User talk:Friginator/Archive 10

STOP STRIKING ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm trying to think about my edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMetallican (talk • contribs) 01:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, you're blocked indefinitely now, so I guess you have all the time in the world to think about them. And how they in no way improved the quality of this site. Friginator (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: I know your above account can't respond to this, but that was one hell of a show you put on. After being blocked, you created not one, not two, not three, but at least sixteen different sockpuppet accounts, and edited from over two dozen IPs. That's some impressive block evasion. Of course, they're almost all blocked, and the situation is being dealt with, but for my own convenience I think I'll list them all here:


 * That's a LOT of effort you put into violating policy. Bravo. I wish I could focus so much energy on the little things like you can. Friginator (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Frequency Unknown
Hi,

Do you really think it's necessary to include this album in the chain for Queensryche? Tate may have been allowed to use the name for a time but he ultimately lost. I think it might be better to include under the "Other albums" row on the Queensryche template and exclude it from the album chain in between Dedicated to Chaos and s/t. Did you and Eddyspeaker come to an agreement that FU should be included? If so, would I be able to see what the two of you discussed? Shaneymike (talk) 01:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Never mind. I found it. I'm reading it as we speak. Shaneymike (talk) 01:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

"Frequency Unknown" was an album not created by the official version of Queensryche. It was created by Geoff Tate after he was fired from the band, and while the court deemed that both sides could use the Queensryche name in the interim, the decision on who owns the name was always slated for a court hearing/settlement. As of September 1, there is only one Queensryche, the official band with their new singer, who had no part in the creation or recording of this album. Queensryche's official website, www.queensrycheofficial.com does not list this album as part of official Queensryche discography. Therefore this album should not be included as part of official discography on the Wikipedia page. It should be included in the sub-section on the 2012 Queensryche split, and should be credited to Geoff Tate. (Spl140 (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)spl140)
 * Frequency Unknown was created by an official version of Queensrÿche. The court decision didn't change what had already been legally released as a Queensrÿche studio album. I can't believe I'm even having this discussion. Trying to erase the album from history comes off as very immature, quite frankly. The discography found on the official website is just a list of the albums the current version of the band has the rights to. It includes various albums that aren't on the studio album discography. Do you have any reliable sources that call it a Geoff Tate solo album (not as an opinion, but as a verifiable fact)? Because if not, I see no reason to list it as a Geoff Tate solo album. Frequency Unknown was released legally under the name, so for good or for bad, it's a Queensrÿche studio album. Friginator (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I see your point, Frig. Shaneymike (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

While "Frequency Unknown" is credited to Queensryche, that second version of the band created by Geoff Tate is still a separate band, with different musicians, and a whole different history/lineage that started after Geoff was fired from the band. Listing this album among the albums that were created by the original band just adds to the confusion. If you are going to list this album, there has to be something to differentiate this album, created by an alternate second version of the band, that was recording and performing at the same time as the original version with their new singer. Maybe this means that the main page has more information on the split, more information on what is and was effectively Geoff Tate's Queensryche, or Queensryche featuring Geoff Tate, which is how that band was ultimately billed to avoid confusion, confusion that you continue to perpetuate by insisting that Frequency Unknown be lumped in with the rest of the albums. I am not saying to list it as a Geoff Tate solo album, but clearly you can go to the two competing websites and find that Frequency Unknown is associated with this version (http://operationmindcrime.com/2013/03/06/queensryches-frequency-unknown-due-out-april-23-on-deadline-musiccleopatra/) and not this version (http://www.queensrycheofficial.com/home). If you can find any reference to Frequency Unknown on the sole Queensryche website, then I will let this go. There has to be some clarification on who recorded what. (Spl140 (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)spl140).


 * Fair enough. As long as it's included I'm fine with it. Removing it entirely is the issue here, not who made it. Friginator (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Rising West
There's an interesting discussion fired up by an IP on whether the Rising West page is warranted. I believe he could be right. I would love to hear your opinion on it as well. Could I ask you to join the discussion? --Eddyspeeder (talk) 09:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Got it. Friginator (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Queensrÿche FU and Self Titled
Hey,

I saw you reverted the pages from my edits, and just kinda wanted to discuss a couple questions I have about the albums. On the Frequency Unknown page, it's just listed as "an album" whereas on the Self Titled page it's referred to as the "fourteenth" album. If "FU" isn't listed as the thirteenth album, then why is the self-titled assumed to be the de-facto fourteenth? The split happened, and yes both bands at the time had use to the name, but the album as it was released (speaking of the self-titled) was during the interim written as the "possible thirteenth album" depending on who got the name of the band in the injunction. So are we just glaring over the thirteen number and assuming FU to be number 13? I just feel it's messy is all. Unfairly the self-titled is the official bands release, and follows their chronology. It's not to say that album never happened, but there should be some kind of identifier on the page for Queensrÿche for the two albums. Since there was real no clear distinction as to what happens with FU after the official split and it isn't just a Geoff Tate solo album. I kinda relate it to LA Guns, since their are two touring bands and release cycles, but distinctions as to who released what and what chronology it follows. Just wanted to open a dialogue with you and discuss what "should" happen with the page, or shouldn't.

Have a great day,

Chef. Chefofchitown (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I've made this change to the Frequency Unknown page, clarifying the issue. I hope that solves the problem. Cheers. Friginator (talk) 01:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

"Thank You For the Venom"
I was basing this off of the chorus "Give me all your poison, and give me all your pills." Thanks. Sbrianhicks (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Please explain why you undid my edit.
I added an interesting interpretation of the black parade album and I don't understand why you removed it. It wasn't vandalism, I found it on youtube and cited my source. Yes, yes, youtube may not be the best place to pull information from, but it wasn't inappropriate, irrelevant, or vulgar. The interperatation is very reasonable and can be justified by analysing lyrics from the respective songs. MCRmy777 (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * First, it's speculation. Second, none of the speculation is coming from a reliable source. It's clearly not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Friginator (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Global account
Hi Friginator! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 13:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey
Why are you removing the genres? The albums are sold under these genres and thus that is why I listed them and I sourced them with reliable references. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 23:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest we use only genres they are sold under. That's as official as you are going to get and its accurate. (F.e. google search the album and genre and post-hardcore shows up on Google's answer. (Not a website, I mean what Google provides on the top of the page.) Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 23:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: This would also pass NPOV and be acceptable. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 23:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * By "Sold Under", what do you mean exactly? Different stores put different labels on the merchandise they sell, especially music. Those labels are hardly reliable sources for the content of the product itself. And please see the note I left on your talk page. There's been a lot of genre-warring on these articles and keeping genres in the article itself instead of the infobox cuts down on the number of disputes. I would say common sense is to stop giving people something to fight over, which is exactly what the genre parameter in the infobox does. And to be honest, I don't see why the genres you're adding are important to the article. Friginator (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not giving something for people to fight over. It is being encyclopedic. It is relevant to the article, because it is the genre of the album of the article is about. Listen, I understand why you're concerned over the disputes but the reliability in the sources given aren't really disputable. We could just always have them semi-protected. And most reliable sources either list them as alternative rock, post-hardcore, and/or punk. This includes:

So, basically the trend is alternative rock (or simply alternative), punk and post-hardcore Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 23:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I guess if you want to simply add "Alternative rock" there doesn't seem much harm in it. Friginator (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, thank you. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 00:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)