article. Although I couldn't find any reference in the article to RS ranking it the 4th best album of the 90s. Perhaps a revert plus the addition of the RS rank is in order? --Merbabu (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC) PS - if not a revert, then a reword? --Merbabu (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a preference one way or the other. I'm not sure if we need the most acclaimed record of the 90s part, but certainly it being ranked among rock's great albums should be in the lead to reflect the legacy section. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 02:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following me even onto non-U2 pages to revert my bid to make these pages read a little less like a fansite. I've commented on the relevant album talk pages. Especially when you look at quite how many WP album pages make boasts like this, you realise quite how meaningless these phrases are. On Achtung Baby, it looks as if we could both live with losing the first half of the sentence but keeping the second. N-HH talk/edits 09:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your concern. However, in the case you are worried about, it would be strange to refer to someone as "fifth highest" as opposed to the "fifth person to ever lead" or "fifth person to hold the record".—Bagumba (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it would definitely be strange to read it that way, but I could definitely see someone doing that, particularly when talking about statistics and ever-changing leaders in those categories. The rules for hyphen use seem to be flexible enough that they would permit it, but flexible enough to allow it to be ommitted, too. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing your perspective, I'm not enough of an expert to insist on removing the hyphen in this case.—Bagumba (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Y2kcrazyjoker4, I saw you have been improving the article Nexus 7 ever since it was moved from my sandbox. Since you are a major contributor to the article, I want to know if you see any flaws within the article (significant exclusions of info, etc) that need to be addressed. I also request that you be my FAC co-nom in the near future, because you have made significant alterations to the article. Cheers, and have a great day. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few things I didn't see in the article - first, the description of the rubberized pockmarked back that many critics loved - and second, the reports of some issues with the LCD display requiring returns. With that said, I think the article is pretty comprehensive at this point and I would love to help you as a co-nominator, but it might be worth waiting until the article is a bit more stable. Several competing products will be released in the coming weeks, and we don't yet have sales figures for the Nexus 7, so much of the article may still change. Hope that helps. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you work on the rubberized back, while I work on the display issues. That'd speed things up, the article would settle more quickly, and hopefully we'll nominate the article for FA sooner. Thanks for the comment; cheers. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done with the LCD display issues -- I'll just wait for you now, unless you want me to work on it myself. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 05:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll get the info about the pockmarked back added at some point this week. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 12:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the PR is almost over, the FAC is getting closer. Do you have any last-minute concerns? If the answer is no, please get ready :) --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't think that enough time has passed to nominate it for FAC. The device has been on the market for 8 weeks, and the article is probably not stable enough at present to make it through the nomination process. Let's see how the device plays out with consumers or wait until some actual sales figures are released. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 00:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so, let's wait a few weeks. But it doesn't look like sales figures will be released as Google did not release such figures about the Galaxy Nexus. Thoughts? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As we let the article settle down for several weeks, are you interested in working with me on a new article? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the article - my availability and potential unfamilarity with the subject might make that difficult. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 12:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Harry Houdini (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Magician

Kelen Coleman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bluegrass

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you were insisting for a citation in your decision,why do you make precarious changes like this then? & I've seen the other one you did in Rooster as well,both without citation nor properly explained. Bloomgloom talk 13:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The changes you are making have been consistently uncited (or not backed up by the reference) or against the consensus/status quo of the article. My "Rooster" edit was my mistake, I thought I was reverting a change by you. In any case, I would recommend reading User:Realist2/Genre Warrior. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was reverting a change by you,That's pretty lame it's quite clear that you intentionally edited this & the previous edit by the relative IP is not mine either. Bloomgloom talk 15:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the improved Hendrix photo. It's great and the article sorely needed it. Evenrød (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, glad I could help. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 12:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well,yea its not exactly psychedelic & I won't push it further,but there is a term known as 'heavy psych' applied for fuzzy stoner bands like Clutch,Monster Magnet & many other bands originated from Palm desert,CA.And 'BGWTB' is a very much stoner rock-ish album,what do you think personally? Bloomgloom talk 06:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to tell you if you didn't know already your Jimi Hendrix and John Lennon pictures are nominated for deletion. I don't know if you got the message or not. But I think those photos are great, and it would be a shame if they got deleted. You can discuss the matter by going to the two picture files and clicking on the nomination for deletion box discussion. PositivelyJordan (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that - I don't know Dutch, so I can't truly decipher the copyright status of the archive's images aside from reading the Google Translation. Hopefully, those more informed than me will be able to save the pics. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 12:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2012 Green Bay Packers–Seattle Seahawks game is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Green Bay Packers–Seattle Seahawks game until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 19:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's an AFD regarding Lance Easley going on right now that relates to the Seattle-Green Bay game here. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Straight from the NFL statement: "While the ball is in the air, Tate can be seen shoving Green Bay cornerback Sam Shields to the ground. This should have been a penalty for offensive pass interference, which would have ended the game."

Well, of course it would have ended the game. It was the last play of the game, and was not a defensive pass interference penalty (which would have resulted in an untimed down). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 04:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 04:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nexus 7, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i'm the user who has been reverting you edits in the Muse band article, you want to remove the genre progressive metal, and actually metal, because you say that there aren't enough sources, however the problem i have with you is not that i can't found sources, the problem i have with you is that when i go to muse's talkpage: [2] there is a discussion about adding or not adding the genre progressive metal that shows that it, in fact has 10 sources backing it up (plus two that i've found by myself), and you comented in that discussion, you are aware that there are numerous sources to add prog metal, but now, you are removing it saying that it isn't notable ignoring the discussion in the talkpage in wich you participed, I don't know, but to me this looks as if you are acting in harassive way. Invited (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... As you did on iPad mini. The cellular data information is very relevant, so please reformat rather than remove it if you object to its presentation. Thanks. T. trichiura Infect me 18:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to do the neutral notice thing. There is a discussion at the above about the plot for Arkham City for the current one versus a substantially different one. It's a case of 1 stance vs another so it won't go anywhere alone so your input is requested if you have any interest. Thanks for reading. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hello. How are you. Not sure what your issue is with that size matter. What you did though was totally unwarranted, and you gave no explanation for it.

The size readjust was not done willy nilly, but to make it fit better in that section. You reverted WITH NO EXPLANATION, against WP policy.

The size re-adjustment was done for a reason. It fits now in the section, without spilling over into the next one. So what's the problem, sir? Please leave the edit alone.

I meant well. And the re-sizing was arguably needed. It's encouraged by Wikipedia to try to fit images in subsections, so that they don't spill over into other sections, making it look out of place and disorderly.

So, to be frank, you disrespected by good-faith adjustment for NO reason at all, except "you don't like"...again, against WP policy. You didn't explain anything really. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took the time to communicate to you, and instead addressing anything now, you just rudely revert, with no explanation yet again. Please stop edit-warring.

Sir, the point is the edit was good faith and you give NO explanation for reverting...you're in violation.

I told you why I readjusted the image. Why are you so against fitting the image better in the section, so that it does not look sloppy going over into the other section? The point is that you had NO WP VALID RIGHT to revert it simply because "you don't like"...

The WP policy is that images CAN be readjusted according to text and according to preferences.

"should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences)"

and

"enough to reveal relevant details without overwhelming the surrounding article text."

There are other things too.

But regardless, what is wrong with trying to fit image more into the section, so that the image does not spill over into other sections?

Why do you have such a problem with that? You want that mini-tablet image to be shown larger I guess. It would be fine IF THAT PARTICULAR SECTION WAS BIGGER. But it's not. But that's all I was trying to do. Why are you so against it? Gabby Merger (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to resize the image. It's not overbearing in size - the upright parameter specifically fits it to a width appropriate for the image's dimensions. The image's size should not be dependent on the amount of prose in the section - if you think the section is too small, then more prose should be added to account for this. The only reason I can think of to resize an image that small is if it is a logo that does not need to take up so much space. On the contrary, this image gives good perspective on the relative size of the tablet compared to a user's hand, and shrinking it does not improve the reader's ability to understand the topic. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 04:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I actually agree in a way that the other size before that was better...and I never would have reduced the size if the section that the pic is in was a bit longer. The problem (and this is not just my own whim or feeling, but something that's been discussed and suggested in WP for years now) that spill-over into other sections is not the best, though not necessarily wrong per se, but it's preferred (for obvious and logical reasons) that the image where the section belongs to DOES NOT get into other sections, because of size. So yes, in a way, this "Mini tablet" section could be longer. And maybe it will be elaborated upon.

But I'm not sure why the shrunken size took so much away from the proportion-to-hand thing that you're talking about. You can still see the hand in the smaller size of the image. But anyway, to re-iterate, I only did the size reduction because of the section size issue, not for willy nilly reasons out of nowhere. I would have left it alone if the section was bigger. And if there was no annoying spill-over. That's all I'm saying. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 04:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Psychedelic Pill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cinnamon Girl (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note you have reinstated your edit to Motörhead's genres, with the edit summary "this is not the way genres are supposed to be written for one, and secondly, "rock and roll" is not backed up by the reference

I agree that the capitalization was incorrect; as Template:Infobox_musical_artist#genre states:- most genres are not proper nouns and should not be capitalized. However, the first word in a list of multiple genres should be capitalized.

However, I am confused by your statement "secondly, "rock and roll" is not backed up by the reference" as there is no reference attached to the genres, whereas there are 96 to the article.

Motörhead's genres are frequently changed, which is why there is the warning in hidden text, not to change them without discussion. There has been much discussion on the talk page, including several references to "rock and roll". To quote just one reference [3] "The music is exactly what you'd expect. We're pretty much set in our ways," Kilmister said. "It's straight-ahead rock ‘n' roll. It is not heavy metal."

Arjayay (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a hidden comment directly before the genres in the infobox that is a link to the band's Allmusic entry, with no mention of "rock and roll" as a genre. I also would like to point out that the "rock n' roll" colloquialism that is used to refer to the rock star lifestyle/attitude is not synonymous with the rock and roll genre that originated in the 50's with music like Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, and Elvis Presley. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I missed the hidden comment, but Allmusic are not the arbiters of these things, and, as shown in the reference above, Lemmy was not referring to the life-style, but the music. If you have ever seen Motörhead, you probably heard Lemmy's standard introduction "We are Motörhead and we play rock and roll" Arjayay (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for The Killers being in the genre of heartland rock? We should only place genres in the infoboxes of band articles that are sourced, otherwise it can lead to edit warring over editors' subjective thoughts on genres. Angryapathy (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The band is no stranger to the "heartland" descriptor.... [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:U360-at-the-rose-bowl-cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Y2kcrazyjoker4, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Daddy's Gonna Pay for Your Crashed Car (U2 song), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A10 wouldn't apply to a good faith expansion compared to a redirect. Especially not if there are possibilities to merge. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. And why would you remove the links if you see potential for an article?[9] Tikiwont (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, I don't think there are expansion opportunities. The songs are non-notable and currently just duplicated info from the album article (except for live performance info). I don't see why a separate topic is needed for the songs when there are articles that already exist for them and already have an editing history (as it stands they are redirects but at one time did have content). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair argument but somewhat different from what A10 is about not least because it has a redirect clause. If the songs are still not deemed notable enough the answer might then be to redirect the new creations as well. To facilitate things I'll do the merge. Cheers--Tikiwont (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you can fix issues that I raised in article talk page. --George Ho (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Layla/archive2. --George Ho (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Holding My Own (The Darkness song) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Scorpions

Hot Cakes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dan Hawkins

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nexus 7 is a nice device I own one, but it has firmware issues. People should know , if you have a nexus 7 drain it your self and see the pain people are seeing.

Wilee (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a Nexus 7 and have had no issues. Google has made no comment about the issue, nor is there any information available about how widespread the issue is. Thus, I don't think it warrants a mention in the article. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated this article again, it failed last time not through opposition but lack of interest. It's a quality article encompassing all the available information in a neat, presentable and interesting way, so I hope you can lend your voice to the discussion if you have the time. Thanks for reading. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of writing a challenge map section as we speak, just difficult to find sources for it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Gameplay reorg, wanted to do the same thing once the ref spot check was done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help. I posted on the article talk page about a few things I think would be valuable additions to the Gameplay section. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know if you're interested in the first game but I'm in the process of building up Batman: Arkham Asylum now, try and get that to FAC too, would appreciate your input. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'd be glad to help copyedit the article and point out any areas that need expansion. Work on the Asylum article may even benefit the City article if we come across items while working on the former that we want to incorporate into the latter. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment I've expanded it as much as I can and am trying to make sure everything is sourced so I don't end up in the situation I did with Arkham City, where pretty much every item of info added before I started working on it ended up being unsourced, I spent most of the FAC process just fixing that. Some of the gameplay still needs sourcing but not much, and I can't find any info on the comic really, and some of the awards. Other than that, the big thing will be copy editing and then formatting all the refs and archiving them properly. But definitely if any information you can think of that can be added or you know of, let me know/add it. It's a bit harder with this game because searching for "Batman: Arkham Asylum" will bring up either the graphic novel by Morrison or Arkham City articles where they mention Arkham Asylum. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have a question about the info you added to Arkham City a few months ago about it being sixth rated of all time. I was looking at the info to see if it was at all applicable to Asylum, but looking at the source, a version of Arkham City is third highest rated if I'm reading it correctly at 96, with only , am I misremembering your reasoning or is this not the correct source? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding the duplicate GTA4 entry (for a different console) from the Metacritic list, there are 5 unique games with ratings higher than 96. Thus any game with a score of 96 would be tied as the sixth-highest-rated game. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 00:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

Was just curious, why do you keep removing the Grouplove logo from the article's infobox. I apologize for restoring it multiple times without messaging you, I am just wondering if there is any other place in the article where the logo could work better. I feel that adding the logo to the article would help better represent the band Grouplove. Would love to hear your concerns.

Thanks, --Carmenshields (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per Template:Musical artist, an image of the artist is to be used in the image field. I don't know if the logo can be added elsewhere in the article, but generally unless it is a very famous, widely used logo, musical artist logos tend to be removed from articles because they are non-free content. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 03:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fast response! Will keep in mind, thought though since that is the official logo of the band and used on all of their album art that would be acceptable under fair use. Thanks. --Carmenshields (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Y2kcrazyjoker4. Re: our discussion here, I was hoping to get some clarification on my question. I read WP:OVERLINK but am still wondering why the links were not inserted earlier in the article instead of later? Any light you could shed would be appreciated. Best Robvanvee 10:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell you for certain, it may have just been an oversight on the part of the editors. Or perhaps the links were there and were at one time removed. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to apologise for my handling of a relatively minor disagreement with you over this article a few days ago. I'm not an habitual multiple reverter and am extremely embarrassed at having resorted to such behaviour. I disagreed with your interpretation and having had a bad day wasn't in the mood to enter into a sensible debate. Childish, and I apologise again for that. I shan't revert your edit again. FWIW, my take on it is that, along with many U2 followers, the reviewer saw Zooropa as the final flourish of the ideas and music that came out of the Achtung Baby sessions, Zooropa coming as it did as an extended EP in the midst of a tour to promote the previous album. From that viewpoint, the phrase "coda" would appear to make sense. Whether technically true or given one's individual interpretation of what the reviewer's ultimate viewpoint was, I thought that at least illustrating what is perhaps a less familiar term to some readers might be useful. Whatever, it's really not worth falling out over. I imagine that we will come into contact again at some point in the future and I hope that this episode doesn't adversely colour your opinion of me going forward. Best regards, danno_uk 00:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it. I wouldn't worry about it too much though. My only problem is that Zooropa doesn't fulfill the definition of "coda" as specified in coda (music) so much as it just fulfills the generic dictionary definition of "coda". Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! See Talk:Inception for a discussion about mentioning the nationality in the lead section. Since the nationality is disputed, at the very least we should not mention anything in the lead sentence. In absence of that, identifying the language is a proper cultural alternative. TheOldJacobite is another editor that endorses the use of this term. For example, Amour (2012 film) is a French-language film that has a mix of different underlying nationalities. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a related discussion at WT:MOSFILM#Nationality in lead sentence, if you're interested. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, I was not aware of that discussion. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind going back and changing all your "number one" to "No. 1" (or similar) for this article? You changed all of them, and this isn't correct when referring to chart positions, etc. I would normally gladly point you to proof of the matter, but the Manual of Styles have changed so much since this article became GA that it would be more a waste of my time hunting this down than anything. Besides, I opened up a query at WikiProject Albums MOS, but I doubt there'll be a response for a very long time. Thanks ahead of time. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree. I haven't seen any articles, songs or albums, pass through through the FAC process successfully using the abbreviation "No." instead of "number". Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 05:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, in that case, that's ok. There's a gap in consistency between GA and FA articles that are pretty noticeable. (Another one is citing websites: in GA, there've been discussions that approved listing example.com in the work parameter of a citation template, while FA wants those websites listed in the publisher parameter.) Are you intending on taking STP through the FA process? If you interested, I ran it through a peer review one or two years ago and it got some feedback. That's as far as I had time to take it, at the time. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough about the album to take it through the FAC process, unfortunately. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok. I see you've got some FAs under your belt. I tried it with a shorter article a few years ago, and the process wasn't what I expected. Every piece of criticism boiled down to "flow", and that's just the most abstract bit of advice I've ever heard. I get discouraged if I can't reach the top, so I stopped writing and moved into imaging. But I may try the FAC process again in the future. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just was reading some interview of you and another members of Wikiproject u2, and I saw that you were looking for new users to fill the list of members so they can help to increase the articles. I've been following U2 for almost 7 years, I'm now 18, so I'm sure I can help at least a little. So I need some answer. Please, reply to my talk page as soon as you reed this. Thank you and sorry for the bothers. kind regards.

@Miss Bono: MissBono (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This message is to inform you that Wikipedia:WikiProject U2 needs your input! Please join the discussion on the talk page!Miss Bono (talk) 12:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did you decide that it wasn't a genre? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's not listed in List of rock genres, nor does the arena rock article identify it as a genre. It's a performance style/marketing term/buzzword. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is precisely the case for cock rock as well. Both terms are used as broad-sweeping blanket statements to identify artists from multiple genres that satisfy certain criteria. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll discuss at the List of rock genres then. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Y2kcrazyjoker4, you have been making a very large number of edits around genres. Genres are often a source of disagreement on Wikipedia. I suggest the way forward is to consider basic Wikipedia policies around reliable sources and consensus. Perhaps it would be useful for you to seek some consensus on a project page before making so many changes, and considering what reliable sources say more. Bondegezou (talk) 09:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I need som response to the message for input the Wikiproject U2. Miss Bono (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I left you a message on Bono's talk. Miss Bono (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]