Wikipedia

User talk:Melicans/Archive 9

< User talk:Melicans
Latest comment: 14 years ago by EdwardsBot in topic The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can you help me out with the March for Life thing? It's being repeatably vandalized and, despite my attempts to change it back, this guy is relentless. JuliusNero (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago22 comments4 people in discussion

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Stranded (Haiti Mon Amour). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. 95.95.63.9 (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately for your warning, unlike you I have not violated the policy on edit-warring. You might want to read the policy next time instead of returning the warning blindly. Judging by the edit history, I am not the only editor who believes your edits to serve no purpose. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I would guess that User:95.95.63.9 is the IP address of User:Iluvrihanna24. On the content of the dispute, however, there are a lot of sources that just attribute the song to the three singers, and don't include Edge in those it is "by". So I have no problem with putting Edge last, or even leaving him off the first sentence id. I wonder what the song's entry is on iTunes; that might be the most semi-official statement as to who it's by, and the article could go by that. I'd also like to see an official songwriters credit somewhere, to see who is and isn't listed; I'm not convinced the article's infobox credit is right. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
iTunes lists "Jay-Z, Bono, The Edge & Rihanna"; see for yourself MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Your edit is partial, and you revert in first time. The sites says only three artists, not four. Thankz. 95.95.63.9 (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
The sites are going without a discographical entry. I am. There isn't much more offical of a source than the actual album and song itself. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
But other sites, including MTV only speaks in three. You are partial. 95.95.63.9 (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
It is hardly partial when it is the only official source. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes is partial, because the song only features three voices, and only iTunes speaks abou the other, and you like u2. 95.95.63.9 (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
As opposed to you liking Rihanna, right? My taste in music has nothing to do with it; it's about more than voices, it's about who writes and performs it, simple as that. I'm going by the official confirmation, not the speculation from beforehand. There's no way around that, mate. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No, i dont like Rihanna but you like u2 and you are partial. MTV is a official source, like iTunes. 95.95.63.9 (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I find that very hard to believe when all of the edits you have made have been on Rihanna-related subjects; including my talk page. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no truly official source in this case, but the iTunes listing is more official than what media articles happen to say, so I think the iTunes one should be followed. In any case, this isn't worth an edit war; I'm pretty sure that Rihanna's popularity and career isn't going to suffer if a WP article lists here fourth instead of third, and likewise Edge can survive the reverse. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Believe what you want, i like her music, no properly rihanna. And you like u2, the song features Jay-Z, Bono and Rihanna. Even portuguese wikipedia says that. 95.95.63.9 (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a source for other Wikipedia articles (including other languages). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
It's just a comparison, if you dont understood that. 95.95.63.9 (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I understand comparisons, but you didn't make one. Saying that another language Wikipedia says something so we should say it too is not a comparison; it's trying to use it as a source to back up your claims, which CIRCULAR prevents. Try again. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
No you dont understand, because your head only thinks in u2. If i thought the other wikipedia was a source, i had placed on the article. 95.95.63.9 (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
My head "only thinks in u2"? Hahahah, if you're trying to insult me then you'll have to try a lot better than that! FYI, I've edited almost 2000 different articles on Wikipedia, of which only a small fraction are related to U2. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Insult you? FYI, No, because i like u2 too, i think it is one of the best bands in the world. 95.95.63.9 (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Anonymous, I can't believe you're actually starting an edit war over this. Four different artists collaborated on the song. Maybe one of them didn't sing, but he played guitar, and for all you know, he wrote all of the song's music. Using one source, MTV, as the basis for your argument is ridiculous - unless many more reliable sources fail to mention The Edge as part of the collaboration should this argument even be continued. It is likely MTV simply failed to mention him because not many people in the MTV demographic know who The Edge is, whereas everyone knows who Bono is. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Composition-type information for other U2 songs

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, great work with crafting the "City of Blinding Lights" article. It looks great! It looks like you found some really good information on the song's composition - the key changes and beats per minute are 2 things in particular that stand out to me. I was wondering if you could perhaps look into similar information for 2 song articles I am working on right now (and hope to get promoted) - "Zoo Station" and "Moment of Surrender". "Zoo Station" is actually pretty well covered, but maybe you have something you can contribute, or if you think it the section is too technical, maybe you can bring it back to earth. Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll try but I don't actually read music all that well to be honest. I was able to find the very beginning of stuff on MusicNotes (Suede67 provided me with the information), and then asked for help from people on the atu2 forum and YouTube. Some people knew the song's composition from the Hal Leonard HTDAAB books, so I was able to get the information from there. I don't know if you have MusicNotes or not (the software is free but the sheet music requires purchase), but the MoS page is here. The information between the two seems to be the same, so the Hal Leonard book could be cited in addition to the MusicNotes software. I'm sorry I can't be of more help, but I really am abysmal at reading music; I don't have anything beyond a mandatory eighth grade music class, and I never learned to read keys or anything. Sorry. I will take a look at "Zoo Station" and see if it's too technical though; that at least I can do! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 21:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Learn something new every day!

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for pointing out the alt text issue on Charizard. I'm pretty big on wanting images to have alt text so that's good to know. CrimsonFox talk 01:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No prob, anytime! I'm glad that I could help. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

PopMart Tour

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

South America is a different continent, the official site of u2, leaving five leg

And Oceania and Africa are different continents. U2 does not have a PopMart page up last time I checked (yesterday), and every source I have seen lists it as four legs. It is entirely possible for the same leg to visit multiple continents and, looking at the date gap, it's fairly obvious it is the same leg. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 14:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

put references to show you that I speak the truth

Alright, thank you for providing a source to back up your statement. In future when posting on a talk page, please sign your messages with four tildes like this: ~~~~. Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar thanks

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Belatedly, but thanks for that display of appreciation (I do still have to put in ilike or one of those sites as a source ... perhaps, like YouTube, we can create a dedicated template?). Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure that we even need to link to iLike. The sourcing reviews thus far, using the album for that part, have all been positive. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Bono

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for the tip! THDju (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 21:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


something to look up

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Mary E. Byrd, American educator circa 1910. If you search for this page you will find it does not exist. If you search Byrd it will appear as black text in the Byrd page. Is it meant to be a page you can go to or a page that should be in red text? Could an editor look into its status? 86.43.110.186 (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean C. E. Byrd? It's possible that Mary Byrd is not notable enough for her own article, or other editors simply haven't created one yet. If the latter, you can register an account or ask somebody else to do so at WP:AFC. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 22:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
# Marlon Byrd <-- Blue text linking to an article(born 1977), baseball player
  1. Mary E. Byrd, <-- Black text linking with nothing American educator circa 1910
  2. Mary Willing Byrd ,<--- Blue text linking to an article(1740-1814), second wife of Colonel William Byrd III

It is an orphaned piece of text on the Byrd page. 86.43.110.186 (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Marlon Byrd (born 1977), baseball player Mary E. Byrd, American educator circa 1910 Mary Willing Byrd (1740-1814), second wife of Colonel William Byrd III

"Byrd" Watkins is a man that fought the famous bare knuckle boxer Kimbo Slice (There is no "Byrd" Watkins page)

Perhaps there was meant to be a link to an American educator page just as "Byrd" Watkins links to Kimbo Slice's though is not notable enough for a wikipedia page? 18:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.110.186 (talk)

Perhaps. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I left a message on the article for creation page for Mary E. Byrd so that if not notable enough for her own article then it can be deleted. Thanks for your help. 86.43.110.186 (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Non Free Images in your User Space

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey there MelicansMatkin, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User:MelicansMatkin/PopMart Sarajevo. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Created article for Sarajevo concert

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

In the spirit of WP:BE BOLD, I created an article for the concert here: 1997 U2 concert in Sarajevo. I made sure to put the ticket image back in the infobox. I will add links to the article in the PopMart and U2 articles. Great work! Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I think I found the article in which that quote you are looking for came from: http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=BG&p_theme=bg&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EADDCC8DD66B0F0&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
That's exactly it! How the heck did you manage to find it so quickly? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Google News Archive, search query was "U2 they united Bosnia". Glad to help! Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Tks man!!!

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for your fast help. Buzzzsherman (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
No problem, I was glad to! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 03:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:U2Sarajevoposter.jpg

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:U2Sarajevoposter.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILYsock(TALK) 04:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I fixed this (hopefully). Wasted Time R (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
It's strange; I could have sworn I put a rationale in there. =S MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
You did, but it didn't have the right fair use mumbo jumbo. I put one in that was more specific to posters. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha. Thanks. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Achtung y'all...

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

[1] --Merbabu (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that was a cool remix. That "Backwater DJ Sessions" one he did of "Bad" is pretty good too; bit like that one "WoWY" mix which had the Zoo TV live stuff added. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 16:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Zoroark

Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

You really should not have allowed everyone to go crazy on the Phantom Ruler Z page. I have moved the article to that title considering that the "Pokémon" part only appears with the English release and we don't have the CoroCoro Comic issue yet that supposedly contains the Zorua and Zoroark information. Another problem is that when PhoenixDBT edited the page he completely changed the Japanese title to what directly translates as "Hourglass Champion Zoroark".

I believe that the "Zoroark" information should not be used until the official Japanese website changes the title of the film to include "Zoroark" or any other items in the title.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry mate, but I was in class and studying for two midterms I have tomorrow for most of the day and didn't have much access to a computer. I don't see how I could have prevented it either; I made just two edits to the page, and in both cases it was trying to limit the "damage" being done. Those edits would have been made irregardless of my frequency online today and, given that the leaked Coro-Coro seemed to confirm the title extension of "Zoroark", I didn't have many qualms about those edits. Still, I do agree with your rationale and, for what its worth, I posted a notice on WT:PCP several days ago asking the rest of the WikiProject to keep an eye on the page; it seems that few others even tried.
As for PhoenixDBT's edits, I unfortunately don't read Japanese so I was unable to tell what exactly was being done. I prefer not to dabble in those kinds of edits when I have no clue what it is that I'm reverting. Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
That's okay. I wasn't aware. Anyway, I've undone all of the damage done. Even if the CoroCoro scans are leaked, we cannot use them as a reliable source until the magazine actually comes out. We can wait one week until we have something that we know exists and we can source it (once the official Japanese movie website changes and gives us the new title with "Zoroark" in the name), then the page should probably remain at the "Z" title. I will try to get the old titles deleted and the page protected until then.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed; better the information be delayed than pre-emptory. Even if the page isn't semi'd to prevent alterations to "Z", it should at least be move-protected until then. For what its worth (and something you may want to put on your watchlist just in case) I created articles for Zoroark and Zorau and redirected them to the film's article; I figured it would be better to have them in a place where I could see them rather than trust other editors not to create them (especially since nothing is yet known about them). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Coincidentally, hasha (覇者) is translated as "supreme ruler; champion; titleholder;". Perhaps "Champion" is a better translation.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure which is correct; Bulba uses Phantom Ruler, Serebii uses Phantom Champion, Beach uses Ruler of Illusion... I'm honestly not sure which of those three translations (if any) is the most accurate to use; I just try to keep it at the original one used in the article, which I think is the Bulba translation. But like I say, I don't know any of the Japanese language; if there's a better translation then it should definitely be used. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, gen'ei (幻影) is "phantom; vision; illusion;". I think "Phantom" is fine.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Alright then, whatever one works best. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources are out. Check my comment on the talk page. The admin who protected wants a new consensus, apart from the blatant opposes we have stated concerning the fact that there were no reliable sources.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 1997 U2 concert in Sarajevo

Updated DYK query On February 15, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1997 U2 concert in Sarajevo, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
The DYK project (nominate) 18:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

City of Blinding Lights verses

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I saw your most recent edit explaining the verses, and I think you may be reading too far into the lyrics. The logical separation between stanzas doesn't exactly make them separate verses (I'm guessing this confusion arises from a hard break in some of the lyrics in the liner notes). I think this is very confusing for general readers, because what the article has listed as verses seems to conflict with the commonly-held idea of what a verse is (each verse has a matching bridge/chorus, a la verse-chorus form). Is there a reference available that refers to any of the verses by numbers 1-5? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe you're using the poetry definition of verse as a stanza of lines - which seems to conflict with the popular music usage of "verse". Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
You're right on the first count; I was looking at the hard break in the liner notes as an indication of a separate verse, but if that's incorrect then I guess it should be reverted again. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 14:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Pikachu Peer Review

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for all your suggestions in the peer review regarding Pikachu, I'm going to act upon them as soon as I get the chance. If you ever need a favour I can help with, just ask! IndigoSeptimus (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem; I'm as interested in the next person as getting the article to the highest standard possible. If Missingno. can make FA, I'm sure that Pikachu can too. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Congrats

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Hey, congrats on making FA. I'm envious of all the responses you got ... my FACs, like this one, typically expire from lack of interest ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much; I'm feeling pretty giddy with delight right now (FA and we won Gold in the Hockey!), and I'm really glad that I've finally broken the donkey's back with this one, and I have to thank you for all the comments you left; the article is definitely much better than it was when I nominated as a result. I know how you feel about lack of interest; my two previous FAC's for No Line failed for the same reason. Until the last week I thought that "City" would go the same way. FAC has been strained recently thanks to the WikiCup, so with luck future nominations will go through quicker with more feedback (this one took over a month).
I can't believe that this is only the second U2 subject to actually become featured. When you look around, a lot of articles are really close (Achtung Baby, No Line, ZooTV, U2 3D, "Zooropa"; even U2 360 probably isn't too far away, and I know that Merbabu has been doing work on Joshua). With luck this will be the start of a flood of U2 FAs, and hopefully the four of us will be able to work together to get some serious stuff out. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I certainly think we need WastedTime's excellent "source attaining work" - eg, RTSS had some great but otherwise obscure sources. --Merbabu (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Congrats on the FA nomination! The 2nd U2 article to do so - quite the accomplishment. I had a list I put on the U2 talk page about articles that we should focus on next - I haven't revisited it recently, so here's what I was thinking about:
  • Achtung Baby (mostly finished, just need to nominate for FAC and copyedit per comments)
  • With or Without You (need to make the rest of the article as detailed as the Writing/recording and Reception sections)
  • 1997 U2 concert in Sarajevo (need some more eyes on it besides mine and MelicansMatkin, awaiting a peer review)
  • One (U2 song) (in the same position as "With or Without You" - Writing and Reception sections are good, but the rest needs some work to bring it to the same quality)
  • Zooropa (has a lot of the basic stuff outlined, need to fill in Recording history with details from "U2 at the End of the World", and write the Composition and Reception sections)
  • Moment of Surrender (pretty much just needs some reliable resources that can detail the song's composition the way "City of Blinding Lights" is)
  • Zoo Station (may or may not be ready for a GA nomination - need some new eyes to look at it)
  • The Joshua Tree (awaiting Merbabu's sandbox version of the article to be submitted so we can all start working on preparing it to go through GA and then hopefully FA)
So, what should our next project be? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
We can probably add No Line on the Horizon (just a basic copyedit needed now) to that list, and I think that all of Dream out Loud's work on Zooropa (song) and U2 3D has put them very near FA status; U2 360° Tour probably isn't too far off either (it's very close to GA if nothing else, though I'm waiting for the rest of the 2010 openers to be announced before nominating); ditto Pop (album).
Achtung is so close that I think it doesn't need much more than a copyedit before it's second FAC (though I agree with Wasted Time R that more could be incorporated about Edge's marriage breaking up; might be worth adding before FAC). If we give both Achtung and No Line a copyedit then I think we can have two more FAC-ready articles inside of a month; possibly three depending on where Joshua is at. From the list above I think that "With or Without You" and Zooropa would work well as a group project, though if we wanted to basically start from scratch as I did with "City", Original Soundtracks 1 might be a good choice; it's one that I've wanted to revamp for a while. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 05:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Edit: It's worth noting though that FAC rules were changed recently; if a user has recently nominated an article at FAC they will be unable to nominate another until two weeks following the closure and archive of that previous nomination, unless one of the FAC delegates gives permission for that nomination to occur. It was changed to try and reduce the backlog at FAC (not sure how effective it's been so far), but it means that I can't nominate or co-nominate for 14 days, and so if Achtung goes up and either of you wanted to be listed as a conominator on No Line, that nomination would be delayed for two weeks following the Achtung closure. Fairly annoying, but we'll have to live with it. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 06:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Moment of Surrender personnel

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Do you have the liner notes to NLOTH/"Moment of Surrender" handy? I was wondering if you could let me know what everyone's credited roles on the song are. I think this song is close to GA quality and I'd like to continue working on developing it. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep; the liner notes have the following (some of which could be worked into Composition):
  • Music: U2, Eno, Lanois
  • Lyrics: Bono
  • Keyboards: Terry Lawless
  • Cello: Caroline Dale
  • Produced by Eno and Lanois
  • Engineered by Richard Rainey, assisted by Chris Heaney
  • Additional engineering by Declan Gaffney and Carl Glanville
  • Mixed by Lanois and Gaffney, assisted by Tom Hough, Dave Clauss, and Dave Emery
The individual band member credits are the same as usual. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 16:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Babies go U2....

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

So i bought it. does that make sad? its actually quite enjoyable - i hope it's appreciated! Perhaps it doesn't deserve an art though. --Merbabu (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hahah, well so long as it's better than Rockabye Baby! it shuld all be good; glad you're enjoying it (but I thought it was for Java-Eve, not you! =P) MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 17:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Flower

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks, I forgot that GMT time is a few hours before where I am. Wow, yeah, that one IP has a lot of opinions about grammar and structure but not as much actual skill. Thanks! --PresN 04:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all mate; I'm always happy to keep an eye on strange edits like that! Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

With or Without You composition

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I found a great reference for the material I've added to the composition section of the "With or Without You" article. It was in a book called "Inside Classic Rock Tracks" ("Beautiful Day" also has an entry in this book that I will consult at some point). There were still some details I wanted to add, such as the key the song is in (which is unverified), as well as the tempo. Could you look this up for me on the Music Notes website? Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There are four different sheet musics for "With or Without You" on the website. The first says it is played in a key of D/D-major (I think it's the same thing?) at a speed of 110 bpm. The second is identical to the first, but is several pages shorter making me think it must be abbreviated, or is only a partial sample (cutting out some of the intro and most of the outro probably). The third says it is played in a key of Eb "Moderately" (no exact speed is given). The fourth is third to say it is in a key of D, but at a speed of 112 bpm. No indications of tempo are given for numbers 1, 2, or 4. Of the four samples I think that the first (link) and the fourth (link) are the most likely to be correct; I'm not sure how much difference 2 bpm makes, but number 1 is probably the one to go for. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 17:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I finally got around to downloading the software so I could read previews of some of the music sheets, so you don't need to worry about me bugging you for information from the site anymore. Thanks for the look ups! Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all; you'll probably be able to read them much better than I do though! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

DYK for Slug (Passengers song)

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Updated DYK query On March 14, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Slug (Passengers song), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Calmer Waters 06:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The Fox and the Hound (novel)

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Indeed I am happy. I had watched the article and the nomination since the first day of the FAC, and I was very pleased with the end result. I do not think it matters that Collectonian nominates articles that have need of a copyedit; people have different strengths, and so it is possible that Collectonian's strengths lie in different areas. I know that mine do. It doesn't really matter if it was nominated while needing a copyedit. Wikipedia is a collaborative process, meaning that we should all work together to improve articles. FAC has some great copyeditors who really know their prose, and so even if the article had failed it would have been improved by the process.
I do not know what problems you have had in the past with Collectonian, and I really do not care. Given that your only contributions were made today, you must be a sock; possibly of the same user who tried to derail my own FAC process. I read the article over carefully and was pleased with what I saw in all of the areas. If I had wanted to get rid of it I would have just left it there to rot without any feedback, much like what happened in my first two FACs (both were not promoted due to lack of reviews). What does Plot cover if not the plot of the subject? Development, you have to use what sources you can find. An author's note where the development is discussed is infinitely preferable to no section at all, especially if there are no other sources available anymore. It is only your opinion that the Reception section needs to be halved. I disagree, and you will simply have to respect that.
I am not ashamed of giving my support to the article, and there was no pity involved in it. I had never interacted with Collectonian before the FAC, so I'm curious as to why you think I would give a "pity" star. From what I have seen I have no qualms regarding editorial integrity; the only problem I have is with yours.
Please do not visit this talk page again with any of your other sockpuppets. Good day, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Magnificent Klavier

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Magnificent --Merbabu (talk) 09:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Yonzy amazing? Thanks for passing that one on, I'd missed it somehow! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

U2 - Electric Storm - Live performances

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You wrote : "it was the second concert [in Barcelona], not the third. The very first setlist was a dress rehearsal that was not not part of the actual tour dates."

OK!

Lurulu (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Please Read This Before Doing Anything Else!

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I refer you to my previous reply, Mr./Mrs. sockpuppet. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

BW Logos

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

These logos may just be free to use under {{PD-text}}. I'm not sure if the public domain extends into Japanes text, but I know that there is nothing in these images that is original.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Chart refs...

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello there

'Hope those multi-choice (aka guess n giggle) aren't causing you too much grief. Any clue on how to cite this? You're the in-house charts expert, right? ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I took care of it [2]. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WikiProject U2 revival

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Since we've had a lot of activity going on lately with the U2-related articles, I've decided to revive WikiProject U2. It had great potential at first, but never went anywhere, but now I think it could do us a lot of good since there's been a lot of activity. I reformatted the page at WP:WikiProject U2, so feel free to help out and give any input you have. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Glad you spoke up

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just saw the note you left on User:Suede67's talk page. Um, ????? I know he is in school of some kind- certainly University level, but even so, we were quite frequently emailing one another and doing each other various favors. I think the Snow Patrol were his main motivation, and I now believe that he set a goal to see if he could fairly single-handedly pay tribute to the band, whom he enjoyed, by bringing at least a couple of their articles to FA- or GA status. I believe the Derek Trucks article does have some merit, but I don't use Facebook, MySpace, or any of those "friend- me" networks. I meet nice folks here, but am not willing to get all tangled up in that stuff, with the only downside being that, yeah, it's hard to get some info about the musicians biographies that I edit. Thus, DYK? seems out of reach. Though I plunk away at it, (along with maybe a dozen other articles, and a pile of photos for the biography articles being uploaded to Commons) I don't think it's beyond Start level yet, for the biographical aspect, anyway, but I'm glad to have met you here. Wish I knew why Sudeep isn't responding, though. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

!!

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Don't remove that tag, in wiki-pt are the fatured list! Vitor Mazuco Msg 18:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry about that. It didn't produce a template at that location on the page that I could see, so I assumed it was just gibberish/vandalism. I wasn't aware of it's actual purpose. Apologies. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Different quote for NLOTH?

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I wasn't sure what the purpose of the quote was, since the line about the song's inspiration is already in the prose, and the rest seems to be filler. Maybe there's a better quote we can use - maybe something that was spoken about the album as a whole.


Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, that's a much better quote. I wouldn't be adverse to having that instead, since as you say it is more representative of the whole album. Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

All-right, I just added it in. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on U2. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. ~DC Talk To Me 18:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Restoring an article's wording to the consensus is not "starting it", as you claim. Indeed, I do not see how you could say that it is. I have tried to be polite to you in the edit summaries and my (removed) post on your talk page. Your belligerance is astounding. Random edits to the article by IPs every few weeks does not constitute "everyone". If you think that the consensus has changed then open a discussion on the talk page to demonstrate so, instead of just edit warring. Randomly reverting without providing any justification for doing so is certainly not proving that consensus has changed. Open a discussion at Talk:U2, as I have invited you to do several times, if you are that concerned by the wording. Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Melicans/Archive_9&oldid=1139526464"