User talk:Friginator/Archive 2

ATurnerIII and Chicago Film Producers Alliance

 * You say our post in not notable, from third party sources and might be an advertisement. None of that is true and this is getting highly annoying. Our organization is notable because it's one of the few successful independent film producers groups in the country and the only one in Chicago. I provided articles that show our work, Yet, you threaten to delete us because no separate article has been written about us. Guess what? We are a PRIVATE GROUP. So, that won't like with other organizations. Regarding third parties sources, I gave you BLACKFILM.COM, WITHOUTABOX, REELCHICAGO, IMDb, and CHASE BANK. Those are 3rd Parties! Regarding advertising, THERE IS NONE. The article only talks about who we are. It does not ASK people to join or ASK people to buy anything. YOU ARE READING IT INCORRECTLY. What's it gonna take to get our legitimate, notable, trendsetting and professional film organization listed???--ATurnerIII (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I don't know what you mean by "blocking your feedback," or "deleting your post," but I reverted your edits because of stuff like this:


 * This is not the least bit constructive, nor is it appropriate for an encyclopedia article. If you have a disagreement, bring it up on the talk page. However, please remember to be civil. Using all caps and adding 4 exclamation points to your sentences is unnecessary. When an editor decides to add tags, it is not a personal attack. I did not add the tags, nor did I threaten to delete the article, so I can't help you there. I patrol recent changes for edits than are not constructive, and your edits were not. If you don't agree with an edit, take it up with that editor instead of leaving angry messages on the article itself. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I think chastizing me for using exclamation points is a little hypocritcal when you kept deleting my post feedback and attempts to talk to you in a civil fashion. Now, is this gonna be about you helping me resolve the problems with the post and get it approved? Or, are you going to ignore me because I was upset by the way I was initialy treated? You wrote "take it up with that editor ". Who is the editor?--ATurnerIII (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I really have no idea what you're talking about. What do you mean by "deleting my post feedback and attempts to talk to you in a civil fashion"? I haven't deleted anything except the inappropriate remarks you made to the article itself. Being upset is not an excuse to add unconstructive edits. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, SmackBot originally created the tags, but the one who restored them was TexasAndroid. Please don't delete the tags without discussing the matter with another editor, and also do not edit the article itself. Use either the article talk page or a user talk page. Articles are there for reference, not your personal opinions. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You wrote, "Being upset is not an excuse to add unconstructive edits." I disagree. First, costumers have a right to express their dissactisfaction with a highly inefficient and frustrating process. This system does not give "specific" explanation about problems. It just leaves silly messages that are meant to cover every situation. It's a major pain to deal with. Whether it is "unconstructive" is a matter of opinion. I am not overly sensitive about exclamation points. Evidently, you are. Just because people use emotion does not mean they are out of control. Many cultures in the world express themselves differently. Maybe it is your style of expression that is the incorrect, misleading, one. From my experience, people who don't show passion - - are often lying or hiding something. That is common in America. With that said, I will seek help elsewhere."--ATurnerIII (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? For one thing, this is nothing to be emotional about in the first place. Secondly, they are NOT an excuse to vandalize Wikipedia. Ask any administrator, and they will tell you the same thing. Why aren't you using the talk page? That's why it's there. I'm not interested in picking a fight about this. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You put a message on my post stating that you would block my post if I kept making comments in it. --ATurnerIII (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't, but I'm not surprised another editor did. Articles are not there for you to post opinions or complaints. If you want to say something, then say it on the talk page. You've been using the article as a means of complaining, but this is against the rules. Friginator (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You wrote, "You've been using the article as a means of complaining...". Again, you misinterpret my communication. It was not complaining, I was working to get results. Again, a possible misinterpretation on you part. Besides, if you weren't the one to remove my comments, how did you know they where complaints? It seems someone is guessing / possibly playing on words. By the way, YOUR NAME IS WHAT POPPED UP in the message from Wikipedia about the comments. So, it is not wrong to conclude that you were the one to respond to. Again, this system has major flaws. It pointed me to you and you're saying it's someone else. And, you can't even decipher who did what in the edit log. I think it's obvious that Wikipedia's system is not user friendly and causes frustration. All this does is prove my case. I had plenty of reasons to be upset, and still do. I have an engineering and a law degree. Trust me, it's not like I have trouble picking things up."--ATurnerIII (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You're talking about the warnings that are sent out when I revert any unhelpful edit. There are 4 warnings, and after the fourth the user is blocked (usually for 31 hours) from editing. You made 2 unhelpful edits, so I sent you 2 warnings using the javascript tool Twinkle. I was simply the one who reverted your edits (and therefore sent you the warnings), but I did not add the tags that you are upset about. I didn't write the warnings personally, but I'm sorry if they offended you.


 * Misinterpretation is the least of this. Wikipedia policy dictates that your edits were not constructive, so I reverted them. It does not matter what you meant by those disruptive edits, because they were inappropriate either way.


 * On my Talkback page, you accused me of trying to vandalize Wikipedia. Here is my reply: Vandalize Wikipedia? Don't flatter yourself into thinking Wikipedia is so important that I would waste my time trying to vandalize it. I was merely trying to communicate to invisible adminstrators in an unfriendly system. I think you and Wikipedia should be ashamed of yourselves for using such terms with everyday, respectable, citizens. You criticize me for overreacting. Well, I think the use of the term Vandal for users is insutling and inappropriate. If you don't want people to remove your feedback tags - - designed the system so that they can not do so. It's that simple.--ATurnerIII (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that the term "vandalism" upsets you, but that is what it is. Vandalism is writing inapropriate things in the wrong places. What you wrote was appropriate for a talk page (minus the all-caps and exclamation points), but writing things like that keep other people from using the page as reference. Writing angry complaints on a Wikipedia article is like writing complaints inside a library book. Express your opinion on a talk page, not an article. Administrators are not invisible. User:TexasAndroid is one, for example. Also, you can always use the reference desk if you need help. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * According to the dictionary, Vandalism is "deliberately mischievous or malicious destruction or damage of property: vandalism of public buildings." Another definition of vandalism is, "willful or ignorant destruction of artistic or literary treasures." If you know anything about the law (which I do have a legal education), willful and deliberate are both elements of intent to operate on the word destruction. Neither were present in my actions. I was attempting to communicate with whoever was deleting my feedback / attempts to talk to you. I repeat, it is disrespectful and inappropriate to use the term vandalism with everyday users who are trying to do the right thing. In addition, my posting is not a public buildings nor an artistic treasure. Simply because you and Wikipedia choose to redefine vandalism for your needs does not make it correct.--ATurnerIII (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This will be my last post on this subject. You clearly only intend to be argumentative and are not customer oriented. Based on this need to go tit-for-tat, I am devevoping and very low opinion of Wikipedia and may instruction our 85 producers not to use thins site because your process is hypocritical, subjective and simply not flexible.--ATurnerIII (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am completely disgusted with Wikipedia right now.--ATurnerIII (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ATurnerIII, I can understand your frustration, but constantly declaring your dislike for Wikipedia, and then deleting other users' attempts to help you isn't helpful. If your talk page is too long, try archiving it. Thanks. Friginator (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What difference does it make to you whether I like Wikipedia or not? Is this your darling site or something? Did I bruise your ego? Hurt your feelings? Yes, I don't care for a subjective and inconsistent process. And the fact that you and others have group think and banded together to delete the article is more evidence of the site's weakness. Sure, I can have more 3rd party article written about CFPA and will. In fact, they are being writting now. But, it's too late. This has become a legal issue. I'm in contact with my attornies about antitrusut violations and soon will contact the site's owner. You can't accept other similar groups for different reasons and selectively reject CFPA. It's illegal. And rest assured, when the summons are issued, your name will be on one.--ATurnerIII (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait--you're threatening me and other editors now? What did I do? You don't even know my name or anything else about me, yet you're claiming that I and other editors are breaking the law. I can tell you that no sane judge in the world will hear a case against a nonprofit website simply because you weren't included on it, because it wasn't malicious, and there's no evidence of that. I had nothing to do with the deletion of your article. You say I "banded together" with other editors to conspire against you. You can look at my contributions and see that I did no such thing. There's nothing wrong with disliking Wikipedia, but complaining about Wikipedia ON Wikipedia is counterproductive. Thank you.


 * I clearly shared with the entire group that Wikipedia's application of the notability standard was inconsistent. This site allowed similar companies to post articles with the same or less notability as ours. Non profits can also be sued, as well as you personally for being involved. This is not a joke. Your name can be determined by your user name and serving Wikipeida with a court order. Anti trust is serious business. You choose not to pay attention and now, trust me, a judge will listen. I know the law in this area well. I don't not make threats."--ATurnerIII (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm pretty sure claiming you're going to sue me is a threat. This is nonsense. It doesn't matter how well you know the laws, because none have been broken. Of course you can sue whoever you want, but actually going to court is different. You don't know my name, and most likely never will. Wikipedia doesn't have to include your organization, and the fact that you have been so hostile and uncooperative does not make the CFPA look any better. I'm tired of arguing with you about void threats, nonexistent judges, and your hurt feelings. Either work with Wikipedia, or don't, but you have no reason to threaten and harass people who have done nothing to you. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't make threats. If I wrote it, I meant it. And your name is easy to find. Trust me. My lawyers will find you. Save your money. You'll need it for your defense. You'll learn to mess with people's businesses.--ATurnerIII (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If your lawyers are dumb enough to sue over this, they probably don't know their own names, let alone mine. Friginator (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please relax

 * I haven't read the background for the above situations, but the reason I came here may be related: I wanted to ask you to relax. I am grateful that you are willing to help protect Wikipedia from vandalism, and as I saw in a recent user space reversion, where you also went the extra mile to warn the user, you are obviously well intended. But I'm afraid you're taking things a bit too seriously. In the case I noticed, the user space page actually had a request "Got any ideas? Post them. Meow.", to which the IP editor responded, and the response fits to the overall silliness of the page. So, please, take a deep breath; other people's actions often appear much friendlier after a short walk in the park. &mdash; Sebastian 18:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. I'll try to be more calm about situations like that in the future. Friginator (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the nice reply. Funny - soon after our conversation, one of the people you warned,, vandalized our project page, of all pages. I don't want to block just for that, but if that user strikes again, (or if that's a vandalism only account) let me know, and I'll block . &mdash; Sebastian 17:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk 172.131.183.18

 * Can he be blocked from editing his talk page? This is getting ridiculous. Wysprgr2005 (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I really wouldn't know. I'm not sure whether or not it counts as vandalism on his own talk page, honestly. I'll just keep reverting it. Friginator (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Bangkok Article Vandalism

 * I don't know if you remember this on the Bangkok article:


 * Please tell me if you know anything more about this. Do you know who wrote this and if so how to contact him/her. Thank You 79.88.254.171 (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This edit was from the ip adress 125.24.42.213, which is actually located in Bangkok, though it appears to be a residential neighborhood and does not seem to be located anywhere near a 7/11 or department store. The coordinates are 13.8333 (latitude, north) by 100.4833 (longitude, east). Everything else described checks out. The Yaanawa are a real terrorist group, and for whatever reason, this area on Google Earth is censored, but only for about a mile around the location of the ip; almost everything else in Bangkok is crystal clear. I wouldn't reccomend trying to contact this person, but if they're they've at least done their homework. However, note that 1. No name is given, but they claim to be friends with Laura Bush (why give her name, but not themselves?) and 2. This person is not clear on what their message is. Getting involved in stuff like this, regardless of whether it's real or not, is generally not a good idea. Millions of emails are sent out daily supposedly from african internment camps, all asking for money. Other than this, I can't help you, and remember not to trust everything you read on the internet. Thanks. Friginator (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your information on this case. Unfortunately you havent been able to tell us any more than we already know. However, any extra help you could offer us on this would be greatly appreciated. I cannot divulge any more information on a public domain but if you give me private way of contacting you, that would lead to a further conclusion. Please inform us of some more information on yourself if you can. Thank you for your cooperation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.88.254.171 (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

September 11

 * Hi. The September 11 article had a reference to both the Chile/Allende coup and the attacks on the WTC. Both are referred to as "September 11". The Chile reference has now been removed in the links. To my mind, both should stay or both go. Wallie (talk) 07:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason the link is there is because many readers will look up "September 11", intending to go to September 11 attacks, and the link is there to point them in the right direction. It doesn't have to do with the article or its importance, but simply the name of a similar article. If there was an article for El Once or once de Septiembre there would be a reason for the redirect. Thanks. Friginator (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've created a redirect page for El 11 de Septiembre, so I think putting the link back is okay. Thanks. Friginator (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I'm happy now. Thanks. Wallie (talk) 09:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama

 * I mentioned this on Tvoz's talk page, but the end date of the current term was on George W. Bush's article, and I don't see how including it on this article is any different. Friginator (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If it was in GWB's article before he left office, you may have a point. Otherwise I think it's trivia that can easily be determined by anyone who can click links and read. But if you want to include it, you can seek opinions on the talk page. Ward3001 (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. I changed it back. Ward3001 (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The Ghost of You

 * I'm sorry, but you are wrong. If you actually watched that video, he states exactly, "Even The Ghost of You was-the name was inspired by an add in Watchmen that read "The Ghost of You." It even stated the ref. I've reverted it. Think about these things before hand, and remember that Watchmen was a graphic novel before it was a movie, and was before the band came out. Thank you. SuperFlash101 (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw the reverts happen, and I have to agree with SuperFlash. Way clearly states in the interview that the song is named from an ad in Watchmen. Also, you seem to be referring to the movie, when Way was talking about the book. Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 18:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, good, your welcome. I understand where the confusion comes from, but okay now. Also, thank you Rwiggum, and I guess we could include both perhaps. SuperFlash101 (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The book's line about the Ghost of You was Oh, how the ghost of you clings. Is that still a reference to the '20s song? — Excelsior,   The Flash  - ( Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay! ) 21:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay. And, I know, I told you that. It's SuperFlash, I just go by The Flash, lol. — Excelsior,   The Flash  - ( Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay! ) 01:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thor.

 * I'd like to see more about this 'intense pre-production', since the usual standard is production, but I'll let it stand a few days, see what floats up. Please try and find more specifics from someone of authority, if you can, i know it's not always possibly. ThuranX (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Deadpool

 * I reverted the edit because Deadpool does in fact break the forth wall and make a shush noise to the audience in one of the endings.--TriPredRavage (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm aware that you think he broke the fourth wall. I've seen the post-credit scene, and I think it's very arguable. There's no source to indicate either way, and any source given to confirm that interpretation would need to be a very good one. Friginator (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, what I am about to say, I just want to assure you is by no means offensive, so please do not take offense. I don't know how much you know about cinema, but it is my area of focus.  I go to film school, it's what I study.  He breaks the fourth wall.  Any time a character looks into the camera in a movie, it technically breaks the fourth wall.  In this case, he looks right into the camera, and makes the shush sound to the audience.  Again, I by no means intend for that to be insulting in anyway, so I hope that you don't take my message as insulting.  --TriPredRavage (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * ''No, I didn't mean to sound like I was offended or anything like that, but just looking at the camera should not be referred to as breaking the fourth wall, especially without a source. If you have a good source, then there might be an argument, but please don't continue to revert my removal of unsourced, arbitrary information, per WP:OR. Friginator (talk) 04:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, no, I by no means was offended by your message, I just wanted to assure you that what I was saying was not meant to be insulting. It seems far to easy on Wikipedia to offend other contributers, and I was worried that my previous message would be interpreted as rude. I would recommend reading the fourth wall page if you have not.  It even uses the example of the actor speaking directly to the audience through the camera.  Which he technically does as there are no other characters present upon the time of his reserrection. --TriPredRavage (talk) 04:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I was just wondering, have you actually seen this ending in theaters, or have you only seen it through poor quality youtube videos? Sadly, all of the bootleg videos on youtube, even the examply you have provided, are condemned to poor quality, which is where, I fear, this argument may be stemming from.  I could attempt to explain this conundrum; however, it would pertain to my education, which we have already established per WP:OR would merely be a wasted effort.  Personally, I saw this ending in theaters, and to me it was clear that he looks directly into the camera and shushs the audience, as throughout cinema history, characters have hissed, shushed, and inhaled many times, and in good quality, it is clear what action he makes.  --TriPredRavage (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: adding the old info on Reynolds' casting

 * I am not jumping the gun. You are.  There are several past sources citing his connection to the film and being added to GL doesn't discredit that.  However, as per your wishes, I have added a source. --TriPredRavage (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fair, but I must ask you to do the same then. You should have looked into removing such info as well considering that it was sourced in the past.  Just because Reynolds has been confirmed for both roles, doesn't discredit either cast role.  In all fairness, this entire event could have been avoided if you had done researched about it first.  --TriPredRavage (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * All I am saying is that it was sourced that Ryan Reynolds is attached to the Deadpool film. There may have only been one source at the top of the page, but there was another in the section dedicated to his film appearance.  Technically speaking, you were removing sourced information without reason.  Again, just because the sources, that did feature direct quotes from Reynolds, were from prior to his being announced as the Green Lantern did not mean, nor offer any evidence that he was no longer going to reprise his role as Deadpool.  So, I guess what I am saying is that you would need to have a counter source to removed valid, cited material.


 * I would have, however, appreciated it if rather than coming straight to my user talk page, we had simply settled this on the discussion page under the heading that I had created for it, and perhaps we could do so in the future. Also, In both cases of addressing me on my talk page as well as on the discussion page, you singled me out, where I did no such thing to you after your edit.  I opened it for discussion and never targeted you specifically.  Your actions threaten my credibility as an editor of Wikipedia, and I do not appreciate such attacks.  Furthermore, I do not see the point of placing what was basically the same message on my talk page on the discussion page as well.


 * I value your edits to the Deadpool page, as I myself have in the past tried to clean up what is truly a messy and convoluted article, and feel that your evident mastery of the Wiki policies can help with that. But again, I do not appreciate your targeting me before we had even began discussing it, and would like to point out that I only claimed that you were "jumping the gun" in my post above after you had done so to me.  I hope that we can put these issues behind us and continue to work toward better articles in the future.  Thank you.--TriPredRavage (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of David Lafuente
A tag has been placed on David Lafuente requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. JDOG555 (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Italics in comicbook titles?

 * May I ask why you keep changing the comic titles on UC: Spider-man and UC: Avengers to remove italics? Pretty much every other article on a comicbook has the main title in italics, so why are you changing these ones?  Planewalker Dave (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Red Links

 * Hey Friginator, I was wondering if you had some kind of magic wands to remove red links from Wikipedia. I have seen 2 articles today (Waco, Texas & Mort Todd,) that need a sweep of the red links. I guess I can use the preview feature, but I can't figure out which other way to do it. Thanks! Faethon Ghost (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ultimatum

 * Hi. I began a discussion on our reverts on the article's Talk Page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

please

 * PLZ TELL ME Y u think i vandal! ty much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubesgirl (talk • contribs) 18:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I reverted both your attempts to post insults on Talk:Deapool such as "get a life''", and other remarks that were just gibberish in general. As for the other stuff, It's pretty much impossible to understanding what you were even saying. I would appreciate if you would at least phraise your messages a little better. Anyway, personal attacks on talk pages are vandalism per WP:VANDAL, so next time please don't insult other editors. Thank you.'' Friginator (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * woa...no fense, but on my fav. chats and forums, telin others to GET A LIFE aint vandal...so...dont get it, man... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubesgirl (talk • contribs) 17:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a chat room or a forum, and you should not treat it as such. It is a serious online resource. If you would like to participate in a constructive way, please use proper spelling and grammar. Also, do not insult other editors. Like I said before, personally attacking editors on talk pages (as you attempted to do multiple times) is vandalism, so please don't do it anymore. And please remember to sign your posts. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Weapon XI
Hi Friginator,

I have started a discussion about Weapon XI on the Weapon Plus talk page (actually I just moved it from your talk page others can participate as well). Could you please take a moment to join me there?

Thank you.

-Clueless (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Rock Opera
That is OK by me - my only point is that the entire section Post-1970s is nothing one should be happy with presenting. The text (and listing) is very confusing. There are no references to sources of claim. Thank you. Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ 05:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysteriumen (talk • contribs)

User talk:173.54.234.34
WP:BLANKING - Archiving is preferred, but not required. Please don't revert users for blanking comments from their own talk page. --Onorem♠Dil 19:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for your opinion
Hi. Can you join this discussion in order to offer us your thoughts? It would be most appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The Final Cut (album)
Please be aware that you've just deleted a large chunk of sourced material, and you're restoring text that is, as yet, completely unsourced. You might bear in mind that I haven't yet finished work on the article, and I suggest you allow me a few more hours to get around to sourcing everything that should be sourced. I also intend to create a Pink Floyd featured topic, and as such all articles in that topic would be expected to maintain a similar structure. Wish You Were Here (now an FA), and Dark Side (at FAC) use the same structure I used in my version of The Final Cut, as will albums such as Animals and The Wall, which I'll get around to shortly. I just don't want you thinking that I'm deleting important information, because I'm not - but as far as I'm concerned, if it cannot be reliably sourced, it will not remain. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see the talk page of this article. Parrot of Doom 17:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey. About that Nekron business

 * I see you're repeatedly deleting any reference to Nekron as being in Blacket Night (regardless of citation). That's...kinda stupid. Now, I get it. You're a very serious, active, watchful Wikipedian and you don't like croft or OR. However, citations are citations. I'm sensing you might not be alone in wanting to suppress this info (until the storyline bears it out, anyway), but the 'pedia can't do that. You might think it a "spoiler" or something, but the site's policies are pretty clear on that, too. We post the info, as it comes to us. No censorship. So, uh, please stop, hmm? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 17:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:CRYSTAL. Until the comic comes out, info about its content should not be added to articles. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow. You're using an overly broad interpretation of a recommendation--not a rule--to take a extremely, narrow, hardline stance on something, that, frankly. is kinda trivial. The Black Lanterns article mentions Nekron as the leader. There's a reliable source. What's the problem? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 17:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC) BTW, I'm reverting you revert (in the interest of information). Please don't war with me. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 17:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Do not intentionally start edit wars. Please take Wikpedia policy seriously. Friginator (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You started it, man. You've got a random desire to revert any reference this bit of data. I'm just not backing down. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 17:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please adhere to the Three revert rule, and remember to be civil. Calling someone's edits "stupid" is not constructive. Once the comic actually comes out, the info can be added. Please do not continue. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ringtone (song)
I suggested the merge because the song fails under WP:NSONGS, or at least does as the article stands. Perhaps you'd like to reconsider your revert of the merge, especially as 2 editors think it should be merged into the album article. Thanks. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have responded on the article's talk page. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: MCR Albums
Then I think we should add the possible genres of the three albums on each of their pages and put "Disputed". Then make a new section on each album's page explaining all the possible genres. I believe that would work better.

Rock does NOT fit any of these albums.

Let me know how you feel, but please be polite and don't attack me, since it would go against Wikipedia policy. TheSickBehemoth (talk)TheSickBehemoth


 * You're doing the same. You seem to be the only one in support of "rock". Please stop changing this as you are making disruptive edits which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please use the talk page instead! And by my idea "being out", what exactly does that mean? TheSickBehemoth (talk)TheSickBehemoth