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

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.

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

]

Hello, Y2kcrazyjoker4. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.
Message added 13:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cheers,

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

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.

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]

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

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