User talk:Friginator/Archive 5

Mystery Science Theater 3000 Episode Guide
Hi, I noticed you undid the edits for the listing of the 4 episodes that are going to be on Volume XX in the DVD Availability boxes. This DVD set is coming out on March 8th, it's available for pre-order on Shout! Factory's website and Amazon.com.

Also, what about the all Gamera set that's coming out in the summer, which will be XXI. Since it doesn't have a release date yet is that why the Gamera episodes don't have Vol XXI listed next to them? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinT1977 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason I removed all of that particular info was that it is not available on DVD (yet), and therefore should not be in a section labeled "DVD Availability." And whether or not something has a confirmed release date or not, it is Wikipedia policy to assume that any future event may not happen. See WP:CRYSTAL. Friginator (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that. Your point is vaild. JustinT1977 —Preceding undated comment added 01:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC).
 * No problem. Friginator (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I cite the source with allmusic.com
I cite the source with allmusic.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andforyou212 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Allmusic.com doesn't support the edits you made. Friginator (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Gorillaz
Hey, just to point out that Superfast Jellyfish, Rhinestone Eyes and Phoner to Arizona are not official singles, none of them - especially the latter - have never seen an official release. The Wikipedia Pages that you revert frequently say themselves that there are no releases other than promo's. The two songs were both initially going to be released as singles, but were cancelled, not seeing official release, and are therefore only promotional records and not singles. The only officially released singles (which both have music videos) from Plastic Beach were Stylo and On Melancholy Hill.

So in future, if you wish to put Superfast Jellyfish, Rhinestone Eyes or Phoner to Arizona as official singles (ie. not promotional copies only released to radio stations and not the general public) WITHOUT a reference to prove that they did indeed get an official release, I will mark it as spam.

"5/4", "Superfast Jellyfish" and "Rhinestone Eyes" are all songs which were, at one point, intended as singles but were cancelled, "Phoner to Arizona" and "911" were free gifts to fans, while "Rockit/Hong Kong" was a promotional record sent to radio stations. None of these were officially released as singles. Find a source to prove otherwise and I will accept your points, otherwise stop putting nonsense please.

Thank you DVilla21 (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, I could do without the threats and insults. Nothing I've added comes close to "nonsense", so I don't know what you're talking about there. Promotional singles are singles. It's spelled out in the name. That shouldn't be too hard to grasp. I have no source saying that they were released commercially, because none exist to my knowledge. The releases in question, as far as I know, were never released commercially. They're still singles, however, and therefore they're placed in the row marked "Singles". I've never seen a physical copy of "Phoner to Arizona," which is why I've removed it for now. Threatening to mark my edits as "spam" isn't going to help your case either. Why you're being so hostile about something so trivial eludes me. Try to keep the edits and discussions constructive and civil in the future, please. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, promo singles count as singles, add White Flag and create a page for it then if you're gonna get all passionate and emotional. Make sure you add it to the template and to the chronology too. Oh and while you're at it, make one for Rockit/Hong Kong. DVilla21 (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, could you please tone it down a notch? I assume you've read WP:CIVILITY, but if you haven't, it couldn't hurt. However, I'm not going to create articles at your request. But you're free to do it yourself. I personally think most of them actually warrant articles, but that's not my job. Neither is adding links to articles that don't exist into templates or the chronology. Also, I've never heard of "5/4" being released as a promo. I'm not saying it wasn't or anything, but I've never heard that. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Meh, everyone on the Gorillaz forums knows they weren't singles so I was trying to make that point on Wikipeda, it's kind of misleading to say those two were singles. Sorry if I came across as rude, but your constant reverts were kinda frustrating. If you really think Promo singles should be counted on Wiki as proper singles than I'll just leave it then. Cheers. DVilla21 (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was going to thank you for being reasonable and civil about the situation, but in the meantime you started doing the exact same thing again. Why, I have no idea. But please stop. I don't know if you enjoy doing this, but I certainly don't. Again, please, please stop. Friginator (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no reference to Plastic Beach being called alternative rock in the article, and no cited sources describing the album as such. There's also no discussion for this page regarding genre. For whatever reason, you think the album is alternative rock, but you don't have reliable third-party sources to back that up.Mlillybaltimore (talk) 02:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Gorillaz official website
http://fans.gorillaz.com/discography.php

Navigate the website properly, it's a section of their website dedicated for fans, full of information for fans, therefore it's the fan section of the official website, however, it is run and created by the Gorillaz management, therefore it is official, the OFFICIAL Gorillaz website ran a competition recently where you had to find things on their OFFICIAL website and if you click Doncamatic, one of the hidden items was on the Doncamatic page of this OFFICIAL website I just used as a source. I have an official source now, what else do you want? DVilla21 (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether or not that's a primary source or a fansite I'm not sure, but either way it says nothing the prove your point on way or another. You politely agreed to stop adding misleading info and disruptive comments, so I'm confused as to why you've started this up again. Friginator (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I said I'd stop when I thought there was no source. That's the official website, I can't even believe I NEED a source to prove they aren't official singles. Every Gorillaz fan knows they were cancelled. But then you're the one that said "The Fall" is Alternative Hip Hop and also, am I right in assuming you're the one who keeps putting "Alternative Rock" in the Plastic Beach genres? because there's not even one song on that album that can be classified as "Alternative Rock"... lol DVilla21 (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good example here Matador by Arctic Monkeys, that's listed under "other songs" and it is way more of an official release than RE and SFJ, should the people who put that get cautioned as well? Want another example? How about You Can Have It All by Kaiser Chiefs. I could find more but I CBA right now... — Preceding unsigned comment added by DVilla21 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Other Wikipedia articles do not constitute any kind of policy. Again, please stop this. It's clearly disruptive. Friginator (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I guess I can't win with you so I will give up now, you spend your life on Wikipedia, I add information to it in my spare time (especially now I that I had a few days stuck at home which will end starting tomorrow), but you got authority on here, I don't, I can't label your edits as "vandalism" even though you put complete rubbish like Alternative Rock on Plastic Beach and Alternative Hip-Hop on The Fall, which shows a complete lack of musical knowledge, but whatever, Gorillaz fans know they weren't singles, I was just trying to correct the rubbish you love to stand up for, so whatever innit? Gorillaz are Alternative Hip-Hop even though more than 50% of their repertoire doesn't fall under that genre, RE and SFJ are singles even though you could never buy them and The Fall is Alternative Hip-Hop just because you like it like that. Pity a proper Gorillaz fan couldn't have taken over the Gorillaz pages before you. I guess you're proving that Wikipedia has become a bit like politics, you don't just have to be right a lot of the time, you have to be in a certain position, know the right people etc. to get stuff done. Anyways rant over, take care my friend. DVilla21 (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm glad you're not bitter or anything. Cheers. Friginator (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Deadpool
I don't think it's fair to call my removing of the appearance list vandalism. If you look at my edit summary, I linked to a discussion I had with User:J Greb a few months ago in which he endorsed the removal of such lists. It is consensus within the wikiproject comics community that such lists are unnecessary. In fact, the user who added most of them was blocked for edit-warring with people who tried to remove them, and was banned for creating sockpuppets to avoid the block. 108.69.80.49 (talk) 03:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * My mistake, ignore the warning. Thanks for clearing all that up. Still, it's good practice to leave an edit summary, especially when removing references and blanking part of the page. In most cases, that is considered vandalism. In your case, you had a good reason, so I'm sorry for the warning. But in the future, if you're going to blank large sections, etc., I'd appreciate it if you'd leave an edit summary, explaining why you're making the change and possibly pointing to a conversation or policy that backs the edit up. Still, sorry for mistaking it for vandalism. Cheers. Friginator (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * (Asked to look at this) Actually 108 did leave an edit summary. It maybe he needs to add the short nutshell to it of "We don't do comics character appearance lists." - J Greb (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * D'oh! I'm looking at it right now. Right in front of me the whole damn time. I guess I was looking at the "references removed" tag, or something dumb. Again, my fault. Sorry about that. Friginator (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. :) I'm going to go ahead and redo that removal. 108.69.80.49 (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Article deletion discussion
Hi. Can you voice your opinion on the Beth Sotelo deletion discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

my edits
The edits I have made were relevant, and the one to Waiting for the End is not vandalism as Mike Shinoda does have rapped sections in the song, the reason I listed Rap rock as a genre. Also, in the infoboxes of every article I edited, there was no warning stating that a talk page discussion must occur before edits. 205.206.225.73 (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The edit to Burning in the Skies was relevant as well. The first part of the sentence may have been considered pov, however the part about the time signature is relative and informative. Its not vandalism, and really isnt much of original research as you dont need to "research" anything, you just need to listen to the song to tell that. Information like that is present in MANY articles, but you dont see people going on anti-vandalism rampages and critizing every move an ip user makes. Finally, the edit to Burning in the skies occurred after your first two warnings (which I received simultaneously), however the other three you warned me about were edits that occurred a while before your warnings (or at least a minute or two) meanning that a "last warning" is a little inappropriate considering it was the only one i got after the edits. so ya, just a little tip, if your gonna give people increasing degrees of warnings, make sure they ignore your first warningsso you have a reason to go up a notch or two.

205.206.225.73 (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Monkeylegend
Hello, Friginator. I can see that you have warned him several times before, but Monkeylegend keeps making disruptive edits by changing genres without sources or discussions, as you can see by his recent edits. Several other users have also warned him, but he obviously isn't getting the hint. He is very disruptive and something needs to be done about him. Thank you. --John of Lancaster (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Queen II
I don't used this for advertising, i just added a detail about the spanish version of the song, and I highlighted the importance of the band that made ​​him. Maybe i just expressed it in a wrong or exaggerated, but I did it to help, not publicity. JGabriel ar (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me where and how data could include the Spanish version in the article?. Soda Stereo is a very important band in the world of Spanish language, and the version they did was a tribute. Do not understand why you interpreted it as advertising. To me it seems a fact that can be included in the article without problems. Sorry if I wrote something wrong, i don't speak very good English. Thank you. Gabriel (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand. You see, the use of the word "legend"refers to that the band in Latin America is considered a legend of the music. But it is true that talking about the "whole world" would be an exaggeration, therefore it is right what you say. I will include it in the "legacy", and i will remove the word "legend" so that no problems. Thank you. Gabriel (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Panic! at the Disco Problems
Hey. Panic! at the Disco's entire article has been deleted and is suffering from similar major vandalism issues. I didn't know where else to turn. Please help restore and protect it?--Freaky Face Films (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again! I hate to see everyone's hard work be thrown out the window like that. If you don't mind sharing (as this seems to be happening a lot lately to articles I am constantly working on or reading), how do you nominate an article for protection? Is it an upper-rank privilege only? Cheers.--Freaky Face Films (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Correction
Thanks for correcting me on Gorillaz. I only noticed the CD release date on the official page. Krashlandon (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"Officially Inappropriate and Disruptive"
Listen, Mister. I don't know why you claim that edits to a discussion page of the film Quadrophenia were "officially" "inappropriate and disruptive." For something to be an official part of the wikiz policies its got to be listed in the policy secshun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies_and_guidelines

Those edits werent in that section from a applicability standpoint. So, please, cut a brother some slack. I was just trying to make my case about the entry and to tell all yall why we needed to put something really important in the wiki! If we be trying to gets to the TRUTH, we needs to work together--NOT AGAINST another pershon. Yo peace and I be out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.138.33 (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Erlandinho
Hello. I've noticed we are both regularly reverting the edits of Erlandinho. The user's contributions for the past year+ seem to consist solely of undiscussed and controversial genre changes. They're repeated warned but just come back a few weeks/months later and try again. Would you be interested in opening an RFC/U along with me (since its hardly an ANI kind of matter) and maybe actually stopping this editors semi-vandalism? Cheers,  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  21:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)