User talk:Y2kcrazyjoker4/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Hi!

Hi how are you doing today? 113.210.99.81 (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Intelligent Personal Assistant Softwares listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Intelligent Personal Assistant Softwares. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Intelligent Personal Assistant Softwares redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC

Can you please vote or comment at Talk:Walking on Air (Katy Perry song)#RfC: genre infobox dispute involving the genre infobox dispute on the page? 2402:1980:8253:BB42:5C5C:5753:4E03:BA86 (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Genres

Hi. Regarding your edit (and its summary) on Patience (Tame Impala song), are you one of the editors who believe genres need to have articles before we can put them in the infobox? I know a number of editors on Wikipedia are of the opinion that having hyphenated genre combinations and linking both is somehow "incorrect" and that we shouldn't do it, but I've yet to see any consensus stating that we should not do so and I don't believe there is one. Many genre combinations are not going to have articles. So really, if Jimmio78 decides to restore "psych-disco", I don't think it should be re-reverted, or that it should be reverted on articles if there is no consensus/guideline stating that we should not do so. Thanks. Ss112 15:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Quotation marks on Let's Rock

Please participate on the talk page, and do not revert further per WP:BRD. I do not want any edit wars, so if it goes further, I will ask an admin to intervene. Thanks. Ss112 04:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced, undiscussed, unexplained genre changes

I know this will come as a shock to you, but unsourced, undiscussed, unexplained changes to genre, such as the one you made at Up & Up, are against Wikipedia's widely held consensus. As a new editor, you had no way to know this, but it is such a common problem that we have developed the term "genre warrior" to describe editors who continually make such changes. Eventually, such editors end up blocked from editing or facing editing restrictions after an annoying discussion of their behavior at WP:AN/I. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Where is it cited in the article? Answer: it's not. And Coldplay hasn't been considered an indie band in nearly 2 decades. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Unforgettable Fire (song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chord (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 14:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for all the work you did on “Let’s Rock”. I appreciate seeing someone besides myself doing work on new, high profile, guitar driven, rock articles. It looks good. Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. I hope some other people will contribute to the article soon enough to cover for the "blind spots" that I sometimes have. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

KFC

Hi! Y2kcrazyjoker4! Nice to meet you. on your edit summary ~ (→‎Controversies and criticism: Seriously, quadruple quotes?) ~ I have been around with other editors with only 2 quotes ~ them changing it to four ~ I'm like ~OK? ~ so if it be the correct way, I am more than happy to use only two quotes on coping from a RS ~ that has quoted other work. Lol ~ thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Matercrater101, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. SolarFlash (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Black Sabbath

Regarding your apparent willingness to edit war [1], initiating a discussion regarding any edit you disagree with is preferred and recommended. SolarFlash (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Three (U2 EP), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 45 RPM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Zoo TV Tour

Hi Y2k. I was reading WP:FADC today and noticed that there's only one entry for Feb 29 ... Zoo TV Tour. So, if the article is still in good shape, and if you want to run it at WP:TFA on a relevant date, we can only do that once every 4 years. There's nothing currently listed at WP:TFAP for Feb 29. - Dank (push to talk) 20:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dank: I think it's definitely in good enough shape to run. I'll look for some areas we can improve referencing or do some maintenance to ensure it's in tip-top shape by then. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 04:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Would you like for me to add it to the pending requests page for Feb 29? - Dank (push to talk) 04:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dank: Please do. Thanks. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Merry Merry!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Y2kcrazyjoker4, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 16:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Disambiguation link notification for December 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Search/Ten of Swords, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gaffer and Coverage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Shot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jump shot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm Yours (Jason Mraz song)

Hi @Y2kcrazyjoker4: Star Tribune review says "Mraz, well, he would never hurt you. That's been clear for years, but never more so than on his 2008 hit "I'm Yours," one of the most indelible pop songs of the last decade. "I'm Yours" found an unlikely counterpart in "Hey, Soul Sister," released the following year by the band Train. Both were expressions of fealty, and both indicated the continuing vitality of maligned soft rock."

The same description New York Times review "“I’m Yours” found an unlikely counterpart in “Hey, Soul Sister,” released the following year by the adult-contemporary rock band Train. Both were expressions of fealty, both used ukulele (or, at least, very tightly strung guitar), and both indicated the continuing vitality — if not originality — of soft rock, a genre maligned to the bones but stubborn."

The same staff writer recalls "both artists" and it's about Jason's and Train's artistry in music (I guess).

Sorry. I misread. The staff writer says "both used ukulele" and "both indicated the continuing vitality of maligned soft rock" refers to both songs. My apologies. 2402:1980:251:EF45:F6B9:A815:F476:62B1 (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Zoo TV Tour scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that Zoo TV Tour has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 29 February 2020. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 29, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I've taken a stab at writing the TFA blurb. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 00:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

That's around 1367 characters ... the upper limit is 1025, including roughly 30 characters for (pictured) (after Bono) and (Full article...). This is the character counter I use. Give it another shot. - Dank (push to talk) 00:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm certainly not done, so I'll keep working on it. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 00:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, no rush. - Dank (push to talk) 00:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

If your version was just over 1035, we should be able to get it down to 1025 ... it's important to keep it to 1025. Give it a shot. - Dank (push to talk) 02:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dank: What day will the TFA blurb be locked down? I haven't had a chance to follow up yet this week but still plan to make some final edits. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Sooner is better than later because other people may want to edit or discuss before the page is protected. It will be protected the first minute of the 28th. - Dank (push to talk) 18:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the last sentence of the blurb is sufficiently supported by the reception section, and generally, the Main Page and especially TFA tend to avoid any kind of "greatest in history" language. The fact that it was the third-highest grossing North American tour ever (at the time) is a tangible demonstration of the tour's success ... could we go with that instead? - Dank (push to talk) 02:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dank: Have you looked over the "Impact and legacy" section of the article? I think that will sufficiently support the last sentence of the blurb. If you think the sentence needs to be reworded, we can remove "in history". As it is, the sentence is simply saying it's memorable, without judgment about whether that's a good or bad thing. What do you think? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 04:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I have. More typical language for TFA would be that many critics have described the tour as [whatever they said], or that the tour has appeared on many critics' lists of [memorable or whatever] rock tours. Would something like that work? - Dank (push to talk) 04:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dank: Yeah, that would work. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dank: I saw your revision to the TFA. It sounds good except the use of the word "spectacle" is a bit repetitive with an earlier sentence that I edited. Do you have any alternatives you can propose? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 22:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Good point. No preference. - Dank (push to talk) 22:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Precious

U2

Thank you for quality articles, mostly about U2 and baseball, such as Zoo TV Tour, Achtung Baby and Mariano Rivera, beginning in 2006 with image and expand of Chasing Cars, for "It is a wiki, but it is also an encyclopedia", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2350 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the recognition, I appreciate it! Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

U2 Pride

The song is clearly alternative rock I can help find a source but please stop removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.134.185.1 (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Clearly. Because so many references supporting your view are easily located, you have to resort to Amazon retail product listings and music playlists. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 22:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Astros sign stealing scandal

I think your latest version is the best one so far. Thanks for working with me on that. Dennis Osmosis (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Table captions

Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Tables. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Important notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Newslinger talk 01:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Houston Astros sign stealing scandal

Hey Y2kcrazyjoker4, hope you are well. Have you thought of bringing Houston Astros sign stealing scandal to WP:GAN? You are one of the significant contributors and seems well-written and sourced correctly. I'm currently going through the references to add archive links but overall it's a very readable article. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@LuK3: I definitely think this would be a good article to nominate for GAN... eventually. I think right now, we need to allow for a little more time to pass, to make sure there aren't any other developments, or any other revelations of sign stealing (from the Astros or any other team) that would be relevant. There hasn't been a single MLB game played since the scandal broke, so there's a potential for a lot of relevant things to play out: observing if Astros players get hit by pitches in the regular season, observing how the team fares post-scandal, observing if 'quarantined' playing locations due to COVID-19 has any impact on sign stealing. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 03:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

At this rate I'm not sure if there will be any baseball this season but we will see. I'll definitely keep an eye out on it. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

"Dammit chloe" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Dammit chloe. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 12#Dammit chloe until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Stunts-and-effects.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Stunts-and-effects.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Whitey Ford

On 9 October 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Whitey Ford, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 21:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

LeBron James as the GOAT

Hi, Y2kcrazyjoker4. Like I stated before elsewhere, the reason James is often compared to Jordan is because James is often discussed as the greatest. It's not because he's one of the greatest. Otherwise, many others would be frequently compared to Jordan. That it's common for James to be discussed in the context of the greatest also belongs in the lead and is part of his legacy. It's a part of the Legacy section. It's WP:Lead material. As seen at Talk:LeBron James/Archive 5#Status as "greatest ever", how to relay the matter in the lead has been extensively discussed and an approach (a less contentious one than what was there before) was finally settled on.

I split the piece back into sentences like it was before. The one-sentence version that you edited was recent. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Frozen: I've read your post multiple times and I'm still not sure I understand what you are talking about. The two sentences are extremely redundant, especially for the lead, where prose should be rather concise (particularly the 2nd and 3rd sentences). The current version you reverted to says "He is widely considered to be one of the greatest basketball players in NBA history. Discussions ranking him as the greatest basketball player of all time have often been subject to significant debate"... Does this not seem like an extremely long-winded way of saying he is ranked by many as one of greatest players, if not the greatest? It's pretty self-evident that discussions about the greatest players in any sport will be "subject to significant debate", so it really does not offer much value to the reader to say this in the 2nd and 3rd sentences of the lead. Why does it need to be any more complicated than "He is widely considered to be one of the greatest basketball players in NBA history, with frequent comparisons to Michael Jordan".?? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, Y2kcrazyjoker4. No need to ping me. I check back for replies when commenting on a talk page.

Being considered "one of the greatest" and "the greatest" are obviously two different things. Therefore, not redundant. There are many basketball players who are considered to be one of the greatest, but only a few are considered the greatest. And when it comes to the GOAT debate specifically, it is primarily focused on/almost always about Jordan vs. James. Saying that "[James] is widely considered to be one of the greatest basketball players in NBA history, with frequent comparisons to Michael Jordan" fails to acknowledge that James is often considered the greatest basketball player in NBA history, not just one of the greatest, and makes it seem that he is only frequently compared to Jordan because he is one of the greatest. Many NBA players have been compared to Jordan. Kobe Bryant was frequently compared Jordan. But as many sources make clear, the GOAT debate regarding basketball is mainly about James vs. Jordan. It's James who consistently ranks second behind Jordan. And this debate has started up again because James just won his fourth ring. It's a controversial, ongoing debate. It is a significant part of James's legacy. The Legacy section addresses James being considered one of the greatest and the debate regarding whether he is the greatest. WP:Lead states, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. [...] As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." That is why the GOAT material specifically belongs in the lead.

Before I even tried different wordings to relay the "one of the greatest" and "the greatest" aspects, the lead stated, "Often considered the best basketball player in the world and regarded by some as the greatest player of all time [...]." That is seen with this "22:58, 12 January 2019" version of the article, where I made my first edit to the article. The edit, as is clear by my edit summary, was made only to fix a quotation marks style. That version of the lead used the WP:Weasel wording "some" regarding "the greatest player of all time." It also had citation overkill going on just to support the sentence. As seen at Talk:LeBron James/Archive 5#Removal of "Greatest play of all time" acclimation from intro?, editors' biases caused them to not even want it acknowledged in the lead that James is considered the greatest and to remove that aspect. After complaints, I re-added the piece, but with a simple sentence: "He is regarded by some as the greatest player of all time." I then changed it to "He is often regarded as the greatest basketball player of all time." This didn't sit well with those who still see Jordan as the greatest, so I ended up changing it to "Often compared to Michael Jordan for title of the greatest basketball player of all time [...]." But, as seen at Talk:LeBron James/Archive 5#Removing Michael Jordan from Lebron's introduction - phrasing of sentence for GOAT, this didn't sit well with one editor. So we agreed to change it to "James is often regarded as the greatest basketball player of all time, which has resulted in frequent comparisons to Michael Jordan." But this is wording I'd used before; someone had objected to it before. So I knew it would be an issue again. After commentary from someone about sourcing, I added six references in a WP:CITEBUNDLE to support the sentence. It also took care of the citation overkill being directly visible. This is noted at Talk:LeBron James/Archive 5#Status as "greatest ever", the discussion I pointed you to above. That discussion led to the current wording. Having it as one sentence doesn't work as well since a few editors (you included) consider it too wordy. So I split it into two sentences, and that was stable until recently.

Per what I stated above, it's important to note (in some way) in the lead that James is often considered the greatest NBA player of all-time. And editors will complain and/or add it to the lead if it's not there. But if we just leave it at that, people edit war over it a lot because they feel that it contradicts the lead of the Michael Jordan article or specifically contradicts Jordan widely being considered the greatest NBA player of all-time. As seen above, multiple different wordings have been tried...to combat the edit warring and satisfy readers and/or editors, but no wording is going to satisfy everyone. Despite the "no wording is going to satisfy everyone" factor, I'll try to think of yet another way to reword the matter. But like I stated before, "I'm not going to keep trying different wording, though. Eventually, editors will need to just accept what the sources state and with due weight." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't really want to get dragged into this debate or a wordsmithing war, I just think the language that has been used in these sentences is very wordy and gives undue weight to the debate over the best player. The first few sentences of the lead really should not be the place to get into such detail, but rather to establish the context of the subject (e.g. how long as the person played, for whom has he played, etc). I've made a change to the article that hopefully works for all. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The first few sentences should capture why he is notable. That he's so often considered the greatest basketball player in NBA history is a part of that. That's why it belongs early in the lead before getting into his accomplishments. Same goes for the Jordan article. It's standard to note something as significant as that with regard to a person's legacy and then get into the accomplishments speaking to that. See, for example, the Kanye West article.

Anyway, as seen here, I very much appreciate your latest copyedit to that piece. Thanks again. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Boy (U2)

Could you provide and retranscript the exact quote for "unorthodox production technique" like recording smashed bottles? I suspect wp:original research. Thanks. If it comes from U2's book, this is biaised auto-promotion. Citing a band complimenting themselves is not encyclopedic. Iennes (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your work on 2021 storming of the United States Capitol - I've been dipping in and out of it over the past couple of days, and it reminded me of why I hate editing current events articles so much. I have massive respect for anyone who has the patience to keep at it the way you have. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)(UTC)

“Pelosi's was merely one” occupied office, you say

The Speaker is the second most powerful person in America. That kinda makes a difference. A really big difference. soibangla (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

One lawmaker on CNN said every office door in one hallway had been busted in and that his laptop had been stolen from his office. Why are we singling out one lawmaker and one office, because of a picture of a rioter putting his feet on her desk? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Y2kcrazyjoker4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is absolutely ridiculous. I don't even receive a warning about being blocked? I surely hope for the sake of consistency you banned everyone else who has been working on the article. People on that article's talk page put forward suggestions of better images to use, and per WP: BEBOLD, I added them to the article, only to be have less experienced editors revert to much poorer images. Hasty actions like this block will absolutely disenfranchise the few veteran editors still left from contributing to current events articles. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There is no requirement for warnings, if it is felt immediate action is needed to stop the problem found. As a veteran editor, it is incumbent upon you to not bite newcomers and edit war with them, instead attempting to discuss things with them so that they learn what it takes to be a veteran editor like yourself. I don't think anyone feels you are a bad person here, but when editing in controversial areas like American politics it's important for everyone to be their best. 331dot (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Disregarding talk page?

With this revert, you have apparently decided that the "new wording" is "not an improvement". Do you understand the motivation behind the new wording? You did not comment in the "Why Pelosi" section of the talk page to try to address the concerns that the new wording was meant to address. I am sure there are multiple ways to get the idea across, but simply reverting to the old wording is also not an improvement.--Bhuck (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Super Bowl Half-Time Logo Ideas

@Y2kcrazyjoker4: Thank you so much for recreating the 2002 E-Trade Super Bowl Logo. It's pretty interesting that the logo is only visible during the press-conference. I found some more potential logos, such as the controversial Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show, as seen in this press conference.

If you don't mind, I went ahead and snooped for some more press-conference logos:

• Super Bowl XXXV
• Super Bowl XXVII.
• Super Bowl XLI (Video instead of Photos)

You are super awesome! Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 17:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Yoshiman6464: Thanks, I appreciate it! The 2002 halftime show logo was actually shown during certain television broadcasts, and what I ended up tracing over was a picture of the logo on a seat cushion. But yes, it was rather limited in its use. For these other Super Bowl halftime show logos, the images you provided are a good start, but I am hoping to find some other larger pictures to be able to recreate the logos accurately. If I find some, I'll let you know. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Y2kcrazyjoker4: That's perfect! Just as you messaged me, I found a much clearer version of the Super Bowl XLI half-time logo - albeit a 3D version shown just before Prince's performance. You can see it here Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 20:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Y2kcrazyjoker4: Update #2 - I was able to find a clearer logo for the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show. It appears as an on-screen bug in the beginning. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 14:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Bono update

Hello, Y2kcrazyjoker4! I am John Bowditch with Maverick, U2’s management company, and I want to be a resource for the Wikipedia community to assist with updates related to Bono according to Wikipedia's conflict of interest behavioral guideline and related best practices. I see you are a major contributor to articles related to U2, so I wonder if you have any suggestions for the best way to move forward with updates to "Philanthropy and activism" on the Bono article. You can see my specific questions on the Bono discussion page. JohnBowditch92 (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@JohnBowditch92: thanks for reaching out. I'll reply to your concerns on the talk page of the Bono article. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions)

Re: quotebox

My mistake. No big deal. isento (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 02:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2021 NBA All-Star Game logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2021 NBA All-Star Game logo.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

U2 main page: "Also known as"

Hello Y2kcrazyjoker4,

I made a previous edit (under a guest name) where the alias "Passengers (1995)" was placed under the "Also known as:" section. I believe this should be an edit that is kept. It was an alias that U2 used for their 1995 Album Original Soundtracks 1, and if you look up the song "Miss Sarajevo", it was officially written by Passengers, NOT U2. Whether or not it was because of legal jargon is irrelevant, it was the name they used in 1995.

Also, my favorite band Coldplay has an "also known as" section. They too released a side project album in 2018 called Global Citizen - EP 1 under the pseudonym "Los Unidades", and this can be clearly seen on their wikipedia page, linked here. In my opinion, I believe it is a pseudonym and should be on the main U2 page, especially if the Coldplay page has their pseudonym under the "Also known as" section. In other words, there has been a precedent set for another band's page of allowing pseudonyms on Wikipedia for the "Also known as" section.

Thank you. Gabe015 (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gabe015: your point is well taken, but I think there is a key discrepancy here. "Los Unidades" was used a pseudonym for the 4 members of Coldplay, whereas the Original Soundtracks I project was a collaboration between the members of U2 and Brian Eno, so it would be incorrect to say that Passengers was merely an alias for U2. It was an alias for the collaboration of U2 and Eno. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Spiral (Darkside album)

I see what's happening there, and I agree that your reverts are following Wikipedia's guidelines, but unexplained reverts are disruptive. so please EXPLAIN why you reverted them--because you did so four times. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Halt and Catch Fire

Thanks for fixing my mistake. -- 109.79.168.87 (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Coldplay photo

You can barely see Will in the other photo though. Also, it's from 2017, an update is VERY needed.

I don't know how often you think an infobox image needs to change, but an image being 4 years old is not outdated, and is not enough of a difference in time to warrant changing. Did everyone put on massive amounts of weight or substantially change their wardrobe in the time since the image was taken that needs to be depicted? Definitely not. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 00:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Just let me have that, I've already edited their page so many times that seeing that same photo all the time is starting to annoy me :')

Anyway, personal nonsense aside, I do think it's an overall better photo. I'll start a section in their talk page to see what the others think.

So a U2 fan huh? I've randomly edited their awards page the other day, I hope the new box I did there helped to make the page better!

--GustavoCza (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Reversion of edits to Achtung Baby article

Please do not re-revert the edits for missing citations on the page for the U2 album "Achtung Baby". Per Wikipedia: "Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." Instead of reverting my edits, I would humbly suggest that you bring your considerable knowledge of U2 to bear on adding the missing citations and improving the page!

--DarrenBaker (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Everything in the lede is already cited in the article body. There is no strict requirement to re-cite everything in the lede if already supported by citations in the body. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 04:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Halt and Catch Fire

@Y2kcrazyjoker4, Hi, kudos for your enormous contribution to that article. I think it is fit for GA?-- Tame (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tamingimpala: I'd like to add a "Premise" section that we can start the article body with, which will allow us to trim down some of the plot summary and organize the sections in a different order than we have now. After that, I'd be comfortable nominating it for GA. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Y2kcrazyjoker4, sounds like a plan. I'm willing to help. Tame (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)